In this first of several blogs dedicated to sharing the meaningful outcomes of the three-month negotiated rulemaking sessions, Cheryl Dowd and Russ Poulin announce some exciting news and provide an overall assessment of the process and results from these important sessions. Enjoy!
–Erin Walton, contract editor for WCET
Consensus was a surprise! That is right, the Department of Education 2019 Negotiated Rulemaking on Accreditation and Innovation ended in consensus, which means that every negotiator agreed on every issue.
When the rulemaking plan was first announced in August 2018, we reported that the proposed plan would include a wide-ranging set of issues. Concerns were raised that there were too many important issues for one rulemaking. We were as surprised as everyone else that 100% agreement by the negotiators was achieved in this rulemaking process. If they had not reached “consensus,” the Department would have been free to write the rules on these issues. The regulations agreed upon by the negotiators will be the proposed regulations offered to the public in the upcoming months.
This is the first of several posts focused on the outcomes of the three-month negotiated rulemaking sessions. Today we will start with an overall assessment of the process and results of the negotiated rulemaking session. We will then continue with posts on specific issues of interest to WCET members, State Authorization Network (SAN) members, and the technology-enhanced education community, at large.
To manage this long list of issues, the Department became creative in its development of an unprecedented rulemaking management plan that included three new elements.
Subcommittees. First, the Department divided the issues into three subcommittees to research, discuss, and advise the main negotiated rulemaking committee. These subcommittees included: Distance Learning and Educational Innovation, TEACH Grants, and Faith-Based entities. Each month, the subcommittees met to discuss and find common ground on the issues. The findings and concerns were then reported to the main committee.
Department Proposed Specific Language Earlier in the Process Second, the Department presented regulatory language at the start of the session in January to jump start the rulemaking. Historically, the initial session was reserved for negotiators to brainstorm on the issues. The Department made it clear during the Distance Learning and Educational Innovation Subcommittee that the Department was open minded to discussion and changes to the Department’s initial proposed language.
Divided the Issue into Smaller “Buckets” The third new element to the rulemaking management plan was the division of issues for the purpose of voting. You might think that the intentional division of issues to the subcommittees would be the same division of issues for the purpose of voting. Well, you would be wrong! The Department developed categories of issues which the Department referred to as “buckets.” The intention was to offer similar issues together for purposes of voting. This division was proposed in anticipation that the committee might be able to agree to some subset of issues, but not all the issues. Thus, the Department created the following three buckets:
Bucket 1: Accreditation, Definition of a Credit Hour, and Byrd Scholarship
34 CFR 600: General; Maintaining Eligibility; and Loss of Eligibility.
34 CFR 602: Definitions; Criteria for Recognition, The Recognition Process.
Bucket 3: Distance Education, State Authorization for Distance Education and Competency
34 CFR 600: General (including Definition of state authorization reciprocity agreements and state authorization regulations); Procedures for Establishing Eligibility; Maintaining Eligibility; Eligibility for Foreign Institutions (FFEL Programs).
34 CFR 668: General, Standards for Participation in Title IV, Student Eligibility, Institution and Financial Assistance Information for Students, Appeal Procedures for Audit Determinations and Program Review Determinations, Cash Management, Financial Responsibility.
Beating the Consensus Deadline Clock
Due to the number of issues and the inability to use some of the originally planned meeting times because of snow delays and cancellations, the negotiators on the main committee requested additional meeting times. The Department accepted the request and provided an additional three days of meetings at the end of the session. With that in mind, April 3, 2019 at 3pm Eastern Time was the time designated for completion of the negotiations and voting. The final day saw an early start with Bucket 2 reaching consensus before 11am. The negotiators essentially grabbed food to go and worked through lunch and reached consensus on Bucket 3 by 1pm. With only three minutes left on the clock, the negotiators beat the buzzer with consensus on Bucket 1. Therefore, the negotiators reached consensus on all issues presented by the Department.
ISSUES OF NOTE
Last week Russ Poulin shared the following quick highlights of important issues, with WCET members:
Academic integrity requires institutions to have processes in place through which the institution establishes that the student who registers in any course offered via distance education or correspondence is the same student who academically engages in the course or program. Removes the section of this rule that referenced log-ins or proctored exams.
There were many changes to accreditation. The Department sought to ease the path to allowing new accrediting agencies to enter the field, but they did not get everything they wanted.
Few institutions were involved in this alternative form of disbursing financial aid due to the complexity of the requirements. The process was simplified. Additionally, if an institution has one direct assessment program approved by the Secretary of Education, additional programs at the same credential level do not need to be approved by the Secretary.
Distance Education Notifications
A whole section on notifications for students in distance education programs was removed. However, several of those disclosures (e.g., refund policies, complaint procedures) are already required in another section of existing regulations.
Professional Licensure Disclosures
This has been expanded to ALL students in professional licensure programs, not just distance students.
Professional licensure programs will need to generally disclose on a website if they meet a state’s educational requirements, if they do not meet the requirements, or if they have not made a determination for a state.
Disclosures sent directly to students will be needed if the institution reports that they do not or cannot determine if they meet requirements.
Regular and Substantive Interaction
Much was done to try to define this under-defined concept and to allow more instructional modes to qualify…
Instructor – What qualifies as an instructor will be determined by the institution’s accrediting agency.
Substantive – A list of activities that qualify for substantive interaction includes direct instruction, assessment, feedback on student work or course content, and facilitating group discussions.
Regular – In addition to the traditional notion of an instructor providing interactions on a set schedule, a second process was added. Instructors may also monitor student progress and provide feedback when needed or when requested by the student.
Eligibility to disburse federal financial aid is tied to the institution having approval of each state in which it serves students. This can be achieved by getting approval directly from the state or by participation in a reciprocity agreement.
The definition of reciprocity contains the same problematic language that was released in 2016, but we believe the Department will use the interpretation they gave to us in early 2017 to preserve reciprocity. There are critics who would love to kill reciprocity, and we will need to be vigilant this year. More to come on this topic.
Determining student location will require that the institutions have a process and act when a student indicates that he or she has relocated to another state.
In contracting or partnering with other entities to offer part of a program…
If you are partnering with another financial aid eligible institution, that institution can now offer more than half of a program.
Proposals to allow institutions to create written arrangements with non-accredited entities to provide more than 50% of a program were not adopted.
It was enlightening to listen to the Department’s live stream of the subcommittee and the main committee and hear that most discussions were driven by sincere desire to understand and compromise, all with the goal to help students participate in 21st Century higher education. Everyone gave on some issues and everyone won on some issues. That is how negotiations work. And, with the need to have complete agreement (consensus), a minority voice has a large impact on the outcome.
The road to effective final regulations is not complete. You can anticipate the following:
The Department’s release of Proposed Regulations in the next several months.
Public comment opportunity to provide feedback upon release of the Proposed Regulations.
Department review of the feedback on the regulations.
A release of Final Regulations by November 1, 2019 will cause a July 1, 2020 effective date for the Final Regulations.
There are many steps along this road to implementation of regulations, so you can expect us to provide deeper analysis of some of the issues mentioned here, along with status updates on the progress of the regulations and any movement on HEA Reauthorization.
Director, State Authorization Network
WCET – the WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technologies
Senior Director – Policy, Analysis, and Strategic Alliances
WCET – the WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technologies
6 replies on “Negotiated Rulemaking Reaches Consensus: An Overview of Processes, Issues, and Next Steps”
[…] this second in a series of posts on the most recent negotiated rulemaking process, we focus on the state authorization for distance […]
[…] our review of negotiated rulemaking in four sections. The first blog post focused on an overview of the rulemaking process, the issues, and the next steps. The second blog post covered regulations related to state authorization. The third blog post […]
[…] WCET Frontiers article about issues included in 2019 Negotiated Rulemaking Consensus: https://wcet.wiche.edu/frontiers/2019/04/12/negotiated-rulemaking-reaches-consensus/ […]
[…] down memory lane and revisiting the larger saga of the 2019 negotiated rulemaking you can do so here, here, and here. Today, though, we are going to examine the final accreditation regulations with an […]
[…] 3, 2019, after many hours of meetings from January through March, the U. S. Department of Education negotiated rulemaking process resulted in a vote of consensus (unanimous affirmative vote on all regulations) by the negotiators about a set of regulations […]
[…] of regulations that came from the 2019 Federal Rulemaking for Accreditation and Innovation that came to consensus in April 2019. In an effort to encourage innovation, this federal rulemaking was part of the Trump […]