Governor Jerry Brown proposed a new community college that would be online, competency-based, offer sub-associate credentials, and focused on serving working learners. The idea was included in his budget request that he delivered to the California State Assembly yesterday.
From the website for the initiative describing the problem being solved and the proposed solution:
Economic insecurity is expected to increase over the next decade. By 2020, 65 percent of jobs in the U.S. will require a college credential, according to estimates by the Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce…Millions of Californians would benefit from sub-associate degree credentials or short bursts of additional training to move ahead in today’s economy. However, traditional higher education is not accessible for these working learners.
The California Community Colleges is responding with an online community college to provide skills and credentials working learners need to improve their social and economic mobility and move our state forward. This new, competency-based online college will be unlike any other public online education platform and will focus predominately on sub-associate degree credentials of value tailored to the needs of these working learners.
Van Ton-Quinlivan, Executive Vice Chancellor, Workforce and Digital Futures for the California Community College System told me that: “The R&D unit being established as part of this venture will build our collective use of learning science, data science, and behavioral science in shaping educational strategies that meet adults where they are.”
How Was the Proposal Developed?
Governor Brown has a recent history of challenging the three higher education systems in his state to serve more students and to be more innovative. Resulting investments have led to California Community Colleges’ Online Education Initiative and efforts of the California State University to support online learners.
Brown wanted more. Unlike a few other examples that I can think of in which politicians floated half-baked ideas, this idea was researched. A Working Group represented key constituents within the colleges, the system, and the state’s Departments of Labor and Finance. The National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS) “worked with the system stakeholders and online thought leaders to develop ‘Report on Options for an Online, Statewide Community College’ that was delivered to the governor.”
The Working Group presented the Governor with options including an institution that would assume the duties on its own or a partnership of institutions that would share the duties. The Governor favored creating a new institution.
Additional Considerations for Accreditation, Organization, and Learning
Seek “accreditation and meet requirements for students to become eligible for federal financial aid and state financial aid.”
Not compete with existing colleges because it is focusing on students who “are not currently accessing higher education” and “students who are unable to access or obtain an education in a traditional setting.”
Hire its own faculty and will transition to collective bargaining.
Avoid duplicating existing programs by leveraging existing online education efforts (such as the Online Education Initiative mentioned previously) already available within the system.
Sally Johnstone, President of NCHEMS told me that: “The design of the new statewide community college is based on everything we know and could find about the needs of working Californians who will require new skills and knowledge to fulfill evolving workforce demands. This college will be able to incorporate the latest information from the field of learning science to offer these students engaging and convenient ways to acquire relevant knowledge for life-long careers.”
Not Surprisingly, Questions Remain
As with any new venture, there are more questions than facts. There are many details to work out.
For example, via Twitter Sean Gallagher (Founder and Executive Director of Northeastern University’s Center for the Future of Higher Education and Talent Strategy, and Executive Professor of Educational Policy) asked me “And why can’t the existing CA community colleges meet the need? I’m assuming the challenge is governance, financial model, faculty buy-in?”
I think he hit on some real challenges that might be more easily overcome with a new entity. In my opinion additional factors may be capacity (the existing colleges have had trouble keeping apace with the growing population) and the laser-focus on workforce development (which has become a favorite issue with state legislators everywhere).
Additionally, I think it is an issue about an institution’s ability to focus. I worry when a college adds a major new effort that may be the third…or eighth…or sixteenth most important item in their mission. There are other states that have adult and/or online focused institutions and they have been stellar in serving that goal. Meanwhile, I’ve worked on projects that were short-term priorities for more traditional institutions and those efforts have gone by the wayside. An example is Kentucky’s Commonwealth College, which I believe has been whittled down to nothing.
It will be fascinating to watch the press, the politics, and the progress of this idea. More to come!
What do you think? Share your comments below.
Russ
Russell Poulin
Director, Policy & Analysis
WCET – The WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technologies rpoulin@wiche.edu@russpoulin WCET – 30 years of serving #highered in North America
In a new bill regarding higher education rules proposed in the House of Representatives:
all federal state authorization rules are ended,
competency-based education gets a boost with “regular and substantive interaction” being redefined and expanded accreditation oversight,
accreditation reviews for distance education are a thing of the past,
some confusion remains over distance and online education definitions, and,
there would be new tools to inform students about colleges and financial aid.
President Lyndon B. Johnson signs the Higher Education Act, November 8, 1965. Image in public domain.
There’s still a long road ahead before the vision would become reality, but all these things are envisioned in the House of Representatives’ sweeping plan for the future of higher education in the United States.
While this is just the beginning, we need to pay attention all along the way so that we can have input before it is too late. This is especially true given the increasing tendency towards a lack of Congressional transparency.
Others in the higher education community (ACE, NASFAA, Robert Kelchen’s 3 key takeaways) have commented on the overall impact of the PROSPER Act. I’m focusing on the issues that have the most direct impact on the work of WCET members. The interpretations are my own and I take responsibility for any errors. Enjoy!
No More Federal State Authorization for Distance Education
On page 468 of the Act is a section that would repeal and prohibit the enforcement of most federal state authorization regulations. Suggested to be removed are the state authorization regulations that were issued in 2010 and updated last year. The updated parts of the regulations (set to go into effect July 1, 2018) would require institutions serving students in other states via distance education to demonstrate that they had the approval of each state where they serve those students.
Authorization focuses on “Physical Location”
In the PROSPER Act, the expectations are simplified greatly. For institutions, they would be required to:
“…provide evidence to the Secretary that the institution has authority to operate within each State in which it maintains a physical location at the time the institution is certified under subpart 3.”
They seem to be focusing authorization on the institution’s home state and other states in which the institution may have a “physical location.” Unfortunately, the term “physical location” is not defined. In looking through the Financial Aid Handbook a “location” is approved by and accreditor, is not a branch campus, and where 50% or more of a program is offered.
Presumably, the authors of this section did not understand the differences among the states in defining “physical presence” in a state. I would assume that they are first thinking of the state of domiclle (the legal home state) for the institution. For other states, they are probably thinking of an actual building that is leased or rented in another state by the institution and would probably not include such things as weekend courses in a hotel, faculty living in another state, or field trips. But, I can’t be sure.
If PROSPER becomes law, these tricky nuances of “physical location” would need to be clarified.
Authorization for Distance Education is Removed
Any expectations for state authorization for institutions serving students via distance education in other states has been removed. Many in higher education will cheer this action. I think it is a mistake as it seems to me to be a reasonable expectation that institutions follow the laws in states in which they disburse federal funds to students.
For many distance education providers, there is great angst about the new notification requirements for professional licensure programs that are set to go into effect in July of next year. If this legislation is passed, those notifications would no longer be enforced. Watch for more word from Cheryl Dowd (State Authorization Network Director) and me on this issue. Even though that requirement might vanish, colleges should do more than they are now. It is the right thing to do for students. If you want to be selfish, it’s the authorization issue that is most likely to land you in a lawsuit with students.
Meanwhile, we need to remember that (even if passed) this legislation WILL HAVE NO IMPACT ON STATE LAWS. This Act (if adopted) will not supersede state laws and that fact is reinforced on page 11 of the Act. Remember that states will still expect institutions to follow their laws when serving students located within their borders, regardless of how their education is delivered.
Support for Reciprocity for State Authorization
There is explicit support for reciprocity agreements among states, which would include the State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement. On pages 11-12 is language stating that nothing in the state authorization section of this Act should be construed to:
“limit, impede, or preclude a State’s ability to collaborate or participate in a reciprocity agreement to permit an institution within such State to meet any other State’s authorization requirements for out-of-state institutions.”
That is a great addition.
No More Accrediting Review of Distance Education, But New Review for Competency-Based
On pages 475 and 482 are two small statements that strike “distance education” and replace it with “competency-based education.” Here is the language that would be changed taken from a section of the existing law about the federal recognition of accreditation agencies:
“If the agency or association reviews institutions offering distance education courses or programs and the Secretary determines that the agency or association meets the requirements of this section, then the agency shall be recognized and the scope of recognition shall include accreditation of institutions offering distance education courses or programs.”
If you make the change in the language, to me that means:
Accrediting agencies would no longer need to seek special approval from the Department of Education to be able to accredit institutions with distance education programs.
Accrediting agencies would no longer be required to perform special reviews of distance education courses or programs.
A new expectation would be placed on accrediting agencies to obtain special Department of Education approval to be able to accredit institutions offering competency-based education.
Accrediting agencies so approved would need to perform special reviews of competency-based education courses or programs.
This seems to be a win for distance education in being treated like all other traditional programs. This might be considered as a necessary political and consumer protective step for competency-based programs.
Along with other changes (see below) regarding competency-based education, the intent seems to be to place much weight on the accrediting agency’s oversight of what works in competency-based programs. This language appears to remedy the shortcomings in the current interpretations of federal law found in the recent audit of Western Governors University by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Inspector General.
New Definitions of Correspondence, Competency-Based, and Regular & Substantive Interaction
New definitions of “Correspondence Education” (p. 25) and “Competency-Based Education” (beginning on page 28) seem to subtly address the issues regarding “regular and substantive interaction” in the audit report of WGU. Let’s look at a portion of the new competency-based education (CBE) definition, which says that CBE:
“…provides the educational content, activities, and resources, including substantive instructional interaction, including by faculty, and regular support by the institution, necessary to enable students to learn or develop what is required to demonstrate and attain mastery of such competencies, as assessed by the accrediting agency or association of the institution of higher education.”
Notice that “interaction” and “regular” are now separated. Interaction is limited to “instruction interaction” and is not necessarily limited to being provided by a faculty person. “Regular” talks about “regular support by the institution,” which again expands the definition beyond merely instructional engagement and beyond only the faculty person of record.
On first blush, this appears to be a clever way to address the findings in the WGU audit. I worried that any legislative relief might help WGU, but not help other institutions with CBE. That does not seem to be the case. However, it does seem to help CBE while not making the same changes in the definition of distance education, possibly leaving distance education at risk of falling under the Office of Inspector General’s interpretation of “regular and substantive interaction.”
I will be curious to see how the CBE community reacts. Unfortunately, they have not been speaking with one voice. Will CBE folks accept it and will it work? Stay tuned.
Distance Education and Online Education Definitions
In one of the previews of the PROSPER Act there was a statement that the troublesome distance education definition was fixed. I was glad to hear this given my recent recommendations on the many definitions currently in use. Unfortunately, there were no magic bullet fixes or even any changes to the distance education definition. That author may have confused distance education and the above-mentioned changes to correspondence and CBE definitions (insert heavy sigh here).
There are only four mentions of “distance” in the Act. The term “online” appears 24 times. Unfortunately, references to “online education” are never defined (insert two heavy sighs here). The most notable mentions are:
On page 24, an institution located outside the United States that offers federal aid “may not offer more than 50 percent of courses through telecommunications.”
On page 48 regarding a “College Dashboard” website, additional reporting requirements for institutions that offer all their undergraduate programs online.
On page 95, exempting institutions that provide instruction primarily through online courses from sexual assault rules. The term “primarily through online courses” is not defined. If it is not completely online, couldn’t sexual assault still happen?
It would be good for the PROSPER Act to improve the distance education definition and/or add a definition of online education. This is an initial analysis, so I may have more specific recommendations in the future.
New Online Financial Aid Tools to Aid Students
PROSPER seeks to bring some financial aid practices into the digital world:
On page 429, beginning not later than one year after enactment of PROSPER, online counseling tools will be tested and made available for students receiving Pell Grants or borrowers of loans. The tool will be used both for yearly counseling and for exit interviews.
On page 433, create an online estimator tool to allow a student to enter basic information and obtain non-binding estimates of aid that the student might receive.
The Distance Education Demonstration Program is Removed
The removal of that historic remnant appears to be a housekeeping move. I cannot remember the last time that any activities were conducted under that program.
We’ve Only Just Begun
This is the first step in a long process. The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee says that offering its own version of a reauthorization bill is its first priority in the new year. The leaders of the SENATE HELP Committee have a history of working in a more bipartisan manner than does the House, so there may be significant differences in what they propose.
I have seen several predictions that a final reauthorization bill might not be approved until 2019. That would be after a new Congress is seated…and, if there are significant changes, they may have their own ideas.
It is important for us to keep track of the progress and to try to get improvements or wholesale changes where we think appropriate. I recall a previous round of these negotiations during the last reauthorization. Some nonsensical items that were in the original bill made it to the final version because people kept saying it would be “fixed in the final draft.” Once these things get momentum, Congressional staff want to change as little as possible.
We need to watch closely.
We need to keep vigilant.
We need to speak up.
Again, this is a first pass at this language by me. I encourage you to go ahead and contact your Congressional Representatives now if there are items that you wish to see changed. In future blog posts, there will probably be other items within this 542 page Act on which I will comment. I also plan to make suggestions on items on which we should coalesce around a common message.
Meanwhile, have a PROSPER-ous holiday season!
Russ
Russell Poulin
Director, Policy & Analysis
WCET – WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technologies rpoulin@wiche.edu@russpoulin
Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a report concluding:
“We concluded that Western Governors University did not comply with the institutional eligibility requirement that limits the percentage of regular students who may enroll in correspondence courses. Therefore, the Department should require the school to return the $712,670,616 in Title IV funds it received from July 1, 2014, through June 30, 2016, and any additional funds it received after June 30, 2016.”
This recommendation is based upon the OIG’s interpretation “regular and substantive interaction.” The phrase appears in Chapter 34, §600.2 of the Department’s definitions of the term “distance education” as a means to delineate it from “correspondence education.” Institutions can grant Title IV aid for only a limited number of correspondence courses.
Western Governors University (WGU) created a webpage describing its position regarding how its leaders feel they complied with the regulations.
Blog Post Series
This is the first in a series of blog posts regarding the OIG’s actions. Today we focus on our history on this issue and on the notion of “interaction.” In a future post (or posts?), we are planning to talk about:
The notions of “regular” and “substantive,”
the specific application of “regular and substantive interaction” in the WGU case,
what that might mean to others offering competency-based education (CBE) and distance education, and
what you should do about it.
Improving Quality and Access Do Not Matter?
In our initial look at the report, Van Davis (Associate Vice President of Higher Education Research and Policy) and I took particular note of this comment on page 6 of the OIG’s report on WGU:
“We (OIG) did not assess whether the school’s model was improving educational quality or expanding access to higher education. We are not withdrawing our findings or the corresponding recommendations.”
While we will say more about the report in upcoming posts, we felt that saying that it does not matter whether an institution actually serves students well is an astonishing. This is a severely troubling statement.
Departmental Guidance on “Regular and Substantive Interaction”
The interpretation has been difficult. I have been following this issue since I first reviewed findings of an audit report on St. Mary-of-the-Woods College back in 2012. That post consistently remains one of our top viewed posts each year. Last I heard, the recommendations in this report have yet to be resolved. A final resolution for WGU might have a similar fate.
That report was issued five years ago. In the intervening time, the communications from the Department of Education in communicating its expectations on how institutions are supposed to comply have been few and far between. In August, 2016, WCET published a great post by Myk Garn (Assistant Vice Chancellor for New Learning Models with the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia) on “Why We Need to Stop Using ‘Self-Paced’ in CBE Descriptions.” Because of the minimal guidance, the issues raised by Myk, and my worry that people were relying on the St. Mary-of-the-Woods College blog post as their guidance, Van Davis and I reviewed all the materials we could find. After reviewing “Dear Colleague” letters, the financial aid handbook, and audit reports, we penned the post “Interpreting what is Required for ‘Regular and Substantive Interaction’” in September, 2016 to assist institutional personnel seeking to comply with the regulation.
From the St. Mary-of-the-Woods report to our review last year and culminating with the OIG findings on WGU, OIG interpretations and how it applied those interpretations changed. Many of the essential points remain the same, but important new criteria have been added over time. Van and I were communicating yesterday on some of the criteria applied to WGU and wondered “where did that come from?” We will get into more specifics in a future post.
Bottom line: The Department of Education is usually very clear in stating the criteria and measures that will be used in assuring compliance with federal financial aid laws. This is not the case on this issue.
When is Interaction Not Interaction?
The idea of “regular and substantive interaction” is anchored in a noble goal that we all support. We do not want federal financial aid dollars going to fraudulent educational activities. There were fraudulent correspondence courses in the past in which the instruction was left mainly to the student’s own devices. As a result, severe limitations were placed on the number of correspondence courses that could be included in an institutions financial aid package.
The notion of “interaction” was used as the main line of demarcation between correspondence and distance education. The problem is that the notion of quality academic interaction is not really what is defined in the regulation. In the Department’s definition of “correspondence course”:
“Interaction between the instructor and student is limited, is not regular and substantive, and is primarily initiated by the student. Correspondence courses are typically self-paced.”
The OIG is looking for interaction that is:
Initiated by the faculty person.
On a schedule set by the faculty person.
That’s not interaction, that’s dissemination. Both Merriam-Webster and I have a richer view of “interaction” as an activity that is more give and take and not one-way:
The problem with applying that definition to competency-based education is that:
Interaction with a student is far more frequent than in a traditional course. Ironically, CBE courses are being called correspondence courses (which have almost no interaction) simply because of who initiates much of the activity.
The student has more control over the schedule for interaction. CBE is popular with adults who need flexibility in their timing. In correspondence education, students were allowed to float on their own with long stretches of inactivity. That does not happen in good CBE instruction as there is frequent contact to make sure that the student is progressing toward his or her goals.
Bottom line: In talking about the high ideals of interaction to the public, the OIG is playing off the Merriam-Webster notion of interaction that is probably resident in most of our minds. Meanwhile, in applying their definition in practice, they are expecting compliance with an historic model of faculty lecture, dissemination, and control. CBE is not someone lecturing for 54 minutes and asking “any questions” in the last minute. That’s not good interaction in any instructional setting, including face-to-face. Such poor interaction is simply not possible in CBE instruction.
What Might Happen?
The OIG is making a recommendation and this is not the final word. From Michael Goldstein (Cooley, LLP):
“The IG’s report and recommendations go to Federal Student Aid, which decides what, if any, action should be taken. (The “if any” is directly from the IG transmittal.) That involves a further, and often lengthy, review process. The ultimate decision authority is the Secretary.”
Lengthy? Remember that the St. Mary-of-the-Woods report was released in 2012.
Similar to the birth of eLearning in the 1990s, the rush to implement adaptive learning has led to the development of poorly designed courses that are not properly aligned and fail to effectively implement the principles of multimedia learning. As a result, many institutions often proclaim their use of adaptive learning as a failure. Much of their disappointment with the initial results can be directly linked to the design of the course itself. One of the wonderfully unique strengths of using adaptive learning to deliver courses at the university level is the ability of the tool to illuminate gaps in the course design.
Oftentimes, universities make a swift decision to incorporate adaptive learning into a course, program, or department (and sometimes across departments when prompted by grants and other financial incentives) as one way to address their student success strategic initiatives. While adaptive learning is an excellent tool for improving student success across a university campus and its feeder system, little attention is usually given to the role of the faculty when redesigning courses for use in such a platform. Additionally, there is a gross underestimate of the time required to design and develop courses that are both aligned and adhere to the principles of multimedia learning. In an effort to most effectively take advantage of the power that lies in the use of a strong adaptive learning platform, faculty should be involved in the process from day one and the use of instructional designers should be considered a valuable use of resources.
Regardless of the delivery modality, poorly designed courses impact student success. It is past time we pay more attention to this critical issue as we now have tools that can provide support to students on a one to one basis. Attention to the development of a properly aligned course is imperative for student success. More often than not, however, most faculty completely ignore or lack knowledge of what proper alignment is, how to use it, and why it is important.
What is Proper Alignment?
Proper alignment means there is a direct connection, or correlation, between the course goals, the objectives, the assessments, and lessons. Proper alignment ensures that students learn what you intend for them to learn and are able to perform the tasks you expect them to be able to perform. One of the most effective ways to ensure proper alignment of a course is through the use of the backward design model. In this model, faculty begin with the end in mind and design the actual lesson last.
Beginning with the End in Mind: Course Goals
Faculty should ask themselves, “What do students need to know and be able to do by the end of this course?” Whatever it is that students should know and be able to do at the end of the course is the stick by which all other decisions about the course and its design should be measured. If an objective, assessment, or lesson does not contribute to that ultimate goal(s) of the course, it should not be included.
Faculty and other course developers should have a very narrow focus for each course they develop and always ask if each assessment and each lesson will help their students achieve the goal(s) for their course. Additionally, faculty should know that less is usually more in education. There should be no more than one, maybe two, overall goals for any particular course. Much thought should be given to exactly what the goal of each course is or should be.
When deciding to move a course into an adapted learning platform, it is crucial that the course has a clearly defined goal and that you are able to define what success means, especially if your university is working to meet student success initiatives. Defining success helps the adapted platform partner better meet your needs by providing yo u the most important data and identifying possible gaps in the course and curriculum.
Properly Aligned Learning Objectives
Anytime you have a large goal, you should have smaller goals that help you reach that larger goal. I like to explain to the students in my teacher education courses that a course goal and its objectives are like a ladder. The course goal sits at the top of the ladder and each rung on the ladder is an objective that students need to master in order to reach that course goal.
Another critical component of effective learning objectives is that they must be SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time sensitive). This can be quite challenging for faculty to grasp. Each learning objective set must meet the SMART criteria to increase the likelihood of student success in any course.
When designing a course for delivery using an adaptive learning platform, you must map out the objectives and determine if these objectives must be learned in a particular order such as is typically the case with math courses as they follow a more linear path – you must be able to add and subtract before you can multiply and divide. Here, you are beginning to tap into the power of the adapted platform to highly personalize the course to each student’s needs based upon their incoming knowledge.
Properly Aligned Assessments
Hopefully by now, you have clearly identified your course goal and the learning objectives that will be needed to help students reach that goal. Now you are ready to think about how you will know if students reach the goal and how you will measure their progress toward meeting that goal along the way. My professional opinion is that effectively assessing students continuously is the backbone to learning.
The days of giving a midterm and final should be over in higher education although I am clearly aware that it is not. This is clearly a training issue. Unless you have been trained as an educator, you may not have ever been taught how to teach. Unfortunately, just because you are an expert in your field does not mean you can do an effective job of teaching others. This is where the university must take a stand and begin requiring that faculty receive professional development and training around pedagogy/andragogy.
To determine how much students are learning throughout the course, the use of formative assessments are key. Here, you are assessing for learning. In an adapted course, these assessments allow you to provide detailed feedback and adjust the lesson for students on an individual and dynamic basis. Effective feedback is critical to increasing learning and it is essential that the feedback is timely. In an adapted course, feedback is immediate regardless of the time of day or night. No teacher can or ever will be capable of doing this without the assistance of a digital tool, such as an adaptive platform.
In my experience, getting faculty to understand the importance of and commitment to the development of effective assessments is the most challenging part of designing a course to be delivered using adaptive learning. While not new, variablized questions – assessment questions with multiple correct and incorrect answers – is an excellent assessment type to maximize the power of adaptive learning. While it takes a little time to get the hang of, the use of 5 variablized questions can allow an adapted platform to produce over 100 different versions of those questions! When each question is properly tagged to each objective, strong evidence for student success can be clearly identified. This is where the use of adaptive learning gets exciting! There’s nothing like seeing the results from your hard work developing a properly aligned course from top to bottom.
Properly Aligned Lessons
I teach students that the last component they need to develop in the backward design of their course is the actual lesson. After you know the goal, the objectives needed to reach that goal, and how you will assess students’ progress toward that goal, you are now ready to design the lesson. To me, this is the easiest part of the design process. By now the picture is clear and you are best able to develop a lesson that is not only aligned to the goal and objectives of the course but also ensure that you will teach in such a way that will best prepare students for the ways in which you will assess them.
At the end of the day, I am either helping my students succeed or helping them to fail. Too often in academia, we like to pass the buck off to the students. However, this practice is not fair unless we can ensure that our courses are properly aligned and that we are asking students to complete activities and assessments that will help them move up the ladder to reach the ultimate goal of the course.
The use of adaptive learning can allow faculty to design lessons to ensure that all learners are capable of succeeding by properly aligning their courses. However, as you now might be able to more clearly see, the development of effective courses, rather delivered face-to-face, in a hybrid setting, or in an online format, will require the involvement of faculty and, in many cases, the use of instructional designers. Additionally, faculty must be supported with course releases or other appropriate support needed to develop effective courses that can increases student success.
While the use of proper alignment is a critical aspect of course design, the proper use of multimedia principles are also needed. Catch my next blog post for an overview of the multimedia principles and how they are used to design effective courses.
Niki Bray
Instructor & Instructional Designer
School of Health Studies
Physical Education Teacher Education (PETE)
The University of Memphis
Former WCET Fellow on Adaptive Learning n.bray@memphis.edu
It is also said that not everything that can be counted has value.
Can you help tell the difference when measuring distance education activities?
The U.S. Department of Education needs your help in discerning what data it should be collecting about distance education and hybrid/blended learning. In a call for comments, they seek advice from interested stakeholders on how they might improve the quality of data collections for its Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS).
WCET is proud to partner with Babson Survey Research Group and e-Literate in examining the IPEDS distance education enrollment data under our joint Digital Learning Compass umbrella. But, today we would like to get your opinions. I will summarize some of the options that they are considering. You can choose to submit a comment on your own. Alternatively, you can send brief comments to me and we will compile them to submit. See details below on how to participate in either option. You don’t need to comment on every item.
The panel discussing proposed changes raised great questions. However, there are times when you can tell that the panel needed more experience on distance education issues. Here’s your chance to help.
“Since 2012, the IPEDS data collection system collects data on distance education in three survey components: Institutional Characteristics (IC), Completions, and Fall Enrollment (EF). The purpose of these data is to provide useful and meaningful information on distance education offerings and enrollments for consumer, research, and transparency purposes.”
They also include the insightful footnote:
“Although the IPEDS distance education data collection is relatively new, the postsecondary landscape is constantly changing due to advanced and improved technologies.”
Discussion Item #1: Defining Distance Education
Distance education courses.
IPEDS currently has no definition for a hybrid or blended course. The IPEDS definition of a “Distance Education Course” focuses on almost all of the activity in the course taking place “exclusively via distance education.” The definition is:
“A course in which the instructional content is delivered exclusively via distance education. Requirements for coming to campus for orientation, testing, or academic support services do not exclude a course from being classified as distance education.”
The preliminary recommendation from the panel considering changes is:
“IPEDS should retain its current definitions of exclusively online coursework to maintain longitudinal comparisons with past data collections and should emphasize in the instructions that hybrid courses are not considered by IPEDS as distance education.”
What do you think? How would you improve this definition?
Distance education programs.
The IPEDS definition of a “Distance Education Program” builds on the course definition, seemingly, to focus on exclusively at a distance, as well. The definition is:
“A program for which all the required coursework for program completion is able to be completed via distance education courses.”
The preliminary recommendation from the panel considering changes is:
“Panelists…pointed out that distance education programs are generally approved by accreditors and suggested adding language to the question to clarify that all programs are designed to be completed via distance education. This would eliminate confusion between distance education indicating course-taking practices versus distance education describing the program being offered. They also suggested that NCES review the definitions of distance education programs used by accrediting agencies and consider adopting similar language.”
They are struggling with this one. What would you suggest? Would you include SARA and states in the conversation?
Discussion Item #2: Collecting Distance Education Data in the IPEDS Institutional Characteristics Survey
Distance education levels.
The panel suggests that institutions report their offerings according to the follow table with the newest column on the far right in red:
How would you improve this chart?
Exclusively distance education programs.
See page four of the call for comments for this one. The summary completely confused me. Perhaps you will have better luck. It leads me to the question: I can think of “completely distance education” institutions (those that offer all their courses at a distance), but can you think of an institution that either:
Offers all its courses at a distance at the undergraduate level, but not the graduate level?
Offers all its courses at a distance at the graduate level, but not the undergraduate level?
Telecommunications systems.
Panelists discussed whether to collect data on the types of technology used in distance education. Their preliminary recommendation is:
“In general, they agreed there was no compelling reason to begin collecting detail on telecommunication systems.”
Do you agree?
Delivery modes.
Panelists discussed whether to collect data on synchronous, asynchronous, or mixed modes of instruction. Their preliminary recommendation is:
“…they pointed out that the mode of delivery varies by course section and collecting this information at the institution level would not be feasible.”
Do you agree?
Discussion Item #3: Collecting Distance Education Data in the IPEDS Completions Survey
Here’s a description of the problem they identified:
“The IPEDS Completions component collects whether the institution offers the full program (as defined by the Classification of Instructional Programs [CIP] code system) and award level through distance education. If more than one program is offered under a CIP code by award level, institutions are instructed to check “yes” to the distance education question if any of the programs are offered as a distance education program. Panelists noted that a constraint of the current format is the inability to identify the number of programs offered as distance education programs if more than one program is offered under a CIP code. They considered several options for categorizing exclusively distance education programs in ways that are better aligned with how institutions organize their programs.”
The options considered:
Collect data for each program reported under a CIPE code and award level.
Collect data on whether programs are offered in traditional (in-person), online, or hybrid/blended settings.
Collect data on the number of programs that are available via distance education.
The preliminary recommendation of the panel is:
“After weighing the burden of collecting the additional data with the benefit it would provide to the public, panelists did not strongly favor modifying the Completions component question about programs offered via distance education.”
Would you like to see completions data or is it too burdensome? If you would like to add it, how would it help you?
Discussion Item #4: Collecting Distance Education in IPEDS Enrollment Surveys
Clarify terminology.
The preliminary recommendation of the panel is:
“Panelists suggested relabeling the category for “enrolled in some but not all distance education courses” to “enrolled in at least one but not all distance education courses” to reduce misunderstandings about “some” distance education coursework on the EF component to mean hybrid courses.”
Collect distance education enrollment in the 12-month Enrollment survey (in addition to the Fall Enrollment survey).
Since some distance education institutions enroll students continuously throughout the year, the current Fall Enrollment report might disadvantage them. The 12-month Enrollment survey might better reflect total institutional enrollments. The preliminary recommendation of the panel is:
“Panelists did not reach agreement on the value of collecting distance education instructional activity or calculating distance education FTE estimates, given the high burden and questions about who would benefit from these data. Panelists suggested that NCES review information on instructional activity required by accreditors to further assess the burden and feasibility of collecting data on distance education instructional activity.”
It would be great to hear from institutions with non-traditional calendars. How would this option help you? For those with traditional calendars, is this a help or a burden?
Discussion Item #5: Collecting Data on Hybrid/Blended Courses
Collection of hybrid/blended enrollments or activities would be new for IPEDS. It is obvious this discussion could have been aided by someone with more experience with technology-mediated instruction. The preliminary definition and recommendations of the panel are:
“In general, panelists voiced opposition against attempting to use percentage thresholds to define what a hybrid course is and instead suggested using the following definition as a framework for the discussion: hybrid courses are courses that can be taken through some distance education technology that replaces in-classroom seat time. Panelists suggested collecting the number of students enrolled exclusively in hybrid courses, in at least one but not all hybrid courses, or not enrolled in any hybrid courses, by student level and undergraduate degree-seeking status, to mirror the “all, some, or none” format for collecting enrollment in distance education courses.
A panelist also noted that the concept of seat time is not applicable to competency-based education courses, in which the outcome rather than the seat time is the focus, and discussed implementing an exception, or specific instructions, to guide institutions on how institutions should report competency-based education courses.
In general, panelists supported collecting hybrid enrollment in both the EF and E12 components, but RTI encourages additional comments on this topic, particularly with respect to burden on affected institutions.”
What is your recommendation regarding hybrid/blended courses…both in how they are defined and on the value of having such data?
Discussion Item #6: Collecting Additional Distance Education Data
The panel considered:
“The panel was asked to weigh the possibility of adding a new, optional survey component to IPEDS for collecting and reporting consumer-focused distance education information. For example, the panel considered an approach that would focus on attributes related to each CIP code and award level to collect the data for search tools for prospective students.”
The panelists suggested that, if this options is pursued, that consumer focus groups be used to identify useful data items. Additionally, date would be provided in an application provider interface (API) for use by outside organizations.
Now It’s Your Turn: How to Respond
Again, you can respond to any or all the items. You have two options:
You can respond directly. Send your comments to Janice Kelly-Reid, IPEDS Project Director, at ipedsTRPcomment@rti.org by September 9, 2017. Write a letter citing who you are, your experience with distance education and/or hybrid/blended education, the items on which you wish to comment, and your recommendations on those items.
You can send me comments. I will collect comments and put them into a single response. Send your comments to me at rpoulin@wiche.edu by August 31, 2017. In your comment let me know who you are, your institution/organization, your experience with distance education and/or hybrid/blended education, the items on which you wish to comment, and your recommendations on those items. Please write in complete sentences. I will share this official comment publicly.
Let’s make sure that whatever we count, that it makes sense and is useful. Your input will help assure that outcome.
Veterans taking all their college courses online are getting short-changed. As Congress moves to rework the GI Bill, let’s get them to fix this problem.
We need your help. Read the background and see how to respond at the end.
The GI Bill Reduces the Housing Allowance for Fully Online Students
Veterans of the U.S. armed services are eligible for funding to pay for tuition, fees, books and supplies, and a Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) while pursuing postsecondary education. However, if the veteran takes of his or her courses at a distance, the BAH is greatly reduced:
“The GI Bill is available for independent, distance, or Internet training. This type of training is usually offered by institutions of higher learning and similar rules and rates apply. (Note: If you are utilizing your Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits while taking ONLY distance-learning courses you will be paid a housing allowance based on 50 percent of the national average payable in the United States.)”
Yes, they receive HALF the amount they would if they attended on-campus courses.
Veteran Danny Stuckey received half of his housing allowance because he took all of his courses online
Examining the GI Bill payment rate for the academic year beginning August 1, 2017, that is a reduction of $804.50 per month. That’s a significant amount of money.
I’ve heard stories of veterans taking one class face-to-face (perhaps even a one-hour physical education course) to remain eligible for the full amount. As Pat James of California Community Colleges’ Online Education Initiative commented to me about this practice, “they burn their benefits on useless courses.”
So Why Care Now? Congress is Updating the GI Bill’s Educational Benefits
“Congressional Republicans and Democrats are moving ahead on a plan to expand educational benefits for veterans under the Post 9/11 GI Bill. The bipartisan legislation unveiled on Thursday is expected to move quickly, at least through the House, over the next several weeks.”
While we appreciate the several advances being proposed (Military Times calls them “beefed up” benefits), the current version of HR 3218 does not fix this problem with the BAH reduction. In fact, it doubles down on it by including a similar provision (on page 31) in a section defining a new “Department of Veterans Affairs High Technology Pilot Program.” A similar reduction of 50% of the “Housing Stipend” is proposed for distance learning programs participating in that pilot program.
Let’s Hear from a Veteran Who Experienced the Problem
We put out a call for veterans to share their experiences with this rule. We are seeking more stories and will continue to share them. Let’s start with just one veteran, Danny Stuckey, who served seven years in the Marine Reserves, four years of active duty in the Army, and three years in the California National Guard. After a break from service, he has served in the Army Reserves since 2013.
What impact has the BAH rule had on you?
“When I first tried to use the Post-9/11 GI Bill I had to stop pursuing my degree at Liberty University with the GI Bill and tried for an education degree through Grossmont College. I was later able to switch to Point Loma Nazarene University where I changed my major but used other funds to complete my BS in religion at Liberty University.”
“With a busy work schedule I was looking to finish my BS degree online using the Post-9/11 GI bill. I live in San Diego, California yet I was taking classes online at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. I had to pay for my education in other ways. I felt this was an unnecessary burden put on veterans to qualify for the full amount of benefits.”
Have you made changes in your plans, such as enrolling in extra courses, because of this rule?
“Yes, I wanted to take all online classes so that I could do my school work early in the morning when I had the time and was mentally alert to work on it (I am a morning person). I then had to take night classes to fit with my full time work schedule which made it difficult to focus on school work.”
“Before I completed my degree I switch to a school in San Diego so that I could qualify for the full amount of the GI Bill. I was attending Grossmont College and had to take a night class that meet twice a week in order to qualify for the full amount. This was a difficult balance as I was working full time, had a full time load of classes, was married with four children, I ran an addiction recovery group one night a week, and I was a home fellowship Pastor another night a week.”
What’s your recommendation for ensuring this rule works for our Veterans?
“I would suggest having the same rule for resident courses as online courses as long as the online courses are accredited the same as resident courses.”
What else would you like to say about how this rule has impacted you and your family?
“Looking back I would have waited to use the GI Bill at a more opportune time as going to night school and fulfilling all of my other life obligations put a lot of strain on my marriage, my family, and my children. It was not worth the BAH.”
If you have additional stories, send them to Lindsey Downs of WCET and she can send you a list of questions that we are asking. We plan to use them to demonstrate the problems encountered by student/veterans. If you would like to share your story, but keep your anonymity, we will honor your request.
How Can You Help? Contact Your Representative and Senator
If you would like to see this rule changed, contact your local member of the House of Representative and U.S. Senators. Although if you are going to do only one, start with your House member, especially if he or she is a member of the House Veterans Affairs Committee They are probably tired of hearing about health care anyway.
It would be helpful if you could get leadership from your institution to issue an official letter. Please do not respond on behalf of your institution or organization unless you have the proper local approval. Alternatively, you can respond as a private citizen. You can mention your job title, that you are a student, or that you were a student. Just be clear that you are providing your own opinion and not that of an institution or organization.
In addressing your letter, you might find this guide to address and salutations very handy. Here is a sample letter, but be sure to tell your own story or the stories of your student/veterans:
= = = = = = = = = =
The Honorable (Name)
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Representative (Name):
Veterans play a tremendous role in making the country what it is today. I am pleased to see that, beginning with HR 3218, both the House and the Senate are implementing needed improvements and expansions to the educational benefits that veterans enjoy through the Post-911 GI Bill.
More can be done to improve benefits for veterans who chose to pursue their degrees or certificates through distance education. According to the Digital Learning Compass (www.digitallearningcompass.org) analysis of U.S. Department of Education data, about one-in-seven students now pursues their degrees fully online and that number has grown for several years in a row.
Unfortunately, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs’ rules have not kept pace. According to their website (http://www.benefits.va.gov/gibill/independent_distance_learning.asp) describing housing Basic Allowance for Housing benefits for “Independent and Distance Learning Training”:
“Note: If you are utilizing your Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits while taking ONLY distance-learning courses you will be paid a housing allowance based on 50 percent of the national average payable in the United States.”
I strongly object to this reduction in benefits for no apparent reason. A veteran may attend classes on-campus one semester and receive full benefits. If she takes all her classes from her house from the same institution the next semester, her benefits are halved. Some veterans have circumvented this rule by taking one one-credit course on campus so that they can qualify for the benefit. <<>>
As long as the institution meets all other eligibility criteria, how the student studies should not have an impact on veterans’ housing allowance benefits. With the possible exception of a small bit of commuting, all of their other costs remain the same. As you are reconsidering the GI Bill;s educational benefits for veteran’s, let’s bring them into the 21st century.
Higher education enrollments for all students fell, but more students enrolled in distance education courses than ever before. This is one of the findings of the new “Distance Education Enrollment Report 2017” released by the new Digital Learning Compass partnership.
The report uses data for the 2015 U.S. Department of Education IPEDS Fall Enrollment survey. Since the Fall term of 2012, IPEDS has collected distance education enrollment data. In the report, released today, analysis of both the most current year’s data (2015) and the trends over the past few years are examined. The distance education community is thankful that the Department continues collecting this data.
Who is Digital Learning Compass?
WCET is pleased to partner with the Babson Survey Research Group and e-Literate to update you on distance education enrollments. Together, the three organizations form the Digital Learning Compass, which seeks to be the definitive source of information on the patterns and trends of U.S. postsecondary distance learning. This work is made possible by the sponsorship of Online Learning Consortium, Pearson, and Tyton Partners. Thank you sponsors!
Prior to the IPEDS data collection, Babson conducted its own surveys. Since the IPEDS release, the three organizations worked together and separately in their analyses. We decided that we could accomplish more by partnering. We also like geeking-out on the numbers together.
The Percentage of Students Taking Distance Courses Increases
Again this year, the percentage of students studying exclusively at a distance and those enrolled in some distance courses increased over the previous year. Altogether, more than six million students were enrolled in distance courses in the Fall of 2015.
The percentage increase is due both to growing enrollments in distance education and decreased enrollments in non-distance course participation. On-campus enrollment has fallen by 5% since 2012. Note that these statistics do not include blended or hybrid courses that replace some of the face-to-face time with online activities.
Distance Education Enrollment Trends Vary Greatly By Sector
The public and the private not-for-profit sectors continue to enjoy healthy growth in distance education enrollments. Meanwhile, the for-profit sector continued its trend of losses. For the for-profit sector, it is important to note that a majority of institutions in that sector actually increased enrollments. A small number of the larger for-profit institutions account for the downturn in the overall numbers for that sector.
While public institutions enjoyed the largest growth, the increases represent a 13.4% change from 2012 to 2015. Over the same time period, the private not-for-profit sector has grown distance education enrollments by 40.0% and private, for-profit institutions have lost 18.0% of their enrollments. Hmmm….guess those numbers will really change in the future if Purdue acquires Kaplan!
If you would like to learn more, I suggest going to the Digital Learning Compass site and download the full report. Many thanks to WCET’s Rosa Calabrese and WICHE’s Jon Fellers for the work on creating this website!
Later this year, we will be releasing additional “in-depth” reports that examine particular aspects of the data. If you would like to sponsor such a report, let me know.
Next week watch for interviews regarding the differences in distance education definitions.
My Digital Learning Compass friends and I encourage your feedback and questions.
Russ
Russell Poulin
Director, Policy & Analysis
WCET – The WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technologies rpoulin@wiche.edu@russpoulin
There was quite a bit of surprise in the higher education world yesterday when Purdue University (a large land-grant university in Indiana) announced that it was essentially acquiring Kaplan University (a large for-profit institution). Lots of questions arise. This blog post includes some facts, opinion, and questions to keep the discussion rolling.
Purdue “Purchases” a For-Profit University
For $1, Purdue University will buy Kaplan University and, legislature willing, will operate it as a new Indiana public institution. In addition to the dollar, Kaplan will receive a cut of the income over the next 30 years.
Indiana Has Been a Pioneer Before
In 2006, then-Governor Mitch Daniels spearheaded a controversial move to lease a toll road in the state to a foreign company for a one-time payment of $3.85 million. In 2010, Indiana created Western Governors University, Indiana, the first state-based affiliate of the institution. Again it was Governor Daniels who used and an executive order to form the partnership focused on expanding offerings to adult learners in Indiana.
In June 2012, the former Governor was selected as President of Purdue University. As a hallmark of his Presidency at Purdue, Mitch Daniels has frozen tuition increases and sought cost-saving efficiencies in University administration. In my opinion, it is harder to point to meaningful academic or structural changes implemented during his tenure. Until now.
Purdue was 10th among 14 Big Ten institutions in distance enrollments.
Purdue was one of only four Big Ten institutions without an undergraduate degree available at a distance.
He also listed three “realities:
There are millions we do not serve. There are millions of Indianans with no college credit or with some credit but no degree.
The growth of online education. The percentage of those studying exclusively at a distance has grown.
We can’t build it ourselves. It takes Purdue 36 months to take a program from concept to implementation.
Purdue is too far behind to wait in an already crowded market. This move allows them to “fulfill their land-grant mission” of serving students more quickly than other options. You can see more in a brief introductory video featuring Daniels:
Others have created autonomous units before, such as the University of Maryland University College and Colorado State University Global Campus. Others have also created strong units that are less autonomous, such as Penn State Global Campus and, more recently, University of Florida Online. All of those examples built these entities rather than purchasing an existing one.
Purdue and Kaplan – By the Numbers
On Tuesday of next week, the new Digital Learning Compass (a partnership of Babson Survey Research Group, e-Literate, and WCET) will release its analysis the most recent US Department of Education IPEDS distance education enrollment numbers. With the help of Babson’s Jeff Seaman, I pulled some numbers on these two institutions:
IPEDS divides enrollments into three categories: students enrolled in no distance courses, students enrolled in some distance courses, and students enrolled exclusively in distance courses. For Fall 2015:
The overall enrollments are similar: 55,931 for Purdue and 51,062 for Kaplan.
Kaplan students were overwhelmingly enrolled exclusively at a distance, while Purdue students were overwhelmingly face-to-face.
Purdue wanted to make a major splash in online education. In terms of mode of instruction, they certainly found their mirror opposite in Kaplan University.
IPEDS has collected enrollment data since 2012.
———– Kaplan ———–
———– Purdue ———–
Enrolled in Distance Courses
2012
2015
2012
2015
None
4,016
1,182
46,899
45,026
Some
2,500
4,500
6,805
7,153
Exclusively
48,373
45,380
2,791
3,752
Total
54,889
51,062
56,495
55,931
The trends over that time are:
Overall, both institutions lost a small percentage of enrollments.
Kaplan University bucked the trend witnessed in some of the larger for-profit institutions that lost many enrollments in the last few years. As you will see in the report to be released next week, while a few for-profit institutions suffered significant enrollment decreases, the majority of for-profits increased enrollments since 2012.
Since 2012, Purdue’s has witnessed minimal growth in distance enrollments with a 348 student increase in students taking some distance courses and a 961 student increase in students enrolled exclusively at a distance.
On national enrollment rankings…
In 2012, Kaplan’s main campus enrolled the 6th most students taking at least one distance education courses.
In 2015, that campus fell to having the 9th greatest enrollment.
Not surprisingly, Purdue was nowhere in sight of the top 50 distance education institutions in either year.
Opinion
Burck Smith is the CEO of StraighterLine. He has been vocal about the changing landscape of the economics of public and private higher education. The following tweets provide a succinct analysis:
Questions (with a Few Comments)
Will the Indiana legislature approve this move? President Daniels is a beloved figure and the odds are good.
Will the Higher Learning Commission approve this move? They will be under tremendous pressure to closely scrutinize the agreement.
Is this just another ploy by a for-profit to become a non-profit? Could be.
Will the consumer groups object vociferously? Probably.
Will this fulfill the land-grant mission? In my interview with EdSurge yesterday, I was asked about their plan to “turn a large profit.” My response: “Profit is not a big part of the land-grant mission.” That does not mean that they shouldn’t profit, but raises even more questions.
Is this only the first of several similar agreements? We will keep you posted.
Will this lead to more competition and scrutiny for the rest of the distance learning providers? A good guess would be yes.
Russ
Russell Poulin
Director, Policy & Analysis
WCET – The WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technologies rpoulin@wiche.edu@russpoulin
Military personnel and veterans are eager to learn…and most of them do so using educational technologies and distance learning. Given that the United States has been involved in two wars for more than a decade, how do they defend the country and earn a degree in their spare time?
Cheryl Dowd and I attended the recent Council of College and Military Educators (CCME) conference, which attracts those interested in educating active duty military personnel, their families, base/post personnel, and veterans. Those attending represent all branches of the military, higher education institutions, and educational service officers who serve the students on a base or post…or virtually.
Two innovations really caught my eye. One is a massive advance in the complex world of professional credentialing in which active duty personnel can learn about and earn credentials recognized in the civilian world. The other innovation is an interesting experiment in conducting a quality review of institutions serving the military. The review is based on the philosophies of simplicity and transparency.
Credentialing is, Literally, COOL
Kudos to the Army for a re-imagining of how to encourage and enable soldiers to obtain professional credentials. These “credentials” are the industry-relevant in the civilian sector for someone to enter a profession. For some professions, it is a certificate. For others, it is the knowledge and skills to sit for a licensing exam. What they did:
Slide from a presentation on mapping objectives.
They identified the knowledge, skills, and training requirements for every position that a soldier could hold. They also identified civilian professional credentials that matched some, most, or all of the Army’s requirements.
They mapped the Army requirements to the civilian requirements. They identify any gaps between the Army and civilian requirements.
They pay for soldiers to take any assessments required to obtain a credential. They pay for only one attempt and success rates are high.
The employability of veterans has always been an issue. With COOL, soldiers are asked to think about gaining civilian professional credentials early in their military career. Gone are the days when a soldier begins thinking about such credentials in the last few months of his or her enlistment. By gaining the credentials early, the soldier practices the trade and has experience prior to leaving the service. The Army was so successful with this program that all the other services have quickly followed their lead to create similar COOL websites.
Credentialing Observations and Implications for the Rest of Us:
Student-Centered. COOL is laser focused on the needs of its audience.
This is a fabulous treatment of making a complex credentialing puzzle understandable to the lay person. Should we be replicating this outside of the military application?
Not Just Higher Education. The criteria for inclusion of a credential is that it is the one recognized by the industry or profession. It DOES NOT HAVE to be offered by an accredited institution. This is explicit acknowledgement that the world of credentials is morphing before our eyes and is no longer limited to traditional colleges and universities.
An Innovative Swing at the Elusive Quality Review Piñata
More than 2,700 educational providers signed the Department of Defense Memorandum of Understanding that they will follow certain rules and guidelines in serving active duty students receiving “Tuition Assistance” financial aid. Over the last decade, the Department of Defense attempted multiple not-always-so-successful initiatives to assess or audit institutions that signed the agreement.
The Department introduced a new review process at the CCME conference. Some interesting hallmarks of this new effort are a) to focus initially on data that is already being reported and b) be very transparent with the formulas used and results obtained.
Each institution will be ranked on the following six risk factors for students using Tuition Assistance (TA) and an overall ranking will be obtained (I apologize if I have some of the metrics incorrectly reported:
Rate of Course Completion: ((Total TA enrollments at an institution) – (TA Enrollments not completed or failed)) / (Total TA enrollments at an institution)
Sum of Total Complaint Cases. They addressed that their research showed that institutions with larger enrollments did not have significantly more complaints than those with smaller enrollments.
Enrollment Changes: Year-to-year change in TA enrollments.
Cost to Graduation Ratio: A calculation using graduation rate (presumably TA grad rate, but even that raised a question) and the average cost (do they mean price to the student?) of a course compared to the average cost of a course for all students.
Outcome Stability Ratio: The average graduation rate for the institution over a number of years.
Transaction Volume: The total number of TA transactions processed by an institution across all services in a given year.
I am not commenting in more depth until I see the full details of each of these calculations and the overall ranking methodology.
This is just the first step, as the top 50 institutions will receive additional questions that promise not to be too intrusive or time-consuming. An additional 200 institutions will be randomly sampled to also receive the questionnaire. Of the sampled institutions, twenty-five institutions will be selected for an in-depth survey process and up to five may undergo on-site visits. Institutions found to be out-of-compliance with the Memorandum of Understanding will be given time to show that they have corrected these discrepancies.
Credentialing Observations and Implications for the Rest of Us:
Cost/Price. Given WCET’s recent work on the cost and price of distance education, it is notable that economic considerations have become a factor in this review process. We can probably expect more such analysis in the future outside of the military.
I’m not a fan of ranking, but this is an innovative and much more transparent use of them. As with any ranking, will the institutions begin touting their ranking in their marketing materials? Undoubtedly. Is that bad? Not if these “risk factors” work. Will it cause gaming of the numbers? Likely.
If this simple-to-understand, transparent model is seen as successful, will accrediting agencies be encouraged to develop similar measures?
Let’s continue to watch these innovations from the military. We can learn from them.
Finally, congratulations to Lane Huber of Bismarck State College, at the close of the conference, he assumed the rank of chair of the CCME Board.
Ready for baseball and regulatory season.
Russ
Russell Poulin
Director, Policy & Analysis
WCET – The WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technologies
WCET has long been a champion of e-learning consortia, multi-institution efforts to partner to do more together than can be done by an individual campus. Today we feature one of them.
In the past, the Connecticut Distance Learning Consortium (CTDLC) has reported on its multi-campus e-tutoring program, which has been replicated elsewhere. In 2015 they reported on providing a financial aid call center. Today, we are pleased to have CTDLC return to inform us that they built on their financial aid work to create one-step approach to student services. Thank you for sharing. — Russ Poulin, WCET
Our students come to us from an increasingly diverse landscape, learning while in traditional classrooms on campus or, perhaps, while traversing the globe in airplanes. In our work across the WCET community, we assure that the instruction is of the highest caliber we can provide. Much has happened on the student support front as well, but perhaps has lagged in comparison to our academic efforts.
Consider that while we have the ability to complete a home mortgage application fully online in a matter of hours, on most campuses students are left to navigate a complex and challenging cadre of needed steps across Admissions, Advising, Financial Aid, Registrar and Bursar offices. While blended welcome centers have begun to replace traditional campus silos, what of that student who is learning from a distance, or another who is balancing multiple responsibilities and time is of the essence?
Failure to complete all of the steps in these complex processes can leave students stopping out or transferring. Meanwhile, colleges and universities lose valuable student enrollments. In response, the Connecticut Distance Learning Consortium has worked with our members to create a Student Engagement Call Center, partnering with experts on campus to engage students and guide them in completing admission and enrollment requirements.
Financial Aid Call Center is a Success
“For me, the most compelling evidence of the success of the CTDLC Call Center is that we no longer have long lines of frustrated students waiting to see someone in the financial aid office, no matter what time of the year.”
Anna M. Wasescha, Ph.D. President Middlesex Community College
In our July 2015 blog post, we shared our experience launching a Financial Aid Call Center. This service has proven successful in freeing up department staff to focus on processing aid and handling complex student issues, with over 90% of the incoming student calls being resolved by our call center staff. We have also found we can proactively identify high risk students by the nature of the questions they are asking and escalate these to institutional retention specialists for intervention.
Despite these successes, we often find ourselves transferring students and prospects to other departments for help with enrollment-related questions that we don’t have access or training to resolve. Students and prospects get frustrated when told they need to contact multiple people to complete the process. In response, we expanded our service set to include Admissions, Advising, Registrar and Bursar, offering students one place to receive help.
One Ring to Rule Them All
With all department phone lines redirected to the CTDLC Call Center, prospects and students now get all their questions answered in just one call. We began by providing full lifecycle support (recruitment to retention) to prospective and enrolled students in the Advanced Manufacturing Program at seven Connecticut community colleges. In partnership with the CT Department of Labor and the Connecticut State Colleges and Universities System Office, we provided Live Chat, an online form and a phone line for incoming calls. Here is the process we put in place:
Students identify their preferred method of contact:
Once interest in the program is established, the Call Center guides the prospect through all stages of the enrollment process.
When a student inquiry transitions to an enrolled student we continue to be a resource via the webpage knowledgebase, phone line, and Live Chat. Students contact us with process and status questions throughout their time in the program, creating a one-stop support experience regardless of institution.
Finally, throughout the student lifecycle we provide proactive monitoring and outbound communications regarding enrollment, financials, and course persistence concerns. These calls are targeted to students meeting specific criteria and are designed to prompt/navigate those students to take specific actions. Wherever possible, we guide the student through the outstanding action or task.
This program proved that the majority of prospect and student inquiries were process and status questions which could be addressed by our call center with the remaining 10% requiring subject matter expertise resulting in escalation to a specific department. In 2016, we began to offer full student lifecycle support to individual institutions taking multi-department incoming calls as well as conducting proactive, scheduled outbound calls throughout the year.
Outbound Call Campaign for 12 Community Colleges
As word got out about our success making outbound calls to high risk students, we were asked by our system office to partner with the twelve Connecticut Community Colleges to provide this service to current students at risk of not completing a required step to remain enrolled. This campaign was the first large scale effort like this for the system. We contacted nearly 20,000 students in late July and August and saw over 8,000 of those students became enrolled.
Our support center staff called and guided students to take the required steps to remain actively enrolled at their institution (i.e., missing required documents, enrolled but not paid, awarded not accepted). 80% of the students we spoke with followed through and were retained.
“We found that most students wanted to remain enrolled and often just needed a helping hand or a gentle reminder to get them there. In this age of text messaging, social media and online shopping we sometimes forget the importance of the human touch. These calls show the students that the college cares about them.”
Les Cropley Support Center Manager Connecticut Distance Learning Consortium
We also contacted former students, now considered ‘stop outs’, who left in good standing, but failed to return. 35% of the ‘stop outs’ we spoke with (students in good standing within the last 2 semesters that had failed to return) re-enrolled in the fall semester. The enrollments were impressive but the data we collected were perhaps the most valuable assets of the campaign. The system office received an executive summary along with our recommendations while each college president received a report specific to their institution. The information formed a baseline for future campaigns and is being used to make informed decisions regarding process improvements.
One-Stop Support Model Campus Wide
To support our planning and development efforts, we partnered with a community college that already had a strong culture of student centered support. They saw the correlation between a high-touch support model and increased enrollments and retention. With their departmental phone lines pointing to our Call Center, we are able to provide live support seven days a week and assist with multi-department questions and requests.
“In the face of declining enrollment and diminished resources we decided to partner with the CTDLC to proactively address the challenges before us. This strategic enrollment management approach at HCC yielded enrollment of more than half of students targeted (1,130 students) and prevented 400+ non-payment deletions. In addition, as a result of our partnership with CTDLC we’ve noticed approximately a 50% reduction in incoming call volume to the various departments. This reduced call volume allows our staff to focus more of their time providing optimal service to our students.”
Paul Brodie II, Ph.D. President Housatonic Community College
Although the service set is still young, we have seen very encouraging results. We have observed a significant reduction of approximately 50% in incoming calls with the one-stop model. We believe this is indicative of students getting their questions answered in a single call rather than having to work with multiple departments.
Feedback from students has been very positive and institutional staff have reported faster processing times as they are able to focus their attention on high yield activities and solving complex student issues. In our outbound campaigns, we have seen evidence of increased enrollments and retention. The data we are collecting are significant and are being used to streamline processes, reduce transfers, highlight program needs and justify the investment in student services.
What’s Next?
As institutions continue to struggle with declining enrollments and ongoing retention issues, it’s clear that supporting students through all phases of their college career is needed. The hybrid approach of combining a remote call center with highly skilled on-campus staff offers a proven combination of “always available” support along with high-touch service for those who need it.
With that in mind, we are currently expanding our one-stop model to all twelve Connecticut community colleges to support inbound and outbound calls. This will allow for service equity across every campus as well as data collection and summary reporting that cuts across traditional campus silos. The benefits to students, institutional staff, and the system as a whole are exciting and potentially game changing. We look forward to taking this next step, helping the colleges and students we serve to succeed.
Cathy Bergren
Director of Service Delivery
Connecticut Distance Learning Consortium cbergren@ctdlc.org.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.OK
. There are many details to work out.
On pages 475 and 482 are two small statements that strike “distance education” and replace it with “competency-based education.” Here is the language that would be changed 
s put a lot of strain on my marriage, my family, and my children. It was not worth the BAH.”
Lindsey Downs
Russell Poulin
The Department 
