We are just now figuring out that both accrediting agencies and institutions may have more work ahead of them in meeting federal requirements regarding oversight of distance learning programs.
Sometimes at first look, we don’t fully comprehend the impact that a change in regulation or Department of Education (the Department) guidance might have out in the real world. And sometimes even with a second look, we might not fully comprehend that impact.
While we do not have all the answers, we thought it was important to highlight an issue brought to our attention and which has raised some important questions about accreditation and distance education.
The Change
In brief, the Department rescinded previous guidance regarding when an institution needed to seek institutional accreditation approval for offering distance education programs. Still in place is the requirement that the accrediting agency itself needs to have distance education as part of its “scope of recognition.”
The rescinded guidance: If an institution offered more than 50 percent of its courses via distance education, had more than 50 percent of its students enrolled in distance education, or offered more than 50 percent of an educational program via distance education, its distance education programs were required to be evaluated or approved by an accrediting agency with distance education in its scope of recognition.
The new guidance (emphasis added): “…a program offered in whole or in part through telecommunications is eligible for Title IV, HEA program purposes if the program is offered by an institution that is accredited by an agency that has accreditation of distance education within the scope of its recognition…before an institution offers any distance education programs that can be eligible for Title IV, the institution must be evaluated and accredited for its effective delivery of distance education programs by a recognized agency that has distance education within its scope of recognition.”
The change was made due to a review required by President Trump’s Executive Order 13891, which sought to ensure that “Americans are subject to only those binding rules imposed through duly enacted statutes or through regulations lawfully promulgated under them…”
As a result, the analysis showed that the now-rescinded guidance conflicted with 34 CFR 668.8(m), which states:
(m) An otherwise eligible program that is offered in whole or in part through telecommunications is eligible for title IV, HEA program purposes if the program is offered by an institution, other than a foreign institution, that has been evaluated and is accredited for its effective delivery of distance education programs by an accrediting agency or association that—
(1) Is recognized by the Secretary under subpart 2 of part H of the HEA; and
(2) Has accreditation of distance education within the scope of its recognition.
Yes, it is ironic that an Executive Order meant at limiting bureaucracy may have added to it.
A Few Questions
In conversations with knowledgeable accreditation and institution personnel, we now understand that there are several questions about this guidance. Additionally, depending on the response to those questions, the impact could be substantial. A few of the questions that we have:
VintageSnipsAndClips – Pixabay
Does this mean that every program that has even one course that uses distance education will need to have approval from their accrediting agency for that program?
We don’t think so. We think this just expands the number of institutions requiring distance education approval for the institution. But, we are not sure and it will be good to ask.
Does the “in whole or in part through telecommunications” mean that courses using any distance education variation are now considered distance education and creates the need for approval of that program? Part of the distance education definition is “to deliver instruction to students who are separated from the instructor or instructors.” Possible variations that could be included: blended learning, hybrid learning, hyflex learning, flipped classroom, adaptive learning, and anything that allows that student / instructor separation.
We don’t know.
If an institution decides to change the modality of just one course within a program, does it need accreditor approval before making this change?
We don’t think so, but it will be good to ask.
Accreditors Authority Regarding Department Minimum Requirements & COVID Flexibilities
The Department provides minimum requirements that must be addressed by accreditors in order for institutions to participate in Title IV HEA programs. The institutional accreditors have the authority to impose more rigorous requirements. The Department’s guidance suggests that after approval by the accrediting agency, an institution may offer distance education programs without the need for further approval, unless delivery of a program exceeds 50% by distance education or the institution delivers more than 50% of its programs through the distance education modality. We have learned that institutional accreditors may wish to impose further approval earlier than the Department’s guidance indicates.
Additionally, the Department’s new guidance addressed that in response to the national pandemic that the Secretary exercised authority under the HEROES Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1098bb that the flexibilities with respect to institutional eligibility for distance education for purposes of Title IV that will continue until the national emergency is rescinded. However, these Department flexibilities as originally offered acknowledged that any flexibilities were subject to the requirements of the accreditors. We have learned that several accreditors are no longer extending these flexibilities.
What’s Next?
Please tell us if instances where you have run into this issue. And submit questions that you may have about the impact of this change.
We will compile questions to ask the Department. We will report the results to you.
The WCET team has committed to working toward a more equitable world through our work on digital learning in higher education. This fall we will dedicate the month of August to discussion of equity and inclusion in higher education, planned and coordinated by a work group of the WCET Steering Committee. Today, we’re joined by Chantae Recasner, to introduce the focus and dedication our team and our leadership has and to ask for help in exploring how you, our members, are Enabling Difference. Thank you to Chantae and the members of our Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion working group for your guidance as we all move toward a better education system and a better world.
Read on to learn more about how you can join us on this journey.
Enjoy the read and enjoy your day,
Lindsey Downs, WCET
In the last year, we witnessed a global explosion of interest in the topic of diversity, equity, and inclusion. In the United States, many attribute this resurgence of interest to the murder of George Floyd—the social media traction it gained, the public outcries and protests, and the synergistic rage against injustice it inspired in people of all ages, all races, and all nationalities. The struggle for equity in higher education, however, is as old as the creation of the university itself, and the vicious intersection of racism, sexism, and classism have long since haunted educational outcomes. For decades, theorists have argued the inherent fallacy of formal American education—an institution built upon inequity—as the great equalizer. Yet, we persist. In the most steadfast and unyielding way, educators lean into this social institution’s regenerative power and leverage reform and innovation as tools that can simultaneously cut the destructive limbs (irrespective of how deeply rooted they are) and rebuild better ones. Why? Simply because we can.
A Formula for Equity
There is no one formula for how best to do education: change out one of the significant variables (who’s teaching, who’s learning, who’s leading) and the outcomes could change. Thus, experimentation is par for the course.
Yet, when it comes to equity, in the absence of a formula there is fear. Scholars have responded to the fears:
There’s even a book that attempts to disarm those who fear being deemed heartless if they have issue fatigue (UGH!?! Not another Diversity Book).
None of these references are intended as definitive or comprehensive, just illustrative of how the field has responded to fears. Equity work, whether pedagogical or personal, is indeed scary. The work often feels like a challenge to reboot an entire nervous system as opposed to cutting off just one bad limb. But, there is no one formula for how best to do equity.
Enabling Difference through Equity Innovation – Help Us Learn More
In many ways, equity work is akin to innovation as it starts with empathy and people, and it necessitates experimentation. WCET is particularly interested in showcasing and/or exploring what’s being done in the digital landscape to advance equity. In fact, WCET recently partnered with DETA to sponsor the creation of “Research Review: Educational Technologies and Their on Student Success for Racial and Ethnic Groups of Interest” and also works in partnership with Every Learner Everywhere to address equity and digital learning. Over the summer and into the fall, we are looking for ways to advance stories that “Enable Difference.” What does enabling difference look like? We believe difference is being enabled in so many outstanding ways at institutions across the country. From learner profile development to training in equity-based pedagogies to diversifying leadership and faculty, there are so many available narratives about how colleges and universities are centering and valuing difference as a core component for strategic success.
So, what are you doing differently? How are you talking differently? How are you planning differently? What’s different about how you are facilitating teaching and learning? Here are some other questions for consideration:
How are you/your colleagues navigating impact versus intention in your work? Have you implemented strategies or integrated technology that caused unintended harm? Are you creating space(s) for dialogue about intention and impact?
How is your institution differentiating the college experience for students? Are you challenging “one size fits all” notions about enrollment, advising, instruction, tutoring, etc.? Are there technologies that you are using that help with this differentiation?
Has your institution identified particular friction points, i.e., particular courses/subjects/administrative processes, that are creating challenges to building equity? Are any of those friction points either caused or alleviated by technology?
How is the concept of “student ready” versus “college ready” driving your institutional practice? What does it look like to take the onus of success off of the student and put it on the college/university? Are there ways that technology can help or hinder student success and institutional ownership?
In All of Your Considerations, Don’t Lose Sight of The Goal: EQUITY.
Equity in education exists when explicit and implicit barriers are removed so that all students and employees have optimal access to success. Expressed differently, equity is created when we design systems that yield it. If systems inherently produce what they are designed to produce, we must embrace change to see the equitable outcomes we desire. Maybe you have a story about how your organization is changing to advance equity. Who’s involved? What’s being done? How are you measuring what has been done? What metrics are driving your conversations/actions? What are you learning? Or maybe you would like to share your campus’ strategic plan and the ways that it centers equity and student success. Those documents and answers to the above questions will help us frame our collective conversations around equity and student success.
WCET understands that change is a process and that equity is ongoing. You might have a successfully completed project that you want to share, but it is also okay to provide the story of how you attempted something and found it challenging. In other words, evidence of success is very valuable but so is any and all evidence of learning. If you’re about to launch an initiative on your campus or in your system, what are the key considerations you are making before the launch? If you attempted a read-in for all staff in your area and it failed, what did you and your team learn from that failure?
In the coming months we will be exploring equity and digital learning in greater detail including a series of blog posts and other learning opportunities throughout the month of August. The journey to equity is about becoming, and we are on that journey with you. We welcome any and all stories of how you are Enabling Difference to become more equitable.
NC-SARA has opened a two month opportunity for SARA state members, SARA participating institutions, and members of the public to submit comments regarding the 21st Century Guidelines from June 2, 2021 through August 2, 2021.
Institutions that obtain state institutional approval through reciprocity for their out-of-state distance education related activities by participating in SARA (State Authorization Reciprocity Agreements), are familiar with the annual SARA Application and Approval Form for Institutional Participation. This application process currently directs that the institution CEO or CAO affirm that the institution will abide by the Council for Regional Accrediting Commissions (C-RAC) Guidelines. This institutional requirement to abide by the guidelines was for the purpose of states, who oversee the institutions, to ensure quality for distance education of their participating institutions. Corresponding to the institution requirement, States, through the biennial SARA Application and Approval form for State Membership, affirm that they agree to require the SARA institutions operate under the C-RAC guidelines. The SARA Policy Manual addresses this requirement for institutions in Section 4.7 and states in Section 2.5(p).
Earlier this spring, the Proposed 21st Century Distance Education Guidelines were posted on the Council for Regional Accrediting Commissions (C-RAC) website. These proposed guidelines are the final product of NC-SARA’s commissioning of the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS) to update the C-RAC Guidelines. Colleagues from institutions and accrediting agencies participated as interviewees and reviewers to develop the proposed guidelines. The original C-RAC guidelines are based on Best Practices developed by C-RAC and WCET. The guidelines were last updated in 2011. Along with the release of the proposed guidelines, NC-SARA released on their website, 21st Century Distance Education Guidelines Information from NC-SARA, to explain the purpose of the guidelines. Additionally, the document explained that in the upcoming May 2021 NC-SARA Board Meeting, the board will need to vote to replace the old guidelines with the revised guidelines. Prior to the May 2021 NC-SARA Board Meeting, an announcement was released on the NC-SARA website that NC-SARA staff recommended that the NC-SARA board table the vote on the new guidelines. The vote delay was to provide an opportunity for states and institutions to comment. The announcement indicated further direction would be available after the May 5, 2021, board meeting.
Within the last week, NC-SARA announced the opportunity for the public to participate in an informational webinar on June 29, 2021. Presenters are expected to discuss how the C-RAC guidelines have offered student consumer protections, how the new updated guidelines were developed, next steps, and how accreditors may be adopting or using the guidelines. Following that announcement, NC-SARA shared another website announcement that included the process for the public comment period, which was added to the announcement regarding a revision to the SARA policy review and revision cycle.
Comment Period Instructions
Please review the following instructions which vary depending on the person or entity you will represent when submitting comments. The deadline for submission of comments is Monday, August 2, 2021.
The NC-SARA website announcement suggests that you should read the latest Information and FAQs and register for the June 29, 2021 informational webinar if you are considering submitting a comment.
SARA state members should look for guidance from their regional compacts.
SARA participating institutions should look for an email to a survey link from NC-SARA to submit institutional comments.
Public comments may submit comments by emailing to info@nc-SARA.org. Instructions ask that you please include a detailed rationale for your suggestions or comments.
Your Comments Matter
Regular readers will recall that WCET and the WCET|State Authorization Network (SAN) commonly report on public comment opportunities offered by the U.S. Department of Education. This is the opportunity for key stakeholders to seek clarification about ambiguous language, inquire about implementation issues, and address compliance expectations.
New laws, regulations, and requirements are created to help protect students as consumers of higher education. By sharing your comments and questions, your thoughts may shed light on potentially better methods to protect students or highlight barriers your institution could face in limiting your ability to comply and protect students. A great example of comments making a difference was the previous Federal regulation for state authorization of distance education and professional licensure notifications that erroneously used the word “residence” instead of “location.” Protection of students would have remained in disarray if the Department had not addressed comments by including these issues for key stakeholders to address in negotiated rulemaking that led to replacement language.
It is important that commenters follow the instructions provided by the NC-SARA announcement. The instructions indicate that there will be a comment process for staff representing a state and a comment process for staff representing an institution. You must have the appropriate authority to submit a comment on behalf of your state or your institution.
There is a third option to submit a comment as a member of the public. This may mean that you are not representing your institution or state, but you have a question about how you will manage compliance for certain aspects of the guidelines. Please follow the instructions offered in that situation. As with public comments to the Department, we urge you to be respectful and positive with your suggestions or questions. Share any possible impact for your state or your institution and your students. Helpful alternatives may show your interest in fixing any problems rather than just indicating a complaint.
Please remember that the comment period deadline is August 2, 2021.
WCET and WCET|SAN Gathering Comments
Additionally, we would like to support you, our members, by providing the opportunity for you to additionally share your questions and comments with us. Just as we do with other announcements for public comment, we would like to prepare our comment to represent the questions and concerns of our members. The point of our comment is to share any consistent themes or concerns that are best addressed prior to the final implementation.
Your input is important for the long-range implementation and consumer protection for students. In addition to your comment submissions, you may send your questions and comments directly to Russ Poulin or Cheryl Dowd.
Regular readers of WCET Frontiers will recall that we avidly follow the U.S. Department of Education’s quest to develop regulations through the negotiated rulemaking process. Rulemaking is a complicated and intriguing process. Our colleagues, Jeannie Yockey-Fine with NC-SARA and Shari Miller with Institutional Compliance Matters are here today to assist me with sharing about an interesting twist through a court challenge to a particular regulation that came from a recent rulemaking (which came to consensus in Spring 2019).
It is timely for us to address this case study to review how the rulemaking process works and consider possible outcomes. Last week we received the first notification of intention to initiate Federal rulemaking. We anticipate that the Department will hold several rulemaking sessions to develop new regulations as well as review and revise current regulations through Federal rulemaking. There could also be court challenges to current regulations.
In order to implement components of the Higher Education Act, which is federal law, the U.S. Department of Education (the Department) follows a negotiated rulemaking process to write federal regulations. This negotiated rulemaking process is directed by federal statute through the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The process includes many steps including the convening of a negotiated rulemaking committee of key stake holders who review the subject matter and write the regulations with some assistance by the Department.
The rulemaking committee must come to consensus (100% agreement) for the language to be offered as proposed regulations, subject to public comment. After public comment, the Department reviews all comments, may or may not provide clarifying edits due to the public comments, and then releases responses to the comments along with the final regulations. If the committee does not reach consensus the Department may write the regulations themselves, theoretically based upon the guidance of the committee discussions. These regulations, as written by the Department, also follow the process of releasing the proposed regulation subject to public comment and then final regulations are released after review of the public comments.
There are many layers to the rulemaking process. It is important to highlight a few layers pertaining to this particular 2019 rulemaking. If you recall, this rulemaking consisted of several unprecedented components.
First, the rulemaking was developed to address an extraordinary number of issues related to accreditation, distance education, and innovation.
Second, the number of issues was so large, the Department developed the unusual idea of creating three sub-committees. Each sub-committee addressed a specific set of issues to lend their expertise and non-binding guidance to the main rulemaking committee.
Third, although it is typical that the rulemaking committee develops their structure for addressing the issues at their first meeting, the Department supplied their own suggested regulatory language in the form of summaries for each regulatory area prior to the first rulemaking session. The language had no binding effect but was to serve as a starting point for discussions and appeared to address the interests of the Department.
Fourth, voting on the regulations by the main committee was accomplished by voting on each of the three separate sets of issues rather than as one large package of regulations. Each separate set reached consensus. This then created the overall consensus.
Fifth, the Department released the overall set of consensus regulations in three separate packages. Each package was released as proposed regulations subject to public comment and then released in final form several months following the public comment period of the release of each of the three separate packages of regulations.
34 C.F.R. § 668.5 – Written arrangements to provide educational programs. Timeline of Revision to Court Action.
The outcome of the process detailed above that created this particular final regulation impacts eleven-year-old language regarding outsourcing of instruction to an institution which shares common ownership. In 2010, under the Obama administration, federal regulations 34 C.F.R. § 668.5 (a)(2)(ii) (effective until July 1, 2021) allowed institutions to outsource up to 50% of instruction to a school under common ownership if the written arrangement regarding the outsourcing was approved by the institution’s accreditor.
The suggested revised regulatory language offered by the Department in Summary 668 at the start of the 2019 Negotiated Rulemaking included the removal of the 50% cap outsourcing instruction. In the recording of the subcommittee discussions, several members of this non-binding group appeared to express that the 50% cap should remain. The main negotiated rulemaking committee ultimately decided to concur with the revised regulatory language that was suggested by the Department, and voted unanimously to remove the 50% cap. This regulation was part of the third package of regulations that was released in proposed form on April 20, 2020 and subject to public comment. On September 2, 2020, the final regulations were released. Federal regulation 34 C.F.R. § 668.5 (a)(2) (effective July 1, 2021) was amended to lift the 50% cap so that institutions may now outsource up to 100% of instruction to another institution if they both have common ownership. Because public and non-profit institutions do not technically have “owners,” this provision applies only to for-profit institutions.
The State of California viewed the increase to 100% as weakening student consumer protections, and on January 15th, 2021, the State filed a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against the Department based upon the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). On January 19, 2021, the National Student Legal Defense Network joined the action as an additional participant (intervenor) with the State of California. The Department filed a Motion to Dismiss on April 6, 2021 and the hearing is scheduled for July 15, 2021.
Plaintiff’s Argument
The State of California’s overriding argument is that the actions of the Department in the 2020 Distance Education and Innovation regulation “illegally rolled back federal oversight of for-profit schools to the detriment of students and taxpayers.” The State argues that this action of removal, which will now allow a for-profit school to outsource 100% of a student’s education, was in violation of the APA because the Department provided no reasoned explanation for the arbitrary increase.
The Complaint also provided references to the Department’s motives for the change. The Departments stated references included that the 50% cap was “needlessly restrictive” because “each institution must meet the criteria to be an eligible institution,” and that “written arrangements beyond 50% theoretically could be used responsibly.” These references also included that The Department “deferred to accrediting agencies in this area,” which must approve the written arrangements. Potential safeguards from unchecked institutional conduct can be found in the comments to the final regulation, where the Department recognized that many accreditors require at least 25% of the program to be delivered by the institution conferring the credential and defers to accrediting agencies, as the decision maker on program approval. The Department further indicated that it does not believe that the change, which applies to a very small number of students enrolled at institutions with co-ownership, exposes those students to meaningful additional risk because there are other federal protections in place such as misrepresentation and fraud statutes that can be enforced through existing means. Also, the Department stated that there is value in maintaining flexibility to achieve synergies between two or more eligible institutions owned or controlled by the same individual, partnership, or corporation and that the written arrangements (which were strengthened in the accreditation final rule) are viewed as a tool that can provide more opportunity for students, as not every institution is able to provide every conceivable course or instructional resource.
The concerns from the National Student Legal Defense Network included the possible difference in quality of the student experience between institutions sharing ownership, which could lead to students being misled about the nature of their education (e.g., students may be forced to take more online courses through an affiliated institution when they expected to take on-ground classes), as well as arguing the removal of the cap was arbitrary and no reasonable alternatives were considered.
The Department submitted its response in the form of a Motion to Dismiss on April 6, 2021. It argues that the State of California lacks standing because it fails to identify a viable injury fairly traceable to the State and it cannot sue the federal government on behalf of its residents under a theory of Parens Patriae or other third party standing. Additionally, the State’s Cal Grant program eligibility that has been tied to Title IV was a decision made by the State, not the Department and that choice does not support standing in this matter. A hearing on the Motion to Dismiss is scheduled for July 15, 2021 in federal court in the Northern District of California.
Should the State of California challenge ultimately be argued on the merits and if decided in favor of the plaintiff, the court decision could cause the new regulation to be vacated and the 50% cap restored. We have seen several examples of court challenges for failure to follow the APA when developing a new regulation. Some may recall that the original state authorization of distance education Federal regulation 34 CFR 600.9(c), was vacated by the U.S. District Court in 2011 for failure to follow procedure as directed by the APA when the final regulation for state authorization included sub-regulatory language regarding state authorization of distance education without opportunity for public comment. A similar issue occurred in 2019 when the U.S. District Court vacated the delay of the next version of the state authorization federal regulation for failure to follow procedure as directed by the APA to create a delay rule.
Lessons Learned
Over the last few months, the new administration has identified several higher education priorities:
Title IX guidance, policies, and regulations,
Borrower Defense/Gainful Employment,
90/10 Rule, and
FAFSA Simplification.
Addressing these priorities are expected to include the negotiated rulemaking process. Given these priorities, some experts have indicated that revisions to accreditation regulations are not likely to be part of rulemaking. However, as we see, regulations can be subject to court challenges.
Ultimately, the next few years will be very interesting as we see the visions of the Biden Administration, the Department of Education, and other constituents unfold. What we know is that there are several avenues for which the visions can be achieved. WCET will be following and sharing these avenues as they occur.
This week we saw the start of what we have been expecting from the new administration – new rulemaking. Experts have shared for months that the Biden Administration and the Department of Education have prioritized several issues to address including:
Title IX,
Borrower Defense to Repayment,
Gainful Employment,
90/10 Rule, and
FAFSA Simplification.
These priorities express this administration’s desire to protect students. In a recent press release, The U.S. Department of Education Secretary Miguel Cardona underscored this intent by saying,
“The Department of Education’s primary responsibility is to serve students and borrowers. That means taking a fresh look at a range of regulations to make sure they are not creating unnecessary barriers, but instead can ensure that institutions and programs serve our students well.”
It was expected that these issues would be addressed through rulemaking which has multiple procedural steps before a regulation becomes effective.
The rulemaking process begins with public input. The May 24, 2021 press release by the Department of Education announced the intention to hold virtual public hearings on June 21, 23, and 24 in order to receive stakeholder input on potential issues for the an upcoming rulemaking.
The press release further described the issues the Department has proposed to be addressed. These issues include:
borrower defense,
gainful employment,
rules for loan repayment, and
improving rules governing targeted student loan cancellation authorities for borrowers engaged in public service, with disabilities, or whose institutions close, among other topics.
After completion of the public hearings the Department will seek nominations for non-federal negotiators to serve on the negotiated rulemaking committee starting in late Summer 2021.
Proposed Regulatory Issues to be Addressed
Change of ownership and change in control of institutions of higher education under 34 CFR 600.31;
Certification procedures for participation in title IV, HEA programs under 34 CFR 668.13;
Standards of administrative capability under 34 CFR 668.16;
Borrower defense to repayment under 34 CFR 682.410, 682.411, 685.206, and 685.222;
Discharges for borrowers with a total and permanent disability under 34 CFR 674.61, 682.402, and 685.213;
Closed school discharges under 34 CFR 685.214 and 682.402;
Discharges for false certification of student eligibility under 34 CFR 685.215(a)(1) and 682.402;
Loan repayment plans under 34 CFR 682.209, 682.215, 685.208, and 685.209;
The Public Service Loan Forgiveness program under 34 CFR 685.219;
Mandatory pre-dispute arbitration and prohibition of class action lawsuits provisions in institutions’ enrollment agreements (formerly under 34 CFR 685.300) and associated counseling about such arrangements under 34 CFR 685.304;
Financial responsibility for participating institutions of higher education under 34 CFR subpart L, such as events that indicate heightened financial risk;
Gainful employment (formerly located in 34 CFR subpart Q); and
Pell Grant eligibility for prison education programs under 34 CFR part 690.
Announcing Negotiated Rulemaking Committee, Public Hearings, and Public Comment
The Department has expressed that they are particularly interested in comments on regulations that would address gaps in postsecondary outcomes including retention, completion, student loan repayment, and loan default. The announcement also explained that the Department expects the committees to be created after the public hearings with the negotiation sessions to begin no earlier than August 2021. The committees will meet virtually for up to three sessions of approximately five days each at roughly four-week intervals.
The Department has expressed that they are particularly interested in comments on regulations that would address gaps in postsecondary outcomes including retention, completion, student loan repayment, and loan default.
How to Register to Present Comments at the Public Hearings
Public Hearings will be held virtually on June 21, 23, and 14, 2021. Interested individuals must register to present their comments by sending an email to negreghearing@ed.govno later than 12:00 p.m. Eastern time on the business day prior to the public hearing at which they want to speak. The time limit for comments is five minutes. Here is additional information the public hearings.
How to Observe the Public Hearings
For those interested in observing the public hearings, the Department will post registration links for the public hearings on the Department’s website. There will be a unique link each day for attendees who wish to observe. Non-speaking attendees will join the public hearings through Microsoft Teams Live. The Department will also post transcripts of the hearings on that site.
The Department directs that written comments will be accepted through July 1, 2021.
As we have shared in previous public comment periods, please obtain appropriate approval at your institution or organization if you are commenting on their behalf. You may comment as an individual, but in that case, be sure not to use your institution or organization’s letter head.
Submissions may be offered in several ways but will not be accepted by fax. The Department offers the following options to submit a written comment:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov to submit comments electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on the site under “FAQ.”
Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery: Addressed to Vanessa Gomez, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave. SW, Room 2C179, Washington, DC 20202.
Link highlighted green box at the top of the Federal Register Announcement: Submit a Formal Comment.
Next steps
You may wish to consider providing input at this time though the public hearing or written comments. The Department has expressed particular interest in comments on regulations that would address gaps in outcomes, retention, completion, student loan repayment, and loan default. Specifically, the Department wishes to consider impact due to demographic characteristics such income, race/ethnicity, gender.
WCET would like to reflect our members questions and concerns regarding this proposed rulemaking process. Please share your thoughts and questions regarding the proposed regulatory issues and suggested additional concerns that should be considered by the negotiated rulemaking with the team at WCET. Your thoughts and questions may be sent directly to Russ Poulin (rpoulin@wiche.edu) or Cheryl Dowd (cdowd@wiche.edu ).
Please look to WCET in the months ahead to share updates on this rulemaking process.
The events of the past year highlighted the inequities faced by those who have traditionally not been served well be institutions or by society as a whole. In discussions among WCET members and staff, we could list several suggestions for remedies. But which of them to recommend? We believe actions should be evidence-based.
As a result, we contacted Tanya Joosten of DETA. She and her group are premier researchers in the use of educational technologies in higher education. WCET contracted with DETA to conduct a review of recent research on educational technologies and student outcomes for students of racial and ethnic groups.
Purpose, Objective, and Target Population
The purpose of the review is to identify institutional, instructional, and learning practices mediated by educational technology that positively influence the success of certain racial and ethnic groups of American students, including students who identify as Black, African American, Hispanic, Latinx, Latino or Latina, American Indian, Alaskan Native, Indigenous American, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander. The rationale for the review is to better understand what recent and relevant research-based practices in the educational technology field can be replicated and scaled across postsecondary education in the United States (U.S.) to create equitable and inclusive learning experiences. The objective of this research is the identification of practices and/or interventions that are positively influencing student outcomes (e.g., access, learning, grades, course completion, satisfaction, persistence, and others) for the population of interest to encourage implementation across the WCET community.
purpose of Research review report, pg. 2
Questions
The research was guided by these four questions on how to better serve and to improve the learning effectiveness for students from the target populations:
What can administrators do better?
What instructional-level practices, such as student and instructional supports, can be implemented that are proven to improve student access and success?
How can offering student services through supporting improvements in instruction and/or through education technology help improve equity in education?
What can instructors and instructional support staff do better?
What course-level and instructional practices and interventions create inclusive opportunities for learning and are proven to better serve students?
What can student support staff do better?
What can all stakeholders do better?
Recommendations
There is more to the methodology in the report, but it is important to note that only peer-reviewed studies were selected that were published over a recent nearly three-year period. Also, “peer-reviewed studies were selected for inclusion based on the presence of a series of a key terms search related to race and ethnicity and a term related to education technology, such as digital learning or online learning.
Unfortunately, there were fewer studies that we had hoped. Even so, the report has recommendations for different higher education populations. Below are the categories with a sample recommendation for each…
Administrators and Staff
“…institutions should avoid choosing the traditional solution of investing in more student support services, such as tutoring, without robust investigation into their current institutional structures that may be impeding the success rates of all students. Sometimes the solution is not *more* student support services, but, rather, a re-envisioning of the current institutional structure and cultural norms characterizing that structure in its entirety (see Benitez, 2010).
Faculty and Instructors
“faculty should consider a more culturally inclusive curriculum when possible.”
Students
Behaviors that positively influence student success in online learning. Graphic from report, pg 19.
“The existence of the digital divide has become even more evident in the response to COVID-19. It is particularly evident when students are removed from institutional student housing. Students should have access to technology, broadband, and an effective learning environment.”
Upcoming WCET Webcast Discussing Research Review
Join us on May 20th for member-only webcast featuring Dr. Tanya Joosten and Dr. Cherise McBride (Lecturer, Literacy and Technology, University of California, Berkeley) for a discussion of the research review.
Today’s guest authors, Mary Ellen Dello Stritto and Rebecca Thomas from the Ecampus Research Unit with Oregon State University’s Ecampus are here to discuss how social scientists can contribute to online teaching and learning research. Thank you to both of them for today’s post.
Enjoy the read and enjoy your day,
Lindsey Downs, WCET
While remote forms of education have been increasingly discussed during COVID-19, online higher education has been growing for over 15 years (e.g., Seaman, Allen, & Seaman, 2018). This growth is exciting because online education has the potential to increase educational access for diverse groups of adult learners (see table below). Many students may find that completing courses, certificate programs, and degree programs online can make educational attainment more feasible. However, the field of online educational research is still young, and there is a lot of opportunity to contribute to both research and practice in the field.
Students Who May Benefit from Online Education – Online education has the potential to provide educational access to individuals who may find it difficult to attend face-to-face courses.
Students who have many responsibilities.
Asynchronous online courses allow students to complete course objectives during the hours that they are available, which can make higher education more feasible for students with life commitments such as full-time jobs or childcare responsibilities. Adults who desire career changes, or want to further their education in hopes of increased responsibility or promotion may find it easier to fit online courses into their schedules. Additionally, students who may be taking courses at an institution’s campus may find that combining online and blended courses with campus courses may fit better into their work and family life.
Students who live in remote areas.
Since online courses are offered virtually, they can be accessed wherever there is adequate internet access. This aspect of online education can benefit students who live in remote areas, or students who are unable to move or commute for specific courses or programs.
Students who travel or who live in multiple locations.
For example, military service personnel whose job responsibilities require moving or living in multiple locations may find online courses to be compatible with their other responsibilities.
Students with disabilities or health concerns that make visiting campus difficult.
Some students may find it difficult to drive to campus, travel around campus, or attend class in a face-to-face setting due to disabilities or physical or mental health symptoms. Online education may allow these students to take courses in environments where they function more optimally.
We, the authors of this piece, are psychologists by training who currently work in the Ecampus Research Unit (ECRU), a research team housed within Oregon State’s University Ecampus, the division for online degrees and programs. Our educational and research experiences have provided us with a unique perspective on the online higher education field, as well as on how social scientists can contribute.
Social scientists (including but not limited to sociologists, historians, and political scientists) are excellent candidates for contributing to future work in online teaching and learning. For example, social scientists are often trained in how to conduct research involving human participants, and the diverse methodologies offered in the social sciences could allow the field to investigate online education through multiple lenses. Many social scientists may be surprised to learn how their skills could contribute to multi-disciplinary teams, as researchers in other fields (e.g. researchers in STEM fields) may desire to conduct educational research, but lack the training in human participant methodologies.
If you are a social scientist who wants to contribute to research, teaching, or mentorship in online education, the following sections describe important considerations.
How Social Scientists Can Contribute to Research in Online Higher Education
In addition to social scientists’ expertise in research design with human participants and data analysis, many social scientists are already studying content areas that relate to teaching and learning. For example, social scientists often aim to understand trends and relationships in between humans and society. These areas could potentially be applied to educational environments, as education is situated within a broader culture and society, and teaching depends on interpersonal relationships and communication. Many social scientists who do not consider themselves to be “educational researchers” may find that educational research fits their skill-set and interests. For example, phenomena studied in social psychology such as implicit bias, collaborative group work, and social norms could be applied to understanding online education.
More Variety and Opportunity
Social scientists filling multiple roles in higher education may find it rewarding to conduct research related to online teaching and learning. Faculty with heavy teaching loads, many of whom may already be teaching online or blended courses, may choose to conduct research within their current courses. Faculty in research-heavy positions may also find that Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) research complements their current research agendas. Since so many areas of social science could relate to online teaching and learning, there is opportunity for many in the field to contribute.
Research Starting Points and Ideas
The following are areas where additional scholarship would be useful in online higher education. These areas are by no means exhaustive, and since they have been written from our perspective as psychologists, they may not completely align with perspectives offered by all social sciences. However, we hope that these areas can provide a starting point for social scientists to consider online educational research in the context of their expertise and experiences.
While some of these research areas may require original research, other research areas may be able to be addressed by current work that has not yet been applied to online teaching and learning. Social scientists with specific areas of expertise could consider ways that their content areas could improve online education and educational environments. While these research areas run parallel with endeavors of the SoTL more broadly, there has been less research in the context of online teaching and learning, as well as in regard to other modalities of education, such as in blended learning.
Research Area 1: Performance in Online Education
Example Research Questions
How do students perform in a specific online course or in a specific online program? Why are students performing this way? How well do faculty teach specific online courses, or within specific programs? What are best practices for teaching online and evaluating teaching effectiveness?Are there differences in student performance for the same course or program offered online compared to other modalities? What reasons are there for these differences?What efforts can be made to improve student and faculty performance in an online course or program?
Important Considerations
What indicators of student performance to measure (i.e. grades, retention, post-graduation employment data), as well as indicators of faculty performance (e.g. peer evaluations, student evaluations)Whether there is interest in performance for a specific online course, or for a larger online program If this research is about online education in a specific field, it could be useful to consider sub-fields (i.e. comparing performance in a specific content course to a statistics for social sciences course)
Research Area 2: Educational Experience in Online Education
Example Research Questions
What factors (e.g. social support, self-compassion) impact student and faculty experiences in online courses and programs? What barriers do certain students and faculty encounter in online courses and programs (e.g. bias, isolation)?How can interventions improve the educational experiences of online students, faculty, and other stakeholders?
Important Considerations
Some students and faculty may experience different barriers than others when completing their education. For example, some research has focused on students from traditionally disadvantaged backgrounds. Barriers can be course or program specific, as well as specific to student or faculty demographic variables.Barriers in online learning may or may not be similar to general barriers in higher education. It is important to consider the online education context and how that may interact with other factors.
Research Area 3: Pedagogy in Online Education
Example Research Questions
Which pedagogies are effective in online learning?What are the study methods used by online students? If we understand this information, then pedagogy can be designed specifically for the online learning environment.Are there pedagogies that are particularly useful for teaching specific concepts online?
Important Considerations
Most Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) research has been conducted in face-to-face environments. More research is needed related to online learning.It is possible that some pedagogy established in face-to-face environments could be effective in online environments. However, it is also possible to design pedagogy that utilizes the online medium and aligns with the way that online learners tend to study.Research done in multiple fields could be applied to pedagogy in online education.
Considerations for Social Scientists: Teaching & Mentoring Online Students
In addition to contributing to the online teaching and learning field through research, social scientists can also contribute to the field as they teach and mentor online students. While more research in this area would be useful, equivalency theory suggests that online students will achieve equivalent learning outcomes to face face-to-face learners if they receive equivalent learning experiences (Simonson, 1999). We recommend that social scientists consider how they can ensure that they are providing equivalent learning experiences to their online students, both in the classroom, as well as outside of the classroom.
Faculty can provide equivalent learning experiences in the online classroom. While online pedagogy may look different from face-to-face pedagogy, it is possible for online students to receive equivalent learning opportunities in online classrooms. Fortunately, if you are new to teaching online, many professionals have been working in this area for years, and there are many resources that you can refer to so as to avoid reinventing the wheel. We recommend looking into online teaching resources provided by your institutions, as well as visiting resources provided by Quality Matters, Online Learning Consortium (OLC), UPCEA, and EDUCAUSE. In an Ecampus Research Unit study, we interviewed 33 instructors who had been teaching online for 10 years or more. These instructors recommended taking advantage of trainings and professional development opportunities. For example, some found that they could teach more content online than they originally thought, and many enjoyed the challenge of teaching in a new environment (more results from this study can be found here). Visit these blog posts for more information on skills that you can develop as an online instructor, as well as advice for new online instructors.
Social Scientists can provide equivalent learning experiences outside of the classroom. In addition to providing quality education within online courses, departments can consider ways that they can make other learning experiences available to online students. For example, many undergraduates receive opportunities such as research and teaching assistantships, tutoring positions, and involvement in student organizations. These experiences can be invaluable in preparing students for graduate work, as well as for work in other areas such as industry. With a creative approach to logistics, online students can partake in these experiences outside of the classroom. For example, many social science related student positions could be completed remotely, and many events, such as seminars and guest speaker sessions, could be recorded or broadcasted online. If you are a social scientist in higher education, we would encourage you to consider a) What experiences do students in your field need to be successful?, and b) How can these experiences be offered to online students?
An Exciting Future for Online Learning and Research
There is a lot of quality work that has been done by social scientists that could enhance online teaching and learning research, and additional efforts could be made by faculty when teaching and mentoring online students. We believe that social scientists have the potential to contribute to the online education field in their specific roles, at their institutions.
Mary Ellen Dello Stritto Director, Ecampus Research Unit Oregon State University, Ecampus
Rebecca Arlene Thomas Postdoctoral Scholar Ecampus Research Unit Oregon State University, Ecampus
References
Seaman, J. E., Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2018). Grade increase: Tracking distance education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group.
Simonson, M. (1999). Equivalency theory and distance education. TechTrends, 43(5), 5-8.
Students, parents, employers, and policymakers increasingly question the collegiate investment if the economic return is not apparent, opportunity costs are considerable, and students are left with stifling loan debt. These questions have been amplified due to the pandemic and the feeling among some students that they are not getting what they purchased.
While not all benefits to the college experience are financial, the economics loom large and equity considerations come into play as voiced by the Commission:
The Issue
Concerns about college affordability and debt are giving rise to the question “What is college worth?” The returns on education after high school vary greatly by who a student is and where they come from – and they shouldn’t. Today in America, Latinx adults with a bachelor’s degree or higher earn 25% less than their White peers, while Black adults earn 21% less. This contributes to the reality that a household headed by a White college graduate has eight times the wealth of a household headed by a Black college graduate.
This can and must change. A national commission – the Postsecondary Value Commission – is shining a light on this issue and is calling for action to improve the value of education after high school and make that value more equitable.
The Commission’s work is extremely data driven and views the concept of “value” through different lenses. For students, they consider the student investment, impact on student ability to build wealth, learning (including critical thinking and collaborative problem solving), skills gaps, and impact on wellbeing. For society, they consider public benefits and the role in promoting justice.
Findings
Using “the best available data and new analyses for measuring and promoting value” they make the following key observation:
Today, the returns on an education after high school vary according to a student’s race, ethnicity, income, or gender, and there are actions that can be taken – now – to change that. College is worth it, but how much it is worth varies by who a student is, which institution(s) they attend (and which programs they pursue), and whether they earn a credential.
In detailing their findings, the following one will cause heartburn at institutions cited as not meeting the basic economic thresholds for their students.
Colleges and universities vary widely in the economic value realized by their students – and many are showing minimal returns.
DATA POINT: While a majority of public and private not-for-profit colleges and universities post minimum economic returns for their students 10 years after first enrollment (i.e., earnings at or above those of high school graduates plus total net price), just under 650 institutions fail to meet this most basic threshold (including a majority of private for-profit institutions).
Commission analysis of federal College Scorecard data
Undoubtedly some colleges deserve to be called out and others are incapable of failing this test because they attract wealthy students who (mostly) will succeed in any case. In a “question and answer” follow-up in the materials provided to me, the question is asked about the Commission’s work being used to “punish colleges and universities that are trying to do a better job of serving students of color, students from low-income backgrounds, and women but still have relatively low outcomes?” They respond that their intent is for the data to be used for improvement and not to shame institutions.
Other findings, include:
Economic returns also vary by a student’s race/ ethnicity and whether they complete a degree or certificate or not.
Economic returns also vary widely by race/ethnicity even among graduates of the same program, recognizing that earnings disparities stem from educational and non-educational sources.
Access institutions have been much more focused on economic opportunity and equitable outcomes, whereas the perceived value of a more prestigious institution can be harder to measure. This report demonstrates why institutional leaders should examine long-term economic mobility, the total cost of education, time to degree and long-lasting damage caused by student debt.
Jory Hadsell (Executive Director, California Virtual Campus and Chair, WCET Return on Investment Working Group)
Recommendations and Next Steps
The Commission recommendations double down on the need for data driven decisions and provide actions that they would like to see taken by the different constituencies:
Information can and should drive action to improve value – especially for Black, Latinx, Indigenous, and underrepresented Asian American/Pacific Islander students, students from low-income backgrounds, and women.
Colleges and universities can create stronger and smarter paths to credentials that reduce the time and money students need to invest, focus more of their resources on students with the greatest financial need, and create stronger pathways to economically stable and fulfilling careers.
State and federal policymakers can better target student aid dollars to the most financially vulnerable students, strengthening investment in colleges and universities that are serving (not just enrolling) a significant number of diverse students.
Students and families should be empowered to ask critical questions about the return on their educational investment – and get answers to those questions. These questions include things like time-to-credential, earnings for graduates at different points in time, debt-to-earnings ratio for graduates, and more.
This is just the beginning of work coming from the Postsecondary Value Commission. They will release a data tool containing performance data on value measures for thousands of colleges and universities. They also will form a coalition of institutions committed to advancing value through improved data collection.
What About Digital Education?
Any time one gets into the economics of higher education, I wonder about when the “digital education is cheaper” argument will come into play. WCET has addressed this in our work on the price and cost of distance education. As we outline in the Change Magazine article on this issue, there is widespread misperceptions on both the academic and policymaker sides on the cost vs. price equation. The common refrain from the public is that online education must cost less to create and offer.
From what I have read thus far, the Commission is curiously silent on the impact that digital technologies might have on postsecondary value. Let’s keep watching and get prepared. WCET’s Steering Committee has a working group that is preparing a series of posts and events addressing student return on investment that will be released this fall.
Why Should You Care About This Report?
The value of postsecondary education has driven decisions by hundreds of thousands of students and by multitudes of policymakers. This report turns the bright spotlight on the question. There will even more expectations for colleges and universities to respond.
Sasha Thackaberry (Vice President, Online & Continuing Education, Louisiana State University and WCET Executive Council Chair) put the report into context for WCET members:
“The report from the Postsecondary Value Commission underscores the importance of what we do in the field of online education. Critical to this is providing access to higher education in an efficient way that respects the abilities of students to transfer credit into their institution of choice. Relevant, rigorous degrees from highly-valued institutions are more important than ever before for economic mobility. LSU joins other WCET institutions in being completely aligned with the mission of improving opportunities for all students, regardless of where they live or what background they come from. Providing robust academic support and anywhere/anytime access to resources is key to supporting students.”
For WCET members…we need to ask ourselves how digital education is part of the solution and not part of the problem.
This month WCET wrapped its two-part epic mini-series Practical Considerations for an Uncertain Future. Both sessions were filled with, as our Executive Director put it, never-ending and only slightly miserable chess/Queen’s Gambit, Star Wars, and Star Trek references plus amazing sessions and discussions with the superstars of digital learning in higher education.
Episode 1 – The EdTech Gambit
In our first episode, we focused on The EdTech Gambit, where we discussed what we’ve learned through the implementation of new (and sometimes old) technologies during an emergency situation. Our opening session touched on best practices gathered from the pandemic and how best to serve students, whatever delivery modality their class or program may be. Attendees brought up great questions such as the use of Cares Act funds on technology tools and considerations about keeping the purchased tools up to date plus how students may feel about asynchronous versus synchronous online/blended learning moving forward. The breakout sessions from exciting higher education leaders included:
Chats on the future landscape of educational technologies,
Ways to ensure we are always keeping edtech accessible, and
A great discussion about what faculty really want administrations to know.
The final session was an entertaining and incredibly valuable panel who discussed edtech evaluation, purchasing, adoption, and implementation. The critical factors included in the discussion were the importance of accessibility, equitable access, and privacy and security of student data.
Episode 2 – WCET Discovery: Where No Educator Has Gone Before
The second episode, WCET Discovery: Where No Educator Has Gone Before, showcased what’s in store for the future. Our opening session was a high-level discussion of that future, complete with Stark Trek references and space themed Zoom backgrounds. My biggest takeaway was trying to keep the focus on student (and staff and faculty!) mental health and individual success with better assessment and engagement strategies, even once we are approaching “back to normal” (whatever that means for us now). The panel ended with each presenter talking about what gives them hope for the future of higher ed. The panelists spoke so highly of the students who keep us doing this work, the creativity and innovation that has come out of the COVID-19 pandemic, administrators who practice what they preach and are active lifelong learners, and finally the renewed focus on social justice, not only in higher education, but all over the world.
And, yes, we know, it was highly illogical that we mixed Star Trek with Star Wars Day, but please set your phasers to stun, because it was all in good fun!
One of the discussion topics narrowed in on the ways institutions are defining different modalities offered for classes. John Opper, Executive Director, Distance Learning and Student Services with Florida Virtual Campus and Megan Raymond, WCET, provided a definition table based on FVC definitions of primarily face-to-face (Primarily Classroom), Hybrid, Flex, Primarily Distance Learning, and Fully Distance Learning. The table includes sections to track terminology variations for each modality, the unique faculty/instructor skills needed for each mode of delivery, the faculty development for each mode of delivery, student engagement and support needed for each mode, and policy issues that can be identified for each mode.
This type of table or exercise would be useful for institutions to complete, as it would allow the campus community to understand the differences between the various modalities available PLUS administrators could then use the information to develop or tweak faculty development programs and policies.
Attendees were invited to review the table and make suggestions, or use the table as an example to create a similar resource for their individual institutions.
Here at WCET, we have written a few times about the overwhelming number of definitions possible for course delivery methods. You can review our thoughts through the following posts:
A discussion about how higher education institutions and alternative providers can help bridge the skills gap,
A presentation about the WICHE Knocking at the College Door report, which considers the changing demographics of learners and what this means for higher education,
Reflections on faculty development and how this has changed through and because of the pandemic,
An exercise to prompt post-COVID strategic and operational planning, and
A roundtable discussion about the roles of instructional designers and how these important team members can help faculty (and how to get faculty interested in working with IDs!).
We would like to share a special thank you to our student panelists who joined us for both sessions. We were so impressed by the students who provided their expertise and lived experiences through their educational journeys, especially during the pandemic.
Feedback
We appreciate the good feedback on our events, it helps us to know what we have done well so we can continue to do well! But we always take the time to review the suggestions for improvement our event attendees provide us. I did want to share two comments that made our events team smile (!) but I also want to include that we have noted the suggestions for what we can do better next time.
“I have been to about 6 virtual higher ed conferences this year and WCET programming is far and away the best! I absolutely love how you consistently gather brilliant people and let them engage one another and the audience in relevant and meaningful conversation about topics impacting the community. True thought leadership.”
and from our second episode:
“The panels were expertly constructed. I especially enjoyed the opening conversation as it was very thought provoking about significant strategic considerations in higher education post-COVID.”
Live Long and Prosper
Our entire team thanks this year’s Summit attendees and sends a huge thank you to everyone who participated as presenters, panelists, and discussion leaders. We learned so much from each and every one of you. We certainly have a lot to think about as we boldly go into the future! It doesn’t feel like too much of a gambit with such an exceptional community around us.
Want to steam the recordings of the Summit episodes? No worries, we DVR’d them for you. Registered attendees can stream recordings for both episodes through June 30, 2021. Recordings will be housed in wcetMIX after June 30 for WCET members.
For the last several years, WCET has shared about the implications on GI Benefits for Veterans who participate in courses solely online. Student utilizing GI Bill benefits who participate in a full-term course load solely at a distance are eligible through Federal law to receive only half the Monthly Housing Allowance (MHA) of the eligible student who enrolls in a full-term course load that consists of a mix of distance and in-person courses.
Congress acted quickly to offer a waiver of this MHA limitation through December 2021, if the institution was forced to supply the courses at a distance due to the pandemic. However, as courses become more available face-to-face at institutions, the waiver will not remain applicable to the students participating in courses solely online.
Today, we welcome Sara Appel and Kimberly Bloodgood who will provide us with updates on an additional nuance, the elimination of the “Round-Out Rule,” that affects VA Benefits including the MHA.
Cheryl Dowd, WCET
In the last few months, several major bubbles floated to the ocean surface known as Veterans Affairs (VA) education benefits. One of these bubbles encircled the issue around the practice of the Round-Out Rule as the VA announced it was scheduled to be phased out on or after August 1, 2021. Recently though, the VA had a change of heart and agreed to keep a modified version of the rule.
This rule allows military-affiliated students utilizing GI Bill benefits to “round out” or “round up” their final academic term course schedule with classes that may or may not apply towards their degree program to retain full-time status, thus receiving full-time benefits. If not for this tenet, students could only take courses necessary for program completion to maintain full-time status.
“However, it can be incredibly difficult for students to perfectly plan their academic schedules to ensure enough required courses will be available in their final term. If there are not enough required courses available to reach full-time status, students receive significantly reduced benefits, including a lower Monthly Housing Allowance,” stated Lauren Augustine, vice president of government affairs at Student Veterans of America (personal communication, April 9, 2021). This is especially true for students who have credit transferring into their institution from other institutions and/or military service.
How Does This Impact Military-Affiliated Students?
Military-affiliated students who attend a typical postsecondary brick-and-mortar institution where they physically attend most of their classes will be provided an amount based on the school’s ZIP code. Does this affect online programs? Yes. The Round-Out Rule also concerns students enrolled in distance education. The Post-9/11 Veterans Education Assistance Improvements Act (GI Bill 2.0) made this change in October 2011. Military-affiliated students taking online courses are given half of the BAH’s national average (please note, this is very basic explanation and other factors may be considered in the actual BHA calculation).
What’s Next for the Round-Out Rule?
By Cameron Addis. Public Domain.
The Round-Out Rule is not in statute or regulation but is located within in the U. S. Department of Veterans Affairs School Certifying Official Handbook.The VA School Certifying Official Handbook is intended for School Certifying Officials and others engaged with the certification of recipients of VA education benefits. The manual is maintained by the three Processing Offices and Education Service and is meant to be the official resource of information for VA School Certifying Officials.Even though the Round-Out Rule has been in place for many years, the VA has wanted to change its course on how they address this issue by redacting the guidance. After a House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs meeting on April 14th, VA Secretary Denis McDonough announced the department will no longer sunset the rule and will allow the practice to continue with modification.
attending VA approved training on this rule modification,
determining how many military-affiliated students could be affected on your campus,
looking at the programs that have the highest enrollment of military-affiliated students and match potential elective related courses that could be utilized if needed,
reminding advisors of the importance of military affiliated students being in classes that are part of their program of study,
communicating as soon as possible with the military-affiliated students who fall or potentially fall into this position, and
working closely with State Approving Agencies on this issue (State Approving Agencies are in each state and maintains responsibility for ensuring the quality and integrity of education programs and training for the use of GI Bill benefits).
What Can Military-Affiliated Students Do?
Military-affiliated students can be proactive by:
reviewing their schedule and contacting an academic advisor early to avoid the situation,
ensuring their contact information is correct at the institution such as current/permanent address, and
keeping in contact with their school certifying official.
As of April 22nd, 2021, the VA School Certifying Official Handbook does not reflect this change and the VA has not provided any specific or final details on this or any other modification that may be developed. As this issue continues to move quickly in Washington watch for news from the VA about changes to the Round-Out Rule.
Sara E. Appel, Associate Director of Policy Initiatives, Midwestern Higher Education Compact (MHEC)
Kimberly Bloodgood, Director, Division of Enrollment Management Office for Veterans and Military Personnel, Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.OK
