Fairness Audits of Institutional Risk Models in Deployed ML Pipelines

Fairness audits of institutional risk models are critical for understanding how deployed machine learning pipelines allocate resources. Drawing on multi-year collaboration with Centennial College, where our prior ethnographic work introduced the ASP-HEI Cycle, we present a replica-based audit of a deployed Early Warning System (EWS), replicating its model using institutional training data and design specifications. We evaluate disparities by gender, age, and residency status across the full pipeline (training data, model predictions, and post-processing) using standard fairness metrics. Our audit reveals systematic misallocation: younger, male, and international students are disproportionately flagged for support, even when many ultimately succeed, while older and female students with comparable dropout risk are under-identified. Post-processing amplifies these disparities by collapsing heterogeneous probabilities into percentile-based risk tiers. This work provides a replicable methodology for auditing institutional ML systems and shows how disparities emerge and compound across stages, highlighting the importance of evaluating construct validity alongside statistical fairness. It contributes one empirical thread to a broader program investigating algorithms, student data, and power in higher education.

"This is not a data problem": Algorithms and Power in Public Higher Education in Canada

Algorithmic decision-making is increasingly being adopted across public higher education. The expansion of data-driven practices by post-secondary institutions has occurred in parallel with the adoption of New Public Management approaches by neoliberal administrations. In this study, we conduct a qualitative analysis of an in-depth ethnographic case study of data and algorithms in use at a public college in Ontario, Canada. We identify the data, algorithms, and outcomes in use at the college. We assess how the college's processes and relationships support those outcomes and the different stakeholders' perceptions of the college's data-driven systems. In addition, we find that the growing reliance on algorithmic decisions leads to increased student surveillance, exacerbation of existing inequities, and the automation of the faculty-student relationship. Finally, we identify a cycle of increased institutional power perpetuated by algorithmic decision-making, and driven by a push towards financial sustainability.

A Human-Centered Review of Algorithms in Decision-Making in Higher Education

The use of algorithms for decision-making in higher education is steadily growing, promising cost-savings to institutions and personalized service for students but also raising ethical challenges around surveillance, fairness, and interpretation of data. To address the lack of systematic understanding of how these algorithms are currently designed, we reviewed an extensive corpus of papers proposing algorithms for decision-making in higher education. We categorized them based on input data, computational method, and target outcome, and then investigated the interrelations of these factors with the application of human-centered lenses: theoretical, participatory, or speculative design. We found that the models are trending towards deep learning, and increased use of student personal data and protected attributes, with the target scope expanding towards automated decisions. However, despite the associated decrease in interpretability and explainability, current development predominantly fails to incorporate human-centered lenses. We discuss the challenges with these trends and advocate for a human-centered approach.