In his last hours as the Under Secretary of Education, Mitchell wrote a letter to Marshall Hill (Executive Director, NC-SARA) and me confirming the clarifications to state authorization regulations that Department staff made to me and I recently reported. The Department has long-supported reciprocity as a path to state authorization for distance education. In response to a query from NC-SARA and WCET, today’s letter confirms a reciprocity definition that keeps one state from undermining the whole agreement.
Under Secretary Ted Mitchell
If each state can do what it wants, there is no reciprocity. That was NOT the Department’s intent.
Conflicts Between a State and a Reciprocity Agreement Must Be Resolved
Suppose that a state’s laws or regulations are in conflict with a reciprocity agreement that the state is seeking to join or is already a member. The state and the agreement are expected to resolve that conflict:
“In other words, a distance education reciprocity agreement may require a State to meet the requirements and terms of that agreement in order for the State to participate in that agreement.”
The key sentences in Mitchell’s letter of January 19 describing the consequences of a state no longer remaining in good standing with a reciprocity agreement follow:
“Thus, if the Department becomes aware of an unresolved conflict between the terms of a reciprocity agreement and existing State statutes and regulations, affected institutions seeking authorization via a reciprocity agreement would not be considered authorized under the Department’s regulation. Once a State has resolved the conflict within its own body of law, or the reciprocity agreement amends its conditions so as not to preempt state law, affected institutions will be found in compliance. ”
Thank You and What’s Next
Marshall and I, are overjoyed at the clarification. I’m sure the more than 1,300 institutions participating in SARA are happy, as well.
The state authorization regulation might make it to being enacted in July 2018. We will learn more about Congress’s intentions after the inauguration. We also feel confident that the new administration will also be supportive of reciprocity. In any case, uncertainty about the future of the federal regulation remains, but states still expect you to be in compliance. Meanwhile, we are very pleased at the Department’s on-going support of reciprocity as a key part of the their regulation.
Thank you Ted. And thank you to the Department staff who worked very hard to craft this letter and deliver it to us this week.
Department of Education officials recently told me that they recognize the hard work over many years in creating interstate reciprocity agreements for state authorization. They also expressed surprise over the perceptions that their new state authorization regulations would harm reciprocity.
In a call initiated by the Department and a subsequent call to answer some follow-up questions, well-placed Department officials clarified widespread “misconceptions” advanced by me and many others. This blog post presents my interpretation of what was said in those calls. Due to these discussions, my view of the intent of the Department’s new reciprocity definition has changed.
From what I heard in the calls, the Department intended the exact opposite. It continues its long-held support for reciprocity agreements as a way for institutions to demonstrate state authorization of distance education. Additionally, it recognizes the rights of states participating in the agreement to set the provisions for reciprocity and the decide what states may join.
A Brief History of the “Reciprocity” Definition
When the Department issued its proposed state authorization regulations earlier this year, they included a definition of a reciprocity agreement, saying that an agreement acceptable for demonstrating compliance with federal financial aid rules could not prohibit a state from enforcing its consumer protection laws. Several of those submitting official comments on the regulations (including us) requested this definition be clarified. After all, different people had different ideas as to what would count as a “consumer protection” law. The definition as proposed last summer:
“An agreement between two or more States that authorizes an institution located and legally authorized in a State covered by the agreement to provide postsecondary education through distance education or correspondence courses to students in other States covered by the agreement and does not prohibit a participating State from enforcing its own consumer protection laws.”
Note that the Department talks only about the “concept” of reciprocity agreements as it is possible that subsets of states may decide to create multiple agreements. In this regulation, the Department is not addressing a specific agreement, such as SARA – the State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement. Even though SARA is the best-known reciprocity agreement for distance education. It counts 47 States (plus DC) as members and 1,300 participating institutions. In full disclosure, I was deeply involved in forming that agreement.
“An agreement between two or more States that authorizes an institution located and legally authorized in a State covered by the agreement to provide postsecondary education through distance education or correspondence courses to students residing in other States covered by the agreement and does not prohibit any State in the agreement from enforcing its own statutes and regulations, whether general or specifically directed at all or a subgroup of educational institutions.”
On page 16 of the final regulation, the Department made the following statement in responding to official requests gathered during the open comment period regarding the proposed definition of a reciprocity agreement:
“…we believe that if a State has laws that are specific to postsecondary institutions, the State’s laws should not be preempted by a reciprocity agreement that does not recognize those State laws. Thus, we believe that the definition of a State authorization reciprocity agreement should encompass a State’s statutes and the regulations interpreting those statutes, both general and specific, including those directed at all or a subset of educational institutions.”
Those of us outside the Department interpreted that language to mean that a state could enforce any of its regulations even if that enforcement conflicted with a reciprocity agreement it had joined. You can see how we came to that conclusion.
Based on my recent conversations with Department personnel, our interpretation was wrong.
Key Takeaways Regarding the Department’s Intent
What did they intend? The intent of the language in the final regulation was to assure that a reciprocity agreement could not supersede state laws not covered in the agreement. The language required some “threading the needle” between state and federal laws and some of the Department’s ultimate intent seemed to be lost in the final wording.
Let me interpret the Department’s intent in my own words based on our recent conversations. In brief, the Department considers a reciprocity agreement to be in compliance with their requirements as long as the state’s laws and regulations and the provisions of any reciprocity agreement the state joined are not in conflict.
These details were fleshed out a bit more in our conversations:
The Department reaffirms its support for reciprocity agreements as a path for an institution to obtain authorization in another state.
Reciprocity agreement member states jointly define the provisions of the agreement and decide upon membership in the agreement. If a state disagrees with those provisions, it does not have to join. State participation is voluntary.
If a state decides to join a reciprocity agreement, how it regulates institutions covered by the agreement cannot conflict with the provisions of the agreement. As an example, suppose a reciprocity agreement treats all sectors of institutions the same and prohibits states from imposing state-specific tuition refund formulas on out-of-state institutions participating in that agreement. Member states must abide by those provisions or they are determined to be in conflict with the agreement. Reciprocity member states cannot unilaterally impose their own conditions on participating institutions, unless those conditions are outside the scope of the reciprocity agreement.
Reciprocity agreements must have a process to resolve any conflicts between state regulations and actions and reciprocity agreement provisions. Department personnel further clarified that they would expect an agreement to:
Have a process to reject applications from states that cannot or do not plan to abide by the agreement,
Have a mechanism to review and resolve conflicts between state regulations and reciprocity agreement provisions, and
Have the ability to dismiss member states that do not abide by reciprocity agreement provisions.
The Department will investigate unresolved conflicts between a state and a reciprocity agreement. Among actions the Department could take:
Declare the conflicting state’s institutions ineligible to offer federal aid to distance education students in other states participating in the agreement until the conflict is resolved,
Declare the agreement is out-of-compliance with federal regulations if it does not have the have the proper mechanisms to resolve conflicts, or
Take any other action it deems appropriate.
The Bottom Line and Making this Official
Bottom line: This is great news for SARA and, more importantly, the countless students who are now protected by that agreement and had no protection just a few years ago.
Again, this blog post presents my interpretation of what Education Department leadership intended all along, but was hard to determine from the final regulation. A Department official suggested that we submit a request to the Department to officially clarify (perhaps through a “Dear Colleague” letter) the intent of the reciprocity agreement definition. WCET, the State Authorization Network, and SARA will, together, promptly draft an official request for clarification.
Meanwhile, this places me in an awkward position. The Department staff reached out to me to clarify their intent. They are completely aware that I will share my impressions publicly, but they asked that those participating in the calls not be named. You can draw your own conclusions, but I think it has much to do with the calendar.
Glad to See the Department Support Reciprocity
As a result of these conversations with Education Department leadership, my main objection to the recently released regulation has been mitigated. I still have some other, more minor, problems with the final regulation, but those details will be explored on another day.
The end of reciprocity was a deal breaker. But, that is not their intent.
As for “misconceptions,” Mark Twain quipped: “The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter—’tis the difference between the lightning-bug and the lightning.”
Happy new year!
Russ
Russell Poulin
Director, Policy & Analysis
WCET – WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technologies rpoulin@wiche.edu @russpoulin
In this post, we thought you would like to see some of the reactions issued thus far…
1) National Council of State Authorization Reciprocity Agreements
In a statement released on Tuesday, the organization that manages the SARA agreement, finds the change to the reciprocity definition puzzling:
“A ‘reciprocity agreement’ that would satisfy ED’s definition strikes us as no reciprocity agreement at all.”
We agree. NC-SARA concludes with:
“We will continue to review the implications of these rules and communicate with our partners in the SARA initiative and with others.”
2) Cooley, LLP
Cooley has followed every aspect of state authorization rules for decades. On Tuesday, they joined us in the head-scratching about the Department’s flawed logic in changing the reciprocity definition:
“This approach flies in the face of the very purpose of SARA, (and any reciprocity agreement) which is to provide a common set of authorization laws and institutional standards to which all participating states would agree. This unexpected change could therefore undo years of work to create a streamlined system for state licensure of distance programs, replacing a patchwork of laws, rules, and requirements that were extraordinarily burdensome on institutions and provided many students with substantially less protection than they have now under SARA. And of course ED’s position disregards the intent of the many state legislatures that have passed laws authorizing their state to participate in SARA over the last several years.”
“On Friday, the U.S. Department of Education announced the final state authorization regulations for postsecondary distance education, incorporating recommendations from the Massachusetts Board and Department of Higher Education, the Office of the Attorney General, and the Executive Office of Education to ensure that the final regulations do not curtail a State’s full authority to enforce its consumer protection laws. In the final rule, interstate reciprocity agreements cannot prohibit a state from enforcing its statutes and regulations, including those specific to all or a subset of educational institutions.”
Governor Charlie Baker applauds the Department’s actions:
“Massachusetts has the strongest consumer protection laws in the country, and we are thankful for the partnership with the Attorney General’s office on these efforts.”
What Massachusetts officials fail to mention in the state with the “strongest consumer protection” is that the state has never regulated purely online distance education, whereas SARA requires member states to do so. Where has the concern been for those students all these years?
With recently added members New York, New Jersey, and (reportedly) Connecticut as SARA states, only three states (CA, FL, and MA) have not joined.
“The rule-making process has been one of fits and starts, complete with court cases, delays and failed negotiations — and then a surprise last-ditch effort this summer. After collecting input on a draft this fall, the Education Department published the final rule in the Federal Register on Monday.
Yet the rule may never go into effect.”
The new regulations’ impact on SARA and the Department’s undermining of the work by state governors and legislatures to collaborate is described as follows:
“While department higher-ups have throughout the rule-making process reassured SARA that the rule would not undermine its work, the final rule includes a change that SARA’s national council on Tuesday described as “puzzling.”
The final rule states that reciprocity agreements can’t ban a state from enforcing its own laws, which SARA said suggests the Education Department will recognize reciprocity agreements that allow states to continue to enforce their own laws — even though they have entered an agreement to share a common legal framework.”
That statement ignores the fact that the governors, legislators, and/or other officials charged with overseeing higher education voluntarily joined the reciprocity agreement. Additionally, The Century Foundation is cited as one of the organizations pushing for the SARA limitations arguing that SARA “opens the door for ‘predatory online education companies’ to take advantage of students’. Yet, The Century Foundation among a few other critics do not acknowledge that without SARA there are more than 25 states that do not provide any oversight of institutions providing online education. Under SARA those students are now protected.
5) This Regulation Will Probably Be Terminated
We had a conversation with a knowledgeable person who assured us that there will be a bill to end this regulation. Using the Congressional Review Act makes the process of undoing this regulation fairly easy when one party controls both houses of Congress and the Presidency. The jubilation in Massachusetts and the Century Foundation is likely short-lived.
Meanwhile, state regulations are still in place and institutions should continue to follow those rules. If you or your institution has opinions on this regulation, you should share them with your Congressional Representative and Senators.
6) ‘Next Steps’ from the WCET State Authorization Network
The two of us had a long discussion about this on Monday. SAN members can expect to participate in more discussions regarding further recommendations on what next steps institutions should be taking. Look for more recommendations in the new year.
In the meantime, there are five important things for all institutions to remember:
Follow State Laws. All institutions must continue to follow the state’s laws in the states where the institution conducts activities, such as marketing, enrolling distance students, conducting face-to-face workshops, practica, or internships in another state.
Follow Federal Notification Rules. Federal regulations continue to be in place that require an institution to provide institutional information per 34 CFR 668.43, which includes providing a complaint policy in the states for which the institution participates in activities outside of the home state of the institution.
Be Sure Not to Misrepresent Your Offerings. Federal regulations continue to be in place to prohibit an institution that participates in Title IV programs from engaging in “substantial misrepresentation” about the academic programs, financial charges and the employability of its graduates. 34 CFR 668.71 * “intent” is not a necessary factor to determine whether a school has engaged in misrepresentation.
SARA Institutions Follow SARA Policies. An institution participating in SARA that has students in another SARA state must follow the unified policies and standards as agreed to by the states approved by SARA. These policies and standards include additional notifications and disclosures concerning students participating in programs leading to professional licensure.
Be Student-Centric with Information. Regardless of the requirements previously stated, to best serve students, institutions must provide students with the information necessary for them to succeed with their academic programs and for the credentials earned to then be useful in the location of the student.
We hope that you have happy holidays and a wonderful new year.
Cheryl Dowd
Director
State Authorization Network
cdowd@wiche.edu
Russ Poulin
Director, Policy and Analysis
WCET – WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technologies
rpoulin@wiche.edu
What is proposed may be bad for the State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement, but the regulations may be all for naught. It is highly likely that these regulations will be killed in the next few months.
This post will provide some initial highlights and reactions. Additional analyses will be forthcoming.
The Concept of Using Authorization for Federal Financial Aid Purposes
Although our opinion had not been popular in some higher education circles, we have been consistent (see our joint comments with eight other organizations to the Department from August 2016) in supporting the concept that being approved in each state should be a condition to obtaining federal financial aid funds. It is logical that institutions should follow state laws governing institutions serving students in a state. Since authorization laws focus on geography and not modality, focusing on distance education was a mistake. But, that’s a discussion for another time.
The Reciprocity Definition Curtails Reciprocity
47 lumps of coal for the SARA states. Merry Christmas, Your friends at the Department of Education
One of our big worries was that the definition of reciprocity would be changed to meet the needs of a small number of attorneys general who wanted to enforce their own state laws despite being part of a reciprocity agreement. From p. 17 of today’s announcement:
“We have revised the definition of State authorization reciprocity agreement by deleting the words “consumer protection laws” and adding in their place “statutes and regulations, whether general or specifically directed at all or a subgroup of educational institutions.” In addition, we have replaced the word “participating” with reference to a participating State with the word “any” so that a State authorization reciprocity agreement does not prohibit any State from enforcing its own statutes and regulations, whether general or specifically directed at all or a subgroup of educational institutions.”
So, each state agrees to reciprocity as long as it can still do whatever it wants. Imagine a similar reciprocity for driver’s licenses. If you have out-of-state plates you could be stopped at the border and required to take a driver’s test. Not good. This is BAD policy.
Marshall Hill and the NC-SARA staff are examining this language and preparing a statement. Meanwhile, I’m very disturbed that the Department decided to override the judgement of the governors and legislatures of 47 SARA states. Whether through legislation or regulatory rule, states have already made this determination. The attorneys general of a few states loss the battle at home and went to the Department.
This change makes no sense to us. SARA has done more to protect students than anything in recent memory. Harming SARA will merely roll back these gains. Students will be harmed.
The Idea of Forcing States to Conduct an “Active Review” is Dead
The main sticking point of the 2014 Negotiated Rulemaking Committee was that the Department was trying to dictate regulations to the states. Because they would not remove that provision, what was proposed died. In response to a commenter suggesting that the regulations include this requirement, the Department replied:
“We decline to revise the regulations. It is a State’s discretion as to how it may choose to regulate by establishing requirements that exceed the minimum requirements for title IV program eligibility. An institution is responsible for meeting any State requirements and should maintain the applicable documentation.”
Arrrrgh. If they would have agreed 2.5 years ago, they could have had this published then and made it far tougher for the new administration to remove the regulation. Oh well.
The Focus on “Residence” is Not Helpful
The Department’s staff forgot all our discussions from the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee about focusing on “location” and not “residence.” On p. 27 of this regulation, they say:
“For purposes of this rulemaking, a student is considered to reside in a State if the student meets the requirements for residency under that State’s law.”
In defining military residence, they wrote this headscratcher:
“…when determining the State in which the military student resides, the institution may rely on the student’s self-determination unless the institution has information that conflicts with that determination. “
Using the term “residence” will cloud the picture. Their new definition will be confused with the legal residence of the student. Most state laws focus on “location” and those who are inside the state whether they are legal residents or not. As Cheryl asks: “can’t they ask someone who does this work when they write the regulations?”
A New Disclosure on the Consequences of Students Moving
A new disclosure requirement is added on p. 178:
“An explanation of the consequences, including ineligibility for title IV, HEA funds, for a student who changes his or her State of residence to a State where the institution does not meet State requirements or, in the case of a GE program, as defined under 34 CFR 668.402, where the program does not meet licensure or certification requirements in the State.”
More clarification is needed on this one. We can imagine a rather general statement with specific examples that would inform the student that significant harm (loss of aid, inability to qualify for a licensure program exam) if the student moves to another state. We hope that this requirement does not imply the need to explain EVERY possible permutation for EVERY program in EVERY state. We’re not sure the Internet is large enough for this statement.
Complaint Process: Think Twice about Enrolling Students in California
In our comments to the proposed regulations, we worried about states (like California) without complaint processes for students enrolling in out-of-state distance education providers. We worried that those students would be ineligible for Title IV financial aid. They confirmed that worry on p. 38:
“…if a State does not provide a complaint process as described in a State where an institution’s enrolled students reside, the institution would not be able to disburse Federal student aid to students in that State.”
We opined that out-of-state institutions lobbying to implement such a complaint process in California would be fruitless given the state’s penchant to ignore higher education consumer protection demands from its own residents.
All for Naught?
Our guess is that this regulation will be killed very soon. The Congressional Review Act provides a very convenient method for doing so. You can read more about it in a recent post of ours. Rep. Foxx mentioned state authorization as one of many rules the House Committee on Education and the Workforce will seek to overturn.
Again, it’s too bad that we’re caught between those who wish to deregulate everything and those who have never seen a regulation that did not like. The consumer protection folks are losing their regulatory friends. Perhaps they would like to come play with us???
What Should I Do as a Distance Education Professional?
State laws exist either way. You should follow those laws. If you are a member of SARA, keep following the SARA rules.
If future posts, we will give you additional advice on how to proceed (or not).
Most importantly….have a great holiday season and a joyous new year!! You’ve had your lump of coal already.
Cheryl Dowd
Director
State Authorization Network
cdowd@wiche.edu
Russ Poulin
Director, Policy and Analysis
WCET – WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technologies
rpoulin@wiche.edu
Even George Clooney could not save the day as three storm fronts converged on his doomed fishing boat in 2000’s The Perfect Storm. Similarly, a new Republican President, Republican Congress, and an obscure law will come together to sink eight years of Obama Administration regulatory work.
As Inside Higher Edstates this morning, some regulations are headed for the bottom of the ocean. Unlike George Clooney’s boat, some regulations may be a bit harder to sink.
“The President has been regulating to death a free market economy that he does not like and does not understand.”
Despite the hyperbole of that sentence, the Republicans have shown every indication that they plan to drastically reduce regulations in higher education and throughout government. In a brief conversation with Tim Powers of the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, he told me that some regulations with be dispatched quickly while others will be much more difficult to undo.
The Little-Known “Congressional Review Act”
Prior to predicting what the future might bring, I need to geek-out a bit on an obscure piece of law: The Congressional Review Act (CRA). Signed into law by President Clinton (a little irony here) in 1996, the CRA has been only once early in the George W. Bush presidency to remove the Clinton Administration’s ergonomic regulations.
The CRA is most useful during presidential transitions from one party to another. It allows Congress may overturn “midnight regulations” enacted in the waning day of a presidential administration in anticipation of the president of another party taking office.
The CRA was written for the “perfect storm” of conditions that now exist. The provisions include:
Congress can review any regulation in the last 60 days of an administration. Since “days” is defined by the days Congress is in session (and the current Congress did not meet very often), the review calendar extends back to May 2016. According to the New York Times, about 150 rules of all types are “potentially vulnerable to the ax” not counting any new ones that may be issued in the coming weeks.
Rules are expedited so that the legislation of “Congressional disapproval” to remove targeted rules are not subject to traditional methods of delaying or killing action:
The legislation cannot be assigned to committees, where action could be delayed by those in favor of keeping the regulations.
Most importantly, the Senate cannot filibuster the legislation. Overcoming a filibuster usually requires 60 Senate votes. Under the CRA, only a majority vote is required in the Senate. Since Republicans hold the majority, they can win this vote only with members of their own party, whereas overcoming a filibuster would require Democrats to jump ship and join them.
Another killer provision is summarized by the Center for Progressive Reform (underlining added): “Under the CRA, when Congress adopts a joint resolution of disapproval for a regulation, this not only nullifies the regulation in question, it also prohibits a federal agency from reissuing the same regulation again or from promulgating a regulation that is substantially similar, unless the new or reissued regulation is supported by a new statute adopted after the joint resolution of disapproval. It is not clear how different a new regulation must be from a disapproved old regulation in order to satisfy this requirement.” This could have long term limitations on the regulations that are removed through use of this act.
The Center for Progressive Reform also stated: “The CRA provides that any ‘determination, finding, action, or omission’ made pursuant to the CRA cannot be challenged in court.” Given the rule had been used only once, this provision has not been tested and very well could be in 2017.
If not subject to the Congressional Review Act, regulations could be killed by other means such as:
Legislative Repeal. However, this would require overcoming a Senate filibuster.
Reissuing the Regulation. This involves a complex set of steps.
Legislative Budget Prohibition. The budget of the department in question could include a clause forbidding spending of any funds to enforce a regulation.
Administrative Prohibition. The new department heads could prohibit enforcement of the regulation.
…But What Does That Mean For Me?
Let’s look at the impact on several regulations we have been following…
State Authorization
The final regulation has yet to be released. See our comments on the proposed regulation. Part of me thinks that they will release it to force the Trump administration to kill it. On the other hand, if it is killed by the Congressional Review Act, the Department of Education’s state authorization regulation could be dead for a very long time. Either way, it is impossible to envision a scenario in which this regulation will be enforced any time soon.
BUT WAIT! For those who want to read this as meaning that colleges don’t need to pay attention to state authorization any longer, they are wrong. The states have always expected you to follow their laws. Several states have toughened their laws. If you are a SARA institution, that organization also expects you to follow its expectations for participation.
Teacher Prep
On October 12 of this year, the Department of Education released the final, controversial Teacher Preparation regulations. The regulation required every state to conduct additional reviews of (nearly) every teacher preparation program placing new teachers in the state. The requirements for teacher education programs offered at a distance are bizarre. The comment periods for this regulation attracted overwhelming negative response. The regulation will be subject to the Congressional Review Act and is probably toast.
For Profit Regulations
The Republicans are upset over the Obama administration’s treatment of for-profit colleges. Last week’s Inside Higher Ed said: “The department wrote its regulations on gainful employment and borrower defense in response to what high-ranking administration officials and consumer advocates saw as fraud and abuse within an industry that experienced a boom after the Great Recession.” While those regulations are primarily aimed at for-profit institutions, some of their provisions have implications for other higher education sectors.
Rep. Virginia Foxx is on Trump’s transition team and is the incoming chair of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. The article cites her as assuring that: “Republicans will do everything they can to roll back those rules.”
The Borrower Defense regulations included specific requirements for loan repayments for institutions that close. It also includes strict penalties for institutions of all types that misrepresent themselves or their programs to students. It was released only a few weeks ago and will probably be subject to CRA legislation. Again, this will be toast.
The Gainful Employment rules will not be subject to the CRA. It will take much more legislative effort to roll those back. This will be interesting to watch
Accreditation
I’ve heard that there will be less reliance on accrediting agencies to serve as the de facto compliance arm of the Department of Education…much to the delight of the accrediting agencies. On the other hand, the new administration’s focus on workforce skills may lead to the approval of new accrediting agencies. One outcome of such approval would be to open the door for alternative providers (boot camps, MOOC companies) to offer federal aid to their students…should they want to do so. Some of those providers are loath to have any third-party oversight.
In Conclusion…
We will watch the coming actions with great interest and will report on them to you. It will be interesting to see what the consumer protection groups do as they have worked hard for these regulations. They might turn their attention to helping students use litigation, state attorneys general, or the press to reign in abuses by institutions of all types.
Finally…
Each of these regulations have sections that will definitely be missed.
Each of them went too far or were too complex.
Too bad we cannot come to reasonable compromise. We need the George Clooney with the guile of Three Kings, the cunning of Ocean’s Eleven, and the charm of Oh Brother, Where Art Thou? to write a happy ending.
Want more information on how the 2016 election results will impact higher education? Join WCET for a moderated conversation about higher education in the 2017 political climate. The free webcast will take place at 1:00 PM CST, Wednesday, December 7. Bring your questions. Special thanks to Blackboard, Inc. for cosponsoring this webcast.
Thank you to Ken Salomon (Thompson Coburn, LLP), Van Davis (Blackboard), and others who have provided insights in the last few weeks. Some asked not to be named.
Earlier this year, Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska called this election a “dumpster fire.” We were reminded of this insight by Terry Hartle (Senior Vice President, Division of Government and Public Affairs of the American Council on Education) at last week’s Presidents’ Forum.
Hoping to raise the level of dialogue beyond that surrounding a dumpster fire, this annual Forum (founded by Excelsior College and co-hosted by USDLA) brings higher education innovators together to discuss current issues. The Forum has a particular emphasis on federal and state policies.
Several sessions looked to the future and how higher education innovations might fare in a new administration. There was hope (but no certainty) that a reauthorization of the Higher Education Act might be on the horizon. Below are some highlights from these discussions:
What’s Happened Without Reauthorization?
Once we have a new President (or new head frog?), will the Higher Ed Act finally be reauthorized?
Without Reauthorization the Current Administration Has Been Busy. Greg Ferenbach, Special Counsel, Cooley LLP – There has been more focus on consumer protection at the expense of innovation. While there has been on Reauthorization Act, there have been 24 major rules packages issued by the Department of Education.
Regulation Hurting Innovation. Vickie Shray Bridgepoint – The regulatory environment is having a chilling effect on innovation. Institutions are less willing to stick their neck out.
What Might Be in a New Reauthorization Bill?
Reauthorization Should “Do No Harm.” Amy Jones, Director of Education and Human Services Policy, House Committee on Education and the Workforce – Said that there is the sense in Congress that Reauthorization should “do no harm.” Citing the antiquated distance education definition, she acknowledged the need for flexibility regarding innovations. New innovations will come in the future and we don’t want to limit them.
Colleges Having “Skin in the Game” for Federal Student Loans. Chris Bustamante, President, Rio Salado College – In talking about his hopes for a Higher Education Reauthorization Act said that there is much interest in colleges having “skin in the game” with federal financial aid. AACC is against this proposal as community colleges are already operating on a slim margin. If colleges are to assume more responsibility, they also need the ability to limit the aid available.
More Attention to Privacy Regulations. Greg Ferenbach – FERPA is older than the fax machine (for those of you too young to not know what a fax machine is). It’s amazing it still works at all. There have many bills in state legislatures and in Congress to try to update privacy laws to the digital age.
Should States Reinvest in Higher Education?
Get States to Reinvest in Higher Education. Chris Bustamante is president of a college that was recently zero-funded by the state legislature. Is this the first of many? Can the new Higher Education Act encourage additional state investment?
Should Public Institutions Be Declared to Be Private? David Bergeron XXX – Public institutions are being de-funding and do those institutions still enjoy the “full faith and credit” of their respective states? Is a there a level of state funding that should be considered a minimum threshold? Once an institution falls that threshold, is it now subject to the increase rigor required of private colleges?
Can’t States and Federal Government Work Together? Larry Isaak, President, Midwestern Higher Education Compact – Is there a way that the federal government can work with states to come to a better understanding and agreement of their respective roles in higher education?
What Accountability Measures Will Be Used?
Accountability Needs Improved IPEDS Measures. Roger Sublett, President, Union Institute and University – For accountability purposes, there need to be better measures. College Scorecard uses the IPEDS “Graduation Rate” and the regional accreditors recently announced they will conduct increased scrutiny on institutions with low percentages on this rate. Since the Graduation Rate uses cohorts including only “first-time, full-time” students, the results can be deceiving. Union recently had only seven of these students, while APUS had 36.
Forget Student Learning Outcomes Statements, Better Student Outcomes Measures are Needed. Robert Shireman, Senior Fellow, The Century Foundation and Advisor to the Hillary Clinton Campaign – There is a long list of failed accountability measures in higher education: syllabus, grades, student satisfaction surveys, graduation rates, graduate earnings, and standardized test scores. Shireman’s pet peeve is “student learning outcomes” statements. Shireman said an alternative is using Evaluated Student Performances, which are graded reports, testes, discussions, presentations, and other performances that instructor judge. He suggested that external review of student learning be included.
Accreditation Turned from Carrot to Stick. Brianna Bates, Assistant Director of Academic Program Review, New York University – I response to Shireman’s presentation, she said that accreditation used to be a carrot. Peer review was a way for institutions to learn from others to improve themselves. It has now been turned into a stick to assure that institutions follow regulations.
New “Daily Education Index” is Coming. Carol D’Amico, Executive Vice President, National Engagement and Philanthropy, USA Funds – They felt that information was lacking on what the higher education student consumer wants and needs. USA Funds partnered with Gallup, which is interviewing 350 Americans (prospective students, current students, alumni, and those who never went to college) each day. That will be more than 127,000 interviews per year. Early in 2017 they will release the Daily Education Index. She did not elaborate on what form that will take, what data will be reported or how this could be “daily.”
What are the Political Implications?
Beyond the “dumpster fire” reference by ACE’s Terry Hartle, he provided us with insights on the political ramifications of the Obama years, the election, and beyond.
The Obama years brought…
There have been tremendous increases in funding for Pell grants, student loan programs, and veterans education benefits. The increases were primarily funded by the Department of Education assuming responsibility for running the student loan programs.
Federalizing the student loan program went relatively smoothly. Many who opposed the federalization thought that it could not be transitioned so well.
The federal goal for higher education in the U.S. was changed from access to completion.
There were tremendous efforts to limit the actions of for-profits. Some of these actions have had an impact on other higher education sectors, as well.
The administration “never met a regulatory package that it did not like.” With 24 major regulatory packages, a new one emerged at an average of one every four months.
Candidate Trump’s plan…
Student loan repayments will be contingent on income.
Colleges possessing large endowments will be scrutinized.
They will seek to curb excessive regulations and the number of college administrators.
Candidate Clinton’s plan…
Allow student refinancing of student loans.
Provide grants to states to encourage them to offer “debt-free” or “tuition-free” public higher education. This will be expensive and controversial. Will states participate? At least 20 states did not participate in the expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act.
Provide grant programs for private colleges with high levels of Pell-eligible students.
Observations for the future…
For more on the two candidate’s positions, see NASFAA’s review of their higher education proposals.
The anger and dissatisfaction from the left and the right will continue. It was nearly impossible to govern since 2009. It will be even harder to govern as compromise will be difficult. Candidate Trump is now calling his campaign a “movement” and may (if successful) continue to have influence after the election.
The Republicans will try to re-organize. The composition of Senators up for re-election in 2018 favors the Republicans.
According to Hartle, President Obama had only four pieces of major successful legislative efforts in eight years. It might be tougher for a Clinton presidency.
On those happy notes, enjoy the election! And put out those dumpster fires.
As greater numbers of students move into online and competency-based education programs, we have seen new interest in understanding the Department of Education’s regulations. In particular, faculty and administrators seek to understand how the Department interprets rules requiring courses to include “regular and substantive interaction,” especially in distance and competency-based education.
Those of us in online education have long known that interaction between faculty and students as well as among students in both online and face-to-face courses can be the difference in whether a course is a quality learning experience. In fact, ensuring meaningful interactions among class participants should be a priority for any modality—be it face-to-face or online.
A traditional view of student-teacher interaction.
Unfortunately, there continues to be a great deal of confusion around how the Department of Education’s Office of Inspector General narrowly defines “regular and substantive interaction.” The purpose of this post is to outline our best interpretation of what the Department expects of accrediting agencies, institutions, and faculty in complying. In a follow-on blog post, we will provide opinions about the regulation and how it might be improved.
What sources did we use for this post?
Faculty and administrators have been charged with assuring compliance with “regular and substantive interaction” Expectations. Unfortunately, guidance has been spotty. By reviewing the actions and communications over the last several years, we have come to better understand what is intended and the changing nature of what is expected of institutions offering federal financial aid. We reviewed and often quote from the following official U.S. Department of Education documents:
U.S. Department of Education sanctions against St. Mary-of-the-Woods College and its lack of interaction in distance learning courses (still unresolved since April 2012);
U.S. Department of Education Dear Colleague Letter on Competency-Based Education (December 2014);
Based on these documents, this post is our interpretation of what colleges are expected to do in providing and documenting such interaction.
What is the origin of the “regular and substantive interaction”?
The origins of “regular and substantive interaction” go back to an expansion of federal financial aid eligibility in 2005 (see page 6 of the St. Mary-of-the-Woods Final Audit). When “telecommunications in courses” became eligible for federal financial aid, the term “regular and substantive interaction” was included in the definition.
Prior to 2005, there had been cases of substantial fraud in correspondence studies and there was great interest in severely limiting aid eligibility for correspondence courses. The hallmark of correspondence courses was interaction on the student’s schedule and therefore not on a regular timeline as one might find in a traditional classroom. The term “regular and substantive interaction” was included to help differentiate distance from correspondence courses. From page 6 of the St. Mary-of-the-Woods audit report where a “telecommunications course” was the precursor to what is now defined as a distance education course:
“Effective September 8, 2006, a telecommunications course also needed to include ‘regular and substantive interaction between these students and the instructor.’ (71 FR 45666 (August 9, 2006. ‘Interim final regulations implementing the Higher Education Reconciliation Act of 2005’)).”
When “telecommunications courses” were later defined as “distance education,” the phrase was ported to that new definition, which is the one currently in use:
“Distance education means education that uses one or more of the technologies listed in paragraphs (1) through (4) of this definition to deliver instruction to students who are separated from the instructor and to support regular and substantive interaction between the students and the instructor, either synchronously or asynchronously…” (underlining added)
In recent years, the expectation for “regular and substantive interaction” has been expanded to competency-based education (CBE) as well. In the Department’s December 2014 Dear Colleague letter stated:
“All Title IV eligible programs, except correspondence programs, must be designed to ensure that there is regular and substantive interaction between students and instructors.”
Since “regular and substantive interaction” is specifically used in the definition of “distance education” and is not in regulatory language for other types of instruction, we are unclear why it would also apply to face-to-face CBE programs. A request to the Department for how enforcement of “regular and substantive interaction” was expanded to cover CBE has not been answered.
Who are the players in this discussion?
Here is a brief explanation of a very complex set of players and interactions, which include the following:
Congress and the President. Congress proposes and approves bills that include regulatory language. A bill passed by Congress and signed by the President becomes law. Typically, many of the higher education regulations (such as “regular and substantive interaction” help define eligibility for issuing federal financial aid.)
U.S. Department of Education. The Department enforces laws and regulations that are under their charge. Laws rarely include every detail about how it is to be enacted, so the Department will often create additional regulations that meet the Congressional intent. These regulations are subject to an extensive public comment period. Once regulations are set, Departmental staff conduct reviews and audits of institutions to assure that they are in compliance.
U.S. Department of Education Office of Inspector General. The OIG is an arm of the Department with the mission: “To promote the efficiency, effectiveness, and integrity of the Department’s programs and operations, we conduct independent and objective audits, investigations, inspections, and other activities.” The OIG is increasingly concerned about fraud and the misuse of federal aid funds by institutions of all types. After auditing Departmental activities, the OIG issues recommendations that the Department does not necessarily have to follow.
How do the definitions and practice of “regular and substantive interaction” change in the distance education or competency-based education worlds?
The Department is expected to provide a response as to how it will implement the recommendations or why it will not do so. Congress is copied on this correspondence.
Again, these regulations are usually about expectations on institutions to remain eligible for federal financial aid. We need to closely watch these actions to remain in compliance.
What are the elements of “regular and substantive interaction”?
The interpretation seems to have evolved over time. From Russ’s analysis in 2011 of the St. Mary-of-the-Woods audit report, the auditors seemed to focus on the lack of use of technologies (a cornerstone of the distance education definition) in many of their courses. Additionally:
“The Audit found that ‘instructors did not deliver lectures or initiate discussions with students. Tutoring and other instruction resources were provided at the student’s discretion.”
For that audit review, there was much focus on the interaction being self-paced and initiated by the student. Over time, additional interaction criteria were outlined.
There now seem to be four criteria that the Office of Inspector General is expecting in a course for it to be considered as meeting their expectations for interaction:
1) Interaction must be initiated by the instructor.
This criterion is not written into the original definition of distance education, but (as cited above) we find it in the audit of St. Mary-of-the-Woods. The following statement is made in the December 2014 Dear Colleague letter:
“We do not consider interaction that is wholly optional or initiated primarily by the student to be regular and substantive interaction between students and instructors. Interaction that occurs only upon the request of the student (either electronically or otherwise) would not be considered regular and substantive interaction.”
This is an attempt to differentiate distance education from correspondence study. Students taking correspondence study proceed at their own pace and return assignments when they complete them. In correspondence courses, “interaction” (questions, papers, or assessments) is initiated by the student and the faculty responds. It is thought that in the traditional and distance course that the faculty member guides the flow of events by initiating a lecture or other learning activities.
The emphasis on the primacy of faculty is heightened in the WASC audit. Whereas, most prior documents talked about “regular and substantive interaction”, the WASC audit repeatedly uses the phrase “faculty-initiated, regular, and substantive interaction”.
2) Interaction must be “regular” and probably somewhat frequent.
Unfortunately the two criteria that are less defined are the two terms “regular” and “substantive.” They seem to feel the words stand by themselves, as witnessed in the December 2014 Dear Colleague letter that merely says that “the interaction is regular”.
Our best clues about “regular” is in what it is not. The Department seems to be defining “regular” as not self-paced. Myk Garn, University System of Georgia and member of the Competency-Based Education Network board, addressed this issue in his recent post on why we should stop using “self-paced” in CBE descriptions.
In the December 2014 Dear Colleague letter, in response to the question “Does each student have to engage in educational activity every week in a CBE program?”, the Department responded:
“While it is expected that students will generally be academically engaged throughout an educational program, there is no requirement that the institution be able to document academic engagement for each student for every week of instructional time.”
“However, institutions must ensure that the instructional materials and faculty support necessary for academic engagement are available to students every week that the institution counts toward its definition of a payment period or an academic year.”
We see some further evidence in the WASC audit, which on page 7 in critiquing an offending program states: “Interaction between the instructor and the student is limited, not regular and substantive, and primarily initiated by the student.” The word “limited” seems to add some sense that there is not an opportunity for extensive interaction, but that is just our guess.
The audit of HLC also cites an institutional substantive change application to the accrediting agency. The audit cites HLC as falling short when addressing the coaches and subject matter experts used as part of CBE instruction. On pages 9 and 10, the audit notes that “coaches would connect with students once each week, on average, and serve as academic advisors, coaches, and mentors” and that “the application did not indicate whether students would regularly interact with subject matter experts if the students were not struggling.” This gives us a hint that the faculty person should be interacting with all students on a “regular” basis.
Our interpretation is that the expectation is that the instructor is expected to interact with students on a fairly set schedule and that those communications not be too far apart. As noted in Russ’s blog on St. Mary-of-the-Woods, there is much speculation about the required frequency, but little guidance. In seeking guidance, we are in the “be careful what we ask for” dilemma. Without Departmental guidance, we don’t know how to comply. On the other hand, guidance may result in expectations that do not work in every setting.
With spotty guidance from the Department on what constitutes “regular” interaction, let’s look at how Merriam-Webster defines the word:
That might be as good as it gets and all we need.
3) Interaction must be “substantive” – of an academic nature.
In dealing with other financial aid issues, we believe that “substantive” is the easiest to understand as the Department tends to favor activities that further learning or assessment of learning over organizational or procedural communications. In the December 2014 Dear Colleague letter, in question 8 they outline “educational activities” as follows:
“For all CBE programs, including direct assessment programs, educational activity includes (but is not limited to):
Participating in regularly scheduled learning sessions (where there is an opportunity for direct interaction between the student and the faculty member);
Submitting an academic assignment;
Taking an exam, an interactive tutorial, or computer-assisted instruction;
Attending a study group that is assigned by the institution;
Participating in an online discussion about academic matters;
Consultations with a faculty mentor to discuss academic course content; and
Participation in faculty-guided independent study (as defined in 34 CFR 668.10(a)(3)(iii).”
“For direct assessment programs only, educational activity also includes development of an academic action plan developed in consultation with a qualified faculty member that addresses competencies identified by the institution.”
“Note that not all of the educational activities described above fulfill the requirements for regular and substantive interaction between students and instructors, as described in Q&A #9 below.”
While they added that last caveat, unfortunately they did not identify which activities meet the “regular and substantive interaction” requirements. But they do add that “merely grading a test or paper would not be substantive interaction.”
As to the other items in the list above, we believe that those activities would also have to meet the other “regular and substantive” criteria. For example a study group that does not include the instructor would not count. Which leads us to the fourth criterion….
4) Interaction must be with an instructor that meets accrediting agency standards.
This is a criterion that was not in the St. Mary-of-the-Woods audit, but appears to have been added more recently. There is a legitimate concern that an unscrupulous institution would hold classes with unqualified personnel. The requirement is outlined in the December 2014 Dear Colleague letter in the answer to question 10:
“Some institutions design their CBE programs using a faculty model where no single faculty member is responsible for all aspects of a given course or competency. In these models, different instructors might perform different roles: for example, some working with students to develop and implement an academic action plan, others evaluating assessments and providing substantive feedback (merely grading a test or paper would not be substantive interaction), and still others responding to content questions.”
“Such a model may be used to ensure regular and substantive interaction between students and instructors. However, in applying such a model, an institution must ensure that the interaction is provided by institutional staff who meet accrediting agency standards for providing instruction in the subject matter being discussed, that the interaction is regular, and that the amount of faculty resources dedicated to the program is sufficient in the judgment of the accrediting agency. Interactions between a student and personnel who do not meet accrediting agency standards for providing instruction in the subject area would not be considered substantive interaction with an instructor.”
Many CBE programs have employed academic coaches or mentors. Some use highly-trained personnel while others may use upper division students. On page 9 of the HLC audit, the OIG voices its concern by citing HLC’s own Elements of Good Practice:
“While mentors or counselors may have an important role in direct assessment competency-based programs in supporting or assisting students, they should not replace faculty or instructors with subject-matter expertise.”
In sum, on the four criteria…
It appears that the Office of Inspector General, is drawing a strong distinction between instructional activities and other student support activities regardless of whether or not those activities play a role in student retention and success.
What’s the financial aid impact?
From 102(a)(3)(B) of the Higher Education Act of 1965:
“An institution shall not be considered to meet the definition of an institution of higher education in paragraph (1) if such institution— …enrolls 50 percent or more of the institution’s students in correspondence courses (excluding courses offered by telecommunications as defined in section 484(l)(4))…”
An institution that is completely CBE or distance education needs to make sure that it meets the “regular and substantive interaction” requirements or risk losing all of its federal financial aid.
For institutions that have only a few CBE or distance education programs, they need to be aware of this statement from page 6 of the HLC audit:
“…students enrolled only in correspondence programs may receive only a half-time Federal Pell Grant award (34 C.F.R. § 690.66), and a school may not award Title IV funds to any students if more than 50 percent of its courses are correspondence courses or if 50 percent or more of its students are enrolled in correspondence courses (34 C.F.R. § 600.7(a)(1)).”
In talking to Joan Berkes of the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, there are many implications to aid eligibility when an institution and/or a student is participating in courses that have been deemed correspondence. For institutions that are not completely CBE or distance learning, you may still be able to grant aid, but the complexities grow immensely.
How sure are we? Here’s our caveat emptor…
This document is our interpretation. It reflects our best understanding based on the documents we cited. Any action that you take based on this information is at your own risk.
What’s next? Do we agree with all of this?
Veterans of the distance education wars have been struggling with the Department’s “regular and substantive interaction” regulations for over a decade as well as the pervasive myth that online education cannot also be quality education. The recent widespread conversations about competency-based education and the explosion in the number of institutions developing and offering CBE has drawn more attention to these regulations, the confusions around them, and institutional struggles to comply with the letter of the law while upholding the spirit of innovation. Further complicating the conversation are the valid and important concerns about ensuring quality and protecting students in a time highlighted by some very large and well-publicized institutional closures have left students stranded with no degree, no job prospects, and significant amounts of student debt.
Because of the complexity of this topic, this first post was meant to be an analysis of the state of this regulation. We tried to hold opinions to the availability or clarity of the guidance provided by the Department thus far.
In our next post we will talk about the intersection between the current conversations around access, quality, and consumer protection. We will suggest a pathway forward that will allow everyone to ensure that our students have improved access to high quality, affordable education that meets their needs.
Today’s guest blogger is Jeremy Walsh of Learning House. He has spent his career helping organizations to reach their potential. As a dynamic leader, business developer, former pastor, small business owner, entrepreneur, and business consultant, he has a unique perspective on the convergence of technology and education.
He outlines many challenges facing higher education. What do you think? Russ Poulin
A few times a year, my friend Jeanne Meister hosts a really special gathering that brings together leaders and pioneers who are shaping the future of learning and work. I am lucky enough to be a part of it, and on a rainy Monday morning in New York City, I sat in a packed room buzzing with energy. Approximately 120 Learning and HR Executives from some of the world’s largest and most innovative companies, including corporate giants like GE, JPMorgan Chase, Fidelity, IBM and Cisco, and innovative startups, like Degreed, Smartly, Field Nation, and Udemy, were talking about the future of learning and work. We covered a lot, but the topics tended to focus on a few key areas:
the continued pressure in the war for talent;
the growth of the freelance economy and blended workforce;
growing disdain for the lack of preparedness of recent college graduates;
the emergence of technology solutions that enable and expedite learning and skill development;
the speed at which new skills and technologies are emerging in the marketplace;
the impact of AI and robotics on jobs.
A Perfect Storm of Change
In July 2016, I hosted a panel discussion at the Connect 2016 higher education summit about similar topics. We brought together people from Cigna, University Health Systems and Whole Foods to discuss what strategic advantage partnerships between industry and higher education can bring in the war for talent.
I always walk away from conversations like this sensing that all the swirling and change has collided upon us today to create the perfect storm. Storms can be violent, but they also have the power to bring change. In this case, there is enormous opportunity for innovative leaders at innovative organizations, both large and small, to build something special and do something big. Those organizations that embrace innovation will bring meaningful education and learning solutions to the table to make a real impact in the marketplace and, ultimately, in individuals’ lives. While the benefits seem obvious, it can feel like they have completely eluded some of my friends and colleagues in higher education.
The Room Where It Happens
In March 2010, when I attended this same meeting around the future of learning and work, I was working for a large university. I, along with several colleagues from other universities, all were engaged in discussing what the future could and should be, looking to develop solutions along with the corporate learning and talent executives.
There was a real sense that we were shaping the future. Over the last six years, I’ve watched the demise of the higher education “voice at the table.” At the most recent meeting, there wasn’t a single representative from a higher education institution. It’s disappointing but true that colleges and universities are no longer looked at as a viable part of the solution for educating, training and preparing those entering and reskilling in the workforce.
The speed of change is so fast, and we’ve been too slow to adapt and respond. Higher education institutions are viewed as outdated, somewhat irrelevant, and mostly inadequate to provide real solutions to the challenges at hand. The irony, of course, is that preparing students for lifelong learning and ultimately to contribute successfully to society through meaningful work is exactly what those of us in higher education are passionate about doing. There is a massive disconnect between the needs of enterprise and the response of higher education.
The Future of Learning
Over the course of this two-day gathering, the catchphrases seemed to be …
Microlearning: digestible, point of need, action-based;
Mobile: available wherever you’re connected;
Social: engaged, “Facebook meets learning”;
Flexible: your time, your way;
On Demand: what you need, when you need it;
Adaptive: knowing how you learn and helping you learn more effectively;
AI Supported: Watson, Siri, Alexa and how they can provide you first-class support.
I’m not suggesting that colleges and universities should or even can adopt all of these into our classes, programs, and models. I am suggesting that if we continue to dismiss these trends, we will continue to be dismissed.
Bootcamps and edtech companies have emerged and in many cases have secured a seat in this conversation. They are attempting to displace the common currency of the degree as the de facto standard for what determines a qualified candidate. With each passing year, I see them gain more trust and conduct more experiments that gather more data that supports their new models. Meanwhile, we are guarding our traditions and are too busy infighting about academic rigor and accessibility to be a meaningful part of the conversation.
I’m hopeful and certain that more of us are realizing our need to innovate faster, understanding that as higher education is now held to the same standards as the rest of the market, we must innovate and evolve. Do it on your own, do it through a partnership, or any other way you can find. Just make sure you are in the game. Those who aren’t will surely sink deeper into obscurity and irrelevance.
The Pioneers
The good news is we have some pioneers to look toward. For instance, in June 2014 Starbucks launched the College Achievement Plan, partnering with Arizona State University to enable Starbucks employees to earn their degree. In April 2015, Starbucks expanded the program to all employees who work at least 20 hours a week. There were several altruistic and business reasons why Starbucks established this plan, including employee retention and engagement and just creating a happier workforce.
One of the pleasant surprises was the impact that the College Achievement Plan has had on recruitment. From FY14 to FY15, Starbucks had over a 10 percent increase in new applications to work for the company, and 63 percent of new recruits cited the plan as a driver in their decision to work for the company. The latest report showed that more than 4,800 employees had enrolled, and ASU reported a 5 percent higher retention rate from these students compared to its core student population. This is just one of several examples of a higher education institution being at the table and providing real value-added solutions.
There are several other examples, like Strayer University working with Chrysler Fiat. Cigna has been working with multiple universities and colleges, including a few of our Learning House partner schools, to provide a great education as a benefit program to its employees.
Lumina Foundation conducted an ROI study on the Cigna education as a benefit program. This study revealed many interesting trends and provided Cigna with insights to continue improving the program. One of the biggest takeaways from the study was that overall Cigna was receiving a 129 percent ROI for the program.
I believe there are even more of these opportunities happening on smaller scales in regional pockets. As these studies are beginning to demonstrate, I’m confident there is both need and opportunity right in your backyard. Organizations need our support. It likely looks different than our current model, but we can find a way to develop innovative, impactful programs that extend the reach and mission of your institution. So get out there, get involved, and add the value that we are so passionate about bringing.
Jeremy Walsh
Vice President of Strategic Initiatives
Learning House
Photo credit: “Idea Gear” photo used under an iStock license obtained by Learning House.
Change begins with an idea, and in the Instructional Design department at Walters State Community College, we are not afraid of change. We realize that technology is changing our world minute by minute, and by embracing that movement, Walters State continues to be on the cutting edge of the current technology allowing us to offer new and innovative ways to make teaching and learning more effective for our faculty as well as our students.
Walters State Community College is “a learning-centered, comprehensive, public community college dedicated to increasing educational attainment and supporting economic development by providing affordable, high-quality educational opportunities for the residents of East Tennessee.” We strive to be a leader in the educational arena by discovering new and innovative ways to not only assist our own faculty and students’ educational needs, but we also strive to support others that are outside our four campus community as well. Thus, the idea for the 20 Minute Mentor was born.
What is the 20 Minute Mentor?
Every Tuesday morning at 9:30 am, Darlene Smith of our Instructional Design department broadcasts a live 20 Minute Mentor session using the free Periscope app and shares inventive ways WSCC is using technology. Darlene contacts faculty members who are effectively using mobile learning in the classroom, and schedules times to spotlight them on the weekly broadcast. Well in advance of the scheduled date, Darlene and the faculty member plan a rough outline for the broadcast so the session runs as smoothly as possible. Some of the broadcasts happen in a classroom, while others are just a one-on-one sessions with faculty members at different locations on campus. Both ways have been effective, per feedback from Darlene’s Periscope viewers. The viewers have the option of viewing live, but because the weekly broadcasts are published to a YouTube channel, viewers can replay or watch the broadcasts at a more convenient time on the 20 Minute Mentor mPage.
What is Periscope?
Periscope is a live streaming video app. It enables users to “go live” via a mobile device (Smartphone, iPad, etc.). It allows “on the go” broadcasting, streaming video and audio to viewers who join the broadcast. The user sets up a Periscope account using a Twitter handle. During the broadcast, viewers can engage in real-time discussions, ask questions, and provide feedback using the “Say Something” field at the bottom of their screens. All live videos are uploaded to Twitter and remain active for 24 hours; videos can also be saved to the camera roll so the broadcaster can publish them at a later date.As you can see, Periscope definitely has many uses both inside and outside the classroom.
What lessons have we learned?
Our 20 Minute Mentor series began in the spring semester. February 23, 2016 was our first live broadcast, and the last broadcast for the spring semester was May 10, 2016. During that time, we have learned some valuable lessons.
First, have a strategy. Develop a plan by asking yourself some simple questions:
What are your goals? Planning is crucial to a successful live broadcast. Decide what you want to accomplish. Determining your goals will keep you focused on your purpose. Remember, “If you fail to plan, you plan to fail.”
What day(s) and times are you going to broadcast? Being consistent with a day and time is a must for a successful broadcast. Oprah Winfrey was on every afternoon at 4:00 pm EST, Monday through Friday. To watch her, viewers had to be near a television at that time. We all know her show was a success, and she had a faithful audience. By being consistent with the “channel” days and times, viewers know when to have their mobile devices ready to watch.
What topics do you want to discuss? Do you want to introduce a weekly web tool or app? Do you want to spotlight what is happening on your campus or in your department? Do you want to provide a “Study Hall” for students to get additional help outside of class time? Do you want to provide “How to …” broadcasts for incoming students and their parents? Deciding the topics ahead of time will help you stay organized. After deciding on the topics, create interesting titles for each. You definitely get more viewers with “catchy” titles for your broadcasts!
Second, be consistent. Jumping on Periscope every now and then will not have the impact that a consistent day and time will have. Yes, it will be fun, but it won’t grow your audience base because they won’t have time to make plans to “be there.”
Third, keep trying. Remember that Periscope is a social media platform, and with any social media platform, you have to keep using it in order to grow it. Below is a collection of data for WSCC’s 20 Minute Mentor series.
As you can see from the data above, the number of viewers fluctuated from week to week, but 609 viewers were introduced to innovative technology ideas that are being implemented on the Walters State Community College campuses. We feel that number is acceptable for our trial run of live broadcasting. We are looking forward to comparing the data from spring 2016 with the fall 2016 semester which ends in December. We will keep you posted of our outcomes! Bottom line, you may not see quick results, but over time, you will make an impact!
Finally, just have fun! David White, Assistant Dean of Distance Education and Instructional Design at WSCC reminds us often that “Sometimes good enough is good enough.” Do a few practice runs with Periscope to get comfortable when broadcasting, but relax and have fun! Per our experience, you will be far more critical of your broadcast than your audience will.
WSCC is most proud that the broadcast uses a free app, that the person with the vision for this professional development topic is one of our own faculty members working in Instructional Design (Darlene Smith; @darlenesmithws), and that Darlene also leads the Mobile Learning Academy 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 and, therefore, knows all the faculty involved as potential presenters in the “20 Minute Mentor.” Darlene has been able to follow the presenters who have gone through her Mobile Learning Academies and has then been able to assist their growth over time as faculty using mobile learning in their classrooms and, later, as faculty training other faculty members. In addition, by having the one keystone person leading training of faculty and spotlighting faculty using mobile learning, WSCC has captured what we have produced internally and have been able to showcase it around the world to anyone with a mobile device and an interest in mobile learning.
Darlene Smith
Associate Professor of Education
David White
Assistant Dean of Distance Education and Instructional Design and Professor of English
The National Research Center for Distance Education and Technological Advancements (DETA) is wrapping up its second year of a national U.S. Department of Education funded effort to conduct rigorous research to identify key factors influencing student success in blended, online, and competency-based education.
The DETA Research Toolkit was launched in 2015 intended to help overcome the lack of research literacy in distance education practice and the methodological disciplinary divisions by providing a common language for educators to conduct research. It contains guides on designing experimental and survey research, support for data collection through institutional warehoused data and student surveys, a student survey instrumentation packet for dozens of meaningful measures, data codebooks to facilitate merging of data sets, and more. Notably, the DETA Research Toolkit has been downloaded by almost 600 individuals in every state of the U.S. and in over 20 countries throughout the world in less than a year. These research tools facilitate cross-institutional empirical data collection examining students, courses, programs, and institutions to identify instructional and institutional practices that influence student outcomes, in particular for underrepresented students.
As shared on the WCET Frontiers blog last fall, DETA Subgrant Awards included a competitive proposal process to identify and fund faculty and institutional partners to employ these research designs to address top questions in distance education as outlined in toolkit. These top research questions were developed at a national summit held last year bringing 50 experts from across the country to guide the DETA research agenda. Since last fall, several institutions have partnered with DETA to conduct research at their institutions, including Oregon State University, University of Central Florida, California State University Fullerton, Milwaukee Area Technical College, Florida SouthWestern State College, San Diego Community College District, Montana State University, and WCET. Each of these institutions collected student data in survey or quasi-experimentally designed studies in the Spring 2016 semester and completed preliminary analysis over the summer months. Several were part of cross-institutional studies. With a good foundation of national research, we look forward to bringing on several new partners this fall.
What’s Coming Up?
We still have several studies in which we are looking for institutional partners for a fall data collection. Interested in being a DETA Partner? The data collection consists of DETA gathering institutionally warehoused data, most likely from your student information system, and the administration of a survey to your blended, online, or competency-based education students. Please complete this form to show your interest.
We are working on preparing a series of DETA Research Briefs and DETA Webinars to help share the findings of our research. The research briefs will be 2-page documents that contain an abstract, introduction, methods, results, and conclusions. The webinars will go into much more detail explaining the university or college demographics, particulars about their online courses and programs, description of the intervention, if applicable, recommendations for future research, and implications for practice. This series will be coming later this fall.
We are putting together a special edition of the Online Learning Journal of DETA-supported research that will be released in 2017. The special edition will contain 8 peer-reviewed journal articles highlighting DETA research designs. Each article will discuss implications for future research and practice.
We are looking to release DETA Research Toolkit 2.0 this fall. We are currently looking for contributors and reviewers. Feel free to email us to express your interest.
Tanya Joosten explaining DETA’s research agenda and the Toolkit.
Learn More about DETA at the WCET Annual Meeting
Join the DETA Community in Minneapolis! We will be at the WCET Annual Meeting next month holding sessions to bring folks together, share research, and discuss challenges and opportunities in conducting research in an effort to build a community to increase awareness of research being conducted, build collaborations in research and funding, and support each other in conducting rigorous research. If you are interested in attending our sessions, helping facilitate a session, or presenting at one of the sessions, check out more details. There will be primarily 3 sessions that you can attend:
A workshop: Creating and Diffusing Online Instructional & Institutional Practices From Data & Evidence. With a goal of discovering how we turn our research findings into practice, this workshop is a roundtable brainstorming discussions that takes findings from a cross-institutional study and challenges the participants on determining how to interpret these findings, turn them into practice, and develop diffusion processes across the institution.
A lightning round session: Research in Distance Education and Technological Advancements (DETA) (Part 1/2). With a goal to increase everyone’s awareness of research being conducted, we will hear from awardees and others who are conducting research in distance education at their respective institutions. Each researcher will briefly describe their study in a lightning round format of 5 minutes and 5 slides per presenter.
Note: If you are interested in presenting, please contact DETA via email. We encourage all folks conducting research no matter how big or how small to come share.
A small group discussion: Research in Distance Education and Technological Advancements (DETA) (Part 2/2). With a goal of better understanding how DETA can support research in this area, participants will gather in small groups to discuss a) challenges in conducting research and needs of the research community, b) possible solutions or resources to meet needs and overcome challenges, and c) opportunities for funding and collaboration. In previous DETA community discussions, we identified some of the top challenges in conducting research. We have been working to identify and implement recommendations to increase each individual’s and institution’s capacity to carry out DETA Research. Come ready to ask questions, pose problems, brainstorm solutions, share opportunities for funding or collaboration, and more!
Tanya Joosten, PhD
Director, eLearning Research and Development, Academic Affairs
Co-Director, National Research Center for Distance Education and Technological Advancements
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
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
This is welcome news. In 
On page 16 of 
What Else Can Be Done to Kill Regulations?
What Accountability Measures Will Be Used?
divisions by providing a common language for educators to conduct research. It contains guides on designing experimental and survey research, support for data collection through institutional warehoused data and student surveys, a student survey instrumentation packet for dozens of meaningful measures, data codebooks to facilitate merging of data sets, and more. Notably, the DETA Research Toolkit has been downloaded by almost 600 individuals in every state of the U.S. and in over 20 countries throughout the world in less than a year. These research tools facilitate cross-institutional empirical data collection examining students, courses, programs, and institutions to identify instructional and institutional practices that influence student outcomes, in particular for underrepresented students.