Tag: trouble

  • The trouble with banning Fizz

    The trouble with banning Fizz

    On college campuses across the country, students and administrators are debating bans on Fizz, a mobile app that lets users within a particular community — such as a college or university — communicate anonymously.

    Some view Fizz as a source of bullying and other unwelcome content. Yet many students see Fizz — founded by two Stanford dropouts who felt their campus lacked opportunities to build community during the COVID-19 pandemic — as a source of vital connection. Indeed, The New School Free Press described the app as “a central hub for students to anonymously vent their frustrations, experiences, and feelings.” 

    Campus newspapers from communities as varied as The New School, Georgetown, and Colby have run op-eds this semester proclaiming the app beloved by their student bodies. To these students, anonymous apps like Fizz and its industry peer Sidechat aren’t just sources of humor and gossip — they’re important forums for discussion about taboo subjects such as STDs, student labor union disputes, and law enforcement. Last spring at UCLA, for example, Sidechat played a noteworthy role in helping pro-Palestinian campus protesters track police actions.

    A brief history of attempts to ban anonymous platforms

    This isn’t the first time an anonymous social media platform has sparked controversy, split reactions, and faced bans on campus. In 2016, numerous private colleges and universities banned Yik Yak, a location-based anonymous messaging app that shut down in 2017 amid reports of rampant bullying. Then, as now, user experiences varied. Though some pointed to the app’s abuses, others found spaces for open discussion, particularly on sensitive subjects.

    For example, at John Brown University, a Christian college in Arkansas, students used Yik Yak to discuss a professor’s “views on the LGBTQ+ community” and the university’s treatment of same-sex couples. Without an anonymous platform, these students’ concerns may have gone unaddressed.

    In 2022, Yik Yak re-emerged with new “community guardrails” to prevent harassment and abusive behavior. Now, it’s back to facing proposed bans on campus, alongside Fizz and Sidechat — which acquired Yik Yak in March 2023. 

    The Futility of ‘Banning’ Yik Yak on Campus

    On college campuses across the country, students and administrators are debating banning Yik Yak, a mobile phone application that allows its users to communicate anonymously.


    Read More

    In some ways, it feels like 2016 all over again. But in the years since the first anti-Yik Yak crusades, what has changed? 

    On the technology side, the changes have been mostly minor. Yik Yak’s model of open access to geofenced forums for users within a certain mileage radius meant a competing setup could emerge with the advent of Fizz and Sidechat, which provide each college or university with its own private “campus community.” These communities are open only to those with verified school email addresses. 

    On the policy side, though, the developments have been more troubling. Instead of administrators imposing new restrictions over the objections of their student bodies, students themselves are now urging schools to curtail their ability to use anonymous apps. From liberal arts colleges in Pennsylvania to large research universities in Texas, students are leading campaigns urging their schools to ban platforms they say are causing “harm,” including “cruel, racist, homophobic, anti-disability comments” and “a surge of racism.” And this time around, public universities — that, unlike private institutions, are beholden to the First Amendment — are joining in on the bandwagon. The University of North Carolina system has said it is working on a ban targeting Yik Yak, Sidechat, Fizz, and Whisper. A public institution completely banning these platforms would jeopardize student rights and shut off popular avenues for expression on campus.

    How the First Amendment protects online and offline anonymous speech

    To FIRE’s knowledge, no public college or university blocked access to Yik Yak on its network during the first round of attempted bans in 2016. Such a restriction by a public institution would conflict with the First Amendment, which protects the right to anonymous speech. As the Supreme Court recognized in McIntyre v. Ohio, anonymity “exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: To protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.”

    The Electronic Frontier Foundation has likewise explained that a public institution’s prohibition on anonymous online platforms would contravene the First Amendment, since courts have recognized that the First Amendment protects anonymous speech on the internet specifically. In Doe v. 2TheMart.com, Inc., senior district judge Thomas Samuel Zilly concluded, “Internet anonymity facilitates the rich, diverse, and far-ranging exchange of ideas. The ability to speak one’s mind on the Internet without the burden of the other party knowing all the facts about one’s identity can foster open communication and robust debate.” “Indeed, our founders relied on anonymity when creating the Constitution,” EFF similarly wrote.

    Anonymous speech, present at the founding in The Federalist Papers and Common Sense, lies at the core of American liberty — and we must not forget it.

    The offensiveness of the speech at issue doesn’t strip it of First Amendment protections on campus — if anything, it reinforces why those protections exist. As recognized in Gay Lib v. University of Missouri, a public university, “as an instrumentality of the State, has no right to restrict speech or association simply because it finds the views expressed to be abhorrent.”

    The practical stakes of banning anonymous forums from campus are high. Cutting off access to online platforms doesn’t only silence offensive comments — it restricts the tools students use to speak, organize, and mobilize around political and social causes, in ways that are often faster and more powerful than offline alternatives.

    Consistent with their right to speak anonymously, students possess the First Amendment freedom to assemble and receive information through both online platforms and offline media. As Justice Black wrote in Martin v. City of Struthers, “This freedom embraces the right to distribute literature, and necessarily protects the right to receive it.” By prohibiting anonymous social media platforms, schools would unconstitutionally impede students’ ability to access information from peers who may express certain critiques of the status quo only through anonymous online speech.

    The symbolism of bans

    Attempts by colleges to block access to such platforms are not only legally fraught, but also ineffective. A campus’s control over internet access extends only so far: An institution cannot stop a student from visiting a particular website or using an app at home, in a public library, or from a neighborhood café. In an era of widespread cellular data and VPNs, bypassing a campus network restriction is as easy as disconnecting from campus Wi-Fi. Put simply, preventing student access to Yik Yak, Fizz, or any other app is impossible absent extreme measures such as disrupting cellular service or punishing students for using technology off campus.

    Despite this inherent futility, several institutions have nonetheless imposed such bans. When Saint Louis University banned Yik Yak in March 2015, it characterized the app as “inappropriate and counterproductive,” but acknowledged that it would remain accessible on students’ mobile devices, a tacit recognition of the ban’s ultimate ineffectiveness. Nevertheless, the university framed the ban as an “important and symbolic” step. After Yik Yak was blocked from campus internet access, the platform unsurprisingly continued to receive dozens of posts each day from SLU students using cellular data. New restrictions on platforms like Fizz, Sidechat, or Whisper are likely to prove equally pointless.

    So, given the ineffectiveness of such bans, why do they matter? SLU was right about one thing: They’re symbolic. And the symbol such bans conjure should alarm us all. That students would support, and in some cases, ask, for administrators to curb their right to anonymous speech is a disturbing harbinger of an all-too-common willingness to accept the tyranny of good intentions, oblivious or indifferent to the harms such kindly inquisitors pose. 

    From student activists today to political thinkers at the nation’s founding, anonymity has long been a vital tool for challenging entrenched power. 

    Students assume administrators will use such powers for good. When anonymous feeds start functioning as an unaccountable rumor mill — where, as one student at Marywood University put it, “Yik Yak’s anonymous posts allow for people to make fun of people and have no consequences” — it’s not hard to see why some students reach for the quickest lever available: Cutting off campus Wi-Fi access. And when students describe anonymity as “really bad” because it lets people post hateful attacks “and face no consequences,” the ban-them-all pitch is often framed less as punishing dissent than as basic harm reduction — a way to deter doxxing, harassment, and spiraling pile-ons when platform moderation and campus processes feel too slow or toothless. At the University of Vermont, for example, a student who said he’d seen posts that were “super racist or super sexist or homophobic” argued “there would be an improvement on the well-being of the community if the app were restricted.” Students want a safer campus climate, and they trust bans from administrators to get there.

    Yet, banning entire platforms is a heavy-handed solution. There are more narrowly-tailored ways to address genuine safety concerns. The First Amendment doesn’t protect discriminatory harassment, true threats, or violence; university administrators and content providers can address targeted instances of unlawful conduct without wholesale platform restrictions.

    Handing over broad banning powers carries its own risks, too. The idea that it’s anyone’s business which apps you use reflects a paternalistic and authoritarian mindset, one more appropriate to grade-school supervision than to the treatment of autonomous adults. This is probably not a precedent students actually want to set.

    Moreover, the moral panic we’re seeing flattens the reality that people engage with platforms in markedly different ways — technology is a tool capable of both benefit and abuse, not a single, undifferentiated force. Writing in Bloomberg, FIRE board member Virginia Postrel described her own experience exploring Yik Yak and concluded that anonymity can foster empathy and mutual support among students. Rather than serving only as an outlet for provocation, anonymity often creates a space where students can acknowledge vulnerabilities they “often won’t admit to their friends,” including academic pressure, loneliness, and mental health struggles.

    Postrel highlights exchanges in which students openly share feelings of despair and are met with immediate affirmation — simple responses like “I feel the same way” and “me too” that convey understanding and solidarity. In settings where public disclosure might invite ridicule or dismissal, anonymity allows students to recognize that they are “not alone.”

    Banning platforms that allow anonymous speech is not merely unlawful in some circumstances. It is fundamentally hostile to a culture of free expression. An open internet has long served as a refuge for subcommunities that might otherwise disappear entirely — political dissidents living under authoritarian regimes, sexual minorities navigating social stigma in small or insular communities, and countless others for whom visibility carries real risk. From Signal to Telegram, Reddit to Craigslist — and yes, from Yik Yak to Fizz — forums that permit anonymity have historically empowered the powerless. They do not inherently invert power dynamics in favor of abuse, as critics often suggest. If anything, they correct imbalances that would otherwise silence vulnerable voices altogether. 

    As EFF observed, anonymity can be essential to student activism and support-seeking on campus. Anonymity can allow survivors of sexual or racial violence to discuss their experiences and find support without exposing themselves to further harm. At Columbia, for example, student activists relied on anonymous speech to criticize what they viewed as an inadequate university response to sexual assault allegations from their peers — fearing retaliation, discipline, or lawsuits if they spoke publicly. At Guilford College, students circulated an online form to gather anonymous accounts and reports of racial violence from people who didn’t feel safe submitting their names through official university channels.

    These anecdotes are not outliers but part of a long American tradition of protecting the right to privacy. Speakers may opt for the security of anonymity rather than risk attribution; this should not be met with punishment. From student activists today to political thinkers at the nation’s founding, anonymity has long been a vital tool for challenging entrenched power. Anonymous speech, present at the founding in The Federalist Papers and Common Sense, lies at the core of American liberty — and we must not forget it.

    Source link

  • The trouble with ‘dignity’ | The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression

    The trouble with ‘dignity’ | The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression

    After the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, universities faced a dilemma that has become grimly familiar in the age of social media: what to do when a member of the campus community says something online that others find intolerable.

    Within days, institutions moved with visible urgency. Some suspended employees. Others terminated them outright. A few launched “investigations” whose conclusions seemed preordained. FIRE has condemned these actions (when taken by public institutions) as violations of the First Amendment and intervened in over a dozen cases.

    Yet the punishments themselves tell only half the story. Equally revealing were the justifications universities offered for them: 

    • Clemson University declared that free speech “does not extend to speech that undermines the dignity of others.”
    • The University of Mississippi stated that a fired staff member’s comments about Kirk “run completely counter to our institutional values of civility, fairness, and respecting the dignity of each person.”
    • The president of Austin Peay State University said a faculty member’s social-media post “does not align with our commitment to mutual respect and human dignity” and was therefore grounds for termination.

    The message these colleges sent was unmistakable: offensive speech is not merely offensive, it is an assault on human dignity itself. And that, in the eyes of administrators, makes it punishable.

    The impulse to regulate speech in these circumstances is understandable. When tragedy strikes, ordinary condemnations can feel hollow beside the enormity of what has been lost. Requiring respect for “dignity” seems to offer something more; something higher: a recognition of our shared humanity, a pledge to the campus community that while ideas may be contested, no person will be debased.

    But the moment “dignity” becomes a standard of compliance, it stops inspiring behavior and starts regulating it. The language of virtue invariably becomes the grammar of control.

     The moment dignity must be imposed, it has already been lost. 

    The trouble with “dignity” begins with its vagueness. 

    “Dignity” can mean many things: (a) the inherent value of the human person; (b) the social honor one commands in the eyes of others; (c) the inner self-respect that resists humiliation; or all the above. These meanings both overlap and collide. Which, then, is a university to enforce: the idea of respect, the appearance of respect, or the feeling of respect?

    There is no objective way to make this decision. And when a rule depends on subjective perception, it cannot be applied fairly. What one dean calls satire, another may label cruelty. What one student finds invigorating, another experiences as demeaning. And all of these people may be completely in earnest. Under such conditions, enforcement becomes a matter not of principle but of preference. 

    And because “dignity” sounds so unimpeachably virtuous, its invocation cloaks coercion in benevolence. Who, after all, would dare oppose dignity?

    From this vagueness comes overbreadth. When “attacking dignity” can mean almost anything, it ends up encompassing nearly everything. 

    Universities that rightly prohibit harassment or discrimination — categories of unprotected acts that may involve expression — increasingly extend those prohibitions to merely “undignified” expression, which is protected. The University of Michigan’s harassment policy, for example, forbids conduct that diminishes “individual dignity.” Similarly, Penn State’s harassment policy defines discriminatory behavior as violating “the dignity of individuals.” 

    Penn State Revises ‘Principles’ in Victory for Free Speech

    Once disagreement itself is framed as a denial of dignity, even empirical or policy debates about healthcare, sports, or law are reclassified as “harassment” rather than legitimate discussion. The zone of the impermissible grows, and the culture of caution grows with it.

    Faculty and students, uncertain where the invisible boundary lies, retreat into self-censorship. They learn to treat disagreement as danger and discomfort as moral injury. The less precise the rule, the wider its reach. The wider its reach, the more timid the discourse. Administrative control breeds emotional fragility, and emotional fragility, in turn, justifies greater administrative control. It’s a feedback loop of moral protectionism. 

    What is at stake is no less than the mission of the university itself. Higher education exists not to shield its members from offense, but to teach them how to confront it; to refine judgment through exposure to conflict; to cultivate reason through disagreement. The “dignity rule” diminishes the (ahem) dignity of that mission. It transforms the university from a marketplace of ideas into a tribunal of sentiment. 

    To be clear, none of this is to diminish the importance of human dignity itself. Indeed,  any university worthy of its title should strive toward cultivating an educational environment wherein all members of the campus community are treated with equal dignity. But when vague and overbroad noble values become instruments of coercion, liberty is often the first casualty.

    This is precisely why the Supreme Court has consistently rejected attempts to limit speech on the grounds of indignity. In Snyder v. Phelps (2011), the Court held that even the Westboro Baptist Church’s vile protest at a fallen soldier’s funeral — which most Americans would see as a profound affront to dignity — was protected expression. In America, the right to speak, to offend, and to argue is not the enemy of dignity, but its precondition.

    That is, to affirm the value of human dignity is not to be shielded from ridicule or offense but to be recognized as a rational, moral agent capable of hearing, weighing, and responding in kind.

    In short: the moment dignity must be imposed, it has already been lost. And when universities attempt to enforce it, they risk betraying their commitment to free speech and the mission of education itself: to cultivate minds capable of reasoning in the face of offense, and of finding in that encounter — not in its suppression — the measure of their humanity.

    Source link

  • The trouble with the latest accreditation round for initial teacher education

    The trouble with the latest accreditation round for initial teacher education

    English teacher education has been the subject of ongoing and turbulent policy change for many years. But the radical shift in agenda instigated by the Department for Education (DfE) market review between 2022 and 2024 brought this change to another level. The policy instigated a reaccreditation process for all initial teacher education (ITE) providers awarding qualified teacher status.

    The Conservative government’s attempt at “delivering world-class teacher development” ended up decimating the landscape of ITE, leaving those of us left to pick up the pieces. Now DfE has opened a second round of the accreditation process – has it learned any lessons?

    What went wrong

    Stage 1 of the process the first time around included a written proposal of over 7,000 words outlining compliance with the new standards, including curriculum alignment to the ITE core curriculum framework. Additional details and evidence of partnership and mentoring systems and processes also had to be included. Successful applicants progressed to stage 2. Here, rigorous scrutiny of further preparation and plans began, with each institution being allocated a DfE associate to work with for a further twelve months.

    The additional workload this required stretched the capacity and resources of all education departments within higher education institutions. Academics were simultaneously delivering ongoing provision, continuing recruitment, and writing additional postgraduate (and for many undergraduate) revised provision – and many were under the threat of redundancy. All of the above, under constant threat of looming Ofsted visits.

    A previous Wonkhe article likened to the process to the Netflix series Squid Game, using the metaphor to describe the experience for existing ITT providers – meet the confusing demands and conflicting eligibility requirements, or you’re out.

    A significant number of providers failed to secure accreditation, either losing or giving up their status, with provider numbers reducing from 240 to 179.

    At the time the sector offered collegiate support, forming working groups to foster joint responses when collating the sheer volume of output required. Pressures surfaced including stress and anxiety caused by the increase in workload. Insecurity of jobs and the conflicting and at times confusing advice brought many individuals to the point of exhaustion and burnout.

    Squid: off the menu?

    You would therefore expect an announcement of the opportunity for providers to re-enter the market to be met with a sense of joy. Wouldn’t you?

    However, the new round is only for any lead provider currently working in partnership with an accredited provider. These partnerships are only in their first year and were encouraged by the DfE because of the “cold spots” created when thirteen higher education institutions failed to pass the previous process – despite having proven a history of quality provision.

    The creation of such partnerships added yet more stress and workload to all concerned. No legal advice on governance was provided. They proved incredibly complex to navigate, requiring long standing buy-in to make them workable and financially viable. As of yet no advice has been published of how to exit these partnership arrangements.

    Providers wishing to begin delivering ITT from September 2026 must meet the eligibility criteria. The window for the applications will be open for a much shorter period than the previous round, with the process and outcome to be completed 30 June 2025. This contrasts to the 18 months previously required for providers to demonstrate their “market readiness” in the previous round.

    Stage 1 of the new process will include a written submission of no more than 1500 words – remember, it was 7,000 last time – with applicants submitting a brief summary of their ITT and mentor curricula. In this short piece they will need to “demonstrate how their curriculum meets the quality requirements in the ITT criteria.” A window across March and April 2025 was open to complete and upload this portfolio.

    Stage 2, this time round, is an interview, where applicants “deliver a presentation to a panel, and answer questions further demonstrating how they meet the quality requirement.” Following both the written and verbal submissions, an assessment will be made and moderated by panels of ITT experts.

    For those still haunted by the lived experience of the first round of ITT accreditation, the greatly reduced stringency of the process would appear to make a mockery of the previous, highly controversial, demands and expectations.

    Like last time, success in the accreditation will require a demonstration of compliance with the expectations of the core curriculum framework (or from September, the ITTECF) along with further DfE quality requirements through submission.

    However, unlike last time, prospective providers will not be required to create extensive written responses, detailed curriculum resources or an extensive mentor curriculum (for which many of the requirements were axed overnight in the government’s announcement in November).

    Unbalanced

    How can the two contrasting timelines and expectations possibly be seen as equitable or comparable?

    In addition, how can we guarantee a smooth transition between lead partners and current accredited providers? Some of these partnerships involve undergraduate provision, established as a result of “rationalising” ITT provision. For those students only in year one of a three-year degree, how will this transition work?

    As a sector we recognise that the policy is aimed at meeting the government target of recruiting an extra 6,500 teachers this sitting parliament. And we welcome our peers back into the fold. Many of us are still reeling from the injustice of those colleagues being locked out in the last round (at the time all rated good or better by Ofsted).

    However, as NFER’s recent teacher labour market report pointed out, teachers’ pay and workload remain the highest cited reasons for ongoing difficulties in recruitment and retention. Neither of these things have been addressed by the new accreditation process.

    For those of us still clinging on for dear life, our confidence in the system is fading. One day, just like our stamina and resilience, it will evaporate all together.

    Source link

  • Having trouble keeping up with the chaos of the student loan system? (Student Borrower Protection Center)

    Having trouble keeping up with the chaos of the student loan system? (Student Borrower Protection Center)

    Are you having trouble keeping up with the chaos of the student loan system? Don’t worry; we got you. There’s a lot going on right now and we’re here to break it all down. Here are some of the most pressing things that happened this week.

    On Tuesday, Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), the Ranking Member of the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee and senior member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee chaired an education forum to spotlight the Trump Administration’s radical effort to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education (ED). Tasha Berkhalter, a U.S. Army veteran and student loan borrower who had her debt discharged by the Biden Administration after being defrauded by a predatory for-profit college, gave powerful testimony at the hearing.

    Source link

  • It’s Time for Higher Education Leadership to Embrace ‘Good Trouble’

    It’s Time for Higher Education Leadership to Embrace ‘Good Trouble’

    Dr. Detris AdelabuOn the day of his death in 2020, an op-ed appeared in the New York Times, pre-written by Congressman John Lewis, urging Americans to stand up for justice and what he called “good trouble, necessary trouble.  Even in his death, Congressman Lewis fought for a more equitable America, where every individual recognizes their moral obligation to persist in the struggle for a more just nation.

    The recent Supreme Court decision striking down race-conscious admissions policies, followed by anti-equity legislation across more than 40 states and at the highest level of government, erodes decades of collective efforts to rectify a history of gross social and structural inequities. In higher education, these legislative attacks have led to a decline in Black and Latino student enrollment at selective colleges and universities and have prompted institutions to abandon their commitment to equity.  Universities such as Harvard, Rutgers, Northeastern, the University of Texas, and Louisiana State University are scrubbing their website of all references to diversity, equity, and inclusion, shuttering DEI offices and laying off staff, and scrutinizing the curriculum for any references to DEI.  If ever there was a time for “good trouble” in higher education, that time is now.  But can higher education leadership muster the political will to stand firm for equity?

    Institutional Responsibility and Moral Leadership

    Legislative setbacks to equity beckon colleges and universities to take bold and creative strategies to reaffirm their commitment to equitable access to resources and opportunities in education. Institutions can, for example, place greater emphasis on partnering with under-resourced high schools and expand outreach to marginalized communities to signal their commitment to equity. While such measures are imperfect, they signal a refusal to yield to a regressive interpretation of equity and justice.

    Higher education institutions can leverage their platforms to articulate their mission and commitment to equity beyond their campuses by working together to:

    1. Form Multi-Institutional Alliances to Challenge Anti-DEI Legislation: Colleges and universities can form alliances on a national scale to amplify their collective advocacy against policies that restrict access to resources and opportunities. Sharing strategies and best practices can strengthen collective efforts to promote equity. Dr. Felicity CrawfordDr. Felicity Crawford
    2. Invest in Community Partnerships: By deepening relationships with K-12 schools, particularly those in strategically under-resourced areas, institutions can create robust pathways for diverse talent. Mentorship programs, financial support, and academic preparation initiatives can help bridge gaps in access and opportunity.
    3. Prioritize Transparency and Accountability: By publishing detailed reports on their equity and diversity metrics, institutions can enhance accountability and demonstrate their progress towards equity.

    Upholding the Educational Mission of Higher Education

    The mission of higher education extends beyond the transmission of knowledge. It encompasses the cultivation of informed, engaged, and socially responsible citizens. Failing to prioritize equity undermines this mission, leaving graduates ill-equipped to navigate the complexities of a global society. Institutions that acquiesce to the erosion of equity risk not only their reputations but also their relevance in a rapidly changing world.

    Resisting harmful laws and policies that oppose equity is not without risks. Institutions may face political backlash, reduced funding, or legal challenges. However, the cost of inaction—both in terms of societal impact and institutional integrity—is far greater. By taking a principled stand, colleges and universities can position themselves on the right side of history, inspiring future generations to do the same. Equity, when implemented with fidelity, fosters diversity.

    The current sociopolitical landscape presents a defining moment for higher education. Gross social and structural inequities will not resolve themselves. Left unattended, they will continue to generate detrimental social and economic consequences for American society, with effects that can span generations. By developing innovative strategies, advocating for systemic change, and upholding their educational missions, institutions can resist attacks on progress and continue to serve as beacons of opportunity and justice. In doing so, they not only honor their moral and societal obligations but also preserve the transformative power of education for generations to come.Dr. Linda Banks-SantilliDr. Linda Banks-Santilli

    This moment calls for moral leadership in higher education that not only resists the immediate consequences of anti-DEI legislation but also envisions a more just and inclusive future. This moment calls for good trouble. To echo the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.:

    “In this unfolding conundrum of life and history, there is such a thing as being too late. This is no time for apathy or complacency. This is a time for vigorous and positive action.”

    Dr. Detris Honora Adelabu is a Clinical Professor at the Boston University Wheelock College of Education and Human Development

    Dr. Felicity A. Crawford is a Clinical Associate Professor at the Boston University Wheelock College of Education and Human Development

    Dr. Linda Banks-Santilli is a Clinical Associate Professor at the Boston University Wheelock College of Education and Human Development

    Source link

  • Misrepresentations by OPMs could land colleges in trouble, Education Department says

    Misrepresentations by OPMs could land colleges in trouble, Education Department says

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Colleges could lose access to federal financial aid or face penalties if their external service providers mislead their students, the U.S. Department of Education said Tuesday. 

    That includes companies that help colleges launch and run online programs. Employees of online program managers, or OPMs, cannot represent themselves as working directly for colleges, including by having email addresses or signatures implying they’re employed by those institutions, according to the guidance. 

    OPM employees are also not allowed to represent a virtual program as equivalent to a college’s campus-based version if they have dissimilar admissions criteria, completion rates, faculty qualifications or other substantive differences. And workers in recruiting or sales roles can’t call themselves an “academic counselor” or use a similar title if it doesn’t accurately describe their position. 

    The guidance — issued in the waning days of the Biden administration — aims to add more oversight to colleges’ relationships with OPMs. Student advocacy groups have long called for stricter rules for these companies, which often help colleges launch online programs in exchange for a significant cut of their tuition revenue.

    Carolyn Fast, director of higher education policy at The Century Foundation, a left-leaning think tank, praised the letter Wednesday. 

    “Today’s move by the Department of Education is a step in the right direction, affirming what we already know: OPMs commonly mislead students about the quality of their online programs and that is illegal,” Fast said in a statement. “This action will deter misconduct by OPMs and their college partners and will help protect online college students from the risks posed by predatory OPMs.”

    What led to the guidance?

    The guidance comes after the Biden administration’s other plans to add oversight to the OPM industry faltered. 

    In early 2023, the administration said it would review guidance that allows colleges to enter tuition-sharing deals with OPMs that provide recruiting help — so long as it is part of a larger bundle of services. Despite asking for public comment on the matter, the Education Department has not updated or rescinded the 2011 guidance.

    At the same time it announced the review, the administration issued separate guidance that would designate OPMs and other organizations as third-party servicers. The change would have subjected them to regulations that would give the department insight into their contracts with colleges. 

    However, the Education Department quickly delayed the guidance — and eventually rescinded it altogether — amid widespread criticism that it would create burdensome requirements for the higher education sector. 

    “We finally have clarity, in the last days of the administration, what they’re actually going to do with the guidance around [third-party servicers]” and OPMs, said Phil Hill, an ed tech consultant. “It’s just been this soap opera for 2 1/2 years now.”

    However, Hill described Tuesday’s guidance as “petulant rulemaking” from the Biden administration. 

    “This Dear Colleague letter is attempting to go down to the level of telling colleges and universities and vendors what words are allowable and what aren’t,” Hill said. “And this went through zero process, zero attempt to get input from schools.”

    That includes whether the guidance will hamstring colleges from running online programs or whether the policies address the issues they’re trying to solve, Hill said. 

    Stephanie Hall, senior director for higher education policy at the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank, took a different stance. 

    The Education Department received a “treasure trove of comments” when it sought public input in 2023 on policies that would have impacted the OPM sector, Hall argued. 

    “A lot was given over the past couple of years, and I see this guidance letter as just an extension or a conclusion of that process and not something new that didn’t take any input,” Hall said. 

    Whether the Trump administration will enforce the new guidance is another matter. But Hall said the guidance is likely to create changes either way. 

    “Schools are put on notice,” Hall said. “It’s something they take very seriously.” 

    The incoming Trump administration could also rescind the guidance altogether, though it’s unclear if OPM oversight is a priority issue to incoming officials. 

    “Are they aware of the impact this could have on online education, and is this going to be on their radars to take action and just immediately get rid of it?” Hill said. 

    The guidance could also draw legal challenges. The Biden administration’s now-rescinded 2023 guidance sparked a lawsuit from 2U, a prominent OPM. 

    “This is just waiting for a rescission or a lawsuit,” he said. 

    Source link