Student affairs
APSSA holds a staff conference every two years where individuals from different countries will come together and encourage ideas for student affairs workers and offices to collaborate with one another.
[8] Student affairs in Canadian higher education dates back to the vocational school established at the Collège des Jésuites[9] in seventeenth century.
In order to prevent further misbehaviour, staff representatives started to be more engaged in students life organizing social, cultural and physical activities.
[13] After the Second World War the professionalization of student affairs expanded by supporting soldiers who received tuition and living assistance based on Veterans Rehabilitation Act[17] in 1945.
Canadian student affairs continues to develop and prepare professionals by recognizing demands of growing internationalization, diversity and sustainability in higher education.
[49][50] In 1924, May L. Cheney, who organized a teacher placement office at the University of California, Berkeley, helped form the National Association of Appointment Secretaries (NAAS).
The functional areas of student affairs and services are considered by several professional associations including: ACPA,[71] CAS,[72] CACUSS,[73] and NASPA.
[75] The composition and structure of these functional areas differs across various institutions, and continues to be shaped as new information is gathered pertaining to the needs of students in post-secondary education.
Offices will support inclusiveness for marginalized populations or minority-seeking groups, including students of all races, ability, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, age, culture and socioeconomic status.
Counselling can take place in many different situations, such as in a quiet office space, a casual walk, dining hall, a phone call, or a video chat.
[85] Evolving over decades, the purpose and approach of career and employment services in the landscape of Canadian higher education has progressed from roots in a post-Second World War era “when campuses responded to a national need to assist returning veterans make a successful transition to civilian life”[19] to a requirement of the service to respond swiftly to a modern time marked by technological advances, cultural revolution, and internationalization.
[19] Robert Shea has identified four areas for career and employment services departments to remain cognizant of in the future: experiential learning, new technologies, changing student populations, and research and accountability.
Robert Shea explains that the ongoing development of new technology supports “the delivery of future services, such as digital portfolios, sophisticated searches, and distance interviewing”.
As many of these opportunities are linked to credit bearing program requirements, there is debate as to whether experiential education lies in the realm of student affairs or academics.
Universities and colleges within Canada and specifically in Ontario are required to provide services to students with permanent or temporary disabilities to enable equal opportunity to education.
[94] In response to this need, both community colleges and universities established an office to oversee and implement academic accommodation support services for students with disabilities.
[76] Judicial affairs or student conduct offices enforce community standards and campus codes of conduct, which may include ethical and legal programs/education, conflict resolution or mediation for academic and behavioural student concerns, investigative response to campus sexual violence, threat assessment, and referrals and collaboration with outside police agencies.
Depending on campus precedent, history, and the type and severity of the behaviour, processes and outcomes for academic or non-academic misconduct may be punitive, educational, and/or restorative in nature.
[103][104] A 2014 study by Karp and Sacks identified six developmental goals for college students aged 18–22 to be achieved throughout the conduct process: 1) Just Community/Self-Authorship, 2) Active Accountability, 3) Interpersonal Competence, 4) Social Ties to Institution, 5) Procedural Fairness, and 6) Closure.
They found that a restorative and developmental approach to conduct allowed for these learning goals to be met more frequently and consistently, compared to traditional punitive styles.
With this being said, this is not to completely discount the traditional or 'code' style approach to conduct, which is still effective when a student does not take responsibility for their actions or identify the harms and impacts that their behaviour has caused.
[113] ECStA deals with a number of issues that are unique to European higher education, such as ensuring international student mobility within Europe under the Bologna Process.
[114] Countries represented among APSSA member institutions include Australia, China, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and the United States.
[107] NASPA members are committed to serving college students by embracing the core values of diversity, learning, integrity, collaboration, access, service, fellowship, and the spirit of inquiry.
[116] These principles emphasize the profession's core value of promoting services and program delivery that are student-centered and address student needs beyond the academic environment.
These principles are not prescriptive and provide guidelines for professionals from varying service areas and institutions to adapt to their unique social, political, and campus contexts while promoting the values of the profession.
[120] The organization, structure, and function of student affairs and services at universities and colleges are criticized as slow to adapt to these changing contexts because institutional cultures emphasize practices rooted in tradition.
[120][121] Further complicating the efficacy of organizational change are the unique subcultures internalized by different functional units that reflect the underlying values, beliefs, and assumptions held by those professionals.
Tension occurs within the field of student affairs and services among different function units and individual practitioners who use a student-centered or institution-focused approach to their work.
Many entry-level and (many) seasoned professionals know little of student development theory and practice and, in fact, do not really need such expertise to meet the role expectations of their supervisors or, in too many instances, their institutions.”[125] Today, theory-to-practice models reflect the necessity to combine foundational theoretical knowledge of student development theories with the functional knowledge gained through professional practice and ongoing reflection.
