Drazen Zigic/Shutterstock
In a recent episode of the HigherEdJobs Podcast, Dr. Monteigne Long and Dr. Paul Tontz joined co-hosts Andy Hibel and Kelly Cherwin to discuss their book, “Supporting Military-Connected College Students,” and how colleges can better support military-connected students.
A Changing Student Population
Campuses are now “serving more and more military-connected family members,” not just student veterans, changing the types of support needed.
This group is also far from uniform. As Long framed it, “military-connected is not a monolith,” and includes several different types of students and experiences.
Support models have evolved alongside that shift. Tontz noted that services once centered on “compliance and getting their benefits,” but institutions are now asking, “how can we more holistically support them?”
That evolution is reflected in how campuses approach support today. As Kelly added, it is becoming “less transactional.”
Recognizing Military-Connected Students on Campus
Not all military-connected students are immediately visible. As Andy pointed out, not everyone “wears it on their sleeve,” making it harder to identify who may need support.
Tontz said this affects how support should be offered, explaining that some students may only want to “pop in” briefly and may not want to fully engage in veteran-specific spaces.
Military-connected students also represent a broad spectrum of experiences. Long said that this includes “all types of service,” from active duty to family members. It is “not always the student with the camo backpack,” and includes a wide range of individuals, including women veterans.
Why They Created the Book
The idea for the book came from a gap in existing resources. While teaching, Tontz found that the most recent text available “was in 2017,” and that the content felt “dated,” especially as campuses are now serving active-duty students, spouses, and family members in greater numbers.
That gap led him and Long to think differently about what was needed. He said they wanted to bring in “other voices within the field that were doing some really amazing work,” especially practitioners who “didn’t have a voice or an outlet” to share what they were doing on their campuses.
A shared goal was to make the book practical and easy to use. Long explained that they wanted something “written by practitioners for practitioners,” where readers could “buy it on Monday and put it into practice on Tuesday.”
The book also focuses on translating theory into action, with real examples from people actively working with military-connected students.
Working With Students, Not Just for Them
A key theme of the conversation was co-production, or working with students when designing programs.
It is important to keep in mind that students are “experts of their own experience,” and that programs should be built “not just for students, but with students.”
Even well-intentioned ideas can miss the mark if student voices are not included and may not be “designed well” without that input, said Tontz.
Andy reinforced this point by sharing a student example from the book:
“Being who I am and looking like I do, I’ve never felt like I fit anywhere, but that is also what motivates me to build spaces where others like me do feel seen.”
Long explained that since she and Tontz are no longer current students, they do not want to assume what students need, and instead work to “ensure that [their] students are represented in the work that [they] do.”
What Works: Listening, Adjusting, and Improving
Long and Tontz shared examples of programs that didn’t work at first, but improved once students were involved and feedback was used to adjust them.
What they saw in practice:
A wellness program that “didn’t really hit the spot” until students helped redesign it After student input, the program was renamed and refocused — and it “really took off” A peer mentoring program where students helped build programming, but it was introduced “a little too quickly” for the campus to fully support
What helped improve those programs:
Starting with a “needs assessment” to understand what students actually want Using feedback to guide changes, not just review results Shifting programming when it doesn’t reach the intended audience Using peer-to-peer conversations for more honest input Being willing to adjust, restart, or rethink programs Making sure the team and campus are ready before launching something new
As Kelly said, all improvement ultimately comes from the willingness to “listen and tweak.”
To close, Long reflected on how both research and practice continue to evolve, while Tontz emphasized that the work is “not static” and must keep adapting as student needs change.
Enjoying conversations like this one? Subscribe to the HigherEdJobs newsletter for podcast updates, new episodes, and insights from across higher education — delivered straight to your inbox.
