Author: Lindsey Downs

It’s Not All Bad

By Lindsey Downs

June 9, 2022

WCET Frontiers is happy to again welcome Kara Monroe, President and Founder of Monarch Strategies LLC to continue her article series on leadership in higher education digital learning.

This post, a reflection on strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats for higher education today, is the fourth in this series. Don’t forget to check out the previous posts: “Shifting from Covid-normal to New Normal,” “The ‘New Normal’ and Reflections on Accessibility,” and “Before and After Moments.“

Enjoy the read,

Lindsey Downs, WCET

In April and May, I had the opportunity to do a type of SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) analysis with three different groups of higher education colleagues. These groups represented more than 50 people in jobs ranging from institutional level managers to CEOs of national policy organizations. One of those groups was the WCET Steering Committee.

Each individual SWOT analysis took place with their specific group and the separate groups did not know there were others completing similar exercises. I did these as a part of different client agreements and the exercise just seemed to fit naturally into the flow of what the group wished to accomplish meaning I didn’t have an intention to study this particular topic when I used this exercise the first time.

While the sample size is still somewhat small, the themes that have begun to emerge are clear. In this month’s post, I want to share some of those themes as well as a few of the intricacies of the conversations with you. And, as I want to end the post on a high note, we’ll start first with the threats, then go to the weaknesses, and we’ll end more positively with the opportunities and the strengths.

As we begin, I want to revisit the purpose for this series of articles briefly. COVID was a massive, shared experience and we should – both individually and collectively – learn from our experiences. The purpose of this series is to examine what we’ve learned from COVID – predominantly as higher education institutions. Since we’re likely at the midpoint of the series, today’s post can serve as our reflective midterm exam.

What wasn’t working before COVID that still is not working well today?

To prompt the identification and discussion of threats, I posed this question: “What wasn’t working before COVID that still is not working well today?” These are things that while they may look different now than they did before the pandemic began, they were major obstacles before COVID and still remain major obstacles today.

Institutional Trust In Their Employees

This concept came up in all three groups. When COVID began, organizations had to scramble to provide all of their employees with a safe way to work which generally meant sending them home. In a lot of higher education institutions this even meant packing up the computer on their desk and sending them home with that computer. As one participant said, “They wouldn’t buy me a laptop because they thought it would get destroyed and here I went with my entire PC, monitor, keyboard, and mouse. They had no choice but to trust me.”

IT Tools was not the only place this conversation came up. It also centered itself in the work location, work hours, and work structure. Employees who worked from home for months (or years) are now expected to be in the office daily, even if they are still serving students remotely because it’s how students prefer to be served. Many participants in these conversations felt it ridiculous that remote work arrangements that had been made before COVID, where employees could work from where it made the most sense for them on a specific day, are now being replaced by all or nothing in office arrangements.

Infrastructure For Support

The infrastructure – from IT to Human Services – got a lot of attention during COVID and in some places did improve. However, many faculty who grew infinitely more comfortable using technology during COVID are now returning to classrooms that lack the basic tools to allow them to use that technology effectively.

Furthermore, basic supports like childcare, mental health support, food, and housing received a lot of attention during COVID but in many institutions solutions were short-term at best and did not result in long term changes.

Testing

I was surprised that testing was identified in all three group’s SWOT analysis. Each group came at it from a very different perspective.

From the perspective of the WCET Steering Committee, the concerns with testing were specifically around the multitude of challenges with proctoring. On most college campuses, the volume of proctored testing has far outpaced what campus proctoring centers can handle. While many institutions used HERFF COVID relief dollars to fund digital proctoring solutions which students found convenient and which gave institutions much needed additional capacity, those funds are running low and there is no clear path forward.

Other groups praised the move by many higher educational institutions to go “test optional” for admission and to use other criteria instead. However, as standardized testing has started up in earnest again rather than giving time for this methodology of placement to more fully develop and be iterated on for improvement, some institutions are simply returning to the pre-COVID non-student-centric ways of requiring exams like SAT and ACT.

What started working better in COVID that is now functioning worse than pre-COVID?

To identify weaknesses, I asked groups to think about how COVID has made them stronger and whether a “return to normal” has stagnated or even reversed that progress. As learning organizations, this should be the category that makes us the most upset.

Modality Confusion

I was a little surprised to see this come up in groups outside of the WCET Steering Committee. During COVID we had a load of “new modalities” spring up. While none of them are really new, we tried to place names on major categories of packaging instruction that hadn’t been offered previously – or at least hadn’t been used in large enough volume to categorize before.

These new modalities and changes made in existing modalities now cause confusion for faculty and students alike. And, advisors lack the kinds of tools they need to describe these modalities, along with all of the other pathways and initiatives that they have to describe to students.

Communication Silos

Communication came up in all three groups that completed this activity.

During COVID, communication was far better and without silos. This was true with the two groups focused mostly on intra-organizational communication as well as with the group that focuses largely on inter-organizational communication.

Comments during this discussion included things like “everyone just knew they had to work together” to “we had to talk to each other more because we couldn’t use body language as much” show the breadth and depth of this issue from both individual communications to communication amongst departments, institutions, and organizations.

What started working better in COVID that has now stagnated?

Recognition Mental Health Needs and Stress

It is hugely important to recognize that mental health is a challenge right now and faculty, staff, and students are overwhelmed. There were two comments that came out of the dialog with the WCET Steering Committee that I think need to be quoted directly for the broader community around this topic.

The first is specific to psychological safety in organizations. As COVID hit, one of the first things the team I was leading did was provide a safe and easy way for students to exit a learning experience if it simply was not going to work for them. When our students came back from Spring Break, we turned their world upside down and we recognized that was not going to be for everyone. We made late withdrawal easier. We made pass/fail options easier. We provided tools to help explain where these made sense for a student and where they didn’t.

From an institutional goals perspective this was countercultural to what our long term aims were – we were trying to turn around a culture that had, for many years, told students, “Don’t fail, drop the class.” We had actively tried to change that culture to “Stick with the class and keep learning. We’ve got your back if you have to retake it.” But, in COVID we recognized that might not be the responsible thing for student mental and physical health so we made both paths easier. This quote summed that up beautifully. “During COVID there was a lot of accountability on faculty and institutions for students to feel safe. Now policies have less grace than they did during COVID.”

Broadly speaking, I think the quote below from another member of the Steering Committee summed up many of the challenges that colleagues across all three groups shared in these exercises. How our institutions are not always keeping people – whether that be students, faculty, or staff at the forefront of our decision making as we’ve run quickly to “return to normal.” That person said, “A return to normal is a return to practices that were not learner centric and had less emphasis on learner needs.”

What started working better in COVID that continues to work better today?

It’s also important to note as we begin this category that in every single one of the more “negative” areas above, there are pockets where the challenges are not occurring. For example, one of the comments related to testing that came up as a strength in the WCET Steering Committee is that more and more faculty moved to authentic assessments instead of “bubble-sheet” style tests. While this may not have represented the “norm” across all institutions it means that at least one institution in this sample chose to keep this positive rather than returning to “normal”.

Increased Faculty Awareness and Respect for Teaching Various Modalities

Image: Photo by ANTONI SHKRABA:

When everyone had to begin teaching at a distance everyone had to at least gain a base level of understanding about what it means to teach and learn online. You could no longer rely only on your opinions or preconceptions. You now had real life lived experience.

In a lot of cases this meant the more faculty and staff learned that while there are certainly benefits to teaching and learning at a distance, there are also challenges that you have to learn to overcome.

Many faculty welcomed and actively participated in professional development to learn new technology tools and teaching methods. I have a wonderful faculty colleague who said in the first weeks of COVID she had no desire to sit in the workshop but if she was going to survive the semester she had no choice. She now loves teaching her students with Zoom and can’t believe she waited so long to learn more about how to use this tool in her courses.

While we all still catch ourselves one or more times a day saying, “You’re muted” we also got collectively better at using digital tools simply because we had no choice.

Deeper Consideration of The Importance of Belonging

While this theme came up only in the WCET Steering Committee group, I think it’s a nice place to end this article. During COVID and today, we have no choice but to understand our interdependence a bit better. From the availability of basic goods in stores to the safety of essential workers to a groundswell of support for social and racial justice – we all experienced a collective situation in COVID.

Through our shared COVID experience we all have shared language – and in this case all means people from around the world. Words like lockdown, quarantine, and vaccine have new weight and new meaning in our global vocabulary. Perhaps this global shared experience – and particularly the isolation many of us experienced during times of lockdown and quarantine – contributed to our broader understanding of the importance of belonging.

While the understanding that belonging is necessary is not universal, it is much broader than it was before COVID. We all need to continue to think about the experience of COVID helps us to drive improvement in our lives and the lives of others around us.

So What, Who Cares?

So, what do you do with all of this information? Here are a few practical suggestions.

Use these four questions in your own work team. If possible, invite a neutral facilitator to conduct the conversation. What do you learn about the current state of your institution from using these four questions and using it to design a future state for your organization or team?
- What wasn’t working before COVID that still is not working well today?
- What started working better in COVID that is now functioning worse than pre-covid?
- What started working better in COVID that has now stagnated?
- What started working better in COVID that continues to work better today?
Is trust a challenge in your organization or team? Stephen Covey’s book The Speed of Trust is a good resource if you’d like to learn more about this important concept in your team. Not ready to dive into the book? Consider asking your team members in their next one on one where they feel the institution demonstrates its trust in them and where they feel the institution demonstrates that it doesn’t trust them.
Communication played such a vital role in COVID. Here are some communication items to consider:
- Have you taken time lately to evaluate your communication pathways?
- Do you need to ask students about the hours of services at your office?
- Should you survey your employees about what tools you are using for communication they find most helpful or what suggestions they have?
Did your institution change its testing practices for admission or placement during COVID? If so, what evaluation are you doing in order to determine the effectiveness of these tools for helping students meet their educational goals?
What are the modalities offered at your institution today? Can you describe them in less than a tweet (i.e. 240 characters?)? If not, what can you do to simplify the explanations? As leaders in educational technology and distance education, what tools have you provided to faculty, advisors, and students so that these various modalities are clear and easy to understand?
What learner centric and people centric changes were made during COVID that you’ve now reversed? Were those decisions to reverse policies and procedures based on data or on preferences of leadership? If so, how will you reevaluate those policies and procedures?
How are you actively fostering belonging in the groups and organizations that you are a part of?

I enjoyed facilitating the SWOT analysis sessions for these groups, and hope you enjoyed reviewing what we learned. While there are improvements that can still be made, and it’s never great to see progress limited, it’s important to take the time to recognize the positives as well. As the title said, it’s not all bad! I hope that you will take some time individually and/or as a part of whatever teams or groups you are in and ask yourself some of these same questions and chart a few actions to keep moving forward.

COVID-19, Distance Education, Leadership

Networks Policy

The State Authorization Network (SAN) – Meeting an Important Need

By Lindsey Downs

April 21, 2022

An urgent need caused the creation of the State Authorization Network (SAN) by our parent organization WCET (the WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technologies).

In October 2010, to the great surprise of many institutions and states, the U.S. Department of Education released the first Federal regulation for state authorization of distance education.

The intended purpose of the regulation was to provide important consumer protections for students participating in interstate distance education. The relatively simple statement in the original language of Federal regulation 34 CFR 600.9(c), that was ultimately vacated by Federal courts, was the catalyst to what we know now is the very complicated and everchanging landscape of out-of-state activity compliance for postsecondary institutions.

A need had presented itself! One may want to consider the words of Sinclair College founder, David A. Sinclair, “Find the need and endeavor to meet it.”

The need for SAN includes an eleven-year history rich in community development to respond to institutional compliance management for the seemingly endless fluctuations in state and federal requirements related to serving students across state lines. SAN empowers members to successfully resolve regulatory challenges to improve student protections in digital learning across state lines. Benefits of SAN membership center on timely updates, analysis, training, and member interactions. Additionally, SAN serves all postsecondary institution sectors and related organizations.

If you are a member of SAN, thank you! We appreciate your collegiality! If you are not yet a SAN member, please review our history, benefits, member endorsements, and also, please consider joining the SAN community!

History

In March 2011, Russ Poulin, who was WCET’s Director, Policy and Analysis at the time, endeavored to meet the need to help institutions provide important consumer protections through compliance with little known state and federal requirements and sought interest in the development of a new service, the State Authorization Network. Originally, the plan was to pull together systems and consortia to collaborate on strategies and to share information about federal and state regulations related to interstate activity compliance. Additionally, members were offered the opportunity to obtain training and access to experts from the newly created SAN along with support from WCET colleagues, Megan Raymond and Marianne Boeke, then from NCHEMS. SAN saw tremendous membership growth with each year of the unsettled state and federal landscape. Due to continual demand and growth, SAN developed into a sizeable organization, initiating the decision to add a full time Director for SAN, Cheryl Dowd, in 2015.

Fast forward ten years from the initial communication to April 2021, when SAN celebrated its 10^th Anniversary, having grown to more than 800 institutions and organizations nationwide. The need for SAN continued though a dramatic decade of Federal court decisions, two negotiated rulemaking committees, two new versions of Federal regulations, and the creation and implementation of reciprocity for state institution approval through the State Authorization Reciprocity Agreements (SARA). During that decade, in addition to supporting members through the COVID-19 pandemic, SAN began addressing ancillary issues around compliance related to programs leading to a professional license or certification, international compliance, and employment law related state requirements regarding interstate activities.

SAN was surprised to see the state authorization saga continue in 2022 with a new negotiated rulemaking that once again raised the issues related to state authorization of distance education. With the addition of new staff: Rachael Stachowiak, Director, Interstate Policy & Compliance; Kathryn Kerensky, Director, Digital Learning Policy & Compliance; and Leigha Fletcher, Administrative Assistant, SAN is prepared to continue filling the needs of SAN members.

Member Endorsements:

Leeann Fields, Executive Director, Office of Educational Compliance (OEC); under the office of the Vice Provost for Academic Programs. University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)

How many of us working in the area of state authorization describe many of our days as running around like a chicken with our head cut off? Too graphic, yet true? I know many times, I just feel aimless, bouncing from one aspect of this area of compliance to another.

What does SAN do for me? It gives me focus. It gives me clarity and a deeper understanding of the issues. SAN helps me with organization and strategies. Most of all, SAN lets me know that I’m not alone.

Being an N of 1 working on SARA at a University with over 3,000 employees, the isolation can feel very real at times. It’s not like being in a Registrar, Financial Aid, or Admissions office where there are a number of colleagues working and applying regulations, other people you can go to and ask questions. I have an office with NO other people… Ahhhhhh, except I have SAN! Thank you SAN for being there for me! You are truly like another full-time employee (FTE) that I can turn to on a regular basis to ask, share, and yes, even socialize with at times. You understand my issues, my frustrations, and even celebrate the small wins with me, which are starting to happen more and more. You are a safe haven to share, and you help me problem solve. I appreciate the feeling you create, letting me know you are there for me and I’m not alone.

Thank you SAN!

Katie Hoffman, Project Manager, Office of Assessment & Accreditation Support. University of San Francisco – California

SAN has been absolutely essential for me as I learned to navigate the complex world of compliance on the state and federal levels. In addition to its robust web resources for state authorization and related issues, (I frequent the section on professional licensure), SAN helps keep me in the loop on changes to federal regulations that affect my institution. Through SAN’s lively community discussion platform, WCET MIX, I am in-tune with issues common to other IHEs, and I feel welcome to ask questions of the members. Overall, SAN prepares its member institutions to be well-informed on matters of compliance when seeking to offer distance education across state borders, and most importantly, it prepares them to offer education that is centered on the students’ interest.

Benefits of SAN

SAN is the leader for guidance and support for navigating state and federal regulatory compliance for out-of-state activities of postsecondary institutions. Memberships to SAN are held by individual institutions/organizations, small partnerships, and large groups/systems/consortia.

Regardless of the type of membership, all staff at the member institutions or organizations are eligible to access the benefits of SAN. SAN provides expert analysis, resources and training on foundational and emerging issues, collaboration on compliance strategies, development of solutions, and evaluation of their efficacy. SAN accomplishes these benefits in the following ways:

Resources, Research, and Support:

Password-protected website — library of resources including SAN created research and external resources.
Members-Only digital community provides timely updates on emerging issues and member discussions.
SAN Monthly eNewsletter.
Direct access to SAN staff members to answer your compliance and membership questions.

Events & Training:

SAN Newcomers Experience – professionals who join SAN can complete the guided tour through the SAN website, answer challenge questions, and earn a badge.
Open Forum – Monthly Themed virtual Q & A sessions with experts.
Workshops – training at highly discounted rate for SAN members (Basics & Advanced Topics).
NASASPS (state regulator) Conference with SAN Institutions each spring – member fee and SAN only sessions.

Member Interaction:

SAN Advisory Group – member representatives to advise on the issues and interests of the SAN members.
Special Interest Teams (SIT) — Small member led workgroups created to discuss and research identified topics to prepare deliverables on the topic to the network. Current SIT topics include: Institutional Engagement and Professional Licensure Research & Disclosures.
SANsational Annual Awards for member development of high-quality compliance solutions.
Professional Development – member presentations on webcasts, monthly calls, and face to face meetings.
A network of peers from across the country, working on the same issues.

Member Endorsements:

— Terrence Scarborough, Director of SARA North Carolina.
North Carolina State Education Assistance Authority – North Carolina

SAN has proven to be an enormous benefit in administering state authorization in my state.

The collaborative culture is inspiring. Members are always willing to share their knowledge and the best practices they employ within their respective organizations.

I am truly grateful that SAN is the ‘one-stop shop’ for higher education regulatory compliance.

— Susan Darlington, Associate Dean, Bucks Online. Bucks County Community College – Pennsylvania

Navigating regulatory compliance in distance education is a daunting task. As the SAN Coordinator for the community colleges of Pennsylvania, I depend heavily on my affiliation and membership with SAN. I find the monthly SAN Coordinator meetings to be engaging, beneficial, and allow the coordinators to feel comfortable asking specific questions. The SAN team is able to clarify the complex distance education rules so that I can feel confident in my work toward ensuring institutional compliance. During this time of great stress and upheaval in higher education, relying on the support and guidance of SAN has been priceless!

— Deb Maeder, Director of Digital Education and Instructional Design. Bryan College of Health Sciences – Nebraska

Our organization has been involved in SAN since 2016. When thinking back about all that I’ve learned and the benefit provided to our organization, it doesn’t seem possible that it’s only been six years since we joined. SAN has been instrumental in helping our small institution (700 FTE) to be on the forefront of all things distance education and educational regulatory compliance. Without the guidance and communication from SAN, we would not have been prepared for Professional Licensure & Certifications requirements, Digital Tax laws, Data Privacy laws both domestic and international, Secretary of State regulations and how to find them, or Regular & Substantive Interaction regulations. I could go on and on. In each of these examples, SAN support has helped our institution to be in front of the proverbial curve to ensure we were in compliance on day one of each new regulation.

SAN also provides our organization, and myself as an individual, with a collaborative community to use as subject matter experts, sounding boards, and general support in the work we do. There is no possible way an organization of any size can be an expert in all that SAN supports, but through the network of State Authorization professionals, someone is always willing to step up and help identify a direction forward. This group of professionals is able to protect proprietary knowledge, yet be supportive and open with anyone who presents a question.

As the single State Authorization professional in my organization, there is no possible way I could do my job as effectively as I do without the support of SAN staff and the SAN community.

Looking Ahead

SAN will continue to address the needs of our members and serve them with high quality services and opportunities to participate in the SAN community. SAN will remain a strong support for those new to the issues of interstate compliance by providing training, an abundance of topical resources, and access to community. Additionally, members can continue to count on SAN to keep them up-to-date on regulatory and policy changes for interstate compliance, analysis to understand the impact on institutions, and for the development of strategies to manage compliance.

For those unfamiliar with SAN, we hope that you have learned more about SAN and will consider membership. If you are interested in membership, please review the Membership webpage on the SAN website. Please connect with the SAN staff for more information!

State Authorization, State Authorization Network

Practice

Realizing Students’ Dreams of Success: Harnessing Course Sharing through Grant Funding

By Lindsey Downs

April 19, 2022

Recently, the organization that I lead, the Digital Higher Education Consortium of Texas (DigiTex), was honored to receive a grant from Greater Texas Foundation to support a two-year project, Harnessing Course Sharing to Support Texas Pathways at Scale. The funding, in the amount of $645,405, will support a collaboration between us and the company Acadeum to assist colleges across Texas in solving the problems of persistence, on-time completion, and access to courses to assist in fulfilling guided pathways, through inter-institutional course sharing.

Greater Texas Foundation supports initiatives that increase rates of postsecondary enrollment and completion for all Texas students, with a particular focus on students who may encounter barriers to postsecondary success. For example, on-time credential completion rates continue to be a significant problem for community colleges. In fact, data from the National Center for Education Statistics in 2020 show that only 13 percent of community college students graduate in two years. In Texas, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board reported in 2020 that the average time to complete an associate degree was 3.9 years. This is a problem that needs to be addressed, and we offer one solution–course sharing.

One Solution

Guided pathways have proven to be one effective solution to this problem and research shows that the practices used in guided pathways programs can lead to better outcomes for students. However, many colleges, particularly small and/or rural institutions, lack access to courses needed to create and consistently fulfill in-demand pathways and support on-time completion.

This project aims to address this challenge through two primary strategies:

increase the number of high-quality, online STEM, and in-demand shorter-term courses that are a part of the existing course sharing initiative; and,
assist participating colleges in implementing course sharing strategies to ensure learners can access and complete guided pathways.

In the initial press release on the grant, Dr. Richard Rhodes, Chancellor of Austin Community College District, a project participant and DIgiTex’s home base, described the benefits of course sharing: “Community colleges hold an enormous amount of potential to be economic growth engines within their communities. We are proud to deploy course sharing to ensure that in-demand certificate and degree completion pathways can reach students in every geographic region to deliver on that growth opportunity promise.”

Course sharing can benefit any institution and student, and deserves the utmost attention.

"life is sharing" written on a wall — *“Life is Sharing” by cogdogblog is marked with CC BY 2.0.*

Three colleges have joined the project as Teaching Institutions (TIs) offering courses: Austin Community College District, Houston Community College System, and Western Texas College. Another nine institutions so far will be serving as Home Institutions (HIs), and their students will benefit from courses at the TIs: Angelina College, Cisco College, Frank Phillips College, Howard College, Paris Junior College, Ranger College, South Plains College, Vernon College, and Weatherford College. Through a series of meetings with these project participants as well as data from a survey on high-need, in-demand courses, we’ve determined the initial offerings for the Summer and Fall terms. They will include courses in Calculus, Chemistry, Physics, Engineering, and Spanish.

Project Logistics

Additionally, we proposed the following success metrics for the project:

at least thirty unique courses in STEM and other in-demand disciplines will be offered through course sharing;
at least 3,600 unique students will gain access to courses needed to progress toward (and/or complete) credentials through guided pathways (we also will be tracking various student demographic metrics); and,
the average percentage of earned credits (typically 30) in one year for students at participating Home Institutions will increase three percent from the period two years prior, compared to a historical average of one percent over two years.

We also plan to share stories of the impact of course sharing on individual students’ ability to progress to credential and/or on time completion. We anticipate stories similar to a hypothetical scenario that I submitted with our proposal to highlight the potential impact of course sharing on student success.

A Student Named Jorge

Take, for example, a hypothetical first-generation student, Jorge Rivera, attending Frank Phillips College in the small town of Borger in the Panhandle of Texas. Jorge aspires to obtain an Associate’s of Science Degree and transfer to West Texas A&M University (WTAMU) to pursue a Bachelor of Science Degree with the dream of one day going to medical school and becoming a doctor, and returning to Borger to serve his community. He and his family have saved two years of expenses needed beyond the Pell grants for which he is eligible, making completion of the credential in that time period crucial to his success. The guided pathway he is on has kept him right on track.

silhouette of graduating students — *“The Graduates” by Game of EPL5 & LUMIX G20/F1.7 is marked with CC BY-NC 2.0.*

However, the semester before his final spring term, Jorge discovers that the physics course he needs will not be offered that term. He can’t wait until the course is offered again in the fall due to lack of funds. Jorge would have to drop out to work full time until he can save additional money for college, risking becoming discouraged and/or having life events intervene and potentially never returning. Thanks to course sharing, though, Jorge and his advisor discover that a participating Teaching Institutions offers the physics course just when he needs it. Jorge quickly enrolls in the course, completes it, and earns his associate degree (the first in his family to do so) on time, transfers to WTAMU to pursue a baccalaureate degree on a full scholarship, and continues his journey to becoming a doctor!

I will follow up here in two years with a report on the impact of the project. Hopefully, through the project, we will have realized the dreams of students like “Jorge.” As we progress with the project, we are hopeful to provide more positive stories of student success.

Now your turn. Have you (or your institution) endeavored on a large-scape course sharing initiative? If so, what have you learned or what advice would you give?

DigiTex has a long history of facilitating inter-institutional course sharing, founded in 1998 as the Virtual College of Texas for just that purpose and serving all fifty Texas public community college districts and over 50,000 students. Although we have expanded our initiatives to include leading the Texas Quality Matters Consortium; supporting Open Education policy, practice, and advocacy; and other activities, facilitating course sharing – now with our partner Acadeum – continues to be a mandate. Grant funding like this from Greater Texas Foundation – our first grant in our 24-year history! – will aid us in strategic expansion of course sharing to support student success.

Collaboration/Community, Completion, Student Success

Practice

Welcome to the new WCET Frontiers

By Lindsey Downs

April 14, 2022

Last fall, WCET relaunched the WCET website. And, to be honest, Frontiers got a little jealous.

So, what else could we do except give Frontiers an update as well?

As you can see, we’ve made several design and feature changes to the Frontiers blog. Here is a quick tour of our updates! The first official blog post in the new format will be published later this week.

The blog is now housed within the WCET website, which means easier access to the posts, site content (check out our practice and policy pages!), and links to our member- only resources.

All new design elements that match with the WCET website and use our new, pretty web colors (we’re biased, we know).

The main website search filtering options will show results from
- the blog,
- the website,
- from the wcetMIX community discussion posts, and,
- other results from wcetMIX (such as our member resources).

Easier to find features of the blog such as post tags and archives.

Visually review and filter posts by blog tags.

And finally, we made sure the publication date is definitely included at the top of the post by the title.

As many of you, I’m sure, are aware, changes and updates don’t always go quite as planned.

We are going through all of our posts to verify accessibility and formatting of the content and design. We have identified some issues that occurred with the transfer, such as not transferring over alternative text with all images.

Please feel free to reach out to us at wcetinfo@wiche.edu if you have any questions about our content as we are completing the update process.

We all hope you enjoy the new design and features of the blog! From all of us here at WCET Frontiers, enjoy the read!

WCET

Practice

More Federal Rulemaking Excitement for Distance Ed Fans…and Next Steps

By Lindsey Downs

March 24, 2022

Earlier this week, we shared some very important issues from recent Federal rulemaking that will likely have a big effect on distance education. You probably have heard much more about the other “bigger” issues addressed during this rulemaking such as the 90/10 Rule and Gainful Employment. Our reporting on the 2022 Institutional and Programmatic Eligibility Committee has been primarily focused on surprises found in “Section 32” of Issue #6, Certification Procedures due to the potential effect on distance learning providers.

However, we would like to share a bit more about the rulemaking committee’s outcomes and point your attention to a few other issues that could affect serving students by distance education. We will start with a rulemaking timeline recap and close with more information about how you can be involved in the rulemaking process moving forward.

Institutional and Programmatic Eligibility Committee Timeline Recap

May 2021: Original announcement of U.S. Department of Education Intent to establish negotiated rulemaking committees.
December 2021: Announcement to establish Institutional and Programmatic Eligibility Committee and the seven issues to be addressed.
January 2022: The Department used the Federal Negotiated Rulemaking Webpage for all notices, recordings, initial proposal language, and transcripts through the rulemaking process.
January 2022-March 2022: Negotiators met for one week during each month to address language proposed by the Department on these issues and develop agreed upon language to address consumer protection for students and protect the integrity of the Title IV Federal Financial Aid process.
March 2022: Final voting on the seven issues.
Two issues reached consensus: Ability to Benefit and 90/10 Rule. These issues can move forward to be released as proposed regulations subject to public comment.
Five issues did not reach consensus: Administrative Capability, Gainful Employment, Financial Responsibility, Changes in Ownership, and Certification Procedures. The Department may write these rules and move them forward as proposed regulations subject to public comment.
If final regulations are released by November 1, 2022, they will become effective July 1, 2023.
If final regulations are released after November 1, 2022, but by November 1, 2023, they will become effective July 1, 2024.

Definition of Distance Education

Issue #5 of the rulemaking addressed Changes of Ownership and Change in Control. The Department shared that this issue was important for rulemaking to address the increase in the number of postsecondary institutions converting from for-profit to non-profit status as well as changes in ownership. There is a concern that these changes present a risk to students and the proper use of Title IV Federal Financial Aid funds. The proposed language offered by the Department included a change to several definitions of terms found in 34 CFR 600.2. Proposed language was offered to amend the following terms: Additional location, Branch campus, Distance education, Main campus, and Nonprofit institution. The Department expressed their intention to clarify these definitions as they believed they were the source of confusion.

The Department proposed language for an additional section for the definition of Distance Education:

(6) Except for an additional location at a correctional institution as described in the definition of an additional location in this section, for an institution that offers on-campus programs and distance education programs, the distance education programs are associated with the main campus of the institution. For an institution that only offers distance education programs, the institution is located where its administrative offices are located and approved by its accrediting agency.

A theme of the 2019 regulations was to not regulate through definitions, and there seems to be several issues that are being regulated in this proposed section. This issue did not reach consensus noting nine dissenters. When negotiators provided the reasons for their dissent, several shared concerns about the change to the definition of Distance Education and definition of Nonprofit institution.

Negotiators inquired about use of the word “associated” when indicating that the distance education program is ”associated” with the main campus of the institution. The Department expressed desire to place distance education coming from the branch campus to be the responsibility of the main campus. Many negotiators asked for clarification and expressed concern that, if the language were to become regulation, there would need to be a delay in the implementation as currently, distance education coming from a branch campus is the responsibility of the branch campus in many states. It appears that the Department may want the location that holds the accreditation to be the location for responsibility of all distance education. The question remains–is that how the states desire to provide oversight of the distance education coming from the branch campus? If they proceed down this path, the Department will create a conflict between how states oversee these institutions and how it plans to oversee the responsibility for aid disbursement. We are unclear on the benefit of introducing this conflict between state and federal oversight.

Maximum Number of Clock Hours for Gainful Employment Programs – Section 26

You may recall that, in the previous post, we explained that Issue #6 addressed Certification Procedures. This is the certification process for an institution to participate in Title IV financial aid programs. The Program Participation Agreement (PPA) provides the terms and conditions to obtain and maintain certification.

The purpose of Section 26 is to address the appropriate length of aid eligibility in a recognized profession. The Department expressed concern in the variation of length of programs for the same occupation across the states.

The Department proposed language to place in the PPA:

….the Secretary limits title IV, HEA eligibility for the program to the lesser of:

(A) The minimum number of hours required for training in the recognized occupation for which the program prepares the student, as established by the State in which the institution is located, if the State has established such a requirement, or as established by any Federal agency; or

(B) If at least half of States license the recognized occupation for which the program prepares students, the national median of the minimum number of hours required for training as established in those States, as determined by the Secretary for the year of the effective date of these regulations and published in a notice in the Federal Register adjacent to the State in which the institution is located; and published in a notice in the Federal Register…

Issue #6: Certification Procedures did not come to consensus with six dissenting votes. The negotiators expressed concern about a variety of components of this issue. Specifically, regarding Section 26, several considerations remain unaddressed:

Negotiators were very concerned that this section would punish students who have no control over the hours required by the institution or the State.
The Department appears to be attempting to direct States to conform to a uniform structure at the insistence of the Department of Education.
It appears that the Department is not taking into consideration the decisions of the States to determine the education/training hours necessary in occupations that could have regional concerns and priorities being addressed by the state causing the variation of hours.
The national median number of hours provided in (B) will be determined only one time. What is the plan for adjustments that could be necessary in future years to meet technical and digital advancements or other timely changes?
Of greatest concern is that the proposal would set an unfortunate precedent that a student could be admitted to a program, but not be eligible for all the aid necessary to complete the program.

Again, the Department is creating a conflict between state laws and federal regulations.

For additional information about the more prevalent issues of 90/10 Rule and Gainful Employment, you may wish to review the daily Negotiated Rulemaking meeting highlights from our colleagues at NASFAA (National Association of Financial Aid Administrators).

What Can (Should) You Be Doing?

In the first blog post, we used the word “excite” in two ways. For “March Madness,” people can get “excited” or hyped-up at the anticipation. For the second meaning, we thought that the proposed language might “excite” some of our members (as in stir you to action). Here is our current best thinking on actions to take.

Politically

The Department of Education was very clear that they will not be accepting any comments until it releases the proposed regulations for the official public comment period. To publish the final version next fall (they have many that they have to publish), the Department will need to seek public feedback in late Spring to early Summer. Meanwhile, start communicating. As a benefit of SAN and/or WCET membership, members will soon receive access to a two-page synopsis that you can share with your institution colleagues.

Inform Your Leadership. It is always good to operate with the “no surprises” strategy relative to those to whom you report. You want them to hear any possible “bad news” from you first to show that you are in the know and are looking into it. You can give them the heads-up, but they will probably ask questions that will quickly lead you to the practical actions outlined below.
Notify Your Institutional Government Relations Staff. They may want to work with your Congressional Representatives or Senators especially if they are in the House Education & Labor Committee or the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, & Pensions (HELP). Additionally, if you have a governor who was involved in your state joining SARA, they may be interested that a state-to-state agreement is being greatly affected by regulation.
Prepare to Officially Comment. Department personnel hope to release the language for comment in late Spring or early Summer. Stories about institutional burden will not gain much traction. Stories about negative impacts on students will be more accepted as the goal of this proposal was to protect students as consumers of higher education. It will take time to gather your thoughts and stories to comment.

Practically

For Professional Licensure: Start Assessing Your Institution’s Professional Licensure Status in Each State in Which You Intend to Serve Students. Remember, the expectation is that you can “ensure” that your program meets the educational requirements of each state in which you plan to disburse Title IV aid. There are some parts of the rules (especially around student notifications) for which we are at a loss as to what they will propose. Also, remember that you do not need to serve students in every state. You don’t need to do this right away, but you will be asked what impact these rules have on your institution and for each program. It will be good to start estimating soon.
- Determine your target states. Each program that leads to licensure probably primarily targets a set number of states that contain the bulk of your enrollments. Note that the word “licensure” might be “certification,” approval,” “authorized,” or “permitted” for the profession in question. All of those terms are included under the concept of “licensure” for this purpose.
- Ask the hard question. Ask the question: “do you have proof that you met the educational requirements for licensure in that profession in that state?” Assume that you have a financial aid official sitting across from you asking that question. We have heard of program personnel waving their hands in the air and saying, “we don’t have to do it.” Prove it.
- Conduct scenario analyses. Given the answers to the hard question, what are the best and worst-case scenarios?
For State Authorization Reciprocity… Remember that the intent of the rule is to limit reciprocity only to the act of applying for institutional authorization in a state and any associated fees. This one is harder to estimate because it will be dependent on a variety of independent actions (by states, reciprocity agreements) in response to this regulation. Meanwhile:
- What are your target states? Create a list of the states where you serve the most students.
- Watch for more information from WCET & WCET/SAN on State “Consumer Protection” Laws. We will make our best estimates on a few of the “consumer protection” laws that will come into play and for how many states. We will share that information with you.
- Be prepared to do some scenario analyses. For the states that you target, what additional costs might you incur? How would you recover those costs?

Send Us Your Stories

Above all, we suggest that you gather stories about students who will be affected.

If you have good stories, share them with us.

Beyond student stories, we are also interested in stories of great impact on a small institution, impact on institutions serving minoritized or rural students, or that offer other examples of broader impact on student population.

Send your stories to us so that we can share them more broadly.

Finally…

While we are for increased consumer protection, we feel that these proposed regulations overshoot their goal more often than necessary. We agree that bad actors should be driven from the higher education field, but the resulting collateral damage could be widespread. The beneficiaries will be large, well-funded institutions while smaller and growing institutions will become non-competitive.

We too will be working to try to improve the proposed language as much as possible and to understand the impact.

We will continue to keep you updated as we learn more.

Distance Education, Negotiated Rulemaking, Regulation, SAN, State Authorization, U.S. Department of Education

Practice

Excited about March Madness? Proposed Section 32 Will Excite Distance Ed Fans

By Lindsey Downs

March 21, 2022

1 Comment

The annual NCAA college basketball tournament, celebrated nationally and called the “Big Dance” or “March Madness,” began last week with great hoopla.

Simultaneously, another form of “competition” occurred – the final week of the U.S. Department of Education Negotiated Rulemaking process. Rulemaking can look like a “Big Dance” with representatives of higher education factions engaged in the negotiation tango. And it can definitely seem like madness with a chaotic race against the clock to quickly assess complex regulatory issues, amend or develop new regulatory language, and drive to reach full agreement before the buzzer on the final day of rulemaking.

Section 32: Proposed Major Changes in Title IV for Distance Ed
Proposals affect institutions enrolling students in other states for:
– Programs leading to professional licensure.
– Institutions participating in a reciprocity agreement.

This rulemaking was virtual, so we watched the rulemaking meetings on our computers via Microsoft Teams. Like a sporting event, we had to reserve tickets in advance to watch the show. Cheryl was armed with Diet Pepsi, large bags of Skinny Pop popcorn, and a bag of gummy bears. We (Cheryl, Russ, and the SAN team) found ourselves shouting at the screen to cheer on great explanations and cried foul at misstatements.

Today we share our postgame analysis and include a special review of the process of rulemaking. Some of the issues were extensively covered by the main press. And, in an unfortunate likeness to the relative invisibility of the women’s basketball tournament, digital learning issues were absent from mainstream reporting.

At the top of the scouting report are two items that will “excite” (as in stirring people to action) the distance and online community. Both of these are in what we have started calling “Section 32.” This section contains some vexing requirements (found in Issue #6 Certification Procedures), which did not come to consensus. Like Tom Brady (yes, we know that’s football), these proposals are not going way. The breakdown includes insight into:

New financial aid requirements for institutions serving students in programs leading to a professional license, and,
Institution participation in reciprocity through SARA to obtain state institution approval for interstate activity of the institution.

Federal Rulemaking Process

As we shared in January, the U.S. Department of Education began its second Biden administration rulemaking (see Department’s rulemaking website) at the start of 2022. The December 2021 announcement of the rulemaking, called the Institutional and Programmatic Eligibility Committee, provided the list of the seven issues to be addressed:

Issue #1: Ability to Benefit.
Issue #2: Administrative Capability.
Issue #3: Gainful Employment.
Issue #4: Financial Responsibility.
Issue #5: Changes in Ownership.
Issue #6: Certification Procedures.
Issue #7: 90/10 Rule.

In Winter 2022, the rulemaking committee, comprised of key stakeholders nominated by the public and then chosen by the Department, met for one week in each month of January through March. Issue papers with proposed language addressing the regulations particular to the issues were released by the Department for purposes of conversation and negotiation. The goal of the rulemaking was to address the proposed language on these issues and develop agreed upon language to address consumer protection for students and protect the integrity of the Title IV Federal Financial Aid process. Each week of rulemaking aimed to drive the negotiators closer to common thoughts on final language for purposes of voting to consensus, which is agreement by all negotiators on all aspects of an issue.

The final week of rulemaking in March was critical as the negotiators provided final comments and questions prior to voting on each issue. The drama played out on our screens as one by one the issues were resulted in “air balls” as each of the first six issues failed to meet consensus (or 100% agreement). As the clock ticked down, Issue #7: 90/10 Rule reached consensus. The negotiators huddled quickly and re-voted on Issue #1: Ability to Benefit and, like a buzzer beater, it reached consensus. Like Russ’s busted basketball bracket the final score was: two issues reached consensus and five issues did not.

Next steps in the regulatory process includes the following:

For issues that reached consensus: release of the agreed upon language as proposed regulations subject to public comment for at least 30 days.
For issues that did not reach consensus: release proposed regulations written by the Department for public comment for at least 30 days.
The Department must and will review all public comments.
General responses and any changes based upon those comments will be included in an announcement of the final regulations. A preamble will clarify regulatory intent not clearly stated in the regulations themselves.
If final regulations are released by November 1, 2022, they will become effective July 1, 2023.
If final regulations are released after November 1, 2022, but by November 1, 2023, they will become effective July 1, 2024.

There is no designated timing on the release of the proposed regulations, but we speculate late spring/early summer for the regulations that came to consensus. Even though several other issues did not reach “consensus,” the Federal negotiator was very clear that the Department expects to put out proposed regulations on these other issues. The Department was also very clear that they would not be accepting public comment on any issues until the NPRM (notice of proposed rulemaking).

The Department was very clear that they will not be taking public comments on these issues until the they release their proposed rules for the purposes of commenting.

Issue #6: Certification Procedures

The Department shared that the “certification procedures” issue focused on the development of a more rigorous process for institutions to become certified to participate in Title IV financial aid programs. To be eligible to participate in Title IV financial aid programs, institutions are expected to follow the provisions of the Program Participation Agreement (PPA). The PPA is an extensive form that provides the terms and conditions for which the institution must meet to begin and continue participation in Title IV financial aid programs. As we talk about professional licensure requirements below, note that this raises the expectations for communications with students beyond the mere notifications that were introduced in the last few years. Meeting the elements of the PPA is a more substantial responsibility of the institution for which there could be stronger consequences if the institution fails to meet any terms or conditions.

During this rulemaking, items were proposed to be added to the PPA. The currently effective regulations that your institution must currently follow are found in 34 CFR 668.14. A new section 32 was proposed to address programmatic accreditation, programs leading to a professional license or certification, and reciprocity. Although the negotiators did not fully agree (reach consensus) on the proposed language, the Department stated that they are heavily leaning toward moving forward with the language we describe below.

A Major Change to Professional Licensure Requirements

In summary, the proposed language of 668.14 (32) indicates that in each state where the institution is located or students enrolled are located at time of initial enrollment, the institution must ENSURE that each program SATISFIES state educational requirements for programs leading to a professional license or certification where the student is located.

Additionally, as a companion regulation, the Department proposed language to modify the public notifications found in 34 CFR 668.43(a)(5)(v). The proposed language would remove the “no determination made” option. Institutions would provide lists of states indicating a determination of the institution curriculum Meets or Does Not Meet state educational requirements. Although a negotiator raised that 34 CFR 668.43(c) exists and no longer makes sense given the Department’s proposed language, there was no further discussion or change regarding the direct notifications.

Professional Licensure
The new proposal:
– Better protects students.
– Requires programs to “ensure” that it meets state educational requirements.
– Leaves institutions adrift as to what to do in states or professions with unclear standards.
– Provides no path for students who have legitimate reasons to enroll in a program even if it cannot “ensure” where that student is currently located.

Core aspects of the proposed language would require that for purposes of Title IV, the institutions must do the following:

Only be able to disburse Federal aid in programs leading to a license or certification to students located in states where the curriculum meets state educational requirements. We believe that the use of the word “ensure” implies a much higher standard for the institution to possess evidence that it meets those requirements.
Provide public notifications with lists of states where the curriculum Does or Does Not meet state education requirements leading to a license or certification.

The public policy reasoning behind raising the standard for institutions serving students in other states seems justifiable to protect students who are pursuing their chosen profession based upon the education and training of the institution. However, this one size fits all approach is impossible for all professions in all states and takes away a student’s ability to choose.

If there is a knowable path for the program to be approved by the state and/or meet state educational requirements, institutions should seek that path and obtain that approval. Institutions, however, have shared the varying circumstances for some professions in some states that makes the ability to meet requirements or even know requirements impossible. We strongly object to holding institutions to an impossible standard.

Additionally, there are definite and reasonable circumstances why a student may be willing to attend an institution even though the state educational requirements are not met by the institution’s curriculum. Examples include students temporarily in a location, military students, and students who select the institution for its educational value, or students who intend to pursue a license in a location based upon workforce needs. We believe that students should be afforded the opportunity to choose.

We made remarkable progress communicating with two consumer protection-focused negotiators to develop language that provided protection to students, flexibility in states where pre-approval is unknowable, and provide for informed choice. The approach that we developed with negotiators required the institution to meet state educational requirements where available and provided for case-by-case examples to enroll students in a program that does not meet state educational requirements if the institution obtains written consent from the student who chooses to knowingly enroll in the program. This proposed language was presented by the two negotiators and supported in comments by several other negotiators. The Department rejected the proposal, commenting only they worried that allowing exceptions would lead to abuse and without providing a reason for not adopting the rest of the proposal. We were profoundly disappointed as any rule can lead to abuse, which is why the Department provides “guardrails” in enforcement.

Finally, the modification to the notifications section causes the institution to make a clear decision whether the curriculum does or does not meet state educational requirements. Removal of the “no determination made” will be challenging for institutions. If the regulation becomes effective, institutions will have to make business decisions whether or not to offer programs in certain states.

Early in the negotiated rulemaking process we provided public comment with a three-minute statement at the end of the meeting day. We urged the Department to communicate with professions and learn how requirements and approvals are provided for programs leading to a license or certification. We still maintain that there is a disconnect between professions and higher education that needs to be addressed. We hoped the Department might be willing to serve as a bridge and build regulations that are in line with state regulatory practices.

The Bottom Line

The goal of those proposing the language was to protect students as consumers. Institutions collecting years of tuition and fees for programs in licensure fields should do all they can to assure students that they can proceed in that profession. We are aware of good institutions that have fallen short in meeting that goal and this wording raises the stakes in putting aid disbursement in jeopardy if they do not do a better job.

On the other hand, the language does not account for two realities…

The proposal does not match current state regulatory realities. Some agencies do not provide clear educational requirements or will not answer questions as to the match between an institution’s curriculum and published requirements. A negotiator stated that they should push states to raise their standards, but a rule aimed at institutions (the Department cannot tell states what to do) will be ineffective in changing agency behavior.
Some students are disenfranchised. Students have legitimate reasons (serving in the military, living on a border) for enrolling in a program that does not meet the requirements of the state in which the student is located. They should be given the option to make an informed choice. To focus solely on a possible abuse is to punish the innocent for the sins of the guilty.

A Major Change to a “State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement”

This is a big change. Let’s start with some basketball-analogous background…

Every once in a while, there is a team that comes from out of the blue and makes a deep run in the tournament. The reciprocity issue reminds me of just such a story.

An update to the terms of any “state authorization reciprocity agreement” was not in the original notice for the rulemaking and it was not part of the first session of negotiations. The language was introduced between the first and second sessions and was raised only in passing in the second session, as we noted in our blog post update on that session. Therefore, we were surprised to see that the Department of Education accepted the proposed language in its recommendations (Issue Paper 6: Certification Procedures) prior to the third, and final, session.

When the negotiators considered the proposal, there was a great deal of in-depth questions and comments. The conversation was extensive in session three, but this is one of the very few proposals that was discussed in-depth in only one session. Although Cheryl and Russ tried to educate select negotiators in the short time after it was introduced, it appeared that few negotiators had any prior knowledge of the history or workings of the interstate agreement.

Be that as it may, let’s examine what happened.

What Was Proposed Regarding Reciprocity Agreements?

As mentioned above, the Program Participation Agreement is a list of requirements to which an institution agrees to comply to be eligible to disburse Federal financial aid. The following paragraph was added as requirement in the proposed new section 32 (the same section as the professional licensure language mentioned above) that “the institution must ensure that each program” …

(iii) Complies with all State consumer protection laws, including both generally applicable State laws and those specific to educational institutions, except where State requirements for obtaining authorization are inapplicable pursuant to a State authorization reciprocity agreement.

In interpreting this language, it is important to distinguish between:

“generally applicable state laws” – laws that pertain to any business in a state. Fraud and misrepresentation are common examples of laws that apply to a business whether it is an institution, bank, or used car dealer. States that are members of SARA can enforce these laws on institutions participating in the agreement; and,
laws “specific to educational institutions” – laws that are specific to those providing postsecondary education in the state. States that are members of SARA agree that institutions participating in the agreement are subject to the provisions of SARA and knowingly agreed to use those provisions in place of state laws.

Reciprocity Agreements
The new proposal:
– Provides the opportunity for better state-by-state protection for students.
– Could limit consumer protections in states relying on SARA instead of local laws.
– Will create an unsettled state as we await decisions by the Department, states, institutions, and those leading SARA.
– Will raise the cost of institutions enrolling students in some other states.

Wait! Doesn’t that “Except Where…” Clause Exempt Institutions Participating in SARA?

No.

We talked about this a quite a bit and sought the counsel of legal and regulatory expertise. Although the wording is slightly confusing, the intent is clear from an explanatory note written by one of the authors of the language. That explanatory text is copied verbatim below. Note that “NC-SARA” (the organization that aligns the core elements and requirements of SARA) is referenced when it is actually SARA (the actual agreement) that contains the cited provisions. It is an important distinction, and many people confuse the two (bolding added for the proposed limits of reciprocity):

This language is proposed to address concerns that NC-SARA, the state authorization reciprocity agreement, currently requires member states to waive enforcement of education-sector-specific consumer protection laws with respect to participating schools that only offer distance education in their state. Examples of state education-sector specific consumer protection laws include: cancellation and refund provisions and student tuition recovery funds. NC-SARA distinguishes these laws from “generally-applicable” state laws, such as laws prohibiting fraud and deceptive practices.

NC-SARA’s requirement that states waive enforcement of education-sector specific consumer protection laws creates a two-tiered system that leaves distance education students with fewer protections than brick-and-mortar students. It also undermines states’ ability to protect students in their state.

The proposed language would address this problem by requiring schools that offer programs in multiple states to comply with all state consumer protection laws in each state where the school enrolls students. Schools would be exempt from compliance with state authorization requirements, such as requirements to submit an application to state authorizing agencies or pay a fee to a state authorizing agency. This would permit reciprocity agreements to fulfill their purpose of reducing the cost and burden on schools to obtain authorization to operate in multiple states, while ensuring that distance education students are afforded the same protections as brick-and-mortar students.

Similar sentiments were expressed in a bipartisan letter from 25 State Attorneys General to the NC-SARA Board last summer. Since the Department of Education staff also agree with the interpretation shared above, then it is our belief that is the interpretation that moves forward.

What is the Impact on Students?

The exact implications depend on several steps taken by states, individually, and SARA members, collectively. We provide some opinions of what could happen.

Proponents of this approach say that students will receive far better protection against institutional misdeeds or oversights. Laws in each state were written to provide specific consumer protections based upon the previous mistreatment of students by other institutions operating in the state. Distance students would be afforded the same protections as any other student in the state.

Opponents of this approach say that some states have stricter regulations and others have minimal or no oversight of institutions serving students at a distance within their borders. Protections could decrease for these students. Improving an existing agreement that serves students everywhere but California is a preferable approach to a piecemeal, state-by-state approach.

What is the Impact on Institutions?

Again, the impact will vary depending upon further clarification of intent by the Department and actions by states, institutions, and those leading SARA. We provide our best forecast, but it is clearly opinion and not certainty.

The future benefits of an institution participating in SARA will likely be more limited than what they now enjoy. The intent is to limit those benefits to the act of applying for authorization and the associated fees. Since “consumer protection laws” is not defined, the decision as to which rules apply and which do not will fall to each state.

With the exception of the state authorization application and dues process, many of the provisions covered in SARA will likely need to be altered or removed so that institutions could remain eligible for Federal financial aid. SARA leadership and states could develop some creative pathways that we are not foreseeing.

As to the impact of states “enforcing” consumer protection laws, here is our analysis using the examples given in the intent wording provided above:

“cancellation and refund provisions” – A state could have a provision that an institution must use the tuition refund policy of that state. Let’s say that eight states have this requirement. The institution would have to have refund policies compliant with each of those states in which it enrolls students. In this example, an institution would have its own policy, but also eight additional policies if it serves students in all those states.
“student tuition recovery funds” – Some states collect fees from every institution serving students in the state. Those fees go into a fund that assists students who attend institutions that have closed.

Other requirements that could come into play might include the need to post a bond to serve students in a state, limitations on additional reporting requirements on students in the state, prohibitions on having a faculty person in a state, reviews of faculty credentials, program reviews, states could apply different standards to different sectors of institutions, and others. These requirements vary greatly by state.

As a result, the cost of doing business in some other states will rise if states apply additional requirements to institutions participating in reciprocity.

What Happened to this Proposed Change in this Week’s Rulemaking Session?

This language was part of several provisions in updates to the “Certification Procedures” that are found in the Program Participation Agreement. Consensus (agreement by all the negotiators) was not reached on the proposed language. Therefore, the Department gets to write the regulation that will be published for public comment.

The Bottom Line

The overall impact is still a bit unclear if it is put into regulation intact. There are still several steps before that is a reality and the timeline is described in the next section. Some possible outcomes:

If this language is implemented (which seems likely), the SARA leadership could decide to change their agreement to conform with this regulation.
Some states put the current SARA provisions into their legislation that enabled them to join the agreement. State legislation would be required if states want to locally enforce what they define as “consumer protection” laws.
SARA leadership could decide to work with states to negotiate a new set of benefits for SARA participating institutions.
One group has proposed the development of an alternate reciprocity agreement.
Something else completely unexpected will happen.

To be honest, we’re betting that last bullet will definitely happen.

The one sure outcome is that there will be a period of confusion for some time and that there will likely be additional costs for institutions to serve students in other states. Proponents of this new language assert that the additional student protections are worth it.

What’s Next? We Advance to the Next Round…We are through the opening weekend of the basketball tournament and that is the case with rulemaking. To recap the next steps in the process:

The Department will issue a proposed rule for comment. That could be in late spring, but is more likely to be this summer. There will likely be only 30 days in which to comment.
The public (that means you!) will comment.
The Department will respond to comments and issue a final rule:
- If issued by November 1, 2022, the rules go into effect July 1, 2023.
- If issued after November 1, 2022, but before November 1, 2023, the rules to into effect July 1, 2024.

Watch for an additional blog post from us this week. We plan to more briefly highlight a few other issues in negotiated rulemaking. Yes, we can hear you thinking: “oh my, what else?” That post will also talk about steps you should be taking.

Also watch on the WCETDiscuss and WCET SAN Network email lists where we will point back to this post and entertain questions from you as benefits of your WCET and/or SAN membership(s).

Distance Education, Negotiated Rulemaking, SAN, SARA, State Authorization

Practice

Student ROI in Higher Ed Begins with Equity and Who We Value

By Lindsey Downs

October 29, 2021

With today’s post, we continue the WCET Steering Committee’s series on student return on investment (ROI) and the role of digital learning in improving that return. Thank you to Chantae Recasner of Northeast Lakeview College in San Antonio, Texas. She reminds us that student ROI requires institutional attention to equity. This is especially true for students who have not been well-served by institutions, such as minoritized and low-income students.

-Russ Poulin, WCET

In the last decade, conversations about college affordability have become increasingly nuanced ranging from thoughts on tuition scaling and college access to student loan debt management and workforce skills development. While many colleges and universities explore and implement initiatives to advance value for every credential offered, equity consciousness must remain at the core of the conversations to ensure all students experience that added value.

Historically minoritized and low-income students have been often the last to feel the impact of broad-based initiatives intended to improve student experiences.

Historically minoritized and low-income students have been often the last to feel the impact of broad-based initiatives intended to improve student experiences. Focused national DEI initiatives like the MBK Alliance and Excelencia in Education attempt to mitigate this reality. Yet, it is often the outcome(s) of systemic disadvantage (i.e., success gap data) that drives conversations about and decisions to prioritize certain initiatives at colleges and universities.

Learn About Value by Listening to Student Voices

As we navigate thoughts of college affordability and ROI, amplifying the voices of students can potentially provide insights on inclusive strategies and practices (Libassi, 2018). My thoughts here are informed by the perspectives of two college students with whom I’ve had conversations about the value of higher education. One student is a Black male (self-identified), Pell eligible, full-time enrolled, first-time-in-college attendee at a for-profit university. He attends college totally online. He is also a parent. The other is a Black immigrant student (self-identified) from a middle class family with parents who pay her tuition at the local community college. This is her second attempt at college.

Both students understand the concept of return on investment (ROI). However, from my conversations with both, I want to share their thoughts on the following questions:

Why college? And why now (during the Pandemic)?
What do you value most about your college?
What about the expenses?

Student A: Black, Male, Pell Eligible, First-time, Full-time Student at a For-Profit University

Why college? And why now?

I decided it was time for me to do something, something that I knew for sure would give me a way to provide for my son. I know the pandemic is going on, but I can go to school completely online…When I found the school, they made it easy for me to get started. I never went to college or did none of that, but I talked to somebody from the school and they got me set right up.

What do you value most about your college?

These people told me they would make sure I graduate. I’m doing okay, but I don’t feel like if I mess up one time they’re going to kick me out.

What about the expenses?

I’m getting financial aid. They [the college] take care of everything and send me what I need. It’s taken care of so I’m not worried about that.

Student B: Black, Female, Immigrant, Tuition Paid by Parents at a Community College

Why college? And why now?

Well, I was already enrolled so I had to finish. I know there are other ways to get ahead and you don’t need college for every way to make money. But, for some fields, like what I’m studying, you actually need a degree. I hate taking classes online, but I’m glad I could so that I didn’t fall behind during the pandemic.

What do you value most about your college?

I get way more support than I expected. I got a lot of support from (names the first college she attended), but I was focused on other things then. Now, I feel like everything I want to do, there’s support for me to do it…. Being a leader now is important, that’s a part of my development. And the experiences I have gained helped me grow. That’s the biggest part for me.

What about the expenses?

Well, I don’t have expenses (laughs). My parents pay my tuition. But, it sucks because things are really expensive now and it’s not just about the tuition. Everything is expensive. So I try to earn money however I can. I just hate that as a middle class person, I don’t qualify for Pell grants and I don’t want loans. Scholarships are hard to get. But, I’m doing everything I can to try to get scholarships when I transfer.

To be clear, this brief insight from the students is not intended as findings from a well-structured qualitative investigation. The goal here is simply to allow the voices of students to enter our considerations of ROI, and to remind us to actually listen to and for those voices—especially the historically silenced ones.

Students Want the Institution to “Care” about Them

Doug Lederman’s (2021) Inside Higher Ed discussion of the Third Way and New America survey reveals that less than 75% of students surveyed believed “their institution cares about students like them.” Lederman also notes the survey revealed Black and LatinX college students are the students most likely to believe “Higher education is not worth the cost to students anymore.” In my very brief exchange, two Black students made it clear how important institutional support and care are for their journeys.

For Black and Latinx poor students, the economic returns do not trend as highly as they do for their White counterparts because these students still tend to select colleges that do not produce the highest earners (Steel-Figueredo, 2016). But, the “human value of a college education” (Gault, Reichlan, & Roman, 2014) could still have great possibility for these students.

In 2014, Arroyo and Gasman put forth an HBCU-based model for engendering success for Black students. Their conceptual framework suggested that beyond accessibility and affordability, institutions must focus on the interplay between identity formation, values cultivation, and achievement. Theirs is an example of the kind of humanistic consciousness needed as we consider how to advance access and increase the value of education.

Over the last two years, Northeast Lakeview College has partnered with Hanover Research to build an Early Warning Dashboard that helps us to look more closely at who our students are. One of Hanover’s proposed strategies for student and institution success is “creating safe and supportive environments.” Arroyo and Gasman fundamentally are calling for just that. In their framework, however, the student’s identity is centered—it’s the catalyst for the model.

Value is Subjective, But Successful Student ROI Requires and Applying and Equity Lens

The point here is that the concept of value is a deeply subjective one even if we connect tuition and fee costs to earning potential.

While Student A above will surely have to contend with the high cost of his education, his value currently is in being deemed worthy—being shown care, being provided help, being assured of opportunity to misstep without expulsion. Where Student B understands the economic relief provided by her parents’ support, she places a high value on the presence of personal growth opportunities and her ability to achieve her goals.

If college affordability exists when “students can anticipate substantial economic and social gain after graduation compared with a future without college,” (Gault, Reichlan, & Roman, 2014) then maybe all that matters is what each college/university does to fully invest in its students—all of its students.

Affordability in this sense then, cannot exist in the absence of equity. In fact, affordability then becomes synonymous with equity.

References

Libassi, C.J. (2018). The neglected college race gap: Racial disparities among college completers. Center for American Progress.

Steele-Figueredo, D. (2016). Why do students value college? Huffington Post. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-do-students-value-col_b_12580368.

Gault, B., Reichlan, L. & Roman, S. (2014). College affordability for low-income adults: Improving returns on investment for families and society. Institute for Women’s Policy Research.

Digital Learning, ROI, Student Success

Practice

Stories from the Educational Underground – WCET Interviews Peter Smith

By Lindsey Downs

October 27, 2021

“Learning happens everywhere. Somehow, we have to figure out how to recognize that learning.”

That was one of the closing thoughts that stuck with me when I sat in on an interview between WCET’s Executive Director, Russ Poulin, and the inspiring Peter Smith late last month. The interview centered on Peter’s newest book on higher education, Stories from the Educational Underground: The New Frontier for Learning and Work, but really, it was just a great excuse to sit down (albeit virtually) with a wonderfully kind educator whose rich and varied experiences have provided him with some outstanding ideas about the future of higher education.

Today I’ll share with you segments of the interview broken up by topics. The full-length interview is available on our YouTube channel. Thank you to Russ and Peter for sharing your thoughts with us, your work for the higher education community, and your dedication to serving WCET members.

Enjoy the read and the listen!

Lindsey Downs, WCET

Introducing – Peter Smith

Inaugural president of a community college, congressman, state senator, lieutenant governor, assistant director for education at UNESCO, professor, endowed chair, senior advisor…. WCET executive council member (previous) and WCET award winner.

That’s quite the vast experience and range of titles for our interviewee, Peter Smith, who graciously sat down with WCET’s Executive Director in September to discuss his new book, his thoughts on the new frontier of higher education, and the personal interviews he conducted to fill the pages of said new book. Russ and Peter talked about the format of the interviews and final product, takeaways, today’s higher education system, and how we move forward from here.

Use of Personal Stories – and Owning One’s Place in the Telling of Them

Peter has written several books, most of which were written at “very arm’s length” and were more “data driven.” In this case, he wanted to show the actual stories, the “strands of reality,” and highlight how hard it was for these specific individuals to achieve their goals, to accomplish what they wanted to in life.

During the interview process, it came to Peter that he was a very privileged, white male who was trying to tell the stories of minoritized and underserved populations. He asked himself “what right do I have to write this book?” His wife advised him to include his own story as the counterpart or counterpoint to the stories of the interviewees. What a great way to “own your place” and “own your own privilege.”

Takeaways from the Interviews

The takeaways Russ and Peter discussed focused more on the reasons people do or do not go to college and whether ambition for postsecondary education has anything to do with persisting through to a credential. These interviews showed Peter that while the life stories were all very different, each interviewee had the ambition and the desire to go to college, but for some reason, felt they couldn’t or faced some barrier. Those highlighted in this book, though, are unique from others because they were eventually able to do something about that barrier. They spoke a lot (in this section and throughout the interview) about the help some receive when it comes to starting an educational journey – whether it’s a parent getting you an interview, a friend making an important call, having some connection with college admissions, or just plain old luck. Much of our society is built on making the most out of those kinds of incidents. But what about the students who don’t have that help? How can we make luck more inclusive?

The (Issues…? Challenges…? Problems?) with Today’s Higher Education System

Did you “pick yourself up with your own bootstraps?” That’s a wonderfully inspirational image to conjure up, but as Peter and Russ discuss, it’s a fallacy. And it’s a fallacy that assumes you even have boots with bootstraps to pull. Our higher education system makes many assumptions and requirements about our students, such as how prepared they are when they enroll. Peter and Russ also discuss new models of education and learning that are growing in numbers outside of the traditional higher education system, offered by companies for their own employees or for others.

Moving Forward – How to Make a Difference

This final video was not only a great conclusion to a great interview, but included Peter’s advice to for higher education leaders who want to make a difference.

My favorite piece of advice was for institutions to consider how they relate to the community around them and make sure that they are doing work that benefits the local area and the specific employers in the area. Peter also said that it’s his (our) job to see where people are, understand where they want to go, and help them get there. And that time spent getting there shouldn’t include having to relearn (or sit through hearing about) something they already know.

So again: learning happens everywhere. It’s our job (as higher education leaders, administrators, educators, etc.) to figure out how to not only recognize it…but help our students showcase and build upon that learning.

Thank you to Peter and Russ for your inspiring discussion, and a special shout out to Peter on his newest book!

Distance Education, Leadership, Student Success, WCET

Practice

The Bigger Shift: Student ROI for higher education…and the role of digital learning

By Lindsey Downs

September 29, 2021

It started before COVID-19. Students, families, businesses, and those considering college questioned the value, the “return on investment” (ROI), of postsecondary education. Could they do better doing something else? Was the debt worth it? Is college for them?

Those questions loomed larger during the pandemic. They will continue to haunt us moving forward. The WCET Steering Committee is entering into a several-week examination of ROI and, where we can, how digital learning can make an impact in the equation.

From Online to Remote to…. What?

Whether it is collectively referred to as The Big Shift, The Great Online Migration, or any other creative name – there is no denying the massive and rapid transformation in higher education since the dawn of the COVID-19 pandemic, be it on-campus, online, remote, digital, or any other modality. There has understandably been a tremendous focus on the impact of such a rapid and widespread transformation. This new reality has been followed by the prognostication of many that students will be unsatisfied without a return to campus, while some surveys show a sizeable number of students want to continue some of the gains of online learning and services.

Whatever the role of online or digital learning turns out to be, it is clear that students are re-assessing the return on investment of higher education in all modalities and outputs.

As you enter this ROI discussion, rest assured that we fully understand that value of college to individuals and society of an educated public beyond personal economic gains, but that is a discussion for another day.

With varying approaches nationally, regionally or locally, the higher education landscape feels like a very fluid new frontier fraught with concerns around managing programs, faculty, campus access, vaccine and mask mandates.

Of great concern is getting students back to community colleges and, especially minoritized students who were not well served by higher education even before the onslaught of the pandemic. After such a period of personal, economic, and health-related uncertainties, we are left with the sense that things will never be “normal” again. Or, perhaps, the “new normal” will require significant institutional re-engineering to serve the revised needs of a student populace that has changed both demographically and emotionally.

Whatever the long-lasting effects of this shift to a much more prevalent, mainstream, and essential role for online and digital learning turns out to be, one thing is clear: students are re-assessing the return on investment of higher education for them personally…regardless of modality.

Assessing ROI: The Macro Point-of-View

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation funded the Gates Postsecondary Value Commission to “…explore ways to define and measure equitable postsecondary value and build momentum toward actionable change.” The work of the commission revolved around a “value definition” that stated:

“Students experience postsecondary value when provided equitable access and support to complete quality, affordable credentials that offer economic mobility and prepare them to advance racial and economic justice in our society.”

Informed by the pandemic and released in May 2021, the Commission’s report issues this finding that arises form research and underscores their recommendations:

“Postsecondary institutions have the power to create opportunities for economic and social mobility for all students—but especially Black, Latinx, Indigenous, underrepresented Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) students, students from low-income backgrounds, and women…However, these life-altering credentials and their associated returns are not distributed equitably.”

To address the issues, the Commission’s offered “three equity-centered tools to identify, measure, and address inequities in access, completion, and post-college outcomes:”

A definition of postsecondary value.
“A Postsecondary Value Framework outlines the clear value-add that postsecondary education can provide to students and society, in both economic and non-economic terms. The centerpiece of this framework is a series of economic value thresholds that measure post-college earnings and wealth inequities.”
“An action agenda outlines policies and practices that institutional leaders and federal and state policymakers should implement…”

Oddly, the report does little to delve into online and digital learning’s role in “value.” That was not its purpose, but still odd. We will begin to address that intersection of ROI and digital learning in the blog posts we outline below.

“How do we make sure that education delivers value for all students, regardless of their race, ethnicity, income, or gender? These questions deserve the best answers we can give.”
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Value Commission

Assessing ROI: The Student Point-of-View

To an individual student, assessing ROI — determining where and how to invest their time, energy, and money — can be a complex and highly personalized set of considerations. We know, for example, that the true price that students pay for college can be quite different from tuition or fees associated with attendance, as recently evidenced by the California Community Colleges push to increase financial aid eligibility for its students. And this at colleges where students pay some of the lowest enrollment fees in the country, but typically shoulder higher external costs to provide essentials for themselves and families while attending college.

What follows are some of the ROI challenges that we will be addressing in the coming weeks.

Financial Aid Challenges

For students learning online, many face additional financial challenges. In an upcoming post in this series from our colleagues at Oregon State University, we will explore how federal and state financial aid and, especially scholarships lean toward students engaged in on-campus learning and leaves online learners short-changed (pun intended). Aid formulas are firmly entrenched in scenarios that favor on-campus, younger students. A good case-in-point is the challenge faced by student veterans in using the G.I. Bill. They receive about half of their housing allowance if they take all of their courses online, but receive the full allowance if they take as little as one course on-campus.

Opportunity Costs and Growing Alternatives

For some students, the opportunity cost of attending college full-time instead of working and advancing in wages over four to six years requires too much sacrifice in the short term. The long-term investment may not be worth it for all students, either. The Third Way, a public policy think tank, studied the ROI for low income students using a measure called the “Price-to-Earnings Premium” or “PEP” and found that “at about 20% of institutions reviewed in the report, low-income students earned less when compared to a high school graduate, even 10 years after they initially enrolled.”

A growing part of the “opportunity cost” equation for students is the increased availability of alternatives. In the near term, employers are struggling to find workers. Colleges and universities typically lose enrollments when workers are in demand because the allure of a payday today will outweigh the promise of increased knowledge and income resulting from pursuing a degree. Many students can do both, but many struggle with the work/life/ school balancing act.

At the same time, there is staggering growth in the number and types of “credentials” that are available. Beyond the classic certificate, associate’s, bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degrees are the credentials and certifications that meet the varying needs of industry and/or individual learners. They also vary in length, format, modality, and start times. Credential Engine is cataloging these options and of the 967,734 credentials they logged (as of February 2021), only 359,713 (37.2%) were offered by postsecondary educational institutions. Not only are colleges and universities not alone, but they are also outnumbered.

Considering alternatives fits well with opportunity costs. If there are more alternatives, there may be options that present better ROI for students.

Reduce Time-to-Degree

Accordingly, reducing time to degree and offering programs that result in stackable credentials valued by industry remains an important yet still under-utilized strategy for most institutions. In fact, some students are choosing to stick with non-degree credentials and according to a recent Strada-Gallup Education Survey finding that 65% percent of those who complete non-degree programs said their education was worth the cost, and 49 percent said it helped them achieve their goals. Non-degree credentials issued by community colleges also received the highest ratings in terms of quality and value. While a non-degree credential may meet short-term goals, having a pathway to a degree may help with meeting a student’s long-term needs, even if they do not yet know they have that need. In another upcoming post in this series, we will explore the role of stackable credentials in reducing time to degree while increasing earnings as part of the student ROI equation.

Partnerships to Better Serve Students

Still, colleges and universities have come up with innovative partnerships aimed at reducing sticker shock, such as Southern Utah University’s $9,000 bachelor’s degree, or the partnership between Sinclair Community College and University of Dayton that build an integrated transfer program that includes clear up-front pricing with “no surprises” and even boasts coordinated advising for students on both campuses. Workforce partnerships are sprouting up in a multitude of new flavors as well, and this series will further showcase innovative methods of turbo-charging the ROI for students who can earn while they learn via employer-institutional partnerships.

Access is Still a Barrier to Opportunities

While the price of attendance and projected economic gains are important factors, there are other intangibles such as being the first in one’s family to graduate from college, or bringing the empowerment of a college education to one’s own under-served community. A common choice for many students is simply to attend the nearest college to where they live, yet many find themselves in under-served areas such as education deserts, defined as a local area where there are either zero or only one public broad access colleges nearby within a reasonable commuting distance. The price of attendance can increase dramatically for these students, who either choose from online programs or often face the decision of whether to relocate to attend college. As a way of addressing inequitable access, many innovative course-sharing platforms and programs have emerged, such as the California Virtual Campus online course exchange to provide broader access and accelerate student completion by eliminating gaps in available courses and programs.

education deserts map by commuting zone — *Education Deserts by Commuting Zone (from the Third Way report Place Matters: A Closer Look at Education Deserts)*

While many of us live in a world of high-speed data powered conveniences, the digital divide continues to persist for students, particularly when infrastructure is not sufficient. As an example, various accounts detail student experiences on tribal reservations, where individuals have gone to great lengths to access online learning during the pandemic but issues such as a lack of broadband infrastructure create seemingly insurmountable barriers.

Learning from Students’ Lived Experiences

In order to create an environment in which institutions of higher learning can effectively adjust to student expectations and create an experience that creates sufficient ROI, it is important to hear the perspectives of students and how they think about navigating this complex and personal calculation for themselves. To provide some thought-provoking perspectives, we will feature a post in this series designed to challenge you, our WCET members, to learn about the lived experiences of a small sample of students. This will be an opportunity for members to think about how you might respond to some real-world, thought-provoking questions raised by students.

Come Join Us in the ROI Exploration

photo of two people shaking hands over paperwork - text reads "WCET explores ROI and value of higher education."

Students and their families will make choices that benefit them both in the short and long term. In a world undergoing The Big Shift, are colleges and universities rising to the challenge?

WCET members, as online and digital learning pioneers have long been at the forefront of bringing innovations to solve vexing problems. WCET’s Steering Committee’s Working Group on Student Return on Investment will be bringing different aspects of this conversation to you over the next several weeks through WCET Frontiers and a few questions in the wcetDiscuss Community and email list.

Learn about the different angles on the challenges posed and solutions tried. And, please share what you have done in your own setting.

WCET Steering Committee Student ROI Working Group

Jory Hadsell – California Virtual Campus
Adam Cota – Western Governors University
Justin Louder – Texas Tech University
Chantae Recasner – Northeast Lakeview College
Shannon Riggs – Oregon State University

Digital Learning, Distance Education, Online Learning, ROI

Practice

“I’m Sick with COVID – but I’ll Get Caught up this Week” – Supporting Students Through a Pandemic with CTU Messenger

By Lindsey Downs

September 28, 2021

Welcome to our continued celebration of 2021 WOW awardees! We’re joined today by Connie Johnson and Ellise Farber, both from Colorado Technical University, who were nominated this year for the Messenger app via CTU Mobile, which provided real time communication opportunities and help to struggling students.

Frontiers is currently hosting our annual blog post series featuring posts from our 2021 WCET Outstanding Work (WOW) Award Winners.

This year we took a slightly different focus and asked for stories that described the intensely hard work that WCET member institutional staff, instructors, administrators, and students heroically stepped up with to the meet the challenges brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Congratulations to the 2021 WOW awardees:

Colorado Technical University.
Miami University Regionals E-Campus.
University of Alabama.
University of Louisville.
University of North Dakota.
University of Texas at San Antonio.

Congrats and thank you to Colorado Technical University and the digital learning heroes highlighted in today’s post. Stay tuned for the rest of this blog series as we lead up to this year’s WCET Annual Meeting!

Enjoy the read and enjoy your day,

Lindsey Downs, WCET

A registered nurse who wanted to further her education, Susie Student was thrilled when she was accepted into Colorado Technical University’s Bachelor of Science in Nursing program. Her first few classes went well. However, in early 2020, Susie found herself struggling to balance her schoolwork along with working increasingly long hours at the hospital battling the front lines against COVID.

Battling on the Front Lines – While in School

Between the stress of the global pandemic and exhaustion from double-shifts, it was very difficult for Susie to participate in class and she found herself completely overwhelmed.

Fortunately, Susie had access to CTU’s mobile app and could quickly message her faculty member, through the two-way Messenger tool, to let her know why she was having trouble getting her assignments done. Not only was her faculty member able to help, but Susie’s outreach through Messenger and mention of COVID raised flags in CTU’s reporting systems, which helped Susie’s broader support team identify that she was struggling. Her student success advisor could then proactively reach out to Susie with specific tools and information to help her with time and stress management, including connecting her with peers dealing with similar problems.

example of messenger app with a new message conversation — *CTU Mobile App – Messenger Conversation*

Real Time Communication and Help

Susie is just one of the more than 20,000 CTU students who use CTU Messenger every month to connect directly with their faculty, university staff, and their classmates. While CTU has many ways for students to provide feedback about the challenges of today, a growing number of students do not respond to email, phone, surveys, or other traditional methods of outreach. CTU is delighted that the use of Messenger, accessible through CTU’s mobile app as well as its Learning Management System, is a widely-used mode of communication between students and faculty and staff. CTU Messenger provides an avenue for real-time communication about coursework, technology challenges, or any other issues related to the pandemic, natural disasters, and family and work challenges.

…thanks for reaching out. No, everything isn’t alright. I’ve been battling with COVID and just received my phone last night…

In 2020, more than 80 percent of CTU’s population used Messenger to send 240,000+ conversations and nearly 3.3 million exchanges. These conversations provide a vast reservoir of insights into the issues that students face which prevent them from successfully completing their degrees.

Finding the True Impact

Recent data from a representative sampling indicates that faculty messages sent to students through CTU Messenger are opened an average of 83 percent of the time.

We at CTU wanted to understand more about how the Messenger tool was being used. We gathered the messages sent through Messenger to see if there were overarching themes or issues we could address.

To collate the messages into themes, as well as actionable data, CTU’s marketing and academic teams uses Kapiche, a text analysis-reporting tool that utilizes machine learning and natural language processing algorithms, including Google Sentiment Analysis, to discern sentiment, trends, and themes in student comments. Given the size and complexity of text data, due to the volume of students using Messenger, this reporting is critical to identifying and responding effectively to student issues.

…apologize for slacking, I’ve just been super sick with covid for about a week now. I will get caught up this week. Thank you for checking in on me.

For example, when the pandemic began in early 2020, CTU mobilized Kapiche to identify how students talked about the pandemic and the challenges it was causing to their lives. If a student messaged to say that they, or a family member, were in distress using identified language concepts such as hospital, illness, economic hardship, or job challenges, faculty and student advising were equipped to reach out in real-time and offer support. Academics also used insights into what students were experiencing to enhance faculty outreach and communication expectations, as well as to adjust a number of academic policies for students impacted by the pandemic and to provide additional communications to students each session. More specifically, faculty responded to messages by working with the university to adjust late policies for student work and incomplete policies for courses. Referrals to student advising for support in scheduling, time management, and stress management also increased during this time.

When CTU first developed the Messenger app, the university believed this communication tool would help increase communication between the University and CTU students. What we could not foresee, however, is that Messenger’s accessibility on mobile and on the Learning Management System would lead students to increase and deepen their engagement with the University.

CTU Messenger has engaged CTU’s academic, student advising, and marketing teams to help thousands of students just like Susie with real-time assistance during the pandemic. An additional benefit is to build off this strong foundation for ongoing, targeted student outreach through the development of new tools designed to address specific student needs. We are excited to see what the future brings!

COVID-19, Online Learning, Student Success, WCET Awards, WOW Award

What wasn’t working before COVID that still is not working well today?

Institutional Trust In Their Employees

Infrastructure For Support

Testing

What started working better in COVID that is now functioning worse than pre-COVID?

Modality Confusion

Communication Silos

What started working better in COVID that has now stagnated?

Recognition Mental Health Needs and Stress

What started working better in COVID that continues to work better today?

Increased Faculty Awareness and Respect for Teaching Various Modalities

Deeper Consideration of The Importance of Belonging

So What, Who Cares?

History

Member Endorsements:

Benefits of SAN

Resources, Research, and Support:

Events & Training:

Member Interaction:

Member Endorsements:

Looking Ahead

One Solution

Project Logistics

A Student Named Jorge

Institutional and Programmatic Eligibility Committee Timeline Recap

Other Distance Education Related Issues to Watch

Definition of Distance Education

Maximum Number of Clock Hours for Gainful Employment Programs – Section 26

What Can (Should) You Be Doing?

Send Us Your Stories

Finally…

Federal Rulemaking Process

Issue #6: Certification Procedures

A Major Change to Professional Licensure Requirements

The Bottom Line

A Major Change to a “State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement”

What Was Proposed Regarding Reciprocity Agreements?

Wait! Doesn’t that “Except Where…” Clause Exempt Institutions Participating in SARA?

What is the Impact on Students?

What is the Impact on Institutions?

What Happened to this Proposed Change in this Week’s Rulemaking Session?

The Bottom Line

Learn About Value by Listening to Student Voices

Student A: Black, Male, Pell Eligible, First-time, Full-time Student at a For-Profit University

Student B: Black, Female, Immigrant, Tuition Paid by Parents at a Community College

Students Want the Institution to “Care” about Them

Value is Subjective, But Successful Student ROI Requires and Applying and Equity Lens

References

Introducing – Peter Smith

Use of Personal Stories – and Owning One’s Place in the Telling of Them

Takeaways from the Interviews

The (Issues…? Challenges…? Problems?) with Today’s Higher Education System

Moving Forward – How to Make a Difference

From Online to Remote to…. What?

Assessing ROI: The Macro Point-of-View

Assessing ROI: The Student Point-of-View

Financial Aid Challenges

Opportunity Costs and Growing Alternatives

Reduce Time-to-Degree

Partnerships to Better Serve Students

Access is Still a Barrier to Opportunities

Learning from Students’ Lived Experiences

Come Join Us in the ROI Exploration

WCET Steering Committee Student ROI Working Group

Battling on the Front Lines – While in School

Real Time Communication and Help

Finding the True Impact