Categories
Uncategorized

State Authorization & Supervised Field Experiences: Easier Than You Think

We welcome guest blogger Alan Contreras who is a former regulator for the state of Oregon and is the chief interpreter (not his official title) for all the details of how states and colleges are implementing SARA (the State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement) in their own settings. SARA allows some field experiences (face-to-face clinical, practica, interships and the like) in other states. Alan guides us through some misconceptions and misdirection that he has encountered. He reminds us of our own “Dear Abby” giving us advice on our authorization troubles.
Russ Poulin

In recent months as SARA has grown and states grapple with complexities in supervised field experiences, I have encountered a few cases that give rise to the need for some explanation.

Photo of a man looking confused and a woman making a face of disbelief
Field experiences and state authorization have you confused? Our own Alan Contreras can help.

Nervous in New Jersey: A Parent Gets Bum Info about a Clinical Placement
First, even if a state regulates most on-ground activities, it might not regulate clinicals or other field experiences.  A recent case involved a college in Virginia simply assuming that it could not place a student in a clinical site in New Jersey because New Jersey had not yet joined SARA.  Setting aside for the moment the question of what SARA does and doesn’t do, the school made a mess that it did not need to.  The student’s distraught parent called me.  The parent was in New Jersey and the conversation went something like this:

Parent: “how can our family suddenly be expected to pay for our daughter to do a clinical far from home; she planned to stay with us.”

Me: “Where do you live?”

Parent: “New Jersey.”

Me: “Why can’t the college place a student at a clinical site in New Jersey?”

Parent: “SARA doesn’t allow it.”

Me [grinding teeth and silently whispering ‘boolsheet’]: “When does your daughter’s internship start?”

Parent: “In June.”

At this point there were clearly several problems with what the school had done.  First, it had told the parent that SARA “prohibited” the student from being placed in a non-SARA state [boolsheet].  Second, it assumed that New Jersey regulates clinical placements without asking the state.  Finally, it assumed that New Jersey would not be in SARA by June, 2016.

Two of these were demonstrably wrong—I had seen the New Jersey rules the previous month—and the third was almost certainly wrong. SARA does not “prohibit” states from placing students anywhere they like.  The institution had chosen not to place students in non-SARA states because it was inconvenient or potentially expensive.

But was it inconvenient or expensive in New Jersey?  No.  The state doesn’t regulate most supervised field experiences.  The school hadn’t bothered to find out.  Finally, the school had also never asked New Jersey when it was joining SARA.  The answer is that the state is almost ready to apply and we’d be astonished if it isn’t a member by June.

I briefly explained to the parent that the school was mistaken about what SARA did and decided that the way to achieve universal bliss was to ask the extremely capable and practical licensing officer in New Jersey to talk to (a) the parent and (b) the school.  He did so, fixed the problem for the student, and I had a call from the parent a few days later saying “I love you!”  Well, now, that’s pretty good for twenty minutes’ work from three time zones away.

Krazy in Kentucky: Army Student Initially Refused a Field Placement
We had a similar case arise in which a Virginia college (something in the water?) refused to place a pharmacy student at the U.S. Army base at Fort Campbell, Kentucky because of the well-known stiffness of Kentucky regulations.  That e-mail conversation went kind of like this:

Student: “the school says that Kentucky isn’t in SARA and they don’t want to brave the unspeakable horror of the Kentucky regulations.” [ok, he didn’t say “unspeakable horror,” that’s my gloss]

Me: “Did the school ask Kentucky if it regulates activity on military bases?”

Student: “I don’t know. The base crosses a state line but the mailing address is Kentucky so….”

At this point I copied the conversation to the also very capable Kentucky licensing officer, who replied the same day explaining how Kentucky law worked and that a clinical placement of this nature onto a military base was NOT regulated by the state.  Not much horror to be found there after all, if one phone call had been made.

The lesson: some situations, even in high-regulation states, are not the swamps full of R.O.U.S. that they seem to be.  If you want to help your students, make a couple of phone calls.  Hand out some help, get some love.

It’s the College that Decides Where to Obtain Authorization
Finally, those of us who work for SARA are becoming weary of the unfortunate sounds made by those colleges that tell students: “SARA doesn’t allow us to place students in your state.”

Nonsense.

This is simply a cover for schools that don’t choose to engage in proper state authorization and prefer to blame it on SARA rather than own their own decisions.  SARA is not perfect and we are happy to own what we do (and fix what needs fixing), but if a college chooses not to operate in a non-SARA state, we’d appreciate it if the school tells the students the real reason why.Alan Contreras

Alan Contreras, J.D.
SARA Coordinator
acontreras@nc-sara.org

“Confused” Photo Credit: Brian Talbot

Categories
Uncategorized

Enhanced Nurse Licensure Compact Promotes Interstate Distance Ed and Telehealth

Thank you to Nancy Spector for her guest blog post. You can see her in the WCET Annual Meeting session on Interstate Agreements in State Authorization on Wednesday, November 11 at 3:30.

The National Council of State Boards of Nursing (NCSBN) is embarking on an exciting new initiative.  In May 2015 NCSBN’s membership met in Chicago at a special Delegate Assembly and voted overwhelmingly to approve the enhanced Nurse Licensure Compact (NLC) and the Advanced Practice Registered Nurse (APRN) Compact. This was an historic moment for NCSBN as it will allow nurses to practice or teach in multiple states while holding only one license.

NCSBN’s enhanced NLC and APRN Compact are modeled after the states’ compacts for a driver’s license, a model referred to as ‘mutual recognition’  The license is obtained in the home state, and there is a privilege to practice (or drive, as with the driver’s license) in remote states.  With each model the individuals must obey the laws (in nursing the laws are in the Nurse Practice Act) of all states where they practice.Stethoscope

As background, in 1997 NCSBN’s membership endorsed the mutual recognition model, and in 1999 the first state passed NLC legislation. Nursing was the first health care discipline to adopt a compact for mutual recognition of licensure. Since 1999, 25 states have become part of this original NLC.

There were several drivers of change that have led to NCSBN developing the enhanced NLC.  While the original NLC has grown to include 25 states (see map below), adoption has slowed significantly in the recent years. At the same time, there has been tremendous growth in telehealth and distance education, which meant that if states were not a part of the NLC, the nurses employed in these roles needed to be licensed in every state where they taught or practiced.  Further, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has called for increased access to care, which frequently translates to practice, teaching and using telehealth across state lines.  APRNs are also essential for promoting access to care, therefore creating the need for the APRN Compact.

Responding to this need for mutual recognition of nurse licensure, in 2013, NCSBN convened a series of meetings with our membership to consider the best possible licensure model, and the decision was made to redraft the NLC, coming up with the enhanced NLC. Some of the provisions in the enhanced NLC include:

  • Uniform licensure requirements.
  • Grandfathering provision for states that participated in the previous NLC.
  • Authority to obtain and submit criminal background checks (CBCs).
  • Prompt reporting to Nursys® of participation in alternative to discipline programs. (Nursys is a comprehensive electronic information system that includes collecting and storing a nurse’s personal information, licensing information, disciplinary information and license verifications.)
  • Establishes a governing body for the NLC, the Interstate Commission.
  • Provides for rulemaking by the Commission.
  • Improves dispute resolution and termination, if necessary.

More information on the enhanced NLC and APRN Compact can be found on the NCSBN website.  .

In order to adopt the new enhanced NLC, a state must enact the model language into law, and it must have the ability to conduct a federal criminal background check of a nurse upon initial licensure or licensure by endorsement. The enhanced NLC will become effective when 26 states pass legislation or December 31, 2018 whichever comes first. Already several states are moving forward with legislation. NCSBN is providing states with resources to assist them with adopting this legislation, and our staff is working closely with states that are moving forward with legislation (see pending states here:  https://www.ncsbn.org/nurse-licensure-compact.htm).

In the meantime, while the enhanced NLC and APRN Compact are being adopted in states, NCSBN has developed a web page for educators teaching distance education courses so that they will be informed of any rules and regulations that they must follow in remote states.  The prelicensure web page has been developed and is updated when any state legislation is changed . NCSBN is currently working to develop the same information for APRN distance education programs.

Please don’t hesitate to contact Nancy Spector (nspector@ncsbn.org), if you have any questions or comments.  Collaboration and partnerships are crucial for the work that all of us do to promote excellence in education.Nancy Spector

Nancy Spector, PhD, RN, FAAN
Director of Regulatory Innovations
National Council of State Boards of Nursing

Categories
Uncategorized

EQUIP: Ed Department Seeks Experimental College-Provider Financial Aid Partnerships

Students at “non-traditional providers” of postsecondary education will have a chance to earn federal financial aid through experimental partnerships recently announced by the U.S. Department of Education. To participate, providers are expected to partner with “traditional” institutions that currently offer federal aid.

If you are interested, you should consider participating.

The Rise of the “Non-traditional Providers”

hand holding testtube.
US Dept of Ed’s financial aid experiment aims to help low-income students.

Sometimes called “alternative providers,” there has been much growth in opportunities for students to obtain knowledge and skills outside of the ivy-covered halls of colleges and universities. Examples of such providers include coding “bootcamps” (Seedpaths, Epicodus), StraighterLine, Khan Academy, and some MOOCs. There are many more.

ACE even created the Alternative Credit Project to connect students with colleges that may grant credit for courses offered by the providers. The site could be a bit more user friendly, but it’s a start.

Presidential candidates across the political spectrum have taken note. Hillary Clinton proposes increased access to federal aid for students in these programs. Marco Rubio goes farther: “Within my first 100 days, I will bust this cartel by establishing a new accreditation process that welcomes low-cost, innovative providers.” Not sure about our being a “cartel,” but he is referencing existing colleges and universities.

We all need to pay attention as there is much to laud and much to question with these providers. I suspect many in higher education do not have these emerging competitors on their radar. While this experimental program may ultimately be the camel’s nose under the tent, the growth of these providers is a story for another day.

The Department of Education’s EQUIP Program

A few days ago, Secretary Arne Duncan and the Department launched an “Experimental Sites Initiative” (ESI) to allow colleges to  partner with non-traditional provider. The ultimate goal is to increase federal aid for (and ultimately employment of) low income students:

“The Educational Quality through Innovative Partnerships (EQUIP) experiment is intended to encourage increased innovation in higher education through partnerships between the participating institutions and nontraditional providers in order to learn whether those partnerships increase access to innovative and effective educational programs, particularly for students from low-income backgrounds; assess quality assurance processes appropriate for non-traditional providers and programs; and identify ways to protect students and taxpayers from risk in this emerging area of postsecondary education.”

Colleges will partner with the providers to offer at least 50% and up to 100% of a program:

“The experiment outlined in this notice will allow participating institutions to provide title IV aid to otherwise eligible students pursuing a program of study for which 50 percent or more of the content and instruction is provided by one or more title IV-ineligible organizations (non-traditional providers). As part of the experiment, the Secretary will provide participating institutions with certain statutory and regulatory waivers…”

Students in a classroom from the mid -20th century. Teacher has a movie projector.
Ed Dept experiments with bringing new, innovative providers into traditional higher education.

The Fine Print

You can find the details for participating in EQUIP in the Federal Register. Meanwhile, some other details that you should know that I gathered off a call they held for interested parties on October 23:

  • On the call they really emphasized the need to serve low income students with this program. Other students may benefit, but the Department is focusing on this population.
  • It is not a grant with money attached, but merely a waiver of regulations.
  • BUT, not all regulations are waived. The waivers focus on current rules regarding minimum program length and satisfactory academic progress.
  • The college’s accreditation agency has to review the partnership “must determine and confirm in writing that the agreement meets its standards for contracting out education services.”
  • The partnership must identify a Quality Assurance Entity (QAE) that “is appropriately qualified to review and monitor such programs.” There are a long list of items that are included in the QAE’s assurance process, including: claims for learning, assessments and student work, outputs (disaggregated to identify low-income students), and management.
  • The partnership must decide if it will offer students: a) Pell Grants only or b) Pell Grants, loans, and campus-based forms of aid.
  • They plan to approve ten or fewer partnerships.
  • They hope that the partnerships selected will demonstrate diversity of geography and types of institutions.
  • The deadline for “letters of interest” is December 14. The Department does not expect that an applying partnership will have finalized every detail by that date. Promising applicants will be asked to submit a more complete proposal in the second phase of the competition.

There are many details to the proposal. Read the notice in the Federal Register. The Department is creating an FAQ. When the FAQ is published, I will attache the URL as a comment to this post. If you would like to submit a question or ask to receive more information, send an email to: innovation@ed.gov.

It’s a Start, But…

This is a start, but a cautious one. Our friends at Cooley, LLP wrote an analysis of the program in which the observed:  “Contrary to some press reports, the ESI is a very narrow program, reflecting longstanding concerns about abuse of the Title IV programs and a general discomfort within the Department over the growth of online programs and for-profit institutions.”

One concern I have is that the “regular and substantive interaction” requirement remains in place. That expectation severely limits many adaptive learning, self-paced programs, MOOCs, CBE programs, and others from participating. Additionally, I imagine that Gainful Employment requirements will kick-in for some institutions that are unfamiliar with complying with that regulation.

Participate!

Even with the limitations, I urge WCET members (both institutions and “non-traditional providers”) to participate.

We gotta start somewhere.

Russ Poulin
Director, Policy & Analysis
WCET – WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technologies
rpoulin@wiche.edu

Support our work.  Join WCET.

 

Photo credits:

Hand with testube: http://www.morguefile.com/archive/display/718592

Teacher with Projector by Public Record Office Victoria: https://www.flickr.com/photos/public-record-office-victoria/8165522990/in/photostream/

 

Categories
Practice

DETA Advances Distance Ed Research Through Grants and a Toolkit

The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee’s Distance Education and Technological Advancements (DETA) Research Center invites you to participate in a competitive grant process. They are looking for researchers who want to conduct rigorous studies on effective course and institution practices in online learning. Even if you are not interested in the grant competition, you should review their recently-released Research Toolkit – which is great!

According to their website, the objective of the DETA Research Center is:

“…to promote student access and success through evidence-based online learning practices and learning technologies. Specifically, the DETA Center will identify and evaluate effective course and institutional practices in online learning (including competency-based education) for underrepresented individuals (i.e., economically disadvantaged, adult learners, disabled) through rigorous research.”

We have long needed replicable and scientifically-based research on the efficacy of technology-enhanced education. Kudos to the U.S. Department of Education’s Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education for funding DETA. Kudos to the work of Tanya Joosten and her UWM team in making it a reality.

Tanya Joosten in front of a screen that reads "if we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research. - A. Einstein"
Tanya Joosten explaining DETA’s research agenda and the Toolkit.

The Grant Competition

Proposals for research projects are currently being sought. Stipends to support the research work range from $5,000 to $20,000. Research conducted under this grant must use the DETA Research Toolkit (see below). Proposals must identify how they will include populations of interest (students with disabilities, first generation, and minorities) in their study. Research must be completed no later than June 1, 2016.

The deadline to submit proposals is November 1, 2015 at 11:59 CST. An additional request for proposals for research on competency-based education will be announced in late October.

Complete DETA’s form to download the Research Toolkit and the Request for Proposals.

The Research Toolkit

Last week I participated in a workshop run by Tanya Joosten in which she educated us on the grant competition and highlighted many parts of the Research Toolkit. For anyone interested in researching our field, I highly recommend downloading the Toolkit, which contains:

  • A description of their research model, including desired outcomes and research questions.
  • Guides to research including “methodological considerations in conducting experiments and “a practical guide to survey research.”
  • A section on data collection including a look at institutional warehoused data and survy instrument development. Of great help is a “Student Survey Instrumentation Packet” with examples of several tips of surveys that you can adapt and use.
  • Advice on data codebooks.
  • Additional supplemental materials, including “exempt human subjects narrative,” “sample waiver of informed consent,” and a “sample data sharing agreement.”

As participants in the workshop asked questions, it was amazing how many times Tanya could point to resources in the Toolkit that would help in designing or conducting the research.

DETA logo

Participate!

We have all heard the complaints about the lack of research of the efficacy of technology-mediated education. We need well-designed, replicable research studies. DETA allows us to create the repository of studies that are needed.

The best way to answer our critics is by doing the necessary research work. Thank you to DETA for providing the tools to make that happen.

Now we need you to participate. As a lead to research topics that are of interest, see the top research questions generated at the DETA summit held earlier this year.

Learn More at the WCET Annual Meeting

At WCET’s Annual Meeting, Tanya Joosten leads a hands-on Workshop on the DETA Research Toolkit and helps you in designing your own research. The workshop is free to anyone registered for the Annual Meeting. See you in Denver on Thursday November 12.

Russ

Russell Poulin
Director, Policy & Analysis
WCET – WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technologies
rpoulin@wiche.edu

If you like our work, join WCET!

Categories
Practice

Federal Enforcement Activity Focusing on Accessible Technologies

Thank you to Nancy Anderson and Paul Thompson of the Washington, DC law firm, Cooley, LLP. Over many years, Cooley has been of great service to WCET members in keeping us abreast and advising us on how federal regulations will affect the use of educational technologies in the United States. As part of our month of focusing on accessibility issues, Jarret Cummings informed us of upcoming legislation. We’re pleased to have Nancy and Paul inform us of how current regulations are being enforced.
Russ Poulin, WCET

cooley-logo-black-2015_250pxDespite the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) being on the books for a quarter century, affording every learner accessibility to education remains a critical issue.  The rapid evolution of new technologies and online media, which has been seen as a key solution to reaching learners, has given rise to significant challenges for students with various disabilities, a population that has grown as more people become aware of their rights under the ADA and other laws.

The issue of accessible technology that supports educational programs has not gone unnoticed by regulators. The Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) are increasingly focusing on this issue, with DOJ recently terming the use of inaccessible technologies in higher education an area of “great public importance.”

Disability Actions Include Online Course Offerings and Inaccessible Technologies

The ADA, and its sister law, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, generally prohibit excluding otherwise-qualified individuals from any covered program or activity or denying such individuals the benefits of any program or activity because of their disability. Cooley has been closely tracking both DOJ and OCR enforcement in this area, and we have issued Alerts describing two notable developments in DOJ’s enforcement trends.

Here are the headlines:

  • While the ADA and Section 504 have always been understood to apply to traditional brick-and-mortar institutions, the applicability the laws to Internet-based learning has been less certain. DOJ’s recent enforcement activity against edX—one of the largest and earliest distributors of MOOCs—makes clear that DOJ intends to construe disability laws to apply to online service providers that conduct instructional activity, regardless of whether the entity is an institution in the traditional sense, and regardless of whether it receives federal funds. You can read our full alert on the subject here.
  • DOJ’s new enforcement activities focus on holding institutions responsible for any inaccessible technology incorporated into curricular and co-curricular activities, even if that technology is created by a third party. While in principle this is not a new position, DOJ’s recent decision to intervene on behalf of a student who claimed to have been denied educational services due to inaccessible technology is instructive. The agency has filed its own complaint in the case, focusing on the many types of software and technology-based services that may not be compliant. You can read our full alert on the subject here.

Both Colleges and EdTech Companies Need to Address Accessibility

These developments pose important challenges both to traditional institutions and to other entities, such as edX, that the agencies classify as places of education. Traditional institutions that have significantly increased their online programs to enable them to become engaged in a range of educational initiatives face unique challenges associated with growing size and scope, such as controlling the many entry points for technology and promptly identifying and meeting student needs. Institutions of all types should take note: any technology that provides or enables online learning needs to be accessible. This means that, at a minimum, online content should meet the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 standards, which outline technical guidelines for making web content accessible.

With respect to non-traditional entities such as online coding academies and companies marketing web-based platforms to K-12 and postsecondary schools alike, DOJ’s new position will require small companies and startups to commit more of their limited time and resources to ensure that the use of their product can result in effectively reaching students.  As institutions increasingly focus on adopting technology that contains proven accessibility features, failing to consider accessibility when designing a platform could leave many companies with an unmarketable product.

For more information, please do not hesitate to contact us.

andersonnb-p100px

 

Nancy Anderson

 

 

 

thompsonp_ch 100px

 

Paul Thompson

 

Categories
Practice

Faculty Skills for 21st Century Learners

WCET Steering Committee member Preston Davis guest blogs today about the skill requirements for modern faculty. After reading his post, join him on October 6 as he leads a Google Hangout addressing the question:  “is there a digital divide between Millennial students and today’s traditional teaching faculty? And what do we do about it?” Thank you Preston for raising these questions in today’s post and in next week’s Hangout discussion.
Russ Poulin

Earlier this year, I hosted a course development workshop for a group of faculty to promote collaboration. These faculty were experts in their disciplines, and highly capable teachers.  As the group began to collaborate on creating some instructional materials, I found that nearly half of the group did not know how to create, edit, or share a Google Doc. It just so happened that the night before, my daughter was working on an assignment in Google Docs and needed my help finding a specific image to attach to her document before submitting it online… to her 3rd grade teacher.Hand holding two cell phones. The screen on the first phone reads "Technology is a given." The second phone reads "not a debate."

Our workshop facilitators were able to get everyone collaborating in Google in a relatively short time, and with relatively few calls to simply let them use Word, but this stuck with me. This was a very impressive group of highly respected and expert educators, who were current in their academic fields, yet behind in a current instructional technology tool widely used by K12 teachers and students.

The Rift: The growing digital divide between Higher Ed faculty and millennial students

Higher education has made some significant advances in the 21st century. Online learning has gained legitimacy within the academy and institutions are innovating in many interesting and creative ways. But one of the key technology platforms of the last century that helped to extend teaching well beyond the classroom, the LMS, has become somewhat of an obstacle to the expansion of learning. The need for a closed system for instructional materials has been replaced by a collection of resources and opportunities that reside in an expanding open ecosystem.

Young students are thriving in this evolving open digital landscape, but many higher education faculty find the digital frontier overwhelming and seek comfort in the more closed and controlled environment of yesterday. Comprehensive faculty development programs can have a significant impact on bridging the technology skills gap between faculty and students, but only if faculty have the necessary tools and are willing participants.

I am witnessing the growth and development of bright young millennial students in my own home. I watch my daughters go online to access assignments and materials for homework. There is not a single textbook to be found in either backpack. The school system’s LMS contains basic information, but the learning takes place outside of the LMS. Students are connecting to information, and to each other, in very different ways than when I was a student…which was not that long ago.

Take it to the Bridge: Digital Literacy and Openness

TES Global surveyed 1000 US teachers as part of a global Teachers and Technology Survey presented at the 2015 SXSWedu conference. Results showed that 96% of U.S. teachers surveyed agreed that technology plays a significant role in their classroom, 83% use technology to deliver group or differentiated instruction, and 69% said that open educational resources (OER) are used more often than textbooks. Textbooks are increasingly becoming optional purchases for students.

Innovative educators are linking technology with pedagogy, and the results are impressive. Some institutions are replacing static textbooks with dynamic digital and/or open educational resources for entire degree programs, or are spinning off entire units as for-profit Ed Tech startups companies. Some academic departments that were assessing learning outcomes with throwaway assignments are now assessing demonstrated mastery of applied competencies that match employer needs.

We live in a complex information age where instant access to information is available to us anytime, anywhere. Young millennial students are much more at ease in this digital, connected environment than are many of their Gen X faculty. These digital natives will soon be entering our institutions, if they aren’t here already, and we need to be able to engage these students in meaningful ways both inside and outside of the classroom.

Preston Davis holding a WCET WOW Award.
Preston with NVCC’s 2014 WCET Outstanding Work Award

 

Wm. Preston Davis, Ed.D.
Director of Instructional Services
Northern Virginia Community College

 

Photo Credit: John Biehler https://www.flickr.com/photos/retrocactus/7179067109

Categories
Practice

Universal Design: An Accessibility Philosophy that Helps Everyone

Thank you to Howard Kramer from the University of Colorado-Boulder for this interview on Universal Design’s power to assist those with accessibility needs…and to benefit everyone else in a course. Howard is a cofounder of the annual Accessing Higher Ground Conference: Accessible Media, Web & Technology. Thank you to Howard for agreeing to add this interview to WCET’s month focused on accessibility issues…and to Sheryl Burgstahler for sharing her expertise.
Russ Poulin

With WCET’s focus on accessibility for the month of September, I thought it timely to discuss the concept of Universal Design and how it can be applied to online education. This recalled a recent interview I conducted with Dr. Sheryl Burgstahler, the Director of Accessible Technology Services at the University of Washington and an expert in Universal Design in Education. She also is the director of the DO-IT (Disabilities, Opportunities, Internetworking and Technology) Center, funded by the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Education, and other funders to offer outreach to other post-secondary institutions, K-12 teachers, technology companies, and students with disabilities. DO-IT increases the success of people with disabilities, particularly in high tech fields like science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

Photo of a curb cut on the side of a road and through a median.
Curb cuts are an example of universal design that helps more than just the physically challenged.

Universal Design incorporates accessibility in its approach but aims to go further by considering the diversity of audiences from the beginning of the design of a website, environment, product, or course. Since Universal Design takes a more proactive approach to accessibility I thought it would be useful to review some of the key points from my recent conversation with Dr. Burgstahler. The interview with Dr. Burgstahler will be followed with some suggested resources for both course accessibility and accessibility to electronic resources in the post-secondary environment.

Defining Universal Design…

Howard Kramer: I gave a very brief introduction on Universal Design. For those who may have never heard of the term, can you describe what Universal Design is and how it’s implemented in higher education?

Sheryl Bergstahler: Let me start with a basic definition. But, pause for a minute—so what is the typical way that we provide access to students with disabilities, particularly at post-secondary institutions but specifically in online learning? We tend to provide accommodations. Which means a student with a disability will provide documentation that shows they have a certain disability and they’ll request an accommodation in an online learning class or an onsite class to make it more accessible to them.

This might involve a sign language interpreter, taking inaccessible files and converting them to accessible format, providing extra time on tests, and so forth.  So that’s the typical approach.  We look at the individual with a disability, we determine what their functional limitations are, and then we adjust the class or the facility or whatever so that they have access.

In contrast, Universal Design is the development of products and environments that are usable by all people to the greatest extent possible without the need for an adaptation or a re-design. When universal design is applied to education, it takes the form of developing educational products, such as curriculum and environments like an online class or a science lab, that are usable by people, primarily students, but could be faculty and staff as well… usable by everyone without the need for re-design or some type of an adaptation or accommodation.

So, you can see it’s a proactive approach to access rather than the reactive approach seen with the accommodation model. Universal Design can be applied to any product or environment in postsecondary education or any other educational program.

Universal Design Helps Everyone

Howard: Key to Universal Design is that there are different types of learners. Can you explain this and also how Universal Design for Education aims to address this diversity?

Sheryl: What we’re talking about today is primarily universal design in an instructional setting.  And there a central characteristic of universal design: you provide multiple ways to gain knowledge, multiple ways to demonstrate that you have knowledge according to the topics in a class, multiple ways to interact, and so forth.  You have multiple ways to do things and to show that you have learned whatever the content is in the class.

An example of a Universal Design feature is captioning videos. Offering video content in an online class can provide another way to gain knowledge – by listening and viewing a video in addition to reading printed material. But if you don’t caption the videos, then it’s not accessible to some people in your course, such as students who have hearing impairments. Once you caption your video, then you’ll see it not only benefits someone who’s deaf but it benefits someone where English is not their first language. It benefits someone who just wants to see the spelling of a technical word you might be using, or people whose written understanding of English is better than their verbal comprehension, and those that have audio processing issues that make it better for them to access content in writing. So, if you caption your videos, then it benefits everyone—a large portion of your class, not just students who are deaf.

This is in contrast to an accommodation approach, which would wait until a student who is deaf enrolls in your class and then find some way—often scrambling—to find some way to provide access to that video very quickly.

Have a Clear Syllabus. Provide Options for Student Communication and Assessment.

Howard: You mention captioning and the universal benefits it provides. Can you discuss some other approaches and tips for implementing Universal Design?

Sheryl: As an example, in online learning, or any type of class, I recommend that people take a Universal Design approach starting with the syllabus, making a very clear syllabus where it’s easy for students to know how to communicate and reach the instructor. For a student with a disability there’s a statement that suggests how they can request accommodations from the disability services office. But also how you would like input from them about the accessibility or usability of your course, which may or may not be disability-related.

Key is the idea that you stay open to improving your course so that more people can access the important content that you’re teaching. That’s important—your syllabus should be organized in discrete sections or modules with a good outline of the topic—maybe week to week even would be good, but at least the different modules in your course so that people can look ahead to what they’re going to be learning. Make your assignments clear—in most cases you could describe your assignment very specifically in your syllabus even though students will not need to start working on it for weeks to come. Some students may want to be starting on it right away. And have a rubric for how you’re going to grade those assignments and the points the students are accumulating, and how you’ll formulate the final grade in the end.

Making things really clear and easy to follow in the syllabus is your first step. Then be really thoughtful throughout your course regarding acronyms and specialized terminology. When we’re teaching a course, some terms—like universal design, in my case—are so obvious. We use it so often we kind of forget that most of the people that are in our course, at least some of them, are not able to understand those acronyms – so describe them. Be careful of both the use of acronyms and jargon. Did you really need to use an acronym in that case when you’re only going to use the name of that organization once or twice? Why not just spell it? And, as far as jargon, sometimes the jargon we use isn’t essential to the course and so avoid it. But if it is important to the course, then define it, maybe even several times in several different ways.  Maybe even include a link to a resource that would give further description of that concept. Organize your material in a meaningful way as well, dividing blocks of material into short sub-sections that are easier to scan and read.

Provide multiple communication options, particularly if you’re having a small group discussion. If you have your students organized in small groups, don’t require only one way for them to communicate (such as using Skype), because that may not be accessible to all the participants.  But you can ask your students to, as their first item of work in their small group, to decide what technology they’re going to use to engage in that small group. Students then do not have to disclose their disability but if a student is not able to use Skype because of a disability, they will promote some other way to communicate in their group. There are things you can build into an assignment like that that will assure that there’s accessibility without requiring that the student disclose their disability.

Provide outlines—that goes along with organizing your content by outlines of things, maybe as a preview of what’s to come. And make sure that your assessments are universally designed. Don’t just assess one way, assess multiple ways. Again, give people multiple ways to demonstrate their knowledge. So you might have a choice that students can have in how they’re going to be assessed by doing a project, creating a video, doing a power point, or taking an online test, or whatever. Or if everyone is taking the same test, consider different ways for them to share their knowledge: a short answer part, a multiple choice part, a true and false part, an application part, etc. And then, as you’re teaching the class, make sure that they’ve had a chance to practice sharing that content in the format that you’re using in the test so it isn’t a big surprise when you ask certain questions in a particular format.

How Can I Learn More about Accessibility and Universal Design?

Howard: We have only a limited space for this discussion and although we’ve covered some important aspects of universal design I know there’s much more to learn. Where can readers go from here to learn more?

Sheryl: There are some good resources online about universal design to continue the conversation that we’re having right now in this particular topic (see url for this resource and others below).  There is a National Center for Universal Design where you can find out about the history of universal design. There’s a national center that focuses on universal design in education that’s actually housed here in the DO-IT Center at the University of Washington.

There’s the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) —we’re on version 2.0.  It’s very technical but has excellent guidelines on how to make your websites and related products like videos accessible to people with disabilities. If you find WCAG too daunting, another organization, WebAIM presents much of the WCAG concepts into easy-to-follow tutorials.

We have here a project called AccessDL, which is access to distance learning. On the AccessDL page you’ll have an opportunity to join a community of practice, an online community for people who want to continue this discussion about making online learning courses more accessible to students with disabilities.  You’ll see a lot of links to other resources, such as the great resources at CAST that are primarily focused on K-12 education and universal design.

Howard: Thank you Sheryl. Any final comments before we close?

Sheryl: My final thoughts on universal design are to think about universal design in this way:  it is an attitude—it’s very inclusive.  It’s a goal.  You’ll probably never reach it; you’ll probably never ever create a course or any other application that’s fully accessible to everybody in the world.  But you can be looking at that as your goal as you take incremental steps to more inclusive design.

Resources

Below are listed some the resources mentioned in the interview. I am also including links to an upcoming conference that I coordinate: Accessing Higher Ground, an upcoming MOOC on Basics of Inclusive Design Online, a course I’m developing with two colleagues, and some other relevant resources.

AccessDL – The Center on Accessible Distance Learning – http://www.washington.edu/doit/programs/accessdl

Accessing Higher Ground: Accessible Media, Web and Technology Conference – November 16 – 18, 2015, Westminster, CO – http://accessinghigherground.org/

Basics of Inclusive Design Online – check for this MOOC on Coursera.org in late October or email hkramer@colorado.edu for information

CAST – http://www.cast.org/

EasyChecks – an easy to follow guide on getting started with web accessibility based on the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 – http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/preliminary.html

Universal Design & Accessibility for Online Courses – a set of guidelines and tutorials developed for Online Credit at CU-Boulder – http://webdevgroupcu.org/conted/

WebAIM – Web Accessibility in Mind – http://webaim.org/ Howard Kramer

Howard Kramer
Accessing Higher Ground, Conference Coordinator
Lecturer, University of Colorado-Boulder
hkramer@ahead.org

Sheryl Burgstahler

Sheryl Burgstahler
Founder and Director, DO-IT Center and Director of Accessible Technologies, University of Washington
sherylb@uw.edu 

 

Photo credit: By Andrew Bossi (Own work) [CC BY-SA 2.5 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5)], via Wikimedia Commons

Categories
Uncategorized

A Review of the Department of Education’s New College Scorecard Website

Over the weekend, the U.S. Department of Education released its long-awaited College Scorecard. Originally envisioned as a way to help the Department in determining whether institutions should remain eligible to offer financial aid, the focus is now on student-as-consumer information.  According to President Obama in his weekly radio address:

“Americans will now have access to reliable data on every institution of higher education.”

“Well, kinda.” – Russ Poulin, not President and not running for President or I would have had to call people names.

The College Scorecard Home Page
The College Scorecard Home Page

I realize  I have much less stature than the President, but I was asked last year by the Department to be on a data panel when they began their quest to create (what was then called) the Postsecondary Institutional Ratings System. Several issues were raised by that panel. Some were solved. Many remain.

I did not have time for an exhaustive study of the site, but I do have some initial impressions. Some of my questions might be answered with more experience and research.

The Good!

Student-as-Consumer Focused.
The data is intended to help students make informed college selections. This is a great goal and is much better than their original plan of grading colleges based upon Departmental data sets that were ill-equipped to do so. Institutions respond to student focused info or ratings. Look at how they try to game the U.S. News rankings or those who have already touted their standing in the Scorecard.

Design.
They focused on a simple, relatively easy-to-understand, mobile-centric layout. The site is easy to navigate and the graphics and pleasing and informative.

It’s Open.
The data sets are open for others to use and create tools to enhance the site. I enjoyed their “Under the Hood…” revelations of how they created the site, in which they say: “By giving developers access to an API, even more customized tools will be created, providing students more options than ever before to find the right school for them.

Click for More Info.
When students conduct searches, they are given several colleges (often over several pages) from which to choose. Students can click to find even more information about a college that might interest them.

There is No Information about Distance Education.
You may thing that’s odd coming from me. Thankfully, the old College Scorecard page has been relegated to the “Page Not Found” graveyard. In my testimony last year, I showed how the “Distance Education” option lead you to only those handful of institutions that are fully at-a-distance. Well, sine the vast majority of colleges now have distance education, that leaves out many, many distance education options. Being silent on distance education is better than being so misleading.

The…Ummmm…Not-So-Good

Some colleges are missing.

Webpage that shows colleges surrounding the F's and there is no Front Range Community College
Front Range Community College is Missing on this Alphabetical List of Colorado’s Associates Degree-granting Colleges

I live n the Front Range Community College district in Colorado. I thought I would check the data on them. I could not find them. The President did say “every institution of higher education,” didn’t he? Most of the colleges are there, but I noted some other absent institutions (this is not an exhaustive list, just some research to show that this was not an isolated case):

  • Colorado – Aims, Front Range, Pueblo, and Otero Community Colleges.
  • Arizona – Rio Salado College.
  • California – Bakersfield College.

Perhaps I did something wrong, but I searched both by variations on their names and by looking the state lists of colleges.

The dreaded first-time, full-time completion rates are used.
I knew this would be the case, but it really irks me. Under current data collected by the Department’s IPEDS surveys. They the group on which they base their “Graduation Rate” as: “Data are collected on the number of students entering the institution as full-time, first-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduate students in a particular year (cohort), by race/ethnicity and gender; the number completing their program within 150 percent of normal time to completion; the number that transfer to other institutions if transfer is part of the institution’s mission.”

This rate has long been a massive disservice to institutions focused on serving adults and community colleges. Here are some example rates: Empire State: 28%, Western Governors University: 26%, University of Maryland University College: 4%, Charter Oak Colleges: no data, and Excelsior College: no data.. The problem is that these numbers are based on incredibly small samples for these schools and do not reflect the progress of the bulk of the student body.

I won’t quote data for community colleges because they are all negatively impacted. They often serve a large number of students who are not “first-time” or define “success” in other ways

I know that they are working on a fix to this problem in the future. Meanwhile, who atones for the damage this causes to these institution’s reputation. This data display rewards colleges who shy away from non-traditional or disadvantaged students. Is this what we want?

Chart shows "Data Not Available" for Average Annual Cost and Graduation Rate.
Why is “Data Not Available”?

Why is “Data Not Available” for Some Measures?

For some measures for some colleges, the data field is “Data Not Available.” I have good guesses as to why that is. Will the average student? There should be an explanation.

Is the Focus on Salaries Good Public Policy?
I understand that this is put out by the Department of Education and they want to make sure that students enter fields in which they can repay their loans and make a good living. I’m all for that. But is that the highest and only goal of higher education? Frankly, I’m hoping that we continue to graduate a few social workers, teachers, nurses, and actors. They don’t measure well on this scale.

Some observations on this:

  • One of the first three charts that appears in the initial search for every college is the “Salary After Attending.” This gives salary great importance.
  • Salaries are compared to a national average, but salaries vary greatly by region. I can understand wanting to make it simple, but is this an over-simplification?
  • Salaries are institution-wide. They may vary greatly by program.

The “Are You Kidding Me? Charts
I’m not going to say much about these charts they provided, on “30 four-year schools with high graduation rates and low costs” and “Schools with low costs and high incomes.”   Williams College on a list of low-cost colleges? That’s interesting. Again, the site seems to be rewarding colleges with highly selective admissions. I’m biased because I don’t really think these colleges need yet another boost.

In Conclusion
The site is a good beginning at addressing the needs of the traditional student leaving high school and seeking a college. It leaves much to be desired for the non-traditional students who now comprise a very large portion of the college-seeking population.

I applaud the consumer-focused vision and hope that feedback continues to improve the site. I actually think this could be a fantastic service. I just worry that in the haste to get it out that we did not wait until we had the data to do it correctly.

What do you see when you look at College Scorecard?

Russ

Russell Poulin
Director, Policy & Analysis
WCET – WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technologies
rpoulin@wiche.edu

If you like our work, join WCET!

Categories
Practice

Congress Proposes Changes to Student Data Usage and Privacy Regulations

Van Davis, Blackboard’s new Associate Vice President of Higher Education Research and Policy, is today’s guest blogger. We’re all engaged in assuring that student data is used properly. Van gives us an insight into legislation that may add new responsibilities in protecting student data and privacy. Thank you for the update, Van.

We live in a society awash in a sea of data. The collection and use of millions upon millions of data points allows for an unprecedented level of personalization when we log into service providers like Amazon, Netflix or iTunes.  Our data, the record of the most personal and private parts of our lives, fuel the algorithms that order our lives.

But,  there is a darker side to the ubiquitous presence of our personal data.

We decry the ability of the National Security Agency to access phone records. Librarians staunchly advocate the right of patrons to keep borrowing histories private.  We monitor our credit after massive data breaches stretching from national consumer outlets to the federal government. But we reserve our most critical and contentious conversations around data and privacy for discussions of student data usage and privacy.

Photo of Keys
Congress seeks the keys to securing student data.

Given the antiquated nature of federal privacy legislation, the highly charged contemporary conversations about data privacy, and the more than 180 pieces of legislation filed in 47 state legislatures, it should come as no surprise that there are no less than eleven bills and amendments to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) before Congress that would reimagine student data and privacy for the 21st century.

FERPA  

Congress has been debating student privacy since President Ford signed the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) into law in 1974. Focused primarily on regulating schools and local and state educational agencies, the goal of FERPA is to provide parents with access to their child’s educational records, provide them with the ability to amend those records, and ensure that they control the disclosure of those records. There are, however, some consideration made for researchers—personally identifiable information (PII) can be disclosed to third parties for the purpose of educational research without explicit parental consent.

The greatest challenge that FERPA has faced is that despite the numerous amendments by Congress and changes in regulations by the Department of Education, the fact still remains that FERPA was written at a time when student records were more likely to be paper files kept in a locked file cabinet or vault than digital records that can be disseminated at the press of a button or illegally accessed by some nefarious hacker.

What’s Being Proposed to Update FERPA?

There are three proposed bills pending that would either amend or completely re-write FERPA:

  • HR 3157, The Student Privacy Protection Act; Todd Rokita (R), Marcia Fudge (D), John Kline (R), and Robert C. Scott (D)
  • S 1322, Protecting Student Privacy Act; Edward Markey (D), Orrin Hatch (R), and Mark Steven Kirk (R)
  • S 1341, Student Privacy Protection Act; David Vitter (R)

All of these pieces of proposed legislation share a common desire to bring FERPA into the 21st century and update it for new and emerging technologies while bolstering parental rights, but two pieces of legislation have garnered the most attention—HR 3157 and S 1341.

HR 3157
HR 3157, the most heralded of the proposed bills, represents a bipartisan attempt at completely re-writing FERPA and has garnered the most cautious support from the educational and technology communities. Meant as a total rewrite of FERPA that would clarify and codify existing regulations, HR 3157 would also improve data transparency, increase parental rights, and close loopholes regarding the use of data for direct marketing towards students.

For example, under HR 3157 third party companies would be required to enter into written agreements with educational agencies that explicitly outline how and what information would be transferred, what personally identifiable information would be created, descriptions of any subcontractors with access to the data, and the assurance of data security policies built on industry standards. Additionally, this proposed legislation includes robust transparency requirements that would require any institution or educational agency to provide parents with copies of written agreements with those third parties accessing student data.

The bill does attempt to balance the need for research and innovation against privacy concerns by allowing researchers to continue to access data without parental consent as long as it “improve[es] the instruction or testing of students.” Moreover, it recognizes the potential importance of personalized learning and would not negatively impact the ability of service providers to use data to provide personalized learning.

S 1341
Senator Vitter’s proposal, S 1341 Student Privacy Protection Act, has little in common with HR 3157 and has drawn the largest amount of criticism and concern from educators and service providers. Although Vitter’s bill also seeks to update FERPA and strengthen parental consent, the similarities end there.

Under S 1341 any data used by third parties would be required to be de-identified and destroyed as soon as the student is no longer serviced by the agency or institution. Additionally, parents would be given 30 days notice prior to third party access of the data and, unlike allowances for research under existing legislation and HR 3157, parental permission would be required if any non-aggregated, non-anonymized, or identified data is used. Finally, the bill expressly prohibits collection of “psychological data” for any purposes.

Not only would research abilities be severely hampered by Vitter’s bill, but personalized learning would be severely limited, if not completely impossible. In fact, S 1341 would create so many limitations to the use of data that over 1,000 organizations, institutions, and scholars signed a letter of concern written by the American Educational Research Association (AERA). In it, the signatories wrote that the bill would have a “devastating impact on education research.” After explaining that the proposed legislation would undermine the scientific validity of student data, prevent researchers from accessing the data necessary for their research, prevent the use of district and state administrative data for longitudinal research, and “drastically curtail the ability to collect information on student learning and teacher performance,” the letter closes with the warning that the bill would have a “calamitous effect on research and evaluation if it were to become law.”

What about Websites and Online Service Providers?

What’s in Place?:  COPPA
The 1998 passage of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) was an attempt to bring privacy protection into the 21st century. Aimed at websites and online service providers, COPPA requires that “verifiable parental consent” must be present before a site or service provider can collect personally identifiable information from anyone under 13 years old.  Mirroring COPPA’s focus on the internet and online services, enforcement authority lies with the Federal Trade Commission, largely under its consumer protection and fraudulent services authority.

But even this bill, written at the turn of the century and the eve of the age of ubiquitous internet, is sadly outdated. Data collection and the targeted advertising that it supports are inadequately addressed in the legislation leaving children open to targeted advertising campaigns built on the backs of their personally identifiable information.

Photo of the U.S. CapitolWhat’s Being Proposed?
Another set of proposed legislation would directly address internet service providers and websites in an effort to improve student privacy. There are currently six bills that would either amend COPPA or otherwise address data privacy from the consumer protection vantage point:

  • HR 2092, The Student Digital Privacy and Parental Rights Act of 2015; Jared Polis (D) and Luke Messer (R)
  • S 1788, Safeguarding American Families from Exposure by Keeping Information and Data Secure (SAFE KIDS) Act; Richard Blumenthal (D) and Steve Daines (R)
  • HR 2734, Do Not Track Kids Act; Joe Barton (R) and 14 other representatives including 12 Democrats and two Republicans [closely related legislation includes HR 1053, S 547, and S 1563]

All of these pieces of proposed legislation share a common desire to reimagine consumer protection and student data privacy for new and emerging technologies, but the two that have garnered the most attention are HR 2092 and HR 2734.

HR 2092
Representatives Polis and Messer’s The Student Digital Privacy and Parental Rights Act of 2015 was the first of the student privacy bills filed this session. Although technically not an amendment of COPPA, it does focus on third party vendors, specifically the online service providers who work with state and local education agencies rather than the agencies and institutions themselves.

Much like HR 3157, HR 2092 attempts to balance the needs for data privacy and protection against innovation and explicitly includes provisions that would support the usage of data for developing personalized learning. Also, much like HR 3157, the bill would require providers to be transparent regarding the data collected from children and its usage as well as clearly prohibit the use of that data for direct marketing purposes.

Unlike HR 3157, the bill includes deletion requirements that would require providers to delete personally identifiable information within 45 days of a parental request or one year after service has ended. And rather than rely on the Department of Education for enforcement, HR 2092 would make enforcement the responsibility of the FTC.

HR 2734
The Do Not Track Kids Act of 2015 (HR 2734) specifically sets out to amend COPPA in order to update its privacy protections for the 21st century. Unlike HR 2092 which focuses on service providers working with education agencies, HR 2734 focuses on any company that is providing services directly to children. Under HR 2734 these providers would be required to obtain consent before collecting or using any data as well as allow minors or their parents the right to inspect any data collected on them, challenge its accuracy, and respond to any requests to erase, correct, or amend that data.

The bill would also simplify parental notifications by requiring that those notifications be made in “clear and plain language.” And although the bill does not directly address innovations such as personalized learning, it does recognize the role that data plays in innovation and balances that against privacy concerns. Finally, like HR 2092, the bill would make enforcement the responsibility of the FTC.

What Can We Expect?

What should we expect when Congress returns from its summer recess? There has been a spotlight on the limitations of FERPA and COPPA as currently written ever since President Obama called on Congress to better protect student data in his 2015 State of the Union address. All but one of the bills has been assigned to committee (Vitter’s bill is the lone hold out) but none have made it out of committee. Of the FERPA overhaul bills, HR 3157 is best positioned for passage with its bipartisan support and broad appeal among both educational agencies and industry. And the bill enjoys presidential support as evidenced by a recent blog post by Jeff Zients, Director of the National Economic Council, who calls the bill an “important bipartisan step.”

Additionally, both the House and Senate versions of ESEA had privacy related amendments attached. In the Senate, Orrin Hatch (R) and Edward Markey (D) offered Amendment 2080 that would establish the Student Privacy Policy Committee, a 20 member group that would study data privacy and make recommendations on changes to the existing regulatory framework as well as how to improve coordination between federal law and the growing body of state law.

While in the House, Will Hurd (R) offered Amendment 54 that expressed the sense of Congress that student privacy is “important to protect,” especially “with the use of more technology, and more research about student learning the responsibility to protect students’ personally identifiable information is more important than ever.”

But as ESEA heads to conference committee, the future of these amendments as well as the act itself is uncertain.

So although the fate of the current student privacy legislation may be uncertain, we can expect that the conversation around student data and privacy will continue to play a central role in our national conversations about education, technology, and innovation.Photo of Van Davis

Van L. Davis
Associate Vice President
Higher Education Research and Policy
Blackboard Inc.
Van.Davis@blackboard.com

Photo credits
Keys: MorgueFile
Capitol: JColman on Flickr

Categories
Uncategorized

Six Common Myths about State Authorization for Distance Education

This week the WCET State Authorization Network is hosting its second State Authorization Compliance Workshop in Denver. In discussing the contents for this event, we started stumbling on some common myths that we keep hearing about state authorization and distance education. We thought we’d share a few of these with you.

Myth 1: State Authorization was Imposed by the U.S. Department of Education

Well, no. The states have had their regulations for decades. The Department’s interest in assuring that colleges issuing federal financial aid brought greater attention to this regulation, which had been routinely ignored by most public and non-profit institutions.

We see websites that inform students that state authorization is a federal requirement, when that is currently not the case (see Myth 6 below).

Myth 2: States See State Authorization as a Way to Make Money and Fix Their Ailing Budgets.

A picture of a sign the depicts a unicorn and the words "Caution, unicorn playing"
Chasing myths about state authorization.

We hear this again and again. It’s simply not true. Well, not in the vast majority of cases. If you do the math, for all but a few states the fees aren’t enough to pay the staff processing the forms. To think that they are filling budget holes with this money just does not add up.

Myth 3: SARA Will Save Us All. Let’s Wait for SARA.

We love the State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement, commonly called SARA. It’s growing quickly and will probably envelope all but a few states by the end of next year.  While SARA helps with the entire institution being authorized in other member states, there are still some issues, such as:

  • SARA does not cover programs leading to licensure.
  • If I conduct activities beyond the SARA’s “physical presence standard,” then my institution is subject to the normal regulations of that state.
  • What if my state does not join?
  • What if the state where I have lots of students does not join?

If you are not in compliance in a state, waiting could cost you.

Myth 4: This is All Meaningless Bureaucracy

While some of the steps could be smoother and it would be nice if accreditors, states, and the federal government worked together, the purpose is consumer protection. The states are charged with protecting those receiving services within their own borders. We’ve heard countless stories of institutions of all types doing wrong by students. An individual student is relatively powerless against a large institution. The stories of students giving up rather than fight the institution breaks our hearts.

It is about consumer protection and consumer protection is needed.

Myth 5: If a Student is a Resident of My State, then I Don’t Need to Worry about Authorization for that Student

It’s not about official state of residency, such as where the student pays taxes or has a driver’s license. Since it is about consumer protection law, it is about where the student receives the instruction, participates in an internship, or participates in other activities conducted by the institution.

The student’s official state of residency does not figure into the equation.

Myth 6: The Deadline for Compliance with State Authorization is July 1

This is tied to the belief in the first myth that the Department of Education is setting the compliance date. The original Department of Education deadline was July 1, 2011 and that was slipped a year. Due to a court ruling (which was upheld on appeal), there now is NO Department of Education regulation. But there are still deadlines.  Here’s a list of them (based upon a recent blog post on the 5 Types of State Authorization Regulation:

  • State regulations regarding institutional authorization – The states expect you to be in compliance before you serve the first student or conduct the first regulated activity in their state. The deadline is NOW…or yesterday, if you’ve already begun.
  • State regulations regarding licensure programs – As with the first one, the deadline is NOW.
  • U.S. Department of Education regulation for “on ground” programs – Okay, the deadline actually was July 1, 2015 after several years of delays, but this regulation does not deal with distance education.
  • U.S. Department of Education regulation for “distance education” programs None. There is no law. There is no deadline. NOTE: In recent talks, Under Secretary Ted Mitchell has said that there is still no timeline for re-issuing this regulation. If the Department decides to act on this issue later this year or next year, the earliest any new Department of Education regulation could go into effect is July 1, 2017.
  • U.S. Department of Defense MOU – The deadline is NOW. We’ve not seen official word on this, but hear that the Department of Defense expects colleges offering Tuition Assistance to military members have any necessary approvals in the state where the student/soldier is located.

Good luck!

Photo of Russ Poulin with baseball bat
Russ

Russell Poulin
Director, Policy & Analysis
WCET – WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technologies
rpoulin@wiche.edu

If you like our work, join WCET!

 

Photo Credit: Kevin Trotman