This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Dive Brief:
Updates to the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule are to take effect on June 23, but companies have until April 22, 2026, to fully comply, according to the amended final rule published by the Federal Trade Commission earlier this week.
It remained unclear for months when — or if — the expanded COPPA Rule would go into effect after the FTC announced the finalized changes in January, just four days before President Donald Trump would be inaugurated.
Though the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act itself does not explicitly mention schools, the updated rule will impact how K-12 leaders interact with ed tech companies, according to student data privacy experts.
Dive Insight:
COPPA is a 26-year-old federal law that gives parents control over the data that websites can collect from children ages 13 or younger. Its regulations and enforcement are overseen by the FTC, which is required by law to review the COPPA Rule every five years.
One of the key changes in the latest COPPA Rule is that companies must obtain parental consent before using children’s data for targeted advertising or disclosing their information to third parties, according to the April 22 notice published in the Federal Register. However, school districts are still allowed to give consent to ed tech companies in lieu of parental consent as long as that data is solely used for educational purposes and not commercially.
Schools should expect to see more transparency from ed tech companies, given that they are required under the new COPPA Rule to provide a direct notice to parents — or in this case school districts — about how they plan to collect and use children’s data upon receiving consent.
The new rule also states that companies must put limits on retaining children’s data and cannot hold onto it indefinitely. Though the FTC did not specify a duration, it said companies can retain data “for only as long as is reasonably necessary to fulfill the specific purpose(s) for which the information was collected.”
In another update, companies collecting children’s data have to bolster cybersecurity plans by, for instance, conducting annual risk assessments and implementing safeguards to protect children’s sensitive information.
The FTC also expanded its definition of any collected “personal information” to include biometric data such as facial recognition or fingerprints. Online contact information and government-issued IDs like Social Security numbers are also now considered personal information.
The updates come as companies increasingly try to profit off children’s data, the FTC said when announcing the finalized changes to the COPPA Rule in January.
The new requirements also come as ed tech companies like PowerSchool have been targeted this year by cybersecurity incidents that have led to mass breaches of sensitive student data.
The Effect of Employer Understanding and Engagement on Non-Degree Credentials Report
Home >The Effect of Employer Understanding and Engagement on Non-Degree Credentials
HoMore than 500 employers share their perceptions
As the workforce evolves, many employers are considering the relevance and use of alternative credentials for upskilling or reskilling employees. This reimagining of workforce education provides an opportunity for higher ed leaders to partner with employers on microcredential programs that drive a funnel of enrollments.
Collegis teamed up with UPCEA to survey more than 500 employers about their perceptions of microcredentials and interest in partnering with colleges and universities on these non-degree programs.
Download the report to receive insights on:
What incentivizes employers to work with higher ed institutions
Employer valuation of alternative credentials
Employer use of alternative credentials in lieu of degrees in the hiring process
Facing challenges in enrollment, retention, or tech integration? Seeking growth in new markets? Our strategic insights pave a clear path for overcoming obstacles and driving success in higher education.
Unlock the transformative potential within your institution – partner with us to turn today’s roadblocks into tomorrow’s achievements. Let’s chat.
// START Analytics scripts //////////////////////////////////
function readCookie(name) {
name += ‘=’;
for (var ca = document.cookie.split(/;s*/), i = ca.length – 1; i >= 0; i–)
if (!ca[i].indexOf(name)) return ca[i].replace(name, ”);
}
function PrepareCookieForRead() {
var d = new Date();
d.setTime(d.getTime() + 1800000);
var expires = “expires=” + d.toGMTString();
document.cookie = “idSession=1; ” + expires + “; path=/”;
}
The idea of institutional autonomy in higher education institutions (HEIs) naturally comes up when discussing academic freedom. These two ideas are connected, and the simplest way to define how they relate to one another is that they are intertwined through several procedures and agreements that link people, institutions, the state, and civil society. Academic freedom and institutional autonomy cannot be compared, but they also cannot be separated and the loss of one diminishes the other. Protecting academic freedom and institutional autonomy is viewed by academics as a crucial requirement for a successful HEI. For instance, institutional autonomy and academic freedom are widely acknowledged as essential for the optimization of university operations in most African nations.
How does institutional autonomy influence academic freedom in higher education institutions in Ghana?
In some countries, universities have been subject to government control, with appointments and administrative positions influenced by political interests, leading to violations of academic autonomy and freedom. Autonomy is a crucial element in safeguarding academic freedom, which requires universities to uphold the academic freedom of their community and for the state to respect the right to science of the broader community. Universities offer the necessary space for the exercise of academic freedom, and thus, institutional autonomy is necessary for its preservation. The violation of institutional autonomy undermines not only academic freedom but also the pillars of self-governance, tenure, and individual rights and freedoms of academics and students. Universities should be self-governed by an academic community to uphold academic freedom, which allows for unrestricted advancement of scientific knowledge through critical thinking, without external limitations.
How does corporate governance affect the relationship between institutional autonomy and academic freedom?
Corporate governance mechanisms, such as board diversity, board independence, transparency, and accountability, can ensure that the interests of various stakeholders, including students, faculty, and the government, are represented and balanced. The incorporation of corporate governance into academia introduces a set of values and priorities that can restrict the traditional autonomy and academic freedom that define a self-governing profession. This growing tension has led to concerns about the erosion of academia’s self-governance, with calls for policies that safeguard academic independence and uphold the values of intellectual freedom and collaboration that are foundational to higher education institutions. Nonetheless, promoting efficient corporate governance, higher education institutions can help safeguard academic freedom and institutional autonomy, despite external pressures.
Is there a significant difference between the perceptions of males and females regarding institutional autonomy, academic freedom, and their relationship?
The appointment process for university staff varies across countries, but it is essential that non-academic factors such as gender, ethnicity, or interests do not influence the selection of qualified individuals who are necessary for the institution’s quality. Unfortunately, studies indicate that women are often underrepresented in leadership positions and decision-making processes related to academic freedom and institutional autonomy. This underrepresentation can perpetuate biases and lead to a lack of diversity in decision-making. One solution to address these disparities is to examine gender as a factor of difference to identify areas for improvement and promote gender equality in decision-making processes. By promoting diversity and inclusivity, academic institutions can create a more equitable environment that protects institutional autonomy and promotes academic freedom for everyone, regardless of their gender.
Methodology and Conceptual framework
The quantitative and predictive nature of the investigation necessitated the use of an explanatory research design. Because it enabled the us to establish a clear causal relationship between the exogenous and endogenous latent variables, the explanatory study design was chosen. The simple random sample technique was utilised to collect data from an online survey administered to 128 academicians from chosen Ghanaian universities.
The conceptual framework, explaining the interrelationships among the constructs in the context of the study is presented. The formulation of the conceptual model was influenced by the nature of proposed research questions backed by the supporting theories purported in the context of the study.
Conclusions and Implications
Institutional autonomy significantly predicts academic freedom at a strong level within higher education institutions in Ghana. Corporate governance can restrict academic freedom when its directed to yield immediate financial or marketable benefits but in this study it plays a key role in transmitting the effect of institutional autonomy. Additionally, there is a significant difference in perception between females and males concerning the institutional autonomy – academic freedom predictive relationship. Practically, higher education institutions, particularly in Ghana, should strive to maintain a level of autonomy while also ensuring that academic freedom is respected and protected. This can be achieved through decentralized governance structures that allow for greater participation of academics in decision-making processes. Institutions should actively engage stakeholders, including academics, in discussions and decisions related to institutional autonomy and academic freedom. This will ensure that diverse perspectives are considered in policy development.
Bashiru Mohammed is a final year PhD student at the faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University. He also holds Masters in Higher education and students’ affairs from the same university. His research interest includes School management and administration, TVET education and skills development.
Professor Cai Yonghong is a professor at Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University. She has published many articles and presided over several domestic and international educational projects and written several government consultant reports. Her research interest includes teacher innovation, teacher expertise, teacher’s salary, and school management.
References
AAU, (2001). ‘Declaration on the African University in the Third Millennium’.
Akpan, K. P., & Amadi, G. (2017). University autonomy and academic freedom in Nigeria: A theoretical overview. International Journal of Academic Research and Development,
Altbach, P. G. (2001). Academic freedom: International realities and challenges. Higher Education,
Aslam, S., & Joshith, V. (2019). Higher Education Commission of India Act 2018: A Critical Analysis of the Policy in the Context of Institutional Autonomy.
Becker, J. M., Cheah, J. H., Gholamzade, R., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2023). PLS-SEM’s most wanted guidance.
Hair, J., Hollingsworth, C. L., Randolph, A. B., & Chong, A. Y. L. (2017). An updated and expanded assessment of PLS-SEM in information systems research. Industrial management & data systems,
Lippa, R. A. (2005). Gender, nature, and nurture. Routledge.
Lock, I., & Seele, P. (2016). CSR governance and departmental organization: A typology of best practices. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society.
Neave, G. (2005). The supermarketed university: Reform, vision and ambiguity in British higher education. Perspectives:.
Nicol, D. (1972) Academic Freedom and Social Responsibility: The Tasks of Universities in a Changing World, Stephen Kertesz (Ed), Notre Dame, University of Notre Dame Press.
Nokkala, T., & Bacevic, J. (2014). University autonomy, agenda setting and the construction of agency: The case of the European university association in the European higher education area..
Olsen, J. P. (2007). The institutional dynamics of the European university Springer Netherlands.
Tricker, R. I. (2015). Corporate governance: Principles, policies, and practices. Oxford University Press, USA.
Zikmund, W.G., Babin, B.J., Carr, J.C. & Griffin, M. (2012). Business Research Methods. Boston: Cengage Learning.
Zulu, C (2016) ‘Gender equity and equality in higher education leadership: What’s social justice and substantive equality got to do with it?’ A paper presented at the inaugural lecture, North West University, South Africa
By Sean Brophy (@seanbrofee), Senior Lecturer at the Centre for Decent Work and Productivity, Manchester Metropolitan University.
A persistent challenge in UK higher education is the ethnicity degree awarding gap – the difference between White and ethnic minority students receiving top degrees (firsts or 2:1s). The Office for Students (OfS) aims to entirely eliminate this gap by 2030/31, but what if most of this gap reflects success in widening participation rather than systemic barriers?
Between 2005/6 and 2021/22, university participation grew 21% faster for Asian students and 17% faster for Black students compared to White students. This remarkable success in widening access might paradoxically explain one of the UK’s most persistent higher education challenges.
Figure 1 presents ethnicity gaps over time compared to a White baseline (the grey line constant at zero). The data for 2021/22 shows significant gaps: 21 percentage points for Black students, 9 for Asian students, and 4 for Mixed ethnicity students compared to their White peers. Traditional explanations focus on structural barriers, cultural differences, and potential discrimination, and much of the awarding gap remains unexplained after adjusting for prior attainment and background characteristics. However, a simpler explanation might be hiding in plain sight: the gap may also reflect a statistical effect created by varying participation rates across ethnic groups.
Here is the key insight: ethnic minority groups now participate in higher education at remarkably higher rates than White students, which likely then drives some of the observed ethnicity awarding gaps. Figure 2 presents the over-representation of ethnic groups in UK higher education relative to the White reference group (again, the constant grey line). The participation gap has grown substantially – Asian students were 22 percentage points more likely to attend university than White students in 2021/22, with Black students 18 points higher.
Over-representation of ethnic groups in HE compared to White baseline (2005/6-2021/22)
This difference in participation rates creates an important statistical effect, what economists call ‘compositional effects’. When a much larger proportion of any group enters university, that group may naturally include a broader range of academic ability. Think of it like this: if mainly the top third of White students attend university, but nearly half of ethnic minority students do, we would expect to see differences in degree outcomes – even with completely fair teaching and assessment.
This principle can be illustrated using stylized ability-participation curves for representative ethnic groups in Figure 3. These curves show the theoretical distribution of academic ability for Asian, Black, and White groups, with the red shaded area representing the proportion of students from each group accepted into higher education in 2021/22. It would be surprising if there was no degree awarding gap under these conditions!
Stylized ability-participation curves by ethnic group
This hypothesis suggests the degree awarding gap might largely reflect the success of widening participation policies. Compositional effects like these are difficult to control for in studies, and it is noteworthy that, to date, no studies on the ethnicity awarding gap have adequately controlled for these effects (including one of my recent studies).
While this theory may offer a compelling statistical explanation, future research pursuing this line of inquiry needs to go beyond simply controlling for prior achievement. We need to examine both how individual attainment evolves from early education to university, using richer measures than previous studies, and how the expansion of university participation has changed the composition of student ability over time. This analysis must also account for differences within broad ethnic categories (British Indian students, for example, show different patterns from other Asian groups) and consider how university and subject choices vary across groups.
My argument is not that compositional effects explain everything — rather, understanding their magnitude is crucial for correctly attributing how much of the gap is driven by traditional explanations, such as prior attainment, background characteristics, structural barriers, or discrimination. Only with this fuller picture can we properly target resources and interventions where they’re most needed.
If this hypothesis is proven correct, however, it underscores why the current policy focus on entirely eliminating gaps through teaching quality or support services, while well-intentioned, may be misguided. If gaps are the statistically inevitable result of differing participation patterns among ethnic groups, then institutional interventions cannot entirely eliminate them. This doesn’t mean universities shouldn’t strive to support all students effectively – but it does require us to fundamentally rethink how we measure and address educational disparities.
Rather than treating all gaps as problems to be eliminated, we should:
Fund research which better accounts for these compositional effects.
Develop benchmarks that account for participation rates when measuring degree outcomes.
Contextualize the success of widening participation with acknowledging awarding gaps as an inevitable statistical consequence.
Focus resources on early academic support for students from all backgrounds who might need additional help, particularly in early childhood.
Explore barriers in other post-16 or post-18 pathways that may be contributing to the over-representation of some groups in higher education.
On August 1, the Biden administration’s Title IX final rule goes into effect, implementing new requirements for compliance with Title IX for institutions of higher education. However, ongoing legal challenges have blocked the rule from taking effect in 26 states, as well as at certain institutions in states that have not sued the Department of Education (ED).
Background
On April 19, ED released the text of the highly anticipated Title IX final rule. The final rule expands protections against sex-based discrimination to cover sexual orientation, gender identity, and pregnancy or related conditions, and it implements new training requirements for employees and grievance procedures for handling reported cases of sex-based discrimination, including sexual harassment. To provide members with an overview of the final rule, CUPA-HR held a webinar in April, which was recorded and can be accessed for free.
Lawsuits
Shortly after the rule was published, over 20 Republican-led states and advocacy groups filed lawsuits challenging the final rule. The lawsuits sought to block ED from implementing and enforcing the final rule, though most of them homed in on concerns with expanding Title IX protections to transgender individuals through the expanded protections against discrimination based on an individual’s gender identity.
From mid-June through the end of July, federal judges across the country granted preliminary injunctions to the states and advocacy groups challenging the rule, meaning the Department of Education is blocked from enforcing the new Title IX rule on the August 1 effective date. All 26 states that sued ED for the Title IX rule were ultimately granted injunctive relief. Additionally, a decision from the U.S. District Court of Kansas expanded the preliminary injunction to include schools attended by members of the Young America’s Foundation, Female Athletes United, and Moms for Liberty. This means that ED cannot enforce the new Title IX rule at certain schools in the 24 states that didn’t challenge the rule, as well as Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico.
The Biden administration has appealed to the Supreme Court on the decisions granting the preliminary injunctions. In its emergency request, the administration is asking the court to limit the scope of the preliminary injunction to only block provisions related to gender identity. It argued that the lower court’s decisions to grant preliminary injunctions were based on concerns with the expanded protections for transgender students, and it hopes that other provisions like the new grievance procedures and training requirements can go into effect. A decision from the Supreme Court on the emergency request has not yet been issued.
Looking Ahead
Though ED is blocked from enforcing the new Title IX rule in 26 states, litigation continues in the lower courts where decisions have been issued on whether to strike down the rule. If the rule is struck down, the Biden administration is likely to appeal the decision, though it is unknown whether a decision will be released before the election and potential change in administration. CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of additional updates to the legal challenges against the Title IX final rule.
