TORONTO – April 28, 2025 – Whether it be student grades, assessment responses, engagement data, or contact information, the safety of your data is our priority at Top Hat. As the leading engagement platform used by more than 750 higher education institutions, we’ve implemented several technical and operational measures to keep our promise. That’s why we’re thrilled to announce that Top Hat has received a certificate of compliance for ISO/IEC 27001:2022!
Read on to learn what this means for our business and users.
A new milestone in Top Hat’s privacy and security journey
The ISO/IEC 27001:2022 certification is the international gold standard for information security management. This achievement highlights our dedication to safeguarding user data through a complete set of information security controls, which are routinely audited by an independent third party. CPSI Certifications Inc., a certification body with more than 30 years of experience, performed the audit and awarded the certification. Our certification reflects our continuous commitment to upholding the highest level of security standards to protect user data. This credential applies to both the Top Hat and Aktiv SaaS platforms.
“Achieving ISO/IEC 27001:2022 certification is a significant milestone for us. It reflects the strong security foundation we’ve built to protect our users’ data and demonstrates our commitment to maintaining the highest standards of information security,” says Que Sengmany, Director of Information Security at Top Hat. “For our users and partners, this certification provides assurance that we’re following globally-recognized best practices to manage risks and safeguard information.”
Our security philosophy
At Top Hat, we’ve used the following pillars to guide our security philosophy.
Confidentiality: Ensuring that information is accessible only to authorized individuals
Integrity: Maintaining the accuracy and completeness of information and processing methods
Availability: Guaranteeing that only authorized users have access to information when needed
These principles continue to be our North Star as we continue to safeguard sensitive company and user data. Curious to know more about our technical security measures? Visit our Security page today.
About Top Hat
As the leader in student engagement solutions for higher education, Top Hat enables educators to employ proven student-centered teaching practices through interactive content and tools enhanced by AI, and activities in in-person, online and hybrid classroom environments. To accelerate student impact and return on investment, the company provides a range of change management services, including faculty training and instructional design support, integration and data management services, and digital content customization. Thousands of faculty at 750 leading North American colleges and universities use Top Hat to create meaningful, engaging and accessible learning experiences for students before, during, and after class.
TORONTO – April 28, 2025 – Whether it be student grades, assessment responses, engagement data, or contact information, the safety of your data is our priority at Top Hat. As the leading engagement platform used by more than 750 higher education institutions, we’ve implemented several technical and operational measures to keep our promise. That’s why we’re thrilled to announce that Top Hat has received a certificate of compliance for ISO/IEC 27001:2022!
Read on to learn what this means for our business and users.
A new milestone in Top Hat’s privacy and security journey
The ISO/IEC 27001:2022 certification is the international gold standard for information security management. This achievement highlights our dedication to safeguarding user data through a complete set of information security controls, which are routinely audited by an independent third party. CPSI Certifications Inc., a certification body with more than 30 years of experience, performed the audit and awarded the certification. Our certification reflects our continuous commitment to upholding the highest level of security standards to protect user data. This credential applies to both the Top Hat and Aktiv SaaS platforms.
“Achieving ISO/IEC 27001:2022 certification is a significant milestone for us. It reflects the strong security foundation we’ve built to protect our users’ data and demonstrates our commitment to maintaining the highest standards of information security,” says Que Sengmany, Director of Information Security at Top Hat. “For our users and partners, this certification provides assurance that we’re following globally-recognized best practices to manage risks and safeguard information.”
Our security philosophy
At Top Hat, we’ve used the following pillars to guide our security philosophy.
Confidentiality: Ensuring that information is accessible only to authorized individuals
Integrity: Maintaining the accuracy and completeness of information and processing methods
Availability: Guaranteeing that only authorized users have access to information when needed
These principles continue to be our North Star as we continue to safeguard sensitive company and user data. Curious to know more about our technical security measures? Visit our Security page today.
About Top Hat
As the leader in student engagement solutions for higher education, Top Hat enables educators to employ proven student-centered teaching practices through interactive content and tools enhanced by AI, and activities in in-person, online and hybrid classroom environments. To accelerate student impact and return on investment, the company provides a range of change management services, including faculty training and instructional design support, integration and data management services, and digital content customization. Thousands of faculty at 750 leading North American colleges and universities use Top Hat to create meaningful, engaging and accessible learning experiences for students before, during, and after class.
Two years ago, I moved to the United States to found a think tank devoted to defending global free expression. What better place to launch than America, which is, according to the law professor and First Amendment expert Lee Bollinger, “the most speech protective of any nation on Earth, now or throughout history”?
Despite being Danish, I’ve always found America’s civil-libertarian free speech tradition more appealing than the Old World’s model, with its vague terms and conditions. For much of my career, I’ve been evangelizing a First Amendment approach to free speech to skeptical Europeans and doubtful Americans, who are often tempted by laws banning “hate speech,” “extremism,” and “disinformation.” That appreciation for the First Amendment is something I share with many foreigners — Germans, Iranians, Russians — who now call America home. For some of us, that tradition has become a kind of secular article of faith — the realization of which not only offers a sense of identity, but also a rite of passage into American ideals. Indeed, many of us noncitizens nodded in agreement in February when Vice President J.D. Vance said that European speech restrictions are “shocking to American ears.”
But the very ideal that so many of us noncitizens cherish as America’s “first freedom” is now being curtailed. The administration is invoking a clause of the Immigration Nationality Act of 1952 that allows the secretary of state unfettered discretion to deport aliens, including anyone he believes “would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.” This new scheme has begun with the detaining of foreign students — including visa and green card holders — for allegedly antisemitic speech.
Combating anti-Semitism is an important and legitimate government interest, and both Americans and noncitizens are safer when bigotry is confronted. But for six decades America has prohibited censorship and relied on counterspeech as the main bulwark against hatred, not least because leading Jewish and black civil rights groups have long recognized the danger of giving the government power over speech. Had the administration focused on noncitizens engaged in illegal or seriously disruptive conduct targeting Jewish students — which clearly occurred on some campuses after the October 7 terrorist Hamas attacks — few could have objected.
But it’s now clear that the government is targeting noncitizens for ideas and speech protected by the First Amendment. The most worrying example (so far) is a Turkish student at Tufts University, apparently targeted for co-authoring a student op-ed calling for, among other things, Tufts to divest from companies with ties to Israel. One report estimates that nearly 300 students from universities across the country have had their visas revoked so far.
George Mason University calls cops on student for article criticizing Trump
News
After a GMU student wrote a provocative essay asking when violence against tyranny is justified, the university promptly forgot its own revolutionary roots — and called the cops.
Instead of correcting this overreach, the government has doubled down. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services recently announced that it would begin screening the social media posts of aliens “whose posts indicate support for antisemitic terrorism, antisemitic terrorist organizations, or other antisemitic activity.” Shortly after, the X account of USCIS posted about a “robust social media vetting program” and warned: “EVERYONE should be on notice. If you’re a guest in our country — act like it.” And four days later, White House homeland security adviser Stephen Miller promised to deport “anyone who preaches hate for America.” What that means is anybody’s guess — and seems to depend entirely on subjective assessments.
This has created a wave of self-censorship among the millions of noncitizens who live, study, and work in the U.S. Conversations among expats now center on how many have stopped posting political content or canceled travel abroad, fearing they won’t be let back in. Noncitizens in think tanks and public policy roles I have spoken to are using burner phones and keeping immigration lawyers on speed dial. Universities are advising foreign students and faculty not to publicly criticize the U.S. government or officials. Students are complying, even going so far as to ask to have their bylines removed from articles, refraining from peaceful protests and scrubbing their social media accounts. Even more surreal: People, including me, are receiving constant pleas from friends and family to come home, fearing what might happen if we stay. After all, this is America, not Russia.
As a green card holder, I understand why so many foreign students, faculty members, and other legal residents who live in and love this country might prefer to stay silent—after all, they came here for a reason, whether to study, work, or start a life with loved ones. But silence would be a betrayal of the very values that brought many of us here in the first place. In fact, I can think of few things more un-American than having to self-censor out of fear of being targeted by the government.
I came to America for its freedom, not just to enjoy it, but to defend it — even if that puts me at risk.
This isn’t the first time America has targeted foreign dissenters. In 1798, President John Adams signed the Alien Act, giving himself sweeping power to deport any noncitizen from a friendly nation deemed “dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States,” or merely “suspected” of treason or “secret machinations against the government.” In response, James Madison warned the law’s vague language “can never be mistaken for legal rules or certain definitions” and “subvert[ed] the general principles of free government.” Thomas Jefferson called it “a most detestable thing … worthy of the 8th or 9th century.” Their concerns were vindicated when Americans handed Adams’ Federalists a catastrophic defeat in the 1800 election, and the Alien Act expired under Jefferson.
During the Red Scares of the 20th century, waves of government paranoia led to the surveillance, detention, and deportation of “subversive” noncitizens. McCarthyism has been roundly criticized in the decades since, and few have likely imagined that a McCarthy-era statute would not only survive but be revived and aggressively expanded in the 21st century.
The late British-American journalist Christopher Hitchens is a more recent testament to the long tolerance of America toward foreign dissent. Before becoming a U.S. citizen in 2007, Hitchens spent decades as a legal resident—and as one of America’s most acerbic public intellectuals. He accused Ronald Reagan of being “a liar and trickster,” called Israel America’s “chosen surrogate” for “dirty work” and “terrorism,” lambasted Bill Clinton as “almost psychopathically deceitful,” and accused the George W. Bush administration of torture and illegal surveillance. If a student can be deported for writing a campus op-ed critical of Israel, any of Hitchens’ views could have been used to justify deporting him.
Those applauding the recent crackdowns should remember how quickly the target can change. An overzealous administration focused on countering “Islamophobia” rather than antisemitism might have barred Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Salman Rushdie before they became citizens. The next might decide Douglas Murray crosses the line.
Surely Secretary of State Marco Rubio knows this. In a recent interview, he warned that if Americans are denied entry to or face consequences in Europe for their online speech, it would undermine “one of the pillars of our shared values”—freedom of expression. Yet his own department now targets foreign nationals in the U.S. for the same online speech he was ostensibly protecting.
Had America been known for deporting, rather than welcoming, dissent, I would never have made it my home. That might not have been much of a loss. But consider this: 35 percent of U.S.-affiliated academic Nobel laureates are immigrants, and nearly half of all American unicorn startups have founders born outside the country. How many of these brilliant minds would have chosen the United States if they risked exile for crossing the speech red lines of the moment?
As a European who owes my freedom in life thus far to the America that fought Nazism and defeated communism, I feel a responsibility to speak out when this country strays from its founding ideals. I came to America for its freedom, not just to enjoy it, but to defend it — even if that puts me at risk.
Jacob Mchangama is the executive director of The Future of Free Speech, a research professor at Vanderbilt University and a senior fellow at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. He is the author of “Free Speech: A History From Socrates to Social Media.“
[Image of AidVantage operations in Greenville, Texas. Note the barbed wire fence.]
The recent decision to have the Small Business Administration (SBA) take over the federal student loan portfolio has sent shockwaves through the world of education finance. As the SBA — an agency traditionally focused on supporting small businesses — begins to manage a multi-billion dollar portfolio of student loans, borrowers, consumer protection advocates, and financial experts alike are left to question what this transition means for the future of loan servicing, borrower protections, and higher education financing.
At the heart of this shift is the role of Maximus AidVantage, one of the major student loan servicers handling federal loans. Maximus has already come under scrutiny for its inefficiency, poor customer service, and mishandling of crucial borrower programs, such as Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) and Income-Driven Repayment (IDR) plans. The company’s track record has led to widespread frustration, with many borrowers reporting significant issues, including misinformation, lost paperwork, and mistakes that have placed them at risk of financial hardship.
Yet, despite these concerns, Maximus has maintained its position at the helm of federal student loan servicing. Its CEO, Bruce Caswell, has been compensated handsomely for overseeing the company’s role in this controversial space. According to recent financial reports, Caswell’s total compensation has included a base salary of over $1.3 million, with total compensation often exceeding $8 million when accounting for bonuses, stock options, and other forms of remuneration. This high pay, especially in light of the company’s poor performance in customer service and loan servicing, raises questions about the priorities of both the company and the federal government, which continues to entrust Maximus with managing the finances of millions of borrowers.
The Shift to the SBA: A Lack of Expertise
The most immediate concern surrounding the SBA’s takeover of student loan management is its lack of expertise in this field. The SBA’s core mission has been to assist small businesses, offering loan guarantees and financial support to promote economic growth. While it is well-equipped to manage business loans, the agency has no experience dealing with the unique and complex needs of student loan borrowers. Federal student loans involve intricate repayment plans, borrower protections, and specialized programs like PSLF, all of which require a deep understanding of the educational sector and the financial struggles of students and graduates.
Transferring such an important and complex responsibility to the SBA without a clear plan for adaptation could lead to mismanagement, inefficiencies, and disruptions for millions of borrowers. The SBA simply isn’t set up to handle issues like loan forgiveness, income-driven repayment plans, and the variety of special accommodations that are necessary for student borrowers. If the SBA isn’t adequately staffed or resourced to take on these new responsibilities, students could be left in the lurch, facing delays, confusion, and even errors in their loan servicing.
A Confusing Transition for Borrowers
For those already dealing with the intricacies of federal student loans, this transition to the SBA is likely to create a significant amount of confusion. Student loan borrowers rely on clear communication, accurate account management, and timely assistance when navigating repayment plans. The Department of Education has long been the agency responsible for ensuring that these programs are managed effectively, but with the SBA taking over, borrowers may face new systems, new contacts, and, potentially, a lack of clarity about their loan status.
One of the biggest risks in this transition is the potential disruption of critical loan repayment programs, such as PSLF, which allows public service workers to have their loans forgiven after ten years of payments. These programs require careful management to ensure that borrowers meet the necessary qualifications. The SBA is not accustomed to handling such programs and may struggle to maintain the same level of efficiency and accuracy, especially if the agency does not prioritize dedicated support for student loan borrowers.
Diminished Consumer Protections
Perhaps the most concerning outcome of the SBA taking over student loans is the potential erosion of consumer protections. The Department of Education has a specific mandate to protect borrowers, which includes holding loan servicers accountable for mishandling accounts and ensuring transparency in loan servicing practices. The SBA, however, has never been tasked with such consumer-focused regulations, and its shift to managing student loans raises concerns that borrower rights might not be adequately enforced.
For example, the SBA may not have the resources or inclination to monitor loan servicers like Maximus closely, allowing them to continue engaging in deceptive practices without fear of regulatory repercussions. The agency might also be less likely to step in when borrowers face issues such as misapplied payments, incorrect information about forgiveness programs, or poorly managed accounts. With the SBA’s focus on business rather than consumer welfare, student loan borrowers may find themselves facing more hurdles without the protections that the Department of Education once provided.
The Impact on Repayment and Forgiveness Programs
Another pressing issue is the potential disruption of repayment and forgiveness programs under SBA oversight. Programs like Income-Driven Repayment (IDR), designed to help borrowers pay off their loans based on their income, require careful management and regular updates. Similarly, the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program is highly specific and requires rigorous tracking of borrowers’ payments and work history to ensure they qualify for forgiveness after ten years.
If the SBA is not adequately equipped to handle these specialized programs, borrowers might find themselves in a precarious position, especially if their loans are mismanaged or if they are denied forgiveness due to administrative errors. The confusion caused by the transition could delay or even derail borrowers’ efforts to achieve loan forgiveness, leaving them stuck with debt for longer than expected.
The Role of Maximus: Financial Incentives Amidst Failure
Amidst the uncertainty of this transition, Maximus continues to play a key role in servicing the federal student loan portfolio. Yet, despite its persistent failures in managing accounts and borrower relations, Maximus has remained highly profitable, with Bruce Caswell’s executive compensation reflecting this success in terms of revenue but not in terms of customer satisfaction.
Maximus’s reported $8 million in total compensation for Caswell, despite the company’s history of customer complaints, raises serious questions about priorities. While Maximus rakes in millions from servicing federal loans, borrowers are left to deal with the consequences of mistakes, misinformation, and poor service. In a system where the stakes are incredibly high for borrowers, this disparity between executive pay and customer service is concerning, especially in light of the SBA’s takeover, which promises more uncertainty.
Adding to the controversy, Maximus has also been involved in labor disputes with the Communications Workers of America (CWA), its workers’ union. These disputes, which have centered on issues such as wages, benefits, and working conditions, further complicate the company’s already tarnished reputation. Workers have accused Maximus of engaging in unfair labor practices and failing to adequately support employees who are tasked with assisting borrowers. If these labor disputes continue to affect employee morale and productivity, it could lead to even worse service for borrowers who are already dealing with a complicated and frustrating loan servicing process. The combination of poor customer service, labor unrest, and executive compensation that seems out of sync with the company’s performance paints a troubling picture for the future of student loan management under Maximus.
The Threat of Reduced Loan Forgiveness and IDR Plans
Adding to the turmoil surrounding the future of student loans is the growing effort by the U.S. government to reduce or even eliminate key student loan forgiveness programs like Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) and Income-Driven Repayment (IDR) plans. These programs were designed to provide crucial relief for borrowers working in public service or those struggling with debt relative to their income. However, recent reports suggest that the government may look to reduce eligibility for these programs, impose stricter requirements, or completely eliminate them altogether as part of broader fiscal policy adjustments.
The removal of or reductions to these programs would leave borrowers with fewer avenues to manage their debt, potentially increasing default rates and extending the time it takes for borrowers to repay their loans. For individuals in public service jobs or those facing financial hardship, these changes would have a devastating impact on their ability to achieve financial stability and pay down their student loans. If the SBA, with its lack of focus on education finance, inherits this responsibility without reinforcing these programs, borrowers might find themselves in a far worse position than ever before.
Furthermore, this reduction in borrower protections and streamlining of repayment options may also be part of a broader strategy to push more borrowers into private loan options, which could further exacerbate financial hardship for those who are already struggling. With private loans often carrying higher interest rates, less favorable repayment terms, and fewer options for deferral or forgiveness, such a shift would mark a significant pivot towards privatization, benefiting financial institutions while leaving borrowers with even fewer protections and much higher costs.
A Plan to Push Consumers Toward Private Loans?
Many experts are beginning to question whether the government’s plans for overhauling student loan servicing are part of a larger agenda to move borrowers toward private loans. By reducing or eliminating federal loan protections, forgiveness programs, and income-driven repayment options, the government may be attempting to create a vacuum in which private lenders can step in and offer alternative (and likely more expensive) financing options.
This push toward privatization could significantly increase profits for private lenders while making it harder for borrowers to repay their loans. With private loans lacking many of the protections and flexible repayment options offered by federal loans, such a shift could result in higher default rates and greater financial instability for borrowers, particularly for those with already high debt levels.
Conclusion: A New Era of Uncertainty
The transition of student loan servicing to the Small Business Administration represents a significant shift in the federal student loan system, one that could lead to inefficiencies, confusion, and a reduction in protections for borrowers. With agencies like Maximus AidVantage continuing to profit from loan servicing despite failing borrowers, ongoing labor disputes, and a focus on executive compensation over customer service, and the SBA stepping into a complex arena with limited experience, the future of student loan servicing seems fraught with challenges.
The push to reduce or eliminate key student loan forgiveness programs like PSLF and IDR only adds to the uncertainty, leaving millions of borrowers facing a potentially more difficult future. Moreover, the possibility of moving consumers toward private loans with fewer protections and harsher terms would deepen the financial struggles of many borrowers. This move underscores the importance of effective oversight and the need for federal agencies to prioritize the well-being of borrowers over financial interests. The student loan system should be about more than just revenue generation — it should be about supporting borrowers and ensuring that they can achieve financial freedom, not be left trapped in a cycle of debt and frustration. Without proper management, this new era of student loan servicing risks deepening the crisis for millions of Americans who are already struggling to keep up with their education-related debts.
When I was in fifth grade in northern Kentucky, I walked into my school library, excited to check out my favorite book — Drama by Raina Telgemeier — only to find it missing. My librarian told me it had been removed because someone had complained it wasn’t appropriate for our age group.
The shelves looked emptier without it and I remember the sting of frustration in my chest as I asked question after question, my voice growing unsteady. That book was my only access to a world I love and now it was gone.
At the time, I didn’t understand why it had disappeared. Now, I realize that moment was part of a much larger battle playing out across the country.
A surge in book bans across the U.S. is forcing educators and librarians into a heated debate over censorship and intellectual freedom, as restrictions on books about race, gender and LGBTQ+ topics increase.
“Books don’t hurt people. People hurt people,” said Joyce McIntosh, assistant program director for the Freedom to Read Foundation.
Bans across the nation
As book bans and censorship debates arise across the country, independent K-12 schools, like the Tatnall School in Wilmington, Delaware where I go to school, must balance open access to information with concerns over age-appropriate content — a challenge that mirrors broader societal tensions over education and free expression.
Over the past few years, book challenges have significantly increased, with reports from the American Library Association showing a record-breaking number of book bans in 2023, documenting 1,247 demands to censor library books and resources.
While these debates are heating up in the U.S., similar efforts to restrict access to information are occurring across the globe, from government crackdowns in China to classroom censorship in Brazil. McIntosh said these bans disproportionately target books focused on BIPOC and LGBTQ communities, limiting students’ access to diverse perspectives.
“Bans often target books focused on [black, indigenous and people of color] and LGBTQ communities, preventing students from seeing themselves represented,” McIntosh said.
Groups advocating for more restrictions counter that certain topics seen in school books promote inappropriate themes or political agendas. On the other hand, organizations like the Freedom to Read Foundation work to educate library workers and community members about the importance of intellectual freedom.
Local schools navigate the debate
For educators, the tension between intellectual freedom and parental concerns seems like a tightrope act. While public schools in the United States must follow government and state regulations, independent schools have more flexibility in curating their libraries and media centers. That flexibility comes with its own challenges and doesn’t provide much leeway.
Instead, it forces school administrations to set their own guidelines, often navigating difficult conversations with parents, teachers, and students to figure out what’s best for their school environment.
Ensign Simmons, the director of innovation and technology and library coordinator at the Tatnall School, emphasized the school’s approach to book selection. While the library strives to provide students with diverse perspectives in education, it also considers community concerns as well as the age-appropriateness of the content, Simmons said.
Simmons said that while Tatnall is not a public institution, the school still has a responsibility to prepare students to think critically and be open-minded when they enter the world.
Tatnall hasn’t faced formal book bans, but the school remains aware of the growing national trends. Instead of outright censorship, Simmons said that the school encourages dialogue between students, parents and educators. Maintaining this balance means that while some books may contain more mature content, the overall goal is to promote discussion among students of different perspectives rather than restrictions.
“Even if you disagree with something, that doesn’t mean we should take it off the shelves,” Simmons said. “We should keep them out there because that does spark a conversation and that conversation is what’s important at the end of the day.”
The role of parents play
While anti-ban activists argue that restricting and banning books violates an individual’s access to intellectual freedom, pro-ban supporters see it as a step taken that is necessary to protect children and youth from inappropriate and controversial material.
Moms for Liberty, a conservative advocacy group, has led efforts to remove books like The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison from certain school districts and libraries, arguing that educators should not have the final say in what the students read.
McIntosh said that many schools already have policies allowing parents to opt their child out of specific reading materials and select an alternative that aligns with the curriculum. However, when one parent’s choice limits access for all students, it crosses into censorship, she said. Parents have the right to choose that for their child, however, it starts becoming more like censorship when they decide they don’t want anyone reading the book, making a decision for others based on their own beliefs.
Censorship is a global issue, not confined to the United States. In China, writers who challenge the government’s narrative have been imprisoned. In Tanzania, the government banned children’s books on sex education, citing violations of cultural norms, while in Brazil, attempts have been made to remove books addressing race and gender from classrooms. This is similar to the problem in the United States.
These efforts to restrict access to information emphasize the broader, international pattern of controlling stories, especially those of marginalized communities. Whether driven by political power, cultural conservatism or fear of open dialogue, these global examples underscore the dangers of erasing perspectives that are vital for understanding diverse human experiences, just as we are witnessing in the U.S.
What the future holds
As the debate over book bans intensifies, many wonder what the future for school libraries will look like. In the future, instead of banning books outright, restrictions could shift toward regulation of digital content, as our world’s use of technology grows and as more controversial material becomes accessible online.
Schools, like Tatnall, might continue to shift and shape their policies, cultivating discussions among the youth rather than enforcing strict bans and censoring intellectual content.
Years ago, I didn’t understand why my favorite book was taken away. Now, I see that removing a single book is never just about a book — it’s about whose voices get heard and whose stories remain untold.
“One of the most dangerous aspects of book bans is that they often target marginalized voices,” McIntosh said. “When we remove these stories, we’re not just censoring books. We’re erasing experiences and perspectives that are crucial for understanding the world around us.”
The ongoing debate over book bans isn’t only about stories; it’s about who gets to decide what topics are worth exploring. And that struggle isn’t limited to the United States. Across continents, governments and school systems are making similar decisions about which perspectives are allowed to exist and which are erased.
As long as books continue to disappear from shelves, that debate will continue shaping free expression and education for years to come.
Questions to consider:
• Why would some groups want to ban whole classrooms from access to particular books?
• Why are books about people of color or are about themes of gender identity often the target of bans?
• Do you think some books should be kept from children? Which ones and why?
This blog post is based on research into the effectiveness of higher education policy, published in Policy Reviews in Higher Education. The article, ‘Effectiveness in higher education: What lessons can be learned after 40 years of neoliberal reform?’, takes a systemic perspective to consider a range of roles needed for HE to function effectively in the more accountable HE environment of today (Kenny, 2025).
It focusses on three key stakeholder groups arguably most pertinent to effectiveness: government policy makers, university corporate leaders and the academic profession, with a particular focus on the academic role, as this is typically overlooked in much of the research into higher education policy, yet we argue critical to the effectiveness of the system.
A systemic approach to HE policy assumes that reform in educational systems is complex and unpredictable. It also accepts that different stakeholders may experience change differently, there needs to be an understanding of the different roles played within the system and how they interact. Of particular concern in this article is how the academic role interacts with other stakeholders, especially the government regulators and university corporate leaders.
For over 40 years, a top-down ‘command and control’ approach to change has been adopted in HE. Typically, when this mind-set drives change, the inherent complexities of systemic change are disregarded, and it is assumed the outcomes of a reform can be pre-determined. It largely ignores the relationships, values and experiences of other stakeholder groups, which systems theory suggests is not appropriate for effective educational reform (Checkland, 2012; OECD, 2017).
By contrast, this article points to research into effective organisations that identified four ‘culture groups’ as present in any organisation: the Academic, the Corporate, the Bureaucratic and the Entrepreneurial. Each of these has a unique values perspective from which it approaches the decision-making process. These ‘competing values’ determine the organisational values, but with the values of the dominant group tending to prevail. The research linked organisational effectiveness (or performance) to a “strong culture” defined as one in which the practices and processes are in alignment with the espoused values position of the organisation (Smart & St John, 1996; Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1981).
For academic institutions such as universities, HE policy specifically identifies both Corporate and Academic governance as the two most important (Gerber, 2010; MCU, 2020; TEQSA, 2019a; 2019b; 2023). It follows that, in an effective organisation, a “strong culture” would be based on both the corporate and academic values having a more equal influence over decision-making.
Many of the current problems have arisen because, under the neoliberal reform agenda, with government policymakers aligned with corporate values, a corporate culture has dominated for the last 40 years. This has led to a situation in universities where corporate leadership dominates and academic leadership has been diminished (Gerber, 2010; Magney, 2006; Yeatman & Costea (eds), 2018).
The intention of this work is not to demonise any culture group nor argue for a return to a ‘Golden Age’ where academics tended to dominate. It proposes that, in the more accountable HE environment of today, from a systemic perspective the unique nature and purposes of universities as trusted organisation means each of these roles is important. It argues that across the system the government, corporate leaders and Academia, each play an important, but distinct role in ensuring the system, and universities, function effectively. For the HE system and universities to be effective, as opposed to more efficient, we need better understanding of these distinctions and more clarity about the accountabilities that should apply to each group (Bovens, 2007; Kearns, 1998).
This work pays particular attention to understanding the academic role. It argues that, with the domination of a corporate mind-set, which values control, compliance, competitiveness and productivity, academics are seen as “mere employees” (Giroux, 2002; Harman 2003), whose autonomy and academic freedom need to be curtailed (Hanlon, 1999).
This paper argues this situation has been exacerbated by the failure of the academic profession to define their role in this more accountable HE environment. The paper points to research that aims to fill this gap by re-defining academic professionalism in the more accountable HE environment, but in a way that does not sacrifice its essential ethical and autonomous underpinnings.
It further argues these unique characteristics of academic work, which have compelling implications for the overall quality of university education, have come under sustained attack from the rise of political populism (Hiller et al, 2025), increased disinformation and misinformation on social media, and the growing use of Artificial Intelligence (AI).
An extensive review of national and international literature identified four ‘foundational principles’ (Kenny et al, 2025) which present a definition of the academic role involving a holistic combination of academic leadership, shared professional values, and independence in scholarship, underpinned by a “special” employment relationship. The historical, political, legislative, educational and cultural context of any particular HE system, however, requires these ‘foundational principles’ to be translated into a set of ‘enabling principles’ to suit that HE context (Freidson, 1999; Kenny & Cirkony, 2022).
To test this empirically, a set of ‘enabling principles’ were developed for the Australian HE context as a case study. Kenny et al (2024) described how, in the three phases of this action research study already completed, a set of ‘enabling principles’ has been developed and incorporated into a Professional Ethical Framework for Australian Academics (The Framework).
This case study aims to re-define the nature of academic work to re-emphasise its contribution to the effectiveness of HE, both in Australia and around the globe. The Framework represents our current re-definition of the academic profession in the more accountable Australian HE context. However, the universality of the foundational principles suggests this approach might be replicable by researchers in other HE contexts (Kenny et al, 2025).
This work addresses the compelling question of the sustainability of the academic profession by:
Providing greater alignment across the HE system between the broader social purpose of universities and the important role that academics play.
Unifying individual academics as professional scholars through a set of common professional values and a justification for their professional autonomy and academic freedom.
Contributing to the sustainability of the academic profession by enabling individual academics to better navigate the competing tensions within their institutions as they build their professional identity based-on transparent professional standards, adequate resourcing and accountability mechanisms that will minimise exploitative practices currently evident in the system (AUA, 2024).
Providing a common language that enables non-academic stakeholders, including governments, university management, industry, students, etc, to better understand the unique role academics play in ensuring the HE system and universities are effective in meeting their obligations to Society.
Providing foundational principles that can be adapted to other HE contexts and facilitate the creation of a global academic community of practice through which the profession can enhance is voice in shaping the future of HE around the globe.
This work should help to restore a balance of power between the academic and corporate leadership in the governance of universities by facilitating more purposefully designed governance structures and accountability mechanisms that enable academic staff to influence HE policy formation, decision-making and resource allocation, which is especially important against a backdrop of growing political and economic challenges to universities.
Feedback from our national and international academic colleagues is encouraged. Those wishing to find out more are directed to the website of the Australian Association of University Professors (AAUP) at https://professoriate.org, where more information can be found about this research and how you might participate in the further development of The Framework,which has been made available for consultation with and feedback from a broader national and international academic audience.
John Kenny has extensive experience as a teacher and teacher educator and leadership in academic professional issues. His growing concern over the long-standing systemic issues in higher education, loss of independence for universities and loss of prestige for the academic profession led him to take a more systemic perspective and initiate this research looking into the role of academia in the effectiveness of higher education.
The author may also be contacted directly by email ([email protected]).
The Trump administration is elevating AI programs in K-12 education
The human edge in the AI era
Report details uneven AI use among teachers, principals
For more news on AI in education, visit eSN’s Digital Learning hub
A new executive order signed by President Trump takes aim at AI policies in K-12 education by “fostering interest and expertise in artificial intelligence (AI) technology from an early age to maintain America’s global dominance in this technological revolution for future generations.”
More News from eSchool News
A “patchwork of apps” in schools often leads to app fatigue, frustrating parents and educators who have to use multiple apps weekly, or even daily, according to new research from Cornerstone Communications, LTD. and Edsby.
Simply put, AI can do a lot–it can personalize learning, help students expand on ideas for assignments, and reduce time spent on administrative tasks, freeing up educators to spend more time on instruction.
A recent survey found that 88 percent of U.S. parents believe AI is essential to their children’s education, but most aren’t even sure whether the technology is being used in their child’s classroom.
As AI becomes more widespread in education, more than half of high school students (56 percent) polled think it can go a long way in reducing math anxiety, a new global survey shows.
Teachers often seem to have eyes in the back of their heads. They respond to a murmured question in a class full of conversation. They can tell if someone’s skipping class a floor away by reading faces in the room.
While digital literacy has become an aspirational cornerstone of modern education, the exponential growth of data-driven decision-making across industries reveals critical gaps that demand a stronger focus on data literacy.
Teaching K-12 coding without computers may seem like a daunting task, but it can be a powerful way to introduce students to the fundamental concepts of computer science and problem-solving without the distraction of technology.
The most effective way for students to learn career-ready skills in fields such as advanced manufacturing and robotics is by applying these skills in the context of authentic projects and real-world scenarios.
In the Future of Jobs 2025 report, the World Economic Forum predicts that 60 percent of jobs will require upskilling or retraining, or they’ll be threatened. The skills we have today may not keep us secure for long.
Middle and high school counselors juggle overwhelming caseloads, expanded mental health duties, and additional administrative burdens–all of which limit their ability to provide individualized support for students.
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Almost immediately after taking office, President Donald Trump launched a flurry of executive orders and policy directives that threaten to roll back the civil rights of transgender and nonbinary students and erase their identities. The administration has also targeted colleges that support transgender inclusion.
Despite these moves, legal experts and transgender rights experts say college leaders can protect transgender and nonbinary students and make their campuses welcoming spaces. That type of support can be crucial to recruit those students, as well as improve their mental health and well-being on campus.
But implementing affirming policies for those students can be challenging, as institutions risk losing federal funding or facing Title IX investigations under the policies now in place.
Another executive order, which was blocked by a federal court, withheld federal funding to medical providers that provide gender-affirming care, such as puberty blockers and hormone therapies, to transgender people under the age of 19. An additional order directed federal agencies to end “equity-related” grants “to the maximum extent allowed by law.”
The U.S. Department of Education also issued guidance in late January advising education leaders to follow the previous Trump administration’s Title IX regulations after the Biden-era version of the rules were struck down. The Trump administration’s letter stated the department will enforce Title IX in a way that is consistent with Trump’s executive order mandating the federal government only recognize two sexes that cannot be changed.
This interpretation stands in contrast with the Biden-era version of the Title IX rules, which had prohibited discrimination based on gender identity.The Biden administration also withdrew proposed Title IX rules in December that would have barred blanket bans on transgender students participating on sports teams aligning with their gender identity.
Yet another executive order targeted an extremely small sliver of student athletes nationwide by threatening to withhold federal funding from colleges or K-12 schools that allow transgender girls and women from competing in sports aligning with their gender identity. The NCAA revised its policies to comply with the order.
The new administration has already opened Title IX investigations into San José State University, the University of Pennsylvania, the Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association, and othersthat allow or have allowed transgender women or girls to participate on teams corresponding with their gender identity.
However, the enforceability of the Trump administration’s recent executive orders, which are essentially “ideological policy statements,” has not yet been determined, said Elana Redfield, federal policy director at the University of California, Los Angeles’ Williams Institute.
At the very least, colleges shouldn’t be rushing to implement “harmful and discriminatory policies” before they are legally required to do so, said Jose Abrigo, an attorney and HIV project director for Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. The policies could be blocked or modified by the courts and preemptive compliance could “needlessly harm students,” he said.
The executive orders try to suppress speech, erase identities and punish those who affirm the existence of transgender and nonbinary people on college campuses — institutions that are meant to be “bastions of free thought and open discourse,” Abrigo said.
“Academic institutions should be places where truth is explored, not dictated,” Abrigo said, “where students are empowered to live authentically, not forced into silence by discriminatory and unconstitutional edicts from the president.”
How colleges can protect trans students
College leaders have several ways to affirm and protect their transgender and nonbinary students, experts say.
Higher ed institutions are in the business of education, so they should be informing students about what gender-affirming care is available and how they can access it, said Genny Beemyn, director of the Stonewall Center at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
They should also educate students about their options for changing their name and gender markers on legal documents and their rights concerning use of locker rooms or restrooms corresponding to their gender identities both nationally and in their own states, they added.
Policies allowing students to easily change their names across campus can be effective, said Sarah Lipson, a public health professor at Boston University. These allow a transgender student to enter a new classroom and avoid a faculty member referring to them by their deadname — a name given to them that they no longer use, she said.
But those policies should be flexible, such as including a transgender student’s deadname in communications to their family if they are not out at home, she said.
Colleges also need to provide support to transgender and nonbinary students through campus counseling centers, Beemyn said. Smaller colleges without counseling centers can refer students to outside therapists that work with transgender or nonbinary people, they said.
Gender-inclusive housing is also critical for transgender students, Lipson said. Placing transgender students in single occupancy dorms to avoid pairing them with another student who shares their gender assigned at birth is “not inclusive,” she said.
“That’s really changing the college environment for the trans student by saying you have to live by yourself in order to be part of this community,” Lipson said.
Public colleges in red states with transgender-affirming restrictions have other options to support or recruit transgender and nonbinary students, Lipson said. For instance, they could limit pronoun use on admission documents, referring instead to students by their names. Colleges could also use plural or gender-neutral pronouns instead of “he or she” or “your son or daughter,” she said.
“It requires combing through a lot of materials, but most importantly the front-facing admissions materials to ensure that those are not unnecessarily reinforcing a gender binary,” Lipson said.
The biggest thing colleges could do now is not erase their transgender and nonbinary students, Abrigo said. Instead, campus officials should recognize their existence, affirm their identities, and ensure they have access to the resources and support they need, he said.
College leaders can simply send messages to students, reminding them that transgender and nonbinary students matter, that they’re part of the campus community and that they’re aware of the threats against them, Lipson said.
“Some of these students that we’ve talked to in red states were really reflecting that,” Lipson said. “‘We feel that people are really looking out for us to the extent that they can.’”
Non-affirming campuses could impact mental health
The mental health impact of the executive orders on students can vary — depending in part on where they are in the process of coming out as transgender or nonbinary, Beemyn said.
Beemyn is working on a study that asks transgender students if the national climate is affecting whether they are willing to be out about their gender identity.
Some students in liberal states or at progressive colleges — especially those with a strong support network — don’t feel the effects of national politics as much, Beemyn said. However, the national discourse has prompted some students to say they are less likely to come out to new people and want to be less visible, they said.
“It would make logical sense that if someone can’t be themselves and has to hide who they are, that’s going to have negative effects on someone’s sense of well-being and sense of belonging, community and self-worth,” Beemyn said.
The prevalence of mental health issues is disproportionately high among higher ed students who are transgender and nonbinary — but those rates can differ from campus to campus, Lipson said.
“It would make logical sense that if someone can’t be themselves and has to hide who they are, that’s going to have negative effects on someone’s sense of well-being and sense of belonging, community and self-worth.”
Genny Beemyn
Director, Stonewall Center at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Boston Universityresearchers analyzed national data from more than 11,000 transgender and nonbinary students at about 250 U.S. colleges and universities collected between 2022 and 2024.
Overall, the research showed just 16% of transgender and nonbinary students are “flourishing” on campus. But that rate is much higher at some campuses, reaching 50% at some institutions, said Lipson.
The rate of students experiencing symptoms of depression also fluctuated widely across colleges, from about 33% to upwards of 90% of transgender and nonbinary students, Lipson said. The rate of anxiety varied dramatically as well, ranging between 28% and 82%, she said.
The researchers haven’t yet examined which institutional policies might account for differences in mental health outcomes across campuses, but they plan to explore that next, said Lipson.
Even so, researchers already know access to mental health care varies greatly. At some campuses, as few as 30% of transgender students said they had access to competent mental health care, compared with over 80% at other institutions,Lipson said.
“There is a lot of variation in all of these outcomes — mental health, treatment use, and discrimination as well,” said Lipson. “That suggests that college campuses are playing a role in explaining this variation.”
Complying with the anti-trans laws
Many conservative states have enacted anti-transgender laws, including statutes barring transgender students from participating in athletics or using locker rooms or bathrooms that align with their gender identities. Finding a balance between complying with anti-trans policies while minimizing harm to transgender and nonbinary students can be challenging.
In February, new restroom signs at the University of Cincinnati reading “biological men” and “biological women” sparked student outcry.
The university stated it was following a Ohio law that took effect Feb. 25 requiring schools to designate multi-person student restrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms and showers to be used exclusively by students of the male or female “biological sex only.”The law requires “clear signage” to make those designations.
But on Feb. 26, university administrators apologized in a letter to students and said they would replace the signs,adding that use of the term “biological” on the signs was “an error on our part.”Republican state Rep. Adam Bird, who cosponsored the bill, reportedly said the term “biological” wasn’t needed on the signs to comply with the law.
“Academic institutions should be places where truth is explored, not dictated.”
Jose Abrigo
HIV project director, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund
As with state laws, colleges should take Trump’s executive orders as serious threats that merit a response to protect the organization, UCLA’s Redfield said. A loss of federal funding could be consequential, considering higher ed institutions provide a wealth of research and data collection about the experiences of transgender people, she said.
College leaders should likewise understand the threats are motivated not by science, but by ideology and bias against transgender and nonbinary people, Redfield said.
Beemyn echoed those comments. The laws make it “impossible for [transgender and nonbinary students] to live their lives in a way that’s right for them. That’s a real denial of their humanity,” Beemyn said.
The University of Washington said it’s not taking any “preemptive actions” until it receives further guidance on how to comply with the Education Department’s Dear Colleague letter regarding Title IX enforcement.
“We are committed to providing access to excellence and a welcoming environment for all and believe that a breadth of perspectives and experiences make for a richer educational experience for everyone,” the University of Washington said in a Feb. 25 statement to Higher Ed Dive.
If higher education institutions like the University of Washington and others want transgender and nonbinary students at their schools, they need to figure out ways to recognize their existence, said Redfield.
“They have to make it clear that their intention is to create an environment where trans and nonbinary students can thrive,” she said.
A perfect storm of financial pressures, from declining enrollment to escalating economic uncertainty, are pushing K-12 school district budgets to their limits.
To adapt, districts nationwide are embracing innovative strategies to shore up budget stability. From reducing facility operational costs to forging strong community partnerships, school district leaders can learn from these proven examples to safeguard their financial stability and maintain funding for critical student programs.
Securing revenue, and finding new revenue streams
The post-COVID recovery era has been especially challenging for the majority of school districts whose budgets are based on per-pupil enrollment or attendance. Fortunately, there are many examples of school districts that have successfully combatted budget shortfalls through community-driven student engagement, retention and attendance programs. And with shifting populations and school choice schemes on the rise, school districts are also growing more adept at differentiating themselves through strong communications programs and visible investments into modern facilities. These strategies impact budgets by attracting new residents and strengthening student retention.
More districts are also looking to partnerships with local utility companies like utility rebates, net-metering programs, and demand response incentives. These programs reward smart energy management (i.e. energy efficiency upgrades, on-site renewables, and strategic energy usage) by offering direct cash infusions and bill credits that can improve a school’s budget health.
Richland County School District One in South Carolina, for example, was able to take advantage of a net-metering program with their local utility after installing nearly 9MW of rooftop solar across 15 campuses. These solar upgrades will save the district over $29 million in energy costs over the next 20 years, more than funding themselves while creating a new financial cash flow into the district’s budget. This project also enables new STEAM curriculum, engaging students in energy generation and conservation in hands-on learning labs.
Eliminating cost volatility and avoiding unexpected expenses
Most US school districts are grappling with a portfolio of facilities that are decades past their prime. Maintaining those aging facilities often becomes reactive rather than planned—leaving districts vulnerable to costly, disruptive emergencies. This cycle of crisis spending is unsustainable, driving up long-term costs. That’s one reason why, in their 2025 Infrastructure Report Card for America’s Schools, the ASCE calls to, “urge school districts to adopt life-cycle cost analysis principles in planning and design processes to evaluate the total cost of projects and achieve the lowest net present value cost, including life-cycle O&M, in addition to capital construction.”
Outdated HVAC systems, leaky building envelopes and inefficient lighting also strain budgets by consuming massive amounts of energy. With energy price volatility on the rise, inefficient energy usage can present a threat to predictable budgeting, particularly for public schools already navigating tight financial constraints.
School districts like Greene County Schools (GCS) in Tennessee are seeing big budget impacts from taking a proactive approach to facility and energy management. Facing a growing list of deferred maintenance projects, including more than 400 aging HVAC units, GCS turned to Schneider Electric to help design a comprehensive, long-term energy management strategy that allowed the district to reallocate savings toward deferred maintenance.
Support top-line priorities by capturing O&M cost savings
Operations and maintenance (O&M) represent the second-largest expenditure in most school districts, right after personnel. Unlike staffing, however, these costs can be reduced without sacrificing student outcomes. By investing in facility modernizations—like smart building controls, LED lighting, water conserving plumbing, and clean energy technologies—schools can dramatically lower their utility bills and maintenance costs. These savings, when captured strategically, can be diverted back into what matters most: academic programming, staffing, and student engagement.
Gilbert Public Schools (GPS) in Arizona discovered first-hand how energy improvements can be an excellent tool to achieve budget sustainability.GPS started by upgrading to high-efficiency LED lighting across the district’s gymnasiums, allowing them to turn a $257,000 initial investment into more than $1.2 million in lifecycle savings over the life of the project. Next, GPS made modernizations that reduced water usage and lowered maintenance costs, from which the district ultimately realized $12.9M in lifecycle savings.
Finding budget stability in times of uncertainty
Times are uncertain, but as these stories show, budget stability is still within reach. Through smart resource optimization and strong community partnerships, schools can safeguard funding for their top priorities.
Visit Schneider Electric’s K-12 Education Hub for more inspiring success stories and insights into our budget stability solutions tailored for schools.
College affordability is one of the chief concerns of students, families, taxpayers and lawmakers in the U.S., and it extends beyond tuition prices.
Costly course materials can impede student access and success in the classroom. Over half of college students say the high price of course materials has pushed them to enroll in fewer classes or opt out of a specific course, according to a 2023 survey.
A new report from Tyton Partners, published today, finds that affordable-access programs that provide necessary materials can save students money and improve their outcomes. The report pulls data from surveys of students, administrators and faculty, as well as market research on the topic.
The background: Affordable-access programs, also called inclusive-access programs, bill students directly for their textbooks as part of their tuition and fees. Through negotiations among publishers, institutions and campus bookstores, students pay a below-market rate for their course materials, which are often digital.
This model ensures all students start the term with access to the required textbooks and course materials, allowing them to apply financial aid to textbook costs, which removes out-of-pocket expenses at the start of the term. A 2023 Student Voice survey by Inside Higher Ed found that over half of respondents have avoided buying or renting a book for class due to costs.
The first federal regulations for affordable-access programs were set in 2015 to help cap course material costs and spur utilization of inclusive access on campuses. In 2024, the Biden administration sought to redefine inclusive access by making models opt-in to provide students with greater autonomy, but the plan was ultimately paused. Most colleges have an opt-out model of affordable-access programs, requiring students to elect to be removed, according to Tyton’s report.
Critics of affordable-access programs argue that an across-the-board rate eliminates students’ ability to employ their own cost-saving methods, such as buying books secondhand or using open educational resources. Students often lose access to digital resources at the end of the term, limiting their ability to reuse or reference them.
Findings from Tyton Partners’ research point to the value of day-one course materials for student success, which can be provided through opt-out inclusive-access models.
The report: Affordable-access programs are tied to lower costs for participating students, according to the report. The average digital list price for course materials per class was $91, but the average price for course materials for students in an inclusive-access program was $58 per class. (A 2023 survey found the average student spent about $285 on course materials in the 2022–23 academic year, or roughly $33 per item.)
Opt-out affordable-access models have also placed downward pricing pressure on the market; the compound annual growth rate of course materials declined from 6.1 percent to 0.3 percent since the 2015 ED regulations.
A student survey by Tyton found that 61 percent of respondents favor affordable-access models compared to buying (13 percent), renting (11 percent) or borrowing (10 percent) course materials.
Another Angle
The Tyton Partners report identifies opt-out affordable access as one intervention that can ensure all students have access to course materials on day one, which is tied to better student outcomes.
Among students participating in inclusive access, 84 percent said they felt satisfied or neutral about their user experience, according to a survey by the National Association of College Stores. Students who had a positive view of inclusive access cited the convenience of not shopping for materials (80 percent), day-one access (78 percent) and knowing all their course materials are correct (71 percent) as the top benefits.
Among colleges that do offer inclusive access, those with opt-out models see higher student participation than those with opt-in models (96 percent versus 36 percent, respectively). Administrators report that some students, especially first-year and first-generation students, are less likely to engage in opt-in models and may then struggle because they lack the required materials, which researchers argue enables gaps to persist in student outcomes.
Researchers compared two community colleges and found that students who participated in an opt-out equitable-access program had higher course completion and lower withdrawal rates, compared to their peers who opted in. Learners from underrepresented minority backgrounds, including Black and multiracial students, saw greater gains as well.
While a majority of students indicated a preference for inclusive-access models, it’s still paramount that institutions help students fully understand the benefits of participation and offer them seamless opportunities to opt out, according to Tyton’s report.
After adopting inclusive access, institutions were likely to increase offerings and expand the number of courses within the model. A majority of surveyed faculty members (75 percent) said their institution should maintain or increase affordable-access model usage.
Report authors noted a higher administrative burden in an opt-in model, because costs are applied and resources given to each individual student who opts in, rather than simply removing students who opt out. “Since no technology currently automates the opt-in process, most institutions would need to expand their academic affairs, faculty affairs and information technology teams to handle the increased workload under opt-in models,” according to the report.
Get more content like this directly to your inbox. Subscribe here.
