What is Higher Education Transparency, Anyway?

TrustED defines higher education transparency as "The active, accessible, and timely disclosure of data, institutional policies, and outcomes in ways that allow students and all stakeholders to make informed decisions, challenge inequities, and hold institutions accountable." Our general rule of transparency relies on assessments of three, interdependent domains: access to information, accuracy of information, and visibility of institutional processes. Beyond these, the most transformative transparency is found in institutions' direct engagements with their stakeholders, most critically prospective and current students.

We’ll begin in the concrete, with access.

Access is the most basic expectation of transparency: Can students, families, and the public find the information they need, when they need it, in a format they can understand? Some recent analyses reveal that many institutions still treat access as a check-the-box exercise. Information is often scattered across subpages, hidden behind jargon, or delivered in formats that may serve regulators–if that–more than real people.

Yet as everyone knows, the stakes for lack of access are not abstract. When tuition costs, financial aid criteria, or graduation requirements are hard to locate or decipher, students are left navigating a maze that can have real financial and personal consequences. As scholars across Portugal, Italy, and the Netherlands have noted, transparent communications “must be based on the users’ information needs and take into account their capacities to process information.” In practice, this means designing websites and communications for the lived realities of students and their families.

And now on to accuracy. Of course, access to information alone is not enough, though it’s the absolute starting point. Accuracy demands that the data made available is also true, current, and reflective of reality. This is where many institutions falter, whether by omission or overstatement. When published job placement rates, average debt, or even basic tuition figures diverge from what students experience, not only do students suffer, but universities lose a certain amount of perceived integrity. The College Cost Transparency Initiative (CCT), now adopted by over 600 U.S. institutions, is a step toward standardizing how costs are presented. But 600 makes up for only 15% of about 4,000 U.S. universities, and the CCT is not a standard that requires mandatory compliance. 

Accuracy is also about context: Are outcomes and policies presented in a way that allows for meaningful comparison and informed decision-making? As recent reforms in Pennsylvania and other states show, legislative mandates for open data are only as effective as the institutions’ commitment to updating and verifying what they share.

Transparency of institutional process is perhaps the most elusive, but arguably the most important type of disclosure. It is one thing to know the outcome of an admissions cycle; it is another to understand how those decisions are made, who is making them, and what values are driving the process. Visibility into particular processes like admissions decisions and governance are important for all stakeholders, be they students, companies, or financial institutions. 

Recent policy briefs, such as the Martin Center’s “Blueprint for Reform: University Governance”, echo this call for procedural openness, urging universities to make board meeting minutes, voting records, and decision-making processes public and up to date. 

UNC Charlotte (UNCC) offers a powerful case study in how transparency, when coupled with genuine student engagement, can redefine institutional trust. In 2024, UNCC launched its largest campaign in history, “For the Love of Charlotte,” explicitly tying fundraising and institutional strategy to student success, academic leadership, and community vibrancy. Moreso, what sets UNCC apart is not just its public commitments, but how it operationalizes transparency through engagement.

As highlighted in recent campus communications and echoed by leaders like Sabrina Brown in the ShiftED Talks podcast, UNCC’s approach centers on opening channels for student feedback—not only through surveys, but through open forums and direct dialogue about everything from admissions to academic integrity. Brown goes as far as to say to students, “If I can find out who you are and find out your dreams and goals, that allows me to create some transparency around whether this is a good fit for you or not.” Transparency, in this sense, is most powerful when students are empowered to ask questions, share concerns, and see how their input shapes institutional decisions. This is not transparency as a participatory process.

More recent research underscores the necessity of student engagement. As Owusu-Agyeman (2022) found, the quality of student engagement directly impacts persistence and success, and is itself shaped by how transparent and responsive institutions are to student input. Collaborative quality assurance models show that when students are involved in defining standards and co-creating solutions, trust and accountability are significantly strengthened.

Enacting transparency through student engagements is not without challenges. Prioritizing and then integrating student voices requires confronting power imbalances, providing guidance, and sometimes rethinking long-standing institutional processes of engagement. But the payoff will be profound: an institutional culture where transparency is not just a compliance exercise, but a lived value—one that builds resilient trust and drives meaningful improvement.

For more information about partnering with TrustED, write to alana@trust-education.org.