by Anna Mountford-Zimdars, Louise Ashley, Eve Worth, and Chris Playford
Higher education has become the go-to solution for social inequality over the past three decades. Widening access and enhancing graduate outcomes have been presented as ways to generate upward mobility and ensure fairer life chances for people from all backgrounds. But what if the very ecosystem designed to level the playing field also inadvertently helps sustain the very inequalities we are hoping to overcome?
Social mobility agendas appear progressive but are often regressive in practice. By focusing on the movement of individuals rather than structural change, they leave wealth and income disparities intact. A few people may rise, but the wider system remains unfair – but now dressed up with a meritocratic veneer. We explore these issues in our new article in the British Journal of Sociology, ‘Ambivalent Agents: The Social Mobility Industry and Civil Society under Neoliberalism in England’. We examined the role of the UK’s ‘social mobility industry’: charities, foundations, and third-sector organisations primarily working with universities to identify ‘talented’ young people from less advantaged backgrounds and help them access higher education or elite careers. We were curious – are these organisations transforming opportunity structures and delivering genuine change, or do they help stabilise the present system?
The answer to this question is of course complex but, in essence, we found the latter. Our analysis of 150 national organisations working in higher education since the early 1990s found that organisations tend to reflect the individualistic approach outlined above and blend critical rhetoric about inequality with delivery models that are funder-compatible, metric-led and institutionally convenient. Thus – and we expect unintentionally on part of the organisations – they often perform inclusion of ‘talent’ without asking too many uncomfortable structural questions about the persistence and reproduction of unequal opportunities.
We classified organisations in a five-part typology. Most organisations fell into the category of Pragmatic Progressives: committed to fairness but shaped by funder priorities, accountability metrics, and institutional convenience. A smaller group acted as Structural Resistors, pushing for systemic change. Others were System Conformers, largely reproducing official rhetoric. The Technocratic deliverers were most closely integrated with the state, often functioning as contracted agents with managerial, metrics-focused delivery models. Finally, Professionalised Reformers seek reform through evidence-based programmes and advocacy, often with a focus on elite education and professions.
This finding matters beyond higher education. Civil society – the world of charities, voluntary groups, and associations – has long been seen as the sphere where resistance to inequality might flourish. Yet our findings show that many organisations are constrained or co-opted into protecting the status quo by limited budgets, demanding funders, and constant requirements to demonstrate ‘impact’. Our point is not to disparage gains or to criticise the intentions of the charity sector but to push for honest and genuine change.
Labour’s new Civil Society Covenant, which promises to strengthen voluntary organisations and reduce short-termism, could create opportunities. But outsourcing responsibility for social goods to arm’s-length actors also risks producing symbolic reforms that celebrate individual success stories without changing the odds for the many. If higher education is to deliver genuine fairness, we must distinguish between performing fairness for a few and redistributing opportunities for the many. We thus want to conclude by suggesting three practical actions for universities, access and participation teams, and regulators such as the Office for Students.
Audit for Ambivalence
Using our typology, do you find you are working with a mix of organisations, or mainly those focused on individuals? (Please contact us for accessing our coding framework to support your institutional or regional audits.)
Rebalance activity towards structural levers
Continue high-quality outreach, but, where possible, shift resources towards systemic interventions such as contextual admissions with meaningful grade floors, strong maintenance support, foundation pathways with guaranteed progression and fair, embedded work placements
Ask the regulator to measure structural outcomes as well as individual ones, at sector and regional levels. When commissioning work, ask for participatory governance and community accountability and measure that too.
We believe civil-society partnerships can play a vital role – but not if they become the sole heavy-lifter or metric of success. Universities are well positioned to embrace structural levers, protect space for critique, and hold themselves accountable for distributional outcomes. If this happens, the crowded charity space around social mobility could become a vibrant counter-movement for genuine change to opportunities and producing fairness rather than a prop for maintaining an unequal status quo.
In terms of research, our next step is speaking directly to people working in the ‘social mobility industry.’ Do they/you recognise the tensions we highlight? How do they navigate them? Have we fairly presented their work? We look forward to continuing the discussion on this topic and how to enhance practice for transformative change.
Anna Mountford-Zimdars is a Professor in Education at the University of Exeter.
Louise Ashley is Associate Professor in the School of business and management at Queen Mary University London.
Eve Worth is a Lecturer in History at the University of Exeter.
Christopher James Playford is a Senior Lecturer in Sociology at the University of Exeter.
His central charge is that I’m a misogynist. His evidence is that I use the word “hoeflation.” Using a term coined by others to describe a social trend does not mean I endorse it. Reporting or analyzing a phenomenon is not the same as condoning it.
In my essay, I wrote,
“And, unfortunately for men, dating algorithms concentrate attention on the top 10 percent—those deemed most attractive—rendering the majority effectively unseen. This imbalance has led young men to coin the term ‘hoeflation,’ the grind of chasing women they might barely fancy, but will date just to escape loneliness. (Young American men experience loneliness at rates far exceeding those of their counterparts across other developed countries.)”
This was an observation on what is being said among some young men. The term reflects a real cultural phenomenon: Many young men feel alienated from modern dating, seeing it as transactional, unequal or algorithmically stacked against them. It expresses their view that women’s expectations have risen out of reach.
Jared Gould is managing editor of Minding the Campus.
By Dean Hoke, October 13, 2025 – In the small towns of America, where factories have closed and downtowns often stand half-empty, a small college can be the heartbeat that keeps a community alive. These institutions—sometimes enrolling only a few hundred students—serve as economic anchors, cultural centers, and symbols of hope for regions that might otherwise face decline.
From the farmlands of Indiana to the mountain towns of Appalachia, small colleges generate economic energy far beyond their campus gates. They attract students, faculty, and visitors, stimulate local business, and provide the trained workforce that rural economies desperately need. They also embody something deeper: a sense of identity and connection that sustains civic life.
Economic Impact: Anchors in Fragile Economies
Small colleges are powerful, if often overlooked, economic engines. Their presence is felt in every paycheck, every restaurant filled with students and parents, and every local business that relies on their purchasing power.
Across the United States, nearly half of all public four-year colleges, over half of all public two-year colleges, and a third of private four-year colleges make up the 1,100 rural-serving institutions as identified by the Alliance for Research on Regional Colleges (ARRC). These colleges educate 1.6 million students, accounting for more than a quarter of total U.S. enrollments. Yet their role extends far beyond classrooms and degrees.
Rural-serving institutions are frequently among the largest employers in their counties, especially where other industries have faded. In areas where 35% or more of working-age adults are unemployed, 83% of local colleges are rural-serving, making them pillars of economic stability. Unlike large universities in metropolitan areas, their spending is highly localized—on utilities, food service, maintenance, and partnerships with small vendors.
Economic models underscore their importance. The Brookings Institution found that high-performing four-year colleges contribute roughly $265,000 more per student to local economies than lower-performing institutions, while two-year colleges add about $184,000. In many rural towns, every institutional dollar recirculates multiple times, magnifying its effect.
Beyond direct payroll and procurement, small colleges attract outside dollars. Students and visitors rent housing, dine locally, and shop downtown. Athletic events, alumni weekends, and summer programs bring tourists who fill hotels and restaurants. The IMPLAN consulting group estimated that when a college closes, the average regional loss equals 265 jobs, $14 million in labor income, and $32 million in total economic output—a devastating hit in thin rural economies.
Human Capital and Workforce Development
If small colleges are the economic engines of rural communities, they are also the primary producers of human capital. They educate the teachers, nurses, business owners, and civic leaders who sustain local life.
The Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond describes community colleges as “anchor institutions” that shape regional labor markets. Many partner with local employers to design training programs that meet specific workforce needs—often at minimal cost to businesses. In one case study, a rural college collaborated with an advanced manufacturing firm to tailor instruction for machine technicians, ensuring a steady local labor supply and convincing the company to expand rather than relocate.
Rural-serving colleges are also critical in addressing educational disparities. Only 22% of rural adults hold a bachelor’s degree, compared with 37% of non-rural Americans. This gap translates directly into income inequality: according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service, nonmetro workers with a bachelor’s degree earned a median of $52,837 in 2023, compared with substantially higher earnings for their urban counterparts. In states such as Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, rural degree attainment lags 10 to 15 percentage points behind state averages.
Beyond Economics: RSIs as Equity Infrastructure
Rural-serving institutions are more than economic engines—they are critical equity infrastructure, often providing the only realistic pathway to higher education for students the system has historically marginalized.
RSIs enroll far higher proportions of high-need students than their urban counterparts. Nearly 50% of undergraduates at RSIs receive Pell Grants, compared to 34% nationally. These institutions also serve disproportionate numbers of first-generation students, working adults, and students from underrepresented communities who lack access to flagship universities.
For many rural students, the local college isn’t a choice—it’s the only option. Geographic isolation, family obligations, and financial constraints make residential college attendance impossible. Research shows that every ten miles from the nearest college reduces enrollment probability by several percentage points. For students without transportation, without broadband for online learning, or without family support to relocate, the local institution is existential.
When rural colleges close, equity suffers most. Displaced students, if they re-enroll at all, face higher debt burdens and lower completion rates. Wealthier students can transfer to distant institutions; low-income students stop out. Communities of color, already underserved, lose ground.
Policymakers often evaluate colleges through narrow metrics: completion rates and graduate earnings. But this ignores mission differentiation. RSIs serve students that flagship universities would never admit, in places that for-profit colleges would never enter, at prices that private colleges could never match. Investing in rural-serving institutions isn’t charity—it’s infrastructure investment in equity, ensuring every region has pathways to economic mobility. If America is serious about educational equity, it must recognize RSIs as essential public infrastructure, not discretionary spending.
Despite these barriers, rural institutions remain lifelines for upward mobility. They offer affordable tuition, flexible programs for working adults, and pathways for first-generation students who might otherwise forgo higher education.
However, the pressures are real. Rural students face tighter finances, higher borrowing costs, and fewer grant opportunities. Nearly half of rural undergraduates receive Pell Grants, but average aid remains lower than that at urban institutions. Many graduates leave rural areas to find higher-paying jobs, a “brain drain” that weakens local economies. Yet for those who stay—or return later—their impact is outsized, driving new business formation, civic leadership, and generational stability.
Example: Goshen College and Elkhart County, Indiana — A Model of Mutual Benefit
The following example illustrates the positive interdependence of a small college and its surrounding community—how shared growth, service, and opportunity can strengthen both the institution and the region it calls home.
Few examples better demonstrate this relationship than Goshen College in northern Indiana. Founded in 1894 by the Mennonite Church, Goshen sits in Elkhart County, a region best known for its manufacturing and recreational vehicle industries. While the area has long been an economic hub, its continued success depends heavily on education and workforce development—both areas where Goshen College has quietly excelled for more than a century.
Goshen employs more than 300 full-time and part-time faculty and staff, making it one of the city’s largest private employers. Its local purchasing—from food services to maintenance and printing—injects millions of dollars annually into the county’s economy. The student body, drawn from across the Midwest and around the world, supports rental housing, restaurants, and small businesses throughout the region.
According to the 2024 Independent Colleges of Indiana Economic Impact Study, Goshen College contributes roughly $33 million each year to the regional economy through employment, operations, and visitor spending. Beyond the numbers, the college enriches community life. The Goshen College Music Center and Merry Lea Environmental Learning Center are regional treasures, hosting performances, lectures, and research programs that attract thousands of visitors annually. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the college partnered with local health officials to serve as a testing and vaccination site—further demonstrating its civic commitment. Its nursing, environmental studies, and teacher preparation programs continue to meet critical workforce needs across Elkhart County and beyond.
Goshen College stands as a model of how a small private college and its community can thrive together. Its example underscores a broader truth: when rural colleges remain strong, the benefits extend far beyond campus—bolstering jobs, sustaining income, and enriching the civic and cultural life that define their regions.
Social and Cultural Role: The Heart of Civic Life
Beyond numbers, the social and cultural influence of rural colleges may be their most irreplaceable contribution. In many counties, the college auditorium doubles as the performing arts center, the gym as the public gathering space, and the library as a community hub.
Rural colleges host art shows, festivals, lectures, and athletics that bring people together across generations. They sponsor service projects, tutoring programs, and food drives that connect students with their neighbors. For residents who might otherwise feel isolated or overlooked, the local college provides a sense of belonging and civic pride.
Research from the National Endowment for the Arts underscores that local arts participation strengthens community bonds and well-being. Rural colleges amplify that effect by providing both venues and expertise. Their faculty often lead community theater, music ensembles, or public workshops—bringing culture to places that might otherwise lack access.
The COVID-19 pandemic vividly demonstrated this social bond. While large universities shifted to remote learning with relative ease, small rural colleges had to improvise with limited broadband access and fewer resources. Yet many became essential service providers—hosting testing centers, distributing food, and maintaining human contact in otherwise isolated communities.
In these moments, small colleges revealed what they have always been: not just educators, but neighbors and caretakers.
Challenges: Fragility and the Risk of Decline
Despite their immense value, small rural colleges operate under fragile conditions. Their scale limits efficiency, their funding sources are volatile, and demographic shifts threaten their enrollment base.
Enrollment Declines and Demographic Pressures.
A steep decline in traditional-age students is projected to start by 2026, with the number of new high school graduates expected to fall by about 13 percent by 2041, according to The Chronicle of Higher Education, March 3, 2025, article “What is the Demographic Cliff”. For rural colleges already competing for a shrinking pool of students, this decline threatens their enrollment base and financial viability. Many have already experienced double-digit enrollment drops since the Great Recession. Rural public bachelor’s/master’s institutions enroll 5% fewer students today than in 2005, while community colleges struggle to recover from pandemic-era losses.
Financial Constraints. Small colleges rely heavily on tuition revenue and relatively modest endowments. According to the Urban Institute, the median private nonprofit four-year college holds about $33,000 in endowment assets per student, compared with hundreds of thousands of dollars per student at elite universities such as Amherst or Princeton. For many rural private colleges, endowment resources are often well below this national median. Their financial models depend heavily on tuition and auxiliary income, leaving them vulnerable when enrollment softens. Fundraising capacity is also limited: alumni bases are smaller and often less affluent than those of major research universities, making sustained growth in endowment and annual giving more difficult to achieve.
Operational Challenges. Compliance, accreditation, and technology costs weigh disproportionately on small staffs. Many rural colleges lack the personnel to pursue major grants or expand programs quickly. Geographic isolation compounds difficulties in recruiting faculty and attracting external partnerships.
Brain Drain and Opportunity Gaps. Even when colleges succeed in educating local students, retaining them can be difficult. Many leave for urban areas with higher wages and broader opportunities. The irony is painful: the better a rural college fulfills its mission of empowerment, the more likely it may lose its graduates.
Closures and Community Fallout. When a small college shuts its doors, the ripple effects are severe. Studies estimate average regional losses of over $20 million in GDP and hundreds of jobs per closure. Local businesses—cafés, landlords, bookstores—suffer immediately. Housing markets soften, municipal tax revenues drop, and cultural life diminishes. It can take a decade or more for a community to recover, if it ever does.
Reversing the Talent Flow: Retention Strategies That Work
The brain drain challenge is not insurmountable. Several states and institutions have pioneered retention strategies that show measurable results.
Loan forgiveness programs specifically targeting rural retention have gained traction. Kansas’s Rural Opportunity Zones offer up to $15,000 in student loan repayment for graduates who relocate to designated counties. Maine provides annual tax credits up to $2,500 for graduates who live and work in-state. Early data suggests these programs can shift settlement patterns, particularly in high-demand fields like nursing and teaching.
The most effective models involve tri-party partnerships: colleges provide education and career counseling, employers offer competitive wages and loan assistance, and municipalities contribute housing support or tax relief. In one Ohio example, a regional hospital, community college, and county government created a “stay local” nursing pathway that reduced turnover by 40% over five years.
Place-based scholarships are also emerging as retention tools. “Hometown Scholarships” provide enhanced aid for students from surrounding counties who commit to working regionally after graduation. When paired with community-engaged learning and local internships throughout the curriculum, these programs cultivate regional identity—shifting the narrative from “I have to leave to succeed” to “I can build a meaningful career here.”
Federal policy could amplify these efforts. A Rural Talent Corps modeled on the National Health Service Corps could leverage student loan forgiveness to address workforce shortages while stabilizing rural economies. The brain drain will never disappear entirely, but intentional investment can shift the calculus from inevitable loss to manageable flow.
Policy Pathways and Strategies for Resilience
Sustaining small colleges—and the communities they support—requires creativity, collaboration, and policy attention.
1. Deepen Local Partnerships. Rural colleges thrive when they align closely with regional needs. Employer partnerships, dual-enrollment programs, and apprenticeships can connect education directly to local labor markets. In Indiana and Ohio, several colleges now co-design health care and manufacturing programs with regional employers, ensuring steady pipelines of skilled workers.
2. Form Regional Alliances. Small institutions can collaborate rather than compete. Shared academic programs, cross-registration, and joint purchasing agreements can reduce costs and expand offerings. Examples such as the New England Small College Innovation Consortium show how collective action can extend capacity and visibility.
3. Diversify Revenue and Mission. Rural colleges can strengthen financial resilience by expanding adult education, microcredentials, and workforce training. Many are converting underused buildings into community hubs, co-working spaces, or conference centers. Others are developing online and hybrid programs to reach place-bound learners in neighboring counties.
4. Increase State and Federal Support. Federal recognition of Rural-Serving Institutions within the Higher Education Act could unlock targeted funding similar to programs for Minority-Serving Institutions. States should adapt funding formulas to reflect mission-based outcomes—rewarding colleges that serve low-income, first-generation, and local students rather than penalizing them for small scale.
5. Encourage Philanthropic Investment. Foundations and donors have historically overlooked rural institutions in favor of urban flagships. Increasing awareness of their impact could mobilize new giving streams, particularly from community foundations and regional philanthropists.
6. Invest in Infrastructure. Broadband access, housing, and transportation are essential to sustaining rural higher education. Expanding digital infrastructure allows colleges to deliver online learning, attract remote faculty, and connect to global markets.
Looking Ahead: The Role of Small Colleges in Rural Renewal
As rural America seeks to reinvent itself in the 21st century, small colleges are uniquely positioned to lead that renewal. They combine local trust with national expertise, and they possess the physical, intellectual, and moral infrastructure to drive change from within.
Their future will depend on adaptability. Colleges that align programs with regional industries, embrace digital learning, and form strategic alliances can thrive despite demographic headwinds. Institutions that cling to older models may struggle.
Yet the measure of success should not be enrollment size alone. A rural college’s value lies in its multiplier effect—on jobs, community life, and civic identity. For many counties, it is the last remaining institution still rooted in the public good.
Conclusion: Investing in Irreplaceable Infrastructure
Small colleges in rural America are far more than schools. They are community builders, employers, cultural anchors, and symbols of local resilience. Their closure can hollow out a county; their success can revive one.
The rural-serving institutions identified by ARRC represent a quarter of U.S. enrollments but touch nearly half the nation’s geography. They serve regions facing population loss, persistent poverty, and limited opportunity—yet they continue to educate, employ, and inspire.
The choice facing policymakers, philanthropists, and citizens is simple: either we invest in these engines of opportunity, or we risk watching the lights go out in hundreds of rural towns.
The question is no longer whether we can afford to support small rural colleges but whether America can afford not to.
Sources and References
Alliance for Research on Regional Colleges (ARRC).Identifying Rural-Serving Institutions in the United States (2022).
Brookings Institution.The Value of Higher Education to Local Economies (2021).
Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond.Community Colleges as Anchor Institutions: A Regional Development Perspective (2020).
National Student Clearinghouse Research Center.High School Benchmarks 2022: National College Progression Rates.
National Endowment for the Arts.Rural Arts, Design, and Innovation in America (2017).
Lumina Foundation.Stronger Nation: Learning Beyond High School Builds American Talent (2024).
National Skills Coalition.Building a Skilled Workforce for Rural America (2021).
IMPLAN Group, LLC.Measuring the Economic Impact of Higher Education Institutions (2023).
U.S. Census Bureau.Educational Attainment in the United States: 2023 (American Community Survey Tables).
Bureau of Labor Statistics.Employment and Earnings by Educational Attainment, 2023.
Goshen College.Economic Impact Report 2022 and institutional data from the Office of Institutional Research.
Dean Hoke is Managing Partner of Edu Alliance Group, a higher education consultancy, and a Senior Fellow for the Sagamore Institute located in Indianapolis, Indiana. He formerly served as President/CEO of the American Association of University Administrators (AAUA). Dean is a champion for small colleges in the US. and is committed to celebrating their successes, highlighting their distinctions and reinforcing how important they are to the higher education ecosystem in the US. Dean is the creator and co-host for the podcast series Small College America.
Social emotional learning — lessons in soft skills like listening to people you disagree with or calming yourself down before a test — has become a flashpoint in the culture wars.
The conservative political group Moms for Liberty opposes SEL, as it is often abbreviated, telling parents that its “goal is to psychologically manipulate students to accept the progressive ideology that supports gender fluidity, sexual preference exploration, and systemic oppression.” Critics say that parents should discuss social and emotional matters at home and that schools should stick to academics. Meanwhile, some advocates on the left say standard SEL classes don’t go far enough and should include such topics as social justice and anti-racism training.
While the political battle rages on, academic researchers are marshalling evidence for what high-quality SEL programs actually deliver for students. The latest study, by researchers at Yale University, summarizes 12 years of evidence, from 2008 to 2020, and it finds that 30 different SEL programs, which put themselves through 40 rigorous evaluations involving almost 34,000 students, tended to produce “moderate” academic benefits.
Related: Our free weekly newsletter alerts you to what research says about schools and classrooms.
The meta-analysis, published online Oct. 8 in the peer-reviewed journal Review of Educational Research, calculated that the grades and test scores of students in SEL classes improved by about 4 percentile points, on average, compared with students who didn’t receive soft-skill instruction. That’s the equivalent of moving from the 50th percentile (in the middle) to the 54th percentile (slightly above average). Reading gains were larger (more than 6 percentile points) than math gains (fewer than 4 percentile points). Longer-duration SEL programs, extending more than four months, produced double the academic gains — more than 8 percentile points.
“Social emotional learning interventions are not designed, most of the time, to explicitly improve academic achievement,” said Christina Cipriano, one of the study’s four authors and an associate professor at Yale Medical School’s Child Study Center. “And yet we demonstrated, through our meta-analytic report, that explicit social emotional learning improved academic achievement and it improved both GPA and test scores.”
Cipriano also directs the Education Collaboratory at Yale, whose mission is to “advance the science of learning and social and emotional development.”
The academic boost from SEL in this 2025 paper is much smaller than the 11 percentile points documented in an earlier 2011 meta-analysis that summarized research through 2007, when SEL had not yet gained widespread popularity in schools. That has since changed. More than 80 percent of principals of K-12 schools said their schools used an SEL curriculum during the 2023-24 school year, according to a survey by the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) and the RAND Corporation.
The Yale researchers only studied a small subset of the SEL market, programs that subjected themselves to a rigorous evaluation and included academic outcomes. Three-quarters of the 40 studies were randomized-controlled trials, similar to pharmaceutical trials, where schools or teachers were randomly assigned to teach an SEL curriculum. The remaining studies, in which schools or teachers volunteered to participate, still had control groups of students so that researchers could compare the academic gains of students who did not receive SEL instruction.
The SEL programs in the Yale study taught a wide range of soft skills, from mindfulness and anger management to resolving conflicts and setting goals. It is unclear which soft skills are driving the academic gains. That’s an area for future research.
“Developmentally, when we think about what we know about how kids learn, emotional regulation is really the driver,” said Cipriano. “No matter how good that curriculum or that math program or reading curriculum is, if a child is feeling unsafe or anxious or stressed out or frustrated or embarrassed, they’re not available to receive the instruction, however great that teacher might be.”
Cipriano said that effective programs give students tools to cope with stressful situations. She offered the example of a pop quiz, from the perspective of a student. “You can recognize, I’m feeling nervous, my blood is rushing to my hands or my face, and I can use my strategies of counting to 10, thinking about what I know, and use positive self talk to be able to regulate, to be able to take my test,” she said.
The strongest evidence for SEL is in elementary school, where the majority of evaluations have been conducted (two-thirds of the 40 studies). For young students, SEL lessons tend to be short but frequent, for example, 10 minutes a day. There’s less evidence for middle and high school SEL programs because they haven’t been studied as much. Typically, preteens and teens have less frequent but longer sessions, a half hour or even 90 minutes, weekly or monthly.
Cipriano said that schools don’t need to spend “hours and hours” on social and emotional instruction in order to see academic benefits. A current trend is to incorporate or embed social and emotional learning within academic instruction, as part of math class, for example. But none of the underlying studies in this paper evaluated whether this was a more effective way to deliver SEL. All of the programs in this study were separate stand-alone SEL lessons.
Advice to schools
Schools are inundated by sales pitches from SEL vendors. Estimates of the market size range wildly, but a half dozen market research firms put it above $2 billion annually. Not all SEL programs are necessarily effective or can be expected to produce the academic gains that the Yale team calculated.
Cipriano advises schools not to be taken in by slick marketing. Many of the effective programs have no marketing at all and some are free. Unfortunately, some of these programs have been discontinued or have transformed through ownership changes. But she says school leaders can ask questions about which specific skills the SEL program claims to foster, whether those skills will help the district achieve its goals, such as improving school climate, and whether the program has been externally evaluated.
“Districts invest in things all the time that are flashy and pretty, across content areas, not just SEL,” said Cipriano. “It may never have had an external evaluation, but has a really great social media presence and really great marketing.”
Cipriano has also built a new website, improvingstudentoutcomes.org, to track the latest research on SEL effectiveness and to help schools identify proven programs.
Cipriano says parents should be asking questions too. “Parents should be partners in learning,” said Cipriano. “I have four kids, and I want to know what they’re learning about in school.”
This meta-analysis probably won’t stop the SEL critics who say that these programs force educators to be therapists. Groups like Moms for Liberty, which holds its national summit this week, say teachers should stick to academics. This paper rejects that dichotomy because it suggests that emotions, social interaction and academics are all interlinked.
Before criticizing all SEL programs, educators and parents need to consider the evidence.
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.
Recently published data from the educational consulting group EAB shows that first-year students at two-year colleges want help connecting with peers on campus; nearly half reported dissatisfaction with their social lives since starting college. The report outlines ways to create engagement and other priorities for community college students.
Community college in context: First- to second-year retention is the greatest predictor of completion for students enrolled in a two-year degree program, according to data from the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center.
Community colleges are among the most diverse higher ed institutions, with students more likely to be working adults, parents and first-generation learners compared to their four-year peers.
The EAB data identifies key trends in first-year community college students’ experiences and how institutions can improve their retention.
Methodology
EAB’s survey included responses from over 12,600 first-year college students, including 1,531 enrolled in community colleges. The survey was fielded in February and March 2024.
The data: When asked to name the most disappointing elements of their college experience so far, students indicated they felt disconnected from the campus community. Forty-two percent of respondents said their social life was a top disappointment, followed by not making friends or meeting new people. An additional 35 percent of students said they felt as though they didn’t belong.
This mirrors results from a 2025 survey conducted by Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab, which found that only 20 percent of two-year students rated their sense of social belonging at college as above average or excellent, with the greatest share of respondents indicating they have an average sense of belonging (49 percent). By comparison, 29 percent of four-year students said they had an above average or excellent sense of belonging.
EAB’s report recommends that two-year colleges create small interventions to support students’ desire for community, including arranging drop-in events, hobby groups or peer mentorship programs. Making clubs easier to join through flexible meeting times or virtual meetings can also accommodate learners’ busy schedules, according to the report.
One-third of respondents to EAB’s survey said they were disappointed by classes and academics, and one in five students said faculty had disappointed them.
EAB’s community college survey also found that 32 percent of respondents had experienced bias or exclusion in some capacity since starting college, with the greatest share of respondents saying they faced criticism for their physical appearance or for the high school they attended. The results indicate a need for mechanisms for students to report harassment and connect with mental health supports, according to EAB’s report.
When asked what a “safe campus” means to them, the greatest share of community college respondents selected sufficient support for mental health and wellness (67 percent) and low or no property crime (67 percent). A similar number indicated that low incidence of sexual assault was key to creating a safe campus environment (66 percent).
Mental health concerns are one of the top reasons students of all backgrounds leave higher education, but community college students are even more vulnerable because they can be less financially secure or have fewer resources to address poor mental health.
However, community college counseling centers often have smaller staffs and serve only a fraction of their enrolled students; 2025 data from the Association for University and College Counseling Center Directors found that only 5 percent of all community college students receive support from their counseling center.
When asked what best represents the value of higher education, successful job placement after graduation was the top choice among community college students (44 percent), followed by availability of scholarships (42 percent). Internships, co-ops and active learning experiences (33 percent) were less important than generous financial aid awards (38 percent) and moderate tuition prices.
Too many universities overlook the richness of the human stories that define them, relying instead on polished marketing campaigns and generic social media content to attract the next generation of students.
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
Social media is a front door for student outreach.
Let us be honest: College planning is not just about campus tours and glossy brochures anymore. These days, it is about late-night scrolling. It is about finding your future in a 15-second TikTok or watching a day-in-the-life dorm vlog on YouTube, possibly squeezed between a skateboarding dog and a viral dance challenge. And let us admit it, none of this is mindless. Students make real decisions right there in the middle of the scroll, about where they belong, who they want to be, and what opportunities are out there (Astleitner & Schlick, 2025).
That is the story the 2025 E-Expectations Trend Report tells us. Social media is not a bonus channel for student outreach; it is the front door. In fact, 63% of students are on Instagram, but only 53% see college content there. That is a missed opportunity (RNL, Halda, & Modern Campus, 2025). Here is the twist: Colleges know social is powerful, too. The 2025 Marketing and Recruitment Practices Report for Undergraduate Students shows that enrollment teams rank social media, retargeted, and video ads among their most effective digital tactics. Still, when it comes time to pull out their wallets, colleges spend most of their spending on Instagram and Facebook, while TikTok and YouTube, where teenagers spend much of their time, are left underused (RNL, 2025).
Social media is where the search begins
The E-Expectations data shows that for 56% students, social media matters most when they start thinking about college. Before they ever request information or take a tour, they are watching you. They are searching for clues, hints, and maybe a sign that this could be their future home.
We know they are asking themselves:
“Could I see myself there?”
“Do these students look like me?”
“Would I fit in?”
This lines up with findings from the Pew Research Center (2024), which reports that over 90% of teenagers use social media every day, and platforms like Instagram and TikTok are where they are most active. More importantly, teenagers rely on these platforms for support in decision-making, including school decisions (American Student Assistance, 2021).
For first-generation and underrepresented students, that early scroll matters even more. Social media often serves as their first “window in,” a way to explore campus life and build confidence before they ever reach out (Wohn, Ellison, Khan, Fewins-Bliss, & Gray, 2013; Brown, Pyle, & Ellison, 2022). Maybe they are wondering if the dining hall food is as good as those Instagram stories claim, or if the students in the videos hang out together.
Your social media should say:
“We see you. We want you to feel welcome before you even set foot on campus.”
Yet, the 2025 Marketing Practices Report suggests that many institutions lead with brand identity campaigns, polished facilities videos, or rankings rather than authentic student stories that help them feel like they belong (RNL, 2025). Students are looking for belonging; colleges are still showing off prestige. That gap is where connections can get lost.
What makes students follow?
The E-Expectations data makes one thing clear: Students want more than glossy photos. They want real, raw, relevant content that speaks to their life and dreams.
37% follow colleges for student life content.
31% want “the lowdown” on how to apply.
30% are all about content in their major
That desire for honesty is backed up by research: High school students value user-generated content for authenticity but still expect official accounts to provide reliable information. The sweet spot is when both work together (Karadağ, Tosun, & Ayan, 2024). Emotional validation from peers does not just spark a like; it deepens their sense of connection (Brandão & Ramos, 2024). In other words, students are not just following but searching for a place where they feel understood.
Not just where, but when
The E-Expectations data details a crucial truth: Social media matters most when students start college planning. More than half (56%) are scrolling and watching before picking up a brochure or visiting a website. After that, social media’s influence drops steadily as they move through applications, visits, and acceptance. By the time they are accepted, only 21% say social media still plays a significant role (RNL, 2025).
The Marketing Practices Report, however, shows that many colleges still dial up their social spend around yield campaigns (RNL, 2025). That timing mismatch means institutions may miss the critical “imagination phase” when students decide if a school even makes their list. We want to meet them at the beginning, not just at the finish line.
Other research backs this up: Universities with consistent, active presences across platforms are far more likely to stay on students’ minds (Capriotti, Oliveira, & Carretón, 2024), and aligning posts with algorithmic sequencing ensures they see the content when it matters (Cingillioglu, Gal, & Prokhorov, 2024). We want to make sure we are in their feed when they need us the most, not just when institutions need them.
Human connections start with digital ones
Behind every follow, like, and story tap is a student looking for an exciting and safe future. Research on elite universities shows the highest engagement comes from Instagram content that blends professionalism with authenticity (Bonilla Quijada, Perea Muñoz, Corrons, & Olmo-Arriaga, 2022). Prospective students use social media to assess fit, culture, and belonging in admissions (Jones, 2023).
When we lean into authentic stories on students’ platforms, we can transform social media from a megaphone into a welcome mat. The 2025 Marketing and Recruitment Practices Report shows that social ads are effective, but they work best when they align with the raw, real, and relevant content students say draws them in (RNL, 2025).
This is what we should be doing
Institutions should aim to do more than hope students do not scroll past. Encourage exploration, curiosity, and the search for stories that sound like their own. Teenagers are not interested in polished perfection alone; they are looking for something real that feels possible for them.
You, as institutions, need to show up where students are. Meet them in their late-night scroll, not just in a campus brochure. Answer their questions about laundry machines and dining hall mysteries, as well as the questions about belonging and opportunity. When you share genuine stories and welcome every curiosity, no matter how unusual, you help students see themselves on your campuses.
Our collective mission goes beyond applications and acceptance rates. We want students to find their people, place, and purpose. We care about more than numbers; we care about each student’s journey. Let us help them write the next chapter, not just enroll for the next semester.
Be the reason a student stops scrolling and starts imagining a future with you!
Students are already scrolling. The question is: Will they stop on your story? Get the data, benchmarks, and practical recommendations in the 2025 E-Expectations Report. The late-night scroll is real. Let’s make sure students find you there! Explore the 2025 E-Expectations Report for practical strategies to build authentic, high-impact connections with prospective students.
Talk with our marketing and recruitment experts
RNL works with colleges and universities across the country to ensure their marketing and recruitment efforts are optimized and aligned with how student search for colleges. Reach out today for a complimentary consultation to discuss:
A new DESSA screener to be released for the Fall ‘25 school year–designed to be paired with a strength-based student self-report assessment–accurately predicted well-being levels in 70 percent of students, a study finds.
According to findings from Riverside Insights, creator of research-backed assessments, researchers found that even students with strong social-emotional skills often struggle with significant mental health concerns, challenging the assumption that resilience alone indicates student well-being. The study, which examined outcomes in 254 middle school students across the United States, suggests that combining risk and resilience screening can enable identification of students who would otherwise be missed by traditional approaches.
“This research validates what school mental health professionals have been telling us for years–that traditional screening approaches miss too many students,” said Dr. Evelyn Johnson, VP of Research & Development at Riverside Insights. “When educators and counselors can utilize a dual approach to identify risk factors, they can pinpoint concerns and engage earlier, in and in a targeted way, before concerns become major crises.”
The study, which offered evidence of, for example, social skills deficits among students with no identifiable or emotional behavioral concerns, provides the first empirical evidence that consideration of both risk and resilience can enhance the predictive benefits of screening, when compared to strengths-based screening alone.
In the years following COVID, many educators noted a feeling that something was “off” with students, despite DESSA assessments indicating that things were fine.
“We heard this feedback from lots of different customers, and it really got our team thinking–we’re clearly missing something, even though the assessment of social-emotional skills is critically important and there’s evidence to show the links to better academic outcomes and better emotional well-being outcomes,” Johnson said. “And yet, we’re not tapping something that needs to be tapped.”
For a long time, if a person displayed no outward or obvious mental health struggles, they were thought to be mentally healthy. In investigating the various theories and frameworks guiding mental health issues, Riverside Insight’s team dug into Dr. Shannon Suldo‘s work, which centers around the dual factor model.
“What the dual factor approach really suggests is that the absence of problems is not necessarily equivalent to good mental health–there really are these two factors, dual factors, we talk about them in terms of risk and resilience–that really give you a much more complete picture of how a student is doing,” Johnson said.
“The efficacy associated with this dual-factor approach is encouraging, and has big implications for practitioners struggling to identify risk with limited resources,” said Jim Bowler, general manager of the Classroom Division at Riverside Insights. “Schools told us they needed a way to identify students who might be struggling beneath the surface. The DESSA SEIR ensures no student falls through the cracks by providing the complete picture educators need for truly preventive mental health support.”
The launch comes as mental health concerns among students reach crisis levels. More than 1 in 5 students considered attempting suicide in 2023, while 60 percent of youth with major depression receive no mental health treatment. With school psychologist-to-student ratios at 1:1065 (recommended 1:500) and counselor ratios at 1:376 (recommended 1:250), schools need preventive solutions that work within existing resources.
The DESSA SEIR will be available for the 2025-2026 school year.
This press release originally appeared online.
eSchool Media staff cover education technology in all its aspects–from legislation and litigation, to best practices, to lessons learned and new products. First published in March of 1998 as a monthly print and digital newspaper, eSchool Media provides the news and information necessary to help K-20 decision-makers successfully use technology and innovation to transform schools and colleges and achieve their educational goals.
For schools, colleges, and universities, social media has become more than just a communications tool. It’s now a primary stage for community engagement, student recruitment, and institutional storytelling. It’s where prospects discover programs, parents check updates, and alumni stay connected. But here’s the challenge: opportunity without clear guidelines can quickly lead to risk. Without a social media policy, schools leave themselves vulnerable to privacy breaches, inconsistent messaging, blurred boundaries between staff and students, misinformation, accessibility oversights, and even regulatory non-compliance.
That’s why a strong, modern school social media policy is essential. It empowers your team with a clear mandate, sets guardrails for professional and ethical use, and establishes workflows that make social platforms a strategic advantage rather than a liability. Done right, a policy doesn’t stifle creativity; it gives staff, faculty, and student ambassadors the confidence to represent your institution authentically, safely, and effectively.
This guide will walk you through a step-by-step, practical framework for building a school social media policy from the ground up. Drawing on Canadian legal requirements like PIPEDA, MFIPPA, and FOIP/FOIPPA, as well as accessibility standards such as AODA and WCAG, we’ll highlight best practices you can adapt to your own institutional context. We’ll also pull in examples from reputable policies and toolkits already in use across the education sector, so you can see how schools of all sizes, from K-12 districts to large universities, are tackling this challenge.
The goal? To help you design a policy that protects your institution, builds trust with your community, and unlocks the full potential of social media as a driver of engagement and recruitment.
Struggling with enrollment?
Our expert digital marketing services can help you attract and enroll more students!
Step 1: Scope and Objectives (Set the Mandate)
The first step in building a school social media policy is setting its scope and objectives. In other words, define exactly what the policy will and won’t cover, and establish its purpose. Without a clear mandate, policies can easily become either too vague to be useful or so broad they’re unenforceable.
Start with the scope. Your policy should outline the types of accounts and activities it governs. This typically includes:
Official institutional accounts (the main school, college, or university channels).
Department, program, and athletics accounts are managed under the institutional brand.
Professional use of social media by staff when tied to their role at the institution.
Personal accounts only when they intersect with professional responsibilities, for example, when an employee references their school role in a bio or shares institutional content.
It’s equally important to clarify who the policy applies to. Most schools extend it beyond full-time employees to include contractors, volunteers, trustees or board members, and student workers. That ensures consistency across every voice representing the institution.
Next, define platforms in scope. Policies usually include public-facing social networks (Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, X/Twitter, LinkedIn) and messaging apps when used for school business (e.g., WhatsApp, Slack, or Teams). Learning management systems (LMS) or academic collaboration tools like Brightspace or Google Classroom may be excluded if they’re already governed by separate policies.
Finally, tie the scope to objectives. A strong policy should:
Support institutional values and brand consistency.
Protect privacy and data security.
Ensure compliance with laws and regulations.
Safeguard professional boundaries between staff, students, and the public.
Promote accessibility and inclusivity.
Provide clear guidance for staff and students so they can engage with confidence.
Example: Arcadia University’s social media policy explicitly applies to “all faculty, staff, students, trustees, volunteers, and third-party vendors” who manage accounts on behalf of the university. In other words, anyone handling an official or work-related social media presence is within the policy’s scope, not just employees. This breadth ensures a consistent standard across all channels and individuals associated with the school’s online presence.
Step 2: Risk and Needs Assessment (Ground It in Reality)
Before drafting rules, you need a clear picture of how social media is currently used across your institution. Start with an audit: which accounts exist, who manages them, what devices they use, and what level of access is granted? This mapping exercise not only shows how sprawling your social presence may be but also reveals immediate risks.
Categorize those risks clearly:
Privacy: posting student names, images, or personal data without consent.
Reputational: off-brand messaging, unmoderated comments, or negative publicity.
Operational: lost passwords, shadow accounts, or inactive pages damaging credibility.
Compliance: failures in records retention, accessibility (AODA/WCAG), or anti-spam legislation.
Example: University of Waterloo (Renison University College) – The School of Social Work’s social media policy begins with a frank acknowledgment of the rapidly changing social media landscape and the challenges it poses (e.g. blurred boundaries between students and professionals). It emphasizes the need for guidelines to protect everyone involved from “potential negative consequences,” directly addressing the risks and needs that prompted the policy. This reality-grounded preamble shows the policy was built in response to actual issues observed in practice.
Go further by interviewing principals, faculty, coaches, and IT/security staff. These conversations often uncover grey areas, like student leaders running unofficial team accounts or staff using messaging apps for school business.
For inspiration, review policies like the Toronto District School Board’s Procedure PR735, which provides clear guidance on professional use and compliance (TDSB PR735 PDF).
Finally, create a simple risk register (spreadsheet) listing each risk, its likelihood, potential impact, current controls, and planned mitigations. Revisit this quarterly to keep your policy grounded in reality, not theory.
Step 3: Core Legal and Policy Foundations (Canada-Specific)
Schools and their social media policy must be anchored in the laws and standards that govern privacy, access to information, and accessibility. In Canada, the framework varies depending on the type of institution.
For universities, colleges, and many independent schools in the private sector, PIPEDA applies. Its consent principles require that personal information be collected and shared only with meaningful consent that is specific, informed, and easy to withdraw (Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada).
Public institutions must look to provincial laws. In Ontario, MFIPPA governs how student information is collected, used, and disclosed (IPC Guide for Schools). In British Columbia, FOIPPA applies to boards, colleges, and universities, supported by practical guidance like the province’s social media tip sheet (BC FOIPPA Social Media Guide). In Alberta, FOIP covers public school authorities, with resources from the OIPC and universities.
What is an example of a social media policy? In higher education,Mohawk College’s Social Media Policy ties online activity directly to Canadian privacy laws, accessibility requirements, and internal codes of conduct, while also setting expectations for official accounts. For K–12,Greater Victoria School District Policy 1305 offers a concise framework rooted in district values and professionalism.
Accessibility is equally critical. In Ontario, the AODA requires that all digital communications be accessible, aligned with WCAG 2.0 levels A/AA.standards (Ontario Accessibility Guidance). Federally, the Treasury Board recommends WCAG 2.1 AA and EN 301 549 adoption (Government of Canada Digital Accessibility Toolkit).
Anchoring your policy in these laws ensures your institution not only reduces risk but also demonstrates accountability and inclusivity from the outset.
Example: Nova Scotia Community College (NSCC): NSCC’s Social Media Policy explicitly lists the Canadian laws and regulations that underpin acceptable social media use. It requires adherence to legislation such as Canada’s Anti-Spam Law (CASL), privacy laws like FOIPOP (provincial Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy) and PIPEDA, the Human Rights Act, the Intimate Images and Cyber-protection Act, the Copyright Act, etc., as well as relevant college policies. By doing so, NSCC ensures its policy is grounded in national and provincial legal frameworks, providing a clear legal context for users.
Strong governance is the backbone of any school’s social media policy. Start by maintaining a central registry of all official accounts, whether institutional, departmental, or program-specific. For each, assign three roles: an accountable owner, a backup owner, and a communications/marketing lead. This ensures continuity when staff change roles. Require two-factor authentication across platforms, prohibit credential sharing, and centralize credential storage where possible.
Visual consistency matters, too. Borrow from UBC Brand’s social media guidelines on avatars, logos, and naming conventions to maintain a unified institutional identity (UBC Brand Guidelines).
Before any new account launches, establish an approval workflow. Require an application form documenting the account’s purpose, audience, staffing plan, and moderation strategy. This prevents “shadow accounts” and ensures new initiatives align with institutional priorities.
Finally, don’t overlook records management. Communications conducted through official accounts may constitute institutional records under provincial law. Align your policy with your school’s records retention framework, clarifying who is responsible for archiving social content.
Example: McGill’s guidelines require each institutional account to have at least two staff administrators plus a “central communications” administrator, and that accounts be tied to a departmental email (not an individual’s email) for password recovery. These practices ensure accounts are not “personal fiefdoms,” they belong to the institution, and records (including login info and content archives) are managed responsibly.
For inspiration, look at NYC Public Schools’ staff social media guidance, which requires registration of official accounts and outlines monitoring expectations (NYCPS Guidelines). While U.S.-based, the governance structures translate well to Canadian contexts.
Step 5: Privacy, Consent, and Student–Staff Boundaries
Protecting personal information is one of the most important functions of a school’s social media policy. Define clearly what counts as personal data: names, images, video, voice recordings, and any identifiable details. As the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada advises, consent should always be obtained before posting content involving others online (OPC Guidance).
In Ontario, boards must ensure alignment with MFIPPA. For example, Abbotsford School District’s AP 324 media consent policy demonstrates best practices, including clear parental consent forms and proper recordkeeping (Abbotsford AP 324 PDF). Such models can guide how to design workflows that balance opportunity with privacy protection.
Equally critical are staff–student boundaries. Your policy should mandate the use of approved channels only, no personal phone numbers, no personal accounts, and no “friend” connections with students online. Communication must remain professional and transparent. NYC Public Schools provide a helpful benchmark, with explicit staff guidance and even age-specific student social media guidelines (NYCPS Staff Guidelines).
Example: Toronto Catholic District School Board (TCDSB): TCDSB’s social media guidelines draw very clear lines to protect privacy and maintain professional boundaries. Staff are forbidden from “friending” or privately messaging students on personal social media – all communication with students must occur through official, school-sanctioned accounts and only for educational purposes. The policy also enforces strict consent rules: no student’s name, photo, or any identifying information may be posted on social media without written parental consent, and the use of student images on official accounts must follow the board’s annual consent process in compliance with Ontario privacy law (MFIPPA).
✅ Do use only approved institutional channels for all communication.
✅ Do secure and store consent forms before posting student content.
✅ Do respect privacy by default. When in doubt, leave it out.
❌ Don’t use personal accounts, texts, or private messaging apps with students.
❌ Don’t post identifiable student content without explicit, recorded consent.
❌ Don’t blur professional boundaries (e.g., friending or following students on personal profiles).
Are teachers allowed to post their students on social media? Yes, but only with appropriate consent and in full compliance with privacy legislation. In the private sector, PIPEDA requiresmeaningful consent. Ontario’s public boards must follow MFIPPA, with guidance from theIPC’s education resources. By embedding privacy safeguards and clear boundary rules, schools protect students, staff, and their reputation while still enabling authentic digital engagement.
Step 6: Content Rules, Moderation, Accessibility, and Contests
A strong social media policy must tell people what to post, how to post it, and how to manage responses. Start with standards for tone, accuracy, and brand alignment. Require respectful, inclusive language and clear disclosures (e.g., partnerships, sponsorships).
Next, define moderation. Borrow from BC’s corporate moderation policy (BC Gov Guidelines): state what comments are removed (hate speech, spam, off-topic promotions), how warnings are issued, and when accounts are blocked. Make moderation workflows transparent to staff and users.
Example: Queen’s University underscores the importance of moderation rights: they reserve the right to delete disruptive or defamatory posts, and to remove or block users who repeatedly violate guidelines. Like other schools, they want to allow dialogue but will intervene if someone is, for instance, spamming the page or attacking others. The guidelines mention that collaborators (i.e., those who contribute to Queen’s social media) must “obtain explicit permission to publish or report on conversations intended to be private or internal”. In other words, don’t take a private email or a closed meeting discussion and post it publicly without consent – doing so could breach confidentiality. Similarly, no confidential or proprietary info about the university or its partners should be shared on social media.
Accessibility is non-negotiable. Every post should follow WCAG 2.0 levels A/AA and AODA requirements: alt text for images, captions for videos, no text-only graphics, and accessible hashtags (#CapitalizeEachWord). See Ontario’saccessibility guide and Canada’sDigital Accessibility Toolkit.
Contests or giveaways add another layer. Do social media contests require special rules? Yes. Schools must comply with Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation (CASL) when running promotions involving commercial electronic messages or online entries. TheCRTC’s CASL guide andFAQs explain consent and identification requirements. For drafting contest rules, see legal overviews byBLG (2025) andGowling WLG (2023).
Checklist for Staff:
✅ Post accurate, respectful, branded content
✅ Add alt text, captions, and accessible formatting
✅ Moderate comments against clear rules
✅ Secure consent before promotions/contests
❌ Don’t post text-in-images without alternatives
❌ Don’t run contests without legal review
Step 7: Training, Launch, Metrics, and Continuous Improvement
Even the strongest policy fails without training. Translate your guidelines into practice by building role-specific training modules for account owners, moderators, coaches, and student ambassadors. Incorporate Canadian digital literacy resources like MediaSmarts’ Digital Literacy Framework (overview;full PDF) to reinforce safe, ethical, and effective online engagement. Support staff with PD sessions, publish an internal FAQ, and run scenario-based exercises, such as managing a doxxing attempt or handling a viral misinformation post.
When launching, stagger the rollout: pilot in one department, gather feedback, and expand with adjustments. Communicate the policy widely so every stakeholder understands their role. Schedule quarterly refreshers to ensure compliance as platforms, tools, and threats evolve.
Example: University of British Columbia (UBC): UBC provides a detailed Social Media Playbook and Project Planning Tips to guide training and content planning for account managers. They recommend auditing capacity before launch, building content calendars, and using analytics for continuous improvement. UBC also sets platform-specific tips (e.g., mobile-first design, proper hashtag use) to elevate training beyond policy to practice.
Success requires measurement. Track metrics that matter: audience reach, engagement quality, average response time, accessibility compliance (captioning/alt-text rates), harmful content removal time, and incident frequency. Pair this with annual policy reviews against your risk register and evolving legal obligations. Document revisions and circulate them across the institution so no one is left behind.
Checklist for Staff:
Complete mandatory training before account access
Use MediaSmarts or similar frameworks for student modules
Run tabletop exercises annually
Measure engagement, accessibility, and incident response
Review/update policy yearly
How to Use This Checklist
Policies can sometimes feel abstract, but implementation lives in the details. To make your school or institution’s social media policy actionable, translate the principles into operational steps your teams can follow every day.
The following checklist is designed as a drop-in appendix: administrators can copy it directly into their policy, while communications teams and account owners can use it as a quick reference. It consolidates the essentials, governance, privacy, accessibility, moderation, and security into a single, practical tool. Review it regularly, update it as laws and platforms evolve, and use it as both a compliance safeguard and a training guide.
Operational Checklist (Copy-Paste into Your Policy)
Action
Reference / Example
Maintain a central registry of all official accounts, owners, and backups; enforce two-factor authentication on every account.
Creating a modern, compliant, and effective school social media policy isn’t just about managing risk. It’s also about empowering your institution to communicate with confidence. The right framework balances opportunity and responsibility, ensuring your teams can build authentic connections with students and families while safeguarding privacy, accessibility, and professionalism.
At Higher Education Marketing (HEM), we help schools, colleges, and universities do exactly that. From developing policies rooted in Canadian legal standards to training staff and student ambassadors on best practices, our team specializes in building digital strategies that drive engagement and enrollment. Whether you need support crafting your first policy, auditing existing processes, or integrating governance into a broader digital marketing strategy, HEM provides the expertise to make it happen.
In a digital-first world, trust and clarity are everything. By partnering with HEM, your institution can move forward with a social media policy that not only protects your community but also amplifies your brand in the right way.
Struggling with enrollment?
Our expert digital marketing services can help you attract and enroll more students!
Frequently Asked Questions
Question: What is an example of a social media policy? Answer: In higher education,Mohawk College’s Social Media Policy ties online activity directly to Canadian privacy laws, accessibility requirements, and internal codes of conduct, while also setting expectations for official accounts. For K–12,Greater Victoria School District Policy 1305 offers a concise framework rooted in district values and professionalism.
Question: Are teachers allowed to post their students on social media? Answer: Yes, but only with appropriate consent and in full compliance with privacy legislation. In the private sector, PIPEDA requiresmeaningful consent. Ontario’s public boards must follow MFIPPA, with guidance from theIPC’s education resources.
Question: Do social media contests require special rules? Answer: Yes. Schools must comply with Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation (CASL) when running promotions involving commercial electronic messages or online entries. TheCRTC’s CASL guide andFAQs explain consent and identification requirements. For drafting contest rules, see legal overviews byBLG (2025) andGowling WLG (2023).
What’s it like to be an artist and scientist? Meg Mindlin studies octopuses, shares videos for Instagram Reels and TikTok. And, she’s a talented artist who helps people communicate science in engaging way. I felt lucky to attend her thesis defense live on YouTube.
In this conversation, we talk about her research, dealing with the political spectrum when speaking up on social media, and sharing her art online.
Bio
Meg Mindlin (@invertebabe) is a molecular biologist and science communicator. She combines her background in art with an ability to communicate complex science in an engaging manner. She received her Masters in Biology studying octopuses and how ocean acidification effects a molecular process known as RNA editing.
