Author: Lindsey Downs

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 , , , , ,
Categories
Practice

Finding the Need and Endeavoring to Meet it: Sinclair Community College’s Equity Rubric

Post author By Lindsey Downs
Post date October 26, 2023

Today we welcome several staff from the eLearning Department at Sinclair Community College, who are here to share about a new tool they use for designing and evaluating digital courses.

Sinclair Community College prioritizes transformative teaching and learning reflecting the Dayton region’s goal of holistic diversity. The college’s mission reflects the historic words of its founder, David A. Sinclair, himself a Scottish immigrant: “Find the need and endeavor to meet it.” With the institutional mission and priorities in mind, the college’s eLearning Division set the goal to close the equity gap for marginalized groups of people by expanding digital equity and inclusion for all learners.

Enjoy the read and enjoy your day,

Lindsey Downs, WCET

The work began through a partnership between the eLearning Division, the Provost Office, and the Diversity Office. This collaboration identified challenges to students attending class online, that is any eLearning course which includes asynchronous and synchronous online, blended/hybrid, and competency-based courses. We found that there were several barriers for students, such as access to technology, and we saw a clear digital divide. The eLearning Division formed the Digital Equity Committee, a group of faculty and staff, with the intention to examine eLearning course design processes to close the identified equity gaps

Intentional inclusive course design strategies that reflect and celebrate student diversity and foster a sense of belonging have been found to have a positive impact on student achievement. Heeding this principle and realizing solutions to stated barriers exist, the Digital Equity Committee created the Equity Rubric inspired by Peralta Community College to create a systemized process of digital equity and inclusion into the course design practice.

Process and Implementation

Institutional leadership embraced the efforts to increase digital equity and inclusion. Eventually, these goals and values were welcomed across the campus, fostering a system of cross-departmental collaboration. Having identified the necessary changes to eLearning courses to increase equity and inclusion, gathering an engaged team of supportive faculty and staff became far less challenging. The Digital Equity Committee recruited student input and feedback through institutional end-of-course surveys and participatory focus groups to help guide the creation of the rubric. Sinclair’s Chief Diversity Officer provided vital oversight and counsel to the development of the Equity Rubric. Finally, the sanctioning of the rubric led to its implementation into the course design process of the eLearning Division’s Instructional Design team.

The rubric serves the Sinclair population at many levels by helping faculty and course designers build course material that welcomes learners to an inclusive and friendly environment.  Sinclair staff, faculty, and students have come to hold the rubric in high regard for its value added to our courses.  The Instructional Design team regularly references the evaluation tool when assisting faculty with course design and revision to support thoughtful and inclusive material. Since the implementation of the Equity Rubric into the course design process, 212 eLearning courses have been evaluated and designed using the Equity Rubric recommendations.

The Equity Rubric

As an evaluative tool, the rubric is now leveraged by faculty and instructional designers as part of normal design or revision processes to evaluate course content, assessments, materials, and other items aimed to ensure they support the goals of digital equity and inclusion. The rubric contains three targeted criteria:

  • Addressing Human Bias – affords faculty a chance to acknowledge their own biases, include statements demonstrating the commitment in the course to creating an environment of comfort and participation, and the verbalization of self-reflection both in an instructor introduction and throughout the course.
  • Content Meaning – emphasizes content reflective of student diversity through connection to student socio-cultural backgrounds (based on institutional demographic data), courses include examples from non-dominant cultures, and at least one topic outcome for multiple topics is directly connected to non-dominant cultures and diverse perspectives.
  • Connection and Belonging – the course requires consistent interactions and works on fostering connections among students and with the instructor, the design of interaction is intended to strengthen connections based on diverse experiences and perspectives, and the inclusion of a statement of how the course provides an open, welcoming space for learners.

Each criterion contains qualifications based on four levels – Exemplary, Aligned, Minimally Complete, and Incomplete.

Expansion of the Equity Work

After the implementation of the Equity Rubric, the eLearning Division saw an opportunity to further increase the diversity, equity, and inclusion focus in eLearning coursework. In order to expand this focus, the division applied for and was awarded the ECMC Grant. With the funds from the grant, the eLearning Division hired an Equity Success Coach and an Equity Instructional Designer, who were tasked to carry out the work of the Equity Rubric and expand it throughout the college.

The ECMC Team implemented diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) touchpoints into multiple systems across campus. To help faculty relate to the Equity Rubric, the ECMC Team integrated DEI modules into existing required faculty training, which must be completed before teaching eLearning courses. The new modules are open to all faculty and discuss the significance of focusing on DEI in the classroom and how faculty can achieve that through assignments, setting a tone of acceptance and inclusion in welcoming statements, how to include an array of diverse voices and perspectives in course materials, and more.

group of people in an old photograph

The Equity Rubric continues to impact our campus through the eLearning’s Coach Collaboration project, where eLearning Coaches partner with faculty for one or two terms as an in-course resource. The partnership between faculty and coach aims to improve student and eLearning course outcomes by using research-based best practices and holistic support of students. Faculty benefit from course delivery suggestions that include best practices for assignment feedback, employment of student surveys, monitoring student grades and engagement, support in developing a communication plan, and providing DEI-designed student support tools and resources. Our faculty and students say the courses have been positively impacted through this partnership program. This, and the other projects discussed above, will continue to support the mission of closing equity gaps in eLearning courses.

The classroom is perhaps the most important frontier by which equity strategies and efforts are tested, and the steady growth in eLearning courses before and after the COVID-19 pandemic provided the exploratory space needed for the work. As online learning expands, grows, and transforms the eLearning Division at Sinclair Community College will continue to prioritize diversity, equity, and inclusion. 

Tags , , ,
Categories
Practice

The Online Consortium of Oklahoma:  From Grassroots to Greatness

Post author By Lindsey Downs
Post date October 19, 2023
2023 WOW logo

Today we continue the 2023 WOW Awards series here on Frontiers!

If you missed the first post in our series, check out the post about RIOPACT from Rio Salado College.

This week, we’re joined by Brad Griffith, Associate Vice Chancellor of Innovation with the Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education. Brad outlines the history of the Online Consortium of Oklahoma and how this group collaborates within the state to impact student success. Thank you Brad for today’s great post!

Enjoy the read,

Lindsey Downs, WCET

OCO logo

The role of online learning in postsecondary education has never been more crucial. For our state, the Online Consortium of Oklahoma (OCO) has evolved from a grassroots initiative to a model of what can be achieved when institutions come together to address the challenges and opportunities of digital education.  We are excited to dive into the key strategies and initiatives that have made OCO a success story, offering insights that could benefit other state systems of higher education or similar member-driven consortia.

OCO’s Grassroots

Founded in 2018, OCO was established to foster collaboration and innovation in online learning across Oklahoma. The consortium now collaborates with 26 member institutions, each contributing its unique strengths to create a robust and diverse body of resources and expertise. The collective aim is to enable all member institutions to provide high-quality, accessible, and flexible educational opportunities for students across the state.

Key Initiatives and Innovations

  • Council for Online Learning Excellence (COLE) – COLE consists of over 125 volunteer members serving across seven subcommittees dedicated to fostering professional development, learning innovations, and pathways to student success. OCO works in collaboration with COLE to constantly serve those teaching and supporting online learners, including through regular awarding of grant funding for special projects upon request by committees. 
  • Low-Cost and No-Cost Professional Development – OCO prioritizes the upskilling of faculty and staff through affordable professional development programs. This ensures that educators are well-equipped to deliver top-notch online instruction.
  • Technology and Project Pilots – OCO has offered grant funds to its member institutions to pilot new and innovative learning technologies in addition to serving as the initial incubator for projects, including those focused on Open Educational Resources (OER), which have secured ongoing funding support from the State Regents.
several students working in a computer lab.
Photo by Sigmund on Unsplash
  • Group Purchasing for Technology – By leveraging the collective bargaining power of its members, OCO has been able to secure cost-effective deals on essential educational technology, passing the savings onto students.
  • Collaborative User Groups – OCO facilitates the creation of user groups focused on common online learning platforms and student success initiatives. These groups serve as think tanks for sharing best practices and troubleshooting challenges.
  • Annual Summits – OCO supports our system’s annual OER Summit and Learning Innovations Summit hybrid events, which offer a platform for educators, administrators, and other stakeholders to share insights, discuss trends, and explore new opportunities in online education.

Check Out Our Resources at OCOlearnOK.org

In September 2020, OCO, in collaboration with the Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education, launched OCOlearnOK.org. This platform serves as a one-stop-shop for resources related to online education, including OER, digital accessibility guides, and an extensive library of on-demand webinars. It also features a calendar of upcoming professional development events and new digital credentialing opportunities.

The Role of Leadership

OCO’s membership dues enabled the State Regents to hire a full-time staff member to serve the consortium in October 2019.  Support from the state level has been essential for the success of the Consortium, particularly in communication of the value of online learning to key stakeholders. In July 2023, OSRHE established a new Associate Vice Chancellor of Innovation position. In this role and with my team, we are responsible for helping the consortium set and achieve its goals. The vision and commitment of OCO’s members have accelerated the quality, capacity, and scope of online learning in Oklahoma.

Lessons for Other Consortia

several people sitting at a table
Photo by Dylan Gillis on Unsplash
  • Collaboration is Key – The power of collective effort cannot be overstated. Pooling resources and expertise, particularly among institutions of diverse sizes and student demographics, leads to more significant impact.
  • Stay Adaptable – The landscape of online education is constantly changing. Being flexible and open to new technologies and methodologies is essential.
  • Invest in Professional Development – Well-trained faculty and professional staff are the backbone of any successful online program.  Develop expertise from within your own collaborative and support those new to their roles at institutions across your network.
  • Engage Stakeholders – Regular communication with all stakeholders, including regents, legislators, presidents, academic and technology officers, faculty, administrators, and students, ensures that everyone is aligned with the consortium’s goals and aware of its progress.

Conclusion

The Online Consortium of Oklahoma serves as an adaptable model of what can be achieved through collaborative effort and visionary leadership. As we continue to innovate and expand, we are deeply honored to have been recognized by the WCET community with the 2023 Outstanding Work Award. This accolade holds special significance for us, coming from a community that has been instrumental in supporting our journey toward achieving the outcomes described in this post. We extend our heartfelt gratitude to WCET and its members for this recognition and for their ongoing commitment to advancing the quality and reach of digital learning programs. Together, we continue to define new benchmarks and create transformative educational experiences for every learner.

Tags , , , , , ,
Categories
Practice

Championing Academic Integrity in the Age of AI: The International Day of Action for Academic Integrity

Post author By Lindsey Downs
Post date October 18, 2023

This month, WCET selected Academic Integrity as our focus area theme. I always associate October with academic integrity because of the International Center for Academic Integrity’s (ICAI) International Day Against Contract Cheating – which, this year, is being re-framed as the International Day of Action for Academic Integrity. And the day sure has a great theme narrowing down how to be a champion for academic integrity in the age of artificial intelligence (AI).

There are all kinds of events happening today, October 18th. That’s why I’m so thrilled to welcome Camilla Roberts who serves as the President of the ICAI to discuss the inspiration for today’s event and how you can participate. Thank you Camilla for joining us and sharing all of the details for this important day. I hope you will get involved in anyway you can, we’ll be sharing our thoughts on our social media using #IDOA2023, #excelwithintegrity, and #myownwork.

Enjoy the read,

Lindsey Downs, WCET

We are currently in a world of change and education is not hidden from these changes. While technological advancements (including artificial intelligence (AI)) have opened new possibilities for students and educators, it has also given rise to challenges in upholding academic honesty.

In this context, the International Center for Academic Integrity’s (ICAI) annual International Day of Action for Academic Integrity (IDoA) emerges as a critical event that sheds light on the importance of academic integrity in the age of AI.

quote box - We are currently in a world of change and education is not hidden from these changes. Camilla Roberts.

The International Day of Action for Academic Integrity is an annual event celebrated worldwide, dedicated to promoting and preserving the fundamental values of academic integrity. The event encourages educators, students, and institutions to collaborate and champion academic integrity. This year’s event is co-chaired by Mary Davis from Oxford Brookes University, UK and Rachel Gorjup from University of Toronto, Mississauga, Canada with committee members from 7 countries.

One of the primary objectives of this year’s IDoA is to raise awareness about the importance of academic integrity in the digital age. The IDoA website provides a wealth of resources, ideas, and information on how to participate in this initiative, emphasizing the critical role that AI and technology play in maintaining academic integrity.

The day’s virtual events (running live with recordings available afterward from 3am-5pm EST on Oct. 18, 2023) will focus on the overarching theme of “Championing Academic Integrity in the Age of AI.” Within the 15 hours of sessions, attendees will have the opportunity to hear from 62 presenters (including expert speakers and seven sessions with student panels and contributors) from 15 different countries.

The goals for the day and beyond are to educate about the following:

  • Raising Awareness: The IDoA serves as a reminder that academic integrity is crucial, especially in the context of AI. It’s essential to educate students and faculty members about the implications of cheating and the importance of original work while understanding the role that AI can play in education.
  • Encouraging Ethical AI Use: Educational institutions and instructors must promote responsible AI use. This includes teaching students how to use AI tools for research assistance without compromising their academic honesty.
  • Strengthening Policies: Schools and universities should continually update and strengthen their academic integrity policies to address new challenges posed by AI. Clear guidelines on the use of technology and AI tools should be established.
  • Building a Supportive Environment: Creating an environment where students feel comfortable asking for help and resources can significantly reduce the temptation to cheat. By offering academic support, institutions can deter students from taking the dishonest path.
  • Developing Critical Thinking Skills: Education should focus on cultivating critical thinking skills, which are essential for distinguishing between legitimate research and AI-generated content.
group of students high fiving around a computer.
  • Fostering a Culture of Integrity: Promoting a culture of academic integrity within institutions is crucial. This includes fostering a sense of trust and responsibility among students and faculty.

The International Center for Academic Integrity encourages all involved in education to take time to examine how they can champion academic integrity in the age of AI. By doing so and creating a culture of integrity, we can ensure that education remains a trustworthy environment for all learners and the degrees or certificates provided to our learners upon completion are valid and respected. The IDoA event gives us the opportunity to reflect on our roles in upholding these values and working collectively to maintain the highest standards of academic honesty in the digital age.

Upholding academic integrity goes beyond just one day though, so we also encourage you as an individual or as an institution to join the International Center for Academic Integrity (https://academicintegrity.org/about/member-benefits) to continue the conversation of building the culture of integrity at your own institution.

Tags , , ,
Categories
Policy Practice

The Evolution of Compliance For State Authorization of Distance Education

Post author By Lindsey Downs
Post date October 17, 2023
cover of new report.

The State Authorization Network (SAN) is pleased to release a very thorough examination of state authorization of distance education through the lens of a colleague who witnessed many steps in the development of consumer protections for students participating in interstate distance education.

Today, we welcome the author of the paper, Sharyl Thompson, who offers us summarized insight into the very complicated and nuanced compliance road for state authorization of interstate distance education.

Sharyl is a long-time colleague and friend of SAN who not only witnessed but was an active participant in this evolution. In addition to the experience that Sharyl offers in her biography, which is shared at the end of the paper, Sharyl served as one of SAN’s Basics’ Workshop mentors for many years and has been a regular presenter and contributor to SAN. Sharyl was also among those on the initial team that worked on the reciprocity idea for state authorization of distance education that ultimately became SARA. You can read more about this initial team for reciprocity and the beginnings of SAN in our WCET Frontiers post celebrating the 10th Anniversary of SAN in 2021.

A big thank you to Sharyl for developing this thorough paper chronicling the evolution of state authorization of distance education and for sharing the following summary today on Frontiers.

Summary

Releasing today, The History of State Authorization of Distance Education is an extensive review of the origins and evolution of state and federal oversight of consumer protection regulations in higher education.

In the early years of higher education, many states had no oversight over institutions – until diploma mills entered the marketplace and, in many situations, cheated students by taking their money and providing inadequate or no education to their “students.” Individual states passed legislation to oversee higher education institutions. Each state differed in the level of oversight, which activities from out-of-state institutions required some form of approval or review, and the costs for receiving the required state authorization. However, the early regulations did not address distance education, as, at that time, it didn’t exist.

The History of State Authorization of Distance Education paper was commissioned by the State Authorization Network (SAN). It is a chronological depiction of the evolution of state oversight of activities conducted by in-and-out-of-state institutions. The paper begins with background on state authorization – what it is and why oversight was needed. It addresses the importance of terminology and provides some detailed examples for two basic terms: “school” and “operating.” Other state-by-state differences addressed in the paper are the applications for authorization, the application processes, and the timeline for receiving a response from the state agencies to the institutions’ applications.

In 2010, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) published regulations that addressed distance education for the first time. Although state regulations had been in place for years, institutions were unaware that they should have been seeking and receiving permission from individual states to conduct certain academic activities. When the ED published these regulations, institutions all over the country began to be aware of the state and federal obligations concerning consumer protection. It is challenging to describe the chain of events chronologically at the federal level due to implementation delays overridden by newer regulations and their implementation. The paper goes into great detail on the evolution of federal regulations and their impacts. Even today, ED  is in the process of creating more regulations for which institutions are to abide.

A major change in interstate oversight of distance education came about after 49 states and territories, all except California, voluntarily joined the State Authorization Reciprocity Agreements (SARA). Several efforts had been made in the past to create a way for institutions to receive reciprocity for state authorization. With the initial establishment of SARA in 2013, if authorized in the home state, the institution would be authorized to provide distance education-related activities subject to the agreement in the other states that are members of SARA. The paper provides a history of efforts made, as well as the creation, acceptance, and effects of SARA on states, institutions, and students.

I was excited to be invited to write this paper. I started working in state authorization while employed at a distance education for-profit institution back in 2001. At that time, the for-profit institutions were the only ones paying attention to state authorization. There was no information sharing between institutions, so I had to learn it on my own. Although very challenging, as time progressed, I grew to appreciate the years of experience I gained through learning state authorization from the ground up. As a result, I continue to have an interest in helping other institutions learn the ins and outs of state authorization, so they don’t have to go through some of the agony I experienced when no assistance was available. I am motivated by helping institutions succeed at this work.

After thirteen years of employment doing state authorization work at three different institutions, I decided to become an independent consultant, which affords me the opportunity to work with multiple institutions simultaneously. That was ten years ago. It has been and continues to be my pleasure to work with many institutions of all types to address state authorization and professional licensure issues.

State authorization work continues and will continue because of the rather frequent changes made to federal and state regulations. The newest proposed federal regulations may impact how SARA can be implemented and may require institutions to almost go back to the days when state authorization work must be handled on an individual state-by-state basis. Only time will tell . . .

Tags , , , ,
Categories
Practice

RioPACT: Transforming Student Success at Rio Salado College

Post author By Lindsey Downs
Post date October 12, 2023

Each year, the goal of the WCET Awards Program is to highlight and showcase promising practices in higher education digital learning and to honor those who have dedicated their time and energies to our field.

It is an absolute honor for me to coordinate this program each year. One of my favorite aspects of this program is to work with the WCET Outstanding Work – WOW – Award winners.

From the beginning of our “awards season,” where we receive nominations and work with our amazing volunteer judges, I am always in awe of the nominated projects and initiatives. It’s amazing to learn about the innovative work happening on in higher education. This year it’s exciting to feature our three WOW Award recipients, but I also want to thank each of the individuals and teams that submitted a nomination this year. You’re all doing inspirational and important work and it was hard to narrow the nominations down to these three!

As we’ve announced, WCET will be awarding three WOW awards at this year’s WCET Annual Meeting. All this month and leading up to the Annual Meeting, WCET Frontiers will feature posts from our three selected recipients:

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

To kick off this year’s WOW Awardee series, we’re happy to welcome Zach Lewis and Dr. Fermin Ornelas from Rio Salado College to share about their award winning student success solution: RioPACT. Stay tuned for the rest of the month to learn about our other awardees. We’re looking forward to celebrating them at the Annual Meeting in New Orleans in just a few weeks!

Enjoy the read,

Lindsey Downs, WCET

The Challenge and the Goal

In the ever-evolving landscape of higher education, institutions are constantly seeking innovative ways to support student success.

To accomplish our student retention and success goals here at Rio Salado College, we needed a way to identify students in need of intervention before they withdrew or dropped out, and off-the-shelf analytics solutions did not meet the needs of our learners. To address this challenge, we developed our own analytics tool that would empower our staff to assist and support our specific student population.

The Solution: RioPACT

This journey led to the creation of RioPACT (Persistence and Completion Tracking), a predictive analytics tool designed to assess a student’s likelihood of persisting and continuing their studies. The RioPACT model analyzes three key areas:

  1. student course engagement,
  2. academic success and momentum, and,
  3. select demographic characteristics.

RioPact is a tool that enables us to identify students in need of additional support. That information is provided to student-facing staff to intervene at the right moment to keep students on the path to degree or certification completion.

Helping Rio’s Students

Photo by Annie Spratt on Unsplash

While commitment to student success and innovation is not new for Rio Salado, requirements for this specific tool and our college’s student body necessitated a different approach.

The majority of Rio’s learners are nontraditional: over 80 percent of our students attend part-time, nearly half are first-generation college students, and 40 percent have previously attempted higher education without success. The average student age is above 25 and we know many of our students are carrying multiple responsibilities as providers, caregivers and workers. We were determined to create a solution to meet the needs of our students and were able to leverage data captured in our in-house systems and applications to build a model attuned to Rio’s specific learner dynamics.

When the data model was initially developed, early results were highly promising, with a predictive accuracy rate of nearly 75 percent. RioPACT’s value, however, went beyond just the statistical significance and our early pilot underscored the potential for the tool. We first worked with the Office of Disability Resources and Services (DRS) last fall to further understand how to put the RioPACT to use. The 73 students who were identified as at higher risk for stop-out by RioPACT received interventions and additional support from DRS. When we reviewed student outcomes in the spring semester, over 52 percent of students who received treatment in the pilot persisted compared to 44 percent of students who did not receive any intervention. This was just a small sample of what could be achieved, but provided promising evidence that we were creating something that could have a much larger impact on our students.

What’s Next

As we move forward, we’re refining RioPACT and optimizing data capture to provide even better insights and just-in-time services to our students.

Textbox: The RioPACT project isn't just about improving student success at Rio Salado College; it's about making a lasting impact on the broader higher education community.

We’re scaling with a broader pilot this fall with the Office of Academic Advisement, not only to provide timely interventions to more students, but collect more data to evaluate, refine, and extend the tool. Furthermore, we have been awarded two research fellowships by the Strategic Data Project (SDP). The objective is to further enrich our skill set in data analytics and research methods as well as benefit from the expertise of the SDP alumni researchers. 

The RioPACT project isn’t just about improving student success at Rio Salado College; it’s about making a lasting impact on the broader higher education community. We’re excited to share our findings and publish our work, knowing that it has the potential to benefit students and institutions far beyond our own.

In the end, RioPACT represents the power of innovation, dedication, and a commitment to student success. It’s a reflection of Rio Salado College’s mission to redefine the educational experience by anticipating the needs of our students.

Thank you!

Receiving the 2023 WOW Award from WCET for RioPACT is a remarkable honor. It signifies that WCET values the ability of community colleges like ours to generate valuable, homegrown solutions. This recognition encourages us to continue taking the lead in shaping our educational landscape.

Tags , , , , , ,
Categories
Policy Practice

WCET Survey of Institutional Digital Learning Definitions – Preliminary Report on Key Themes, Insights, and Challenges

Post author By Lindsey Downs
Post date October 5, 2023
text box reads - WCET surveyed digital learning professionals on institutional practices in defining: distance learning, online learning, fully online learning, hybrid/blended learning, hyflex learning.

Introduction

Online learning, hybrid learning, hyflex learning, blended learning, and distance education. What are the differences between these terms that necessitate the creation of novel words for variations of modality?

text box reads - WCET surveyed digital learning professionals on institutional practices in defining: distance learning, online learning, fully online learning, hybrid/blended learning, hyflex learning.

What goes into the institutional decisions on defining these terms? WCET – the WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technologies, gathered information relating to institutional definitions, policies, and procedures relating to digital learning definitions (such as distance, online, hyflex, hybrid, etc.) and how those terms are communicated to students. Administered earlier this year, the survey consisted of 23 open-ended and multiple-choice questions. This post provides preliminary findings with the full report and methodology to be published in the coming months.

This survey and analysis builds upon previous work of WCET to develop an understanding of the institutional practices relating to digital learning definitions and the challenges that institutions face in:

  • defining terms,
  • maintaining compliance, and,
  • achieving clarity and transparency with faculty and students.

Previous WCET work in the area of digital learning definitions analyzed the extent to which faculty and administrators agree with specific provided definitions of select terms (see Defining Different Modes of Learning: Resolving Confusion and Contention Through Consensus). This work also highlighted the variety of definitions of distance education used in policy by federal, state, and accreditation agencies plus the challenges said variety presents to institutional compliance (see Defining “Distance Education” in Policy: Differences Among Federal, State, and Accreditation Agencies). Click here to access an accessible PDF with the data from the tables below.

Highlights of Preliminary Survey Analysis

We have made a number of interesting observations based upon our review of the survey data received. During future institutional interviews, we will further explore a number of nuances, but today we will highlight several meaningful observations.

How “Online Intensive” Were the Institutions Surveyed?

In the survey, we asked institutions to identify their number of graduates who completed their program primarily online or at a distance in the most recent academic year.

Table 1. The percentage of graduates completing programs primarily online. See accessible version of this data.

Table 1 - In the most recent academic year, roughly what percentage of your institution's graduates completed their programs primarily (75%+) online or at a distance with few requirements to come to campus or go to a specific location? 0-25% of graduates - 62% 26-50% - 20% 51-75% 10% 76-100% - 8%

The bulk of institutional personnel responding to the survey represented institutions for which a quarter or less of their students graduated in a program that is primarily online. Less than 20% of respondents hailed from institutions which had more than half of their graduates complete programs primarily online. These data provide a good context for understanding other responses, as the responding institutions still have a preponderance of in-person students. The institutions are also likely to offer multiple course delivery modalities.

Does Your Institution Have an Institution-Wide Definition for Each Digital Learning Modality?

In the survey, we asked five questions to determine whether the institution defined a given digital learning term. Specifically, we had one question that focused on how the institution handles each of the following five modalities:

  • distance learning,
  • online learning,
  • fully online learning,
  • hybrid or blended learning, and,
  • hyflex learning.

For each question, institutions could select one of the following five choices for each modality:

  • We have an institution-wide definition,
  • We have definitions that vary by college or department within the institution,
  • We are actively working on creating or updating this definition,
  • We have no definition and there is no current work to create one,
  • Other (please explain).

Few Institutions Reported Definitions That Vary by College Or Department

We were surprised to see that the least chosen response (with the exception of the “Other” response), across all terms, was that definitions vary by college or department within the institution. Not only was that the least chosen response across all terms, but the percentage of responses was much lower than the others, with the highest being 6.57% for hybrid or blended learning. See Table 3 below for the overview of responses to whether institutions define these digital learning terms.

Table 2. Institutional Status of Defining Digital Learning Modality Terms. See accessible version of this data.

Our initial thought was that there would be more variation within each individual institution but that was not borne out by the results. It is important to note that, due to the fact institutions could only choose one response here, the number of responses may have been different had institutions been able to choose all that apply. For example, we now observe that, especially in the case of the “definitions vary” and “actively working on this definition,” both responses could be true and institutions may have chosen the response that felt more appropriate in the moment. Especially in this case, we hypothesize that one reason that there may be work on creating an official definition is the need to harmonize various definitions used throughout the institution. It will be interesting to explore this in more depth in follow-up interviews.

But, Institution-Wide Digital Definitions Are Often Still Not The Norm

Even with the lack of definitions varying by colleges and the growing maturity of digital learning, there are many institutions lacking comprehensive definitions. Only “distance learning” and “hybrid or blended learning” report more than 50% of respondents with an institution-wide definition. “Online learning” had only 40% with a definition.

The picture might be brighter than that as about 20% of institutions use “distance” or “online” synonymously. They might not see the need for both or use them interchangeably. Having nearly 60% of institutions reporting a standard understanding of “hybrid or blended learning” shows strength for that modality.

It is concerning that for all of the definitions offered at least 10% of the institutions neither have a definition nor have current work to create one. Given that our mailing lists favor those in digital learning, this is probably a bit more worrisome.

Notably, there’s also a variety of definitions for “fully online” despite what seems like a self-explanatory term, which was surprising to us. In some cases, online and fully online are considered synonymous and are not distinguished from one another. In other cases, a certain percentage of instructional time, or a limited number of in-person instructional time, is permitted within the institutional definition of fully online. In our review of the definition of distance education, we did not note definitions of fully online in policy (federal, state, or accreditor) but the survey responses clearly indicated that policy influences institutional variations of the term fully online, especially policies at the state level.

What makes a program fully online? This issue is examined briefly in the recently-released white paper on labeling modalities written by Nicole Johnson (CDLRA) and sponsored by WCET. In that paper we cite an instance where a university system cites “full online” as having no in-person requirements, but then links to a program that has in-person requirements. Whatever the case in how “fully” is defined locally, the institution should be clear in communicating their online vs. in-person expectations with students. We look forward to exploring this more with our follow-up interviews.

What Factors Influence Your Digital Learning Definitions?

Additionally, in one of our survey questions, we asked institutions to indicate what factors influenced the institution’s definitions relating to digital learning where respondents could choose all that apply. Not surprisingly, the top three influences were accreditor (63%), federal (57%), and state (48%) definitions.

One surprise that emerged in the responses to this question was an additional potential source of definitions that we had not yet considered that could bind institutions to certain definitions and interpretations, which are union contracts or collective bargaining agreements with institutional faculty and instructors. Notably, the influence of faculty and instructors on institutional definitions was the fourth highest choice at 47%, although it is not clear whether that is due to binding contracts with faculty, faculty expertise on course content and delivery, or a mix of both (likely a mix of both).

Table 3. Factors influencing digital learning related definitions. See accessible version of this data.

Table 3 - What factors influenced your institutional, college, or department’s definitions relating to digital learning? (choose all that apply)

What Obstacles or Challenges Did You Face in Creating Digital Learning Definitions?

Lastly, in one of our open-ended questions, we asked institutions to describe some of the obstacles or challenges that they have experienced relevant to digital learning definitions. A commonly listed challenge related to faculty adherence to the modality assigned to the course. To illustrate this commonality, here are some of the responses we received related to this challenge:

  • Not all faculty abide by the definitions; in some cases, faculty will list a course as one modality, but deliver it in a different way.
  • Sometimes the faculty will teach a hybrid class but teach it all online.
  • Faculty using their own interpretation of a modality.
  • Faculty following the definitions.
  • Instructors sticking to mode of teaching: e.g., says synchronous, but is asynchronous. Or hybrid, but all synchronous.
  • Overcoming some historical practices and making sure faculty practice the expectations of the guidelines for distance learning.
  • While the institution has definitions, faculty have a great deal of flexibility in how they are implemented.

We can see how this situation can be challenging for institutions, especially in navigating how to emphasize the importance of adhering to course modality. This could have a great impact on the institution (i.e., financial aid, accreditation, etc.) as federal, state, and accreditation rules can differ by modality. For example, the need for regular and substantive interaction, adherence to accessibility requirements, and intellectual property rules all change when a course transitions into the digital realm. There are also increased faculty development and instructional design needs and requirements. And, most importantly, the student is not getting the course experience they expected at registration. This could have a great impact on learning outcomes and exacerbate inequities in serving students.

We look forward to exploring the strategies that institutions are using to address this challenge in institutional interviews. We know that institutions have a variety of innovative means of not only defining terms but also seeking to ensure compliance with definitions in policy.

Next Steps  

We look forward to delving more into the data, expanding on our analysis, and gaining more practical insights from institutions in our subsequent institutional interviews and the full report to come later this winter. Join us at the WCET Annual Meeting for the session “Digital Learning Definitions: Let’s Talk and Share” on the afternoon of October 26, for a brief background on this work and lots of time spent sharing on how you are handling definitions in your setting.

If you have any thoughts or experiences you would like to share, please feel free to contact Kathryn Kerensky (kkerensky@wiche.edu) and Russ Poulin (rpoulin@wiche.edu).

Tags , , , ,
Categories
Practice

HBCUv – Reimagining Digital Learning for HBCUs

Post author By Lindsey Downs
Post date September 28, 2023

National HBCU Week, a White House initiative to gather HBCU representatives, federal agencies, and supporting organizations, kicked off this week in Arlington, Virginia. The theme this year is “Raising the Bar: Forging Excellence through Innovation & Leadership.” Prior to the amazing discussion I had that I’m going to share with you today, I misunderstood what this specific HBCU Week was about. While I am a bit disheartened with myself for not knowing more about this annual conference, it did seem like a good week to share this interview write up.

A few years ago, WCET staff collaborated to redefine the mission, vision, and values of WCET. When we started this effort, I had worked at WCET for around four years. I felt like I had a good grasp of my role and was excited about growth opportunities to continue to explore the how’s and what’s of quality digital learning.  

Of course, then the pandemic came along, and we all pivoted in a variety of different ways. Not only did the landscape of higher education change, but many of us changed jobs, homes, roles, and even our expectations for how our life worked on a day-to-day basis. My role has shifted a bit and is different than what I would have thought back in 2020. And while our stated goals here at WCET are not substantially different from what this Cooperative has endeavored toward throughout its history, I do feel that the focus and scope of those goals have narrowed in exciting ways.

A Turning Point

Photo by Keira Burton from Pexels

Both due to the spotlight the pandemic set upon the digital divide and our work through Every Learner Everywhere, the entire WCET staff improved the mission, vision, and values of WCET to be more centered around equity. From 2020 on we engaged in educational, professional, and personal development on diversity and equity. This included reviewing resources and materials, working with other educators, and having some hard but exceptional discussions between team members.

This year, when our team met for our annual in-person staff meeting (did you know more than half of WCET staff now work remotely from ALL OVER the U.S.?) we all said the same thing – we’ve learned a lot and it’s been great, but now it’s time to do something about what we’ve learned.

So, we are. We have been re-tooling our resources, papers, articles, reports, projects, etc., to ensure equity and accessibility are at the core of everything we do. We want (and have started) to reach out to minority-serving institutions and organizations to make connections, engage them with our community, and, most excitingly, shine a light on the promising practices that make a difference for the students who need our help the most.

If this introduction was TLDR… we added equity to our mission and we’re following through.

One of my favorite aspects of my role is working with our guest authors and staff to write content for WCET Frontiers, especially when the posts highlight the work going on in the higher education and digital learning communities. When we thought about “who is doing equity in digital learning well” we thought specifically about minority serving institutions such as Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs), Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), and Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs). We wondered: how do these institutions support their specific students, faculty, staff, and community in ways that make them all more successful? And can we work with those institutions, learn from them, and help other institutions serve minoritized students in similar ways?

Connecting with UNCF

UNCF (the United Negro College Fund) is a nonprofit connecting and supporting Historically Black Colleges and Universities – or HBCUs – through advocacy, funding, and professional development. UNCF provides a substantial amount of scholarship funds to Black students every year and even has a program for helping students facing emergency situations that might disrupt their degree program. The 79-year-old organization ensures HBCUs and their students have the resources to thrive. UNCF seemed to be the ideal organization to connect with to begin our journey to learn more about successful digital learning equity initiatives. Once connected, I had the pleasure to interview Julian Thompson, Senior Director of Strategy Development for UNCF’s Institute for Capacity Building (ICB).

Photo by Keira Burton from Pexels

UNCF founded ICB in 2006 to, in Julian’s words, “work on strategies that help HBCUs achieve long-term resilience and sustainability.” A critical goal for ICB is to identify initiatives and strategies for HBCUs to partner and learn from each other. Julian wants to help these institutions “achieve more together than what any of them could possibly achieve on their own.” The transition to remote learning due to the pandemic was also a significant moment for HBCUs – when only around 25% of HBCUs had online degree programs, compared to 55% of other institutions. As they reviewed the challenges HBCUs face when it comes to digital learning, ICB realized that there was no technology that truly fit into the HBCU method of educating students. And that method contributes significantly to the extraordinary results for Black students, especially those who are first generation and lower income. ICB had an opportunity to build an online learning system by and for HBCUs.

Thriving with HBCUv

The result of that opportunity was HBCUv – “a virtual ecosystem where the entire HBCU community can flourish together.”

ICB hoped to create a system with involvement of HBCUs, including platform development, strategy sharing, course sharing, knowledge sharing, etc. One of the guiding tactics for the project was to help HBCUs acquire and own more assets – such as tools, practices, technologies, approaches, etc.

The project began to take shape in spring/summer 2020. An important element of any higher education project is leadership buy-in and support, and that wasn’t any different here. ICB recruited nice institutions to serve as steering committee members. The representatives from each institution met with ICB multiple times a week, engaged with design and technology companies, and helped establish the vision of HBCUv. The work also included over 3,300 hours of research including focus groups, surveys, ethnographic studies and other methods to uncover the question of digital solutions, student success, and technology use on HBCU campuses. The question – what formal and informal learning experiences help HBCU students stay engaged and successful?

The Virtual Yard

Photo by George Pak from Pexels

One of the most significant conclusions of the big research effort was the importance of “The Yard.”

This term refers to a space of convening and collaboration on an HBCU campus. Julian advised that if you think about it, most full-time students are only in a classroom about 2 – 3 hours a day. The rest of those hours are spent on campus, with friends, in residence halls or other housing.

And that time spent outside the classroom has an important impact on their learning experience. ICB had to think of a way to expose students to those meaningful learning experiences that happen outside the classroom, as well as the learning that takes place inside the classroom. The “little things that you can’t plan for or arrange.

Think about the time you ran into someone a few years ahead of you in your program and they became a bit of a role model for you. You are inspired by them. Just that one interaction or knowing that one person can significantly impact a student’s success.” HBCUv will replicate that experience with the “Virtual Yard.”

What’s Next for HBCUv?

At this point the team at ICB has identified the vendors that will create the technical side of HBCUv and a dual enrollment/transfer organization that will establish transferable coursework.

The platform will be finalized later this year and a pilot is launching in early 2024. They hope to have HBCUv fully up and running with the steering committee institutions by fall 2024, with other HBCUs to follow.

Julian, thank you for sharing HBCUv with WCET and we all wish you the best of luck with the pilot process! I’m hoping you and the team will join us again, after the pilot so we can check in on how it’s going!

Tags , , , , ,
Categories
Practice

Generative Artificial Intelligence at Colorado Technical University

Post author By Lindsey Downs
Post date September 21, 2023

Over the last several months, WCET has been researching and developing resources on Artificial Intelligence and the use of Generative AI technologies such as ChatGPT in higher education digital learning.

An important aspect of our work in this area is to highlight what our member institutions are doing out in the real academic world. Today we’re excited to present a post doing just that – from our member Colorado Technical University. A huge thank you to Lisa Corprew and Connie Johnson for sharing with us the considerations and actions CTU has taken as Generative AI continues to make a large impact in higher education.

Enjoy the read,

Lindsey Downs, WCET.

CTU’s mission statement includes using technology to educate students. As the University experienced the rapid-speed information that Generative AI (and ChatGPT in particular) can provide for public use and was embraced by students to assist with their assignments, CTU leaders and faculty engaged to understand the possibilities, implications, and cautions related to the use of ChatGPT.

As the conversations unfolded, it was clear that there were several areas potentially impacted by Generative AI. Also clear is that while Generative AI itself does not have emotion, opinions and discussions can become quite spirited and diverse when discussing the future of and possibilities of AI in higher education.

As part of this process, the University reviewed several of the areas listed below:

Question 1: How would Generative AI affect academic work at CTU?

Faculty experience and feedback with Generative AI was mixed; faculty were equally concerned, baffled, and excited. Regardless of their feelings, they were seeking and deserved university direction. Fortunately, our exploration using a new AI “detector tool” led us to valuable direction rather quickly. The AI “detector tool” was extremely fallible. We stepped back from the common academic concern about plagiarism and got back to the heart of CTU’s Academic Honesty and Integrity policy: “original work.” As Generative AI does not replicate work, it does not create the risk of plagiarism. It does, of course, create the risk that students can submit work that is not “original.”

To manage this risk, faculty began to view student work differently. In many classes at CTU, faculty encourage students to use Generative AI to answer content questions and then use their own research and sources to validate those answers. English and coding classes were the earliest adopters of this type of use. Evaluating the sources of information allows students to reflect on the content, analyze the value of various sources, and separate fact from fiction. As Generative AI is not perfect and is known to “hallucinate” or integrate incorrect information, this analysis is not only a valuable academic exercise, but also a necessary one. This analysis supports the leveled objectives found in Bloom’s Taxonomy, providing an excellent scaffolding tool for learning. The faculty evaluation of the student’s process of investigation, along with the outcomes of the analysis, provides an excellent assessment of learning in partnership with Generative AI.

Question 2: Can Generative AI be used as a tutoring tool?

This question was of particular interest to CTU leadership. General education faculty created videos for students demonstrating the use, comparatively, of Google Bard and ChatGPT as a reviewer for the grammar, punctuation, and sentence structure of an English essay. Computer science faculty ask students to create and run programming codes through a Generative AI platform to identify errors. The collaboration between the Generative AI platform and a human partner provides insight and ideas, and provides students an opportunity to use their critical thinking and problem-solving skills to demonstrate their knowledge and learning. On a larger scale, CTU is exploring the possibility of implementing a tutoring tool similar to adaptive learning that can be used in all courses that generates tutoring content specific to a student’s need.

Question 3: What about policies addressing Generative AI?

CTU faculty expressed concerns regarding how students can use Generative AI by but also understand and uphold the critical standards of Academic Integrity and the requirement for “original work” by students, as noted in CTU’s academic honesty policy. Faculty have a direct link in the virtual gradebook to submit any Academic Integrity concern for review. With this submission, they create a direct connection with a review team to help evaluate the student submission, the tools used, and previous review requests for the particular student’s work. That collaborative review allows faculty to understand the “big picture” for each student and provide extensive, detailed feedback to help the student re-evaluate either their work or protocols related to Academic Integrity. The plan to redirect and help students learn on the first offense, along with the collaborative uses of Generative AI, will help CTU meet the goal of using Generative AI tools for a learning advantage.

Question 4: How can leadership use Artificial Intelligence tools?

CTU previously launched an AI BOT to address student’s basic questions in the areas of admissions and financial aid. There is currently not a plan to Increase usage of BOT’s to engage with students in the areas of faculty and advising.

However, there is an appetite to explore how AI might assist student-ticketing systems (used to monitor student issues in the classroom and with faculty) and basic work questions, tasks and inquiries in departments including admissions, financial aid, and marketing.

CTU embraces the use of technology to improve student outcomes and student experiences and will continue to explore Generative AI with a focus on the time, resources, and people needed as AI continues to influence education everywhere.

Tags , , , , ,