Family Voice and Advocacy in Multilingual Special Education: Moving Beyond Translation

Families of multilingual learners with disabilities often navigate far more than language barriers. They encounter unfamiliar school systems, complex legal terminology, and differing cultural expectations around disability and education. In these moments, what schools perceive as “engagement challenges” are often systemic barriers that limit authentic participation.

If we are serious about equity, we must move beyond translation and toward true partnership.

The Limits of Translation Alone

Providing translated documents or interpreters during meetings is an important first step—but it is not enough. Translation ensures access to words, but not necessarily access to meaning, power, or decision-making.

Research consistently shows that multilingual families may feel marginalized in special education processes when communication is rushed, overly technical, or one-directional. Without intentional structures, families may leave meetings without fully understanding their child’s Individualized Education Program (IEP) or their rights within the process.

The issue is not whether schools are communicating—it is whether families are being empowered.

Understanding the System from a Family Perspective

Special education is complex even for those familiar with the system. For multilingual families, that complexity is amplified.

Families must simultaneously:

• Learn a new educational system

• Interpret legal and procedural language

• Advocate for their child in a second language

• Navigate cultural differences in how disability is understood

These layers can create hesitation, silence, or deference—often misinterpreted as lack of involvement.

But silence is not absence. It is often a sign that systems are not accessible.

Reframing Families as Partners, Not Participants

The WIDA Consortium emphasizes that families are not outsiders to the educational process—they are essential members of the team. This shift in perspective is critical.

When schools view families as partners, practices begin to change:

• Meetings become conversations, not presentations

• Educators listen as much as they speak

• Family knowledge is valued alongside professional expertise

This reframing moves us from compliance-driven engagement to relationship-centered collaboration.

What True Partnership Looks Like in Practice

Building authentic partnerships requires intentional, consistent actions—not one-time accommodations. Schools must design systems that invite, support, and sustain family voice.

1. Provide Interpreters—Always and Intentionally
Interpreters should be present for all meetings, not only when required. More importantly, they should be prepared in advance with key terminology and context to ensure accurate, real-time communication.

2. Eliminate Jargon
Special education language can be overwhelming. Terms like “least restrictive environment,” “modifications,” or “related services” must be explained in clear, accessible language. Understanding should never be assumed.

3. Create Space for Dialogue
Families need time and structure to ask questions, reflect, and respond. This may mean slowing down meetings, pausing for interpretation, and explicitly inviting input.

4. Honor Cultural Perspectives
Cultural beliefs about disability, independence, and education vary widely. Some families may prioritize collective support over individual interventions, while others may have different expectations of schools. These perspectives should be respected, not corrected.

5. Build Relationships Before Decisions
Trust is not built during an IEP meeting—it is built over time. Regular communication, check-ins, and positive outreach create the foundation for meaningful collaboration when critical decisions arise.

The Role of School Leaders

Leadership plays a pivotal role in shaping how schools engage multilingual families. Without clear expectations and structures, family engagement becomes inconsistent and dependent on individual educators.

Leaders must:

• Ensure interpreter access across all settings

• Provide professional development on culturally responsive communication

• Monitor family participation and satisfaction

• Create systems that prioritize relationship-building

Equity is not achieved through intention alone—it requires systems that make inclusion the norm.

Advocacy as a Shared Responsibility

Family advocacy is often framed as something parents must do—but advocacy should not fall solely on families. Schools have a responsibility to create environments where advocacy is possible, welcomed, and supported.

This means:

• Proactively sharing information about rights and processes

• Encouraging questions and differing perspectives

• Validating family concerns as legitimate and necessary

When schools take on this responsibility, advocacy becomes a shared effort rather than a burden.

Final Thoughts: From Access to Empowerment

Providing access is important. But empowerment is transformative.

When multilingual families are fully included in special education processes:

• Students receive more culturally responsive support

• Families gain confidence in navigating systems

• Schools make more informed, holistic decisions

The goal is not simply to ensure families are present—it is to ensure they are heard, valued, and influential.

Because when family voice is truly centered, we do more than support students—we honor the communities they come from.

---

References (APA 7th Edition)

WIDA Consortium. (n.d.). Engaging families of multilingual learners. Retrieved April 9, 2026, from https://wida.wisc.edu/teach/family-engagement

Harry, B. (2008). Collaboration with culturally and linguistically diverse families: Ideal versus reality. Exceptional Children, 74(3), 372–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290807400306

Trainor, A. A. (2010). Reexamining the promise of parent participation in special education: An analysis of cultural and social capital. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 41(3), 245–263. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1492.2010.01086.x

Turnbull, A., Turnbull, R., Erwin, E., Soodak, L., & Shogren, K. (2015). Families, professionals, and exceptionality: Positive outcomes through partnerships and trust (7th ed.). Pearson

Teacher Burnout and the Complexity of Supporting Multilingual Learners with Disabilities

Supporting multilingual learners with disabilities is some of the most meaningful work happening in schools today—but it is also some of the most complex. It sits at the intersection of language acquisition, special education, culturally responsive teaching, and compliance-driven systems. For many educators, this is not just challenging work—it is exhausting work.

If we are going to talk honestly about improving outcomes for students, we also have to talk honestly about the conditions under which teachers are expected to do this work.

The Reality: Complexity Without Clarity

Teachers are often asked to support multilingual learners with disabilities while navigating multiple frameworks at once:

• English language development standards

• Individualized Education Programs (IEPs)

• State assessments and accountability systems

• District pacing guides and curriculum mandates

Each system has its own language, expectations, and compliance requirements. Rarely are these systems fully aligned.

This creates a daily instructional reality where teachers are constantly making real-time decisions about:

• Language vs. disability-related needs

• Accommodations vs. modifications

• Grade-level content vs. language proficiency level

• Inclusion vs. pull-out services

Even highly skilled educators can feel like they are “building the plane while flying it.”

Burnout Is Not an Individual Problem

When teachers struggle in these environments, the conversation is often framed around resilience, mindset, or effort. But research on educator burnout consistently shows that burnout is not simply an individual issue—it is a systems issue driven by chronic stress, lack of resources, and role overload (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2017).

For teachers supporting multilingual learners with disabilities, this strain is intensified by:

• Limited training in dual-identified student needs

• Insufficient collaboration time between ESL and special education staff

• High caseloads and large class sizes

• Inconsistent access to interpreters or bilingual resources

Without structural support, even the most dedicated educators reach a point of emotional and professional fatigue.

The Emotional Labor of the Work

Beyond instructional complexity, there is an emotional dimension that is often overlooked.

Teachers are not just delivering instruction—they are:

• Advocating for students in systems that are difficult to navigate

• Communicating complex information to families across language barriers

• Making high-stakes decisions about student placement and services

• Carrying responsibility for students who may have experienced interrupted schooling or trauma

This emotional labor accumulates over time. Without space to process it, reflect on it, and share it, burnout becomes increasingly likely.

When Systems Fail Teachers, Students Feel It

When educators are unsupported, the impact extends beyond teacher well-being—it directly affects students.

In under-resourced environments, teachers may:

• Rely on simplified instruction instead of differentiated supports

• Have limited time to collaborate with specialists

• Struggle to fully implement IEP accommodations alongside language supports

• Experience decision fatigue that affects instructional quality

This is not a reflection of teacher commitment. It is a reflection of system design.

As the WIDA Consortium emphasizes in its work on multilingual learners with disabilities, effective support requires coordinated systems that integrate language development and special education rather than treating them as separate silos.

What Actually Helps: Leadership and Systems That Support Teachers

If we want better outcomes for students, we must start by improving conditions for educators. Sustainable support for multilingual learners with disabilities depends on systemic design—not individual heroics.

1. Ongoing, Job-Embedded Professional Development

One-time workshops are not enough. Teachers need continuous learning opportunities focused on:

• Second language acquisition

• Special education eligibility and differentiation

• Co-teaching strategies

• Culturally responsive assessment practices

2. Structured Collaboration Time

Teachers need protected time to collaborate across roles:

• ESL and special education teachers

• General education teachers and interventionists

• Related service providers

Collaboration cannot be optional or informal—it must be built into the schedule.

3. Access to Resources and Specialists

Teachers need real-time support, including:

• Bilingual instructional materials

• Intervention specialists

• School psychologists and counselors

• Interpreters for family communication and meetings

When support systems are accessible, teachers are not left to solve complex problems alone.

4. Clear, Coherent Systems

Schools must reduce fragmentation between initiatives. When MTSS, ESL programming, and special education operate in silos, teachers are forced to reconcile conflicting expectations on their own.

Coherence reduces cognitive load—and cognitive load is a major contributor to burnout.

Reframing the Narrative: From Individual Struggle to System Responsibility

It is easy to frame teacher burnout as a personal resilience issue. But that framing is incomplete.

A more accurate question is:
What systems are we asking teachers to function within?

When those systems are under-resourced, misaligned, or overly complex, burnout is not surprising—it is predictable.

And when teachers are burned out, students—especially multilingual learners with disabilities—experience the consequences first.

Final Thoughts

Supporting multilingual learners with disabilities requires skill, collaboration, and deep instructional knowledge. But it also requires something more fundamental: sustainable working conditions for educators.

Teachers cannot be expected to carry the weight of multiple systems alone. When schools invest in collaboration, professional learning, and coherent structures, they do more than support teachers—they improve the quality of instruction students receive every day.

Ultimately, this is not just a conversation about burnout. It is a conversation about system design, educational equity, and what we truly value in our schools.

References (APA 7th Edition)

WIDA Consortium. (n.d.). Strategies for working with multilingual learners with disabilities. https://wida.wisc.edu/news/strategies-working-multilingual-learners-disabilities

Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2017). Still motivated to teach? A study of school context variables, stress, and job satisfaction among teachers in school. Social Psychology of Education, 20(1), 15–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-016-9363-9

Ingersoll, R., & Strong, M. (2011). The impact of induction and mentoring programs for beginning teachers: A critical review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 201–233. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311403323

Are Screens Reshaping How Students Learn? What Recent Classroom Reporting Reveals About Attention, Engagement, and Balance

Over the past decade, and especially since the COVID-19 pandemic, digital devices have become a defining feature of American classrooms. Chromebooks, iPads, and online learning platforms are now embedded in daily instruction, from elementary reading assignments to high school assessments. What was once introduced as an innovation to expand access and personalize learning has become the default mode of instruction in many schools.

Yet recent education reporting and teacher survey data—particularly from The New York Times—suggest a growing tension inside classrooms: while technology has expanded instructional possibilities, it may also be reshaping how students focus, process information, and engage in learning.

The Normalization of Screen-Based Instruction

A large-scale teacher survey conducted by The New York Times found that nearly all educators now use school-issued devices in instruction, with most students engaging with screens daily across subjects (Miller & Mervosh, 2025). In many classrooms, laptops and tablets are no longer supplemental tools—they are the primary medium for reading, writing, assignments, and assessment.

This shift accelerated dramatically during the pandemic, when remote learning made screens essential for educational continuity. However, even after returning to in-person instruction, schools largely maintained digital ecosystems, integrating learning management systems, online assessments, and one-to-one device programs into everyday practice.

As a result, many students now spend a significant portion of the school day interacting with screens rather than print materials or handwritten tasks.

What Teachers Are Seeing in the Classroom

Alongside this expansion of technology use, educators are increasingly reporting concerns about student engagement. In the same New York Times survey, a majority of teachers noted that screens can be distracting, with students often toggling between assignments, videos, and unrelated online content during instructional time (Miller & Mervosh, 2025).

Teachers describe a shift in classroom behavior: less sustained attention during reading and writing tasks, more difficulty completing extended assignments, and a tendency toward fragmented focus when devices are present.

Some educators also report declines in foundational skills such as handwriting fluency, spelling accuracy, and reading stamina—particularly among younger students who have experienced high levels of early screen exposure.

While these observations are not uniform across all schools or students, they reflect a consistent concern emerging from classroom practice: digital environments may be shaping how students attend to and process information.

Cognitive Tradeoffs: Attention, Multitasking, and Deep Learning

From a cognitive perspective, these concerns align with research on attention and cognitive load. Learning requires sustained focus, working memory engagement, and the ability to process information deeply over time. However, screen-based environments often encourage rapid switching between tasks, notifications, and multimedia inputs.

This constant shifting of attention can reduce the depth of processing required for complex reading comprehension and extended writing. In contrast, paper-based tasks typically minimize external distractions, allowing for more sustained cognitive engagement.

Recent education discussions in The New York Times highlight this tension directly, emphasizing that the challenge is not simply the presence of technology, but the conditions under which it is used in instruction (Miller & Mervosh, 2025; Proulx, 2026).

The Case for Educational Technology: It’s Not All Negative

Despite these concerns, it is important to recognize that digital tools also offer significant instructional benefits. Teachers report that technology enables differentiated instruction, immediate feedback, translation support for multilingual learners, and improved access to educational resources (Miller & Mervosh, 2025).

Additionally, digital literacy has become an essential skill for college and career readiness. Students must learn how to navigate online environments, evaluate digital information, and use productivity tools effectively.

In this sense, the presence of screens in education is not inherently problematic. Instead, the issue lies in how frequently and for what purposes they are used.

Rethinking Balance: Screens vs. Analog Learning

Across recent reporting and educator commentary, a consistent theme emerges: the central challenge is balance.

Rather than framing the issue as “technology versus traditional learning,” many educators are now reconsidering when screens support learning and when they may interfere with it. This includes reexamining the role of:

• handwritten note-taking for memory retention and comprehension

• printed texts for deep reading and analysis

• offline assignments for sustained focus and reduced distraction

• digital tools for research, collaboration, and accessibility

This blended approach recognizes that different learning tasks place different cognitive demands on students.

Should Schools Return to Pen and Paper?

Calls for a full return to pen-and-paper instruction are gaining attention in some education circles, but the evidence does not suggest a complete reversal is necessary or realistic. Instead, the more supported position is a recalibration of instructional design.

Screens are not inherently detrimental, but overreliance on them—particularly for tasks that require deep thinking and sustained attention—may limit certain aspects of learning development.

A balanced model would intentionally integrate both analog and digital methods, using each where it is most effective.

Final Thoughts

The recent wave of New York Times education reporting points to a clear and important conclusion: the question is not whether screens belong in classrooms, but how they are shaping the learning process itself.

As schools continue to evolve in a digital age, the challenge for educators is to ensure that technology enhances rather than replaces the cognitive demands that meaningful learning requires—attention, reflection, and deep engagement with content.

Finding that balance may be one of the defining instructional challenges of modern education.

References

Miller, C. C., & Mervosh, S. (2025, November 12). How much screen time is your child getting at school? We asked 350 teachers. The New York Times.

Proulx, N. (2026, March 17). Is there too much screen time in school? The New York Times Learning Network.

Miller, C. C., & Mervosh, S. (2026). What’s going on in this graph: Screen time in schools. The New York Times Learning Network.

First‑Generation Students in Higher Education: Challenges, Strengths, and Support: A Focus on New Jersey

First‑generation college students are a vital and growing part of the higher education landscape. These students, defined as those whose parents did not complete a four‑year degree, bring resilience, ambition, and unique perspectives to campus communities. Yet they also face distinct challenges that can affect their sense of belonging, academic persistence, and long‑term success. Understanding the experiences of first‑generation learners is crucial for educators, institutional leaders, and policymakers seeking to foster equity and student success.

Who Are First‑Generation Students?

First‑generation students embark on educational journeys without the benefit of prior parental experience navigating higher education systems. They must often learn complex processes—such as financial aid, academic advising, and degree requirements—independently. This “hidden curriculum” can create a steep learning curve and contribute to stress, uncertainty, and delayed engagement with campus resources (University of California, Davis, 2023).

Nationally, first‑generation students represent a substantial portion of undergraduate enrollment. According to FirstGen Forward, first‑generation learners make up over half of all undergraduates in the United States. However, higher education completion rates for this group remain lower than their continuing‑generation peers. Research indicates that only about 24% of first‑generation students complete a bachelor’s degree within four years, compared to about 59% of students whose parents completed college (FirstGen Forward, 2024).

Barriers to Persistence

The challenges faced by first‑generation students are multifaceted. Many work part‑time or full‑time jobs, manage family responsibilities, and attend school simultaneously. These competing pressures can limit engagement in campus life and academic support programs. Additionally, students may feel isolated or less confident in academic environments where peer networks and family support are not familiar with higher education norms (Stephens et al., 2015).

Socioeconomic stressors further compound these challenges. Financial pressures, limited access to academic preparation, and uncertainty about institutional expectations all contribute to lower retention and completion outcomes. These systemic factors require more than surface‑level interventions; they call for intentional, sustained support structures.

The New Jersey Context

In New Jersey, public and private institutions are taking important steps to support first‑generation learners through targeted programs and campus initiatives.

At New Jersey City University (NJCU), the First‑Generation Champion Institute provides professional development for faculty and staff to better understand and support first‑generation students. The institute focuses on identifying barriers embedded in institutional language and policies and equipping campus partners with tools to promote student success (New Jersey City University, 2024).

The College of New Jersey (TCNJ) supports first‑generation learners through peer mentoring, academic support services, and community‑building activities. These programs are designed to foster belonging, reinforce academic confidence, and provide clear pathways for academic progression (The College of New Jersey, n.d.).

Similarly, Rutgers University highlights programming and support services aimed at increasing the academic success and visibility of first‑generation students. These efforts include community spaces, advising networks, and initiatives that celebrate student accomplishments while reinforcing institutional commitment to equity (Rutgers University, 2024).

These initiatives demonstrate a shift from deficit‑based thinking—focusing on what first‑generation students lack—toward strength‑based approaches that honor their resilience, leadership potential, and contributions to campus culture.

Supporting First‑Generation Success

To effectively support first‑generation students, institutions must adopt intentional, research‑informed strategies that address academic, social, and emotional dimensions of the college experience. Key practices include:

• Structured mentoring programs that connect students with peers, faculty, and professional staff for guidance and encouragement.
• Proactive advising that helps students navigate course planning, financial aid, and academic requirements.
• Culturally responsive pedagogy that honors students’ identities and experiences while challenging traditional norms that may unintentionally marginalize learners.
• Community building initiatives that foster belonging and support students’ sense of agency in their academic journeys.

These practices help students feel seen, supported, and equipped to navigate obstacles that might otherwise derail their progress.

First‑generation college students are not only succeeding academically—they are reshaping higher education by diversifying perspectives, enriching classroom dialogue, and serving as role models within their communities. By intentionally supporting these students, institutions advance not only individual success but the broader mission of equitable access and inclusive excellence.

References

FirstGen Forward. (2024). Insights on first‑generation college students. https://www.firstgenforward.org/our-insights

New Jersey City University. (2024). NJCU’s First‑Generation Champion Institute elevates support for first‑gen students. https://www.njcu.edu/about/news/2024/04/njcus-first-generation-champion-institute-elevates-support-first-gen-students

Rutgers University. (2024). Celebrating and supporting first‑generation students. https://www.rutgers.edu/news/celebrating-success-our-first-generation-students

Stephens, N. M., Fryberg, S. A., Markus, H. R., Johnson, C. S., & Covarrubias, R. (2015). Unseen disadvantage: How American universities’ focus on independence undermines the academic performance of first‑generation college students. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(6), 1178–1197. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039832

The College of New Jersey. (n.d.). First‑generation student success. https://inclusion.tcnj.edu/first-generation-student-success

University of California, Davis. (2023). Understanding the hidden curriculum for first‑generation students. https://www.ucdavis.edu/firstgen/hidden-curriculum

Rethinking Retention in Higher Education: Centering Students in Strategic Enrollment

Retention is often viewed through the lens of institutional metrics, with enrollment, persistence, and graduation rates as key indicators of success. While these measures are important, they do not fully capture the lived experiences of students navigating higher education, particularly those facing systemic barriers related to race, socioeconomic status, and mental health.

Institutions tend to prioritize measurable outcomes because these figures shape funding, rankings, and accountability requirements. However, institutional success and student success are not always aligned. Focusing solely on numbers risks overlooking the complex realities that students encounter, from financial stress to feelings of isolation and marginalization.

Traditional retention strategies also assume that colleges have the resources and infrastructure to implement comprehensive programs. While this may be true for well-funded campuses, many under-resourced or urban institutions operate under significant constraints. Limited staffing, funding, or technological support can make even the most carefully designed retention initiatives difficult to implement effectively.

Another limitation is the assumption that students will respond uniformly to interventions such as advising programs or engagement initiatives. Students’ experiences, levels of trust in institutions, and prior educational histories all shape how they engage with support efforts. For some, institutional resources provide critical guidance and encouragement; for others, the same programs may feel inaccessible or insufficient.

The human side of retention is often overlooked. Faculty and administrators are tasked with supporting students through complex challenges while managing their own workloads and institutional expectations. The emotional labor required to sustain these efforts, especially in high-need environments, is substantial and deserves recognition.

Institutional policies can also unintentionally contribute to attrition. Rigid academic structures, inequitable disciplinary practices, and bureaucratic barriers can create additional challenges for students who are already navigating systemic obstacles.

To create retention strategies that truly work, institutions must broaden their focus beyond metrics. Student success should be viewed holistically, taking into account diverse experiences, systemic inequities, and the human effort needed to sustain meaningful change. By emphasizing both institutional responsibility and student-centered approaches, colleges and universities can develop strategies that are both effective and equitable, ensuring that retention efforts support all learners.

Reference

Hossler, D., & Bontrager, B. (2014). Handbook of Strategic Enrollment Management. John Wiley & Sons. ProQuest Ebook Central. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/stpu/detail.action?docID=1810173

Framing the Future: How Higher Education Leaders Use Narrative to Secure Funding in Times of Crisis

In moments of uncertainty, the stories institutions tell can be just as powerful as the data they present. This reality became especially evident during the COVID 19 pandemic, when public colleges and universities faced significant financial strain while continuing to serve students in rapidly changing conditions. In their 2024 study, Billings, Rubin, Gándara, and Hammond explore how higher education leaders strategically framed their budget requests to state legislators during this period. Their research offers not only a window into institutional advocacy but also a roadmap for leaders seeking to align data, storytelling, and policy priorities in meaningful ways.

Using a narrative policy framework and a multiple case study design, the authors examined an extensive body of evidence, including 131 hours of legislative budget meeting transcripts and 62 supporting documents from institutions in California and Texas. This methodological approach allowed them to go beyond surface level observations and instead analyze how institutional leaders constructed their messages, what themes they emphasized, and how those themes resonated with policymakers.

The findings reveal a consistent pattern in how higher education officials communicated their funding needs. Rather than focusing solely on financial deficits or institutional hardships, leaders framed their arguments around three central themes. First, they emphasized the economic role of higher education, highlighting how colleges and universities contribute to workforce development, innovation, and regional economic stability. By doing so, they positioned higher education not as a cost center but as an essential investment in the state’s future.

Second, institutional leaders underscored stability in accountability measures. Metrics such as enrollment, student persistence, and graduation rates were presented as evidence of institutional effectiveness, even amid the disruptions caused by the pandemic. This emphasis reassured policymakers that public funds were being used responsibly and that institutions remained committed to measurable outcomes.

Third, leaders highlighted effective institutional management. By demonstrating fiscal responsibility, adaptability, and strategic decision making, they reinforced their credibility and built trust with legislators. This narrative of competence was particularly important during a time when state budgets were under intense pressure and competing priorities were abundant.

Ultimately, the authors conclude that these narrative strategies were not accidental. Instead, they were carefully aligned with the values and expectations of policymakers. By framing their requests in ways that emphasized economic impact, accountability, and efficiency, higher education leaders were able to make a compelling case for continued or increased funding.

For professionals engaged in Strategic Enrollment Management, this study carries significant implications. At its core, Strategic Enrollment Management is about more than managing admissions numbers or optimizing recruitment strategies. It is about aligning institutional goals with student success outcomes and ensuring long term sustainability. The metrics commonly used in SEM, such as enrollment trends, retention rates, and graduation outcomes, are not only internal tools for planning and assessment. They are also powerful instruments for external advocacy.

The research by Billings and colleagues highlights the importance of translating these metrics into narratives that resonate beyond campus boundaries. Data alone rarely persuades. It is the interpretation and framing of that data that gives it meaning and impact. For example, an increase in retention rates is not just a statistic. When framed effectively, it becomes a story about student support, institutional commitment, and the efficient use of public resources. Similarly, stable or growing enrollment can be positioned as evidence of institutional relevance and community trust.

This perspective challenges SEM leaders to expand their roles. In addition to analyzing data and implementing strategies, they must also become skilled communicators who understand how to connect institutional performance with broader societal goals. This includes recognizing the priorities of policymakers, such as economic development, workforce readiness, and fiscal accountability, and aligning institutional narratives accordingly.

Another key takeaway from the study is the importance of context. The success of any narrative depends on its ability to resonate with its audience. In the case of state legislators, this means understanding the political, economic, and cultural environment in which decisions are made. What matters to policymakers in one state or region may differ significantly from another. Therefore, effective SEM practice requires not only technical expertise but also contextual awareness and adaptability.

The COVID 19 pandemic underscored the need for this kind of strategic communication. Institutions were forced to justify their value in an environment of heightened scrutiny and limited resources. Those that succeeded were often the ones that could clearly articulate their contributions to society and demonstrate their effectiveness through both data and narrative.

As higher education continues to navigate financial challenges and shifting policy landscapes, the lessons from this study remain highly relevant. Leaders must recognize that advocacy is not a separate function from institutional strategy. Instead, it is an extension of it. The same data that informs enrollment planning and student success initiatives can and should be leveraged to tell compelling stories that influence policy decisions.

In conclusion, the work of Billings, Rubin, Gándara, and Hammond illustrates the power of narrative in shaping higher education policy outcomes. By aligning data driven evidence with values that resonate with policymakers, institutional leaders can more effectively advocate for the resources they need. For those involved in Strategic Enrollment Management, this means embracing a dual role as both analysts and storytellers. In doing so, they can help ensure that their institutions not only survive in times of crisis but also thrive in the years ahead.

Reference

Billings, M. S., Rubin, P. G., Gándara, D., & Hammond, L. (2024). Higher education policy narratives during COVID 19: How are budget requests justified to state legislatures? Research in Higher Education, 65(4), 625 to 654. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-024-09798-3

Effective Fundraising Strategies in Higher Education and Community Programs

In today’s competitive landscape, fundraising in higher education and nonprofit organizations is no longer just about asking for donations. It is about building relationships, telling meaningful stories, and meeting donors where they are. Institutions must think strategically, using a blend of traditional and modern approaches to connect with alumni, corporations, and community stakeholders.

Through both research and my own professional experience, I have seen how combining multiple fundraising strategies such as direct mail, social media, and community engagement can significantly strengthen donor relationships and increase impact.

The Power and Limits of Direct Mail

Even in a digital world, direct mail remains a powerful fundraising tool. Universities like Kean University and William Paterson University continue to rely on annual mail campaigns to connect with alumni and secure essential funding.

There is something uniquely effective about receiving a personalized letter in the mail. It feels tangible, intentional, and credible, especially for donors who value traditional forms of communication. When done well, direct mail allows for targeted messaging that can resonate deeply with specific donor groups.

However, it is not without its challenges. Direct mail campaigns can be expensive, slower to generate responses, and less appealing to younger, digitally engaged audiences. While it still plays an important role, it cannot stand alone in today’s fundraising environment.

Digital Fundraising Fast, Flexible, and Far Reaching

On the other hand, digital tools such as social media and email have transformed how organizations engage with donors. These platforms offer immediacy, lower costs, and the ability to track engagement in real time.

For example, Kappa Delta Pi uses email campaigns and social media to raise funds for scholarships. What makes their approach stand out is how they combine digital outreach with personal touches like phone calls, which helps build trust and strengthen relationships.

A powerful example of digital fundraising in action comes from Vancouver Community College. During Giving Tuesday Now, they used their website and social media platforms to promote a matching donation campaign in response to COVID 19. The result was a timely, community driven effort that mobilized donors quickly and effectively.

Digital fundraising is especially impactful for reaching younger audiences, as it allows organizations to share compelling stories, visuals, and updates instantly. That said, it requires consistency, creativity, and ongoing analysis to remain effective.

Why Real Life Experience Matters

My own experience working with NJLEEP, the New Jersey Law and Education Empowerment Project, gave me a deeper understanding of how fundraising works in practice.

NJLEEP takes a relationship driven approach, focusing heavily on corporate partnerships, live presentations, and community engagement. I had the opportunity to support outreach to major organizations like Prudential, PSE and G, Barclays, and the New York Red Bulls. These partnerships were developed through intentional communication, clear messaging, and transparency.

One key takeaway is that donors want to see impact. NJLEEP’s commitment to sharing student success stories and maintaining transparent reporting helped build trust and long term support. Fundraising in this context becomes less transactional and more about shared purpose.

What Works Best

After comparing these strategies, one thing is clear. There is no single best fundraising method.

The most effective approaches are layered and intentional. Direct mail can open the door, digital tools can continue the conversation, and personal engagement can strengthen long term relationships.

That said, social media and email campaigns stand out as particularly effective today. They are cost efficient, scalable, and responsive, especially when combined with personalized outreach such as phone calls or events.

Looking Ahead Blending Tradition with Innovation

The future of fundraising lies in balance. Institutions must continue to honor traditional methods like direct mail while embracing the speed and reach of digital platforms.

More importantly, they must prioritize the human element by building authentic relationships through storytelling, transparency, and shared values.

From my work with NJLEEP and Kappa Delta Pi, I have learned that successful fundraising is not just about securing donations. It is about creating connections, inspiring trust, and showing donors that they are part of something meaningful.

As higher education and nonprofit organizations continue to evolve, those that adopt flexible, transparent, and relationship centered strategies will be best positioned for long term success.

References

Kappa Delta Pi. (2025). Member giving and outreach policies. KDP internal source.
Kean University Foundation. (2025). Ways to give. Retrieved June 15, 2025, from https://www.keanfoundation.org/giving/ways-to-give
NJLEEP College Access Program. (n.d.). Corporate partnerships and program fundraising. Retrieved June 15, 2025, from https://www.njleep.org/partners
Tempel, E. R., Seiler, T. L., & Aldrich, E. E. (Eds.). (2016). Achieving excellence in fundraising (4th ed.). Wiley.
Vancouver Community College. (2020, April 21). Double your support for VCC students on Giving Tuesday Now. VCC News. https://www.vcc.ca/about/college-information/news/article/giving-tuesday-now.html
Weinstein, S., & Barden, B. (2017). The complete guide to fundraising management (4th ed.). Wiley.
William Paterson University. (n.d.). Give back. Retrieved June 15, 2025, from https://www.wpunj.edu/alumni/Give-Back/