Tag: Cost

  • Online college courses are popular, why do they still cost so much?

    Online college courses are popular, why do they still cost so much?

    Emma Bittner considered getting a master’s degree in public health at a nearby university, but the in-person program cost tens of thousands of dollars more than she had hoped to spend.

    So she checked out master’s degrees she could pursue remotely, on her laptop, which she was sure would be much cheaper.

    The price for the same degree, online, was … just as much. Or more.

    “I’m, like, what makes this worth it?” said Bittner, 25, who lives in Austin, Texas. “Why does it cost that much if I don’t get meetings face-to-face with the professor or have the experience in person?”

    Among the surprising answers is that colleges and universities are charging more for online education to subsidize everything else they do, online managers say. Huge sums are also going into marketing and advertising for it, documents show.

    Universities and colleges “see online higher education as an opportunity to make money and use it for whatever they want to make money for,” said Kevin Carey, vice president of education and work at the left-leaning think tank New America.

    Online higher education is projected to pass an impressive if little-noticed milestone this year: For the first time, more American college students will be learning entirely online than will be learning 100 percent in person.

    Bittner’s confusion about the price is widespread. Eighty percent of Americans think online learning after high school should cost less than in-person programs, according to a 2024 survey of 1,705 adults by New America.

    After all, technology has reduced prices in many other industries. And online courses don’t require classrooms or other physical facilities and can theoretically be taught to a much larger number of students, creating economies of scale.

    While consumers complained about remote learning during the pandemic, online enrollment has been rising faster than was projected before Covid hit.

    Yet 83 percent of online programs in higher education cost students as much as or more than the in-person versions, an annual survey of campus chief online learning officers finds. About a quarter of universities and colleges even tack on an additional “distance learning fee,” that survey found.

    In addition to using the income from their online divisions to help pay for the other things they do, universities say they have had to pay more than they anticipated on advising and support for online students, who get worse results, on average, than their in-person counterparts.

    Bringing down the price of a degree “was certainly a key part of the appeal” when online higher education began, said Richard Garrett, co-director of that survey of online education managers and chief research officer at Eduventures, an arm of the higher education technology consulting company Encoura.

    “Online was going to be disruptive. It was supposed to widen access. And it would reduce the price,” said Garrett. “But it hasn’t played out that way.”

    Related: Interested in more news about colleges and universities? Subscribe to our free biweekly higher education newsletter.

    Today, online instruction for in-state students at four-year public universities costs $341 a credit, the independent Education Data Initiative finds — more than the average $325 a credit for face-to-face tuition. That adds up to about $41,000 for a degree online, compared to about $39,000 in tuition for a degree obtained in person.

    Two-thirds of private four-year universities and colleges with online programs charge more for them than for their face-to-face classes, according to the survey of online managers. The average tuition for online learning at private universities and colleges comes to $516 per credit.

    And community colleges, which collectively enroll the largest number of students who learn entirely online, charge them the same as or more than their in-person counterparts in 100 percent of cases, the survey of online officers found (though Garrett said that’s likely because community college tuition overall is already comparatively low).

    Social media is riddled with angry comments about this. A typical post: “Can someone please explain to me why taking a course online can cost a couple $1000 more than in person?”

    Online education officers respond that online programs face steep startup costs and need expensive technology specialists and infrastructure. In a separate survey of faculty by the consulting firm Ithaka S+R, 80 percent said it took them as much time, or more, to plan and develop online courses as it did in-person ones because of the need to incorporate new kinds of technology.

    Online programs also need to provide faculty who are available for office hours, online advisors and other resources exclusively to support online students, who tend to be less well prepared and get worse results than their in-person counterparts. For the same reasons, many online providers have put caps on enrollment, limiting those expected economies of scale.

    “You still need advisers, you still need a writing center, a tutoring center, and now you have to provide those services for students who are at a distance,” said Dylan Barth, vice president of innovation and programs at the Online Learning Consortium, which represents online education providers.

    Related: The number of 18-year-olds is about to drop sharply, packing a wallop for colleges — and the economy

    Still, 60 percent of public and more than half of private universities are taking in more money from online education than they spend on it, the online managers’ survey found. About half said they put the money back into their institutions’ general operating budgets.

    Such cross subsidies have long been a part of higher education’s financial strategy, under which students in classes or fields that cost less to teach generally subsidize their counterparts in courses or disciplines that cost more. English majors subsidize their engineering classmates, for example. Big first-year lecture classes subsidize small senior seminars. Graduate students often subsidize undergrads.

    “Online education is another revenue stream from a different market,” said Duha Altindag, an associate professor of economics at Auburn University who has studied online programs.

    Universities “are not trying to use technology to become more efficient. They’re just layering it on top of the existing model,” said New America’s Carey, who has been a critic of some online education models.

    “Public officials are not stopping them,” he said. “They’re not coming and saying, ‘Hey, we’re seeing this new opportunity to save money. These online courses could be cheaper. Make them cheaper.’ This is just a continuation of the status quo.”

    Another page that online managers have borrowed from higher education’s traditional pricing playbook is that consumers often equate high prices with high quality, especially at brand-name colleges and universities.

    “Market success and reputation can support higher prices,” Garrett said. It’s not what online courses cost to provide that determines the price, in other words, but how much consumers are willing to pay.

    Related: Apprenticeships are a trending alternative to college — but there’s a hitch

    With online programs competing for customers across the country, rather than for those within commuting distance of a campus or willing to relocate to one, universities and colleges are also putting huge amounts into marketing and advertising.

    An example of this kind of spending was exposed in a review by the consulting firm EY of the University of Arizona Global Campus, or UAGC, which the university created by acquiring for-profit Ashford University in 2020. Obtained through a public-records request by New America, the report found that the university was paying out $11,521 in advertising and marketing for every online student it enrolled.

    The online University of Maryland Global Campus committed to spending $500 million for advertising to out-of-state students over six years, a state audit found.

    “What if you took that money and translated it into lower tuition?” asked Carey.

    The online University of Maryland Global Campus is spending $500 million to market and advertise to out-of-state students over six years.

    While they’re paying the same as or more than their in-person counterparts, meanwhile, online students get generally poorer success rates.

    Online instruction results in lower grades than face-to-face education, according to research by Altindag and colleagues at American University and the University of Southern Mississippi — though they also found that the gap is narrowing. Students online are more likely to have to withdraw from or repeat courses and less likely to graduate on time, these researchers found, which further increases the cost.

    Another study, by University of Central Florida Institute of Higher Education Director Justin Ortagus, found that taking all of their courses online reduces the odds that community college students will ever graduate.

    Lower-income students fare especially poorly online, that and other research shows; scholars say this is in part because many come from low-resourced public high schools or are balancing their classes with work or family responsibilities.

    Students who learn entirely online at any level are less likely to have graduated within eight years than students in general, who have a 66 percent eight-year graduation rate, data from the National Center for Education Statistics shows.

    Graduation rates are particularly low at for-profit universities, which enroll a quarter of the students who learn exclusively online. In the American InterContinental University System, for example, only 11 percent of students graduated within eight years after starting, federal data shows, and at the American Public University System, 44 percent. The figures are for the period ending in 2022, the most recent for which they have been widely submitted.

    Several private, nonprofit universities and colleges also have comparatively lower eight-year graduation rates for students who are online only, the data shows, including Southern New Hampshire University (37 percent) and Western Governors University (52 percent).

    Related: Some colleges aim financial aid at a declining market: students in the middle class

    If they do receive degrees, online-only students earn more than their entirely in-person counterparts for the first year after college, Eduventures finds — perhaps because they tend to be older than traditional-age students, researchers speculated. But that advantage disappears within four years, when in-person graduates overtake them.

    For all the growth in online higher education, employers appear to remain reluctant to hire graduates of it, according to still other research conducted at the University of Louisville. That study found that applicants for jobs who listed an online as opposed to in-person degree were about half as likely to get a callback for the job.

    How strongly consumers feel that online higher education should cost less than the in-person kind was evident in lawsuits brought against universities and colleges that continued to charge full tuition even after going remote during the Covid-19 pandemic.

    Students had part of their payments refunded under multimillion-dollar settlements with the University of Chicago, Pennsylvania State University, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, the University of Maine System and others.

    Yet students keep signing on. For all the complaining about remote learning at the time, its momentum seems to have been speeded up by the pandemic, which was followed by a 12 percent increase in online enrollment above what had been projected before it hit, according to an analysis of federal data by education technology consultant Phil Hill.

    Online students save on room and board costs they would face on residential campuses, and online higher education is typically more flexible than the in-person kind.

    Sixty percent of campus online officers say that online sections of classes tend to fill first, and nearly half say online student numbers are outpacing in-person enrollment.

    There have been some widely cited examples of online programs with dramatically lower tuition, such as a $7,000 online master’s degree in computer science at the Georgia Institute of Technology (compared to the estimated nearly $43,000 for the two-year in-person version), which has attracted thousands of students and a few copycat programs.

    There are also early signs that prices for online higher education could fall. Competition is intensifying from national nonprofit providers such as Western Governors, which charges a comparatively low average $8,300 per year, and Southern New Hampshire, whose undergraduate price per credit hour is a slightly lower-than-average (for online courses) $330.

    Related: Fewer students and fewer dollars mean states face closing public universities and colleges

    Universities have started cutting their ties with for-profit middlemen, called online program managers, who take big cuts of up to 80 percent of revenues. Nearly 150 such deals were canceled or ended and not renewed in 2023, the most recent year for which the information is available, the market research firm Validated Insights reports.

    Another thing that could lower prices: As more online programs go live, they no longer require high up-front investment — just periodic updating.

    “It is possible to save money on downstream costs if you offer the same course over a number of years,” Ortagus said.

     A student studies on her laptop. The number of college students who learn entirely online will this year surpass the number who take all their classes in person.

    While that survey of online officers found a tiny decline in the proportion of universities charging more for online than in-person classes, however, the drop was statistically insignificant. And as their enrollments continue to plummet, institutions increasingly need the revenue from online programs.

    Bittner, in Texas, ended up in an online master’s program in public health that was just being started by a private, nonprofit university, and was cheaper than the others she’d found.

    Her day job is at the national nonprofit Young Invincibles, which pushes for reforms in higher education, health care and economic security for young Americans. And she still doesn’t understand the online pricing model.

    “I’m so confused about it. Even in the program I’m in now, you don’t get the same access to stuff as an in-person student,” she said. “What are you putting into it that costs so much?”

    Contact writer Jon Marcus at 212-678-7556 or jmarcus@hechingerreport.org.

    This story about the cost of online higher education was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for our higher education newsletter. Listen to our higher education podcast.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    Source link

  • Schools are surveilling kids to prevent gun violence or suicide. The lack of privacy comes at a cost

    Schools are surveilling kids to prevent gun violence or suicide. The lack of privacy comes at a cost

    The Education Reporting Collaborative, a coalition of eight newsrooms, is investigating the unintended consequences of AI-powered surveillance at schools. Members of the Collaborative are AL.com, The Associated Press, The Christian Science Monitor, The Dallas Morning News, The Hechinger Report, Idaho Education News, The Post and Courier in South Carolina, and The Seattle Times.

    One student asked a search engine, “Why does my boyfriend hit me?” Another threatened suicide in an email to an unrequited love. A gay teen opened up in an online diary about struggles with homophobic parents, writing they just wanted to be themselves.

    In each case and thousands of others, surveillance software powered by artificial intelligence immediately alerted Vancouver Public Schools staff in Washington state.

    Vancouver and many other districts around the country have turned to technology to monitor school-issued devices 24/7 for any signs of danger as they grapple with a student mental health crisis and the threat of shootings.

    The goal is to keep children safe, but these tools raise serious questions about privacy and security – as proven when Seattle Times and Associated Press reporters inadvertently received access to almost 3,500 sensitive, unredacted student documents through a records request about the district’s surveillance technology.

    The released documents show students use these laptops for more than just schoolwork; they are coping with angst in their personal lives.

    Tim Reiland, 42, center, the parent of daughter Zoe Reiland, 17, right, and Anakin Reiland, 15, photographed in Clinton, Miss., Monday, March 10, 2025, said he had no idea their previous schools, in Oklahoma, were using surveillance technology to monitor the students. (AP Photo/Rogelio V. Solis)

    Students wrote about depression, heartbreak, suicide, addiction, bullying and eating disorders. There are poems, college essays and excerpts from role-play sessions with AI chatbots.

    Vancouver school staff and anyone else with links to the files could read everything. Firewalls or passwords didn’t protect the documents, and student names were not redacted, which cybersecurity experts warned was a massive security risk.

    The monitoring tools often helped counselors reach out to students who might have otherwise struggled in silence. But the Vancouver case is a stark reminder of surveillance technology’s unintended consequences in American schools.

    In some cases, the technology has outed LGBTQ+ children and eroded trust between students and school staff, while failing to keep schools completely safe.

    Gaggle, the company that developed the software that tracks Vancouver schools students’ online activity, believes not monitoring children is like letting them loose on “a digital playground without fences or recess monitors,” CEO and founder Jeff Patterson said.

    Related: A lot goes on in classrooms from kindergarten to high school. Keep up with our free weekly newsletter on K-12 education.

    Roughly 1,500 school districts nationwide use Gaggle’s software to track the online activity of approximately 6 million students. It’s one of many companies, like GoGuardian and Securly, that promise to keep kids safe through AI-assisted web surveillance.

    The technology has been in high demand since the pandemic, when nearly every child received a school-issued tablet or laptop. According to a U.S. Senate investigation, over 7,000 schools or districts used GoGuardian’s surveillance products in 2021.

    Vancouver schools apologized for releasing the documents. Still, the district emphasizes Gaggle is necessary to protect students’ well-being.

    “I don’t think we could ever put a price on protecting students,” said Andy Meyer, principal of Vancouver’s Skyview High School. “Anytime we learn of something like that and we can intervene, we feel that is very positive.”

    Dacia Foster, a parent in the district, commended the efforts to keep students safe but worries about privacy violations.

    “That’s not good at all,” Foster said after learning the district inadvertently released the records. “But what are my options? What do I do? Pull my kid out of school?”

    Foster says she’d be upset if her daughter’s private information was compromised.

    “At the same time,” she said, “I would like to avoid a school shooting or suicide.”

    Related: Ed tech companies promise results, but their claims are often based on shoddy research

    Gaggle uses a machine learning algorithm to scan what students search or write online via a school-issued laptop or tablet 24 hours a day, or whenever they log into their school account on a personal device. The latest contract Vancouver signed, in summer 2024, shows a price of $328,036 for three school years – approximately the cost of employing one extra counselor.

    The algorithm detects potential indicators of problems like bullying, self-harm, suicide or school violence and then sends a screenshot to human reviewers. If Gaggle employees confirm the issue might be serious, the company alerts the school. In cases of imminent danger, Gaggle calls school officials directly. In rare instances where no one answers, Gaggle may contact law enforcement for a welfare check.

    A Vancouver school counselor who requested anonymity out of fear of retaliation said they receive three or four student Gaggle alerts per month. In about half the cases, the district contacts parents immediately.

    “A lot of times, families don’t know. We open that door for that help,” the counselor said. Gaggle is “good for catching suicide and self-harm, but students find a workaround once they know they are getting flagged.”

    Related: Have you had experience with school surveillance tech? Tell us about it

    Seattle Times and AP reporters saw what kind of writing set off Gaggle’s alerts after requesting information about the type of content flagged. Gaggle saved screenshots of activity that set off each alert, and school officials accidentally provided links to them, not realizing they weren’t protected by a password.

    After learning about the records inadvertently released to reporters, Gaggle updated its system. Now, after 72 hours, only those logged into a Gaggle account can view the screenshots. Gaggle said this feature was already in the works but had not yet been rolled out to every customer.

    The company says the links must be accessible without a login during those 72 hours so emergency contacts—who often receive these alerts late at night on their phones—can respond quickly.

    In Vancouver, the monitoring technology flagged more than 1,000 documents for suicide and nearly 800 for threats of violence. While many alerts were serious, many others turned out to be false alarms, like a student essay about the importance of consent or a goofy chat between friends.

    Foster’s daughter Bryn, a Vancouver School of Arts and Academics sophomore, was one such false alarm. She was called into the principal’s office after writing a short story featuring a scene with mildly violent imagery.

    “I’m glad they’re being safe about it, but I also think it can be a bit much,” Bryn said.

    School officials maintain alerts are warranted even in less severe cases or false alarms, ensuring potential issues are addressed promptly.

    “It allows me the opportunity to meet with a student I maybe haven’t met before and build that relationship,” said Chele Pierce, a Skyview High School counselor.

    Related: Students work harder when they think they are being watched

    Between October 2023 and October 2024, nearly 2,200 students, about 10% of the district’s enrollment, were the subject of a Gaggle alert. At the Vancouver School of Arts and Academics, where Bryn is a student, about 1 in 4 students had communications that triggered a Gaggle alert.

    While schools continue to use surveillance technology, its long-term effects on student safety are unclear. There’s no independent research showing it measurably lowers student suicide rates or reduces violence.

    A 2023 RAND study found only “scant evidence” of either benefits or risks from AI surveillance, concluding: “No research to date has comprehensively examined how these programs affect youth suicide prevention.”

    “If you don’t have the right number of mental health counselors, issuing more alerts is not actually going to improve suicide prevention,” said report co-author Benjamin Boudreaux, an AI ethics researcher.

    In the screenshots released by Vancouver schools, at least six students were potentially outed to school officials after writing about being gay, trans or struggling with gender dysphoria.

    LGBTQ+ students are more likely than their peers to suffer from depression and suicidal thoughts, and turn to the internet for support.

    “We know that gay youth, especially those in more isolated environments, absolutely use the internet as a life preserver,” said Katy Pearce, a University of Washington professor who researches technology in authoritarian states.

    In one screenshot, a Vancouver high schooler wrote in a Google survey form they’d been subject to trans slurs and racist bullying. Who created this survey is unclear, but the person behind it had falsely promised confidentiality: “I am not a mandated reporter, please tell me the whole truth.”

    When North Carolina’s Durham Public Schools piloted Gaggle in 2021, surveys showed most staff members found it helpful.

    But community members raised concerns. An LGBTQ+ advocate reported to the Board of Education that a Gaggle alert about self-harm had led to a student being outed to their family, who were not supportive.

    Glenn Thompson, a Durham School of the Arts graduate, poses in front of the school in Durham, N.C., Monday, March 10, 2025. (AP Photo/Karl DeBlaker)

    Glenn Thompson, a Durham School of the Arts graduate, spoke up at a board meeting during his senior year. One of his teachers promised a student confidentiality for an assignment related to mental health. A classmate was then “blindsided” when Gaggle alerted school officials about something private they’d disclosed. Thompson said no one in the class, including the teacher, knew the school was piloting Gaggle.

    “You can’t just (surveil) people and not tell them. That’s a horrible breach of security and trust,” said Thompson, now a college student, in an interview.

    After hearing about these experiences, the Durham Board of Education voted to stop using Gaggle in 2023. The district ultimately decided it was not worth the risk of outing students or eroding relationships with adults.

    Related: School ed tech money mostly gets wasted. One state has a solution

    The debate over privacy and security is complicated, and parents are often unaware it’s even an issue. Pearce, the University of Washington professor, doesn’t remember reading about Securly, the surveillance software Seattle Public Schools uses, when she signed the district’s responsible use form before her son received a school laptop.

    Even when families learn about school surveillance, they may be unable to opt out. Owasso Public Schools in Oklahoma has used Gaggle since 2016 to monitor students outside of class.

    For years, Tim Reiland, the parent of two teenagers, had no idea the district was using Gaggle. He found out only after asking if his daughter could bring her personal laptop to school instead of being forced to use a district one because of privacy concerns.

    The district refused Reiland’s request.

    When his daughter, Zoe, found out about Gaggle, she says she felt so “freaked out” that she stopped Googling anything personal on her Chromebook, even questions about her menstrual period. She didn’t want to get called into the office for “searching up lady parts.”

    “I was too scared to be curious,” she said.

    School officials say they don’t track metrics measuring the technology’s efficacy but believe it has saved lives.

    Yet technology alone doesn’t create a safe space for all students. In 2024, a nonbinary teenager at Owasso High School named Nex Benedict died by suicide after relentless bullying from classmates. A subsequent U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights investigation found the district responded with “deliberate indifference” to some families’ reports of sexual harassment, mainly in the form of homophobic bullying.

    During the 2023-24 school year, the Owasso schools received close to 1,000 Gaggle alerts, including 168 alerts for harassment and 281 for suicide.

    When asked why bullying remained a problem despite surveillance, Russell Thornton, the district’s executive director of technology responded: “This is one tool used by administrators. Obviously, one tool is not going to solve the world’s problems and bullying.”

    Related: Schools prove soft targets for hackers

    Despite the risks, surveillance technology can help teachers intervene before a tragedy.

    A middle school student in the Seattle-area Highline School District who was potentially being trafficked used Gaggle to communicate with campus staff, said former superintendent Susan Enfield.

    “They knew that the staff member was reading what they were writing,” Enfield said. “It was, in essence, that student’s way of asking for help.”

    Still, developmental psychology research shows it is vital for teens to have private spaces online to explore their thoughts and seek support.

    “The idea that kids are constantly under surveillance by adults — I think that would make it hard to develop a private life, a space to make mistakes, a space to go through hard feelings without adults jumping in,” said Boudreaux, the AI ethics researcher.

    Gaggle’s Patterson says school-issued devices are not the appropriate place for unlimited self-exploration. If that exploration takes a dark turn, such as making a threat, “the school’s going to be held liable,” he said. “If you’re looking for that open free expression, it really can’t happen on the school system’s computers.”

    Claire Bryan is an education reporter for The Seattle Times. Sharon Lurye is an education data reporter for The Associated Press.

    Contact Hechinger managing editor Caroline Preston at 212-870-8965, on Signal at CarolineP.83 or via email at preston@hechingerreport.org.

    This story about AI-powered surveillance at schools was produced by the Education Reporting Collaborative, a coalition of eight newsrooms that includes AL.com, The Associated Press, The Christian Science Monitor, The Dallas Morning News, The Hechinger Report, Idaho Education News, The Post and Courier in South Carolina, and The Seattle Times.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    Source link

  • Outsourcing Managed IT Services for Higher Ed: Navigating Complexity, Cost, and Control Concerns

    Outsourcing Managed IT Services for Higher Ed: Navigating Complexity, Cost, and Control Concerns

    College administrators know that technology can be a powerful tool for improving operations and boosting student success. However, given the rapid pace of technological change and the shrinking pool of qualified IT professionals, getting a real return on IT investments can be a major challenge.

    One way to deal with these challenges is to outsource IT management and operations, and explore managed IT services for higher education.

    While change can seem daunting, IT outsourcing can significantly improve overall IT management and strategic focus while mitigating risk and reducing cost. It’s about more than just maintaining IT infrastructure and operations –– it’s about using technology strategically to create better student experiences and drive institutional success.

    One of the primary concerns I hear from administrators is the perceived complexity of moving to an outsourced IT model. Such a move impacts people, processes, and technology – so if not managed thoughtfully, unintended consequences could occur.

    However, a well-structured transition plan significantly simplifies the process and minimizes risk to business operations during the transition. At Collegis, we employ a phased approach, starting with a thorough assessment of an institution’s current IT ecosystem, including resources, processes, financials, systems, infrastructure, projects, operations, etc. This assessment forms the foundation of a customized transition plan designed around the institution’s unique needs, outlining each step – from stabilization and standardization to technology optimization and, finally, transformation.

    A key element of our approach is the stabilization phase, where we address immediate pain points and ensure that systems are secure and able to support day-to-day operations with no disruptions. This initial phase creates the foundation from which to build on and, ultimately, a level of confidence that sets the stage for longer-term improvements.

    By breaking the transition into manageable phases and providing clear communication throughout the process, we alleviate much of the anxiety associated with change. Instead of a big “lift and shift,” the multi-year transition plan means current systems and processes continue to be supported. Administrators often express relief once they understand our structured approach and how it addresses their specific needs.

    For example, our managed IT services solution for Saint Francis University involved stabilizing the core technology and infrastructure, standardizing expectations through strong IT governance (including installing a virtual CIO), and optimizing business processes and infrastructure for increased efficiency. This identified $200,000 in budgetary waste that was able to be reallocated toward technology upgrades.

    Cost is, of course, a major factor in any IT outsourcing decision. Administrators are understandably concerned about the financial implications of outsourcing.

    Studies show that many higher education institutions spend more than 75% of their IT budgets on basic support and technology maintenance. This is partially due to the technology debt that accrues after years of neglect and a lack of the precise skill sets needed to address deficiencies and create more efficient and effective operations. Just think of the impact technology could make if schools could reduce this amount by 25%+ and reallocate these dollars to improving student experiences or driving institutional cost savings.

    Outsourcing can free up these valuable financial resources, enabling institutions to focus on projects that drive growth and enhance the student experience. Collegis partners typically experience:

    • Predictable budgeting: We offer all standard IT management services through a clear and transparent fixed fee mutually determined for the life of the partnership so institutions know exactly what they spend for IT management every year. There are no surprises.
    • Access to top IT talent: While Collegis goes out of its way to assess existing staff and rebadge those who have the needed skill sets and cultural fit, we also bring a team of more than 185 IT professionals to our partnerships, ensuring schools have access to the right skillsets at the right time.
    • Better contract negotiations: Schools benefit from Collegis’s expertise in IT contract negotiations and cross-institutional expertise during all technology contract negotiations. We have long-term relationships with third-party vendors and can negotiate from a position of strength because we support dozens of similar institutions.
    • Lower cybersecurity costs: We handle network, application, and data security, reducing a school’s need for additional resources or security solutions. Our partnerships have also helped many schools successfully stabilize or even reduce their cybersecurity insurance premiums.
    • Elimination of consulting fees: Our model also eliminates the need for expensive consultants to fill staffing gaps or deliver strategic projects.

    Most schools find that an IT managed services partnership with Collegis either saves them money or is cost-neutral. Our economies of scale enable us to provide expert services at a lower cost than most institutions could achieve in-house. Plus, we provide clear service level agreements (SLAs) to ensure accountability.

    Beyond cost savings, outsourcing can also improve ROI by ensuring technology investments deliver their intended value. By leveraging the expertise of a dedicated IT partner, institutions can optimize their systems and ensure they are getting the most out of their technology investments.

    Some administrators worry about losing control when they outsource IT. They’re concerned about relinquishing oversight of critical systems and data. However, a well-designed outsourcing agreement includes clear governance structures and communication channels, ensuring they retain control.

    One way we’ve addressed this concern is by establishing a steering committee for IT governance that includes representatives from the institution’s leadership and fosters collaboration and shared decision-making.

    Data security is paramount, and we understand the sensitivity of institutional data. We are a SOC 2-compliant organization that undergoes regular external audits to ensure the security and integrity of the data we manage.

    Our dedicated information security officers (CISOs) work closely with each institution to implement best practices and address any security concerns. We also proactively monitor systems for potential threats, leveraging our experience working with multiple institutions to identify and mitigate risks before they escalate.

    Outsourcing IT management in higher education can be a game-changer for institutions looking to navigate the complexities of the evolving IT landscape. Working with a partner that focuses on open communication, a phased approach to transitioning, a stronger cybersecurity posture, and leveraging your technology’s true potential can eliminate concerns about complexity, cost, and control while enabling schools to achieve strategic goals.

    Finally, when considering IT outsourcing, institutions cannot underestimate the importance and value of cultural fit. Finding a partner who shares your values and can be trusted to run a critical function for your institution is just as important as any of the other considerations I’ve highlighted above.

    — Kim Fahey, CEO Collegis Education

    Innovation Starts Here

    Higher ed is evolving — don’t get left behind. Explore how Collegis can help your institution thrive.

    Source link

  • 20 Michigan towns with unconstitutional public comment policies that could cost them

    20 Michigan towns with unconstitutional public comment policies that could cost them

    • National free speech group FIRE flags 20 cities and towns that restrict citizens’ First Amendment rights
    • Another city — Eastpointe, MI — learned the hard way that censorship doesn’t pay, ponying up $83K after violating four citizens’ rights at a city council meeting

    DETROIT, Feb. 6, 2025 — The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression today urged 20 Michigan cities and towns — including Grand Rapids, Saginaw, and several around Detroit — to reform public comment policies that unconstitutionally censor their citizens.

    “Public office doesn’t come with the power to muzzle the people you serve,” said FIRE Director of Public Advocacy Aaron Terr. “These cities should immediately repeal their unconstitutional public comment rules to avoid being dragged into court. Otherwise they won’t just be violating the First Amendment — they’ll be writing checks to the constituents they tried to silence.”

    The First Amendment and recent court rulings affirm citizens’ right to criticize government officials and otherwise speak their minds during the public comment periods of city council meetings. Rules that unduly restrict this right are illegal, undemocratic, and prevalent in Michigan.

    Local governments can impose reasonable, well-defined, viewpoint-neutral restrictions on public comments at their meetings. They can, for example, prohibit genuinely disruptive conduct — such as speaking out of turn or making true threats. But the rules in these 20 towns go too far, banning large swaths of protected speech. Many bar “personal attacks” on government officials, some are plain bizarre, and all are unconstitutional.

    • Clinton Township bans talk of excrement, “disrespectful” references to the supernatural, and “personal attacks.” 
    • The use of “vulgar, obscene . . . or otherwise inappropriate language or gestures” is prohibited at Southgate City Council meetings.
    • Romulus City Council bans remarks with racial, ethnic, religious, sexual or national origin “overtones.” 
    • “Abusive” and “personally directed” public comments are prohibited at Park Township government meetings.
    • Rochester Hills City Council bans “inappropriate” public comments at its meetings.

    Similar rules have not fared well in court. In 2018, a man was ejected from an Ohio school board meeting after criticizing the board for suppressing opposition to pro-gun views. He sued and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit — which has jurisdiction over the Great Lakes State — sided with him. Its decision invalidated bans on “antagonistic,” “abusive,” and “personally directed” public comments at local government meetings.

    Four years later, FIRE put those principles to work when we represented several Eastpointe, MI, residents in their suit against the city and its mayor. Then-Mayor Monique Owens used a rule barring comments directed at city council members as justification to shout down and silence four constituents who tried to criticize her during public-comment periods. Last year, Eastpointe reached a settlement with the residents that required the city to stop enforcing the unconstitutional rule, pay each plaintiff $17,910, and pay additional attorneys’ fees.

    When municipal bodies fail to respect constituents’ First Amendment rights, they can expect to hear from FIRE.

    • A Surprise, AZ, mom was forcibly ejected from a city council meeting for criticizing the city attorney’s pay raise, and FIRE is now representing her in a lawsuit.  
    • After a Uvalde, TX, dad was banned from school grounds for questioning the qualifications of a school district police officer at a school board meeting, FIRE got the school district to lift the ban. 
    • A man was ejected from an Edison, NJ, city council meeting for violating its ban on “props” — by holding a copy of the U.S. Constitution and a small American flag. Thanks to FIRE’s advocacy, the council quickly repealed the ridiculous ban.

    FIRE is happy to help local governments bring their public comment policies into compliance with the First Amendment, free of charge. In 2023, FIRE successfully worked with Bay City, MI, to eliminate its unconstitutional restrictions on public comments that were “derogatory,” “vulgar,” or “demeaning” to city officials or employees.

    “The First Amendment doesn’t protect politicians’ egos,” Terr said. “It protects the public’s right to hold them accountable.”

    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought — the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE educates Americans about the importance of these inalienable rights, promotes a culture of respect for these rights, and provides the means to preserve them.

    CONTACT

    Jack Whitten, Communications Campaign Specialist, FIRE: 215-717-3473; media@thefire.org

    Source link

  • How Families Make College Work at Any Cost (Caitlin Zaloom)

    How Families Make College Work at Any Cost (Caitlin Zaloom)

    This audiobook narrated by Kate Harper examines how the financial pressures of paying for college affect the lives and well-being of middle-class families The struggle to pay for college is one of the defining features of middle-class life in America today. At kitchen tables all across the country, parents agonize over whether to burden their children with loans or to sacrifice their own financial security by taking out a second mortgage or draining their retirement savings. Indebted takes readers into the homes of middle-class families throughout the nation to reveal the hidden consequences of student debt and the ways that financing college has transformed family life. 

    Caitlin Zaloom gained the confidence of numerous parents and their college-age children, who talked candidly with her about stressful and intensely personal financial matters that are usually kept private. In this remarkable book, Zaloom describes the profound moral conflicts for parents as they try to honor what they see as their highest parental duty—providing their children with opportunity—and shows how parents and students alike are forced to take on enormous debts and gamble on an investment that might not pay off. 

    What emerges is a troubling portrait of an American middle class fettered by the “student finance complex”—the bewildering labyrinth of government-sponsored institutions, profit-seeking firms, and university offices that collect information on household earnings and assets, assess family needs, and decide who is eligible for aid and who is not. Superbly written and unflinchingly honest, Indebted breaks through the culture of silence surrounding the student debt crisis, revealing the unspoken costs of sending our kids to college.

    Source link

  • Helping Families See the True Cost of College

    Helping Families See the True Cost of College

    When it comes to choosing a college, the sticker price can be a major turnoff. A significant 65% of prospective students and 67% of their families report ruling out institutions based solely on the advertised “sticker price”.

    Source: 2024 Prospective Family Engagement Report

    But what does this mean for colleges and universities, and how can they help families look beyond the sticker shock to understand the true affordability of a degree?

    The rising tide of sticker shock

    Chart showing increase in number of families ruling out campuses because of price, from 58% in 2022 to 67% in 2024Chart showing increase in number of families ruling out campuses because of price, from 58% in 2022 to 67% in 2024
    Sources: 2024 Prospective Family Engagement and 2022 Prospective Family Engagement reports


    Ruling out colleges based on the sticker price is on the rise – and it’s happening fast. In just three years, the percentage of families eliminating schools from consideration due to high upfront costs has jumped from 58% in 2022 to 67% in 2024.

    This suggests that concerns about affordability are increasingly driving the college planning process, with families taking a hard look at the bottom line before even exploring other factors. But is this sticker shock reaction always a rational response, or might colleges be losing out on applicants who could afford to attend with the help of financial aid?

    The generational divide

    Chart showing that that nearly 70% of first generation students and families have ruled out an institution based on price.Chart showing that that nearly 70% of first generation students and families have ruled out an institution based on price.
    Sources: 2024 Prospective Family Engagement and 2024 High School Students’ Perceptions of College Financing

    A notable divide emerges when comparing the sticker shock responses of first-generation college students to their continuing-generation peers. A full 69% of first-generation students reported ruling out schools based on sticker price, compared to 64% of continuing-generation students.

    This disparity is also reflected in families’ perceptions, with 68% of first-generation families eliminating schools due to cost versus 62% of continuing-generation families. This could suggest that first-generation students and families are less familiar with the intricacies of college financing and the crucial distinction between sticker and net price.

    As a result, they may be more likely to focus on the daunting upfront cost without fully exploring the available aid options. How can colleges better reach, educate, and support these first-generation students about affordability to prevent them from ruling out institutions that could be a great fit financially and academically?

    The role of family involvement

    Chart showing that 75% of students whose families are not involved in college planning will rule out an institution based on sticker price.Chart showing that 75% of students whose families are not involved in college planning will rule out an institution based on sticker price.
    Source: 2024 High School Students’ Perceptions of College Financing

    The level of family involvement in the college search process also plays a role in sticker shock decisions. Students with very involved parents were less likely to rule out colleges based on sticker price (63%), suggesting that parental guidance may help applicants look beyond the initial cost to consider the bigger financial picture.

    But what about students with less involved parents? A striking 75% of students with uninvolved parents ruled out colleges based on sticker price. How can colleges step in to provide the necessary counseling and education about affordability for these applicants?

    Loan anxiety and sticker shock: A shared concern for students and families

    For both students and their families, concerns about loan debt play a significant role in the sticker shock equation. A striking 70% of students who expressed concerns about borrowing to finance their education were more likely to rule out colleges based on high prices. Families share this loan anxiety – 73% of families with loan concerns reported ruling out institutions based on sticker price. This underscores the need for colleges to address loan concerns head-on through transparent communication about financing options, debt management strategies, and a degree’s long-term return on investment.

    Chart showing more than 70% of students have fears about borrowing to pay for college.Chart showing more than 70% of students have fears about borrowing to pay for college.
    Source: 2024 High School Students’ Perceptions of College Financing

    By providing reassurance and resources, institutions can help applicants feel more comfortable with the financial commitment and less likely to rule out schools due to initial sticker shock. Importantly, 72% of students and 79% of families reported that their borrowing concerns were negatively impacting their college planning, suggesting that proactive support from institutions is crucial in mitigating loan anxiety and promoting a more holistic view of affordability.

    The net price imperative

    While sticker price can be a major deterrent, the actual net price of attendance paints a very different picture. Institutions must do a better job of clearly communicating net price information to prospective students and families.

    This means highlighting available aid, scholarships, and financing options to demonstrate affordability. Tools like net price calculators can be powerful in helping applicants understand the true cost of attendance. But are these resources being effectively utilized and communicated to offset the sticker shock reaction?

    To help families and students look beyond sticker shock, institutions can take the following steps:

    1. Clearly communicate net price information: Highlight the difference between sticker price and net price on your website and in recruitment materials.
    2. Provide transparent financing information: Break down the costs of attendance and explain financing options in clear, easy-to-understand language.
    3. Offer user-friendly net price calculators: Help families estimate their actual out-of-pocket costs with interactive net price calculators.
    4. Proactively counsel about aid: Don’t wait for families to ask – offer personalized financial aid counseling to prospective students.
    5. Address loan anxiety: Provide resources and guidance to help students and families understand responsible borrowing and debt management.
    6. Highlight value beyond price: Showcase the long-term value and outcomes of a degree from your institution to demonstrate the return on investment.
    7. Partner with high schools: Collaborate with high school counselors to provide early education about college financing and affordability.
    8. Target outreach to first-gen students and their families: Recognize that first-generation students may need additional support and education about the college financing process.
    9. Follow up with sticker-shocked applicants: If a student expresses interest but seems deterred by the sticker price, proactively reach out with information about aid and affordability options.
    10. Leverage video and AI to personalize the process: Use video content and artificial intelligence tools to provide personalized, interactive explanations of financial aid and affordability. AI-powered chatbots can offer 24/7 support to answer families’ financing questions, while personalized video messages can break down complex aid packages in an easy-to-digest format. By embracing these technologies, institutions can create a more engaging, self-service-oriented experience that empowers families to confidently navigate the affordability landscape.

    The bottom line and more findings from our Perceptions report

    The sticker shock phenomenon is a real and growing concern in college admissions. However, by understanding the factors that drive these decisions and taking proactive steps to educate families, colleges can help prospective students see beyond the advertised tuition rate to consider the true affordability of a degree. This requires a nuanced understanding of the college financing landscape and a commitment to clear, transparent communication. With the right approaches, institutions can attract diverse applicants who may have otherwise been deterred by sticker shock.

    You can read more insights and findings in the 2024 High School Students’ Perceptions of College Financing report, co-sponsored by our partners Ardeo and Halda. This report captures data from a survey of more than 2,100 11th- and 12th-grade students. Read it now.

    Source link