Author: Lindsey Downs

Categories
Policy

Major Changes to Distance Ed Proposed: Department of Education Back to Rulemaking Table

Post author By Lindsey Downs
Post date January 18, 2024

Here we go again! Significant changes to postsecondary distance education operations emerged from the U.S. Department of Education’s (Department) Winter 2024 negotiated rulemaking discussion. The proposed changes could be huge and we suggest you read or scroll through this post to see what might affect you and your students. For example, state authorization reciprocity could be greatly limited, distance education programs could be required to take attendance in every course, and all “inclusive access” programs from publishers could be eliminated.

In early January, the Department convened a set of “negotiators” to consider regulatory changes as authorized by Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended. Negotiated rulemaking is a multi-step process that the Department may use to develop regulations to implement federal law. For our purposes, the Department is developing regulations to address process and compliance for institutions to participate in Title IV HEA Programs.

Today, we will share an overview of the Department’s rulemaking process and provide analysis of the issues in this new rulemaking that affect institutions serving students through digital technologies and interstate distance education. We will also share next steps for you to participate in this process and how to follow the progress of this rulemaking.

Below, we’ve listed the six issue areas for this rulemaking plus the sub-issues being discussed, which we are watching closely. We have also added links to “Issue Papers,” including red-lined proposed regulatory changes that emerged during week one of the three week negotiated rulemaking process. The issue papers were publicly released by the Department to frame the discussions by the negotiators. Those who have followed rulemaking over the last ten or so years may find a bit of déjà vu in some of these proposals.

  • Issue # 1 – Cash Management
    • Eliminate the Inclusion of Books and Resources in Tuition and Fees
  • Issue # 2 – State Authorization
    • Complaint Process for a State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement
    • Governance Structure for a State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement
    • Removal of State Exemptions from State Authorization Based Upon Accreditation or Being in Operation for at Least 20 Years
  • Issue # 3 – Distance Education
    • Create a “Virtual Location” for Distance Education
    • Clock Hour (distance education asynchronous programs)
  • Issue # 4 – Return to Title IV Funds (R2T4)
    • Distance Education Withdrawals (taking attendance)
    • Modules (eliminate withdrawal exemption for programs offered in modules)
  • Issue # 5 – Accreditation and Red-Lined Document
    • Public representation on agency decision-making bodies
    • Substantive Changes and other reporting requirements
    • Recognition of State Agencies for the Approval of Nursing Programs
  • Issue # 6 – Federal TRIO Programs – being reviewed first by the Department designated subcommittee.

You may be asking, weren’t several final regulations from a rulemaking just released by the Department? If so, yes, you are correct, the Department released important final regulations on such issues as Financial Value Transparency and Gainful Employment and Certification Procedures that include regulations affecting the institution’s ability to serve students in programs leading to a license or certification. Those regulations, plus more, will be effective July 1, 2024.

Rulemaking Process Overview

The Department must follow the many steps in the federal rulemaking process directed by the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The process takes considerable time. The soonest a rule from this rulemaking could be effective would be July 1, 2025. To be effective in 2025, the Department must complete several steps. Some of these steps have already been completed.

Completed:

  • Federal Register announcement of intent to hold the rulemaking on designated issues and opportunity for public comment.
  • Nominations to create a rulemaking committee for which the Department chooses the negotiators to represent constituencies affected by designated issues.

To be completed:

  • Meeting of the rulemaking committee over several months to negotiate language to develop or modify regulations on the designated issues.
  • Consensus-seeking meeting among the negotiators. Consensus is defined as no dissent from any committee members on the regulatory language. If there is no consensus, the Department is free to write the regulatory language.
  • Proposed regulations must be released either from consensus language or written by the Department and subject to public comment.
  • The Department must review and respond to public comments to inform them of the development of final regulations.
  • The Department must release final regulations by November 1, for the regulations to be effective the following July 1.
  • Failure to meet the November 1 deadline will cause the effective date of the regulations to be delayed until the next year to align with the next financial aid year.

The rulemaking committee will complete its meetings in March 2024. The Department has expressed its desire to release final language prior to November 1, 2024, in order for the new regulations to be effective July 1, 2025.

Issue Analysis

Issue #1 – Cash Management

Proposal: Eliminate Including Books and Supplies in Tuition and Fees.

Department Issue Paper 1, Cash Management.

What Is the Problem Identified by the Department?

textbox: Would end “inclusive” and “equitable” access textbook programs from publishers.

Current regulations allow institutions to include (under certain conditions) the cost of books and/or supplies in tuition and fees. Career institutions use it to ensure everyone has the same tools. Publishers created “inclusive” and “equitable” access programs whereby the price of the textbook and resources are reduced for every student and it is ensured that every student has access to the textbook.

The Department allows for such contracts if the student is given a way to opt-out. Student, consumer, and OER groups have objected to the difficulty for students to remove themselves from these programs.

The Department is concerned that institutions have not been transparent about how a student can opt out so that they can assess if less expensive options are available elsewhere.

What Is Proposed by the Department?

The Department proposes to eliminate the provision allowing institutions to include the cost of books and supplies as part of tuition and fees in most cases. The practice would still be allowed if an institution could demonstrate a “compelling health or safety reason, or if the institution is the only option for students to access the books or supplies.”

Our Analysis

Inclusive access has grown as the publishers have found it to be an attractive solution that lowers textbook costs and increases their revenues. We agree there have been abuses, but let’s address them. If the Department is worried about institutions not properly notifying students (which are required by regulation), could this be resolved by addressing those infractions or strengthening those provisions?

Some institutions charge a student fee (a fraction of the price of one textbook) to cover the cost of creating, supporting, and maintaining low-cost textbooks. Kansas State University’s Open/Alternative Textbook Initiative is an example. We worry the proposed language could unintentionally harm these beneficial programs. The Department should ensure that fees to support such programs are acceptable.

Finally, if adopted, institutions will need a substantial amount of time to implement this proposal. They will need to consider new textbook alternatives in every course, adjust business processes, and address contractual obligations.

Issue #2 – State Authorization  

Proposal A: Complaint Process for a State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement

Department Issue Paper 2, State Authorization.

What Is the Problem Identified by the Department?

The Department expressed concern that states are not informed of complaints subject to a reciprocity agreement from students located in their state about institutions located in another state.

The Department indicates that without this information the state where a student is located cannot monitor if their students are protected by the reciprocity agreement.

Additionally, they maintain that information must be reported publicly and at least annually about the number and type of complaints that occur from participating institutions in member states.

This reporting is expressed by the Department as necessary for the state to receive information that could affect the state’s decision about renewing its state’s membership in the reciprocity agreement.

What is Proposed by the Department?

The Department proposes that a state authorization reciprocity agreement must include a process for communicating information received on student complaints subject to the reciprocity agreement to the State where the student is located at the time of initial enrollment. Additionally, the reciprocity agreement must require that complaints including the number and type of complaints received by States subject to the reciprocity agreement must be made public at least annually.

Our Analysis

textbox: State authorization reciprocity boards should mainly consist of state representation.

It is important to first note that the Department is developing regulations to address reciprocity agreements for state authorization more broadly, should more agreements be available in the future. The Department is not only addressing SARA, which is the only currently active reciprocity agreement for state authorization.

That being said, the proposal by the Department appears to affirm processes already in place by SARA. The exceptions include, first, reporting of “type” of complaint which we are aware is being currently developed by SARA. Second, the Department proposed language about informing the state where the student is “located at the time of initial enrollment.” We believe that this language is very limiting because it is possible that a student may no longer be located in the state of initial enrollment.

The responsibility of the determination of location in the event of a change reported by the student is already required in federal regulation. Finally, because reciprocity is a state-to-state agreement, we question the ability of the Department to dictate the terms of such an agreement.

Proposal B: Governance for a state authorization reciprocity agreement

What Is the Problem Identified by the Department?

The Department expressed that the governing board for a state authorization reciprocity agreement that includes members who are not state representatives could stifle the states from the ability to improve consumer protections for participating institutions.

What is Proposed by the Department?

The initial proposed language by the Department indicated that the governing board must consist of “solely” of state representatives. However, while the preceding sentence indicated “solely” representatives of states, the Department proposed a lengthy list of who may not be a public member of the governing board, including current or former employees of institutions, trade associations/member organizations, accrediting agencies, or the Department.

The Department expressed the need for consideration of a minimum number or percentage of representatives from non-state representatives to the governing board.

Our Analysis

We concur with the idea that the vast majority of members of a board governing reciprocity should be state representatives tasked with administering the implementation of a state-to-state agreement. However, we disagree that a federal agency has the authority to regulate the composition of a board of an organization for which states are members.

Additionally, we maintain that the proposed language about groups that may not serve is unnecessarily prescriptive. The long list of barred groups includes stakeholders who are appropriate for the development of sound policy. Further, the language indicates “former employee” without a time frame or context. Implementation of this language would allow very few members of the public with any expertise in higher education, distance education, or institutional oversight to serve as members to the board.

Proposal C: State exemptions from state authorization based upon accreditation or being in operation for at least 20 years.

What Is the Problem Identified by the Department?

The Department is questioning whether a state’s determination of state authorization of an institution where the institution is located is adequate for purposes of Title IV if the state minimally considers accreditation as sufficient or waives institutional approval for institutions in operation for more than 20 years.

The Department considers that state exemptions are weakening the program integrity triad, making students and taxpayers vulnerable.

What is Proposed by the Department?

The Department has not offered proposed language, yet, but is interested in developing language based upon the review and discussion focused on three questions:

  1. How can the Department ensure that state authorization is serving its intended purpose in the regulatory triad?
  2. In what instances are exemptions from the state approval requirement appropriate or warranted? Is accreditation and/or length of time in operation sufficient for an exemption from the state approval requirement?
  3. What factors should the Department consider as necessary for state authorization?

Our Analysis

textbox: For in-state institutional authorizations, should some institutions still benefit from “exemptions”?

States have various structures and reasoning for the oversight of activities in their state. The Department and groups of states may want to consider collaborating to address any suggested changes. We recommend the Department start by reaching out to NASASPS (a national organization of state regulators). Determinations of state oversight requirements are an issue of state authority.

The Department should consider that mandating new state requirements in federal regulation for state authorization of institutions where the institutions are located would be time-consuming for states to undertake and could require state legislation to make changes to existing state structure. Note the federal regulation released as final in October 2010 that required a state to have a process to review and appropriately act on complaints was delayed by the Department in its enforcement date for 4 ½ years finally becoming enforceable July 1, 2015, to allow time for states to develop their complaint processes.

Negotiator Submitted Proposal: Modification of the Definition of State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement

What is the Problem Identified by the Negotiator?

In week 1, a negotiator submitted what the Department referred to as the Fast Proposal. This proposal identifies the perceived problem that the federal definition of a state authorization reciprocity agreement prevents student consumer protection from the state where the student is located, as that state is a member to the reciprocity agreement and is subject to the policies of the agreement. The problem expressed is that although the state where the student is located may enforce laws of general applicability such as those related to fraud, misrepresentation, and criminal activity, the state cannot enforce education-specific consumer protection laws on participating institutions for complaints subject to the reciprocity agreement. The proposer maintains that the few states with strong consumer protection laws should retain their authority to enforce that state’s consumer protection laws.

History of the Definition

The federal definition of a state authorization reciprocity agreement has an interesting history. The language was written by the Department and did not come from consensus language of a negotiated rulemaking. The regulation, along with several state authorization-related regulations, were released as final in mid-December 2016, which missed the November 1 deadline to be effective the following July. Therefore, it was not effective until July 1, 2018.

In early 2017, Department officials communicated with Russ Poulin about their intent to clarify widespread “misconceptions.” Poulin and others had indicated an ambiguity or limitation to reciprocity related to the enforceability of education-specific state laws when an institution participates in reciprocity. The Department sought to dispel that misconception which was then affirmed in a letter by then Under-Secretary to the U.S. Department of Education, Ted Mitchell. The Trump administration began just a few days later and delayed this regulation before it became effective. The regulation eventually became effective on May 26, 2019, after a U.S. District Court ruling vacated the delay. On October 31, 2023 new final regulations were released including the currently effective definition of state authorization reciprocity agreement that clarified the language of the definition and was subject to immediate implementation at the discretion of the institution.

What is Proposed by the Negotiator?

The negotiator proposes modifying the definition of a state authorization reciprocity agreement to directly indicate that a state subject to a reciprocity agreement is not prohibited from enforcing its own education-specific state laws in addition to general purpose laws for which states may already enforce. It is suggested that reciprocity could still exist for the purpose of a single application and fee.

Our Analysis

Frankly, this proposal dismantles reciprocity. There would no longer be a coherent structure to protect students nationwide with uniform student protections regardless of where the student is located. Neither would there be consistent oversight of institutions in the states where they are located and hold a legal obligation to meet any requirements of that state to be authorized. Nor would institutions be part of an organized structure to facilitate their uniform compliance management to implement requirements to support students.

The proposal fails to share that only a few states maintain strong consumer protection laws and chose to join the current reciprocity agreement. The proposal does not share that many states have none or little oversight of out-of-state institutions with no physical presence in the state.

Finally, dismantling of these elements of reciprocity will leave more students without protections than providing protections in those few states with stronger consumer protections. The data of the institutions overseen in each state and numbers serving students in other states is available on the NC-SARA website: https://nc-sara.org/data-dashboards.

Issue #3 – Distance Education

Proposal A: Create a “Virtual Location” for Distance Education

Department Issue Paper 3, Distance Education.

What Is the Problem Identified by the Department?

The Department identifies two problems that they are addressing with this proposal:

  • Collecting data on distance education. They wish to collect more data on distance education to inform students with program-level data in the College Scorecard and to compare the outcomes of students in similar programs using different modalities.
  • Program Closure. The Department would be enabled to protect students if an institution closes its entire distance education operations.

What Is Proposed by the Department?

Currently, the Department defines three types of locations: the main campus, a branch campus, and an “additional location.” The latter is currently a place where 1) more than 50% of a program is offered or 2) a place of incarceration. The Department proposes a third version of “additional location:”

“(3) A virtual location through 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.

Our Analysis

textbox: New “virtual location” would gather distance education data and assist students in closing programs. Definitional details need to be addressed.

The Department will be able to assist students if an institution closes all its distance learning programs. We support students being able to avail themselves of the benefits as if the entire institution closed.

We have long supported collecting more distance education data. However, definitions are important or statistical comparisons will be compromised due to institutions unwittingly classifying the same programs differently. As we wrote last year, the Department has FOUR different definitions of distance education and this could add a fifth. We are interested in consolidating these definitions. Additionally, guidance will be needed on what programs are in or out of whatever definition they use.

Just last week, Inside Higher Ed published “Online Education Completion Lags Behind Face-to-Face Instruction.” Missing from the article was this important statement in the report (p. 25): “A disproportionate share of exclusively online students face time- or location-based constraints that can make them less likely to graduate from college—regardless of medium of instruction. This suggests that readers should exercise caution when interpreting our results, as some of the observed effects outlined in the present study may be due to selection.”

Proposal B: Clock Hour (Programs and Asynchronous Distance Education)

Institutions Using the “Clock Hour” Method of Financial Aid Would No Longer Be Able to Offer Asynchronous Programs. Credit Hour Institutions Left Unaffected.

A quick background is needed.

Most institutions disburse financial aid based on credit hours. Some institutions (mostly those in career programs) disburse aid based upon the actual time the student spends in instruction. This proposal does not apply to credit hour programs.

What Is the Problem Identified by the Department?

The Department voiced no issue with synchronous clock hour programs, but has concerns about asynchronous distance education courses.

In those courses, students are to interact “with technology that can monitor and document the amount of time that the student participates in the activity.”

The Department has had trouble tracking asynchronous programs and is aware of non-compliance with the monitoring requirements.

What Is Proposed by the Department?

The Department proposes removing “the allowance for clock-hour programs provided via distance education to be offered through asynchronous learning.”

Our Analysis

We have asked members for input on this one and contacted the American Association of Community Colleges. Thus far we have not heard opposition to the change. Let us know if you have specific successful examples that would be affected. We are concerned that this is the second issue in which the Department merely removes an option for which the accounting is difficult.

Issue #4 – Return of Title IV funds (R2T4)

Proposal A: Distance Education Withdrawals

Department Issue Paper 4, Withdrawals and Return of Title IV Funds

What Is the Problem Identified by the Department?

The Department seeks to “increase the accuracy of R2T4 calculations for (distance) students, simplify the Department’s requirements by using available information already collected by an institution, and limit instances of inaccurate calculations and the gaming of R2T4 provisions by schools. Taking action and/or working with a student who has not been attending during a scheduled period for 14 days promotes good stewardship of Federal dollars as well as potentially assisting students during hardships.”

What Is Proposed by the Department?

In order to “increase the accuracy of calculations in distance education programs, the Department proposes to require institutions to take attendance in such education programs for R2T4 purposes, which would require schools to use actual attendance data to determine a student’s withdrawal date for students enrolled entirely in online programs.” In brief,institutions would need to take attendance in all courses in distance education programs. Additionally, this also triggers a requirement that students be dropped from a class if they have not attended for 14 days.

Our Analysis

The Department says, “students in distance education programs may not formally withdraw since they are not on campus.” But, on-campus students also withdraw without notice.

For students who withdraw from distance programs, the current practice is to capture the “last day of attendance.” A mere login is not sufficient, as evidence of an academically-related activity (e.g., exam taken, paper submitted, participation in a discussion) is required. For details, see the Federal Student Aid Handbook, Volume 5 on withdrawals, p. 52.

The 14 day drop requirement poses new challenges. When we posted this question to WCET members, some said that they have adult students (some in the military) who necessarily stop out for a few weeks, yet they successfully complete the course.

The Department says taking attendance will “Increase accuracy and simplicity of performing R2T4 calculations.” If the Department seeks to simplify, then forcing additional work on every faculty member is not simplifying. Currently, institutions track the last academically-related activity for the few students who drop without notice. The Department’s proposal would require additional attendance records for every student. Adding to the complexity is the need for new procedures for collecting attendance for asynchronous programs. How would that be done? Again, far from simple.

We object to this proposal.

Proposal B: Modules (Course Shorter than a Full Term)

Modules are courses shorter than a full semester or quarter. Problems arise in calculating the amount of aid to return when a student withdraws when enrolled in a module. Financial aid rules typically assume the student is enrolled in a course that spans the entire term.

What Is the Problem Identified by the Department?

The Department says that as “part of the 2019 negotiated rulemaking, the Department adopted a withdrawal exemption for programs offered in modules…Unfortunately, the module exemption has added complexity and confusion…It has also required significant guidance to explain how to determine whether a student qualifies for the exemption.”

What Is Proposed by the Department?

The Department says that to “simplify the calculations, the Department proposes to eliminate the withdrawal exemption…Under the proposed regulations those students would now be considered withdrawn unless they meet another withdrawal exemption, resulting in more money being returned to the Department and students not exhausting their aid eligibility as quickly.”

Our Analysis

It appears that the Department tried one approach and it proved to be more complicated than beneficial for aid officers and students. The change appears to be beneficial to both. If your institution makes extensive use of modules, it may be worth reviewing the proposed change with your financial aid officer.

Issue # 3- Accreditation and Red-line Document

Proposal A – Public representation on agency decision-making bodies

Department Issue Paper 5 – Accreditation and Red-Lined Document

What Is the Problem Identified by the Department?

Similar to the governance proposal for a state authorization reciprocity agreement, the Department wishes to exclude certain entities from participation as a public member to an “agency decision-making body” for accrediting agencies.

The Department believes that these exclusions will reduce potential conflicts of interest and ensure that the public members are independent of the entities that the agency has accredited.

What is Proposed by the Department?

Like for the governance of a board for a reciprocity agreement, the Department is very specific as to who should be considered as a representative of the public. Former employees are added to the currently effective regulations barring institution and trade association current employees.

For accrediting agencies, the Department is very prescriptive as to who can serve on their governance boards.

Our Analysis

The structure offered by the Department in the proposed language regarding representatives of the public is overly prescriptive. Like the previous discussion about the board for a reciprocity agreement, the language indicates “former employee” without a time frame or context. We are concerned about the ability to find appropriate representatives under this highly prescriptive structure.

Proposal B Substantive Changes and other reporting requirements

What Is the Problem Identified by the Department?

In order to ensure consistency and quality, the Department maintains that there is a need to revise substantive change requirements that focus on changes of greatest risk that may impact an institution’s resources and capacity in order to protect students.

What is Proposed by the Department?

This is a lengthy regulation with many subsections. Here are the three items that we believe SAN and WCET members will want to be aware of, and includes the following in regard to a substantive change:

  1. Requiring agencies to visit and approve all “additional locations” of an institution.
  2. Institutions would be required to seek a substantive change approval for their first distance education as well as at the 50 percent threshold. Additionally, an institution would need approval for additional programs at any level by an institution that has not previously offered programs at that level.
  3. Elimination of exceptions for the agencies to delegate certain substantive change approval decisions to agency staff.

Our Analysis

Regarding the expansion of agency visits, we do believe that the Department must clarify the intention to include all locations defined in federal regulation as “additional locations.”

textbox: Accreditation “substantive change” proposals include return to old standard for when a distance education program is required to be reviewed.

Note that there is also new proposed language addressed in Issue #3, Distance Education to include “virtual location” among the list of “additional locations.” If the Department truly means to include all “additional locations,” this could be a significant burden to accreditation agencies. If the “virtual location” provision is added, we are not sure what a visit to such a location would entail.

We concur with the new regulations to approve distance education on an institution’s first offering and at the threshold where 50% of the program is offered at a distance. This is a great improvement over the current standard of reviewing every program that is offered “in whole or in part” at a distance.” It appears that with the continued development of more offerings by distance education, the current standard through guidance is unnecessarily broad and could include nearly every program at an institution. We welcome the proposal.

The Department appears to seek the determinations of the agency decision-making body in all matters of substantive change rather than to delegate certain decisions to agency staff, as is the current practice. We do not see a rationale by the Department specific to this concern. The current regulation was developed through rulemaking that came to a consensus. One wonders why we need to revise a regulation that came from consensus and became effective July 1, 2020. One could consider that the currently effective regulation that allows agency staff to approve some requests is prudent as it provides for the accreditation agency to act more swiftly to address certain substantive changes.

Proposal C: Recognition of State Agencies for the Approval of Nursing Programs

What is the Problem that the Department Has Identified?

The Department wishes to codify existing practices and recognition of procedures of state agencies that provide the approval of nurse education. Currently, these agencies are subject to the Department.

What is Proposed by the Department?

The Department wishes to provide into Federal regulations, at proposed Part 604, the framework for oversight and accountability for the Secretary’s recognition of State agencies for the approval of nurse education.

The basis of the rules are found in outdated statute found here:1969 Federal Register Notice (pgs. 58-59) here: FR-1969-01-16.pdf (govinfo.gov)1.

Our Analysis

This is an extensive new section to the CFR to oversee these state agencies. It is reported that only five states would be subject to these regulations as they have chosen to be subject to the approval of the Department. The alternate negotiator for this rulemaking indicated that in the next year only three states would be subject to the approval of the Department. This is an extensive new section to the CFR to oversee these state boards of nursing. There is more to learn about the intent and applicability of these proposed regulations to state boards of nursing.

Conclusion

textbox: Rules Will Have a Big Impact on Distance Education. Follow What is Happening.

We know this is a lot to take in, especially on top of determining processes to implement new final regulations released last October that will become effective July 1, 2024.

However, it is important for you to know the potential impact of rules that could come from this new rulemaking, as these may affect your institutions and students.

Please stay tuned to WCET Frontiers for additional information and guidance, but you can also follow and participate in the process directly.

To follow the process:

To participate in the process:

  • Register to stream the committee meetings in February and March. (cvent registration link will be provided on the Department’s website shortly before the February 5-8 meeting week).
  • Provide public testimony – 3 minute statement opportunities are offered during the last 30 minutes of each committee meeting. The timeslots fill quickly. Email negreghearing@ed.gov with your name and name of organization to reserve a spot.
  • Communicate with your senior leadership and government relations offices at your institution.
  • On accreditation topics, consider reaching out to your accreditor to seek information on the potential impact.
  • Communicate with your state legislators and/or Congressional Representatives or Senators depending on the issue area.
  • Share your concerns for your students and institutional processes with Cheryl Dowd (cdowd@wiche.edu) and/or Russ Poulin (rpoulin@wiche.edu). We will compile your comments to address. Please use the word Rulemaking at the beginning of your email subject line to help us identify your input.

We fully support the need for safeguards for students and for protecting the integrity of Title IV HEA programs. We hope that this rulemaking process will provide balanced, rational, and long-lasting regulations that consider the impact on all constituencies and provide clear regulations that are narrowly tailored to address specifically identified concerns.

Look for more from SAN & WCET as the rulemaking progresses!

Tags , , , , , ,
Categories
Policy Practice

Teaching in a Jetsons’ World: Or, What Would the Department of Education Do with Elroy’s Robotic Teacher?

Post author By Lindsey Downs
Post date January 11, 2024

In Hanna-Barbera’s 1962-63 space age cartoon, The Jetsons, Jetson’s son Elroy is enrolled in Little Dipper School with a robotic teacher, Miss Brainmocker. In this depiction, there is not a human teacher in sight, just robotic Miss Brainmocker.

It’s safe to say, that in the future there is either no Department of Education or a Department that has made its peace with the role of technology-assisted instruction, or at least the role of artificial intelligence. As more and more faculty are experimenting with AI in their classes, institutions need to be increasingly careful that they are in compliance with federal regulations governing regular and substantive interaction (RSI) and Title IV financial aid eligibility.

Background: What is RSI and why should you care?

WCET staff have written extensively on regular and substantive interaction and the Department of Education regulations governing RSI for a number of years now. For an in-depth dive into RSI, you should review two of WCET’s excellent blogs—New Regulations Review #1: Regular and Substantive Interaction published on April 3, 2020, and Regular and Substantive Interaction Update: Where Do We Go From Here? published on November 8, 2022.

In a nutshell, however, RSI is one of the key sets of requirements that institutions are required to meet if their students are going to be eligible to receive Title IV federal financial aid. Found in 34 CFR 600.2, regular and substantive interaction is a key component in the federal definition of distance education. This definition of distance education is quoted below:

Distance education: Education that uses one or more of the technologies listed in paragraphs (1)(i) through (1)(iv) of this definition to deliver instruction to students who are separated from the instructor or instructors, and to support regular and substantive interaction between the students and the instructor or instructors, either synchronously or asynchronously.

  1. The technologies that may be used to offer distance education include —
    1. The internet;
    2. One-way and two-way transmissions through open broadcast, closed circuit, cable, microwave, broadband lines, fiber optics, satellite, or wireless communications devices;
    3. Audio conferencing; or
    4. Other media used in a course in conjunction with any of the technologies listed in paragraphs (1)(i) through (1)(iii) of this definition.
  2. For purposes of this definition, an instructor is an individual responsible for delivering course content and who meets the qualifications for instruction established by the institution’s accrediting agency.
  3. For purposes of this definition, substantive interaction is engaging students in teaching, learning, and assessment, consistent with the content under discussion, and also includes at least two of the following—
    1. Providing direct instruction;
    2. Assessing or providing feedback on a student’s coursework;
    3. Providing information or responding to questions about the content of a course or competency;  
    4. Facilitating a group discussion regarding the content of a course or competency; or,
    5. Other instructional activities approved by the institution’s or program’s accrediting agency.
  4. An institution ensures regular interaction between a student and an instructor or instructors by, prior to the student’s completion of a course or competency—
    1. Providing the opportunity for substantive interactions with the student on a
      predictable and regular basis commensurate with the length of time and the amount of       content in the course or competency; and
    2. Monitoring the student’s academic engagement and success and ensuring that an instructor is responsible for promptly and proactively engaging in substantive interaction with the student when needed, on the basis of such monitoring, or upon request by the student.

Why is it important for institutions to adhere to this definition of distance education and include both regular and substantive interaction? Failure to do so comes with dire consequences like:

  • large fines from the Department of Education,
  • being required to refund federal financial aid dollars to the government, and,
  • (in egregious cases) the loss of Title IV financial aid eligibility.

What Does This Mean for Artificial Intelligence?

Keen observers will note that the first part of the definition of distance education references interactions between instructor(s) and students: “support regular and substantive interaction between the students and the instructor or instructors, either synchronously or asynchronously.”

A woman using a video conference platform.
Photo by Antoni Shkraba: https://www.pexels.com/photo/woman-talking-to-a-person-on-laptop-6266980/

For our purposes, the modality (either synchronous or asynchronous) of the learning is inconsequential; what matters is who is primarily involved in the delivery of instruction. In the Supplementary Information accompanying the final regulations released by the Department of Education in 2020, the Department takes pains to address the role of artificial intelligence and other technology-mediated instruction. At the time, the Department wrote,

“Only individuals responsible for delivering course content and who meet the qualifications for instruction established by an institution’s accrediting agency can fulfill the requirements for regular and substantive interaction with students. The Department does not prohibit other forms of substantive interaction that do not involve qualified instructors, but under the statutory definition such interaction cannot meet the requirements in the definition of ‘distance education.’”

The Department went on to write (emphasis added),

“Interaction with artificial intelligence, adaptive learning systems, or other forms of interactive computer-assisted instructional tools quality as types of ‘academic engagement,’ but in this limited context those forms of engagement do not meet the statutory requirements for regular and substantive interaction between students and instructors… [T]he definition currently requires regular and substantive interaction between students and instructors; substantive interactions with machines or other forms of technology that do not involve in [an] instructor would, therefore, not qualify.”

Thus, as one can see, the Department is clear that it is not allowable for artificial intelligence to be used to supplant rather than augment an instructor for courses eligible for federal financial aid.

What should you do if you are worried about the use of AI in your courses?

First and foremost, you need to make sure that your institution has a clear RSI policy and that all distance education faculty receive training on that policy. Document that this training has been completed.

Second, you should review your existing RSI policy to make sure that you directly address the role of AI in your courses and take steps to ensure instructors understand how they can and can’t leverage AI in meeting the Department of Education’s definition of distance education and regular and substantive interaction. Institutions may need to be explicit that artificial intelligence cannot substitute for instructor interactions with students.

 In the release of those 2020 regulations, the Department was careful to not ban the use of artificial intelligence in the classroom and even suggested that such technologies might improve student-instructor interactions. But the Department has also been careful to clearly state that AI and related technologies can in no way substitute for the instructor.

One can’t help but wonder how a Jetson’s era Department of Education would interpret Little Dipper School’s reliance on Miss Brainmocker and whether or not Elroy and his classmates are receiving a quality education. Is anyone writing a Jetson’s spinoff show yet? Perhaps they will cover that story there.

Tags , , , ,
Categories
Networks Practice

Celebrating Success: The 2023 SANsational Award Winners Are Unveiled

Post author By Lindsey Downs
Post date December 14, 2023

In the realm of excellence, there are those who go above and beyond to achieve greatness. Their dedication, passion, and outstanding contributions set them apart, and it is important to honor those contributions with prestigious awards. Today, the State Authorization Network (SAN), a division of WCET – the WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technologies, not only celebrates our peers and their successes, but we unveil the secrets that have led them to their award-winning achievements. Join us as we announce the five remarkable compliance processes that have earned our esteemed accolades.

Even as compliance processes, policies, and procedures designed to comply with state and federal laws are unique to and contingent upon an institution’s specific activities, much can be gleaned through shared knowledge between peers and professionals in the field. Thus, it is in that very spirit of sharing and collaborating that SAN’s annual SANsational Award was borne.

About the SANsational Awards

Since 2015, SAN, a division of the WCET has recognized that innovation and creativity drive progress in the world of distance education compliance.

SANsational award logo

In that spirit, the SAN team annually honors these contributions by celebrating these outstanding distance education compliance practices. SAN realized early on that not only are these practices vital for meeting the contemporary needs of distance education regulations and requirements, but also essential for inspiring future breakthroughs.

SAN presents its annual SANsational awards to colleagues and their respective institutions that demonstrate diligence when creating innovative and sustainable processes designed to manage state and federal regulatory compliance for out-of-state activities.

This year, nominations were accepted in the following categories:

  • Licensure Programs: Notifications and disclosures for professional licensure program status in each state.
  • Location: How the institution identifies where their students are located while taking online courses, doing internships/practicums etc., and to meet Federal regulations (34 CFR 600.9(c)(iii) & 34 CFR 668.43(c))? How does the institution report this information?
  • Compliance Innovations: Institution policy, tools, compliance teams, or other inventive or novel compliance management practices.

The SANsational Award Process

SAN offers members the opportunity to submit a self-nomination form that describes the solution they intend to address. The submissions are reviewed by an Awards Committee made up of respected compliance professionals. The committee evaluates the submissions in four areas:

  1. That the solution meets the requirements and the needs of state and/or federal regulations, SARA policy, the institution, and students.
  2. That the submission demonstrates a clear, comprehensive, and practical solution to meet compliance requirements.
  3. The project exhibits the capability to be adapted or replicated as a model for others.
  4. The project addresses the specific focus of the category chosen. Candidates should carefully choose the category for which they submit their self-nomination.

We would ’d like to extend our sincere gratitude to this year’s Awards Committee, each of whom carefully reviewed and considered all submissions and for providing guidance and leadership when selecting our 2023 award recipients:

  • Bill Hall, Campbell University,
  • LaDonna Rodvold, University of South Dakota,
  • Sharyl Thompson, CEO, Higher Education Regulatory (HER) Consulting,
  • Jeannie Yockey-Fine, General Counsel, NC-SARA who carefully reviewed and considered each award nomination.

And the winners are…

This year, SAN presented awards for five stellar project submissions. The recipients for 2023 are:

  • The Chicago School (Licensure Programs and Location),
  • Post University (Licensure Programs),
  • Sinclair Community College (Location), and,
  • The University of Louisville (Compliance Innovations).

Noted below are additional details about each institution and their respective projects.

Winner: The Chicago School, Los Angeles, California

Category: Licensure Programs

Project Title: The Licensure Story: When Obstacles & Challenges Lead to Wins

SAN is proud to announce that The Chicago School, a leader in providing programs and concentrations that focus on fostering a global understanding of growing fields, is a 2023 winner of the SANsational Award for the category of Licensure Programs.

Photo - The Chicago School’s team-Miguel Valenzuela, Director, Accreditation Licensure, & State Authorization; Melea Fields, Associate Vice President/ALO, Accreditation, Licensure & State Authorizations; Rebecca Zacarias, Licensure and Administrative Support, Accreditation, Licensure, & State Authorizations
(The Chicago School’s team-left to right) Miguel Valenzuela, Director, Accreditation Licensure, & State Authorization; Melea Fields, Associate Vice President/ALO, Accreditation, Licensure & State Authorizations; Rebecca Zacarias, Licensure and Administrative Support, Accreditation, Licensure, & State Authorizations

The Chicago School is a non-profit private institution with a national presence, offering over thirty graduate and undergraduate programs in professional fields such as psychology, business, health services, education, counseling, and more. These programs are offered in online/distance modality as well as on-ground.

To ensure compliance with the licensure disclosure requirements set forth by the Federal Government, The Chicago School’s Office of Accreditation, Licensure, & State Authorization (ALSA) team developed a process that determines and tracks where its programs’ offerings lead to professional licensure eligibility.

To bolster their compliance efforts, in 2019, The Chicago School’s ALSA team established an annual licensure audit. This process provides a detailed review of each state’s licensing laws and regulations as published on the state’s licensing board websites. The ALSA thoroughly reviews the laws and regulations to identify each state’s educational standards for licensure and whether the program requires individual approval from a state professional licensing board. Each of the state’s professional licensure requirements is placed into a database. Through this process, information related to existing licensure regulations and any changes is tracked and archived.

Once the research process is completed, the database is sent to the Program Chair to solicit appropriate feedback. As the program’s expert, the Program Chair works collaboratively with ALSA by reviewing the information provided and determining whether the program’s curriculum meets or does not meet licensure requirements, or whether a determination has not been made.

Upon completion of the review process, the ALSA works with the Legal Affairs office to approve all licensure disclosure changes to ensure federal/state compliance. This collaborative process has proven to be monumental in accurately tracking state licensure eligibility for The Chicago School’s programs.

SAN extends a hearty congratulations to this team!

Winner: Post University (Waterbury, Connecticut)

Category: Licensure Programs

Project Title: Personalized Licensure Advising and Disclosure

Photo - Members of the Post University team from left to right) Alex Larsson, Accreditation Specialist; Melissa Pilloise, Accreditation Specialist; Christine Adamczyk, Accreditation Specialist; Michelle Hubbell, Director of Military and Graduate Admissions; Shawn Fields, Associate Director of Accreditation; Jana Walser-Smith (State Authorization Network); Sandra Wilson, Co-Provost; Jeremi Bauer, Co-Provost.
Members of the Post University team from left to right Alex Larsson, Accreditation Specialist; Melissa Pilloise, Accreditation Specialist; Christine Adamczyk, Accreditation Specialist; Michelle Hubbell, Director of Military and Graduate Admissions; Shawn Fields, Associate Director of Accreditation; Jana Walser-Smith (State Authorization Network); Sandra Wilson, Co-Provost; Jeremi Bauer, Co-Provost.

Innovation, creativity, and commitment continue to drive progress in the field of distance education compliance. As such, the associates at Post University embody this very ideal.

SAN is proud to award Post University the SANsational Award for its groundbreaking approach to advising and providing necessary disclosures to its students.

The associates at Post University believe that personalized guidance, unwavering motivation, robust support, and student-centered education are the catalysts that allow students to achieve their individual academic and career goals. Post University programs shape workforce-ready, socially responsible leaders through learning experiences offered in and out of the classroom. These experiences are designed to promote the exchange of knowledge, expand thinking, and refine practical and professional skills. Founded in 1890 and serving students online or in person from a 58-acre campus in Waterbury, Connecticut, last year’s unique student headcount included over 31,000 students.

Knowing that a simple posting of whether an enrollment could fulfill the educational requirements for licensure in each state required by federal regulations did not fully express Post’s tenet of Post Makes it Personal®, the Accreditation Department developed a program to advise students at each stage of the licensure process.

At Post, students are provided with personalized credentialing advising before, during, and after their enrollments by a small team of credentialing specialists. Starting with the graduate counseling enrollments in 2020, and extending to the accounting, nurse practitioner, and teaching English language learner enrollments in 2021, over 4,500 potential students and thousands more active students have been reached regarding licensure.

As a result of these efforts, students have expressed a great reduction in stress and anxiety, knowing that they have a plan to reach their professional goals before they even begin class and a partner in navigating the complicated path to licensure.

SAN salutes Post University for providing a model that provides personalized service and a commitment to student success!

The Chicago School – Los Angeles, California

Category: Location

Winning Project: Embracing Purposeful Engagement for a California Institution  

The SAN team presented a second award to the team at The Chicago School for their work in the Location category. Their initiative, Embracing Purposeful Engagement for a California Institution, provides a comprehensive approach to understanding, tracking, and documenting student location.

In response to the need to track student locations for non-State Authorization Reciprocity Agreements (SARA) participating institutions, The Chicago School’s Office of Accreditation, Licensure, & State Authorization (ALSA), has developed and implemented processes to facilitate compliance with all state authorization activities. In conjunction with state authorization compliance, The Chicago School worked to create a solid and comprehensive process to determine, track, and monitor students declared state of residency and states of licensure to ensure students are well informed.

Photo - The Chicago School’s team-Miguel Valenzuela, Director, Accreditation Licensure, & State Authorization; Melea Fields, Associate Vice President/ALO, Accreditation, Licensure & State Authorizations; Rebecca Zacarias, Licensure and Administrative Support, Accreditation, Licensure, & State Authorizations
(The Chicago School’s team-left to right) Miguel Valenzuela, Director, Accreditation Licensure, & State Authorization; Melea Fields, Associate Vice President/ALO, Accreditation, Licensure & State Authorizations; Rebecca Zacarias, Licensure and Administrative Support, Accreditation, Licensure, & State Authorizations

The process and procedures of The Chicago School’s locations disclosure process follows an internal tracking, audit, and annual gap analysis of all authorized programs and states. Specifically, immediately upon beginning the admission process, students are asked to disclose not only their state of residence but any state they intend to be licensed in after completion of the program.

Students are then immediately notified (via an automated pop-up linked to the ALSA team’s audits) if their program does not meet licensure requirements for the state they chose. If a student continues the enrollment process, they are then counseled by a program expert and asked to acknowledge the information provided on licensure for their state(s).

Additionally, this team has built an automated notice into the student portal if they make an address change. This immediately informs the student if the new state fails to meet any licensure requirements. Should students identify a state the program is not eligible, they are routed to a counselor to further obtain acknowledgment. This process also satisfies the individualized notification federal mandate (34 CFR 668.43(c)) that requires institutions to notify students within 14 calendar days if a determination is made that the institution’s curriculum does not meet state educational requirements where the student is located.

This project has made significant strides in ensuring that The Chicago School’s students are kept abreast of any changes in state licensure requirements thus facilitating matriculation and completion. Well done Chicago School!

Sinclair Community College – Dayton, Ohio

Category: Location

Winning Project: Professional License Disclosures  

The team at Sinclair Community College earned recognition for its exceptional contribution to the field with its student location tracking project.

Founded in 1887, Sinclair is the nation’s oldest continually operating community college. The institution features more than 30,000 students at its main campus, four regional centers, as well as online. Since 1979, Sinclair has offered robust, student-centered distance education and eLearning-infused opportunities for all learners based on Quality Matters design principles.

The Sinclair team pictured with Cheryl Dowd, (State Authorization Network); Chris Prokes, Program Director, eLearning Strategy and Innovation; Brittany Barrett, Compliance Coordinator; Amanda Owen, Manager of Distance Education, and eLearning Compliance.
The Sinclair team pictured from left to right) Cheryl Dowd, (State Authorization Network); Chris Prokes, Program Director, eLearning Strategy and Innovation; Brittany Barrett, Compliance Coordinator; Amanda Owen, Manager of Distance Education, and eLearning Compliance.

For 136 years, Sinclair has heeded the credo of founder David Sinclair to “Find the need and endeavor to meet it”. Accordingly, the Sinclair team continually strives to maintain focus on quality and innovation, sustainability, accessibility, and community alignment to provide the Miami Valley region with the highest standard in educational opportunities. As a result, Sinclair consistently ranks among the top community colleges in America and a top choice for students.

The impetus for this project is rooted in Sinclair’s identification of the need to formulate a response to the out-of-state disclosure requirement (34 CFR §668.43 (c)). The regulation requires institutions to provide direct disclosure notifications to students in programs that lead to professional licensure or certification.

Sinclair’s first step was to collect a list of all programs that lead to professional licensure and create a database that identified if the program satisfies education requirements by state. Then, by cross-referencing student records to determine student location, the database automatically triggers an email with personalized direct disclosure information to students, keeping the college’s actions in compliance with regulations.

Collaboration was key to this project’s success, as multiple offices across campus participated in the creation and delivery of the Professional License Disclosures Database.  Leadership from the Provost’s Office, the eLearning Compliance Department and the Research, Analytics, and Reporting Office (RAR) were critical in the development and success of the project. Through such collaboration, a resilient system was created to maintain compliance, deliver necessary information to students, and keep detailed records for internal and external reporting.

It is the hope of the Sinclair team that their Professional License Disclosures Database may serve as a blueprint for other institutions to create an efficient system to fulfill the obligations for compliance with out-of-state disclosure requirements. Congratulations to the entire team at Sinclair!

University of Louisville – Louisville, Kentucky

Category: Compliance Innovations

Winning Project: Elevating the Importance of Academic Compliance: A Paired Approach to Change

Located in Kentucky’s largest metropolitan area, UofL is a public research university with 12 academic schools and colleges and serves as home to more than 23,000 students.

Photo of UofL team Kelvin Thompson, Vice Provost for Online Strategy & Teaching Innovation; Kathryn Kerensky (State Authorization Network); Jennifer Hurwitz, Distance Education Compliance Manager; Kristen Brown, Associate Director Online Learning.
(The UofL team pictured from left to right) Kelvin Thompson, Vice Provost for Online Strategy & Teaching Innovation; Kathryn Kerensky (State Authorization Network); Jennifer Hurwitz, Distance Education Compliance Manager; Kristen Brown, Associate Director Online Learning.

The UofL is proud to be recognized among the nation’s best institutions for African American, LatinX and LGBT+ students. The institution has also been designated as a Military Friendly school, and is a producer of top scholars, including more Fulbright Scholars since 2003 than all other Kentucky public institutions combined.

The UofL is committed to ensuring access to higher education for all, including increasing the availability of financial aid for low-income and first-generation college students and providing additional support and resources for underrepresented populations.

This project emerged from the fact that institutional size and organizational structure can often impact viable solutions to state authorization and related academic compliance challenges. This is especially true at large, decentralized universities where campus units grapple with a multitude of conflicting priorities; thus, securing buy-in can be a painfully slow process.

Furthermore, certain job titles, such as ‘distance education compliance manager,’ might inadvertently lead colleagues to assume that specific compliance concerns do not pertain to them. This, in turn, may cause key stakeholders to question the prioritization of academic compliance, especially when they fail to observe any immediate signs of Title IV eligibility being in jeopardy or that potential fines and sanctions could be levied against the institution.

In a context like this, developing a strategic approach for elevating the importance of academic compliance can be critical for achieving desired outcomes. By identifying where the key stakeholders already were and leveraging two existing university leadership meetings to build trust and to maintain awareness of academic compliance issues, the distance education compliance manager carved out space for academic compliance awareness to spread.

The UofL team assures all that, “This compliance innovation is simple, easy to adapt for any institution, and time is the only expense.” Well done to all at the UofL!

Learn more about the 2023 Winners!

The SAN team offers our congratulations to each of the SANsational Award Winners! We are proud of your accomplishments and extend our gratitude for your willingness to share your ideas and processes with those of us in the field! It also goes without saying how much the SAN team enjoyed our visits to each of these campuses when presenting their SANsational award in person.

For additional details on these fascinating projects visit the SANsational Webpage. There, you will find recorded presentations from each of our winners detailing their processes, challenges, and outcomes. Please note that the recorded presentations are each approximately 20 minutes in length.

Your team too could be winners! Mark your calendars for the 2024 award selection process which will begin in the summer.

For more information about the activities, events, and resources provided by the State Authorization Network (SAN), please visit the SAN Website or contact the SAN team at san-info@wiche.edu.

Tags , , , , ,
Categories
Policy

Developing Institutional Level AI Policies and Practices: A Framework

Post author By Lindsey Downs
Post date December 7, 2023
decorative image of lights making up a silhouette of a head and face.

ChatGPT recently turned one and what a wild, first year it has been. Over the last twelve months, institutions have scrambled to not only better understand generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) and its impact on teaching and learning, but also to determine the best ways to provide guardrails and guidance for faculty, staff, and students. Many institutions have struggled to develop institutional-level policies.

In a spring survey administered by WCET, only eight percent of respondents reported that their institution had developed and/or implemented at least one AI-related policy.

The overwhelming majority of institutions, 65 percent, indicated that they have or will be developing policies but have not done so yet. The initial focus of campus policy discussions has centered on academic integrity. And while these discussions are critical, they cannot be the end of the AI conversation on campuses. Institutions must also consider additional areas such as data security and privacy, promotion and tenure practices, professional development planning, and many other policy and practice areas.

WCET has developed an AI policy and practice framework to help institutions identify the policy areas that they need to address and develop policies and guidelines for those areas.

The Framework

In 2023, Cecilia Ka Yuk Chan conducted research on perceptions and implications of text generative AI technologies in order to develop an AI policy for higher education. Based on the findings, she proposed an AI Ecological Education Policy Framework to address “the multifaceted implications of AI integration in university teaching and learning.” The WCET framework adapts Chan’s framework and categorizes institutional AI policy needs in three areas:

  • Governance,
  • Operations, and,
  • Pedagogy.

Undergirding all three areas of our policy and practice framework is the ethical and responsible use of AI. All policy decisions at colleges and universities should be grounded in ethical considerations of AI. Doing so ensures the most effective and responsible use of, and teaching about, these technologies. And it is often institutional administrators who lead this work. Not developing and implementing AI policies within the context of ethical considerations opens up the institution – and thus its leaders – to, at best, inefficient use of resources that often include funds from taxpayers, and, at worst, serious breaches of privacy, security, transparency, and equity.

Governance

This dimension emphasizes the governance considerations surrounding AI usage in higher education. Governance refers to the senior management at an institution, including such positions and roles as Chancellor/President, Chief Academic Officer, Chief Information Office, Vice President for Student Services, VP for Institutional Research/Effectiveness, and others depending on the campus context. Governance may also encompass managers such as Deans and Chairs of academic discipline units. Members of senior leadership will be the initiators for the Governance dimension of the framework. As they hold decision-making authority, they should set the tone for effective and innovative AI use across campus and ensure that all AI policies and practices support the mission and goals of the institution and foster an equitable and inclusive environment.

Here we highlight six areas of responsibility:

  • Data governance.

Data governance refers to an institution’s policies and processes that ensure that effective and responsible management, including security, exists throughout the complete lifecycle of the data, and data controls are implemented that support business objectives.

  • Evaluation of AI use across the institution.

Campus administrators should also oversee (working in concert with such units as Institutional Research and Information Technology) the evaluation of the effectiveness of AI in every use. The information and data collected should be harnessed for continuous improvement of AI planning, policies, and practices. By regularly collecting feedback from all users, including students, colleges and universities can make informed decisions about how to improve AI implementation. Evaluating the effectiveness of AI tools in enhancing learning outcomes is also vital to determine their value and make adjustments as needed.

  • Promoting and monitoring faculty and staff usage of AI, including research.

Where appropriate, institutional governance should work to encourage campus personnel, including faculty, and students to utilize AI technologies. It may be important to continue to emphasize that, even in AI use, faculty remain centered as the subject matter experts and that AI technologies can support their ongoing role as SMEs. Along with this, though, comes the responsibility of monitoring that use – including while conducting research – to ensure that it is ethical, effective, and appropriate.

  • Inclusive, equitable access.

Ensuring equitable access to AI technologies is crucial for fostering an inclusive learning environment. Universities should work to provide the appropriate technologies and support to all students, faculty, administrators, and staff, regardless of their background or access to technology. By promoting equal access to AI technologies, universities can help level the playing field and ensure that all students and staff have the opportunity to benefit from the advantages offered by AI integration. Not doing so widens the digital divide.

  • Intellectual property.

Leaders at institutions will need to consider how intellectual property, including research, course materials, and student-produced work, is defined and, where needed, protected when created using AI, either fully or in part. However, these policies must be developed in accordance with U.S. and international copyright laws (which are scrambling to keep up with the new technologies) and, thus, likely should involve collaboration with the institution’s legal counsel.

  • AI use and promotion, tenure, & re-appointment practices.

Institutional leaders should also consider how works produced using AI are considered in promotion, tenure, and reappointment of faculty. These processes can be used to reward and incentivize innovative research and teaching, but they also should guard against plagiarism of content in portfolios and dossiers.

Operations

This dimension assists in the understanding and implementation of AI across the institution and includes staff in key areas such as Academic Affairs, Information Technology, and Centers for Teaching & Learning Effectiveness/Excellence. Here we highlight three areas of responsibility:

  • Professional development (training & support).

Training and support on AI technologies should be offered to all who use or may use AI, including administrators, staff, faculty, and students. Effective training and support can go a long way to mitigate and alleviate often extensive (and legitimate) concerns about integrating AI into work, instruction, and learning. Investing in training, support, and resources can help educators, their students, and others feel more confident and capable in navigating the complexities and ever-changing landscape of AI technologies.

  • Developing and maintaining infrastructure for AI.

The responsibility for developing and maintaining an institution’s AI infrastructure will likely fall primarily to Information Technology in consultation with other units to determine needs and evaluate costs and efficacy of tools.

  • Review and recommend AI implementation to improve operational practices.

All operational units should be engaged in scanning the landscape of AI to review and recommend platforms and tools that can enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the institution’s operations, whether for student services and support, instruction and learning, admissions, recruitment and marketing, staff workflows, and resource planning, among others.

Pedagogy

This dimension emphasizes the practical implementation of AI to support instruction and learning in the classroom. Faculty are the initiators of this dimension, working closely with those in Operations to actualize policy and planning from the Governance level while always considering ethical dimensions. Instructors are ultimately responsible for designing and implementing curricula, activities, and assessments that utilize AI technologies. They will need to gain some expertise to determine how AI can best support and enhance students’ learning experiences while assisting learners in understanding the implications for academic integrity. Here we highlight seven areas of responsibility:

  • Academic integrity.

Generative AI has raised concerns that students will misuse technologies to plagiarize. The more clear and consistent policies are, the more likely students will understand and follow them, reducing the chances of misuse. Policies and guidelines may range from those that ban the use of AI in the classroom altogether, to those that allow and even encourage use. Policies regarding appropriate attribution and acknowledgment of AI technologies used to create assignments and other products of learning are crucial as well. There may be an institutional policy regarding this; if not, faculty should develop their own.

  • Assessment practices.

Assessing the effectiveness of learning is a hallmark of education; however, it has been historically fraught and intertwined with ensuring academic integrity. The increasing ubiquity of Generative AI has further complicated these practices, necessitating reconsideration of assessment methods to balance the benefits of AI with the need to maintain academic integrity.

  • Clear communication to students regarding AI expectations.

Faculty should clearly state in the syllabus how students will be expected to use AI in the class and should also verbally communicate those expectations on the first day of class. Being clear about how a faculty member will leverage AI in the course allows students to make informed decisions about whether to stay in the course.

  • Developing student AI competencies and skills/workforce preparation.

The increasing ubiquity of Generative AI in the workplace calls for a new digital literacy. This need makes it imperative for institutions to prepare students for this complex technological working landscape, equipping them with skills and knowledge to successfully navigate not only the current landscape, but a rapidly evolving one as well. Therefore, not only should faculty teach at least basic skills students need to integrate AI into their work, but also evaluate when it is appropriate to use AI, how to evaluate the tools, and to understand their role in professional settings.

  • Understanding algorithmic bias.

Instructors should make students aware of the possibility of discrimination being programmed into AI, since fallible humans must be a part of the process to develop inputs used (with the recognition that humans may themselves perpetuate discriminatory practices through the data).

  • Regular & Substantive Interaction.

The use of AI to augment or even replace certain instructional and related support practices, such as information delivery, responding to questions, assessment, tutoring, and personalized learning and guidance, could have a significant impact on norms and expectations around interactions between students and instructors. Institutions should ensure that they address the extent to which faculty are allowed to automate instruction through the use of artificial intelligence and the aspects of instruction that can leverage artificial intelligence. For most institutions, this will mean revising existing policies on regular and substantive interaction.

  • Learner accessibility.

It is important to consider the ways in which some generative AI tools might not be accessible for all students with disabilities and learning challenges in general, while others may support accessibility, including for users of assistive technology. All learners using assistive technology must be able to meaningfully engage and independently interact with AI interfaces and outputs.

quote box: Putting aside fears of AI surpassing human intelligence and achieving singularity – a hypothetical future point in time at which technological growth becomes uncontrollable and irreversible – legitimate concerns remain a year after the appearance of ChatGPT, including in education.

Putting aside fears of AI surpassing human intelligence and achieving singularity – a hypothetical future point in time at which technological growth becomes uncontrollable and irreversible – legitimate concerns remain a year after the appearance of ChatGPT, including in education.

Issues surrounding academic integrity, the quality of knowledge produced by AI tools, the replacement of instructors by AI, mitigating a new “digital divide,” and how to prepare students for an AI-infused workforce, among others, are real.

Institutions continue to grapple with security and privacy, equity and access, and other challenges that these technologies present.

Upcoming WCET Resource Addressing AI in Higher Ed

In his Substack AI + Education = Simplified, Lance Eaton suggests that the all-too-common reinvention of wheels in higher education – “the thing that contributes to institutions being so slow” – is stymieing effective use of AI in the sector. WCET is committed to addressing this challenge by bringing institutions together to share knowledge and providing resources to support the community. One of the resources that we are most excited about is the development of our AI Policy and Practice Toolkit which we will release later this month. This WCET members-only resource builds out our AI Policy and Practice Framework and includes sample policies and/or guidelines for each of the outlined areas.

If your institution is not a WCET member, you can join now. WCET is offering a discounted membership rate through the end of the year of 35% off new memberships in celebration of our 35thanniversary. You can find more information about it here. And if you are wondering if your institution is a member of WCET, you can access a list of members here.

Tags , , , ,
Categories
Event Practice

Reflecting on Feedback and Insights from the 2023 WCET Annual Meeting

Post author By Lindsey Downs
Post date November 30, 2023

As promised in my most recent post, I wanted to continue to share feedback and reflections about this year’s WCET Annual Meeting and the Annual Summit for Women in eLearning (ASWE) .

I asked some of the WCET leadership and friends to share takeaways and topics that threaded through the entire event (especially those that will impact higher education and digital learning next year).

I appreciate everyone who shared their thoughts for this post! We also included some anonymous comments from the after event survey, thank you for the kind and supportive feedback on this year’s Annual Meeting.

Here are some takeaways I had from the comments I received:

  1. Artificial Intelligence isn’t going anywhere and it will remain an important topic (in higher ed and life in general) for 2024 (and beyond).
  2. Enrollment in higher ed has changed, and we will continue to see shifts in who enrolls in a college or university and how they want to enroll. 2024 seems like a good year to focus on how higher ed can adapt to these changes.
  3. Practitioners need additional guidance, resources, and training surrounding newly released requirements for interstate distance education (and those looking for it were happy to learn from our experts at our sessions!).
  4. This year’s sessions were excellent, New Orleans was a fun backdrop for the event, and, above all, it was a pleasure to interact in-person again with the exceptional members of our community.

Stay up to date on our work in these areas: WCET Policy, WCET resources on Artificial Intelligence, State Authorization Network (SAN). Enjoy these reflections and comments. Stay tuned for more information on our future events!

– Lindsey Downs, WCET

Russ Poulin, WCET

I continue to learn from our institutional members about the post-COVID impact on the shifts to digital learning. Rather than “going back to normal,” faculty are teaching more online and hybrid courses and more students are enrolling in them.

This enrollment shift has surprised many and there are many practical implications including: more need for faculty development and instructional design, clearer communication on what the student experience will be in a course is needed, resources (technology, software, support staff) are stretched, online student services need to expand, and policies (institutional distance ed fees and federal regulations) are stretched or violated. I heard about one institution where they are re-configuring their online unit. At another, their campus Wi-Fi is overtaxed, even though there are fewer faculty and students on campus. And what do we do with those empty classrooms? Addressing these many issues will occupy many institutional leaders in 2024.

Van Davis, WCET

As always, I came away from WCET’s Annual Meeting with lots to think about.

Going into the meeting, AI (especially generative AI), was top of mind for me. I left the Annual Meeting impressed with the depth of thinking that digital learning leaders are doing around AI and was particularly struck by the observation that while we as faculty and staff are working with the most sophisticated technology we have ever experienced, our students are working with the least sophisticated technology they will experience in their lifetimes.

Judith Sebesta, Sebesta Education Consulting LLC and part of the Annual Meeting opening panel

Photo of opening session at Annual Meeting 2023

Two highlights for me of the recent WCET Annual Meeting were the pre-conference workshop on Artificial Intelligence as well as the Awards Lunch.

At the workshop, I was so impressed with the inquisitive and knowledgeable minds gathered together in the room to explore effective AI practices and policies.

It gave me hope that we can successfully harness AI to benefit our campuses and students!

And learning about the work of this year’s recipients of the WCET Individual, WOW, and SANsational Awards was so inspiring, pushing me to strive for excellence in the work that I do to support innovation and online learning in higher education.

Cheryl Dowd, WCET

The WCET Annual Meeting and the SAN Coordinator Meeting are valuable opportunities to learn and share important goals and challenges when serving students using digital technologies, especially through interstate distance education.

In addition to many notable discussions about AI, this year, I was very focused on learning from others about their concerns about implementing nuanced requirements released by the U.S. Department of Education.

My biggest takeaway is that institutions desire more clarity and training to understand complicated requirements. The institutions’ staff members expressed that they need a road map to share this information and to implement these requirements collaboratively among various stakeholders at institutions. Additionally, the institution’s staff members expressed that they wish direction to gain the support of senior leaders when a change or modification of the institution’s processes becomes necessary. Because interstate distance education opportunities will continue to grow, the institutions will need to develop mechanisms to anticipate and support the needs of their interstate students and comply with additional state and federal requirements.

Feedback from Attendees

  • It was great that presenters could quickly pivot with the latest US ED regulations coming out and address the potential considerations and impact. 
  • (The best part of the conference) EVERYTHING! It is a great community to be a part of and it was so nice to put people with faces and names. I really appreciated the policy sessions with experts like Cheryl, Russ and Aaron who were able to digest and explain the new regulations very quickly! 
  • Special shout out to the Student Panel facilitated by Every Learner Everywhere. It was great hearing directly from students what works and what doesn’t work for them. Definitely, we need more sessions like this in academic conferences. 
  • For me, one of the highlights of the Annual Meeting was getting all of these great leaders and practitioners from across the US in the same space. It was definitely rewarding to exchange ideas with people with different roles and from different types of institution. 
  • The highlight for me was the insightful sessions on AI. It was honestly nice to know that no one has the “answer” for incorporating AI into the learning experience, but the journey to discovery was fun and helpful. 
  • I expected to make some connections as we do at any conference, but something was special about this one. I’ve never attended a “women in tech” conference before. The connections I’ve made here are priceless. – ASWE attendee.

Thank you again for the feedback on our event. Our team members do review the results from the survey and read every comment. It’s important to us to understand what went well and what we can do better each year.

I thought I’d end today’s post with reflections from Megan and Kim, the WCET team members who spent so much time making this event as extraordinary as it was. Cheers to you both!

Megan Raymond, WCET 

The 2023 Annual Meeting stood out to me as one of the best WCET conferences I’ve participated in in 17 years. There are many aspects of the event that stand out to me. Being in New Orleans in the historic arts and warehouse district, the location meant numerous restaurants, shops, and walking paths were nearby. The event size of 350 attendees cultivated a collegial atmosphere; it was easy to find friends and make new ones. Lastly, I loved the addition of the Annual Summit of Women in eLearning to the Annual Meeting. This was a wonderful way to connect with women through sharing, mentoring, collaboration, and dancing at the Pajamarama. Throughout the entire Annual Meeting, there was a sense that people were really happy to connect post-pandemic and missed being in person. 

Kim Nawrocki, WCET 

I want to extend a heartfelt thanks to our speakers and staff who made this a spectacular Annual Meeting. Attendees seemed especially inspired to share challenges and aspirations to evolve higher ed together, gaining insights to bring back to their campuses. It was wonderful to engage with our community in person—and it’s hard to beat the lively environment, historic neighborhoods, and amazing food one finds in New Orleans.  

Tags ,
Categories
Event

Vibrant Vibes, Unforgettable Moments, and Culinary Delights: Highlights from the 2023 WCET Annual Meeting in New Orleans

Post author By Lindsey Downs
Post date November 16, 2023

As my plane took off from the airport in New Orleans, LA a few weeks ago, I had a smile on my face. That smile was due to the wonderful experience of this year’s WCET Annual Meeting. This year I attended several meetings and sessions that brought up fresh topics to learn about, networked with our community, met some incredible people, and visited a town I’d never been to before! The group dinners at local restaurants were a huge highlight for me! This was an outstanding year – it was not only the 35th anniversary of the Annual Meeting but it was also the first year that WCET hosted the Annual Summit for Women in eLearning (ASWE).

If you attended the conference, today’s post will recap and remind you of the event. If you couldn’t attend, I hope to highlight some of the big topics and big moments. I also have some details to share about next year’s Annual Meeting, and I hope you’ll join our team there!

By the way, ChatGPT wrote the title for this blog post and bravo.

Who’s Who

The attendees each year at the Annual Meeting have great questions, helpful resource suggestions, and thoughtful support and guidance. I appreciate the opportunity to meet and talk with such a variety of individuals brought together to continue to learn from each other and discuss how we can make higher education and digital learning better. I was very excited to see that we had a few students join us this year as well; some attended for professional development and some as panelists for a session.

The WCET Annual Meeting and ASWE Summit was attended by individuals in a variety of roles:

2023 AM and ASWE Attendee Job Categories Academic Officer 11% Administrative (Manager/Director) 46% Compliance 10% Corporate Leadership 8% Faculty/Teacher 4% Instructional Designer 5% IT Administration 1% Other 15%

Attendees hailed from all over the country, here are the top ten states represented at the meeting:

Top states represented at the meeting: Texas 24 Colorado 22 Florida 22 Louisiana 15 Utah 15 Arizona 14 Ohio 11 California 10 Minnesota 9 District of Columbia 8 Illinois 8 Idaho 7 New Jersey 7 Georgia 6

In the Beginning…

The Annual Meeting this year started with pre-conference sessions and meetings. The State Authorization Network (SAN) held a coordinator meeting, and the WCET Steering Committee and Executive Council met to examine the past year and brainstorm on topics WCET should address for next year.

The pre-conference workshops included:

  • Accessibility Should Be the Default, Not an Option: Embedding It Across the Institution, and
  • Developing Effective Practices and Policies to Harness Artificial Intelligence.

From what I heard and experienced, the topics of the pre-conference sessions definitely foreshadowed two of the big overarching themes threaded through the entire event.

The WCET Annual Meeting officially opened with the general session: AI in Higher Education – Exploring the Promise and Perils. During this session, moderated by the incomparable and gracious Gloria Niles, Director of Online Learning with the University of Hawai’i System, panelists discussed the perils and promises of AI in higher education. My big takeaway was that we definitely MUST be working on this topic (oh good, we are) and that work must be focused on the inclusiveness, adaptability, and dynamic engagement of any learning environment that is informed or assisted by AI. Our experts recommended reviewing and consistently updating your AI and Academic Integrity policies, as they will likely need updates as this technology continues to progress (I also most used the word evolve here, but it would undoubtedly bring up too many movie references).

Awarding and Showcasing Promising Practice and Dedicated Service

As stated during the Awards Luncheon and Program, I am so lucky to work on the Awards program for WCET. It’s an honor to learn about the innovative work taking place in our field and finding exciting ways to showcase that work.

During our Awards program, we honored two practitioners with individual awards from WCET, three institutions with WOW Awards, and reviewed three institutions who received awards from the State Authorization Network (SAN).

WCET Individual Awards

The Dick Jonsen Mollie McGill Award

WCET’s top honor is given each year to an individual who has made a significant contribution to the digital learning community and to WCET. This person is selected by WCET leadership and staff. This year’s recipient was Shannon Riggs, Associate Vice Provost of Educational Programs and Learning Innovation, Oregon State University. WCET Steering Committee Past Chair, WCET Executive Council. Shannon is an excellent example of exactly what we hope to honor with this award. Her commitment to providing high-quality, inclusive digital learning and the time she has devoted to WCET are truly commendable and so appreciated. Thank you, Shannon, for all you have done for the entire WCET community!

Sally M. Johnstone Award

If you know Sally Johnstone, then you know our goal with an award named after her is to showcase outstanding leadership capabilities and excellence in practice.

This year’s recipient, Dr. Felicity Cruz Grandjean, Associate Dean of E-learning Quality, Office of E-learning, Dallas College, more than fulfilled the award criteria. Nominated by Shani Suber, also from Dallas College, Felicity has shown dedication to inclusiveness, accessibility, quality standards, and more, and has brought that dedication to many programs and initiatives such as accessibility and quality checklists and frameworks for staff and instructors and participation and leadership campus wide online learning user groups. Shani mentioned that her leadership in the online teaching and learning industry has been inspirational. Congratulations Dr. Grandjean, we look forward to supporting you as you continue to lead the way.

2023 WCET Outstanding Work (WOW) Award

The WCET Outstanding Work (WOW) Awards recognize outstanding efforts by member organizations and individuals in applying innovative solutions to a challenging educational need.

First of all, thank you to everyone who submitted a nomination for a WOW award this year. Our awards committee spent a lot of time reviewing your submissions and discussing the impactful and wonderful projects, programs, and initiatives we learned about. The work that is happening in our community is truly remarkable.

We were able to narrow down to this year’s WOW Awardees:

  • Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education – Online Consortium of Oklahoma,
  • Rio Salado College – RioPACT,
  • Sinclair Community College – Course Equity Rubric.

Thank you to each of these individuals and institutions for their amazing work making higher education digital learning more successful. Congratulations! Check out the blog posts from our WOW winners and stay tuned for Frontiers podcast episodes featuring this year’s recipients. Read more about the 2023 WOW Award winners.

SAN – SANsational Awards

The SANsational Awards recognize outstanding efforts by SAN member institutions and organizations in developing a high-quality, comprehensive solution to a challenging state authorization issue.

Congratulations to the 2023 SANsational Award Winners:

Awarded: Licensure Programs – Notifications and disclosures for professional licensure program status in each state.

  • Post University (CT)
    • Personalized Licensure Advising and Disclosure
  • The Chicago School (CA)
    • The Licensure Story; When Obstacles & Challenges Lead to Wins

Awarded: Location – Identifying student location for regulatory compliance and reporting requirements.

  • Sinclair Community College (OH)
    • Professional Licensure Disclosures (location of students)
  • The Chicago School (CA)
    • Embracing Purposeful Engagement for a California Institution

Awarded: Compliance Innovations – Institution policy, tools, compliance teams or other inventive or novel compliance management process.

  • University of Louisville (KY)
    • Elevating the Importance of Academic Compliance: A Paired Approach to Change

While we didn’t specifically honor the SANsational winners during the awards program, we did highlight those institutions. SAN team members went on tour to present the SANsational awards to the recipients in-person, on their campus! Read more about each of this year’s SANsational award winners.

Empowering Insights

The WCET Closing Keynote also served as the Opening Keynote for the ASWE Summit! ASWE became part of WCET last year, and this year the Summit event was held in tandem with the Annual Meeting. During this session, Nia Haydel, Vice President for Alliance Engagement & Institutional Transformation with Complete College America, provided us with a powerful discussion of keeping our purpose at the forefront of our work. Nia invited us to consider how we can truly support students in meaningful ways in digital learning environments. We need to ask about the policy barriers, attitudes, and practices that maintain inequitable experiences and outcomes. What a great way to conclude WCET and to kick-off ASWE!

Title of the AM and ASWE keynote session: keeping purpose first as we lead, learn, and live in the digital ecosystem

_______

Thank you to all of you who attended WCET 2023! Our entire team enjoyed seeing everyone and learning with you.

2024 – WCET Annual Meeting Heads to California 

Save the date for the 2024 WCET Annual Meeting! We’ll be in Long Beach, CA October 8 – 10, 2024! The Call for Proposals will open in March 2024.

Save the date postcard with details on the 2024 annual meeting Save the date for the 2024 WCET Annual Meeting! We’ll be in Long Beach, CA October 8 – 10, 2024!

___

I hope you enjoyed this virtual walk down memory lane as much as I have. Did you learn something new that surprised or inspired you? Do you have feedback on our custom cocktail name that came from ChatGPT (“the MIXed Bliss”)? Share your favorite moments and takeaways with us on X @wcet_info with #WCET2023!

_

But wait, there’s more!
I love reminiscing about great travel and learning experiences, and that’s why we’ll be back with part two of this post with some final thoughts from WCET staff and leadership on the Annual Meeting and the ASWE Summit, topics that reigned supreme in our discussions and questions, and what they took back to their institution or organization.

Tags , ,
Categories
Policy

Veterans Day History and Policy Issues to Watch When Serving Veterans

Post author By Lindsey Downs
Post date November 10, 2023
field of poppy flowers

WCET would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge and show appreciation for our veterans and military affiliated families. Thank you to those who currently serve and have served in the U.S. Armed Services. WCET Frontiers would like to honor our veterans by sharing about the history of Veterans Day and also share some updates on federal policy issues for institutions to watch that affect the process and delivery of Veterans benefits.

Historical View of Veterans Day

The traditions of Veterans Day in the United States originated with Armistice Day marking the end of World War I hostilities with Germany and their allies on the 11th day of the 11th month, November 11, 1918. Events in the United States, England, and France were held for the initial observance of Armistice Day. “Armistice” is generally defined as an agreement to maintain a truce. It was hoped that World War I was “the war to end all wars.” However, after the onset of World War II, England and other Commonwealth nations adopted Remembrance Day and the United States adopted Veterans Day.

In the United States, the first celebration of Veterans Day occurred in 1947 in Birmingham, Alabama. An event was organized by a World War II veteran, Raymond Weeks. A bill was proposed in Congress in 1953, signed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower proclaiming November 11 as Veterans Day. In November 1982, Raymond Weeks was honored by President Ronald Reagan with the Presidential Citizens Medal.

Among the traditions of Veterans Day and Remembrance Day are parades, moments of silence, laying of wreaths, and wearing a remembrance poppy, often sold by Veterans groups. The tradition of the poppy comes from the red flower that grew over the graves of fallen soldiers in Belgium during World War I. A Canadian soldier, Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae, was inspired to write a poem in 1915 after presiding over the funeral of a friend and fellow soldier. The poem, “In Flanders Fields,” refers to a location called Flanders Fields which is a common English reference to battlefields in Belgium and France. The poem gained popularity after World War I in the United States, Canada, and England. The poem was even set to music by several composers including an American, John Philip Sousa. A traditional reading of “In Flanders Fields” occurs at many Veterans Day and Remembrance Day ceremonies including at assemblies and observances for school children.

Poem with poppy flowers hand drawn around words. In Flanders Fields In Flanders Fields, the poppies blow Between the crosses, row on row, That mark our place; and in the sky The larks, still bravely singing, fly Scarce heard amid the guns below. We are the dead. Short days ago We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow, Loved and were loved, and now we lie, In Flanders fields. Take up our quarrel with the foe: To you from failing hands we throw The torch; be yours to hold it high. If ye break faith with us who die We shall not sleep, though poppies grow In Flanders fields.

Veterans, we are grateful for your service and sacrifice!

Federal Policy Issues to Watch Affecting the Process and Delivery of Veterans Benefits

Seeking Parity for Monthly Housing Allowance for Students Participating in Programs Fully Online

Since 2017, WCET has sought to bring attention to the need to revise federal law for the monthly housing allowance for students eligible for Veterans Benefits who participate in programs fully online. Veterans using their G.I Bill education benefits receive a Monthly Housing Allowance (MHA) for the terms that they are enrolled. Veterans who take all of their courses online receive a reduced MHA that might be as low as 50% of what they would receive if they attended any or all classes on-campus.

In December 2010, Congress passed The Post-9/11 Veterans Education Assistance Improvements Act of 2010.  The Federal law addressed MHA by allowing a new but reduced MHA for online learners. Chapter 33 of the new Post 9/11 GI Bill indicates that if a student is enrolled full-time for the full length of the semester, and at least one on campus course (any course that does not have the Online section identifier) is to receive the full monthly housing allowance. A student who is full time, but taking classes fully online, is entitled to only half the national average MHA payment.

Congress responded quickly in Spring of 2020 to address emergency legislation when students were shifted to remote education due to the pandemic. This allowed students to receive full housing benefits despite participating in courses solely through distance education. This emergency flexibility was extended in via federal legislation to continue the benefit through June 1, 2022.

Today, MHA has returned to the previous structure – which means if the student is taking courses fully online then they are only entitled to half the national average MHA payment. The GI Bill Comparison Tool guides the veteran as to how much they are eligible for their location.

While we had hoped that Congress would take up this issue after the emergency flexibilities expired, that has not occurred. We have learned there are several barriers that must be addressed, including:

  • budget concerns,
  • quality of distance education, and,
  • determination of the appropriate address for the student for purposes of MHA calculation.

We are pleased to learn that this fall U.S. Representative Juan Ciscomani (AZ) introduced a bipartisan bill in the House: Expanded Access for Online Veteran Students Act. This bill would increase MHA for veterans taking online courses during the summer term to receive full MHA. Ciscomani Leads Bipartisan Push to Increase Benefits for Online Student Veterans. Representatives from the Student Veterans of America recently testified in support of this bill at the House Committee on Veterans Affairs. While this bill does not provide full parity for MHA regardless of the modality of instruction for all terms in an academic year, it does start the discussion and is an encouraging development.

Determining Similarities and Contrasting Requirements Between VA Regulations and New ED Regulations When Serving Students in Programs Leading to License or Certification.

The U.S. Department of Education (ED) recently released new and amended federal regulations that will be effective July 1, 2024 and that address institution responsibilities when serving students in programs leading to a license, tied to Title IV eligibility. Similarly, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) released new federal regulations in January 2023 that became effective just one month later in February 2023. The VA regulations address institution responsibilities when serving students in programs leading to a license but the responsibilities are tied to eligibility for Veterans Benefits.

New ED regulations require that the institution satisfy educational requirements where the institution is located and where the students enrolled by the institution in distance education or correspondence courses are located as determined at the initial time of enrollment. (34 CFR 668.14(b)(32)(ii)). Additionally, institutions must provide public and direct notifications regarding the curriculum meeting state educational requirements including where the student is located. (34 CFR 668.43(a)(5)(v) and (c)) More information on the new ED rules is available here: New Federal Regulations, Part 1: Addressing Programs Leading to a License or Certification.

Relatively new VA regulations that became effective in February 2023, require that state approving agencies (SAA) may approve a course designed to prepare an individual for licensure or certification in a state, if the course meets all instructional curriculum license or certification requirements of such state (38 CFR 21.4253(d)(9)(i)). Additionally, the VA regulations require public disclosures in a prominent manner of any conditions or additional requirements to obtain the license (38 CFR 21.4259(e)).

Photo by Liza Summer

The VA and ED regulations appear to have the same goals of student consumer protection. However, the language used by the VA and ED is slightly different. Additionally, we are aware that the SAA has the authority to approve the programs in the state where the institution is domiciled. Therefore, we have asked questions about the VA regulations as to whether the VA regulations address institutions that serve students located in a different state than where the institution is domiciled. It would seem that for purposes of student consumer protection, there should be a process that an SAA would need to review the institution’s ability to meet all instructional curriculum requirements and provide public disclosures regarding the state where the student is located. The out-of-state student may be confused by the institutions only addressing the state where the institution is domiciled, and the public disclosures of additional conditions and requirements may not be applicable to that out-of-state student. The state in question is not clear if the student is located in a different state than the institution.

Upon release of the regulations in January 2023, the State Authorization Network (SAN) raised the question to Joeseph Garcia, Executive Director, Education Service, for the Veteran Benefits Administration, and to Dr. Joseph Wescott, National Legislative Liaison, National Association State Approving Agency (NASAA). SAN has recently sought guidance from NASAA President, Frank Myers. We understand from these communications that guidance is under consideration.

If you are tasked at your institution with managing compliance for programs leading to a license or certification, we urge you to communicate with your state’s SAA (NASAA State Contacts). You may wish to seek direction to implement the VA regulations to develop an efficient route to address both VA and ED regulations to serve students in programs leading to a license to receive Federal aid through Title IV programs and Veterans Benefits.


In Conclusion….

Again, a sincere thank you to our Veterans and their families. Additionally, please look for WCET and the State Authorization Network to continue following these issues and share information as it becomes available.

Tags , , , , , , , ,
Categories
Practice

California Initiative to Drive FAFSA and CA Dream Act Application Completion

Post author By Lindsey Downs
Post date November 9, 2023

Today, WCET’s parent company, WICHE – the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, is holding its Commission Meeting in California. During this meeting, Commission members, higher education leaders from each of the WICHE states, and WICHE staff will meet to orient new Commissioners, discuss the work of WICHE and WICHE member states, hold committee meetings and roundtables regarding critical higher education topics.

California is a member state of WICHE and in connection with the meeting there, we wanted to help highlight an outstanding new campaign launching by the California Student Aid Commission to increase completion rates of FAFSA or CA Dream Act Applications. Thank you to our colleagues with WICHE, the state of California, and their partners at Mainstay for sharing the details of this launch with us!

Enjoy the read,

Lindsey Downs, WCET

All-In! Campaign Launch

Photo of a young woman using a laptop

Completion of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) is one of the best predictors of whether a high school senior will enroll in college.

Students who complete a FAFSA or a CA Dream Act Application are 84% more likely to enroll in the immediate next college term and 127% more likely to enroll if they come from the lowest socio-economic quintile (National College Attainment Network). Students completing the California Dream Act Application behave similarly. 

Yet, many students lack all the information they need regarding financial aid and do not have the assistance needed to complete these forms. Students can often feel overwhelmed by the complicated process or get bogged down by unfamiliar jargon and administrative hurdles. This confusion may cause students to avoid completing the application process and adds strain to counselors already struggling with staff shortages and packed caseloads.

That’s why the California Student Aid Commission (the Commission) has launched the All-In! Campaign to increase the number of high school seniors who complete their FAFSA or the CA Dream Act Application.

Technology Platform

To advance this work, the Commission has partnered with Mainstay, a company that has built a two-way student success platform geared toward improving financial aid application completions. The California platform, which we have named “Cali,” is a new, innovative AI text-messaging chatbot. The Commission is working with Mainstay to pilot the use of this AI chatbot to increase FAFSA/CA Dream Act Application completions among high school students, with the long-term goal of increasing access to college education. Cali will provide personalized guidance over text messages to students, especially those in underserved communities, across numerous school districts in the state. Cali is trained to respond to student questions about FAFSA and CADAA.

By sending coordinated messages proven to motivate action, the goal is to ensure more students — especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds — gain access to financial aid and higher education. This is a major new step taken by the Commission to help more students secure financial aid resources and improve equitable access to postsecondary education statewide.

Leveraging Proven Messaging Strategies

Icon of a chat box
Image by Memed_Nurrohmad from Pixabay

Funded by a philanthropic investment through the Capital One Foundation, the three-year initiative will provide Mainstay’s personalized messaging free of charge to participating high schools. Schools will instruct parents on how to opt-in their students to receive relevant financial aid reminders, and provide support for applying other grants and scholarships, all money that does not have to be repaid.

Mainstay’s technology is built with a focus on supporting historically resilient populations. Through partnerships with leading researchers at the Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence, Partnership for Ed Advancement, Irrational Labs, and the National Institute for Student Success, we hope to help students take the next step at every stage of their college journey. In one study with Irrational Labs, they found that when messages about FAFSA are framed as part of the next step after graduation, students were three-times more likely to apply for aid than those who received texts without this specific messaging content.

This research-backed approach informs Mainstay’s AI chatbots, (like Cali!) and shows how the chatbots can provide personalized guidance and encouragement through each step of the financial aid process. The platform will use real-time data to offer personalized interventions to keep students on track. For example, seniors may receive reminders to apply for scholarships or timely nudges about approaching FAFSA deadlines.

Using the AI chatbot in California, the Commission will establish an important use case to showcase how other states can use such technology to improve access to financial aid and impact college success on a large scale. With many students nationwide failing to complete the FAFSA each year, targeted outreach represents a promising way to ensure more students make it to college.

The Model: Learning from Washington State

The California initiative takes inspiration from Mainstay’s collaboration with the Washington Student Achievement Council (WSAC) on a similar outreach program that helped students complete their financial aid forms. The results in Washington demonstrate the positive impact the use of this technology can have when working with key populations.

WSAC saw impressive outcomes: students enrolled in the state’s College Bound Scholarship program in 2022-23 who received Mainstay’s messages showed FAFSA completion rates of 59%, compared to only 46% for College Bound students who did not opt-in to the chatbot. Combined with WSAC’s ongoing efforts, in 2022, these messages helped Washington State to achieve the third-highest increase in rate of FAFSA completion among 51 US states and territories.

WSAC’s strategic messaging campaign reached students at each touchpoint of the process with helpful nudges. Mainstay’s conversational AI chatbot provided an easy way for students to get personalized answers to questions. The promising results in Washington State point to what’s possible in California. As the Commission launches its pilot messaging program, it aims to build off that success.

An Investment in Student Success — Today, Tomorrow, and Beyond

Photo by JodyHongFilms on Unsplash

A recent census report estimates over 2 million jobs will go unfilled by 2030 due to a lack of skilled labor. Guiding students through the financial aid process can help bridge that gap by expanding access to the education and training beyond high school needed for today’s in-demand skills.

Yet, in 2021 alone, over 500 million dollars in federal financial aid that could have been used to help California residents pay for college was never claimed. The Commission’s goal is to change that by making it easier for more California students to successfully access financial aid to pursue four- and two-year degrees, trade and career technical education, and industry certifications that support a strong workforce and thriving economy.

Together with Mainstay, we can provide the outreach and support students need to complete this important first step. The Commission is proud to team up and invest in the future of California’s success.

Written in collaboration with Mainstay and the California Student Aid Commission

Tags , , , , ,
Categories
Policy

New Federal Regulations, Part 2: Addressing Compliance with State Closure Laws and the Impact on Interstate Reciprocity Agreements

Post author By Lindsey Downs
Post date October 31, 2023

This is the second of our two-part blog post series on the recently released U.S. Department of Education regulations. The first covered new rules regarding programs leading to professional licensure. This one is about institutions complying with closure requirements in each state in which it serves students. We, especially, analyze the impact on the more than 2,000 institutions that serve students through the State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement (SARA).

The U.S. Department of Education (the Department) formally announced the new federal regulations that impact institutions serving students in programs leading to a license or certification and created new institutional closure requirements, which may have an impact on state authorization reciprocity. The Federal Register October 31, 2023 announcement of Financial Responsibility, Administrative Capability, Certification Procedures, Ability to Benefit (ATB) includes the release of the remaining four issues related to the Winter 2022 rulemaking, Institutional and Programmatic Eligibility Committee.

It is the Certification Procedures issue that we followed closely and reported on often during the three months of rulemaking committee meetings and summarized the outcome of the committee soon thereafter. Of utmost concern was that sub-issues of Professional Licensure and Closure/State Authorization that were not announced, but were inserted by negotiators within the Certification Procedures issue without the opportunity to nominate knowledgeable committee members to share invaluable and pertinent information for the committee’s discussions.

This entire package of regulations was released as final on October 31, as well as the Final Regulations for Financial Value Transparency & Gainful Employment released on October 10, 2023. These regulations become effective July 1, 2024.

Introduction

Note to the reader: This introduction is mostly repeated from the first post.

The Certification Procedures issue focuses on the agreement between postsecondary institutions and the Department that each institution certifies compliance with specific obligations in order to participate in Title IV HEA Programs. The agreement is called a Program Participation Agreement (PPA). The Department’s goal was to strengthen student protections within the PPA. The sub-issues for which we followed were among the new requirements being added to the PPA even though there are Federal regulations that direct institution requirements in these two areas.

You may recall that, when the proposed regulations were released in May 2023, we provided two separate WCET Frontiers posts to share our analysis. Our first post addressed the regulation subsection that appears to require that institutions comply with state consumer protection laws for closure, recruitment, and misrepresentation where the institution is located and where the student is located at time of initial enrollment. The second post addressed the institution’s responsibility to satisfy applicable educational prerequisites where the institution is located and where the student is located at the time of initial enrollment as well as an edit to the currently effective public notification requirements.

The Department of Education issued a new rule requiring institutions to comply “with all State laws related to closure, including record retention, teach-out plans or agreements, and tuition recovery funds or surety bonds.” The rule goes into effect July 1, 2024. We believe it has little impact on SARA institutions, but would like clearer guidance from the Department.

The final regulations released have been modified to some degree from the proposed regulations. We believe that the public comments that we all shared with the Department were heard and persuaded the Department to make some changes to the final language. However, we believe there appears to still be some misunderstanding by the Department about the variation of oversight for licensed professions by state and by the specific profession. Additionally, there are lingering questions about the applicability of state consumer protection laws upon institutions that participate in reciprocity.

Please consider sharing your questions with the Department on these areas, especially regarding the challenges of coordination of processes and information with state licensing boards. The Federal Register announcement includes the contact information for the Department staff member addressing this issue. For certification procedures: Vanessa Gomez. Telephone: (202) 987-0378. Email: Vanessa.Gomez@ed.gov.

This is the second of our two posts reviewing the new requirements around state closure laws and the impact and interstate reciprocity agreements, such as SARA. Look for our first post New Federal Regulations, Part 1: Addressing Programs Leading to a Licensure or Certification.

In both posts we will ask the following questions:

  • What does the final regulation say?
  • What questions and comments did WCET and SAN share with the Department during rulemaking, public comment period, and the Office of Management & Budget final review (EO 12866 Meeting)?
  • How did the Department respond to WCET and SAN’s questions in the preamble of the final regulations?
  • What are the implications to the institution for implementation of the regulations?

*Please note that page numbers in the analysis will refer to the unofficial version of the rules released on October 24 as that document is larger print and easier to direct you to the language of the preamble and regulations.

Final Regulations Addressing State Consumer Protection Laws (Affects State Authorization and Reciprocity)

Certification Procedures — 34 CFR 668.14(b)(32)(iii)

What does the final regulation say?

(32) In each State in which: the institution is located; students enrolled by the institution in distance education or correspondence courses are located, as determined at the time of initial enrollment in accordance with 34 CFR 600.9(c)(2); or for the purposes of paragraphs (b)(32)(i) and (ii) of this section, each student who enrolls in a program on or after July 1, 2024, and attests that they intend to seek employment, the institution must determine that each program eligible for title IV, HEA program funds…

(iii) Complies with all State laws related to closure, including record retention, teach-out plans or agreements, and tuition recovery funds or surety bonds…

What questions and comments did WCET and SAN share with the Department during rulemaking and the public comment period?

During rulemaking.

In the announcement for this rulemaking and the call for negotiators, there was no mention of consideration of rules related to state authorization. Just prior to the second session, we were surprised that a few negotiators proposed requirements for institutions regarding the assurance that they abide by all state “consumer protection” laws. While these proposed rules were not explicitly aimed at the State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement (SARA), it was clear by the proposers, the context, and the brief discussion that the intent was to implement regulations that would have a dramatic effect on SARA. During the second of three sessions in February 2022, the negotiator for the Department pushed back on the introduction of new issues to be considered. Typically, it is against rulemaking protocol to introduce new issues after the agenda is set in the first session. Although it was unclear if it would go forward, we wrote the blog post linked above and reached out to negotiators (including holding calls with some of them) about the possible impact of the proposed language. For the third session, the Department provided its own version of the proposed rule. Nobody liked it and it failed to reach consensus. After the meeting, we wrote about our reactions to the proposal.

Public Comment.

When it released its proposed rules for comment in May 2023, the Department tried to limit the impact of the “state consumer protection laws” to only those laws related to closure, recruitment, and misrepresentations. As a result, institutions participating in reciprocity would also need to comply with those rules in each state. Unfortunately, those terms were not defined.

WCET and SAN submitted a public comment focused specifically on the impact on reciprocity for proposed “state consumer protection laws related to closure, recruitment, and misrepresentations. Our main recommendations to the Department were:

  1. Withdraw the Proposal and Rely on the Department’s Upcoming Negotiated Rulemaking. Since the issue was discussed only briefly, we believe that this “complex topic “deserves full consideration with a more complete slate of negotiators knowledgeable of the issues and impact of proposed actions.
  2. Support a Process to Protect ALL Students. The proposal would result in changes in only a few states. Why not work with SARA to protect all students?
  3. As a Last Resort: Narrow and Sharply Define the Language. “If the Department moves forward, we recommend changing the wording to focus on a limited set of narrowly targeted and well-defined consumer protections.”

We provide a detailed review of the Department’s analysis in our public comment, and included a major concern that the Department was usurping the will of 49 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands in joining the State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement (SARA). Additionally, we were quite concerned at the late introduction of the topic, the lack of experienced negotiators, and the lack of analysis on the problem to be solved and the impact of the proposed regulations.

Four clarifying questions were posed to the Department related to the proposed language of 34 CFR 668.14(b)(32)(iii):

  • If the PPA indicates that for purposes of program eligibility the institution’s responsibility is specified “at the time of initial enrollment,” what are the responsibilities if the student changes location?
  • How does the Department intend to reconcile the inconsistencies in proposed language with the current regulations defining a state authorization reciprocity agreement?
  • How does the Department intend to be aware of, train, and enforce compliance with meeting varied state consumer protection laws related to closure, recruitment, and misrepresentation?
  • What is considered evidence of compliance that the institution has Determined that it Complies with these state consumer protection laws?

Office of Management & Budget (OMB) final review (EO 12866 Meeting).

WCET & SAN provided testimony to the OMB/OIRA meeting, which is the final review prior to the Department’s release of final regulations. We shared our concerns related to federalism as we believe that the Department is creating barriers that overstep the state’s rights to create regulations and decisions to how students are served in their states.

Although we had heard that the review panel rarely asks questions, we were pleasantly surprised that the panel asked many questions and remarked upon the specificity of the issues of concern that we raised.

How did the Department respond to WCET and SAN’s questions in the preamble of the final regulations?

First, a general comment: In its overall response, the Department consistently confused SARA (the State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement) with NC-SARA (the National Council that runs SARA in partnership with the four regional higher education compacts). This is a very important distinction and goes well beyond a nuance. SARA is an interstate agreement with policies regarding how states and institutions will act within that agreement. NC-SARA is an office with great people facilitating collaboration among the compacts to implement reciprocity among member states. SARA critics will often cite NC-SARA as a method to discredit reciprocity as an entity imposing oversight as an effort done “to” states and not an effort conducted “by” states.

  1. Regarding the lack of state authorization expertise on the panel and that this issue should have been postponed to the announced future rulemaking (pages 26-27). The Department made this important statement (underlining added):

    “The provisions in question are not a negotiation around the regulatory sections that include State authorization or distance education. We did not regulate the conditions, structure, or other elements of State reciprocity agreements or the organizations that operate them, nor did we set requirements that States must follow to oversee institutions enrolling students in a State where they have no physical presence.”

    Regarding their new closure requirements, they made this important statement:
    “    The extent to which States have these laws, what they require, and to whom they apply them to is up to the States.”

    On future rulemaking, they promised:

    “The Department will consider broader issues related to distance education and State authorization in future rulemaking efforts, during which we will consider the need for representation such as what the commenters requested.”

    Relatedly, to a response from another commenter who sought to put more requirements on reciprocity agreements (p. 403): “Many of the issues raised by the commenter get at broader questions of State authorization and reciprocity, which we think are better addressed in a future regulatory package.”
  2. Regarding the lack of authorization experience of negotiators, the flawed process of introducing the proposal during rulemaking, and the extremely limited time set aside for discussing it (pages 371-374). The Department disagreed, saying that the negotiators had the proper qualifications and disagreed that the issue was not discussed.
  3. Regarding the previously proposed language to require institutions to comply with all state misrepresentation laws (pages 403-404). We were among the commenters who said that “State attorneys general are already authorized to act upon misrepresentation claims that institutions have against them.” The Department was persuaded and removed misrepresentation from the final language.
  4. Regarding the ambiguity of the previously proposed language regarding “closure, recruitment, and misrepresentation (pages 404-406). In our comment, we asked who would define these terms (the Department, states, other?) and that there will be different interpretations. We suggested that the “requirements should be as common as possible across all states to assure consistent protections regardless of the location of the student. For example, “state consumer protection” laws for “closure” could include tuition recovery funds, surety bonds, catastrophic event plans, teach-out processes, records retention, and more.”

    The Department agreed, saying: “We have revised § 668.14(b)(32)(iii) to read “Complies with all State laws related to closure, including record retention, teach-out plans or agreements, and tuition recovery funds or surety bonds.” While others had similar comments, we noted the final product closely tracked with our proposal.
  5. Regarding whether institutions participating in reciprocity have to follow the closure requirements of each state. From another commenter, they recommended that the Department “clarify that institutions that are authorized to operate in multiple States pursuant to a reciprocity agreement must follow all generally applicable State laws and those education-specific State laws that relate to closure, recruitment, and misrepresentations.” Remember they were commenting when the Department had all three of those provisions and had not, yet, limited it to just closure.
    The Department responded (underlining added): “Institutions can and should be subject to laws beyond the specific types that institutions are certifying to us. That includes generally applicable State laws and what other laws specific to postsecondary education that apply for institutions that do or do not participate in a reciprocity agreement.” We are not sure that clarified the issue.
  6. Regarding the rules negating the benefits of interstate reciprocity (pages 409-412). “Many commenters asserted that the requirement to observe individual States’ consumer protection laws pertaining to closure, recruitment, and misrepresentations, including both generally applicable State laws and those specific to educational institutions, will eliminate most or all of the advantage that derives from subscribing to NC-SARA (sic).”

    In response, the Department disagreed (underlining added): “Institutions will still have the many benefits that such agreements offer, including reduced burden and fees. States are a key part of the regulatory triad of postsecondary education. We believe that if States wish to create laws to protect their students from closure, they should be able to do so. This language preserves State flexibility on how they wish to write their laws.”
  7. Regarding the increased burden on state regulatory agencies (412-413). In reply, the Department said: “The Department believes limiting this provision to only closure and spelling out specific areas underneath it addresses the concerns of commenters. Moreover, the extent to which these closure provisions apply to out-of-State schools will depend on underlying State law.”
  8. Regarding the fact that states joined SARA voluntarily and that SARA’s policies were not “imposed” on them as asserted in a letter from Attorneys General and comments from other critics of reciprocity (pages 416-417). Our comment was cited as saying “that State attorneys general are only one entity” within state government. The commenter further noted that “all States except California have chosen to enter NC-SARA, which in most cases involved a bill passed by State legislature and signed by the governor voluntarily.” The Department gave this somewhat off-the-mark response, that it “is not telling States how to structure their laws related to closure. We are requiring institutions to certify to us that they are complying with all laws related to closure in the States where they operate. This is critical because we are concerned about the disruptions and costs associated with closure.”
  9. Regarding our suggestion that the Department work more closely with states, regional compacts, and consumer groups on reciprocity (pages 418-419). The Department says: “We will continue to identify opportunities to improve joint oversight of institutions of higher education.”
  10. Regarding our request that the Department harmonize their proposed language with the definition of a “state authorization reciprocity agreement (page 419). The Department disagreed saying: “This regulation concerns what institutions will certify to the Department.”
  11. Regarding if this regulation applies to institutions participating in reciprocity (page 420). One commenter wanted “to know if the Department means to say that if a State’s consumer protection laws explicitly state that they apply only to institutions operating with a physical presence in the State, an institution operating under a reciprocity agreement without a physical presence should not be required to comply with a law from which it is exempt.”

    The Department’s response (underlining added): “Institutions would have to affirm they are complying with those applicable and relevant State laws. For instance, if a State’s tuition recovery fund law exempts out-of-State institutions, those institution (sic) would not have to abide by it.”
  12. Regarding another question about whether this applies to institutions participating in reciprocity (pages 422-424). The Department’s response (underlining added): “…this language specifically requires that institutions certify that they comply with relevant State laws related to the closure of institutions of higher education…Institutions would have to provide this certification regardless of whether they participate in a reciprocity agreement.”

What are the implications to the institution for implementation of the regulations?

In short, this is unclear.

That is even after the Department tried to answer the question multiple times in their response. See items 5, 11, and 12 above.

college campus photo
Photo by Wonderlane on Unsplash

Before getting to the details, we thank the Department for the important instances when they considered our recommendations and commented on them. Limiting their new regulation only to the four sets of state laws related to institutional closure (record retention, teach-out plans or agreements, tuition recovery funds, and surety bonds) makes sense. SARA leadership should consider adding these elements into their student protections.

On the other hand, the Department sometimes dismissed real concerns out-of-hand. Their unwillingness to learn about the operations of state regulatory agencies is a bit worrisome.

The big question remains, will institutions need to meet each state’s closure requirements even if they participate in reciprocity? To be clear, ALL institutions are subject to this new rule whether they participate in reciprocity or not. This all hinges on whether the Department finds that the reciprocity agreement’s provisions, as agreed to by each member state, meet the new requirement.

  • On the “Yes, institutions WILL need to meet each state’s closure requirements separately even if they participate in reciprocity” side…
    • The original proposed language submitted prior to rulemaking session #2 in 2022 was much broader and specifically targeted reciprocity agreements. As proposed, the only remaining benefits for reciprocity would be “to submit an application to state authorizing agencies or pay a fee to a state authorizing agency.”
    • In items 12 in the previous section, note that the Department said (underlining added): “Institutions would have to provide this certification regardless of whether they participate in a reciprocity agreement.”
  • On the “No, institutions WILL NOT need to meet each state’s closure requirements if they participate in reciprocity, as participating in reciprocity includes an explicit list of requirements used by that state on out-of-state institutions” side…
    • In item #1 above, the Department said: “We did not regulate the conditions, structure, or other elements of State reciprocity agreements or the organizations that operate them, nor did we set requirements that States must follow to oversee institutions enrolling students in a State where they have no physical presence.”In fact, all mention of reciprocity is removed from the final language.In responding to a query about whether this requirement applies to institutions participating in reciprocity, the Department said (underlining added): “…if a State’s tuition recovery fund law exempts out-of-State institutions, those institution (sic) would not have to abide by it.” Most states participating in SARA have specific carve-outs in their legislation or enabling language that provides this exemption for out-of-state institutions authorized by a member SARA state.
    • In addition to limited authority over SARA participating institutions, many states limit their authority over out-of-state institutions without physical presence, noting that in some states authority is sector specific.

Ok. So that’s confusing.

The bottom line is that, among the two camps, we lean toward the “No” argument. The Department tripped over itself in being clear that it was not regulating reciprocity, it was relying on state laws, and that the terms of reciprocity are to be negotiated in the rulemaking that is tentatively planned for early next year.

Do we agree with the SARA critics that improvements are needed in protections for interstate distance education students? We do, but we think it can be best accomplished through SARA to improve protections nationally in the 52 states and territories not just in states that have applicable rules. Additionally, we do not agree with all the suggestions of SARA critics. The SARA community needs to do more in the coming year and addressing closure requirements is a good start.

We have run into other situations in the past where the Department’s wording did not match its intent. We will ask the Department for clarification, and you should too. See “Next Steps” below on how to request that clarification from them.

Conclusion and What Institutions Should Do

Please remember that this is our early analysis of the new final regulations addressing the new closure requirements and the impact on state reciprocity agreements. For institutions, addressing closure requirements appears to have a lesser impact on their additional work than was found for the professional licensure requirements.

All institutions will be subject to this new requirement, regardless of if they participate in reciprocity or not. As previously suggested in the post for programs leading professional licensure, institutions should review and revise their institution process to determine the location of the student at the time of initial enrollment as has been required since July 1, 2020.

The question remains as to “will institutions need to meet each state’s closure requirements even if they participate in reciprocity?” Either way, we expect pushback:

  • If the answer is “Yes” – there are likely to be lawsuits and pushback from states. The National Council of State Legislatures opines on issues only if three-quarters of the states agree. They opposed this regulation, which means both red and blue states agreed.
  • If the answer is “No” – the SARA critics and supporters of the Department of Education will be upset. They will push for much stricter regulation of reciprocity in upcoming rulemaking. There may be individual states that might try to take their own actions. We will be watching and sharing on the SAN website when/if individual states determine their authority to impose specific state closure laws on institutions participating in reciprocity through SARA.

In any case, there are only a few states that have closure requirements for out-of-state institutions. Watch for more updates from us on this issue. Meanwhile, a “quick chart” on state-by-state rules can be found on the State Authorization Network (SAN) website. Watch for applicable closure laws to be added to the chart soon.

Remember that ALL institutions are subject to this new rule. For institutions:

  • If your institution is not participating in reciprocity, you should make sure that you are meeting the closure requirements in each state in which you are enrolling students who will obtain Title IV financial aid.
  • If your institution is participating in reciprocity, you should:
    • Until we receive clarification from the Department, judge your sense of the answer to the question regarding if reciprocity meets the requirement and the risk you wish to take. We believe SARA’s provisions meet the Department’s intent, but we are not the official word. We cannot give you legal advice.

Next Steps

These conclusions come from our early analysis. We still have questions and we’re sure you do too. SAN and WCET will be seeking your input to learn your lingering questions. We maintain that by working together we will develop implementation strategies. SAN is already in process the of reaching out to national associations for licensing boards to inform them of the final regulations. We will also collaborate with NASASPS and the SARA Community to ensure that applicable information is shared. Additionally, we urge you to follow the Federal Register announcement direction to seek more information from the Department staff member addressing this issue. For certification procedures: Vanessa Gomez. Telephone: (202) 987-0378. Email: Vanessa.Gomez@ed.gov .

Look to SAN and WCET for more on these issues in the coming weeks!

Get additional updates, summaries, and analysis of these issues and many more in our upcoming SAN and WCET member-only webcast: “Waze” to Find the Detours and Fast Lanes to Understand New U.S. Department of Education Guidance and Regulations.

WCET and SAN webcast: “Waze” to Find the Detours and Fast Lanes to Understand New U.S. Department of Education Guidance and Regulations​. NOVEMBER 15, 2023 | 12:00-1:00 PM MT​. Exclusively for WCET and SAN members.
Tags , , , ,
Categories
Policy

New Federal Regulations, Part 1: Addressing Programs Leading to a License or Certification

Post author By Lindsey Downs
Post date October 31, 2023

This is the first of our two-part blog post series on the recently released U.S. Department of Education (the Department) regulations.

This post covers new regulations regarding programs leading to professional licensure. The second post is about institutions complying with closure requirements in each state in which it serves students.

We have made the Federal Regulations Groundhog Day joke before, but here we go again!  The U.S. Department of Education formally announced the new federal regulations that impact institutions serving students in programs leading to a license or certification and state authorization.

The Department of Education issued a new rule requiring institutions to satisfy “the applicable educational requirements for professional licensure... or certification requirements” in each state in which it enrolls students receiving federal aid. The rule goes into effect July 1, 2024. We believe it will have a great impact on institutions offering licensure programs via distance education or in other states. And will affect state licensing agencies.

The Federal Register October 31, 2023 announcement of Financial Responsibility, Administrative Capability, Certification Procedures, Ability to Benefit (ATB) includes the release of the remaining four issues related to the Winter 2022 rulemaking, Institutional and Programmatic Eligibility Committee.

It is the Certification Procedures issue that we followed closely, reported on often during the three months of rulemaking committee meetings, and summarized the outcome of the committee soon thereafter. Of utmost concern was the sub-issues of Professional Licensure and Closure/State Authorization that were not announced, but were inserted by the Department and negotiators within the Certification Procedures issue without the opportunity to nominate knowledgeable committee members to share invaluable and pertinent information for the committee’s discussions.

This entire package of regulations was released as final on October 31, as well as the Final Regulations for Financial Value Transparency & Gainful Employment released on October 10, 2023. These regulations become effective July 1, 2024.

Introduction

The Certification Procedures issue focuses on the agreement between postsecondary institutions and the Department that each institution certifies compliance with specific obligations in order to participate in Title IV HEA Programs. The agreement is called a Program Participation Agreement (PPA). The Department’s goal was to strengthen student protections within the PPA. The sub-issues for which we followed were among the new requirements being added to the PPA, even though there are federal regulations that direct institution requirements in these two areas.

You may recall that, when the proposed regulations were released in May 2023, we provided two separate WCET Frontiers posts to share our analysis. Our first post addressed the regulation subsection that appears to require that institutions comply with state consumer protection laws for closure, recruitment, and misrepresentation where the institution is located and where the student is located at time of initial enrollment. The second post addressed the institution’s responsibility to satisfy applicable educational prerequisites where the institution is located and where the student is located at the time of initial enrollment as well as an edit to the currently effective public notification requirements.

The final regulations released have been modified to some degree from the proposed regulations. We believe that the public comments that we all shared with the Department were heard and persuaded the Department to make some changes to the final language. However, we believe there appears to still be some misunderstanding by the Department about the variation of oversight for licensed professions by state and by the specific profession. Additionally, there are lingering questions about the applicability of state consumer protection laws upon institutions that participate in reciprocity.

Please consider sharing your questions with the Department on these areas, especially regarding the challenges of coordination of processes and information with state licensing boards. The Federal Register announcement includes the contact information for the Department staff member addressing this issue. For certification procedures: Vanessa Gomez. Telephone: (202) 987-0378. Email: Vanessa.Gomez@ed.gov.

As a reminder, this is part 1 of two posts. In this first post, we will review the professional licensure related federal regulations. Look for our second post New Federal Regulations, Part 2: Addressing Compliance with State Closure Laws and the Impact on Interstate Reciprocity Agreements.

In both posts we will ask the following questions:

  • What does the final regulation say?
  • What questions and comments did WCET and SAN share with the Department during rulemaking, public comment period, and the Office of Management & Budget final review (EO 12866 Meeting)?
  • How did the Department respond to WCET and SAN’s questions in the preamble of the final regulations?
  • What are the implications to the institution for implementation of the regulations?

*Please note that page numbers in the analysis will refer to the unofficial version of the rules released on October 24 as that document is larger print and easier to direct you to the language of the preamble and regulations.

Final Regulations Addressing Programs Leading to a License or Certification: Certification Procedures – 34 CFR 668.14(b)(32)(ii)

What does the final regulation say?

*Language that is in the final release but was changed from the Department’s proposed regulation is in bold.

32) In each State in which: the institution is located; students enrolled by the institution in distance education or correspondence courses are located, as determined at the time of initial enrollment in accordance with 34 CFR 600.9(c)(2); or for the purposes of paragraphs (b)(32)(i) and (ii) of this section, each student who enrolls in a program on or after July 1, 2024, and attests that they intend to seek employment, the institution must determine that each program eligible for title IV, HEA program funds…

(ii) Satisfies the applicable educational requirements for professional licensure or certification requirements in the State so that a student who enrolls in the program, and seeks employment in that State after completing the program, qualifies to take any licensure or certification exam that is needed for the student to practice or find employment in an occupation that the program prepares students to enter;…

What questions and comments did WCET and SAN share with the Department during rulemaking, public comment period, and the Office of Management & Budget final review (EO 12866 Meeting)?

During rulemaking.

From the very start of the rulemaking, WCET and SAN were concerned that the rulemaking committee lacked important input from the professional licensing regulating community. During week one of the rulemaking in January 2022, WCET and SAN provided public testimony asking the Department several questions:

  • Had the Department communicated with the licensing community to know the variations of oversight of the many professions and states?
  • Had the Department considered any exceptions to this rule to include active military students and military-affiliated students, and others who are temporarily in a location and do not intend to seek licensing in the state where they are located while participating in the program?
  • How does the Department reconcile barring a student from participation in a program that may only have minimal state educational prerequisite differences and the profession provides a pathway to a state license to reconcile those differences after completion of the program?

Public Comment.

In the WCET and SAN public comment that was focused specifically on programs leading to a license or certification, we first recommended to the Department that they withdraw the proposed language in favor of continued implementation and enforcement of existing notification regulations that became effective July 1, 2020. In the alternative, we recommended that the Department provide for an exception through the form of a Written Acknowledgment from the student to indicate that the student knowingly is enrolling in the program and providing their reason despite the applicable education prerequisites not being met in the state where they are located at time of initial enrollment.

A detailed review of the Department’s analysis was provided in our public comment to include the lack of data and evidence leading to the proposed regulations. Additionally, we shared that minimal analysis of the issue was provided which was made more minimal by the fact that the Department incorrectly provided analysis in two places in the proposed regulation announcement for a separate subsection of the regulation while citing this subsection.

Five clarifying questions were posed to the Department related to the proposed language of 34 CFR 668.14(b)(32)(ii):

  1. If the PPA indicates that for purposes of program eligibility the institution’s responsibility is specified at “time of initial enrollment,” does the program remain eligible for Title IV if the student moves to a state where the program does not meet prerequisites?
  2. If the PPA indicates that for purposes of program eligibility the institution’s responsibility is specified at “time of initial enrollment,” if this proposed regulation becomes final and effective, would the requirement only address incoming students or would the institution be obligated to apply the requirement retroactively to students who are already admitted to the program before the regulation became effective?
  3. What is the Department’s recommendation if there is the impossibility of the institution obtaining affirmation or some sort of a process to determine that the program meets state educational prerequisites in a state?
  4. How does the Department reconcile the limitation on institutions and ultimately students from meeting state educational prerequisites for Teacher Preparation Programs that often include only a course or two in the program addressing state specific history or culture, even though there is a pathway to licensure through NASDTEC state reciprocal agreements and the new Teacher Education Compact for license mobility?
  5. If the language in the PPA proposes that program eligibility is contingent upon the institution’s program meeting state educational prerequisites where the student is located, why is there a need for notifications?

Office of Management & Budget (OMB) final review (EO 12866 Meeting).

WCET & SAN provided testimony to the OMB/OIRA meeting which is the final review prior to the Department’s release of final regulations. We shared our concerns related to federalism as we believe that the Department is creating barriers that overstep the state’s rights to create regulations and decisions to how students are served in their states. Additionally, we shared our concerns of economic impact and state burden as we believe that the Department is burdening state licensing boards to create oversight responsibilities as well as disregarding states choices to participate in other pathways of reciprocity and professional compacts to address state license transfers despite state licensing variations. Finally, we shared our concern that the regulations conflict with Biden Administration goals considering the July 2021 Executive Order 14036 to address unnecessary licensing restrictions that impede worker mobility.

Although we had heard that the review panel rarely asks questions, we were pleasantly surprised that the panel asked many questions and remarked upon the specificity of the issues of concern that we raised.

How did the Department respond to WCET and SAN’s questions in the preamble of the final regulations?

1. Regarding “time of initial enrollment” (pages 366-377). The Department points to existing regulation 34 CFR 600.9(c)(2)(iii) that indicates that an institution is to have a policy to make a determination of where the student is located at time of initial enrollment and upon formal receipt of information that the student has changed location to another state. The Department believes this gives the institution flexibility to determine how to structure such a policy.

The Department shares that they recognize that the institution cannot predict if a student moves, and they do not think it is reasonable to apply this criterion in a way that covers students after they move.

The Department addresses the related issue of changes in requirements for existing students on page 484 to say that they do not expect institutions to immediately discontinue programs for existing students when requirements change but do expect the institution to come into compliance with new requirements in “short order” or cease enrolling new students in that program.

2. Regarding retroactive application to students admitted to programs before the regulation became effective (page 367). The Department indicated that its goal is not to have this regulation apply retroactively. The regulations cover new program entrants on or after the effective date of these regulations (July 1, 2024).

3.Regarding the impossibility of determining that the program meets state educational prerequisites (pages 383-383). The Department is very clear in its concern that students who use Title IV funds for their programs do not end up incurring debt because they were not able to meet requirements in the occupations for which they are being prepared. They are very focused on the economic return that could be diminished if the program does not meet applicable educational requirements.

To that end, the Department indicates if educational requirements exist, an institution must follow them with respect to the students attending from those states. The Department further clarifies that, if the institution cannot determine if the program meets the education requirements for licensure or certification, then it cannot offer the program to future students in the state.

4. Regarding state professional reciprocal agreements and professional compacts (Page 398). The Department indicated that they are persuaded by the commenters that the way to meet the state educational requirements can take different forms. The Department expresses its understanding that a student can obtain a license in a different state but allow them to use the license elsewhere. The Department indicates that it believes these situations address the Department’s policy concerns. However, the Department cautions that this option is to provide the ability for the student who obtains the license through an interstate professional licensure reciprocity agreement (and we add a compact) would allow them to work in the State covered by the requirements of the new regulation, 34 CFR 668.14(b)(32)(ii). The Department continues by indicating that this could mean not only a full license, but also a provisional license. This explanation is not captured in a regulatory change because the Department indicates that these pathways are all forms of licensure.

5. Regarding new final language about the attestation option (page 378 and on page 391-392). The Department indicated that they were persuaded by arguments from commenters that students may be living in one state but have plans to seek employment in another state. Therefore, they added a provision that in the alternative of meeting state educational requirements where the student is located at time of initial enrollment, if the student provides an attestation about the specific state for which they intend to move and the program satisfies educational requirements in that state, the requirement of this regulation is fulfilled.

Additionally, the Department indicated that it will be looking for information about how the information about eligibility was conveyed to the student to demonstrate that the student understood their attestation.

What are the implications to the institution for implementation of the regulations?


The Department has fully expressed its belief that a student who pursues a program leading to a license that is necessary for employment, relies upon the institution to inform and protect the student from barriers to employment due to the inability to meet educational requirements where the student is located while participating in the institution’s program. The final regulations and the guidance provided in the announcement of the regulations indicate that the Department has considered that there could be a few pathways to achieve the goals of informing and protecting the student. However, we see in this announcement that the Department does not believe that they themselves have a responsibility to inform and collaborate with the professional licensing community that does not typically operate and focus within higher education on educational requirements and processes.

Institutions will need to certify a path to licensure in each state it enrolls students.

This new regulation will require the institution to do more than is currently required in providing notifications. In order for the program to be approved for federal financial aid, the institution must certify that the distance education program or correspondence course meets designated certifying events in order to serve that student in the program.

  1. Satisfy state educational requirements where the institution is located; and

2a Satisfy state educational requirements where the student is located at the initial time of enrollment; or

2b Satisfy educational requirements in the state where the student has provided an attestation that they intend to seek employment.

As previously explained, the Department is very clear that the currently effective notifications, while important, are not wholly sufficient to protect students in these programs. The additional responsibility to satisfy educational requirements is now placed upon the institution in order to serve students in other states.

Students can supply an attestation that they are in a state where they will not seek employment.
The Department has recognized that temporary circumstances could cause a student to be located in a state for which they do not intend to seek employment. This alternative to satisfying educational requirements where the student is located is provided within the final regulation. Implementation of this alternative will require additional documentation and interaction with the prospective student. The institution must develop a process to explain the circumstances and seek an attestation from the student designating the state they intend to seek employment if different from where the student is located. It is important to note that this alternative is placed within the language of the regulation which should be contrasted with the guidance about professional licensure reciprocity and compacts addressing portability of a license.

Interstate professional licensure reciprocity agreements or compacts are recognized.

Within the announcement, the Department recognized that some professions participate in licensing reciprocity and licensing compacts by referencing a public comment pointing to Teacher Preparation that maintains an interstate agreement/reciprocity-like structure through the National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification (NASDTEC) as well as the new Interstate Teacher Mobility Compact. Through guidance, which is not legally binding, the Department indicated these options would provide a means to obtain a license in other member states and therefore would be sufficient to satisfy applicable educational requirements. The Department indicated that this pathway to employment is not captured in the regulatory change because the Department indicates that these pathways are all forms of licensure.

In practice, this pathway would allow the student to first obtain the license from the state where the institution is located and then, if applicable, pursue the state license in the other state through state agreements or state compact if the states are members of these agreements. This option to consider post-licensure portability opens opportunities for students in more states.

However, it is important to recognize that not all professions/occupations have a licensing compact. For example, an interstate compact exists for Cosmetology, but a compact has not been developed for Athletic Training. Additionally, not all states are members of the compacts that do exist. For example, only 10 states are currently members of the Interstate Teacher Mobility compact. Institutions should be very cautious, research thoroughly, and document these opportunities to rely upon state agreements and compacts as the pathway to indicate satisfying education requirements in order to serve students in other states.

In summary…

The bottom line is that this new regulation underscores the current responsibility for the institutions found in the state authorization of distance education regulation and indicates that those institutions must:

  • ensure that the institution has a clear process to identify the student at the initial time of enrollment,
  • create a clear process to inform and document the use of the alternative attestation by students,
  • complete necessary research to know which professions and which states an institution may utilize alternate pathways, such as state license agreements and licensing compacts. State-specific research and documentation remains very important when serving students in programs leading to a license.

Institutional Information (Public Notifications) – 34 CFR 668.43(a)(5)(v)

What do the final regulations say?

(v) If an educational program is designed to meet educational requirements for a specific professional license or certification that is required for employment in an occupation, or is advertised as meeting such requirements, a list of all States where the institution has determined, including as part of the institution’s obligation under § 668.14(b)(32), that the program does and does not meet such requirements; and

This subsection was not included in the proposed regulations, but some changes were made to the currently effective regulations in order to harmonize with the previous subsection.

(c)(1) If the institution has made a determination under paragraph (a)(5)(v) of this section that the program’s curriculum does not meet the State educational requirements for licensure or certification in the State in which a prospective student is located, or if the institution has not made a determination regarding whether the program’s curriculum meets the State educational requirements for licensure or certification, the institution must provide notice to that effect to the student prior to the student’s enrollment in the institution in accordance with § 668.14(b)(32).

(2) If the institution makes a determination under paragraph (a)(5)(v) of this section that a program’s curriculum does not meet the State educational requirements for licensure or certification in a State in which a student who is currently enrolled in such program is located, the institution must provide notice to that effect to the student within 14 calendar days of making such determination.

What questions and comments did WCET and SAN share with the Department during rulemaking, public comment period, and the Office of Management & Budget final review (EO 12866 Meeting)?

During Rulemaking.

As previously indicated in the public testimony, we shared concerns that the licensing community had not been included in these discussions. We pointed to the currently effective federal regulations that became effective July 1, 2020. We shared that at the time of the testimony the regulations had only been effective for a little more than 18 months and were made effective during the pandemic. We also pointed out that little time had been given to ascertain if the effective regulations were sufficient for student consumer protection.

Public Comment.

We shared with the Department that absolutely no analysis was provided in the proposed regulation announcement addressing the language amending the public notifications in 34 CFR 668.43(a)(5)(v). Neither did we find any new proposed language nor analysis to consider the harmonization of current individualized notifications in 34 CFR 668.43(c).

Two clarifying questions were posed specifically to address the proposed language amending the notification regulations:

  1. Does the proposed language indicating an amendment to language for public notifications to be lists of all states where the institution “is aware” mean that the institution may not be ultimately addressing each state as is currently required in federal regulation 34 CFR 668.43(a)(5)(v)?
  2. How does the Department intend to harmonize the proposed new language in the PPA identifying program eligibility to be “at initial time of enrollment” to the language in 34 CFR 668.43(c) indicating notifications to prospective students “prior to enrollment in the program” which could include prospective face-to-face students who will ultimately be located at the institution where the program meets state educational pre-requisites at time of initial enrollment?

Office of Management & Budget (OMB) final review (EO 12866 Meeting).

Specific to the notifications, we shared with the panel that notification regulations already exist as guardrails to protect students having become effective July 1, 2020. Additionally, neither the Department nor members of the negotiating committee offered any data that the current regulations were not sufficient to protect students in programs leading to a license or certification.

How did the Department respond to WCET and SAN’s questions in the preamble of the final regulations?

  1. Regarding the term “is aware” of meeting or not meeting state educational requirements (pages 395-396). The Department agrees that the term “aware” was confusing and conflicts with language in the PPA. Therefore, the Department changed the term to “has determined.” Additionally, on page 389, the Department indicated if an institution is not enrolling students from a given state, it is not obligated to determine anything regarding that state. Further, it cannot only offer the program to students in that state.
  2. Regarding harmonization of notification language with new PPA language (pages 395-396). The Department believes that the new PPA certification language complements the notification requirements but is making some alterations to the notification language to address areas of confusion.

What are the implications to the institution for implementation of the regulations?

The Department maintained the core structure of the notification regulations with some modifications from the currently effective regulations. Most obviously missing is the option to indicate no determination for the public notifications. The Department is focused on sharing information where the institution has determined that the program “does and does not meet such requirements.” This public notification is to address the institution’s obligation in the PPA as we previously discussed. If the institution cannot affirmatively meet state educational requirements, the institution cannot offer the program to the students in that state. This requirement remains essentially the same but eliminates the requirement to list the states for which the institution has not made a determination.

While the direct notifications were not part of the proposed regulations released last May, the Department was reminded through public comments that direct notifications needed to be harmonized with any changes to the public notifications.

  • To prospective students prior to enrollment in the program if the program does not meet or no determination has been made as to whether the curriculum meets state educational requirements where the student is located.
  • To the enrolled students where they are located if the curriculum does not meet state educational requirements. The notification must be provided within 14 calendar days of the institution making such a determination.

Notifications limited to distance education and correspondence students, not on-campus enrollees.

These direct notifications point specifically to obligations under the PPA addressing distance education programs by indicating in accordance with the PPA certification regulation. The requirements are essentially the same as those currently required, but seem to indicate that the notifications are only for distance education programs and correspondence courses. This appears to be a change: under currently effective regulations there is no reference to a specific modality. Absent a specific reference to a certain modality, there is a responsibility to notify all prospective students who intend to come to an institution, including those attending a face-to-face program. The obligation to notify a prospective student from another state planning to come to the campus to pursue the program face-to-face appears to be removed.

Notify student about where meet/not meet licensure requirements in their stateThe notification structure is primarily the same responsibility as the currently effective regulations to identify the programs and determine the states where the institution meets or does not meet state educational requirements. Depending on these determinations, there may be an obligation to provide a direct notification to a prospective or enrolled student. Again, the institution’s responsibility is to develop and implement a clear process to determine the location of the students, to continue pursuing state-specific research, and to provide documentation are the key elements when serving students in programs leading to a license.

Conclusions: What Institutions Should Do

Our early analysis of the new final regulations addressing programs leading to a license and state authorization leads to the following conclusions:

Certification by the institution to determine that the institution satisfies state educational requirements for programs leading to a license and related notifications, will be the work for the institution, and must include:

  1. Review and revision of the institution process to determine the location of the student at time of initial enrollment as has been required since July 1, 2020.
  2. Research of state educational requirements for a license as well as interactions with state licensing boards must continue.
  3. Consideration, implementation, and documentation that the option to seek an attestation from students of their intention to pursue employment in a state that the institution must satisfy state educational requirements.
  4. Research, analysis, and documentation to implement the Department’s view that state licensing agreements/reciprocity and licensing compacts may be considered as meeting state educational requirements if the states are members to these agreements or compacts.
  5. Continuation of the institution’s process to implement public and direct notifications, and,
  6. Finally, communication with senior administration and general counsel may be necessary to make business decisions about institution priorities to serve certain states and certain professions.

Next Steps

These conclusions come from our early analysis. We still have questions, and as we’re sure you still have some questions, SAN and WCET will be seeking your input on what we cover next. We maintain that in working together we will develop implementation strategies. SAN is already in process of reaching out to national associations for licensing boards to inform them of the final regulations. We will also collaborate with NASASPS and the SARA Community to ensure that applicable information is shared. Additionally, we urge you to follow the Federal Register announcement direction to seek more information from the Department staff member addressing this issue. For certification procedures: Vanessa Gomez. Telephone: (202) 987-0378. Email: Vanessa.Gomez@ed.gov .

Check out Part 2 of our analysis on these newly released regulations and look to SAN and WCET for more on these issues in the coming weeks!

Get additional updates, summaries, and analysis of these issues and many more in our upcoming SAN and WCET member-only webcast: “Waze” to Find the Detours and Fast Lanes to Understand New U.S. Department of Education Guidance and Regulations.

WCET and SAN webcast: “Waze” to Find the Detours and Fast Lanes to Understand New U.S. Department of Education Guidance and Regulations​. NOVEMBER 15, 2023 | 12:00-1:00 PM MT​. Exclusively for WCET and SAN members.
Tags , , , , ,