Author: Lindsey Downs

Categories
Practice

What’s Trending in Digital Learning for Fall 2024

Post author By Lindsey Downs
Post date September 19, 2024
a ripped piece of paper showing leaves with the words hello fall
a ripped piece of paper showing fall leaves underneath - words "hello fall"

This weekend marks the official end of summer and the beginning of fall. Pumpkin spice is back (everywhere), hopefully everyone is settling into the new semester well, my fantasy football team is already doing poorly, and it’s time for one of my favorite traditions—a back-to-school post on Frontiers!

As we roll into the fall semester and look ahead to 2025, we’re seeing some exciting shifts in higher education. I wanted to get a sense of what’s trending and what’s getting everyone buzzing, so I asked my colleagues to share their thoughts.

Here’s a peek at the trends catching our attention and shaping the future of higher education digital learning. You can count on WCET to keep you updated on these topics and more.

Higher ed is constantly evolving; this past year and the new year are no different. Here are some of the key trends we’re seeing:

  • Generative AI is Everywhere: AI tools are no longer just for the techies. We’re seeing more instructors adopt AI to create personalized learning experiences, assist with grading, and develop interactive learning tools. Students are using AI for self-directed learning and some editing for their work, and it’s opening up new possibilities in the classroom.
  • Meeting Students Where They Are: More and more institutions are offering hybrid courses, flexible scheduling, and increased support for mental health. And equity is top of mind, with a growing emphasis on making learning more inclusive and accessible for all.
  • Preparing for Tomorrow’s Workforce: The gap between education and the workforce is closing fast. Institutions are partnering with industries to ensure students learn theory and philosophy while developing the skills they need for an evolving job market.

What’s Sparking Excitement This Fall?

While staying current is essential, it’s not just about what’s trending—it’s about how these changes are transforming digital learning.

To explore this further, I asked some of my team members to share what excites them most as we progress through the fall semester. Thank you to each of them for sharing your thoughts!

Megan Raymond, Senior Director, Membership and Programs, WCET

Fall is in the air in Colorado, and campuses are buzzing! Especially CU with Coach Prime and the traffic that brings with it on game days. There are a few trends I’m watching this year.  

One is, of course, AI. By now, AI is no longer fearsome, and institutions are no longer trying to put it back into Pandora’s box. There is a broad understanding of what AI is, what the definitions mean, and how it can be used for teaching and learning. We are now at a point where the questions we do have about AI are much more complex. Institutions are no longer concerned with AI being a ‘cheating machine’ and are considering issues around data privacy, student privacy, copyright issues, and computing capacity challenges. These are robust challenges. I know our members are thinking about these complexities.  

Cell phone bans during the school day became common at the local middle and high schools this fall. My friends who are teachers are excited about teaching without constantly vying for attention from students engrossed in their mobile devices or tuned out within. This movement seems to be gaining traction across the US, and I’m watching to see if colleges and universities will begin implementing similar bans.  

It’s going to be an interesting academic year for sure! 

Laura DaVinci, Associate Director, Every Learner Everywhere

As we embark on the new school year and look ahead to 2025, several exciting trends are shaping higher education, particularly the teaching and learning environment. One of the most significant developments continues to be artificial intelligence and how it is integrated into education.

The acceptance of AI across institutions has been widely varied, from skepticism, discouraging its use and bringing back non-digitally supported assessment methods like writing exams to fully embracing its full potential and implementing faculty training programs and comprehensive policies.

Unsurprisingly, the largest contrast between use is between the students and faculty. Students are eager to test and explore the multitude of AI tools, incorporating them into their learning process and showing greater adaptability. A recent survey from the Digital Education Council showed that 86% of students said they use AI in their educational journey. This generational divide will pose challenges and new opportunities for faculty. It’s up to the institutions to support their faculty in finding the balance. As the future will likely require graduates to be comfortable with AI, the institutions that successfully maintain rigor yet balance the use of AI to enhance learning will most likely emerge as leaders in innovative education.

Cheryl Dowd, Senior Director, State Authorization Network & WCET Policy Innovations

cheryl dowd

The evolution of higher education delivery continues. It is interesting and exciting to watch institutions address and improve access and accessibility to serve learners and help them reach their goals.

  • Access: In this post-COVID era, there is an increased demand for distance education, not only for what is often referred to as “non-traditional” learners but also for residential learners. Institutions must evaluate how to best serve learners at their institutions and help them reach their goals with flexibility through in-person, online, and hybrid course options. Clear communication about the modality is a must to ensure that learners understand the expectations related to the learning format.
  • Accessibility: There’s growing emphasis on ensuring that distance education is accessible to all students, including those with disabilities, through better use of technology and inclusive design. There is a sense of urgency for public universities and colleges to address accessibility due to new Department of Justice regulations released last June. To learn more about the accessibility regulations please review our WCET Frontiers post: Accessibility in the Spotlight: Department of Justice Regulations.

Van Davis – Chief Strategy Officer, WCET

This coming academic year feels especially monumental as institutions recover from a tumultuous spring term. Where is higher education going this fall? I think there are a couple of trends that institutions need to watch.

  1. AI will continue to dominate the conversation as more students press their institutions to provide them training for an AI-enabled workforce, more faculty work to find appropriate ways to embed AI in their classes, and more institutions strive to find ways to leverage AI for student success and institutional efficiencies.
  2. Who our students are will continue to change. Dual enrollment will continue to increase as will the number of post-traditional students looking to re-skill or earn their first degree. Institutions will need to find new ways to help these very different student populations.

Russ Poulin, Executive Director, WCET and Vice President for Technology-Enhanced Education, WICHE

Institutions have changed. We just need to acknowledge it.

Russ Poulin

During the pandemic, there was worry that there would be a great backlash against planned online learning, given the negative experience with emergency remote learning. That did not happen. The recognition of the positive acceptance of technologies by faculty and students has been slow to reach across the academy. It will be hard to deny the new reality this year.

How is this transition playing out? Students are increasingly incorporating online courses into their schedules, and faculty are offering online, hybrid, synchronous, and asynchronous versions of their courses. The hallowed halls of the ivory-towered buildings named after prosperous alumni are increasingly empty. Is in-person learning going away? No. But the campus has changed.

For the past two years, we have been guessing at the direction and reacting to the impact of the increased use of digital learning. As future strategic plans and budgets are created, I predict that serious conversations will be held on shifting resources from traditional uses to:

  • Prepare and support faculty in effectively using existing and emerging digital technologies.
  • Focus student support services to better address an increasingly remote or hybrid enrolled population.
  • Invest in the technologies required for faculty and student support.
  • Better communicate to students about the technologies to be used, the expectations to be at a location, and the synchronous requirements for each and every class.

Well…at least I hope that will happen.

Your Turn!

Now that we’ve shared some of our thoughts, we’d love to hear from you. What trends are you seeing at work or on your campus? What are you excited for in the year ahead? Drop your thoughts in a shared post on LinkedIn or reach out directly—we always enjoy hearing from our community. We’ll also send out a question through wcetDISCUSS – our online member community.

The leaves are starting to change, football stadiums are packed, and sweater weather is officially here. So, grab your warm latte (pumpkin spice or not!), and let’s tackle the rest of the year together.

Post written by Lindsey Downs, WCET

Tags , , , , , , , , ,
Categories
Practice

Words From the Wise: Tips for Success from Experienced Distance Education Compliance Professionals

Post author By Lindsey Downs
Post date September 12, 2024

Distance Education or State Authorization Compliance refers to the set of rules, regulations, and standards that educational institutions must follow when offering remote (often online) learning opportunities to students. Ensuring institutional compliance is an arduous task, as rules, standards, and legal requirements are ever- evolving and can vary depending on the state or territory.

Recently, there has been an increasing awareness and growing interest in distance education regulatory requirements. Colleges and universities were forced to grapple with the distance education compliance conundrum during the onset and proliferation of the COVID-19 pandemic. It was then that higher education institutions needed to quickly shift to online platforms due to lockdowns and social distancing measures.

Also adding to the regulatory complexity was the July 2020, U.S. Department of Education’s (ED) mandate (34 CFR §668.43(a)(5)(v)) requiring institutions to provide public disclosures for both enrolled and prospective students in programs leading to a professional license or certificate. It is clear why professionals working in the field play a vital role at their institutions, as they are leading distance education compliance efforts, while simultaneously fostering environments conducive to student success.

Guidance for Newcomers to State Authorization

Amid these shifts, the State Authorization Network (SAN) has seen an uptick in members who are new to the profession, many of whom have limited prior experience in higher education compliance. To help those newcomers better understand some of the complexities they will likely face, SAN surveyed six experienced colleagues so that they might offer advice and support as they prepare to manage their new roles.

With the survey, SAN sought to garner these veterans’ take on themes they perceived to be pervasive in the field. It should be noted that these individuals are well-qualified and well-versed in the intricacies of higher education compliance, as they collectively possess over 70 years of professional experience. Interestingly, several themes and four categories for tips/suggestions contributing to success emerged from the surveys.

Tip #1: Build Relationships & Never Underestimate the Power of the Network

three professionally dressed individuals talking

Within any profession, it is imperative for those seeking sustainability to build and maintain professional relationships. Building internal partnerships, engaging regularly, and maintaining regular communications is paramount.

For that reason, the significance of networking is critical to success. It can open doors to opportunities, as a strong network provides emotional support and encouragement, which is a prime vehicle for building knowledge and self-confidence.

Several survey participants shared their thoughts on the importance of collaborative interactions:

Yolanda Cunningham recalls, “Years ago, I met with our social work school’s leadership during a critical time for their distance education programs. During that initial encounter, I approached with the mindset that compliance was my area of expertise, and I was there to assist them through issues. Because they appreciated my work to achieve authorization and compliance, they became some of my staunchest advocates across campus and paved the way for me to participate in key meetings I otherwise would not have initially been privy to.”

Brandie Elliott-Woodall shares, “State Authorization [compliance] can be overwhelming, especially to those who don’t deal with it on a daily basis. But this is a challenge you can overcome by arming yourselves with knowledge and nurturing your relationships.”

LaDonna Rodvold advises, “I have several staunch advocates at USD. It began by providing credible information in digestible portions to the Associate Provost and General Counsel. I explained the regulations coming our way and specifically included potential challenges, solutions, and reliable resources. When that information reached the Provost, I was invited to Provost Council and Deans’ Council meetings to present the regulations and steps needed to invest in compliance. Having the confidence and support of the Provost, Associate Provost, and General Counsel then opened the door to buy-in from all other institutional stakeholders.”

quote box: They became my advocates across campus, paving the way for me to attend meetings I otherwise would not have been privy to or would have had to network relentlessly in order to attend”.

Networking with external peers is also critical, as doing so provides opportunities for discovering industry standings and understanding best practices. Attending conferences and workshops is an excellent way to network and meet peer experts, better understand the latest requirements, decipher regulations and learn about best practices and innovations in the field.

Bill Hall recommends that professionals, “Cultivate relationships with State Authorization professionals at other schools.”

Erika Swain proposes, “Know that we’re all going to be approaching these kinds of rules and regulations from the perspective of our individual institutions, which means [that] compliance will look different in many ways for each of us.” [Connect with others as] you might also find some great ideas in unexpected places. So, never be afraid to ask someone how or why they made a decision. You will likely learn something new that you can use.”

Brandie Elliott-Woodall informs, “My supervisor and the entire Program Coordination team have been amazing! During the development of new online programs and [the] retooling of existing programs, the Program Coordinators work with Program Directors and have built-in questions on their in-take forms that open the door to the wonderful world of State Authorization.” [We have learned that] “We all just need to find our advocates, whether that is in Academic Affairs, General Counsel, etc.”

Tip #2: Leveraging Systems of Support and Key Advocates

A related second theme or a sub-theme surrounding the importance of networking and building partnerships was that of leveraging the help of supporters and nurturing relationships with key partners, stakeholders, and staunch advocates.

To bolster your integrity, make certain that you schedule regular updates with key partners. Keep those stakeholders informed about regulatory requirements, updates, changes, and important deadlines.

Yolanda Cunningham states, “Remember to identify your lifelines both within your institution and beyond (e.g. WCET, SAN, NC-SARA, etc.). When I first assumed the role as the university’s compliance professional, leadership advised me to join SAN and WCET. This was even before I actually began my research on national organizations. For that I am appreciative.”

It is in this same spirit that Bill Hall advises, [I work closely with] “the Offices of the Provost and General Counsel. My Provost trusts my expertise and knowledge base regarding State Authorization, which I have acquired during my tenure in this role. My personal expertise was achieved in part by heavily utilizing SAN resources along with some one-on-one mentoring from patient professionals at other schools.”

Shawn Fields shares, “We work very closely with Admissions, especially graduate Admissions. When we started providing advanced licensure advising, Admissions realized how much effort we saved them and how much happier the students were.”  

Tip #3: Understand the Requirements of the Profession: Stay Updated, Stay Informed

Quote box: staying informed about the relevant laws and guidelines, implementing best practices, and continually assessing distance education programs is critical to the success of any compliance program.

Regulations governing higher education are dynamic and frequently change at federal and state levels. To ensure compliance, institutions must remain cognizant with federal regulations, each state’s laws governing higher education, as well as the array of modifications of policies and updates.

A recent example of a notable change that has impacted distance education compliance roles and compounded duties is the ED’s July 2024 expansion of the requirements for institutions enrolling students in professional licensure and certification programs (34 CFR 668.14(b)(32)(ii)). Now, not only are many compliance professionals required to manage the research and disclosure processes at their institution, but they must also ensure that their institutions are not enrolling learners in states where their programs fail to meet that state’s licensure requirements.

Therefore, staying informed about the relevant laws and guidelines, implementing best practices, and continually assessing distance education programs is critical to the success of any compliance program.

Yolanda Cunningham suggests, “Do your research and document your findings. Acclimate yourself to compliance/authorization. This work can seem daunting, but it can also be fulfilling. I recommend including in your initial research key issues and federal regulations. In addition, it is important to know where your institution is/is not authorized.”  

Shawn Fields warns, “Trust nothing; even state boards contradict themselves. Check everything by reading, calling, and confirming with others. Do not assume that anyone knows what they should; whether it’s faculty, staff, or students, people who should know certain rules or procedures often do not”.

Brandie Elliott-Woodall indicates, “Arm yourself with knowledge! The State Authorization Network [SAN] is the perfect place to start. Review past Coordinator Calls [and] pour over the myriads of supporting documents created by SAN. [Also] check out the SANsational Award winners for inspiration.”

When considering the impact disbursing information related to new requirements, LaDonna Rodvold adds, “You will receive resistance from institutional stakeholders when presenting new regulations and compliance steps. Do not take it personally. Reassure them that you’re not doing this to add more work to their already filled plates, nor are you playing ‘Big Brother’.” You’re simply guiding progress toward compliance in the best interest of students.

Erika Swain echoes these sentiments and advises, “Know your institution’s policies and procedures around distance education and if you don’t have any work with leadership and those who work with the modality to understand what needs to be documented and why.”

Tip #4: Know Challenges and Recognize Potential Obstacles

A fourth theme emerged around the likelihood of challenges and obstacles facing distance education compliance. Survey respondents caution that professionals should understand and expect that there will be challenges and tough times. However, understanding the potential for pitfalls and recognizing opportunities will contribute to the overall success of a compliance program. Accordingly, these seasoned professionals identified some common issues facing compliance leaders:

Brandie Elliott-Woodall advises, “Navigating the fluid landscape of State Authorization can be difficult. There seems to be a reason the quote “it depends” seems to be the motto for the field.”  Know that things can change very quickly. “One day your licensing program meets state educational requirements in a state and the next day, after the licensure board makes a change, [that same program] no longer meets those educational requirements.”

Bill Hall recalls, “I was not prepared for the seemingly constant state of flux the regulatory sphere has been in over the past seven years.”

Yolanda Cunningham: “The biggest challenge would be the detractors who do not appreciate the need for our profession. I think it is mostly because they do not understand the scope and importance of our work. During difficult times, I remind myself that as a compliance specialist I am there to provide help although some stakeholders may not always want it. In time, you will learn to navigate the varying mindsets across your institution”.

Shawn Fields cautions, [A challenge exists with] “the regulatory overreach by the federal Department of Education, the overall hostility to higher education, and the disorganization of some states.”

LaDonna Rodvold states, “Insufficient guidance, responses, and clarification from the Department of Education presents many challenges when preparing and implementing our institution’s regulatory compliance steps.”

Erika Swain reminds us, [A challenge that exists within this profession is the] “lack of knowledge by leadership and faculty about how this kind of compliance works, why it’s in place, and [understanding] that we can work with it [and] not against it.”

Navigating higher education distance education compliance requires a proactive and organized approach. SAN is dedicated to empowering our members in their pursuit of achieving and maintaining distance education regulatory compliance. We proudly offer an array of educational programs and training. SAN also provides insight and tools designed to enhance skills and expand member knowledge so that they are better able to focus on their core mission of educating, protecting, and supporting students. As the landscape continues to evolve, ongoing vigilance, adaptation, and implementation of best practices will be key to maintaining compliance and achieving institutional success.

As such, we remind you that each of these tips must be regarded simply as advice and accepted as suggestions and/or guidance for building upon your own compliance programs. Understand that each professional and each institution has their own unique needs and must tailor their programs and responses in accordance with those needs.

The SAN team would like to formally thank the dedicated professionals who contributed to this publication:

Brandie Elliott-Woodall

Brandie Elliott-Woodall serves as the State Authorization Compliance Manager with the Missouri Online, University of Missouri System in Columbia, Missouri. Brandie has worked in the field of Distance Education Compliance for 11 years.

Bill Hall

Dr. Charles “Bill” Hall serves as the Director of Institutional Research and State Authorization, at Campbell University, located in Buies Creek, North Carolina. Bill has worked in the field of Distance Education Compliance for 7 ½ years.

Erika Swain

Erika Swain serves as the Assistant Director of Academic Compliance and Authorization at the University of Colorado Boulder, located in Boulder, Colorado. Erika has worked in the field of Distance Education Compliance for 20 years.

LaDonna Rodvold

LaDonna Rodvold serves as the State Authorization Specialist at the University of South Dakota, located in Vermillion, South Dakota. LaDonna has worked in the field of Distance Education Compliance for 14 years.

Shawn Fields

Shawn Fields serves as the Director of State Licensure at Post University, located in Waterbury, Connecticut. Shawn has worked in the field of Distance Education Compliance for 10 years.

Yolanda Cunningham

Yolanda Cunningham serves as theOnline and Hybrid Learning Compliance Administrator with Case Western Reserve University located in Cleveland, Ohio. Yolanda has worked in the field of Distance Education Compliance for 10 years.

This post was authored by: Jana Walser-Smith.

Tags , , , , , ,
Categories
Policy

Last Chance to Shape 2024 Distance Education Federal Regulations – Join the Rulemaking Process Now!

Post author By Lindsey Downs
Post date September 5, 2024
Proposed distance education regulations by the Department of Education will significantly impact programs and students. Don’t miss your chance to provide input! Learn How to Help

There is one last chance for you to participate in the rulemaking process for the recently released distance education-related regulations to inform the U.S. Department of Education (Department) of any concerns prior to the Department issuing the final regulations.

We maintain, as discussed in our July WCET Frontiers Post and our public comment, that the regulations as proposed will have a serious impact on the delivery of distance education at your institution.

We encourage institutions and members of the public to participate in an Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget review by asking for an Executive Order (EO) 12866 meeting. This EO 12866 meeting is the final opportunity for the higher education community to be heard about rulemaking concerns. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is the Executive Office of the President directed to provide a review of the draft regulations. The OMB directs its OIRA division to facilitate this review. However, these meetings are not the same as public comments and are limited to “actions that are likely to have large impacts on the economy,” “ensure consistency in regulatory approaches across Federal agencies,” and “to ensure that regulatory actions are effective and durable.”

Timing is Critical! – How to Request an EO 12866 Meeting

There is a race against the clock to complete the review if the Department wants to release the final rules by November 1 so that the rules can be effective July 1, 2025. In recent years, an OIRA review of Title IV-related regulations has been completed in 3-4 weeks. You will need to act quickly. We will share how!

We urge you to begin preparing for an EO 12866 meeting now. The economic impact of the proposed regulations is unprecedented. Today, we will share information about the purpose and opportunity to request an EO 12866 meeting. Additionally, we will provide insights about common themes found in public comments during the recent public comment period.

Our intention in this post is to ensure that everyone knows how to request a meeting and how to access and review the public comments that were submitted. To be fully informed, you may wish to peruse other public comments for additional points of view. These meetings are available to everyone, not just a few organizations.

Generally, once regulations are released as final, they cannot be changed without going through a new rulemaking or cannot be vacated without a court challenge. We urge public participation in the OIRA review by requesting an EO 12866 meeting to inform this Executive Branch review.

Executive Order 12866 – OIRA Review & Meeting Opportunity

textbox with photo of a pile of coins. text: Why participate in a 12866 meeting? Feedback from institutions indicates that many feel that the Department greatly underestimated the effort and cost of compliance.

By Executive Order in 1993, President Clinton directed the Federal Government to begin a program to reform the regulatory process and make it more efficient. Executive Order 12866 includes regulatory philosophy, principles of regulation, and directs the organization of executive office entities to ensure efficient regulatory planning and review process. The OMB is assigned the responsibility to implement the review of agency rulemaking. Within the OMB, the OIRA was directed to conduct the review function and provide guidance to the rulemaking agency. That agency is expected to revise the regulatory package to address OMB/OIRA concerns and respond to any interagency review comments. The purpose of the review is to ensure that regulations are consistent with:

  • Applicable law,
  • Presidential priorities,
  • Principles as set forth in this Executive Order,
  • Not in conflict with policies or actions of another agency.

The public may participate by requesting an EO 12866 Meeting to express their opinions as part of the OIRA review. This is not a complicated process. Key considerations are as follows:

How does one follow or ask for an EO12866 Meeting?

  • Submit for an EO12866 Meeting AFTER the rules are posted on the OIRA/OMB website for review.
    • Watch the OIRA/OMB website to learn when rules have been sent for review.Look for SAN and WCET to send an update in MIX.
    • This WCET Frontiers post will be updated when the rules are submitted.
  • Note the various drop-down tabs on the OIRA/OMB website and click on Regulatory Review.
  • Under the Regulatory Review drop-down choose Regulatory Review Dashboard.
  • Choose the agency you wish to review.
  • After finding the rule, schedule a meeting by clicking the Request EO Meeting hyperlink.
  • Complete the form provided.
  • You will receive an email notice that your requested meeting has been scheduled and information to share documents for your meeting if you choose to.
  • You must confirm the meeting within two business days of the email.
  • Please DO NOT BE A NO SHOW!

What will the EO12866 Meeting be like (based on recent experiences)?

  1. You will receive a second email indicating a “teleconference” and the phone number to use.
  2. The meeting is for 30 minutes.
  3. The meeting is “typically” a listening session.
  4. A panel on the call will include several staff members from OMB and OIRA and at least one representative from the agency developing the regulations (for our purposes, that is the U.S. Department of Education).
  5. You will be introduced and given the floor to speak for the allotted time.
  6. The panel often does not ask questions, but be prepared just in case.

How should one prepare for the EO 12866 Meeting?

  • Given the limited time, be intentional about choosing your key regulatory issues of importance.
  • Review the Federal Register announcement of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for the Authority for This Regulatory Action and the Regulatory Impact Analysis.  A review of these sections will help you to determine if your opinion is consistent or contrary to the Department’s explanation of meeting its statutory authority to regulate and the need for regulatory action.
  • For each regulatory issue, succinctly share two or three well-considered evidence-based (data or primary authority) points such as:
    • The actual cost and paperwork burden conflicts with ED’s reported estimates.
    • Conflict with Executive Branch priorities.
    • Issues of Federalism (Impeding upon state oversight due to the 10th Amendment).
    • Lack of statutory authority to regulate the issue.
    • Conflict with other regulations – inconsistent, incompatible, duplicative.
    • Lacking clarity of language to implement the regulation thus raising concerns of uncertainty and impossibility of compliance.

What if you do not have the authority to speak on behalf of your institution/organization?

  1. Like public comments, if you do not have the authority to speak on behalf of your institution/organization, do not give that impression. You do have the right to request a meeting as a private citizen.
  2. The meeting request form does include “Requestor’s Organization,” which is not a required field.
  3. It is best if you share that you are a member of the public who works at an institution/organization that would be affected or for which the students would be affected and are sharing points for consideration prior to the finalization of the agency’s regulations.

Why should you request an EO 12866 Meeting?

This is the final opportunity for the public to provide input on the development of regulations. This package of proposed regulations will have a deep impact on distance education and the students it serves. In our opinion, the impact and cost of compliance seem to be underestimated.

text box over a photo of a blank laptop: Yes, these meetings can be awkward. You may end up talking to a blank screen for 30 minutes. They may ask questions, or not at all.

As previously mentioned, typically, regulations released as final cannot be changed without a new rulemaking or cannot be vacated without a court challenge. Yes, there are paths to blocking a regulation (e.g., Congress defunding enforcement or the Congressional Review Act), but those are less likely to occur. More on that later. Therefore, we encourage those with final thoughts on these regulatory issues to participate in the process by sharing their information in an EO 12866 meeting to inform the OIRA review before the draft is sent back to the Department to finalize and release the final regulations.

Review of the Public Comments for Proposed Regulations for Distance Education and Return to Title IV (R2T4)

As with previous sets of proposed rules for which we participated in the public comment period, WCET and SAN are in full support of the intent of the Department to provide student protection and protect the integrity of the Title IV Federal aid programs. Our goal in providing public comments or providing testimony for an EO 12866 Meeting is to inform the Department of concerns about the detrimental impact as raised by our member practitioners. We seek to avoid the tilt in the regulatory balance that will ultimately cause more harm to students when attempting to address the problem raised by the Department. We also believe that, unlike any other set of proposed regulations in our experience, these rules will impact institutions economically in a way that has been overwhelmingly underestimated in the Department’s analysis.

The Regulations.gov website page for submitting public comments for the Program Integrity and Institutional Qualityregulations indicates that 454 public comments were submitted during the comment period. It is noted on this website that agencies do not publicly post all comments received. A bulk data download link is available at the bottom of the webpage.

We appreciated reviewing the public comments. Public comments provide the opportunity to inform the Department about opinions, actual experience and data with the issue, and to ask questions. There were a few organizations that provided public comments that supported the Department’s regulations and the public policy reasoning behind the regulations as shared by the Department. However, we found that many institutions and organizations representing institutions shared common themes based on their practical experience at institutions serving students.

Practitioners in the field shared the implementation frustration with many of these regulations. We noted that many comments corresponded very closely to the comments summarized in the recent Inside Higher Ed Post:  Universities Hit Back Against Proposed Online Attendance Policy. 

Common themes found in the comments include the following key concerns with the proposed regulations:

  • Underestimation of costs for attendance taking for distance education courses.
  • At the expense of many principled institutions, there is over-regulation of institutions to address the few unscrupulous institutions, for which enforcement of current regulations would be prudent.
  • Concern that these proposed regulations are directed specifically at distance education rather than all modalities, and this shows a distinct bias against distance education and the lack of understanding of the variation of uses and interconnection of modalities currently used by faculty and students at institutions.
  • Concern about ambiguous language in regulation.
    • The proposed regulation does not define “attendance taking” in the regulatory language of 34 CFR 668.22(b)(3)(ii).
    • Proposed regulation 34 CFR 600.2 definition of “virtual location” does not specify one virtual location for all academic programs that are 100% by distance education or separate virtual locations for each program.
  • Concern that the proposed language for the 34 CFR 600.2 definition of “virtual location” will entail state and accreditor approval as well as an update to the program participation agreement.
  • Concern that the NPRM preamble language referring to the elimination of asynchronous instruction for clock-hour programs can be misinterpreted as the language does not indicate that the elimination is limited to only those programs offered by distance education.
  • Conflict with the 2020 preamble to distance education regulations.
textbox illustrating a check list. Text: Via public comments, institutions are: Worried about the cost of compliance. Feel the innocent are being punished. Are asking for oversight of all modalities. Currently seeking many clarifications about the proposed rules.

Some public comments requested guidance in the preamble of the final regulations to clarify regulatory language. However, because the preamble has no legal effect, we encourage the Department to prepare unambiguous regulations that rely on the text of the language. We know that administrations may choose to follow previous guidance or not.

Specific to these proposed distance education regulations, we saw the Department reverse guidance from the 2020 preamble analysis as the Department has no legal obligation to follow the previous guidance.

We hope that the public comments as well as input received during the OIRA review will help the Department revise the regulations to include clear direction in regulation.

If you wish to review the comments on your own, you may download the released comments individually under the All Comments on the Docket tab, or in Bulk Data Download at the link at the bottom of the webpage.

Next Steps

WCET and SAN will provide notification through our online communications platform, MIX, and in an update to this blog post when the final draft rules are sent to OMB for review. We encourage you to participate in this last step of the rulemaking process if you have remaining issues and concerns about these distance education-related regulations.

As we shared, the process is not difficult and was created so that the public could be involved. The Administrative Procedures Act (APA) rulemaking process is based on core elements of transparency to provide notice and opportunity for public comment. Additionally, to complement the elements of the APA, Executive Order 12866 was issued to make the regulatory process more efficient.

The public should not consider this process a mystery and should share applicable direction to the Department. This will help ensure that the view of practitioners in the field will help inform practical and balanced rules. This is important since we share common goals of student protection, student access, and protection of the Federal financial aid structure.

Please continue to follow SAN and WCET as we navigate an EO 12866 meeting ourselves and continue to follow the rulemaking issues that were addressed in the Winter 2024 negotiated rulemaking meetings. We will keep you updated!

Post written by Cheryl Dowd, Van Davis, and Russ Poulin

Tags , , , , , , ,
Categories
Policy

Survey on New DOJ Regulation on Accessibility of Web Information and Services

Post author By Lindsey Downs
Post date August 29, 2024

On August 2, WCET published our post, Accessibility in the Spotlight: Department of Justice Regulations, on the Department of Justice (DOJ) final rule revising the regulation implementing Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The new regulation establishes requirements for making accessible the services, programs, and activities offered by state and local government entities to the public through the web and mobile applications. In the post, we provided an overview of the updates made in the regulation, the compliance timeline, and a preview of additional resources and events focused on accessibility and this regulation that WCET is planning.

In order to inform ongoing plans to support WCET members and others in this complex work, we conducted a brief survey Iast month to better understand institutional awareness around the revised regulation. WCET collaborated with both the State Authorization Network and NWHEAT (a collaboration of the Northwest Academic Computing Consortium and the Orbis Cascade Alliance) to solicit responses.

We received 205 responses representing a range of institutions/organizations, with the highest number of respondents at four-year publics that primarily offer baccalaureate and/or graduate degrees (47%), then two-year publics that primarily offer associate degrees (35%). Nearly half (48%) of institutions/organizations responding reported having Fall 2023 headcount enrollments of at least 10,000.

We also asked respondents what office/service within the institution they represent:

Graph showing different program respondents belong to.

Respondents were asked if they were generally aware of the new regulation. An overwhelming majority (81%) answered “Yes.” When asked if their institution has taken any action to begin addressing compliance, a majority (61%) responded “Yes.”

Those who haven’t taken action or didn’t know did indicate that, in general and at some point, they have taken some sort of action to address accessibility requirements for web and mobile app usage by students, faculty, and staff, with the most common being consulting/working with campus Accessibility Services (45%) and working with vendors on accessibility (38%).

A majority or near majority of respondents who indicated that their institution has taken action to begin addressing compliance are in the initial planning phases, such as:

  • reviewing, analyzing, and/or discussing the regulation,
  • reviewing all web content and mobile apps to identify areas of non-compliance, and/or
  • consulting/working with campus Accessibility Services.

The highest percentage (17%) of the actions above that have been fully addressed or nearly done is for consulting/working with campus Accessibility Services. A key (if not surprising) takeaway here is that Accessibility Services is crucial to this work.

Many institutions clearly are working to grapple with what is needed for compliance, especially in the face of a relatively short timeline. Our survey surfaced the following key needs to support this work: staffing, training, faculty buy-in, vendors and procurement, and legal issues.

Staffing

Identified staffing needs included:

group of students listening to a speaker
  • experts, whether on staff or consultants, on the regulation and digital accessibility in general;
  • librarians with expertise on archived content;
  • subject matter experts for “fields where there are content questions (data visualizations, art, maps)”; and,
  • instructional designers.

One respondent identified a need for “[s]ample updated language for job descriptions that incorporate the skill of authoring accessible content.

It is everyone’s job,” another for “new positions to serve as leadership” for this work.

Training

Numerous respondents indicated that professional development for staff, faculty, and administrators was crucial to assist in understanding and compliance.

One respondent suggested, “This is a huge undertaking on the instructional side to make sure faculty create accessible course materials. The training involved will be extensive.” Others suggested that this training needs to be mandated, given the circumstances.

Faculty Buy-In

The survey made it clear that faculty are considered crucial to ensuring compliance; however, many respondents expressed concerns that faculty members don’t understand their responsibilities around accessibility. There does seem to be a recognition of the extent of work that this would take: “Our instructors already are largely unaware of accessibility standards and trying to mandate this level of compliance in a short time, and then vetting/reviewing their materials to ensure compliance, is a very, very large lift for our already over-taxed faculty.” Another echoed such concerns: “So many files added to LMS and so many courses. Extremely time-consuming to review data and zero in on the inaccessible files!” But one respondent bluntly admitted, “The fear is people [faculty] will be deleting content.”

Vendors & Procurement

Respondents requested resources to assist in communicating with third-party vendors. Others suggested that a national list of vendors – particularly those who understand the often unique needs of higher education – that have had accessibility conformance reviews performed on their software would be helpful. As one stated, “I know there are some publicly available repositories of test results and VPATs [Voluntary Product Accessibility Template] but it would be nice to have a one-stop shop!” Challenges around existing multi-year contracts with vendors, who may not currently ensure accessibility of their products to the standard required in the regulation, also were mentioned.

The need for legal guidance, particularly around the exceptions in the regulation, was another topic of interest. One respondent asked, “[f]or our conversations with legal, help [to] determine how the new guidelines impact the risk profile of accessibility to help us compare it to other risks on campus.” Another suggested: “I think being able to break down the legal aspects into practical applications would be very helpful.”

This post only scratches the surface of the myriad of institutional and organizational needs to comply with the revised regulation, from a better understanding of the regulation itself as well as accessibility standards, to models of plans from other institutions and guidance for private colleges and universities on how future regulations may affect them. While work toward compliance may seem daunting, it should result in increased accessibility for all students . As one respondent argued: “I would like to see a shift from a ‘compliance mindset’ to a[n] ‘equity mindset’ with my faculty and staff. It’s not about lawsuits, it’s about providing access to a quality education for all!”

WCET is committed to developing resources to assist with these topics and others, and we will soon publish additional Frontiers posts from accessibility experts in the field. We held a very successful Closer Conversation event about the regulation for members, and we recently published Access for All: New Accessibility Rules For Public Entities. This resource outlines the regulation in greater detail and includes a flowchart highlighting key questions to guide an institution’s processes to ensure compliance. This resource is only available to WCET and SAN members. Click the links below to download.

WCET Member Download
SAN Member Download

Post authored by Judith Sebesta and Van Davis

Tags , , , , , ,
Categories
Policy

The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines – the ADA’s Requirements for Digital Content

Post author By Lindsey Downs
Post date August 22, 2024

This month, WCET is placing a spotlight on digital accessibility, with a particular focus on the newly updated requirements for public entities, including higher education institutions. We kicked off the month with an overview of the recent ADA updates, and today, we are thrilled to continue along this theme.

A warm welcome and heartfelt thanks to Jared Smith, Executive Director of WebAIM, for joining us today. Jared offers an exceptional overview of the guidelines that the ADA will use as the standard for digital content accessibility.

Be sure to stay tuned to WCET for more expert insights on accessibility in upcoming Frontiers posts. WCET members, we’re eager to connect with you at this month’s Closer Conversation, where we’ll be discussing plans to meet these new regulations. Plus, don’t forget to check out our latest member-only resource: Access for All: New Accessibility Rules for Public Entities. SAN members can download it here, and WCET members can access it here.

Thank you once again to Jared and the WebAIM team for today’s post. This is a the time to prioritize digital content accessibility—not just to comply with updated regulations, but to ensure that all learners can fully engage with the innovative resources and tools available today. Here at WCET, we admire the work of WebAIM, and we are committed to helping to advance the mission to bring digital learning to everyone.

Enjoy the read,

Lindsey Downs, WCET

A decorative image of the url field on a webpage with a computer mouse clicking on the field.

Earlier this month, WCET Frontiers shared how the ADA will begin requiring public entities to meet WCAG 2.1 A and AA success criteria as early as April of 2026.

This update to the ADA provides much-needed clarification of how discrimination for digital products can be measured. The US Department of Health and Human Services has issued a similar update to Section 504 regulations requiring WCAG 2.1 A/AA conformance for digital content in a wide array of health and human services.

What is WCAG?

The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) are a set of international recommendations for digital accessibility. The guidelines are published by the World Wide Web Consortium or W3C. It’s important to recognize that WCAG itself is not a legal standard and it is not developed by the US government.

These technical guidelines are instead generated by representatives of interested W3C member organizations and invited experts – professionals who are interested in making the web more accessible to individuals with disabilities.

WCAG is not new. The first version of the guidelines, WCAG 1.0, was finalized 25 years ago in 1999. The guidelines were updated significantly in 2008 to version 2.0. In 2018, the 2.1 sub-version was finalized, and in 2023, version 2.2 was completed. WCAG 2.1 and 2.2 make very minimal changes to the requirements found in WCAG 2.0, but instead add new requirements to reflect modern innovation on the web, including mobile apps and devices and accessibility for users with cognitive and learning disabilities.

WCAG Conformance

WCAG is structured based on four main principles:

  1. Perceivable,
  2. Operable,
  3. Understandable,
  4. Robust.
Diagram of four principles of accessible design - with icons representing each. Perceivable - with an open eye icon. Operable - with a graphic of a computer mouse click. Understandable - with simple icon of a human head and brain Robust - icon of several difference types of electronic devices (smartphone, desktop, tablet)

These guiding principles provide a foundation to ensure that content:

  • can be received by a user’s senses,
  • can be navigated and operated,  
  • is likely to make sense, and,
  •  will work with the end user’s technology and assistive technology.

Within the WCAG principles are 13 high level statements about accessibility called guidelines. Examples of WCAG guidelines are “Provide text alternatives for any non-text content” and “Make all functionality available from a keyboard” – wonderful suggestions for making content accessible, but not very measurable.

Within the guidelines are success criteria which are measurable, pass/fail statements about accessibility. Success criteria require that images have alternative text, captions are provided for videos, form inputs are properly labeled, text has sufficient contrast, and much more.

Success criteria are where conformance with WCAG is measured. Each success criterion is assigned a level: A, AA, or AAA. The levels do not always align with end user impact, but in general, here is an overview:

  • When level A success criteria are not met there will likely be notable barriers to end users with disabilities.
  • When level AA success criteria are not met, then some users will likely have difficulty or frustration accessing the content.
  • Meeting the level AAA success criteria can provide benefit to many users with disabilities, but these success criteria are often more difficult to meet or may not be relevant or appropriate for some types of digital content. This is currently the highest standard to reach, however, it does not mean that all content will meet the needs of all end users.

The principles -> guidelines -> success criteria structure of WCAG results in each success criterion having a number designation. As an example, success criterion 2.4.3, which requires that navigation order be logical, is the 3rd success criterion in the 4th guidelines under the 2nd principle.

For a page or other digital product to meet the ADA technical requirements it, including any 3rd party content within that page or product, must fully meet all WCAG level A and level AA success criteria.

WCAG and the ADA

Because WCAG is the most common measure of digital accessibility, it has been a de facto standard for the ADA for many years. Many ADA and related lawsuits reference WCAG. The Department of Justice and other entities have long indicated that WCAG is a preferred measure of discrimination.

This year’s update to the ADA codifies WCAG 2.1 A/AA as being the technical standard for public entities. While WCAG 2.2 is the current version of WCAG, the new success criteria in version 2.2 are not legally required. Similarly, while AAA success criteria can be very beneficial to some users with disabilities, digital products are not required by the ADA to meet any AAA success criteria. This update to the ADA applies only to public entities, such as most higher education institutions, but these guidelines may be applied to private entities in the future.

Resources

WebAIM has found that accessibility barriers are pervasive on the web. While higher education web sites fare better than most others, barriers to users with disabilities and non-conformance with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines are widespread. With ADA soon requiring WCAG A/AA conformance, institutions must begin now to formulate or accelerate plans to full implement these guidelines.

Because WCAG is a technical specification with sometimes confusing or ethereal language, it can be daunting and overwhelming. WebAIM’s WCAG Checklist provides a simplified presentation of the guidelines. The WebAIM web site has many materials to help you better understand, implement, and measure accessibility. The WAVE accessibility testing tools can be used to measure many aspects of WCAG conformance.

Post written by Jared Smith – Executive Director, WebAIM

Tags , , , , ,
Categories
Policy

Distance Education Proposed Regulations 2024: WCET & SAN Public Comment

Post author By Lindsey Downs
Post date August 14, 2024
Two textboxes reading "comment" and "now"

WCET and SAN submitted an extensive public comment on the U.S. Department of Education’s proposed distance education regulations. We invite you to join us in commenting.

On July 24, 2024, the U.S. Department of Education (Department) released the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and proposed regulations related to the most recent negotiated rulemaking. The regulatory issues in this proposed rulemaking package include Distance Education, Return to Title IV (R2T4), and TRIO Programs. WCET and SAN are committed to closely following these issues, providing information through publications and events, as well as encouraging institution participation in the regulatory process.

Our July WCET Frontiers post Buckle Up. ED is Off to the Races with Its NPRM provided a detailed analysis of the proposed regulations that could have a direct impact on distance education and digital learning. In that post, we urged you to review the proposed regulations, consider our analysis, and consider submitting your own public comment. The window to submit a formal comment closes on August 23, 2024. There is still time to submit a public comment! You must act quickly!

WCET and SAN have prepared and submitted our public comment in which we expand on our quick analysis in the earlier blog post. Review our comment and consider some of the themes that may affect your institution. We released our comment ahead of the deadline in case you wish to echo any of our concerns or support for what is proposed. Importantly, in your comment you should share specific student impact stories and clarifying questions with the Department. It is especially important to ask the Department clarifying questions as it is required to respond to all public comments.

Please note that WCET and SAN support the intent of the Department to provide student protection and protect the integrity of Title IV Federal aid programs. We support the Department’s Principles for Regulating listed in its regulatory plan, 78 FR 1361, published January 8, 2013. “ED is committed to regulations that improve the quality and equality of services it provides to its customers. ED will regulate only if absolutely necessary and then in the most flexible, most equitable, and least burdensome way possible.” The purpose of the WCET and SAN public comment is to balance adding new student protections while minimizing negative impacts on those same students.

Key Areas of the WCET and SAN Public Comment

In these proposals, we commonly observed distance education being considered as inferior to other modes of instruction.

The WCET and SAN public comment focuses on specific sub-issue areas related to the Distance Education and Return to Title IV issues that were addressed in the Winter 2024 negotiated rulemaking committee meetings. These two issues did not reach consensus during rulemaking. Lacking consensus means that because there was opposition within the committee about the proposed language for regulations for both issue areas, the Department had the authority to write the regulations for both issue areas.

There is a common theme in the WCET and SAN comment related to the clarification that distance education is not only an effective modality of instruction but is infused in face-to-face instruction causing implementation confusion for some proposed regulations. Additionally, our comment illuminates that some of the proposed regulations impose illogical restrictions on distance education that are not required for face-to-face instruction. The implementation confusion and illogical restrictions could ultimately limit student access to important workforce programs, increase staffing time and costs, and cause greater confusion for financial aid offices working with a wider range of institution departments to ensure compliance.

In our introduction, we raise four overarching themes that concerned us about the Department’s proposals:

  1. Bimodal thinking by the Department that instruction is either distance education or in-person instruction rather than the multimodal blend of instruction that is currently used by faculty.
  2. Lack of evidence shared by the Department to show actual harm to determine the need for more oversight.
  3. Punishing the innocent institutions that comply with regulations due to the few institutions that are found to be non-compliant.
  4. Distance education is being treated by some negotiators and by some of the proposals as an inferior modality of instruction.

We also supplied detailed reasoning for what we support, where we have concerns, and suggestions for alternatives for the following proposed regulations:

  • Attendance taking for distance education courses (34 CFR 668.22)
  • 14-day documentation of withdrawal for attendance taking. (34 CFR 668.22)
  • Removal of Title IV aid for asynchronous clock hour distance education programs. (Amending – 34 CFR 600.2 Definition of Clock Hour and 34 CFR 668.3 Definition of an Academic Year)
  • Definition of distance education course (Amending 34 CFR 600.2 Definition section to add distance education course)
  • Addition of virtual location as a type of Additional Location. (Amending 34 CFR 600.2 Definition of Additional Location)

Please review the key areas carefully, as some of the regulations could significantly impact your students and faculty. Also, note where you have questions about how the regulation would be implemented, as getting answers to those questions is very important.

Your Public Comment to Address Distance Education Regulations

How did WCET and SAN arrive at their public comment? WCET and SAN responded to this “year of significant Department attention to regulating distance education” by holding a special in-person policy event to discuss potential rules and institutional implications. One hundred and sixty attendees from institutions and higher education organizations assembled in St. Louis in late July 2024 for two days to learn about the current Federal rulemaking, network with colleagues, and plan for the next steps and the public comment period.

We urge you to comment. You know the impact on students. Volume matters.

At that event, participants received updates on what is happening in Washington, DC as well as panel sessions on the Winter negotiated rulemaking.

One attendee remarked that the meeting was “one of the most informative policy conversations I have been part of in a very long time.” We thank the attendees for their input, as their experiences informed our comment.

You, too, can participate in the regulatory process to address the new proposed regulations by providing a public comment.

The Federal Register announcement for the recently proposed regulations directs individuals to the Federal eRulemaking Portal to electronically submit the public comment.

The deadline for this public comment is August 23, 2024.

Consider the following:

  • Why comment? Your views matter! You can ask key implementation questions. The volume of information shared matters.
  • How to comment? “Submit a Formal Comment” button link is located on the Federal Register announcement.
  • When to comment? Immediately!The comment period closes on August 23, 2024.
  • Who can comment? Anyone! But, for official comments from an institution or organization, you must have been given the authority to submit.
  • What to comment? Support, Questions, Concerns, Student Impact. They especially want to hear about how a proposal will affect your students.

Your experiences could inform the Department about specific challenges and unintentional consequences for students and institutions. We encourage you to suggest alternatives and ask clarifying questions. The Department could benefit from your information. Specifically, the Department appreciates precise comments, with references to sections and subsections to organize your submission. Where possible, support your argument with data-driven evidence. You are welcome to use our published comment for suggestions on possible comments and to help you cite specific proposals.

As we previously mentioned, volume matters. However, while the number of comments matters, each comment should be substantive and useful. The Department noted that a well-supported comment is more informative than many form letters. We do not supply a comment template as the Department is clearly discounting submissions that look the same.

Next Steps

Following the public comment period, the Department must review each comment to respond and consider the information related to the development of the final regulations. The response to comments, typically by comment themes, will be provided in the “preamble” of the publication of the final regulations provided in the Federal Register.

If final regulations are published by November 1, 2024, they become effective as early as July 1, 2025.

After the public comment period, there is one more opportunity for individuals to participate in the rulemaking process. Before the release of the final regulations, the Department must submit the final draft regulations for an Executive Branch review by the Office of Information & Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) part of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The review of the regulations takes approximately 3-4 weeks. The OIRA review is required to consider consistency with administration goals, issues of federalism (undue burden upon state oversight), and economic impact (costs to implement).

Individuals may request an audience with OIRA/OMB or, as they call it, an Executive Order (EO) 12866 Meeting. The meeting is an opportunity to be heard about these issues related to the regulatory actions in question. We urge you to request a meeting to discuss your concerns on the OIRA review. We believe the economic impact of these proposals on institutions and students is disturbingly underestimated. In the case of distance education data collection, they admitted they could not estimate it and deferred it to a later date. Institutions will need to be clear about where the implementation of these proposals will incur significant costs.

WCET and SAN requested an OIRA/OMB meeting prior to the release of the final Certification Procedures regulations in Fall 2023 and found the meeting beneficial. The thirty-minute meeting is essentially a listening session with OIRA staff and a Department representative. It is an opportunity to be heard by Federal staff outside of the Department and to consider any outstanding concerns and implications.

If the final regulations are released by November 1, 2024, they will be effective as early as July 1, 2025. It is at the Department’s discretion to determine if there is an enforcement date beyond the effective date of the regulations for institutions to prepare adequately for compliance. The WCET and SAN public comment includes a request for a later enforcement date related to a few of the proposed regulations.

WCET and SAN will follow the next steps closely and share more as those steps occur!

Post Authored by Cheryl Dowd – SAN, Van Davis – WCET, and Russ Poulin – WCET

Tags , , ,
Categories
Practice

Dollars and Degrees – Continued Focus on Cost and Price of Digital Learning

Post author By Lindsey Downs
Post date August 8, 2024
higher education building

For today’s post we are happy to welcome members of the WCET Steering Committee to discuss the efforts of the Digital Learning Economics working group. The Steering Committee forms working groups each year to address critical issues in digital learning.

In 2024, the focus is on helping digital learning leaders engage effectively in budget and funding discussions within their institutions.This initiative, sparked by round table discussions in October 2023, aims to ensure that financial decisions are grounded in a comprehensive understanding of higher education’s digital learning landscape and align with institutional missions and goals.

In this post, the working group explores challenges in this area, shares insights from past research, and invites you to contribute your experiences and strategies for navigating the economics of digital learning.

Enjoy the read,
Lindsey Downs, WCET

Each year, the WCET Steering Committee members form working groups to explore some of the most important issues in digital learning. The 2024 WCET Steering Committee Digital Learning Economics working group aims to empower digital learning leaders to participate in the budget or funding conversations at their respective colleges or universities. We hope that resulting decisions will be made based on a sound understanding of higher education digital learning and data in accordance with the institution’s mission, vision, and goals. This project was born from in-person October 2023 round table discussions that identified ROI and the value of higher education as topics of importance. This is familiar territory for our community; in 2017, WCET published a report on the cost and price of distance education based on a national survey. Recently, Robert Kelchen, writing in the Chronicle of Higher Education, mused, “I may be a bit biased about the value of understanding higher-education finance given the course that I teach, so take it from The Chronicle’s most recent Trends Report: If people do not understand the types of conversations that are happening — and how to influence them — they may be in for a rude awakening” (2024).

The collective experience of the steering committee identified these problems related to digital learning economics:

  • There is a lack of a healthy economic model for digital learning allocation through higher education institution budgets, especially as different governance models exist at different institutions.
  • The higher education bubble may have already burst. Will the availability of digital learning continue to be a differentiator for schools, or will student support services (which cost more) become more important to our students?
  • How should institutions define digital learning cost data? What is being paid for? Who is paying for it? How do we, as a profession, even define the cost of distance education? Or the revenue?

What to Expect from Our Working Group

The Steering Committee Working Group will continue to develop other resources and articles throughout the rest of the year. As WCET begins to analyze and report on data from a new survey regarding the cost and price of distance education, we hope to offer additional institutional examples for calculating the cost of digital learning and highlight how we, as Higher Education leaders, can best communicate that information to institutional leadership.

group of professional people working

In the meantime, we would like to hear your stories and experiences about how your institution thinks about the cost of digital learning and uses that information to communicate its institutional value. Share your insights with us.

  • Do you have a way to calculate digital learning’s cost (and price)? If so, are you willing to share your process with us?
  • How your institution handles digital learning revenue. Does it stay in a centralized distance education department? Does it revert back to the academic department offering the course? Or does it become a part of the institution’s general revenue?
  • How do you communicate the value of digital learning to your campus leadership?
  • What role does digital learning play in strategic discussions at your institution? Are digital learning leaders “at the table” where strategic finance decisions are being made?

We’re looking forward to continuing our work in this area and sharing what we learn with the WCET and higher education community.

References

Kelchin, R. (2024, March 13). Are colleges really on the brink? The Chronicle. Are Colleges Really on the Brink? (chronicle.com)

– Post authored collaboratively by the Digital Learning Economics Steering Committee Working Group, Erika Swain and Missy Lacour.

Tags , , , ,
Categories
Policy

Accessibility in the Spotlight: Department of Justice Regulations

Post author By Lindsey Downs
Post date August 2, 2024
illustrated imaage of digital content on a computer screen

On June 24, 2024, the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued its final rule revising the regulation implementing Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The new regulation establishes specific requirements, including the adoption of specific technical standards, for making the services, programs, and activities offered by state and local government entities to the public through the web and mobile applications accessible.

This rule, which currently covers only public universities and colleges, went into effect on June 24, 2024, with compliance expected in the next two to three years, depending on the size of the total population the institution serves. We anticipate, however, that these regulations will eventually serve as a template for further action by the DOJ and the Department of Education, which would also apply to private institutions.

Background – Ensuring Equal Access

The rule came about, in part, as a recognition of the increasing reliance on web and mobile content as well as the challenges, such as lack of independence and privacy, that can stem from accessibility barriers to this content. Additionally, the rule recognizes that accessible digital spaces benefit everyone. Finally, voluntary compliance with accessibility guidelines has not resulted in equal access for individuals with disabilities; accordingly, organizations urged the Department to take regulatory action to ensure web content and mobile app accessibility. According to the Department of Justice, this rule is necessary to help public entities understand how to ensure that individuals with disabilities will have equal access to the services, programs, and activities that public entities provide or make available through their web content and mobile apps.  

Updates Made in the Regulation

This rule adds a new subpart (H) to the Title II ADA regulation, 28 CFR part 35, that sets forth technical requirements for ensuring that web content and mobile apps that state and local government entities, including public universities and colleges, provide or make available, directly or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. The rule applies one consistent standard to both web content and mobile apps (including social media platforms) to ensure clarity and reduce confusion. Additionally, the rule preempts state laws affecting entities subject to the ADA only to the extent that those laws provide less protection for the rights of individuals with disabilities.  

The Department of Justice has adopted the internationally recognized accessibility standard WCAG 2.1 Level AA success criteria and conformance requirements (including for captioning). Public entities are expected to adhere to this standard unless they comply by conforming their web content to WCAG 2.2 Level AA, which provides equivalent or greater accessibility.

The rule emphasizes that public entities are responsible for complying with their ADA obligations even when their services, programs, or activities are offered through contractors such as learning management system companies, content from publishers, YouTube videos, social media, and the institution’s mobile app. Thus, institutions are now responsible for the accessibility of any vendor that provides services related to their websites or mobile presence.

There are, however, five very limited compliance exceptions.

  1. Archived web content that is not currently being used. However, in order to be exempted this content must meet four additional requirements. WCET and SAN have reviewed those requirements and believe that it will be very difficult for institutions to meet them.
  2. Pre-existing conventional electronic documents such as word processing, presentation, PDF, or spreadsheet files, unless those documents are used to apply for, gain access to, or participate in the public entity’s services, programs, or activities.
  3. Content posted by a third party if the third party is not controlled by, or acting for, the entity.
  4. Individualized password-protected documents about a specific individual, their property, or their account. Note that this does not include password-protected content, such as instructional content in a learning management system.
  5. Preexisting social media posts made by an institution before the date the institution must comply with the rule.

Compliance Timeframe

The date by which institutions must be compliant with the new rule is based on the population served by the public entity:

GIF of an annual calendar slowly flipping through pages to indicate that the timeframe for this is fairly quick.
  • Large entities, those institutions serving a total population of 50,000 or more, must comply by April 24, 2026.
  • Small entities, those institutions serving a total population of less than 50,000, must comply by April 26, 2027.

Note that the total population is not the population of the institution; rather, it is the population of the area that the institution serves. For example, the total population of a public state university would be the total population of that state. The total population of a community college would be the total population of the district that it serves. WCET and SAN believe that this means that almost all four-year and two-year institutions would be considered large entities and must comply by April 24, 2026.

WCET will focus on accessibility during the month of August with a special emphasis on these regulations. Here is some of what we have planned:

  • Frontiers posts from accessibility experts in the field.
  • Newly announced Closer Conversation event about the regulations for members to discuss their institutional challenges and concerns and share how they plan to address these regulations. Seats are limited! Register now.
  • A new, member-only resource: Access for All: New Accessibility Rules For Public Entities. This brief outlines the regulations in greater detail and includes a flowchart highlighting key questions to guide an institution’s processes to ensure compliance. This resource is only available to WCET and SAN members. Click the links below to download.
WCET Member
Download
SAN Member
Download

Post authored by Van Davis and Judith Sebesta

Tags , , , , ,
Categories
Practice

Leading the Revolution: The Crucial Role of HBCUs in Steering AI Leadership

Post author By Lindsey Downs
Post date July 25, 2024
cover of AI report

Recently WCET had the opportunity to work with a coalition of organizations including the Online Learning Consortium, Complete College America, the Thurgood Marshall College Fund, and the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education to examine the role that Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) can play in shaping artificial intelligence.

The resulting report, “Leading the Revolution: The Crucial Role of HBCUs in Steering AI Leadership,” argues that HBCUs must center artificial intelligence in their curriculum and research to play a critical role in shaping artificial intelligence and assuring that it benefits all of society.

As the report explains, “The significance of AI in modern society cannot be overstated. Its influence spans across all sectors, heralding a new age of innovation and problem-solving. However, this wave of change also brings challenges, particularly in ensuring equitable access and representation within AI fields.

HBCUs, with their history of academic excellence and commitment to inclusivity, are uniquely positioned to address these challenges, turning them into opportunities for their students and the broader community.”

But, in order to do this, HBCUs must adopt strategies around curriculum development, faculty training, infrastructure enhancement, and partnership building that center AI in their campuses and the greater community.

Focusing on HBCUs – Critical Timing in Inclusive AI Development

Why focus on HBCUs? HBCUs have a long legacy of excellence and inclusivity to bring to bear on our exploration and adoption of artificial intelligence. HBCUs excel at embedding cultural competence into their curriculum and preparing graduates for impacting their communities and our greater world. Additionally, HBCUs have long played an outsized role in producing STEM graduates. The McKinsey Institute for Black Economic Mobility reported that while in 2018 Black students only earned seven percent of all STEM baccalaureate degrees, HBCUs produced almost a quarter of those graduates. The need to create racial parity in artificial intelligence is especially critical.

By 2045, the McKinsey Institute for Black Economic Mobility reports, generative AI has the potential to widen the Black/White household wealth gap by $43 billion annually – but, if implemented carefully, the technology may have beneficial impacts instead. Additionally, it is imperative that ethical AI systems be developed in consultation with as diverse a group of stakeholders as possible. As the White House AI Bill of Rights states, “Automated systems should be developed with consultation from diverse communities, stakeholders, and domain experts to identify concerns, risks, and potential impacts of the system.” HBCUs are uniquely positioned to play a role in the development of ethical AI systems.

graphical representation of AI

There are a number of actions that HBCUs can take that the report lays out. These include:

  • Prioritizing ethical AI education,
  • Strengthening AI research partnerships,
  • Centering the needs of the Black community in AI,
  • Implementing AI governance at the institutional level,
  • Building and enhancing AI operations at the institutional level,
  • Advancing AI pedagogy,
  • Implementing comprehensive AI integration across the curriculum,
  • Promoting cross-disciplinary AI literacies,
  • Leading in AI curriculum innovation,
  • Developing strategic industry partnerships,
  • Promoting experiential learning for an AI-driven job market,
  • Supporting AI research and innovation.

HBCUs should also prioritize strategic activities that will assist them in becoming leaders in the advancing AI revolution. These strategic activities include:

  • Curriculum development and approval, Year 1, high priority
  • Faculty hiring and training, Years 1-2, high priority
  • Resource allocation and infrastructure setup, Years 1-3, medium priority
  • Funding and grant applications, ongoing, high-priority
  • Industry partnerships, Years 2-4, medium priority
  • Community outreach and education, Years 2-5, low priority
  • Global engagements and conferences, Years 5-10, low priority

It is imperative that HBCUs play a critical role in the development, evolution, and implementation of AI, especially generative AI tools. Kate Crawford writes in Atlas of AI, “Artificial intelligence is not an objective, universal, or neutral computational technique that makes determinations without human direction. Its systems are embedded in social, political, cultural, and economic worlds, shaped by humans, institutions, and imperatives that determine what they do and how they do it.”

With their history of STEM training and strength in contextualizing academic instruction, HBCUs are uniquely situated in shaping the AI landscape for the better.  As Leading the Revolution concludes, “In a world where AI will undoubtedly play a pivotal role, the question should not only be how to adapt to this technological revolution but who gets to lead it. HBCUs have a unique opportunity to ensure that the narrative surrounding AI is diverse, equitable, and inclusive as the technology itself promises to be.”

Post authored by Van Davis, WCET

Tags , , , ,
Categories
Policy

Buckle Up. ED is Off to the Races with Its NPRM

Post author By Lindsey Downs
Post date July 22, 2024

We’ve been waiting with bated breath to see if the U.S. Department of Education would surprise us when they released the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and proposed regulations related to the most recent negotiated rulemaking.

Visit the Federal Register Official Release of the Proposed Regulations. Public Comments Are Due By: 8/23/2024

Spoiler alert, they have now released the NPRM with proposed rules on distance education. We know that there are no surprises, but there is a lot to be concerned about.

What follows is our analysis of the NPRM and some thoughts on how to make your voice heard. Please note that time is of the essence. You only have a 30-day window in which to make your voice heard on these regulations that will have a massive impact on distance education and digital learning.

Note that in the following analysis, we sometimes reference page numbers in the unofficial version of the NPRM published on July 17, 2024.

What the Department did and didn’t release and why the Department cares about distance education

Readers may remember the most recent negotiated rulemaking that was concluded earlier this spring focused on several items, including:

  • state authorization reciprocity,
  • attendance taking for distance education courses,
  • distance education data reporting requirements,
  • disallowing federal financial aid for asynchronous clock hour programs,
  • accreditation,
  • cash management,
  • return to Title IV, and
  • TRIO programs for undocumented students. (The latter being the only area where negotiators reached consensus.)
The U.S. Department of Education released several regulatory changes for postsecondary distance education. They are open for public comment. Learn what is proposed. Prepare to submit your comments.

Earlier this week, the Department released the distance education-related regulations and return to Title IV regulations for public comment. In a blog post published on July 17th, the Department indicated that it would publish proposed regulations related to cash management, reciprocity, and accreditation “by next year” as it is “tak[ing] additional time to carefully consider these important, complicated issues, and refine solutions that address important challenges for students while balancing the need for quality oversight and improved student protections with the burden on institutions and changes impacting college accrediting agencies.”

Rulemaking Reminder

A quick reminder of the rulemaking process. Because negotiators did not reach consensus in all but one area of the negotiated rulemaking, the Department is able to propose its own language for the rules through its NPRM. The publication of the NPRM in the Federal Register in the next few days starts the clock ticking on 30 days for the public to comment. At the end of that 30-day period, the Department will review all public comments, make any changes to the proposed language that it feels is warranted, and then will publish the final rules. If those final rules are published by November 1, 2024, then they will go into effect on July 1, 2025. If they are published after November 1st, they will go into effect July 1, 2026.

Why Did They Propose These Regulations?

You may be wondering what the Department’s rationale for these proposed regulations is. We repeatedly heard during negotiations that the Department has a responsibility to protect students and ensure that the sizeable federal investment in higher education through Title IV federal financial aid is protected. In that July 17th blog post, Under Secretary James Kvaal, writing for the Department, reiterated that these proposed rules would “further protect students and taxpayers” and “update and improve outdated processes, consolidate rules, and establish more consumer-friendly policies for students to access the aid to which they are entitled.”

Attendance Taking for Distance Education Courses

What the Department is proposing

Under current regulations, an institution must follow a complex set of rules to determine the amount (if any) of disbursed federal aid should be refunded to the Department of Education if a student withdraws from a course or the institution. If a student withdraws without official notice from a distance education course(s), the institution must determine the “last day of attendance” for that student. The Department of Education defines the “last day of attendance” as the last time the student participated in one of the activities associated with “active engagement” in a course. This might include taking a test, submitting a paper, or participating in an online discussion about the course content. Logging into the learning management system without any other activity does not count.

Proposed: Faculty will need to take attendance for every distance education class.

Citing some amorphous instances of institutions not adequately documenting the student’s last day of attendance, the Department proposed the following to “simplify” and improve the accuracy of determining the student’s last day of course activity:

  1. Require that attendance be taken in all distance education courses. While they use the word “attendance,” the Department appears to mean documenting the last instance of academic engagement for EACH student with the exception of dissertation research courses.
  2. Within 14 days of a student’s last date of attendance, the institution must effectively withdraw a student and document that withdrawal date.

Our analysis and concerns

We are dubious that the proposed regulations would “simplify” compliance for institutions. As we reported back in March, we talked with individuals from several institutions and NASFAA (the financial aid organization) and heard that with the exception of fully-online institutions or those institutions that are already taking attendance, the proposed regulations would not simplify things at all. In fact, they thought it would greatly increase the work involved for such actions with the addition of necessary policy creation, faculty development, software changes, and the faculty and administrative time to take attendance on each and every student for each and every course.

We also have grave concerns regarding the 14-day requirement. We are concerned that this proposed language will inadvertently negatively impact adult learners. Many of the individuals we spoke with reminded us that with adult learners, it is not uncommon for them to not engage in coursework for a period of time but still complete the course successfully. Additionally, this 14-day requirement will create more burden for faculty to understand, administer, collect, and archive formal leave of absence notices for students who will be gone for more than 14 days. Examples of such leaves include students on temporary military duty or those experiencing health issues. Finally, there are academic implications. To improve student learning and address academic integrity requirements, some faculty have employed authentic assessment techniques that engage students in research or studies in the community or their chosen profession. Sometimes, these assignments take more than 14 days of research or fieldwork. Meanwhile, the instructor is available for questions, but the possible lapse in academic engagement will need to be documented.

Disallowing financial aid for asynchronous clock-hour courses and programs

What the Department is proposing

Although most financial aid is disbursed to students through the credit hour, some programs use clock hours as the basis for financial aid disbursement. This type of disbursement is most prevalent in practical programs like welding or cosmetology. In clock-hour programs, aid is literally determined by the number of student participation minutes associated with the program.

Proposed: Disallow the use of asynchronous courses for institutions that use clock hour method of financial aid disbursement. Note: Does not affect credit hour institutions.

During the recent negotiated rulemaking, the Department expressed concern that institutions offering asynchronous clock hour programs were not adequately tracking the amount of time students spent in their asynchronous courses. One negotiator went so far as to accuse asynchronous clock-hour programs of being nothing more than students watching a bunch of YouTube videos. For “evidence” the Department cites a New America analysis of a survey conducted by another organization. Unfortunately, the survey was about student satisfaction with COVID-era remote learning, and there appears to be no mention of whether the instruction was asynchronous or synchronous, as often happened during COVID. As a result, the Department is proposing to “disallow enrollment in asynchronous distance education courses for programs that use the clock-hour method of financial aid disbursement.” It is important to note that this only applies to clock-hour courses and does not impact credit-hour courses.

Our analysis and concerns

Although the Department cited problems with institutions accurately tracking the time students participate in asynchronous clock-hour courses, it was unable to provide specific institutional examples or the scope of the problem. They said that they witnessed some institutions that spent lots of time and money getting it right. We understand the Department’s concern, but we worry about those institutions being punished for the non-compliance of others. We are also very afraid that this prohibition will hurt the students in these programs, many of whom have the greatest need for financial aid. During the negotiated rulemaking public comment period, we heard many current and former students speak about how they would be unable to participate in face-to-face clock-hour programs and would be forced to withdraw from their asynchronous programs should the Department pull financial aid for those programs. For a Department that expresses a desire to help those students most in need, this decision to eradicate financial aid for asynchronous clock-hour courses and programs seems likely to hurt the very students the Department purports to help.

Creating a “virtual location”

What the Department is proposing

Institutions currently report students as participating in one of three physical locations: a) the main campus, b) a branch campus, or c) an additional location (which the Department defines as a “physical facility that is geographically separate from the main campus of the institution…at which the institution offers at least 50 percent of an educational program.”

Proposed: Institutions will place all students in predominantly online programs in the new "virtual location" classification.

In addition to the existing three location categories, a fourth, “virtual location,” would be added for “which the institution offers 100 percent of an educational program through distance education or correspondence courses, notwithstanding requirements for students to complete on-campus or residential periods of 90 days or less.” The institution would assign the student to one of these four locations.

This Department claims this new classification will be beneficial as it will help it:

  1. “…measure and better understand student outcomes and the amount of Title IV fund program funds being expended in each setting”,
  2. “…conduct more accurate program oversight including through better tailored program reviews”,
  3. “…improve the Department’s ability to determine the States where title IV, HEA recipients are located”,
  4. Qualify students for “closed school discharges” if the institution ceases its online offerings but does not completely close.

Our analysis and concerns

There are some definite benefits, but we are not sure we have been given the full details of exactly how this will work, so we have some reservations. As to the benefits listed above:

  1. We support student outcomes research but have questions.
  2. We are in favor of better institutional program reviews.
  3. We do not recall the Department citing the need for student location data during the negotiations until they realized they did not have it in analyzing a proposal regarding state authorization reciprocity. They used SARA data, which works fine for everyone except California.
  4. The ability for students to receive benefits if an institution shutters its online operations is a worthy benefit. Most institutions making the change have moved completely online, but it is possible that an institution could return to fully on-campus instruction.

The Department is expected to analyze the costs for compliance for each of its recommendations. Unfortunately, there is no separate analysis of implementing a virtual location. We are not sure if this is an oversight or if they considered it part of their analysis for collecting data, as outlined in the next section of this post. There will be a great need for work and coordination between the institutional registrar, provost, financial aid, and distance education leadership to make policies and implement the required technical changes. There will be a cost. We have more significant questions about the data collection proposed.

Collecting more data on distance education courses and programs

What the Department is proposing

As noted with the creation of the Virtual Location proposed above, the Department is keen on collecting additional data on distance education. In the Virtual Location discussion, they cited the purposes of “program oversight, audits, looking at outcome metrics, and College Scorecard program-level data, including debt, earnings, and completion.”

Proposed: The department will collect much more student data for the purposes of oversight and research

A few negotiators also proposed that for each student receiving Title IV financial aid, “the institution must submit to the Secretary, in accordance with procedures established by the Secretary, a report regarding the recipient’s enrollment in distance education or correspondence courses.” The Department goes on to write (p. 41) that “the proposed addition of a definition for distance education course would enable the Department to better assess the effectiveness of distance education and compare its outcomes with those of traditional in-person instruction.”

This is a significant increase in institutional data reporting. The Department will provide the details later (“we would explain the details of this reporting in guidance pertaining to the operation of the Department’s systems”) along with an opportunity for institutions to provide feedback on the proposed data collection elements.

To give time for that process and institutional implementation, the effective date is delayed to July 1, 2026, so institutions will have sufficient time to make the necessary changes.

Our analysis and concerns

As we wrote back in March, we are still trying to figure out the long-term implications. While we have long advocated for more data about distance education, we are heartened that the Department recognizes that this will take effort and time for both the FSA staff and the institutions. The delay and opportunity for feedback are welcomed.

We do have significant concerns:

  • The original proposal by negotiators was for simple student-level data on enrollment modalities. This has morphed far beyond what was discussed to include: program oversight audits, outcome metrics, College Scorecard program-level data, debt earnings, completion rates, the amount of Title IV funds expended on distance education programs, and the State in which the distant student is located while enrolled. During rulemaking, the Department never provided such an extensive list for negotiators to give their reactions. We can see where collecting some of this information might make sense, but others make us worry about the possibility of seeking reasons to defund distance education programs.
  • Even with the delay, we are concerned about the Department’s ability to manage this process internally and in giving proper direction to institutions and their financial aid software providers.
  • This proposal may cross the line of a “student unit record” system, which is prohibited by Congress.

Importantly, we have sincere concerns about how the Department might use such data. We hope clear research questions are elucidated when they propose the data elements. Meanwhile, we are all aware of “research” that pins differences in student success on modality while overlooking differences in the population served. And in the long list of items the Department suggests, the necessary demographics are missing. We are worried that the Department might erroneously make a correlation equals causation argument regarding student success in distance education. As if to validate our concerns, in this NPRM the Department cites research of COVID courses, which is not generalizable to all distance education. There is so much wrong with this approach. Watch for more from us on this issue.

The Department punted on any cost analysis, but it will likely be significant. When the Department cites its cost calculations for the package, it would be nice if it acknowledged the huge missing asterisk of the cost information that is not collected for this data proposal.

Finally, the proposal falls short of its own goals. If they want to make the comparisons between distance and on-campus students that they are touting, then they need information on ALL students.

How you can get involved…and you must

It’s critical that we respond as a community to help the department understand how these regulations will impact students and institutions. How can you get involved? Comment! Institutional personnel, program personnel, or individuals may comment during the 30-day public comment period.

How to comment

comment spelled out in letters cut from a magazine

If you wish to comment as an institution or program, you should work with your institution’s government relations office. But you don’t have to comment as an official representative of your institution; you can comment as a private citizen.

Each NPRM announcement provides directions on how to comment in the Summary section of each notice. You are directed to submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at regulations.gov.  At regulations.gov under FAQ, you will find the instructions for finding a rule on the site and submitting comments. Please note that the Department will not accept comments by fax, email, or submission after the comment period ends. You are advised to include the Docket ID (that will come in the Federal Register version, and we will update this post when it is published) at the top of the comments and submit your comments or attachments in Microsoft Word format.

Who can comment

Comments can come from institutions/organizations or individuals. Official comments from an institution or organization are important, but be sure that you have the approval of the President or whomever has authority. We do not want you to lose your job. You can also comment as an individual. You can state your place of employment and expertise but be clear that it is your own opinion.

What should you say

Here is your opportunity to ask clarifying questions, show support for the language, express challenges that could have unintentional consequences on students or your institution, suggest alternatives (they like that), or raise other concerns.

  • We suggest that, if possible, you explain the impact of the proposed regulations on students and your institution and, wherever possible, provide helpful suggestions that improve the proposed regulations.
  • More than we have seen in previous NPRM announcements, the Department provided a series of tips to consider when preparing your public comment. Suggestions include:
    • being concise,
    • referring to specific sections and subsections in order to organize your submission,
    • and, where possible, support your argument with data-driven evidence.
  • Finally, we often share that volume matters for letters to the Department.  However, we want to be clear that the number of comments is important, but the comments should provide substance that is useful for the Department. The Department noted that a well-supported comment is more informative than many form letters.

Next steps

As previously shared, the comment period will end 30 days after the official release of the NPRM, approximately August 21st (we will update this post with the official date once it is released in the Federal Register). The Department must review and respond to the submitted comments. The announcement of the final regulations will include the Department’s response to the comments in the preamble of the Federal Register announcement. Final regulations that are released by November 1, 2024, will be effective July 1, 2025.

Watch for more from WCET and the State Authorization Network.  

Post authored by Cheryl Dowd, Van Davis, and Russ Poulin

Tags , , , , , , , , ,