Tag: transparency

  • Transparency about AI should be a sector-wide principle

    Transparency about AI should be a sector-wide principle

    Josh Thorpe’s recent Wonkhe article – What should the higher education sector do about AI fatigue? – captured how many are feeling about artificial intelligence. The sector is tired of hype, uncertainty, and trying to keep up with a technology that seems to evolve faster than our capacity to respond. But AI fatigue, as that article suggests, is not failure. It’s a signal that we need to pause, reflect, and respond with human-centred coherence.

    One of the most accessible and powerful responses to AI uncertainty is transparency. By taking a consistent approach to declaring AI use in work or assessment, many educators are taking a first step by simply declaring: “no AI is used in…”

    The statement alone supports development of trust between educators and students, and it can create space for dialogue. It’s not about rushing into AI adoption, it’s about being honest and intentional, whatever the current practice. From there, we can begin to explore what small, discipline-relevant, and appropriate uses of AI might look like.

    The journey starts with transparency, not technology. We need to support staff in engaging with AI in ways that feel ethical, manageable, and empowering. We mustn’t begin with technical training or institutional mandates. We must begin with a simple request to communicate clearly about AI use (or non-use) in our teaching, learning and assessment practices.

    Sheffield Hallam University has implemented an AI Transparency Scale as a communication tool that helps educators consider how they disclose AI use to students, and supports how they can clarify expectations for students in assessment. It’s a conversation starter which prompts educators to reflect on whether AI tools are used in their practice, how this use is communicated with students, and how transparency supports academic integrity and student trust. The scale is helping move from uncertainty to clarity. Not by simplifying AI, but by humanising and clarifying how we engage with it.

    Moving to transparency

    For educators wondering where to start, confident transparency begins with making AI clear and understandable within its specific context. Transparency builds trust and sets clear expectations for staff and students. A simple statement, even a neutral one such as “AI tools were not used in the development of this module,” provides clarity and signals openness. You might adopt a tool like the AI Transparency Scale where prompts can scaffold your communication of AI use or create your own local language. Even short discussions in course or programme team meetings can surface valuable insights and lead to shared practices. The goal is not just to disclose, but to create a shared understanding and practice.

    Engaging students in the conversation about AI and inviting them to share how they are using AI tools helps educators understand emerging practices and co-create ethical boundaries. As Naima Rahman and Gunter Saunders noted in their Wonkhe article, students want AI integrated into their learning – but they want it to be fair, transparent, and ethical.

    Listening and responding transparently reinforces trust. Together, explore questions such as: “what does responsible AI use look like in our subject area?” Consider where automation or analysis might add value, and where human judgment remains essential.

    Transparency here means being explicit about why certain tasks should remain human-led and where AI might play a supportive role. Positioning students as co-leaders in these discussions builds a stronger, more transparent foundation for responsible AI use.

    From individual burden to institutional strategy

    Josh Thorpe’s article rightly calls out the lack of institutional coordination and fragmented AI discourse. The burden of response has fallen largely on individuals, with limited support from policy, leadership, or infrastructure.

    To move forward, we need coherent institutional leadership that frames AI not just as a technical challenge, but as a support, pedagogical, and ethical challenge. By sharing our experiences, resources, and approaches openly, we can develop shared principles that can guide diverse practices across the sector. Finally, we need alignment with the changing nature of authorship, assessment, and professional competence in an AI-enabled world. Simon Sneddon goes into the need to prepare students for the world of (artificial intelligence-enabled) work in another recent Wonkhe article.

    Transparency offers a bridge between policy and practice. It’s a principle that can be embedded in institutional guidance, supported through professional development, and aligned with sector-wide values.

    As the Office for Students, Jisc, and other bodies continue to shape the AI landscape and how we navigate it, institutions must find ways to empower their staff, not just inform them. That means creating space for reflection, dialogue, and ethical experimentation.

    Transparency alone will not solve the challenges of AI in education, but it is a good place to start. The sector can begin to move from fatigue to fluency, one transparent step at a time.

    AI transparency statement: In developing this article, I used Microsoft Copilot to support the writing process. I provided original textual inputs, guided the reference of relevant existing materials, added additional sources, and critically reviewed and refined generated outputs to produce the final piece. This corresponds to level 3 of the AI Transparency Scale, indicating active human oversight, original content, and editorial control.

    Source link

  • House Ed Panel Advances Financial Aid Transparency Bills

    House Ed Panel Advances Financial Aid Transparency Bills

    Rep. Tim Walberg, the Michigan Republican who chairs the House committee, said the legislation was an answer to waning public trust in postsecondary education.

    Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

    A House education panel voted Thursday to advance two bills aimed at ensuring that students know more about the price of college and their options to pay for it.

    One of the bills, the Student Financial Clarity Act, would require the Education Department to create a universal net price calculator that would give students an estimate of what they might have to pay for a particular program or institution. That legislation, which passed with bipartisan support, would also expand the College Scorecard to include more program-level statistics so students could compare outcomes and costs.

    Under the other bill, the College Financial Aid Clarity Act, the Education Department would develop a standardized format for college financial aid offers. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have sought for years to improve institutional offer letters—efforts that picked up steam in 2023 after the Government Accountability Office found that most colleges failed to clearly and accurately tell students how much their education would cost.

    After the department creates the standard format, colleges that receive federal funding will have to adopt it by July 1, 2029, according to the legislation, which also received bipartisan backing.

    The House and Senate education committees have explored the issue of college price transparency in hearings this fall, showing that it’s a priority for key lawmakers. Rep. Tim Walberg, the Michigan Republican who chairs the House committee, framed the legislation as an answer to waning public trust in postsecondary education.

    “Too many students face bureaucracy, hidden costs and student debt for programs that don’t deliver a return on investment,” Walberg said. “These bills take important steps to fix that.”

    American Council on Education president Ted Mitchell wrote to the committee that a federally mandated financial aid award letter would be difficult to adjust in response to consumer feedback and changes to federal student aid. ACE and others have spearheaded a voluntary effort to improve the letters known as the College Cost Transparency Initiative, which includes about 760 colleges and universities.

    “It is also important to note that new requirements regarding financial aid award letters will impose significant administrative, financial, and technical challenges that will divert institutional resources away from student support,” Mitchell wrote.

    Democrats generally supported the legislation, though they indicated that they wanted to see more changes that would actually lower the cost of college and hold the Education Department accountable.

    Democrats expressed worry that a diminished Education Department wouldn’t be able to implement the changes called for in the legislation. They also pushed for language in the bills that would require the Education Department itself to perform the work. Education Secretary Linda McMahon recently outsourced several grant programs to other federal agencies, raising concerns among Democrats on the committee.

    “Based on the secretary’s track record, it wouldn’t surprise me if she’s already devising a way to pass these requirements on to someone else or some other agency,” said Rep. Suzanne Bonamici, an Oregon Democrat.

    Source link

  • Transparency, collaboration, and culture, are key to winning public trust in research

    Transparency, collaboration, and culture, are key to winning public trust in research

    The higher education sector is focussing too much on inward-facing debates on research culture and are missing out on a major opportunity to expose our culture to the public as a way to truly connect research with society.

    REF can underpin this outward turn, providing mechanisms not only for incentivising good culture, but for opening up conversations about who we are and how we work to contribute to society.

    This outward turn matters. Research and Development (R&D) delivers enormous economic and societal value, yet universities struggle to earn public trust or support for what they do. Recent nation-wide public opinion research by Campaign for Science and Engineering (CaSE) has shown that while 88 per cent of people say it is important for the Government to invest in R&D, just 18 per cent can immediately think of lots of ways R&D benefits them and their family. When talking about R&D in public focus groups, universities were rarely front of mind and are primarily seen as education institutions where students or lecturers might do R&D as an ancillary activity.

    If the university sector is to sustain legitimacy – and by extension, the political and financial foundations of UK research – we must find new ways to make our work visible, relatable, and trusted. Focusing on the culture that shapes how research is done may be the most powerful way to do this.

    Why culture matters

    Public opinion is not background noise. Public awareness, appetite and trust all shape political choices about funding, regulation, and the role of universities in national life. While CaSE’s work shows that 72 per cent of people trust universities to be honest about how much the UK government should invest in R&D, the lack of awareness about what universities do and how they do it leaves legitimacy fragile.

    This fragility is starkly illustrated by recent polling from More in Common: when asked which government budgets they would most like to see cut, the public didn’t want funding cuts for R&D, yet placed universities third on the list for budgets that they would be happy to be cut (alongside foreign aid and funding for the arts).

    Current approaches to improving public opinions about research in our sector have had limited success. The sector’s instinct has been to showcase outputs – discoveries, patents, and impact case studies – to boost public awareness and build support for research in universities. But CaSE polling evidence suggests that this approach isn’t cutting through: 74 per cent of the public said they knew nothing or hardly anything about R&D in their area. This lack of connection does not indicate a lack of interest: a similar proportion (70 per cent) would like to hear more about local R&D.

    Transparency

    Evidence from other sectors shows that opening up processes builds trust. In healthcare, for example, the NHS has found that when patients are meaningfully involved in decisions about their care and how services are designed, trust and satisfaction increase – not just because of outcomes, but because people can see and influence how decisions are made.

    Research from business and engineering contexts shows that people are more likely to trust companies that are open about how they operate, not just what they deliver. Together, these lessons reinforce that we should not rely on showcasing outputs alone: legitimacy comes from making visible the processes, people and cultures that underpin research.

    Universities don’t just generate knowledge; they develop the individuals who carry skills and values into the wider economy. Researchers, technicians, professional services staff and others who enable research in higher education bring curiosity, collaboration and critical thinking into every sector, both through direct collaboration and when they move beyond academia. These skills fuel innovation and problem-solving across the economy and public services, but they can only develop and thrive in supportive, inclusive research cultures. Without attention to culture, the talent pipeline that government and industry rely on is put at risk.

    Research culture makes these processes and people visible. Culture is about how research is done: the integrity of methods, the openness of data, the inclusivity of teams, the collaborations – including with the public – that make discoveries possible. These are the very things the public are keen to understand better. By opening up the black box of research and showing the culture that underpins it, we can make university research more relatable, trustworthy, and visible in everyday life.

    The role of REF in shifting the conversation

    The expansion of the old Environment element of REF to encompass broader aspects of research culture offers an opportunity to help shift from an inward to a more outward looking narrative and public conversation. The visibility and accountability that REF submissions require matters beyond academia: it gives the sector a platform to showcase the values and processes that underpin research. In doing so, REF can help our sector build trust and legitimacy by making research culture part of the national conversation about R&D.

    Openness, integrity, inclusivity, and collaboration – core components of research culture – are values which the public already recognise and expect. By framing research culture as part of the story we tell – explaining not just what our universities produce but how they produce it – we can build a stronger connection with the public. Culture is the bridge between the abstract notion of investing in R&D and a lived understanding of what universities actually do in society.

    Public support for research is strong, but support for universities is increasingly fragile. Whatever the REF looks like when we unpause, we need to avoid retreating to ‘business as usual’ and closing down this opportunity to open up a more meaningful conversation about the role universities play in UK R&D and in the progress of society.

    Source link

  • Congress Tackles College Cost Transparency

    Congress Tackles College Cost Transparency

    Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-LA, advocated for his own legislation, the College Transparency Act, as potential solution to the issue.

    Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc/Getty Images

    After passing a sweeping higher ed overhaul in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Congress now has its sights set on reforming college cost transparency. In a hearing Thursday, members of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions questioned experts on how to make college pricing—and how costs compare to student outcomes—more understandable to families.

    “You don’t buy a car without comparing prices, quality and finance options. The same is true for buying a home. Why can we not do this for higher ed?” asked Sen. Bill Cassidy, the Louisiana Republican who chairs the committee and recently issued a request for information about the cost of higher education.

    The hearing follows a House hearing in September on the same topic—and including one repeat witness, Justin Draeger, senior vice president of affordability for Strada Education Foundation.

    Cost transparency has long been a pain point for both students and institutions, who have attempted to clarify via marketing campaigns, improved price calculator tools and tuition resets that their costs of attendance are often lower than their sticker price would indicate. Students, meanwhile, struggle to find reliable information about the costs of their prospective institutions, leaving them without the financial information they need to decide what institution to attend.

    Now, Congressional Republicans are taking notice—and are tying efforts to improve affordability and cost transparency in with their existing focus on the return on investment for students and taxpayers.

    At Thursday’s hearing, lawmakers and witnesses alike stressed how little information is available to students about the price of college, with research showing that most students overestimate the price of a public college education. Witnesses also brought up parents’ and families’ confusion about aid offer letters, which the Government Accountability Office has found often understate or fail to include the net price students will actually be paying.

    Cassidy stressed the need for transparency as it relates to outcomes and return on investment. Students should be able to compare graduation rates and projected incomes of earning a degree at two different institutions, he said, to give families an accurate picture of what they’re paying for when they pay tuition.

    The two Democratic witnesses, meanwhile, argued that college cost transparency is ineffective without also focusing on college affordability—something that is being worsened not only by increasing tuition costs but also by the larger cost-of-living crisis. Nontuition costs, said Mark Huelsman, Director of Policy and Advocacy at The Hope Center for Student Basic Needs, make up the bulk of the cost of attendance. He added that if student aren’t able to afford food or housing, that can severely impact their ability to succeed in college.

    “I urge this committee not just to find ways to increase clarity, but to do everything in its power to lower the price that students pay,” he said.

    Bipartisan Solutions?

    Legislators pointed toward several potential legislative solutions that they said had support on both sides of the aisle. That list included Cassidy’s College Transparency Act, a bill that would provide more detailed information on costs, academic outcomes and career outcomes of specific programs and majors. Cassidy has championed the bill for years, alongside Sen. Elizabeth Warren, CTA’s other lead author, but Rep. Virginia Foxx opposed the measure when she led the House education committee. Foxx, who ultimately proposed her own effort to track students’ outcomes, resisted CTA due to privacy concerns. Cassidy noted during the hearing that the bill includes strict data security standards.

    Meanwhile, Sen. Jon Husted, an Ohio Republican, also touted his bill with fellow Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama—the Debt, Earnings, and Cost Information Disclosure for Education Act—which would make changes to the Department of Education’s College Scorecard. It would require the resource to include information on average loan amounts in a given academic program, as well as default rates, how long it takes graduates to pay off their loans and how that debt compares to their earnings.

    That information would help prospective students “know exactly what they’re getting themselves into before they make a decision to make a huge, huge investment,” Husted said.

    Witnesses enumerated their own cost transparency wish lists.

    Draeger said, among other things, that the federal government should regulate financial aid offers to use straightforward and standardized language. Huelsman, on the other hand, argued that the “simplest way, and the most powerful way” to make college costs transparent is to make college tuition- or debt-free. He also said that the Trump administration appears to be working against, not toward, cost transparency in higher ed.

    “Many of the bipartisan reforms being discussed today require staffing capacity at the Department of Education that frankly, at this moment, do not exist, including at the Institute for Education Sciences,” he said. “Meanwhile, the Trump administration has worked to dismantle the CFPB, which provides oversight and essential information to borrowers, and conducts essential research on the student loan market. Sadly, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act takes us in the wrong direction on both affordability and transparency.”

    Source link

  • Transparency and truth in communications

    Transparency and truth in communications

    Key points:

    Dear Superintendent,

    Your job now requires a new level of transparency that you are reluctant to provide. This media crisis will burn for several more days if we sit silent. We are in a true leadership moment and I need you to listen to your communications expert. I can make your job easier and more successful.

    Signed,

    Your Communications Director

    As superintendents come under more political fire and frequent negative news stories about their school districts circulate, it is easy to see where the instinct to not comment and just focus on the work might kick in. However, the path forward requires a new level of transparency and truth-telling in communications. In fact, the work requires you to get out in front so that your teachers and staff can focus on their work.

    I recently spoke with a school district facing multiple PR crises. The superintendent was reluctant to address the issues publicly, preferring one-on-one meetings with parents over engaging with the media or holding town hall-style parent meetings. But when serious allegations of employee misconduct and the resulting community concerns arise, it’s crucial for superintendents to step forward and take control of the narrative.

    While the details of ongoing human resources or police investigations cannot be discussed, it’s vital to inform the community about actions being taken to prevent future incidents, the safeguards being implemented, and your unwavering commitment to student and staff safety. All of that is far more reassuring than the media reporting, “The district was not available for comment,” “The district cannot comment due to an ongoing investigation,” or even worse, the dreaded, “The school district said it has no comment.”

    Building trust with proactive communication

    A district statement or email doesn’t carry the same weight as a media interview or an in-house video message sent directly to community members. True leadership means standing up and accepting the difficult interviews, answering the tough questions, and conveying with authentic emotion that these incidents are unacceptable. What a community needs to hear is the “why” behind a decision so that trust is built, even if that decision is to hold back on key information. A lack of public statement can be perceived as indifference or a leadership void, which can quickly threaten a superintendent’s career.

    Superintendents should always engage with the media during true leadership moments, such as district-wide safety issues, school board meetings, or when the public needs reassurance. “Who Speaks For Your Brand?” looks at a survey of 1,600 school staff who resoundingly stated that the superintendent is the primary person responsible for promoting and defending a school district’s brand. A majority of the superintendents surveyed agreed as well. Promoting and defending the district’s brand includes the negative–but also the positive–opportunities like the first day of school, graduation, school and district grade releases, and district awards.

    However, not every media request requires the superintendent’s direct involvement. If it doesn’t rise to the severity level worthy of the superintendent’s office, an interview with a department head or communications chief is a better option. The superintendent interview is reserved for the stories we decide require it, not just because a reporter asks for it.  Reporters ask for you far more than your communications chief ever tells you.

    It is essential to communicate directly and regularly with parents through video and email using your district’s mass communication tools. You control the message you want to deliver, and you don’t have to rely on the media getting it right.  This is an amazing opportunity to humanize the office.  Infuse your video scripts with more personality and emotion to connect on a personal level with your community. It is far harder to attack the person than the office. Proactive communications help build trust for when you need it later.

    I have had superintendents tell me that they prefer to make their comments at school board meetings. School board meeting comments are often insufficient, as analytics often indicate low viewership for school board meeting live streams or recordings.  In my experience, a message sent to parents through district alert channels far outperforms the YouTube views of school board meetings.

    Humanizing the superintendent’s role

    Superintendents should maintain a consistent communications presence via social media, newsletters, the website, and so on to demonstrate their engagement within schools. Short videos featuring interactions with staff and students create powerful engagement opportunities. Develop content to create touch points that celebrate the contributions of nurses, teachers, and bus drivers, especially on their national days of recognition. These proactive moments of engagement show the community that positive moments happen hourly, daily, and weekly within your schools.

    If you are not comfortable posting your own content, have your communications team ghostwrite posts for you. You never want a community member asking, “What does the superintendent do all day? We never see them.” If you are posting content from all of the school visits and community meetings you attend, that accusation can never be made again. You now have social proof of your engagement efforts and evidence for your annual contract review.

    Effective communication is a superintendent’s superpower. Those who can connect authentically and show their personality can truly shine. Many superintendents mistakenly believe that hard work alone will speak for itself, but in today’s politically charged landscape, a certain amount of “campaigning” is necessary while in office. We all know the job of the superintendent has never been harder, tenure has never been shorter, and the chance of being fired is higher than ever.

    Embrace the opportunity to engage and showcase the great things happening in your district. It’s worth promoting positive and proactive communications so that you’re a seasoned pro when the challenging moments come. There might just be less of them if you get ahead.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Transparency Now or Regulation Later

    Transparency Now or Regulation Later

    Doctors predicted Wayne Frederick, the president of Howard University, wouldn’t live past 8. Now he’s 54. Frederick came to the U.S. from Trinidad and Tobago with a dream of finding a cure for his disease, sickle cell anemia, but detoured into higher ed administration.

    At an event hosted by the American Council on Education at Howard University this week, Frederick said CRISPR gene editing, a technology developed in academia, made his dream a reality. Finding cures to debilitating diseases is one of “the intangible things that higher ed does to change lives,” he said.

    Higher ed has changed lives in thousands of other ways; institutions are the largest employers in 10 states; colleges have helped regenerate many of America’s Rust Belt centers. Higher education is undeniably a public good. But as concerns grow about the affordability of college, do Americans care?

    In the ACE event’s discussion about the economic impact of higher ed, Alex Ricci, president of the National Council on Higher Education Resources, pointed out that despite college’s role in local and regional economies, the debate about the value of higher ed comes down to whether one thinks the benefit to the individual is greater than to society as a whole. “Many colleges and universities see themselves as a benefit shared broadly by society. Most Americans—especially those carrying thousands of dollars in student loan debt—see it as a transaction where the individual is the primary beneficiary or victim, depending on the student’s long-term outcomes,” he said.

    Regardless of whether you think higher ed is a public or private good, institutions are losing the value debate. In recorded remarks for the discussion, Representative Burgess Owens, a Utah Republican, chairman of the House subcommittee on higher education and workforce development, said, “Higher education should be about value, not just prestige.” He also presided over the “No More Surprises: Reforming College Pricing for Students and Families” hearing last month where lawmakers examined ways to make college costs more transparent.

    The lack of transparency on the cost of college can be life-altering for students and poses existential risks for colleges. Inside Higher Ed’s 2025 student survey found that three-fourths of the 5,000 respondents encountered some surprises in the cost of their education. These surprises can derail education journeys. One in five students said that an unexpected expense of $500 to $1,000 would threaten their ability to persist. Bad surprises also harm colleges: Students say that the lack of affordability is the biggest driver of declining public trust in higher education.

    College cost transparency has been a government priority since the Obama administration, but never has public trust in higher ed been so low or institutions so vulnerable to government overreach. Republican lawmakers have seized on the problem of college affordability and cost transparency and are looking for bipartisan solutions. In May, Senator Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, introduced the Understanding the True Cost of College Act 2025, which calls for standardization of financial aid offers so students understand in simple terms what the direct costs, indirect costs and net price of college will be. Last month the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions formally requested information from the sector on ways to improve transparency, lower costs and ensure a college degree is valuable to students.

    Some colleges sense the urgency of the moment and are taking action on affordability. More are offering free tuition to households earning as much as $200,000 a year. Last month Whitworth University made a radical decision to stop tuition discounting and decrease its annual sticker price from $54,000 to $26,900. At the same time, a recent study found that tuition discounting is on the rise among public four-year institutions. But tuition discounts create more confusion around the true cost of college.

    A reasonable question to ask is: Why are only 730 colleges members of the College Cost Transparency Initiative? If higher ed stakeholders wanted to win the value debate, they would listen to lawmakers—and students and their families—and act on affordability and cost transparency. Otherwise, policymakers will do it for them. By demonstrating their impact for individual students, colleges can make a compelling case for their broader societal value.

    Source link

  • How To Teach With AI Transparency Statements – Faculty Focus

    How To Teach With AI Transparency Statements – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • Bringing Real Transparency to College Pricing

    Bringing Real Transparency to College Pricing

    In today’s unpredictable higher education marketplace, TuitionFit, created by Mark Salisbury, offers something that colleges and universities have refused to provide—clear and honest information about what students actually pay. By gathering and anonymizing financial aid offers that students submit voluntarily, TuitionFit makes visible the hidden world of tuition discounting, where sticker prices are inflated but rarely reflect reality.

    The statistics show just how broken and confusing the system has become. For the 2024–25 academic year, private nonprofit colleges awarded institutional grants that equaled 56.3 percent of the published sticker price for first-time, full-time undergraduates and 51.4 percent for all undergraduates. In other words, more than half of published tuition is an illusion. Despite average published tuition of $11,610 at public four-year in-state colleges and $43,350 at private nonprofit institutions, the real net tuition and fees that students pay is far lower. At public four-year schools, inflation-adjusted net tuition has fallen from $4,340 in 2012–13 to $2,480 in 2024–25, while net tuition at private nonprofits has gradually declined from $19,330 in 2006–07 to $16,510 in 2024–25. Families who see terrifying sticker prices often don’t realize that the average all-in, post-aid cost of a four-year degree is closer to $30,000.

    These numbers also reveal deep inequities. At very selective private institutions in 2019–20, low-income students paid about $13,410 after aid, while wealthier peers often paid nearly $39,250. Such disparities are rarely explained by colleges themselves, who prefer to mask their discounting practices with vague averages and opaque award letters.

    This is why TuitionFit is so important. Instead of navigating by distorted averages or marketing spin, students and families can see what peers with similar academic and financial profiles are actually paying. That knowledge provides leverage in negotiating aid offers and choosing institutions that will not leave them with crushing debt. In an era when sticker prices continue to climb while net prices quietly decline, TuitionFit brings clarity at the individual level.

    The Higher Education Inquirer commends Salisbury and TuitionFit for providing a measure of transparency in a system that thrives on opacity. While it cannot by itself resolve the structural inequities of American higher education finance, it arms students and families with something they desperately need: the truth.

    Source link

  • Embracing Transparency After a Rankings Scandal

    Embracing Transparency After a Rankings Scandal

    It’s college rankings season again, a time of congratulations, criticism and, occasionally, corrections for institutions and the organizations that rate them.

    Typically U.S. News & World Report, the giant of the college rankings world, unranks some institutions months after its results are published over data discrepancies that are usually the result of honest mistakes. But in rare instances, erroneous data issues aren’t mistakes but outright fraud. And when that happens, it can result in soul-searching and, ideally, redemption for those involved.

    That’s what happened at Temple University, which was rocked by a rankings scandal in 2018, when it became clear that Moshe Porat, the dean of Temple’s Richard J. Fox School of Business and Management, had knowingly provided false data to U.S. News for years in a successful effort to climb the rankings. Temple’s online master of business administration soared to No. 1—until the scheme was exposed. U.S. News temporarily unranked the program, the U.S. Department of Education hit Temple with a $700,000 fine and Porat was convicted of fraud.

    Since then, Temple has worked hard to restore its reputation. In the aftermath of the scandal, officials imposed universitywide changes to how it handles facts and figures, establishing a Data Verification Unit within the Ethics and Compliance Office. Now any data produced by the university goes through a phalanx of dedicated fact-checkers, whether it’s for a rankings evaluation or an admissions brochure.

    A Culture Shift

    Temple’s Data Verification Unit was introduced in 2019 amid the fallout of the rankings scandal.

    At first, it gave rise to “friction points,” as university officials were required to go through new processes to verify data before it was disseminated, said Susan Smith, Temple’s chief compliance officer. But now she believes the unit has won the trust of colleagues on campus who have bought in to more rigorous fact-checking measures.

    “It’s been an incredibly positive thing for Temple and I think for data integrity over all,” Smith said.

    Initially, Temple partnered with an outside law firm to verify data and lay the groundwork for the unit. Now that is all handled in-house by a small team that works across the university.

    While Smith said “the vast majority of mistakes” she sees “are innocent,” her team is there “to act as a sort of backstop” and to “verify that the data is accurate, that there’s integrity in the data.”

    The Data Verification Unit also provides training on best practices for data use and dissemination.

    University officials believe placing the Data Verification Unit under the centralized Office of Compliance and Ethics—which reports directly to Temple’s Board of Trustees—is unique. And some say the process has created a bit of a culture shift as they run numbers by the unit.

    Temple spokesperson Stephen Orbanek, who joined the university after the rankings scandal, said running news releases by the Data Verification Unit represented a “total change” from the way he was accustomed to operating. And while it can sometimes slow down the release of certain data points or responses to media requests, he said he’s been able to give reporters more robust data.

    He also noted times when Temple has had to pull back on marketing claims and use “less impressive” statistics after the Data Verification Unit flagged issues with materials. As an example, he cited a fact sheet put out by the university in which officials wanted to refer to Temple as a top producer of Fulbright scholars. But the Data Verification Unit insisted that a caveat was needed: The statistic pertained only to the 2022–23 academic year.

    Ultimately, Orbanek sees the Data Verification Unit as a boon for a more transparent campus culture.

    “The culture has just kind of shifted, and you get on board,” Orbanek said.

    Other Rankings Scandals

    Other universities have been less forthcoming about fixing their own data issues.

    In 2022, a professor called out his employer, Columbia University, for submitting inaccurate data to U.S. News, which responded by unranking the institution for a short time. Following the scandal and accusations of fraud by some critics, Columbia announced the university would no longer submit data to U.S. News. Officials argued that the rankings have outsize influence on prospective students but don’t adequately measure institutional quality.

    Yet Columbia still publishes large swaths of data, such as its Common Data Set. Asked how the university has acted to verify data in the aftermath of the rankings scandal, a spokesperson wrote by email that data is “reviewed by a well-established, independent advisory firm to ensure reporting accuracy” but did not respond to a request for more details on the verification processes.

    The University of Southern California also navigated a rankings scandal in 2022. USC provided faulty data to U.S. News for its Rossier School of Education, omitting certain metrics, which helped it rise in the rankings, according to a third-party report that largely blamed a former dean.

    U.S. News temporarily unranked Rossier; graduate students sued the university, accusing officials of falsely advertising rankings based on fraudulent data. That legal battle is ongoing, and earlier this year a judge ruled that the case can proceed as a class action suit.

    Officials did not respond to a request from Inside Higher Ed for comment on whether or how USC has changed the way it verifies data for use in rankings or for other purposes.

    U.S. News also did not respond to specific questions about if or how it verifies that information submitted by institutions to be used for ranking purposes is accurate. A spokesperson told Inside Higher Ed, “U.S. News believes that data transparency and internal accountability practices by educational institutions are good for those institutions and good for consumers.”

    Source link

  • A 20-Year Reflection on Transparency and the Illusion of Access (Glen McGhee)

    A 20-Year Reflection on Transparency and the Illusion of Access (Glen McGhee)

    The cancellation of the latest NACIQI (National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity) meeting brought back bitter memories that refuse to fade. 

    It’s been twenty years since I traveled to Washington, DC—dressed in my best lobbying attire and carrying a meticulous roster of Department of Education staff—to visit the Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE) on K Street. My goal was simple, even noble: to seek answers about the opaque workings of accreditation in American higher education. What I encountered instead was a wall of silence, surveillance, and authoritarianism.

    I stepped off the elevator on the seventh floor of the Department building and signed in. Under “Purpose of Visit,” I wrote: Reform. I was calm, professional, and respectful. I asked to see the NACIQI Chair, Bonnie, hoping that she would be willing to speak with me about a system that, even then, was falling into disrepair. But what happened next still infuriates me.

    Within seconds, two armed, uniformed guards approached me. They didn’t ask questions. They gave an ultimatum: leave or be arrested.

    I eventually complied, descending into the lobby, still stunned. From there I began dialing—one by one—through the directory of names I had so carefully assembled. I called staffers, analysts, assistants, anyone who might answer. Not a single person picked up. I could feel the eyes of the guards watching me, one of them posted on the mezzanine like a sniper keeping watch over a public enemy. I was not dangerous. I was not disruptive. I was, however, unwanted.

    The next day, I turned to my Congressman, Allen Boyd, whose LA generously tried to intervene. His office contacted OPE, attempting to broker a meeting on my behalf. The Department didn’t even return his call. Apparently, a sitting member of Congress—who didn’t sit on a high-ranking committee—carried no weight at the fortress of federal education oversight.

    This most recent overstepping by US ED—unilaterally postponing NACIQI’s Summer 2025 meeting—reminds observers of how limited the oversight provided by NACIQI really is. It is, apparently, nothing more than a performative shell that fulfills ceremonial functions, and not much more.

    I would argue that this latest episode reveals that NACIQI is less an independent watchdog and more a ceremonial body with limited real power, and so my view differs somewhat from David Halperin, because he sees more substantive activity than I do.

    The history of ACICS (Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools) and SACS (Southern Association of Colleges) appearing before NACIQI illustrates how regulatory capture can manifest not only through industry influence, but also through bureaucratic design and process control. The OPE’s central role, combined with NACIQI’s limited enforcement power, has allowed failing accreditors to retain recognition for years, even in the face of overwhelming evidence of noncompliance and harm to students.

    The illusion of accountability has long been a feature of the accreditation system, not a flaw. NACIQI meetings, when they occur, are tightly scripted, with carefully managed testimony and limited public engagement. The real decisions are made elsewhere, behind closed doors, often under the influence of powerful lobbying groups and entrenched bureaucracies that resist transparency and reform at every turn.

    Despite the increasing scrutiny on higher education and growing public awareness of student debt, poor educational outcomes, and sham institutions, the federal recognition of accreditors remains an elite-controlled process. It is a closed loop. Institutions, accreditors, and government officials all play their roles in a carefully choreographed performance that rarely leads to systemic change. The result is a system that protects institutions at the expense of students, particularly the most vulnerable—low-income, first-generation, and minority students who are often targeted by predatory schools hiding behind federal accreditation.

    This is the reality of the U.S. Department of Education’s accreditation apparatus: inaccessible, unaccountable, and increasingly symbolic. NACIQI, far from being an independent advisory body, has always functioned as a ceremonial front for political appointees and entrenched interests. It is, as I see it, just another arm of Vishnu—multiplicitous, all-seeing, but ultimately indifferent to critique or reform. Whether it’s chaired by a bureaucrat or a former wrestling executive like Linda McMahon, the outcome is the same: the process is rigged to exclude dissent and suppress scrutiny.

    And yet, pundits today still fail to grasp the implications. They speak of accreditation as if it were a technocratic process guided by evidence and integrity. They act as if NACIQI were a neutral arbiter. But I know otherwise, because I was there—thrown out, silenced, and treated like a trespasser in the very institution that claims to protect educational quality and student interest.

    This is more than personal bitterness. It’s about structural rot. When critics are expelled, when staff are muzzled, and when public servants ignore elected representatives, we are not dealing with oversight—we are witnessing capture. Accreditation in this country serves the accreditors and the institutions, not students, not taxpayers, and certainly not reformers.

    Two decades later, the anger remains. So does the silence.

    Sources:
    Department of Education building directory and procedures (2005)
    Congressional Office of Rep. Allen Boyd (archival record, 2005)
    Public notices regarding NACIQI meeting cancellations (2024–2025)
    David Halperin, Republic Report

    Source link