Navigating Predatory Inclusion in Higher Education: A Double-Edged Sword
In an era where higher education is hailed as a gateway to economic mobility, recent developments spotlight the dark side of access initiatives. As part of its ongoing regulatory exploration, The Regulatory Review, a publication of the Penn Program on Regulation, brings attention to “predatory inclusion” and the target-without-protection model that endangers the very students it intends to uplift.
The Regulatory Review’s Findings on Predatory Inclusion
A hallmark of The Regulatory Review is its deep dive into critical regulatory issues, including those impacting higher education. Predatory inclusion, as discussed in the publication, refers to the provision of educational services to historically excluded groups under exploitative terms that often leave them worse off. The issue is exacerbated by online program managers (OPMs), for-profit companies that partner with universities to manage their online programs but often prioritize profit over student success.
Following the 2023 Supreme Court decisions that placed restrictions on affirmative action, federal agencies issued guidance urging educational institutions to uphold diversity. However, as explored in The Regulatory Review, this guidance inadvertently cleared the path for predatory practices, as institutions leaned on less transparent, potentially exploitative methods to sustain diversity.
The Role of OPMs in Exploitation
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has identified significant weaknesses in the oversight of OPMs, revealing that over 550 colleges utilized these entities to manage approximately 2,900 online programs. Many of these arrangements lack robust supervision, often focusing more on enrollment numbers than on student welfare, fostering environments ripe for exploitation.
Research by Laura T. Hamilton highlights the contractual issues between OPMs and public universities. Contracts often include revenue-sharing agreements that encourage enrollment growth over student support. These arrangements disproportionately affect marginalized students, making them lucrative targets for OPMs leveraging digital advertising platforms to practice “reverse redlining.”
Sam Gilman notes how such platforms target vulnerable populations with high-cost, low-value educational offerings, leading to alarmingly high default rates within these demographics. This emphasizes the need for reform in digital marketing and tighter scrutiny of OPM agreements.
Community Implications
The local impact of predatory inclusion is felt acutely in diverse communities, where access to education is often seen as the key to breaking intergenerational poverty cycles. For residents of economically diverse areas, the dream of higher education risks morphing into a financial burden.
Emily Sanders, a counselor at a local community college, shares her concerns: “We see students taking on massive debt for programs that ultimately do not improve their job prospects. It’s heartbreaking, but they feel trapped, believing education is their only way forward.”
The persistence of these practices not only damages individual futures but has broader socio-economic implications, potentially stalling community growth. It underscores a pressing need for state and federal reforms to ensure higher education genuinely serves as a ladder to opportunity and not a pitfall into debt.
Calls for Reform
Scholars and policymakers have called for comprehensive oversight reforms. Amber Villalobos and Carolyn Fast propose stringent regulations for OPMs, advocating for the prohibition of tuition-sharing models and demanding greater contract transparency to protect students from exploitation.
Reforms are not just academic but a clarion call echoed by local advocates, emphasizing the importance of community pressure in catalyzing change. Past town hall meetings, such as those prompted by community frustration over educational inequality, highlight the power of collective community action in influencing policy reforms.
Looking Forward
The narrative around predatory inclusion continues to unfold, leaving open questions about the future of higher education and its regulatory framework. To safeguard students’ interests, proposed changes could eventually lead to a reimagined educational system, fostering truly inclusive environments that prioritize learning and support over profit margins.
David Clark, a former educator and local activist, believes change is inevitable. “This is our moment to reshape the system. With awareness comes power, and with pressure comes change,” he asserts, rallying the local community to stay informed and involved.
Resources for Residents
For those affected or seeking more information, local educational institutions and regulatory bodies offer resources and guidance. Engagement in public hearings and educational forums can empower residents to advocate for their rights and push for necessary regulatory changes.
The Regulatory Review’s “Saturday Seminar” provides ongoing, in-depth exploration of such issues with expert contributions. It stands as a valuable resource for those who seek to understand the evolving landscape of higher education law and advocacy.
As the community grapples with the implications of predatory inclusion, balanced reporting, informed activism, and vigilant oversight remain pivotal in shaping an equitable educational landscape. By fostering awareness, the initiative bridges the gap between idealism and reality, potentially transforming the educational journey from a precarious venture to a promising pathway.
—
This article has delved into the complex world of predatory inclusion in higher education, reflecting a critical conversation that resonates deeply within communities across America. As the contours of this issue become clearer, local advocacy and informed policy-making emerge as necessary forces for real and lasting change.
