Nine higher education organizations partnered to submit comments to the Department of Education regarding its proposed state authorization regulations for distance education. By working unison, we provided a strong and consistent single voice in making recommendations to the Department.
The Partners
Contributing to the letter are six distance learning associations with total memberships of over 1,000 institutions:
The letter indicates support for many of the recommended regulations. All of the partners support increased information for students and improved consumer protections. Some of the proposed regulations need clarifications for institutions to understand how to comply. Other proposed rules simply fall short in meeting the Department’s own goals.
Our comments focused on:
While the Department recognizes reciprocity as a means for an institution to obtain approval in a state, they want to assure that all state can still enforce their consumer protection laws. SARA allows states to enforce “general-purpose laws” that are applicable to “all entities doing business in the state, not just institutions of higher education.” The Department’s definition of “consumer protection” should mimic SARA’s or states could define it too broadly.
State Complaint Processes. Institutions would be denied offering aid in states without a complaint process that meets Departmental requirements. Apparently, the expectation is that out-of-state institutions will: a) know which states are out-of-compliance, b) lobby those states to change their process, and c) hope that they are lobbying for change that meet the Department’s needs. While we support all students having a reliable route for complaints, this process simply will not work. We suggest alternatives
Professional Licensure Notifications. The Department substantially underestimated the time for institutions to comply and the ability of state agencies to respond. A delay in enforcement time is needed
“Adverse Actions” Notifications. Much clarification is needed as the types of actions differ greatly by accrediting and state agencies. We also recommend that institutions be required to report actions “taken” not actions “initiated.” The latter is often an investigation that does not result in negative consequences for the institution.
Thank you to all our partners who provide great advice and support throughout the process.
The Department will consider the comments and has said that it will issue a final regulation by the end of the calendar year. If the final regulation is released before November 1, then the regulations become law on July 1, 2017. If they wait until November or December, then they become law on July 1, 2018. At its discretion, the Department may announce that it will delay enforcement of parts of the regulations until a later date.
Bottom Line
If you are not in compliance as an institution or for your professional programs in a state in which you wish to enroll students, don’t hesitate to do so. Avoid the rush. You could get trampled.
The state regulators or licensing boards have no incentive to hurry your application to meet a federal requirement. They do all they can, but they often have minimal staffing.
Happy authorizing!!
Cheryl Dowd
Director
WCET State Authorization
Russ Poulin
Director, Policy and Analysis
WCET – WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technologies
The North Dakota University System Open Educational Resources Initiative is a 3-phased plan hinging upon a unique collaboration among the North Dakota legislature, the University System Office, and the faculty at public institutions across the state. At the intersection of these three entities are change leaders who have come together for a common goal of improving higher education by reducing textbook costs for students. A 2015 post previewed this work, and this post outlines the plan, the people, and the product.
Project Inception
The American public has called for a change. Higher education is expensive and the national student debt load is collectively around $1.3 trillion. Lawmakers and educators in North Dakota are interested in ideas that might reduce the cost of attendance at ND public institutions. During the 63rd Legislative Session, Thomas Beadle, a young representative, sponsored a legislative study and resolution urging the North Dakota University System to increase the use of open textbooks as a way to cut costs for college students. In 2013, the Legislative council estimated that North Dakota students spent around $1,100 per year on textbooks. Rep. Beadle described how the idea came about:
“Going into the 2013 legislative session, I really wanted to focus on our students and how we can try to look at new ways of helping them. For years we have been talking about the growing levels of tuition and fees, but we hadn’t done anything that looked at the other costs associated with going to school. As a young, recent college grad, I remember how frustrating it was to have to buy hundreds of dollars’ worth of books each semester, and only be able to get a fraction of that cost back when I would try to sell them later on. I knew that the internet and technology was changing the game in how content was being delivered, but I hadn’t been seeing it on my campus, and knew that as a state we could do better.”
ND Rep. Thomas Beadle
“In collaboration with some friends of mine, who had faced very similar frustrations about rapid cost increases for books and ‘silent expenses’ that went in to their education, we came up with Open Textbooks as being a first step for North Dakota to look at in order to try and help the students of the state not only save a few dollars, but also to help them get a more active learning tool.”
“While I knew about Open Textbooks and the impact that they could have, the whole world of Open Educational Resources was very foreign to me. Fortunately, we had Dr. Spilovoy, a very visionary leader in the ND University System who would take our resolution pushing the NDUS to explore this new technology and run with it. When I introduced the concept, and got legislative approval, I had hoped to start a conversation and try to move the ball forward a little bit. I hadn’t expected the tremendous snowball effect that it would create!”
Gaining Funding and Support
In order for a system-wide initiative to succeed, there had to be stakeholders involved at every level. A bipartisan and student-focused group of legislators on the Interim Higher Education Funding Committee supported the idea and provided a platform for innovation and feedback. The North Dakota University System put together a team made up of faculty, a student, technologists, and provosts to draft a white paper exploring the concept of open textbooks in response to the legislative request. Because I work with Academic Affairs and Technology at the NDUS system office, I was on the team that wrote the white paper. And after the legislative session, I was asked to lead the Open Educational Resources Initiative for NDUS. Over the next few months, I spent a significant amount of time researching, planning, and preparing presentations, and collaborating with stakeholders across the North Dakota University System.
Governance, cost, collaboration and policy considerations were paramount to the planning process. I wanted to find and partner with a repository of open education materials instead of having to create and maintain a library. The University System is built on the concept of academic freedom. Faculty own the curriculum and choose materials for the courses they teach. I knew that faculty development, support and buy-in were key to the success of the project. An effective approach would be to empower campuses to create and implement open educational resources and textbooks in a way that best suited their unique mission, vision, and faculty. Finally, I knew that funding would be necessary and that the legislature would be interested in seeing a return on its investment. I put together a project concept and presented it at the Interim Higher Education Funding Committee.
OPEN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES PARTNERSHIP CONCEPT:
Improving Student Access, Affordability, and Academic Success
Textbook costs create a financial burden on college students that can impact their academic success and their financial health. North Dakota University System students each pay an estimated average of $1,100 per year for academic course textbooks. Open textbooks and other open educational resources can help alleviate the burden of textbook costs and reduce the cost of attendance. Open textbooks are complete, real textbooks that are licensed to be freely used, edited, and distributed. Open educational resources include peer-reviewed videos, simulations, lesson plans, and many other openly licensed materials.
By replacing traditional textbooks with open textbooks and open educational resources, the cost of attendance would be reduced without impacting the budget of the college or university. And faculty would have the opportunity to adopt open textbooks and educational materials that they can edit to best meet the needs of their students.
Concept Overview: Implement a system-wide Open Educational Resources initiative throughout North Dakota University System in three phases:
Phase 1. Partner with the Open Textbook Network and the University of Minnesota Open Textbook Library to build on proven success. Expand to other Open Educational Resources opportunities that would benefit our students and faculty. Phase I will introduce open textbooks to faculty with support, professional development, and stipends.
Phase 2. Train a trainer at each campus so that the campuses begin taking ownership to reduce textbook costs for students. NDUS would also host an Open Educational Resources Summit.
Phase 3. North Dakota Open Educational Resources Ideation Grant. Campuses would be challenged to design and implement their own campus-wide open educational resources initiative. Funded proposals will include support and collaboration from campus administrators, faculty, technologists, and others on campus. Proposals can include a variety of peer-reviewed open educational materials such as open and/or digital textbooks, videos, simulations, and other resources that replace traditional textbooks and reduce cost of attendance for students. Campus proposals will be funded based on actual dollars saved in student textbook costs.
The Report Prompts Legislative Action
The work between sessions set the stage for successful implementation. And in the 64th Legislative session, Representative Thomas Beadle introduced legislation to fund a project to increase the use of Open Educational Resources. The governor and legislature supported the project with funding even though overall budgets had been cut state-wide. The final budget appropriation was $110,000.
Of the legislative appropriation to support the Open Educational Resources Initiative, Rep Beadle said, “One of the benefits of a state like North Dakota, is that we are a small community. While that can be seen as a limitation by many, it has actually helped us experience rapid success. We are small enough to be nimble and adapt quickly. Every stakeholder knows that they need to work with others in order to get things done, and we need to develop and foster relationships to get things done well. We have really created a strong team atmosphere that is working together to push OER in North Dakota, and to make this a success for our students, our institutions, and our state. The buy-in and leadership we have seen on our campuses within the faculty has been tremendous, and the assistance provided by our University System office has been crucial. As a lawmaker who is responsible to the citizens and the taxpayers, being able to see the return on investment has been crucial. Knowing that we have the players and stakeholders all seeing benefits, and seeing ways that we can improve and operate more efficiently, has allowed us to be able to get legislative support for these initiatives, and hopefully to continue to provide that support in the future.”
Data Shows Progress
In order to show progress, cost savings, and project success, I began working on baseline project data. In 2013, Babson Survey Group released “Opening the Curriculum: Educational Resources in U.S. Higher Education, 2014.” I contacted Dr. Jeff Seaman of Babson Survey Group and asked if we could collaborate on a survey report comparing ND’s baseline data to the national survey data. He responded positively, and by October, 2015, we released “Opening Public Institutions: OER in North Dakota and the Nation, 2015.”
Key findings from the report include:
NDUS faculty are more aware of open educational resources than their counterparts nationally.
Similar to their peers nationally, NDUS faculty are taking the initiative with OER adoption. NDUS faculty report similar barriers to adoption; however, they also report that they are currently using a variety of OERs for instruction (primarily videos).
More than half of NDUS faculty and those at national public institutions report that they are not sufficiently aware of OER to judge its quality.
The most significant barrier to wider adoption of OER remains a faculty perception of the time and effort required to find and evaluate it.
Faculty are the key decision makers for OER adoption. At the two-year Associates level, North Dakota University System faculty enjoy significantly more autonomy in the selection of course materials than their peers who teach at the associates level at public institutions nationally.
A majority of North Dakota University System faculty say that they “will” or “might” use open resources in the next three years.
Project in Motion
The NDUS joined the Open Textbook Network and began collaborating with other partner institutions already implementing open educational resources projects. I assembled a NDUS OER Steering Committee made up of a student representative, faculty members from each institution type, a legislator, and national experts in open education. In October, 2015, I organized a system-wide Open Educational Resources Summit at Valley City State University. Provosts were asked to send campus OER leadership teams made up of innovative faculty, librarians, instructional designers, and open-minded individuals. David Ernst, Ph. D., the Director of the Center for Open Education and Executive Director of the Open Textbook Network spoke and conducted a faculty workshop on open education and the adoption of open textbooks. Faculty that reviewed an open textbook from the Open Textbook Library and wrote a peer review received a $250 stipend.
The NDUS Open Educational Resources Campus Grants Call for Proposals was announced. Campus teams left the NDUS Open Educational Resources Summit energized to create their own campus plans and submit for funding.
Return on Investment
On March 4, 2016, the OER Steering Committee met to review campus OER project proposals and give feedback. The initial state investment was $110,000. The first four funded proposals include estimated student cost savings of more than $2 million for school year 2016-2017. Three of the campus projects will provide faculty stipends to revamp general education courses using open source materials and textbooks. One project at the University of North Dakota will make Robinson’s “The History of North Dakota” an open textbook. Another round of grant proposals is due in October, 2016 with four more $10,000 institutional grants anticipated.
The final financial impact of this initiative will be calculated at the end of the 2017 fiscal year. In the words of Senator Tim Flakoll, Chairman of the Senate Education Committee, “The Open Educational Resources Initiative could well go down in history as having the highest return on any higher education investment we’ve made in the last 25 years.”
Call for Proposals: NDUS Open Educational Resources Special Projects
The North Dakota University System seeks grant proposals that implement high-impact, collaborative projects in support of open education and reduced textbook costs for students.
Applications for any amount of funding up to $10,000 are welcome from North Dakota University stakeholders, including faculty, librarians, technologists, administrators, students, and bookstore staff. Projects must involve the creation, adaptation or innovative use of Open Educational Resources (OER), which are educational materials that are openly licensed to the public to freely use, adapt, and share.
Sustainable adoption of OER is a complex issue with many parts, including course redesign, open material reviews, technology support, curriculum mapping, and much more. Project proposals will be evaluated using a rubric that balances the following criteria to prioritize impact and collaboration:
Student savings on textbooks.
Quality considerations such as use of peer reviewed resources, attribution/copyright clearance, and ADA compliance.
Serving a campus or discipline where the availability or use of OER is underrepresented
Collective commitments, such as:
Department-wide commitments (for example, redesign all sections of a class, or all classes in a sequence), or
Multi-institutional commitments (for example, collaborators on more than one community college campus, commitment to implement at more than one campus, or a 4-year partner).
Institutional in-kind (e.g. release time) or cash match commitments (not required but may be considered favorably during the review process).
Assessment plan to demonstrate improved student savings, learning, retention, and success.
Completed proposals should be no longer than three well-written pages and signed by the applicants and supervisors. The OER Steering Committee anticipates making 5-10 awards. Proposals are due 5 pm Monday, February 29, 2016. The NDUS OER Steering Committee will notify applicants by 5 pm Thursday, March 31, 2016.
Focus on Students. When leading an Open Educational Resources project, focus on making a difference for students. It is motivating to think that more people will have the opportunity to access information, and that students won’t have to go into more debt because of high textbook costs. Student associations and leaders will be excited to help promote an Open Educational Resources Initiative.
Empower the Faculty. Faculty rarely get to showcase the amazing things they do in their classrooms because they are busy focusing on and teaching students. Make faculty the super stars when talking about Open Educational Resources. Ask expert faculty to talk about how they’re using open textbooks and resources in their classrooms. You will be amazed what you’ll learn from faculty. Faculty appreciate sharing ideas and collaborating. And remember that they are the experts in their field; faculty are the keepers of the curriculum.
Collect the Data. You need to show a return on investment. Collect baseline data on student textbook costs, faculty needs, barriers to adoption, and faculty understanding of Open Educational Resources and textbooks. At the culmination of the project, collect follow-up data so that you’ll be able to show growth, improvement, and textbook cost savings.
Customize the Message. There are many reasons why replacing high-cost textbooks with free textbooks and resources makes sense. However, different groups of stakeholders care about different things. Customize your presentations and message to reflect what folks care about. Faculty are interested in protecting academic freedom, having the autonomy to choose and customize resources, adopting quality learning materials, and helping students meet the course objectives. Talk about how OER can meet faculty needs. Legislators and administrators are interested in initiatives that will be successful and reflect positively on their state and institutions. They want to see a good return on any monetary or time investment. Remember that legislators and administrators are also parents, neighbors, and friends; everyone cares about education. Students are interested in saving money, being engaged, and the convenience of accessing learning materials in a variety of formats on any device. All of these viewpoints are valid, and you’ll find great success if you focus your presentation on what matters to the audience.
Find your People. There are innovative, excited, supportive people who are interested in improving higher education. Spend time with them and absorb their energy. Listen to their ideas; ask what they think of your ideas. Give them credit when they help you. All along this journey, there have been people who have opened doors, offered encouragement, and signed on the dotted line because they believed in it. There will also be people who hate change, and/or dislike you. There might even be folks who actively work to stop or sabotage your project. That’s ok. You don’t need to waste time trying to change them or fight about it. Think of them as part of the adventure. Smile, be polite but firmly state you will continue the work, and then find a pathway around their roadblocks. I’ve discovered that many of the people who initially resisted the project are now actively working to promote it. Focus your time and energy on the people who will contribute to the project’s success. Keep your eyes on the prize, and never give up on your goal.
Tanya M. Spilovoy, Ed. D.
Director, Distance Education and State Authorization
North Dakota University System Tanya.spilovoy@ndus.edu
On Tuesday, The U.S. Department of Education announced (Department press release, Wall Street Journal story) the eight partnerships that were selected in the EQUIP (Educational QUality through Innovative Partnerships) experimental sites program. The Department sought collaborations between accredited institutions that offer federal financial aid and newer providers who were previously not eligible to offer aid. The ultimate goal is to help low-income students use federal aid to earn credentials that will quickly earn them employment.
The experimental sites program allows the Department to wave some (but not all) aid regulations. For the purposes of this program, waived was the ceiling of no more than 50 percent of the education in a certificate of degree program being offered by an “alternative provider.” Even with the waiver, the non-accredited provider would need to partner with an accredited college.
The Eight Programs Chosen
The chosen participating collaborations represent a mix of programs. While about half of the credentials are focused on computer programming, there is an attempt in some of the remaining projects to go beyond training programs that lead to obtaining only a narrow set of vocational skills.
I’m also glad to see five WCET members being chosen to participate. Accredited institutions include Colorado State University-Global Campus, Dallas County Community College District, and Thomas Edison State College. StraighterLine is a non-accredited provider and Quality Matters is serves as a Quality Assurance Entity (QAE).
The Department has initiated several experimental sites programs in the past few years and they should be applauded for beginning to expand their horizons. While I understand that the program is just beginning, I do have some questions (or comments disguised as questions) about the program and what may come of it.
How will we apply what we learn from the varied quality oversight models used?
Each project is required to engage a Quality Assurance Entity (QAE) to address a very long list of quality oversight questions. Given that this is an experimental program, an extensive set of metrics was needed. There are a wide variety of agencies. Given the attack (sometimes fair, but almost always overstated) on accrediting agencies, it will be interesting if higher education can find some new models that might work.
What will be the role of the accrediting agencies?
The accrediting agencies seemed to be only tangentially included. Will some insert themselves into the process more aggressively than others?
Who is responsible for consumer protection? What will be the role of the state oversight agencies?
There might be two oversight agencies that oversee the activities of this collaboration. By federal regulation, the aid-granting institution must have a state agency that receives complaints and acts upon those complaints. Many states have agencies that oversee non-accredited businesses that offer vocational training or non-credit instruction. In those states, there are those in the “alternative provider” world that have chosen to ignore the regulators and/or declare themselves exempt (even if they are not), or tell students that they have all the proper approvals (even if they do not). On this, I twice contacted one provider and was assured that all was fine in a state in which I knew they were out-of-bounds. At a recent Departmental gathering, one well-known leader of such a company declared that “my only accreditor is the marketplace.” That’s great for the business and is valid for his business. This is bad news for students. (Caveat: I do NOT mean to paint all alternative providers with the same negative broad brush. As with anyone offering education, there are the good and the not-so-good.)
Could someone explain to me the whole “for-profit” relationship with the Department?
On the one hand, there is this (often justified and recently intensified) vehemence toward the for-profit higher education sector. On the other hand, Marco Rubio, Hillary Clinton, and some in the Department have doubted the ability of traditional higher education to meet societal (again some justification there) and have touted a new set of for-profits as the saviors.
When will Congress give the Department more leeway to be even more creative?
The Department could not set aside all regulations for the experimental sites program. For example, adherence to the “regular and substantive interaction” regulation probably kept away some MOOC and adaptive learning providers. In the next higher Education Act, can the Department get even more leeway to waive regulations on an experimental basis?
If “regular and substantive interaction” had to be enforced, how did a correspondence program make the cut?
The Department’s Office of the Inspector general wants the Department to crack down on aid to programs that don’t meet their interaction definition. How will this one project comply?
What’s in it for the colleges? Won’t it make sense to let the providers give their own aid?
That’s a long-term question.
In Conclusion
Innovations SHOULD raise questions as they are exploring unfamiliar territory. I fully support the program and eagerly await the lessons to be learned.
Russ
Russell Poulin
Director, Policy & Analysis
WCET – The WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technologies
303 – 541 – 0305 rpoulin@wiche.edu
Myk Garn is a long-time friend of WCET. He currently champions “new learning models” for the University System of Georgia. Myk also serves on the Board of Directors for the Competency-Based Education Network (C-BEN). After recent discussions about attacks on the CBE model (see last week’s Department of Education’s Office of Inspector General’s criticism on the accrediting agency WASC’s handling of CBE), WCET invited Myk to share this opinion. You will be hearing more from WCET about the attacks on CBE in the coming weeks and months. Thank you, Myk. Russ Poulin
In competency-based education (CBE) ‘the time it takes to demonstrate competencies varies and the expectations about learning are held constant,’ (CBEN, 2016). This paradigmatic shift predicates momentous opportunity for accelerated learners who can progress through programs more rapidly ¾ AND ¾ for learners who need extended time to achieve mastery.
BUT — (and this is my kvetch) — there is a problem with a key phrase used to describe the time — and control over it — it takes CBE learners to work through their studies and demonstrate competence. Having recently read two excellent reports on CBE I was struck by the almost universal use of the term ‘self-paced’ to describe the rate of learner progress in CBE instructional models.
I’m sorry but (IMHO) — use of the ‘self-paced’ term seems wrong for two reasons.
“Self-paced” works for some activities.
“Self-paced” Equates with Correspondence, “Learn-on-your-own” Studies
First, and most importantly, the term ‘self-paced’ is specifically used in the Code of Federal Regulations to describe (enable classification of a course as) a correspondence course (“Correspondence courses are typically self-paced,” Sec. 484(l); 34 CFR 600.2). For many degree-seeking learners this is bad because correspondence courses and programs are ineligible for Title IV financial aid. Yes, there is the caveat ‘typically’ but — as I watched one college take three months to debate and resolve this nuance with an accreditor — it is like waving a red flag at a bull and then putting it back in your pocket — it doesn’t un-ring the bell (apologies for the mixed metaphor).
Deb Bushway, a CBE consultant with Lumina Foundation, noted these concerns in a recent paper where she explained:
“When these regulations were developed, describing something as a “self-paced course” was a proxy for “left to learn on his/her own,” because the technology and knowledge was not yet available to track and personalize the educational experience. In the intervening years, advances in technology, predictive analytics, cognitive science, and instructional design have a spawned the creation of the new generation of academic innovators. In these programs, personalized pacing might leverage recent advances to support student learning and progression at a level that has not been achieved by even most traditional programs. In short, a “self-paced course” in 2016 does not necessarily leave a student to “learn on his/her own.”
CBE Isn’t All that Self-Paced
My second kvetch with ‘self-paced’ is that it is operationally inaccurate. For students enrolled in CBE courses and programs that are credit bearing and eligible for financial aid — CBE is NOT a ‘self-paced’ option or experience.
While almost every CBE model is designed to give the student significant latitude and agency over their pace — the control is not unilaterally at the discretion of the learner. It is a negotiated flexibility, with milestones, deadlines and absolute limits, arbitrated between course designers, faculty, learners — and regulators — to ensure there is ‘satisfactory academic progress’ to maintain financial aid eligibility.
In short, the variability of pace in CBE is not without boundaries. And the limits are not, ultimately, set by the learners themselves. Even without the regulatory requirement to ensure the student’s pace is sufficiently productive — experience tells us, that when learners are left to their own initiative to engage with and progress through a course of study, most tend to lapse, languish and leave. Most recently the completion rates of MOOCs have provided a stark demonstration of this syndrome.
Let’s Get it Right
It is important that we get this concept — and term — right.
Recent findings (Editor’s Note: this was written prior to last week’s WASC criticism by the OIG) by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) have had, and could have a greater, chilling effect on CBE development. With a report already issued criticizing the oversight of CBE programs by the Higher Learning Commission – and a review of Western Governors University nearing conclusion – we are learning how the OIG’s focus on terms and nuance (in WGU’s case “regular and substantive interaction’) could engender large, negative consequences for the well-intentioned efforts of the CBE movement.
Emphasize the Positive
Flexible pace is a big selling point of CBE. Take more time where you need it, move ahead faster where you’re already skilled. Every CBE program has had to confront and devise its own plan wherein learners can adjust and optimize their time spend learning and progressing balanced against other commitments and emergencies. The six month term model provides sufficient ‘slack’ time that students can accommodate breaks, vacations, work, life and still find time to stay on — or exceed — the progress students made in a traditional 15-week learning window.
As I’ve pointed out, allowing learners to devise and manage their learning schedules alone is contraindicated.
CBE students often receive coaching from their “Academic Friend Forever”
Many CBE programs address this challenge with a ‘success coach.’ This tactic, what I like to think of as a learner’s “Academic Friend Forever” — or AFF, establishes a person-to-person relationship that ensures on-going engagement and adjustments for on-track progress for the entire program. The coach maintains regular contact with the learner. Usually by phone weekly at the beginning of a program, generally less (bi-weekly) as the student progresses and establishes and demonstrates strong time management skills. From the start, and throughout the duration of study, the coach and learner negotiate the pace and progress that is anticipated, will be attempted and has been achieved.
Also emergent in exemplar CBE models is the use of instructional technologies, including the adaptation of customer relationship management (CRM) software to develop, maintain and grow a progressive, persistent student profile that can be accessed and utilized by an entire team of instructional and learning support professionals.
These tactics and tools enable increasingly informed, accurate and effective management of pace and progress by individual learners. The result is a learning model where the pace is negotiated and customized to the individual’s personal abilities and circumstances within a reasonable (and regulatory) set of boundaries.
It’s Time to Stop Using “Self-Paced”
To recap: The primary reason to stop using the term ‘self-paced’ is to avoid unintended confusion and/or classification of a program as ‘correspondence’ when it is intended to be for-credit and financial aid eligible. AND — the pace of progress through CBE instruction is not determined unilaterally by her/himself — the pace is a bounded, negotiated, customized pace for each individual learner.
What makes this benefit unique is that, on any given day, for any given learner, the pace and progress will always be different. And it is this individuality that provides a better term (or set of terms) to use.
THEREFORE and FORTHWITH EVERMORE: In describing the pace of learner advancement through competence-based instruction we now have a rich set of more accurate and descriptive terms that can be used. These include: personalized-, individualized-, customized-, and flexible-pace and other variants to fuel your creativity. I myself am beginning to favor the term ‘multi-paced.’ I’ll let you know how that works out. But please, can we be resolved to eradicate the self-paced moniker from our minds — and our for-credit, financial aid eligible CBE courses, programs and models?
Myk Garn
Assistant Vice Chancellor for New Learning Models
Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia
I encourage you and/or your institution to submit comments on the state authorization regulation proposed recently (press release, proposed regulations) by the U.S. Department of Education. In a recent post, I gave you a “first look” at the language, included some analysis about what is new, and commented on some implications.
In this post, I will provide you with background and opinions on four of the elements of the proposed regulation and suggest some other topics on which you may wish to comment. I also provide you with some possible language that you might use in your comments. Finally, I give you information on how to comment.
The comment period ends August 24.
Please don’t use the excuse that you are a State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement (SARA) member to not pay attention. Much of what is proposed has an impact on everyone…and some of it directly affects SARA members.
If you plan to have your institution comment, get motivated. Understandably, it often takes some time for draft comments to make their way through institutional review and approval processes before they can be submitted. Alternatively, you can comment on your own.
1) Initial Overview
Let me complement the Department for trimming the proposed language from what was presented to the Negotiated Rulemaking panel (for which I was a negotiator) in 2014. The language is much clearer and less redundant. I still have some questions, but fewer than I had two years ago. I also laud the Department for focusing on the key issues.
One of my biggest worries is the answer to what protections are included in “consumer protection” as part of the reciprocity definition. Interpreted broadly, it could cripple SARA, but I sincerely doubt that is the Department’s intent. Second on my list is the attempt to use out-of-state institutions to get states to develop their complaint processes. I agree with goal, but their proposed process will not allow us to reach that goal very soon. See more on both points in the discussion below.
For institutions, if you have been paying attention to state authorization rules, you should (mostly) be okay. If you have not been paying attention (oh my, why is that, the state regulations have been there all along), you better get going.
For students, these regulations will provide more protection. Students will also receive more information about the programs they seek to enter.
Bottom line: Keep the focus on the student.
2) Institutional Compliance
Background and Department’s Proposed Language
The proposed regulation requires institutions to demonstrate that they have the proper authorizations in any state in which they enroll a student who receives Title IV funds. The language:
“If an institution described under paragraph (a)(1) of this section offers postsecondary education through distance education or correspondence courses to students in a State in which the institution is not physically located or in which the institution is otherwise subject to that State’s jurisdiction as determined by that State, except as provided in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section, the institution must meet any State requirements for it to be legally offering postsecondary distance education or correspondence courses in that State. The institution must, upon request, document to the Secretary the State’s approval.”
Opinions
Support the Department’s return to the 2010 intent. First, this issue was the major sticking point of the Negotiated Rulemaking process held two years ago. In the original regulation, issued in 2010, the Department asked institutions to follow existing state laws, if any. In the 2014 Negotiated Rulemaking, the Department sought to make every state conduct an “active review” of every institution. The great majority of negotiators (10 or 11 out of 16) did not support that idea. I am pleased to see that this proposal returns the Department to the original regulatory framework that colleges must follow any existing state laws. The uncertainty that the “active review” implementation would have caused would have harmed students. Keep the focus on the student.
Second, I know that many in the higher education community wish this federal regulation would go away. I don’t agree. For the amount of federal funding that institutions receive, asking colleges to follow state laws is a reasonable expectation. In talk about regulations, the impact of protecting students is sometimes lost. Keep the focus on the student.
There definitely will be groups that will try to influence the Department to try to force each state to conduct an “active review.” Their focus is on “for-profit” institutions, but “for-profit” institutions already have additional authorization requirements in many states and have (usually) already complied with them. The “active review” would have been an unfunded mandate for an activity that those states did not see a need to enact by now. The resulting chaos for non-SARA states and institutions would have left students uncertain whether or not they were enrolled in or considering an approved institution. Keep the focus on the student.
Corinthian Colleges is rightfully used as the poster child for an unsavory for-profit that wasted federal funds. Those seeking more regulation called Corinthian an “online institution.”Actually, Corinthian Colleges was a collection of 60 colleges, only five of which enrolled a significant number of students (more than 10% of total enrollment) solely at a distance. Lax oversight by Corinthian’s accrediting agency has been covered extensively in the press. But Corinthian is based in California and that state’s oversight is also wanting and has been totally absent, at times. California’s oversight problem will only be fixed by long-overdue direct Departmental negotiations with the state. Indirect regulations depending on out-of-state institutions lobbying the California legislature to change their laws will not improve student protection. Keep the focus on the student.
Possible Language for Commenting
We support the Department of Education’s return to the original 2010 regulatory intent to assure that institutions offering distance and correspondence education in other states are following the existing laws of each state in which it enrolls students.
3) Reciprocity
Background and Department’s Proposed Language
The proposed regulations recognize reciprocity among states as a valid route to meeting Department of Education state authorization requirements. Note that the Department can only endorse reciprocity as a concept and cannot endorse any specific model, such as the State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement (SARA). The language:
“If an institution described under paragraph (a)(1) of this section offers postsecondary education through distance education or correspondence courses in a State that participates in a State authorization reciprocity agreement, and the institution is covered by such agreement, the institution is considered to meet State requirements for it to be legally offering postsecondary distance education or correspondence courses in that State, subject to any limitations in that agreement. The institution must, upon request, document its coverage under such an agreement to the Secretary.”
In the Department’s recommendations, they propose a new definition:
“State authorization reciprocity 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 in other States covered by the agreement and does not prohibit a participating State from enforcing its own consumer protection laws.”
As of August 1, 2016, 40 states and the District of Columbia participate in SARA. Watch for 3-6 more states in the coming months.
Opinions
Support the Department’s Proposal. Department leaders have continually issued strong support for the idea of state-to-state reciprocity agreements serving as a means to fulfilling this requirement. The Department should be thanked for re-affirming that support in the proposed language.
Request Guidance on the “Consumer Protection” Term. We believe that the intent of the term “consumer protection” refers to general fraud, misrepresentation, and abuse laws that could be applied to any business or activity in the state – including colleges and universities. SARA’s provisions focus on the requirements for institutions to offer postsecondary education in a state and not the rules for operating as a business in the state.
If a broader definition is used, then a state could define any institutional requirement as consumer protection. Under that scenario, a state could enforce any of its previous rules. That would end reciprocity. Given the Department’s support for reciprocity, we don’t believe that is their intent.
SARA opponents have attempted to confuse this issue by falsely claiming that SARA keeps states from pursuing fraud, misrepresentation, or abuse claims by those residing in their state. To the contrary, SARA’s Policies and Standards document states:
“…SARA member states continue to have authority to enforce all their general-purpose laws against non-domestic institutions (including SARA participating institutions) providing distance education in the state, including, but not limited to, those laws related to consumer protection and fraudulent activities.”
With “general-purpose laws” being defined in the SARA Policies and Standards document as:
“A ‘general-purpose law’ is one that applies to all entities doing business in the state, not just institutions of higher education.”
Unfortunately, the untruth about SARA’s restrictions has been repeated often enough that the Department decided to add this language.
Possible Language for Commenting
We applaud the Department of Education’s on-going support of reciprocity as a means for institutions to obtain state authorization for distance and correspondence programs offered to students in other states. The success of reciprocity is witnessed by forty states and the District of Columbia joining the State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement in just two-and-a-half year. Additional states are slated to join in the next six months.
The proposed definition of “state authorization reciprocity agreement” bans any such agreement from prohibiting “a participating State from enforcing its own consumer protection laws.” A clarification of “consumer protection” is needed to help those enforcing a reciprocity agreement and the agreement’s member states understand the Department’s intent. Rather than clarifying the intent in regulation, we support future guidance in comments when issuing the final regulation and a “Dear Colleague” letter. The guidance should affirm “consumer protection” laws as being limited to general purpose fraud, misrepresentation, and abuse laws that apply to all entities doing business in a state, not just institutions of higher education.
4) Student Notifications and Disclosures
Background and Department’s Proposed Language
The proposed regulations include several new notification and disclosure requirements for distance education students. Both enrolled and prospective students are to be notified. Some requirements are for “public disclosures” (such as by website and catalog) and some are “individualized disclosures” (directly to the student via email or U.S. Mail).
The new requirements with possibly the most impact will be those for programs that lead to licensure or certification in a profession. Of course, the licensure and certification requirements vary greatly across professions and states. This issue was not addressed in the original regulatory language from 2010. During the Negotiated Rulemaking, Marshall Hill (NC-SARA Executive Director and fellow negotiator) and I supported some form of notification for such programs. We did oppose when they tried to expand the requirement to ALL programs, both those at a distance and face-to-face. We felt that such an expansion was outside the scope of the Rulemaking.
The “public disclosures”:
State authorization. List the states in which the institution is authorized (or whatever term the state uses) to provide the distance program. Also, whether that authorization was provided by the state or a reciprocity agreement.
The complaint process and contact information for the institution’s state, the reciprocity agreement (if the institution participates in such an agreement), and the student’s state.
Adverse Actions. Institutions are to disclose any “adverse actions by a state entity or accrediting agency…”related to postsecondary education programs offered solely through distance education or correspondence courses at the institution for the five calendar years prior to the year in which the disclosure is made.”
Refund Policies. Disclose refund policies with which the institution is required to comply.
Professional Licensure Approvals. For programs offered at a distance that lead to professional licensure or certification, notify students of:
The state’s educational prerequisites for that occupation.
If the institution determined whether or not its program meets a state’s prerequisites, disclose that fact to potential students in that state.
If the institution has not determined if its program meets a state’s prerequisites, disclose that fact. If you enroll any students in that state, you will be subject to the individualized disclosure below.
The “individualized disclosures”:
Institution Meets Licensure and Certification Requirements. To prospective students in a state, notify the student whether the program meets the educational prerequisites of that state.
Adverse actions. Notify students of any new state or accrediting adverse actions within 30 days. Notify students if the program ceases to meet licensure or certification prerequisites within seven days of that determination.
Student acknowledgement. If an institution enrolls a student in a program in a state in which it does not meet certification prerequisites, the student must acknowledge having received that disclosure.
Opinions
Complaints. The complaint disclosure is a bit puzzling since institutions have been required to disclose the complaint process in each state since July 2011. This new requirement seems to go a bit further in that the institution is asked to document that the complaint process will actually function in the student’s state. It’s akin to an insurance company requiring the policy holder to make sure that the police departments in neighboring towns will actually cite speeding drivers. Some states might not be able to take complaints from students from “exempted” institutions. I’m 100% in favor of 100% complaint process availability for all students.
Since 2010, the Department has been trying to get states to have complaint processes for all students within the same state as the institution. They used this same regulatory approach and it has not worked well. In-state institutions have had a hard time getting legislatures to create complaint processes for in-state institutions in some states. It will be nearly impossible for out-of-state institutions to be effective in lobbying legislators to improve their complaint process.
An unfortunate outcome may be that some legislators will see this as a “protectionist” option. Through inaction they can encourage out-of-state institutions to stop serving students in their state. I do not think that was the Department’s intent.
Getting complaint processes implemented in states that do not have them will take a significant amount of time and effort, none of which is reflected in the estimate of burden for implementing this recommendation. As a result, the uncertainty of whether an institution can offer aid to distance students in those states will cause considerable confusion for students.
In its brief, Cooley, LLP encourages “schools to press the Department to identify which states, in the agency’s view, currently do not have an adequate student complaint system to satisfy the new distance education requirements. Elementary principles of due process would require that institutions have some notice and opportunity to cure any defects with regard to state law (over which they may have no control) prior to losing access to Title IV funds.
Schools should consider asking for clarification on whether home state complaint procedures, if disclosed to students, could afford sufficient consumer protections to satisfy the Department. If a state chooses not to assert jurisdiction over an online program, and therefore no authorization is required under the federal rule, arguably that decision should simply be respected consistent with the principles of federalism.”
The Department will probably reject this last suggestion. I wonder if they would at least consider it as a stop-gap until the distant state creates an adequate complaint process.
Adverse Actions. Accrediting agencies use this concept, but the same term for an action may vary greatly across agencies. For example, something that is a request for more information from one agency may actually be evidence of a serious offense for another. Also, clarification is needed for what types of actions are taken at the state level that should be reported.
Professional Licensure Approvals. It is my view that institutions need to be more proactive in determining if its program meets a state’s educational prerequisites if it is going to enroll students at a distance in that state. I’ve often heard that “it is the student’s responsibility” and that is a tragically selfish point-of-view that does not put the student first. The institution can’t argue both that: a) it is hard for experienced institutional personnel to determine if the institution meets the prerequisites in each state and b) that a student who has yet to take his/her first class in the field has any hope of understanding the academic and legal nuances involved. That being said, it is much, much harder to understand the requirements and obtain approvals from the many boards than the Department reflects in its estimation of burden section of the proposed regulation. In fact, the Department’s estimates are disastrously low. Compounding the problem, as we saw in 2011 with the federal state authorization regulation was to go into effect, there will be a “land rush” on professional board offices. Those offices will be ill-equipped to handle the work and inquiries since these activities were not in their work plan. Since this is a new requirement, the Department should give several years before enforcing it.
Possible Language for Commenting
We agree with the Department’s goal of assuring that every student has access to a robust complaint process. However, the Department’s proposed regulation’s reliance on out-of-state institutions to lobby for changes in other states’ complaint practices will be slow to produce results. Out-of-state institutions will have little influence over the legislatures of states lacking an adequate complaint process. We encourage the Department to work with WCET and NASASPS (the state regulator group) to develop a strategy for more quickly assuring that students will have access to robust complaint processes. Meanwhile, we suggest that the Department identify the states that are out of compliance, use a long lead time before enforcing this requirement, and consider using the institution’s home state complaint process.
The Department should supply more guidance on how “adverse actions” will be implemented. How should institutions address when similar terms have different meanings across accrediting agencies? Which state actions should be included as “adverse actions”?
For the professional licensure and certification notifications, the Department’s estimate of burden woefully underestimates the amount of time institutions will spend in fulfilling this requirement. The process includes initial research, application processes, coordination within the program and institution, and numerous interactions with board staff. Additionally, professional boards in the states will be overwhelmed with requests. The boards will not be staffed to handle the volume of inquiries and turn-around will be even slower. Therefore, we suggest that the Department not enforce this provision for at least three years after enacting the regulation.
5) Other Issues About Which You May Wish to Comment
In the previous sections, I have highlighted the areas of main concern for distance education providers. Depending on the interests and activities of your institution, you may also wish to comment on the following items:
Aid Consequences. Thank you to our friends from Cooley, LLP law firm for raising this question: “To head off future issues, we encourage schools to seek clarification from ED as to whether institutional eligibility or programmatic eligibility is at risk for failure to obtain authorization for distance programs in any particular state. In other words, if one fails to demonstrate state authorization in a particular state, does that mean the eligibility of the institution is at issue, or just the eligibility of particular programs in a state?”
Hybrid courses/programs. The regulations seem to omit any federal oversight of hybrid programs while the states are still very interested in these activities. If they had followed my advice and focused on geography and not mode of instruction, they would have solved many of these problems. By focusing on “distance education” as the problem to solve, they are leaving some students unprotected. Go figure. You may wish to ask for clarification on how these regulations relate to students in hybrid programs?
Branch campuses or locations in foreign countries. If you have an independent branch campus or location where a student can finish 50% or more of a program in a foreign country, there are new state authorization requirements. I do not believe it covers agreements with foreign institutions, but you may wish to ask for clarification. Since this is a new requirement, you may wish to ask for additional time before this is enforced. Some states might not have a process to act on this requirement.
Students from states where the institution does not meet licensure/certification requirements. It is good to see that the Department understands that there are times when it makes sense for a student residing in a state for which the program does not lead to licensure might still wish to enroll. For example, a military spouse might intend to return to the institution’s home state to practice after his wife’s tour of duty ends. During the Negotiated Rulemaking process, some negotiators proposed elaborate processes for this notification. One wanted each prospective student to write an essay indicating her/his understanding of the consequences. This would be a nightmare for the student, the program, and any English majors who happen by. You may wish to ask for clarification on what type of acknowledgements would be acceptable and request that such acknowledgements not be too complex for the student.
6) How to Comment
Join the fun. Reply! VOLUME COUNTS.
Who Should Reply?
Institutions, programs, or individuals may reply. If you serve students via distance education in other states, you should consider replying. For an institutional or programmatic reply, you need to navigate the proper government relations channels at your institution. This may be difficult given the August 24 deadline.
If you reply as an individual, you can’t use your institution or organization letterhead. You can supply your name, title, and employer. It might be good to reiterate that you are not responding in your official capacity.
How Do I Reply?
Directions on how to reply appear in the “Addresses” section of the Supplemental NPRM (NOTE: link updated 08/22/16). You may: “Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not accept comments submitted by fax or by email or those submitted after the comment period. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments. If you are submitting comments electronically, we strongly encourage you to submit any comments or attachments in Microsoft Word format.”
If you plan to use the Portal, give yourself some time to figure it out or get help from the person who usually submits comments for your institution. Read the specific instructions on pages 2 and 3 of the proposed regulation.
What Should I Say?
Personalize it as form letters get less attention. Briefly tell your story. Who are you? What impact would these regulations have on students? What impact would these regulations have on your program? Focus on what would have the greatest impact on you and your students. Say why the proposed would regulations would help or hurt you, your institution, and (especially) your students. Discard the rest.
Be respectful. We can be better than the presidential nominees.
Make positive or helpful suggestions. Personally, I hate the responses which object to everything without supplying, at least some, helpful alternatives. This helps to address the sense that we are merely objecting to any type of oversight or anything that inconveniences us. I’m for regulations that serve a purpose and for which the cure is not worse than the disease.
Ask questions about clarifications that are needed.
7) WCET Will Submit Comments
WCET in partnership with the WCET State Authorization Network will be submitting comments. We are also talking to other organizations about partner in commenting or to endorse our comments. If you know of any such organizations, have them contact me.
Sorry this got so long, but there is much to say and much context to understand.
Good luck in submitting your comments! Thank you for your help!
Russ
Russell Poulin
Director, Policy & Analysis
WCET – The WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technologies
303 – 541 – 0305
rpoulin@wiche.edu
@russpoulin
A trim hiker in black shorts and a blue sleeveless shirt stands atop a mountain, her arms raised in victory. This image literally headlines Eva Gregg’s digital eWolf portfolio. That’s her in the picture.
This image tops Eva Gregg’s ePortfolio, where she describes challenges and successes in her life, from the personal and cultural to the academic. (Photo courtesy of Eva Gregg)
“I am a hiker!” she says emphatically to a small group of Alaska Native elders and community workers. “This is important to me. At one time, I weighed 252 pounds.” Later in her portfolio, she writes, “I never thought in all my life that I would be conquering mountains….”
In fact, Wolverine Peak, a 10-mile hike that takes Eva eight hours, is her favorite endeavor. But highly popular Flat Top eluded her for a long time. The last steep section to the summit terrified her, she said. Yet, after watching two disabled hikers and a toddler skitter up, she managed it. “There are no excuses,” she says, laughing heartily.
Kotzebue-born and raised, now age 49, Eva is the mother of four and a UAA college student. Flashing pages of her digital portfolio on a large screen, she demonstrated the different ways she has used this new tool to tell her own story, including her battle against obesity.
Identifying the Elements of Digital Storytelling
Eva Gregg stands before the University of Alaska Anchorage Native Student Services center where she presented her Native cultural identity ePortfolio to a group of elders and community workers. NSS is working with community members to make this digital storytelling tool culturally relevant. (Photo by Ted Kincaid/University of Alaska Anchorage)
Just moments before, Sheila Randazzo, transition advisor for Native Student Services, and Paul Wasko, coordinator for UAA’s ePortfolio initiatives, had teamed up to set the stage for what Eva’s audience was about to see. They hoped this gathering of wise and caring community members could hear the power in Eva’s digital storytelling. And they hoped this group might help shape and frame this new tool—a Native cultural identity ePortfolio—for UAA’s indigenous students to “understand and record their journey of becoming aware of who they are,” as Randazzo explained.
Specifically, the NSS team requested writing prompts from the community members to help students begin their ePortfolios and digitally document their identity journeys. As Wasko told them: “These are like chapters in a book. A blank page can be intimidating. But if this is my electronic book, I need a chapter on knowledge, on the physical, the emotional. Instead of financial, we might say ‘provider.’ Can you give these students prompts for what needs to go on those pages?”
“We need your wisdom,” added diversity expert Tommy Woon. “This is a partnership with the community. We don’t want to see it contained here, just on campus. Everything is connected. We are your servants and you are our board of directors.”
Woon has been visiting and informally advising NSS as it works to develop the identity-relevant ePortfolio. He has worked a lifetime encouraging diversity at Stanford, Dartmouth and now Naropa University, a Buddhist-inspired institution in Boulder, CO.
Liberating Native Students Through Digital Age Tools
One of the disparities Woon said he is sensitive to is seeing minorities left behind in the wake of major technological change. As he told the elders and community workers gathered, “We have had the agricultural age, the industrial age, the technological age. Now we are in the digital age. Whenever new technology comes along, it can deepen the gap between the haves and the have-nots, leaving them further behind.”
Instead, he challenged, “Why not use it for liberation work? Young people doing digital work get more computer- and digital-literate. They can develop it and use it to get jobs.”
And they can use it to explore and understand their cultural identity. Woon’s own Korean/Japanese family experienced historical trauma dating back to World War II. “It is very personal to me,” he said. “The sting of discrimination is still public in Japan.”
He envisions Alaska villages with their own ePortfolios. “Their stories can be archived. They don’t have to rely on oral history. This can be their digital oral history. It can promote belonging, and point the way to resources when needed.”
From his days working at Stanford, Woon knows Helen Chen, director of that campus’s ePortfolio initiative and a premier researcher in the field. She wanted Woon’s take on how this tool could best be used by minority students. From all his work in diversity, Woon quickly imagined concentric circles: self, family, community, traditions, ceremony and the environment. “Have the students explore how they came to be through those things. Let them interview their elders, do their own research, and in those ways define themselves and document their journey,” he told Chen.
Paul Wasko heads up UAA’s ePortfolio initiative across the campus. (Photo by Ted Kincaid/University of Alaska Anchorage)
ePortfolios Capture a More Complete Story of the Person
Wasko worked in Minnesota when the state decided to scale the ePortfolio concept. Every resident could have one. The goal was a kind of K-20 education-to-career personal learning tool and map.
The goal: “If I am a student, how do I emerge from college into a job?” he said. “Or, if I am laid off, how do I track my way through getting more education so I can cycle successfully back into the work world.”
By Revealing Your Story, You Help Yourself and Help Others
Eva’s ePortfolio is a window into how a truly authentic voice can emerge in a digital environment, and how she is able to capture so much more than her grades or job history. Her writing expresses personal validation for her successes, and honest acknowledgement of her obstacles and challenges.
Her opening page, called ‘My Path,’ addresses pivotal moments in her life. That time in fifth grade when she finally stood up to four class bullies. Her first alcoholic blackout in seventh grade. And the moment, 30 years later, when she publicly admitted, ‘Hi, my name is Eva … and I need help.’ She’s been sober and clean since December 2009.
Decembers are big months for her, her story reveals. The very next one, in 2010, her best friend and the father of her daughter died. “I thought I would relapse…but I did not which surprised me.”
Eva Gregg, at work on her ePortfolio. (Photo by Ted Kincaid/University of Alaska Anchorage)
She now plans different ePortfolios for different audiences: one for scholarship applications, one for job applications, one for family. Her mountain climbing story isn’t the only one that reveals her grit and determination.
After two years in college, she has plenty of papers and math tests under her belt. “I love math, don’t get me wrong. It really makes me think. But it’s time-consuming and hard.”
What does she do when she gets stuck on a problem? “I watch YouTube videos on algebra, for hours. I watch the videos and then I go back to the problem.” Only after exhausting all ideas and resources—from the videos to her class notes to the book’s explanation, does she resort to asking for help. She might post the problem on Facebook, and query her several math-savvy cousins: “I am stumped guys,” she writes. “Show me step one. “
What’s Next?
In December 2012, Eva wrote in ‘My Path,’ standing at her sink washing dinner dishes, she wondered how and why she’d managed to survive three decades of alcohol, drugs “and the trauma that goes hand in hand with that lifestyle.” She decided, then and there, that she would spend her life supporting any addict willing to work as hard as she has for her sobriety. She’s aiming for social work and human services degrees.
“I want to help people like me,” she said later. “They know they are stuck in something and can’t get out. If they ask me for help, I am willing to help them.” She has found her way to solid self-worth and to a career.
Thank you to Paul Wasko (ePortfolio Initiative Coordinator, Academic Innovations & eLearning, University of Alaska Anchorage, pwasko@uaa.alaska.edu) for his help in arranging for this story. Paul has been a long-time supporter of WCET.
A version of it originally appeared in the University of Alaska Anchorage Green & Gold News. Thank you to Kathleen McCoy, Editorial Director, UAA Office of Advancement for her help in arranging for us to publish this story.
This morning the U.S. Department of Education released its proposed new regulations (press release, proposed regulations) for the state authorization of distance education programs. Institutional personnel and the public are invited to submit comments by August 24.
This post will focus on the contents of the proposal. In this post, we will:
Summarize the major compliance requirements.
Identify regulations that are new or have changed from previous versions. As you may recall, I was part of the Department of Education’s Negotiated Rulemaking team in 2014 and have a long-standing perspective on these regulations.
Identify language that we currently think will need more definition.
Highlight possible implications for institutions and states.
Notice: Just because your institution is a member of SARA does not mean you can ignore all of this.
Implementation Timeline
Remember that these are proposed regulations that are out for comment. The final regulations may change.
If the Department wishes for these regulations to take effect on July 1 of next year (2017), it must release the final regulations by October 31 of this year. All signs point to the administration wishing to clear out the remaining regulations (such as this one) prior to leaving office. If they have trouble completing the final document, they could release it by the end of the year.
The regulation is silent on implementation dates, which could be different than the effective date. Even though the regulation would take effect next year, they could decide to have a grace period before enforcing the regulations. On the other hand, institutions have long known that they are expected to comply with state laws and enforcement could start as early as next year.
Institutional Compliance
You Must Demonstrate Compliance: To be eligible for Title IV funds. It is expected that: “an institution offering distance education or correspondence courses to be authorized by each State in which the institution enrolls students, if such authorization is required by the State…”
As part of your Title IV reviews, you need to be able to show that you have the proper authorizations in any state in which you are enrolling a student who receives Title IV funds.
The “if such authorization is required by the State” is a big change from the Negotiated Rulemaking discussions as this language no longer requires each state to create regulations if they do not currently have them.
Implication: Colleges will need to do a better job of identifying the location of students enrolled in distance education or studying face-to-face in other states who receive federal financial aid. This is true even if your institution is part of the State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement (SARA).
Reciprocity
Reciprocity Defined: The term “State authorization reciprocity agreement” is defined and is confirmed as a recognized path to authorization in other states.
Support for reciprocity has been in every draft and continues in this recommended language.
Consumer Protection: The definition of “State authorization reciprocity agreement” includes a provision that the agreement “does not prohibit a participating State from enforcing its own consumer protection laws.”
This is a new provision and probably arises from misinformation that has recently been circulated about the current SARA agreement. SARA allows states to prosecute fraud and misrepresentation claims in their own state.
Implications: The term “consumer protection laws” needs to be defined. If left to the states to define, then they could declare any requirement as “consumer protection” whether it is or not.
“Public” Notifications and Disclosure Requirements
The following “general” disclosures are required of those offering distance or correspondence students in other states. You can post these notifications and disclosures on your website. The proposed regulations define that these disclosures are required only for programs offered “solely” at a distance, which will limit the impact of this requirement since many programs are offered both on-campus and at a distance.
Authorization. You must disclose the authorization that you have in that state and how you received it (through direct action with the state or through a reciprocity agreement).
This is new.
Student Complaint Processes: “Require an institution to document the State process for resolving complaints from students enrolled in programs offered through distance education or correspondence courses.”
You would be required to notify students how to submit complaints to both: a) the appropriate state agency and b) if different (such as in the case of reciprocity agreements) how the student may submit complaint in the state in which the student is located.
Notifying students about complaint processes in other states has been in regulation since 2011. We wrote about it and clarified it back then.
The further requirement to “document’ the State process for resolving complaints in each state is a bit confusing. Previous guidance (which is not technically void) allowed for a central repository of complaint contact information.
WCET is working with SHEEO to improve their list of state complaint processes. We will work to get a clarification from the Department and, if enacted, to create a resource to meet this requirement.
Adverse Actions. Notify the students of any adverse actions taken by a State or accrediting agency against an institution’s distance or correspondence activities in the past five years and the year the action was initiated.
This is new.
Implication: The terms used by states and accrediting agencies are so varied that more clarification will be needed on this point.
Refund Policies. The refund polices that the institution is required to comply with in that State.
This is new.
Licensure and Certification Requirements. Does the program meet the requirements in the student’s State to allow the student to be licensed or certified or to sit for a qualifying exam.
This applies to programs that lead to licensure or certification in a profession, such as nursing, teacher education, or psychology.
This is a variation on language presented to the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee. At that time, the Department wanted to expand this requirement to ALL licensure or certification programs whether they were distance programs or not. This language limits the requirement to distance and correspondence activities. Furthermore, is also seems to limit this requirement to programs offered “solely” at a distance (excluding practica or internships), which will limit the impact of this requirement since many programs are offered both on-campus and at a distance.
In negotiations, we were able to get the word “academic” added to the language, so that it was clear that only the “academic requirements” were included. There are requirements (such as the applicant not being a convicted felon) in some professions that are beyond the institution’s control. In a conversation with Department staff yesterday, they intended to cover only those requirements within the institution’s control.
To quote: “For any State as to which an institution has not made a determination with respect to the licensure or certification requirement, an institution would be required to disclose a statement to that effect.”
Implications: Institutions will need to do more work in notification about licensure programs. We will need to ask questions about cases where licensure/certification boards will not opine on whether a program meets the State requirements.
“Individualized” Disclosure Requirements
No disclaimers. We need to know where our students are and if the programs meet state requirements.
The institution will need to directly notify students (not just on the website or in the catalog) in any of the following scenarios…
Whether the Program Licensure or Certification Requirements. You will need to directly notify the student regarding whether the program does or does not meet requirements in the student’s state.
“To each prospective student, any determination by the institution that the program does not meet licensure or certification prerequisites in the State of the student’s residence, prior to the student’s enrollment…”
This is a variation on language discussed in rulemaking.
Marketing and website people do not like negative language, but they will have to deal with it.
If you enroll a student from a state in which you do not meet the requirements, you will need “to obtain an acknowledgement from the student that the communication was received prior to the student’s enrollment in the program.”
Implication: Better knowledge of both the student’s location and the requirements in those states in which you wish to enroll students is needed.
Adverse Actions. If a new adverse action is taken, students need to be notified.
This is a variation on language discussed in rulemaking.
Cease to Meet Licensure or Certification Requirements. If your program formerly meet requirements and now does not, students should be notified.
This is a variation on language discussed in rulemaking.
Face-to-face Instruction in Other Countries
Obtain Approvals in Other Countries: “Require that an additional location or branch campus located in a foreign location be authorized by an appropriate government agency of the country where the additional location or branch campus is located.”
This issue is separate from distance education and is about branch campuses in other countries. In the negotiations, it was clarified that this did not mean joint enrollment agreements that an institution has with an institution in another country.
Additional notification requirements about complaint processes are included.
Distance education in other countries is not referenced.
Implication: If you have an independent branch campus in another country, more compliance requirements are recommended.
For the past six weeks I have been serving as the connected learning coach for Collaborative Curiosity: Designing Community Engaged Research, a fully online, graduate level, connected learning course sponsored by the Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) Division of Community Engagement and taught byValerie Holton andTessa McKenzie.
Like connected learning, which has been used in the educational literature to indicate everything from online to social to experiential learning, I suspect connected learning coaching can mean many things to different people. In this case, I am a resource introduced by the instructors into a learning community to provide personalized student support related to the digitally networked participatory practices associated withopenly networked connected learning.
Course Goals and Activities
The Context
Collaborative Curiosity belongs to aportfolio of innovative online courses that emerged from VCU Academic Learning Transformation Lab under the creative guidance ofGardner Campbell andJon Becker from 2014 to 2016. Currently in its second iteration, Collaborative Curiosity takes place entirely on the open web. All course materials freely accessible on the public course website to allow for community participation and engagement in the course. Weekly synchronous class discussions take place on Twitter, and assignments are completed via blogging on personal student websites (a variation ofDomain of One’s Own). The individual student websites are networked through tagging and RSS feeds to the course website so that participants, observers, and instructors can visualize the big picture of how participants are making sense of the materials and activities related to the course.
Screenshot of the Collaborative Curiosity Course Home Page
The Inspiration
Based on my prior research, the digital landscape of Collaborative Curiosity – the blogging, the tweeting, and the openly networked course space – provides ample opportunity for students to engage in connected learning. As described by the Digital Media Learning (DML) Research Hub, connected learning is an experiential educational approach that encourages students to recognize, strategically reflect on, and forge new connections between people, contexts, ideas, and personal experiences for the purpose of deeper, more authentic learning. Digital environments are particularly powerful connected learning spaces, because they allow students to access more resources and authentic audiences, express themselves through near-professional grade media, and make more immediate connections via hyperlinks and personal learning networks.
Having spent several years studying openly networked connected courses at VCU,I am convinced these environments are (potentially) powerful spaces with endless possibilities for inclusive, authentic learning. Very preliminary findings suggest that most students find Collaborative Curiosity more engaging and equally as challenging as other instructional approaches while recognizing that it deepens their digital fluency, awareness of open scholarship, and perceptions of the professional and scholarly possibilities for online spaces. However, the digital participatory approaches used in courses like Collaborative Curiosity are so novel that many students (and instructors) need significant pedagogical and technical support to take full advantage of the experience.
In today’s higher education environment, instructors seldom have the time or resources to provide such intensive personalized support in any sort of sustainable way. Hence the idea of a connected learning coach: a person that is neither an instructor nor a student, but rather a class consultant willing to provide formative feedback and technical support around digitally networked participatory practice for both students and instructors when they need it.
The Course: Bloggregate: Student posts are aggregated via tags and RSS feeds so that they can be viewed together.
The Role of a Connected Learning Coach
Given the highly experimental nature of connected learning coaching, the course instructors and I agreed to allow the defining characteristics of my role to emerge as the course took place. Six weeks into the experience, I see my purpose in this particular learning community as meeting the following needs:
Promoting the pedagogical value of making connections. Let’s face it – most graduate students already know to make connections between their work and traditional information sources such as scholarly research articles (it’s called “citation”). These connections are important, but connected learners look for other types of connections in their school work as well. They connect to the ideas of their peers, through their own work over time, and across contexts (e.g. work, hobbies, other courses) and modalities (e.g. images, music, kinetic movement). Documenting these connections through hyperlinks or embedded materials makes them explicit and immediately accessible. It allows a student’s thought process to be shared with others and provides a historical record to support ongoing personal reflection. Because these sorts of connections and their documentation are not often discussed in traditional classrooms, they need to be modeled and explicitly and consistently valued. As the connected learning coach, Idiscuss these ideas in blog posts,tweet great student examples, and analyze student hyperlinking patterns in their blog post comment sections.
Helping students navigate digitally networked participatory culture. Many students participating in Collaborative Curiosity had never tweeted or blogged prior to the course. Therefore, they were not initially attuned to the cultural nuances of digitally networked communication. Students and I have informal Twitter discussions on the nuances of digital workflows, Twitter, and self-promotion. I performed asocial network analysis of course Twitter chats as a means of formative feedback and shared personalized results with students via email. Furthermore, Iwrote a blog post on the purpose of course hashtags and continue to monitor the course’s Twitter chats to capture and retweet any student tweets that did not include the course hashtag. Interestingly, students have begun to police their peers’ use of the hashtag, and my role in Twitter chats has declined.
Mapping the links to course tags.
Providing technical and moral support. Despite written instructions, instructional videos, and a streamlined process (developed in-house at VCUAcademic Learning Transformation Laboratory), some students still have difficulty navigating the technical process of establishing and personalizing a blog site, linking their sites to the course website, and creating posts. For generalizable assistance, Iwrite blog posts based on common student needs. When real-time, personalized help is required, I use a combination of screenshots, email, and direct messaging to provide step-by-step support in a media in which the student is already comfortable. I even arranged a face-to-face visit with one student who was having trouble.
Initial Thoughts
The course is still in progress. Therefore, I only have initial thoughts on outcomes and impact to share. I’ve enjoyed watching students expand their digital communication and connecting skills quickly. Anecdotal evidence suggests these particular students have appreciated having someone there to help them with the technical aspects of blogging and tweeting. Furthermore, an initial, informal analysis suggests they are making diverse and powerful connections across the learning community and their own work. Six weeks into the experience I’m focused mainly on staying out of their way as they continue to learn. Some things I have learned and will carry with me into my future experience:
Assessment matters. The Collaborative Curiosity instructors have always been explicit in their dedication to promoting digital fluency, open digital scholarship, and connected learning through their course. They reference it in thecourse trailer,course competencies, and theassessment rubric. However, student interest in my blog posts, feedback, and assistance increased after they received grades on their first blog posts, which included marks for their digital presence. I am not sure students would have invested time in enhancing their digital skills or engaging in connected learning without the formalized connection to assessment.
Moral support is important. Over the years I’ve assisted many students – undergraduate, graduate, professional, and adult – in digital learning experiences similar to Collaborative Curiosity. Instructors are often surprised when students find it difficult to set up their digital workspaces despite ample access to written or screencast instructions. I have found that some students have a level of anxiety related to “technology” that prevent them from following direction – no matter how adequate the instructions are. Nevertheless, many of them are able to do everything required in the presence of real-time support. Students who ask me for technical help often answer their own questions without real input from me and go on to do amazing things on their own as the course progresses; they just need someone to be present at the very beginning of the process to boost their confidence.
Coaching takes time – but not necessarily instructor time. Targeted blog posts, twitter conversations, personalized social network analysis, and one-on-one instruction take time – definitely more time than most instructors have to offer. However, my experience suggests that instructors don’t necessarily have to do the work alone. Connected learning coaching can be performed effectively by third parties – interested community members, teaching assistants, probably even (and possibly more effectively) trained peer coaches.
On the last day of June, the U.S. Department of Education hosted an invitation-only session on “Reimagining Higher Education.” I was very pleased to represent WCET members. Here are some of the top takeaways and notice that they are planning to include higher education in the national technology plan this year. I’m asking for you input on what should be in that plan at the end of this post.
I don’t agree with all of the ideas that were expressed. What is clear is that changes are happening and we need to continue to pay attention.
The Administration and the Department of Education are Charging Ahead
“Reimagining Higher Education” was held at (and partially sponsored by) Georgetown University.
Even with the election looming and the days remaining in the current administration are dwindling, they are not in a winding-down mode. Ajita Menon, Special Assistant to the President for Higher Education, said that the President is seeing the coming months as a “sprint to the finish.”
Ted Mitchell, Under Secretary of Postsecondary Education, said that there is “unfinished business” and the focus will be on:
Improving teaching and learning.
New business models for higher education.
Reimagining credentials.
Affordability for students.
Collect use and share data about learning.
Mitchell said they also would like to highlight the work that they have done in expanding the focus on postsecondary students beyond traditional 18 year olds.
Students Need Alternative Paths
In a Google Hangouts session with four students across the country, we heard about how student academic and support needs differ greatly.
A student in rural Texas talked about his need to borrow the single family car 2-3 times a week to drive more than an hour-and-a-half to access the internet for his courses. Neither his home nor neighbors have internet access.
A mature business woman loved Capella’s Flexpath (CBE-based) program as it recognized her prior learning. She also found that participating in online courses with inexperienced traditional-aged students was not fulfilling.
A student who recently graduated from the Galvanize coding boot camp in Denver said that he earned 160 college credits, but they got him nowhere. He saw little need for general education. He recommended that education teach skills in inferring answers rather than memorizing facts.
Is “Grit” Required?
What struck the audience about all of the students who presented was their incredible focus in overcoming obstacles to reach their educational goals. Certainly, people with personal or family obstacles often must call on reserves of fortitude. But, are we asking too much for first generation students to navigate byzantine collegiate systems? And, let’s not forget students like the one in Texas whose entire family is sacrificing to allow him to overcome issues of geography.
Alternative Providers: We Don’t Need No Stinking Oversight
Jake Schwartz of General Assembly (which offers certificates in mostly technology-related fields) said that he is often asked why his company does not seek accreditation. To that question he responds: “The RESULT in the accreditation. The employer is the only accreditor that matters.” He went on to say that this is NOT true of non-career programs (such as liberal arts degrees) and that we are confusing the two types of programs. Schwartz feels that confusion is dangerous.
The Importance of Employers/Higher Education Engagement
Jason Tysko of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said that stronger “signals” from employers are needed as to what they expect from education. Jonathan Finkelstein of Credly said that a lifelong relationship with employers is needed. The tension between workforce and general education continues.
Alternative Credentials and Competencies are on the Rise
Holly Zanville of Lumina Foundation said that the Connecting Credentials repository (that Lumina is funding) is a first step in understanding the new world of credentials. Using the data about credentials that will be collected, they hope someone creates a Travelocity-like to help students and employers navigate through the universe of available credentials. Jonathan Finkelstein of Credly said that that employers’ reliance on institutional brand is ending. They need more information about the skills and knowledge of graduates.
Representing WCET at the meeting.
Investor Thoughts on Innovations
Paul Freedman of Entangled Ventures (an investment incubator) said that two innovations that they are exploring (and are being implemented by only a few) are: 1) programs that charge no tuition and students work half-time, and 2) upper division peer students help to teach lower division students. You might want to look at the twelve themes that Entangled Ventures believes, one of which is: “Low cost, disruptive educational models are likely to start outside of the US.”
Only the Elite Can Innovate?
Invitees were an interesting mix of people who have been involved in educational innovations. As happens in such events, there definitely heavy emphasis placed on work accomplished by big-name traditional institutions and by alternative providers. Of the 110 invitees:
Only four had community college connections (three colleges and one association),
Thirteen had public university connections (seven research universities, one online-only university, four university systems, and one association),
Regardless of sector, only two college-related attendees came from states ranked lower than 19th in total population and one of those institutions is located within a few miles of the District of Columbia.
Jeff Selingo, author and former Chronicle of Higher Education editor and one of the panel moderators at the meeting, recently wrote “Transformations Affecting Postsecondary Education” for the National Commission on Financin21st Century Higher Education. It is good piece on why there will be a certain amount of disruption (read that as needing to operate differently and/or with different players), but the “online education” section also relies solely on innovation at “elite” colleges. Sigh.
A Higher Education Technology Plan – What Do You Think?
Joe South, Director, Office of Educational Technology, U.S. Department of Education, referenced the National Education Technology Plan, which usually focuses on K-12. This year they would like to include a higher education addendum. The second half of the day was spent working on suggestions for what should be including in the plan. They worked on five focus areas: teaching learning, leadership, assessment, and infrastructure. I volunteered to help with ideas on policy issues.
I’ll let you know if there are chances for you to contribute. Meanwhile, what do you think should be in a Department of Education technology plan for higher education??
Russ
Russell Poulin
Director, Policy & Analysis
WCET – WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technologies rpoulin@wiche.edu
It’s coming back! The federal regulation for the state authorization of distance education appears to be returning. The Department of Education submitted a proposed regulation to the Office of Management and Budget for its review. The abstract on the OMB website reads:
“The Department is proposing to amend the regulations governing the legal authorization of institutions by States. The Department is also proposing to issue regulations for the State authorization of distance education providers and correspondence education providers as a component of institutional eligibility for participation in Federal student financial aid under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended.”
We won’t know what exactly is proposed until they release the regulation for public comment. My comments in this blog post are speculation based on my experience and conversations with others who also are guessing on the content.
A Brief History
As you may recall, the last time this regulation was considered was during the 2014 Negotiated Rulemaking process. I (with Marshall Hill of SARA as an alternate) represented the distance education community on the Program Integrity Negotiated Rulemaking panel convened at that time. One of the six proposed regulations that we negotiated involved the state authorization of distance education. “Consensus” to pass the regulations required every member to agree on all six proposed regulations.
The state authorization for distance education proposed regulation was one of two that did not reach full consensus. Not only did it not reach consensus, but a large majority of the panel members were against what was proposed. My blog post at the time gives more details on what happened and why consensus was not reached.
As a result, the Department of Education is free to issue its own regulation. My colleagues and I were surprised that it took them two years since the end of the Negotiated Rulemaking process to take action. One assumption is that the current administration is trying to clear out all of the remaining unfinished regulations prior to the next President taking office.
What Provisions Might Be Included?
Since it appears that the Department has not talked to the institutional members of the Negotiated Rulemaking process since our last session, the following list are my guesses on what will be included in the proposed regulations. A recent analysis by Cooley, LLP agrees with my opinion that they will probably not stray far from what was in the final proposal from the Negotiated Rulemaking process. Even though there was agreement on some of the elements of the regulation, the Department is free to propose something completely different.
Demonstrate Compliance. This is the most important provision. The institution would need to show that it has the right (whether authorization, registration, or other approval action) to serve students in each state (whether at a distance or face-to-face) in which the institution wishes to serve those students. The institution would need to demonstrate compliance during the financial aid review (lovingly labeled an “audit” by some) that is held every few years. Additionally, the Department may request this information on demand. Institutions could be asked to refund federal aid for students in states for which your institution cannot demonstrate that you possess the proper approvals.
Disallow State Exemptions. States could no longer exempt an institution. This is a common practice by states, especially for public and non-profit institutions enrolling students completely at a distance in the state. Many states did not encounter many (if any) problems with these problems. States would be expected to conduct an “active review” of the institution. I sincerely hope that the Department can define an “active review” for us as they failed to do this adequately for the rules regarding the authorization of in-state institutions. This issue was the major sticking point causing more than half the members of the Negotiated Rulemaking team to vote against the Department’s last proposal. SARA makes it less meaningful, but this requirement will be seen as an “unfunded mandate” by many states.
Support Reciprocity. While they cannot endorse the State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement (SARA) specifically, I continue to expect the Department to continue its on-going support to recognize reciprocity agreements as a valid path to authorization.
Exempt Military. Members of the armed forces, their spouses, or their children would be exempted for the purposes of federal financial aid. This would be at odds with some state laws, but we should work with those states to follow suit. Long overdue.
Increase Notification Requirements for Licensure Programs. As SARA requires, institutions should be more forthcoming when notifying students whether their program meets the academic requirements for programs leading to licensure (e.g., nursing, education, social work). I realize this is hard for licensure programs in some states. Some of the requirements proposed during negotiated rulemaking were amazingly complex. Let’s hope that they settle on a reasonable requirement and be prepared to do much more work on this issue. SPECIAL NOTE: Don’t be surprised if this requirement is placed on ALL programs that lead to licensure, whether at a distance in another state or face-to-face in the institution’s home state. Expanding to the every activity will be controversial.
Introduce a Per State Minimum. There was confusing wording in the final proposal that set a threshold as to the number of students in a state before needing to demonstrate compliance. However, it also allowed the state to overrule this minimum, which meant that this minimum would almost never (if ever) take effect. While it sounds nice, the ultimate outcome is probably to add more confusion.
The Death Penalty. If an institution loses authorization in state then the institution is expected to stop disbursing federal financial aid and must notify its students. This makes sense if the removal is “for cause,” but the Department should leave itself leeway to address special cases when authorization is lost due to the state’s error.
We also had three members of the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee at the WCET Summit last week give their opinion of what might be coming:
Next Steps and Timeline
Assuming that the Department is trying to release this regulation while the current administration is in office, then they need to release the final recommendations by the end of October. The following timeline
Action
Possible Dates
Department issues regulation for public comment.
Maybe by July 1??
Department considers comments and issues the final regulation.
October 31??
Regulation goes into effect.
July 1, 2017??
The Department will probably set later dates for elements of the regulations to be enforced. For example, if they require states to change regulations, states need time to make those changes.
Dates specified in the final regulation.
In Conclusion
Again, the above are just my guesses as to what might be in the regulation. We should know soon. Meanwhile, I wanted to repeat my position on authorization that was in my blog post on the Rulemaking process from two years ago:
“So that you know where I’m coming from, unlike many in the distance education community, I believe that the states still are responsible for consumer protection and that institutions should follow state laws. I don’t agree with all their laws and regulations and processes and whatnot, but I’d rather work to fix them or create alternatives, like reciprocity.
I also believe the Department should be able to use a college’s authorization status in a state as a determining factor for eligibility for federal financial aid. I do not believe that the Department should impose its will as to what the states should use as authorization criteria.”
Let me know if you have additional information or questions.
Russ
Russell Poulin
Director, Policy & Analysis
WCET – WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technologies
rpoulin@wiche.edu
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
1) Initial Overview
5) Other Issues About Which You May Wish to Comment
