Looking back at 2014, here are some of our most popular blog posts. There were some posts that were quite popular regarding the U.S. Department of Education’s Negotiated Rulemaking process for state authorization for distance education regulations. We’ve removed those that were interim updates on the negotiations. This list reflects views of our blog posts. Thank you to the increasing number of subscribers to our post. We appreciate your following us.
Eight Popular Posts
New Gainful Employment Regulations Tied to State Authorization
Posted in October, the Department of Education greatly expanded the scope of the gainful employment regulation. If the federal state authorization regulation returns, those programs subject to gainful employment rules will need to report on those outcomes throughout the U.S. Previously, the rule only covered students in the institution’s state or local metropolitan area, if that area crossed state lines. This will have a huge impact on colleges subject to gainful employment rules.
There are more than cat videos on the Internet. See our top posts from 2014.
Virginia Tech Rethinks Instructional Design and Faculty Development Support
Posted in April, Virginia Tech has a long history of excellence in faculty development. Even so, it was time to try something new. They report on that experiment.
U.S. Department of Education “Pausing” on State Authorization
Posted in June, the Department had been expected to publish its own regulations for public comment sometime in the summer. After several organizations expressed concern over the direction of the proposed regulations, the Department decided to postpone proposing any new state authorization for distance education regulations until 2015.
Untangling Two State Authorization Rules: “On-Ground” and “Distance Education”
Posted in February, Greg Ferenbach of Cooley, LLP enlightens us on a second state authorization regulation (for institutions operating within their own state) that has also had a bumpy path.
State Authorization Negotiated Rulemaking: What Happened? What’s Next?
Posted in May, this is a post mortem on what happened in the Department of Education’s Negotiated Rulemaking process in considering federal regulations on state authorization for distance education.
Proposed Safeguards Against Financial Aid Fraud: Some Needed, Some Go Too Far
Posted in February, the Department of Education’s Office of Inspector General expresses its concern over financial aid fraud, especially in distance education programs. The Department was supposed to take action on the recommendations, but has not done so yet.
Investigation of IPEDS Distance Education Date: System Not Ready for Modern Trends
Posted in September, we partnered with Phil Hill of the e-Literate blog to analyze the Fall 2012 enrollment counts. In that year, IPEDS recorded distance education enrollments for the first time in many years. We found that many institutions mis-reported their distance education enrollments.
Education Department Urges Colleges to Follow IPEDS Distance Ed Definitions
Posted in October, the Department’s response to our IPEDS distance education enrollment anomalies was to suggest that institutions follow the instructions.
A Couple Oldies, But Goodies that Still Ranked High
Is Your Distance Education Course Actually a Correspondence Course?
First posted in April 2012, this one has been listed in syllabi and resource lists. It looks at the criteria used by the Department of Education in ruling that one institution’s courses were actually correspondence courses. The institution was asked to repay a large amount of federal financial aid funds. This was one of our top posts for the third straight year.
10 Steps You Can Take to Begin the State Authorization Process
First posted in May 2012, Marianne Boeke (of NCHEMS) and Sharmila Basu Conger (now Sharmila Basu Mann of SHEEO) give you some key advice.
The Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education has a great history of statewide elearning innovation, see Kentucky Virtual Campus, Kentucky Virtual Library, Kentucky Virtual Adult Education, and Learn on Demand. In a partnership among its colleges, they are increasing the capacity to assist with adult degree completion. I was on that “national experts” panel that he cites and the progress is very exciting. Thank you to Al Lind for this update and the entire WCET community wishes him the greatest of joy as he pursues innovative ways to enjoy retirement.
Russ Poulin
Commonwealth College is a statewide bachelor’s degree completion program in high-demand occupational areas for adults in an online, competency-based format at Kentucky public universities.
The seal of the Commonwealth of Kentucky consists of the words, “United we stand, divided we fall,” and the image of two diverse people clasping one another. That is the spirit that is incorporated into the implementation of our competency-based education initiative called Commonwealth College.
I for one did not see it that way during an early organizing meeting with leading national experts on CBE. We all agreed that a single isolated entity should be responsible for CBE bachelor degrees in Kentucky. Clay Christenson had explained in The Innovators Dilemma, Disrupting Class and The Innovative University that it is easier to change a culture like higher education from the outside, rather than from within where tradition would trump innovation.
However, through a series of events Kentucky was prepared to involve all eight public four–year institutions equally in a special legislative appropriation of $5 million to launch Commonwealth College. That is until an eleventh hour evaporation of the $5 million. A strange and wonderful thing then happened. Collaboration broke out.
The University of Louisville and Western Kentucky University, with coordination and support from the Council on Postsecondary Education, were compelled to continue with their own resources albeit on a smaller scale. Why is not entirely clear, but I believe some of the reasons include:
Momentum had built up and was hard to stop.
Commitment from a small group of people ready to proceed.
The Kentucky public two-year institutions at the Kentucky Community and Technical College System had already demonstrated a successful model of collaborative competency-based associate degrees: Learn on Demand.
Demands from the business community.
Political leaders still desired it.
Kentucky’s history of leadership in emerging education policy.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation supported our collaborative approach with a Next Generation Learner Challenge – Breakthrough Model Incubator award.
It is the right thing to do.
The University of Louisville, with leadership from Provost Shirley Willihnganz and Associate Provost Gale Rhodes, will offer an Organizational Leadership and Learning degree with an emphasis in Healthcare Management.
Western Kentucky University, with leadership from Provost Gordon Emslie and Associate Vice President Beth Laves, will offer an Advanced Manufacturing degree.
The Council on Postsecondary Education, with leadership from Senior Vice President Aaron Thompson and Senior Academic Advisor Cheryl King, will provide coordination and the support of its Kentucky Virtual Campus infrastructure.
The original vision of all eight public four-year institutions participating is still alive. After the first two degrees roll out in 2015, it is hoped that Commonwealth College will scale with additional degrees from all eight institutions.
The common Guiding Principles that define Commonwealth College are that it:
Meets the needs of adults who started college but did not graduate.
Meets the needs of Kentucky employers.
Offers statewide nonduplicative degrees in high-demand occupational areas.
Benefits from ongoing employer input and involvement.
Uses a common brand and marketing strategies.
Offers clear pathways from KCTCS Learn on Demand programs into baccalaureate programs.
Makes it easy and convenient to enroll, transfer credits, make payments and purchase course materials.
Uses a common Web portal with program, course and enrollment information; real-time employment and workforce information and data.
Includes 365/24/7 student support and career services.
Utilizes a collaborative platform among Kentucky public four-year institutions on which to build degrees that drive student enrollment .
Strives to offer high quality degrees at reasonable and affordable subscription-based tuition rates.
So while it will not be an easy path, we will persevere to collaborate across the university structure, across two-year and four-year institutions and across business relationships to provide working adults with a united higher education experience.
That’s the spirit that is sealed into the Commonwealth!
Allen Lind
Vice President, Innovation and eLearning
Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education
allen.lind@ky.gov
It was a quiet week in Lake Wobegone…
…and then new Teacher Prep regulations were released.
On December 3rd, the U.S. Department of Education released proposed new accountability regulations for teacher preparation programs. Public comment will be accepted until February 2, 2015. If implemented, these regulations will have a big impact on teacher education programs, especially those offered at a distance.
In this blog post, I review some of the highlights of what is proposed. I got a headache reading the fine print, so forgive me for getting anything that I report incorrectly.
We need to comment on this regulation and I’ll ask for your help in doing so. I’ll also contact our colleagues at other distance education organizations about joining together as a single voice in a commenting.
Here in Lake Wobegone, our student teachers learn about the latest in educational technologies.
…And All the Children are Above Average
Given the funding that the Department of Education distributes in support of preparing new K-12 teachers, they are very interested in learning whether teachers are well-prepared. They also wish to provide consumer information to states and students, as well as prompting colleges to improve. In their own words (Note: unless stated otherwise, all quotes are from the proposed regulations released on December 3):
“Section 205 of the HEA requires States and institutions of higher education (IHEs) annually to report on various characteristics of their teacher preparation programs. These reporting requirements exist in part to ensure that members of the public, prospective teachers and employers (districts and schools), and the States, IHEs, and programs themselves have accurate information on the quality of these teacher preparation programs. These requirements also provide an impetus to States and IHEs to make improvements where they are needed and recognize excellence where it exists. Thousands of new teachers enter the profession every year, and their students depend on having well-prepared teachers.”
As part of this report, states were supposed to use their own criteria to identify “low-performing” or “at-risk” teacher preparation programs. The results resembled Garrison Keillor’s Lake Wobegone, that fictional town where “all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average.” Just like those children, states identified almost all of their programs as above average:
“Notwithstanding the focus that Congress has placed on improving the quality of new teachers produced by teacher preparation programs and improving or closing programs that are low-performing, these State and IHE reporting requirements have not produced information that is sufficiently helpful to programs, the public, or the Secretary in improving low-performing teacher preparation…In 2011, the most recent year for which data are available, States identified only 38 teacher preparation programs as low-performing or at-risk…Over the last dozen years, 34 States have never identified a single low-performing or at-risk program at a single IHE.”
That means that of the 25,000 teacher preparation programs from 2,163 providers, only 38 (0.15%) were cited as needing improvement. You can see why the Department is concerned in the state-by-state reports for academic year 2011-12 at the Department’s website.
In the modern world, proposed new regulations seek more transparency on how well programs are performing in creating well-prepared teachers.
What Does the Department of Education Propose?
This is a rough summary, but I will cover the aspects that seem most interesting to our community.
Annual State Reports
Each state will be required to publish an annual State Report Card (SRC) of teacher preparation programs (underlining added):
“The Department proposes to add new § 612.4(a) to require that, beginning on April 1, 2018, and annually thereafter, each State that receives funds under the HEA report to the Secretary and the general public, using a SRC prescribed by the Secretary, (1) the quality of all approved teacher preparation programs in the State, including distance education programs, whether or not they enroll students receiving Federal assistance under the HEA…”
The State Report Card will have at least four possible grades for the programs:
“…beginning in April, 2019 and annually thereafter, each State would be required to report how it has made meaningful differentiations of teacher preparation program performance using at least four performance levels: ‘low-performing,’ ‘at-risk,’ ‘effective,’ and ‘exceptional’…”
While the state must follow a prescribed format and definitions developed by the Department, each state will have the ability to create a rating system unique to its own setting.
“To assist in the development of the State’s procedures for assessing and reporting teacher preparation program performance, each State would be required under § 612.4(c)(1) to consult with a representative group of stakeholders, including, at a minimum, representatives of leaders and faculty of traditional and alternative route teacher preparation programs; students of teacher preparation programs; superintendents; school board members; elementary and secondary school leaders and instructional staff; elementary and secondary school students and their parents; IHEs that serve high proportions of low-income or minority students, or English language learners; advocates for English language learners and students with disabilities; and officials of the State’s standards board or other appropriate standards body.”
Report at the “Program” Level
Rather than reporting at the college, university, or other entity level, the reporting will be for every teacher preparatory “program” that they offer, such as elementary, music, or special education:
“…we propose to require States to report on performance at the individual teacher preparation program level, rather than on the overall performance of all of an entity’s teacher preparation programs.”
Indicators that Must Be Reported
There are four main “indicators” that must be reported:
Student Learning Outcomes. The state would need to measure student growth for students in classes taught by “new teachers” in “tested grades and subjects” (scores in mandated state assessments) and in “non-tested grades and subjects” (measures that are “rigorous and comparable across schools and consistent with State requirements”). On the face of it, this sounds impossible. They built on previous work by following definitions from other Department initiatives, such as ESEA flexibility, the Teacher Incentive Fund, and the Race to the Top program.
Employment Outcomes. These include measures of teacher placement rate, teacher placement rate in high-need schools, the teacher retention rate, and teacher retention rate for high-need schools.
Survey Outcomes. The regulations will require reporting on surveys including: a) survey of new teachers to see if they felt their program prepared them to teach, b) an employer survey to capture perceptions of whether the new teachers that they have employed possess the skills needed to succeed in the classroom.
Accreditation or Alternative State Approval. The provider needs to determinate if: a) “the teacher preparation program is accredited by a specialized accrediting agency recognized by the Secretary for accreditation of professional teacher education programs” or b) meets other state criteria for alternative programs that are too long to list here.
This is simplified version of what is being proposed, as there are additional details for each of these indicators.
Distance Education Concerns and Questions
In Lake Wobegone, all of our kids are above average. That can be a problem sometimes.
As a distance education community, we should provide comments to the Department about these regulations. We have until February 2 to submit those comments and my thinking is still in the early stages on what we might say. We will need your help.
First of all, the need to have programs offered via distance education was specifically included in these proposed regulations:
“In addition, during the negotiated rulemaking process, some non-Federal negotiators stated that it was not clear whether States had to report on the performance of distance education programs under this requirement. Non-Federal negotiators requested that we specify in the regulations that distance education programs must be included in a State’s reporting. We have therefore included language in § 612.4(a) to clarify that, for purposes of State reporting, States must report on distance learning programs that are being provided in the State.”
My initial thoughts and questions, from a distance learning point-of-view:
Distance programs not reporting now? When I look through 2011-12 state reports on teacher preparation, I see that there are 25,000 programs from 2,163 providers. In sampling the reports of a few larger states, very few out-of-state providers listed. Are most distance education programs not currently participating in these reports? Are those programs not seeking approval to offer their teacher preparatory courses in other states? I’d love to hear from you on this.
Differing measures by state. Did you notice that while the State Report Card format and definitions are set by the U.S. Department of Education, the measures used to judge whether a program is “low-performing,” “at-risk,” “effective,” or “exceptional” is up to each state? That’s fine as long as the program stays within its own state, but for distance education this raises a concern that we’ve seen before. Does this remind of anything? State authorization, maybe? The criteria and reporting requirements will differ for each state. In the age contentious debate over “Common Core” standards and the new AP American History test, it’s impossible to imagine standard measures being possible. Even so, we have consistently pushed for the Department to better engage the states in a conversation on state authorization issues. Engaging the states in group conversations on how to comply will be helpful to all as they can learn best practices from each other. If the State Report Card format is standardized and the definitions are standardized, but the measurements reported from the process differ greatly then we may be causing more confusion in the marketplace. And we must the remember that the 21st century marketplace is not confined to the boundaries of a single state.
What if a state does not treat all programs equally? It is conceivable that some states will devise measures that (intentionally or unintentionally) disadvantage a subset of programs. Some in education don’t like distance education. Others are protective of institutions within their own state. In another profession, I’ve been told of a bias against competency-based education. In state authorization, there are local requirements in a few states that are unpalatable or illegal for some institutions to meet. One can imagine scenarios in which a program might score highly in one state and poorly in another due to differences in measurements. What happens in these cases?
Difficulty of gathering data in other states. How hard will it be for colleges to track these measures in other states? For example, programs will have to know where each “new teacher” is employed and collect the student learning outcomes measures for those students. You will also need to track if that “new teacher” is still employed after a few years. You will also have to conduct surveys of the employers of “new teachers.” All of these will probably be easier to conduct in your own state than in other states. While that is more work in crossing state lines, isn’t that the burden that the college assumes by teaching students in other states?
What if a “new teacher” moves to another state? For employment measures, it is unclear what happens if a “new teacher” crosses state lines to become employed. Surveys are focused on students who remain in the state in which they were taught. The proposal also encourages the development of interstate sharing of information, but what is expected in the meanwhile for those students on the move?
Calculation of “burden” underestimated for distance programs. The Department calculated the extra burden that providers will assume in completing the new required documentation. Their logic estimates that there are an average of 14.65 programs per provider and that providers already collect and report this data. Therefore, they estimate the extra burden will total 13.65 hours (at one hour of per program). However, there is an unstated assumption that all the programs are in a single state. The burden grows when you multiply the number of programs for each provider times the number of states in which they serve students. If the measures are different from state-to-state, then this will add many hours of work for each state. Of course, they probably assume that the colleges are already reporting in those states, but there is still a multiplier effect and the extra need of understanding the differences and implementing solutions for each state.
We Need Your Help
Here’s where I need your help…
What am I missing?
What comments should we submit?
Is your college submitting comments and what are you saying?
Please send me your suggestions by January 20. Thank you!
In Conclusion….
There will be no more rating all our children (teacher preparation programs) above average. While there will be new reporting requirements, we will need to make sure that they fit with how distance education programs operate. Let’s give our opinions.
That is the news from Lake WCET, where all the women are strong, all the men are funny looking, and all the members are above average.
I’ve had the great pleasure of working with Nancy Spector over the past few years as the National Council of State Boards of Nursing works on the issue of prelicensure Nursing requirements across the states. They have made significant progress in developing a “home state” model that will eventually require that only the state which the institution considers its home will be responsible for approving its prelicensure distance education programs. Thank you to Nancy for this guest blog post updating us on their work. — Russ Poulin
The National Council of State Boards of Nursing[1] (NCSBN) has been working to promote consistency, among the boards of nursing (BONs), with the state approval of prelicensure distance education programs. Before we talk about this initiative, a little background on why BONs are involved in nursing education is important for you to understand.
In the U.S., prelicensure nursing programs are approved by their BONs before the students can take nursing’s licensure exam (the NCLEX). Nurse licensure in the U.S. is based on a 2-pronged model. First the faculty from a BON approved program must sign off that their student is clinically competent and able to take the NCLEX. Then the board of nursing will make the student eligible to take the NCLEX, which is a computer adapted exam. When the student passes the NCLEX, he/she can be licensed to practice nursing. As part of the approval process, BONs evaluate and approve all nursing programs, including those that offer both traditional and distance education programs.
Issues in the Oversight of Distance Education Nursing Programs
Two national reports in nursing have recommended that nurses advance their education (Benner, Sutphen, Leonard & Day, 2010; IOM, 2011). Distance education programs provide tremendous opportunities for nurses to further their education, particularly by offering quality programs in small communities or rural areas where nursing programs don’t exist or by allowing flexibility for those students who otherwise couldn’t attend a program. However BONs have reported issues with distance education programs and some educators have complained about the varying BON regulations of the “host” states (where the student is located) with which they must comply. Therefore, NCSBN’s Board of Directors convened a committee of our membership which met from 2012-2014 to identify the issues that boards of nursing and prelicensure nursing education programs face because of distance education and to develop some recommendations.
Some of the issues the committee identified included:
Core education requirements for approving distance education programs are needed so that states/jurisdictions are consistent when approving programs for having students in host states.
There is a need for licensure clarification, particularly with faculty who only teach didactic courses, though there was consensus that preceptors or clinical faculty who work with patients be licensed in the host state where the patients are located.
BONs in certain states want to know when students from out-of-state programs take clinical experiences in their state.
Host states want assurance that students participating in clinical experiences in their states are being supervised by qualified faculty or preceptors.
BONs report that the quality of online programs is more varied than with traditional programs and they have requested information on specifics on how to evaluate the quality of distance education programs.
Educators are worried about complying with all the different regulations from Boards of Higher Education as well as BONs.
To answer these concerns, the committee members took several steps. First, we developed relevant definitions:
Distance education – Instruction offered by any means where the student and faculty are in separate physical locations. Teaching methods may be synchronous or asynchronous and shall facilitate and evaluate learning in compliance with BON approval status/regulations.
Home state – Where the program has legal domicile.
Host state – State/jurisdiction outside the home state where students participate in clinical experiences or didactic courses.
Changing the Need for Approval in Every Host State
Then, after conducting interviews, conference calls and surveys with our BONs, educators, and with representatives of the new National Council of State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement (NC-SARA) organization, we developed guidelines for BONs that were translated into model administrative Rule/Act language[2] and adopted at NCSBN’s 2014 annual meeting. The summarized guidelines are:
Distance education programs must meet the same approval guidelines as any other program.
Only the home state approves distance education programs.
Home state ensures faculty supervision over clinical students in the host states.
(a) Clinical faculty or preceptors are licensed where the patients/students are located. (b) Faculty who only teach didactic content are licensed in the home state. Model licensure exemption language was developed to allow for this.
BONs will include a question on their annual reports on whether students are engaging in clinical experiences in host states.
The committee encouraged the BONs to make these changes by 2020, which is in line with other national nursing education recommendations (IOM, 2011). We developed a model (Figure 1, below) that clearly depicts the role of the home and host state with these new guidelines. A major difference is that there will need to be more collaboration among the home and host states for program approval and for allowing programs to enroll students in host states. Please see Lowery & Spector (2014) for a more comprehensive discussion of this committee work.
Figure 1: Role of the home and host state in new NCSBN guidelines.
Website and Virtual Conference for Further Information
To support these efforts, NCSBN has developed a Distance Education web page with resources for BONs and educators. This web page has a link for host states distance education requirements that educators have found valuable: https://www.ncsbn.org/6662.htm. NCSBN is also planning a virtual conference on April 28, 2015, for its BONs, which will feature Dr. Diane Skiba as a keynote presenter on the future of distance education and Dr. Diane Billings talking about quality indicators for distance education programs. There will be plenty of time for dialogue, as well as panel discussions on the issues. A special session will highlight the NC-SARA initiatives and Case Western Reserve’s new massive open online course (MOOC) on quality improvement.
What’s Next?
For next steps, NCSBN’s Board of Directors has convened a second committee, the APRN Distance Education Committee, which will develop guidelines for graduate programs with distance education courses. With that new initiative, we will also develop a web page that will list all host state requirements for graduate nursing programs. That work should be completed by August 2015.
It is imperative for BONs and educators to work together to promote excellent learning outcomes with distance education, which in turn will improve the quality and safety of patients. Authentic conversations will be essential as we move forward together.
References
Benner, P., Sutphen, M., Leonard, V. & Day, L. (2010). Educating nurses: A call for radical reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Institute of Medicine (2011). The future of nursing: Leading change, advancing health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Lowery, B. & Spector, N. (2014). Regulatory implications and recommendations for distance education in prelicensure nursing programs. Journal of Nursing Regulation, 5(3), 24-33.
Nancy Spector, PhD, RN Director, Regulatory Innovations National Council of State Boards of Nursing nspector@ncsbn.org
[1] The National Council of Boards of Nursing (NCSBN) is composed of the 59 member boards, which include 50 states, the District of Columbia, and four territories (Virgin Islands, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa). Three boards of nursing have RN and practical nurse boards and one board has an RN and advance practice registered nurse board. . The mission of NCSBN is to provide provides education, service, and research through collaborative leadership to promote evidence-based regulatory excellence for patient safety and public protection. The mission of our BONs is to protect the public.
[2] NCSBN’s model administrative Rule and Act language is developed by our members for the BONs to use as they write and revise their administrative Rules and Practice Act. The NCSBN Model Rules and Act can be found here: https://www.ncsbn.org/681.htm
This morning, the U.S. Department of Education released a 945 page document describing its new “Gainful Employment” (GE) regulations. An informal version is available on the Department’s website and the final version will be published in the Federal Register on October 31. Except for the quote from Inside Higher Ed, the other quotes are taken from an early release of the final document that I was able to view.
New to these regulations is an explicit connection between Gainful Employment and the state authorization regulations. As a result, the amount of information that will need to be reported and the number of states for which it will need to be reported could dramatically expand over what was published in the original proposed regulation.
Originally, colleges would have to report in the state in which they were located and also in their local Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). The expansion means that institutions will be required to inform students about programs licensure, certification, and accreditation for each GE program for each state in which it must meet the federal state authorization rules.
Currently, there is no federal regulation for state authorization for distance education, so it is not yet enforceable. Should that regulation be reinstated, the Gainful Employment notification regulations will be triggered in each state in which the college needs to be authorized for each program that is covered by Gainful Employment. We have heard that the Department may release proposed language for a new federal state authorization regulation sometime in 2015.
“Gainful employment applies to vocational programs, including most of the for-profit sector’s offerings. Non-degree programs at community colleges would also need to comply with the rules, which are set to go into effect in July 2015. So would some non-degree programs at four-year nonprofit institutions, both public and private.”
The reason for the Gainful Employment rules are:
“Specifically, the Department is concerned that number of GE programs: (1) do not train students in the skills they need to obtain and maintain jobs in the occupation for which the program purports to provide training, (2) provide training for an occupation for which low wages do not justify program costs, and (3) are experiencing a high number of withdrawals or “churn” because relatively large numbers of students enroll but few, or none, complete the program, which can often lead to default. “
As a result, they will create a “transparency network” that will:
“…increase the transparency of student outcomes of GE programs so that students, prospective students, and their families have accurate and comparable information to help them make informed decisions about where to invest their time and money in pursuit of a postsecondary degree credential.”
Must Disclose Licensure, Certification, and Accreditation Info for GE Programs
The regulation will require colleges to disclose their licensure, certification, and accreditation status to students in Gainful Employment programs:
“We are…eliminating the proposal for program certifications to cover the States within an MSA, and requiring instead that the institutions provide applicable program certification in any State where the institution is otherwise required to obtain State approval under 34 CFR 600.9.”
As a reminder, §600.9 is the federal state authorization regulation. As stated in the paragraph below, the current federal state authorization regulation is only for states where an institution has a physical location:
“The current State authorization regulations apply to States where an institution has a physical location, and the program certification requirements also apply in those States so these two sets of requirements are aligned.”
But it goes on to hint that it will also include distance education if that regulation returns:
“If any changes are made in the future to extent the State authorization requirements in 34 600.9 to apply in other States, we intend the program certification requirement to remain aligned…We believe that the requirements for the applicable program certifications should also be provided for those States. This will ensure a program and institution that provides the program have the necessary State approvals for purposes of the Title IV, HEA programs. Linking the State certification requirements in §668.414(d)(2) with the State authorization regulations in §600.9 to identify States where institutions must obtain the applicable approvals benefits students and prospective students because the State authorization requirements include additional student projections for student enrolled in the programs for which certifications would be required.”
And a final reason for doing this…
“…institutions may be required to include on a program’s disclosure template whether the program meets the licensure, certification, and accreditation requirements of States…for which the institution has made a determination regarding those requirements so that students who intend to seek employment in those other States can consider this information before enrolling in the program.”
Conclusion
There are an unsettling number of colleges who are not transparent with students about this information. While Gainful Employment has definitely targeted the for-profit sector, there are plenty of institutions from other sectors who have not informed students about whether their program will meet local requirements.
I’ve only had a few hour to review this regulation. Some people did not think it was their job, it will be now.
I would not be surprised if there is not significant push-back and possible lawsuits regarding the whole regulation.
As I learn more, I’ll let you know.
Russ
Russell Poulin
Deputy Director, Research & Analysis
WCET – WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technologies
rpoulin@wiche.edu wcet.wiche.edu
303-541-0305
Twitter: @wcet_info and @russpoulin
In an extended conversation with the U.S. Department of Education (US ED) IPEDS personnel, they confirmed which distance education enrollment counts colleges should be reporting to the Department’s IPEDS (Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System) survey.
The Department representatives also wondered why we did not highlight some of the errors made by colleges in reporting their enrollments. They encouraged colleges to follow the IPEDS definitions and instructions and to call them if they have any questions.
Background
A few weeks ago Phil Hill of the e-Literate blog and I reported on anomalies that we found when colleges reported their distance education enrollments to the U.S. Department of Education. Earlier this year the Department released data from its Fall Enrollment 2012 IPEDS (Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System) survey. For the first time in a long time, the survey included counts of distance education students.
Undercounts: Some Colleges Did Not Report All of Their Distance Education Students
There are many definitions of “distance education.”
The first report was from a college that did not report any of their students who were enrolled in continuing education, self-support (receive no state funding) colleges. We were surprised at this and learned that other colleges also did not report all their distance education students.
In following up, some whom we contacted were unaware that there were self-support entities on some campuses that offered for-credit courses leading to full degrees. They do exist. The most common instance is with public colleges that have a College of Continuing Education. Jim Fong, Director, University Professional and Continuing Education Association’s Center for Research and Consulting, said that his organization has about 370 members. In a survey a couple years ago, about 91% of the respondents to his inquiry have for-credit offerings. He did not have data on how many are self-support units.
Reasons for the Undercount
We heard different reasons for not reporting these students:
Misunderstanding the IPEDS instructions. The survey instructs colleges to: “Exclude students who are not enrolled for credit. For example, exclude: Students enrolled exclusively in Continuing Education Units (CEUs).” Of course, this instruction is intended to reference non-credit, CEU courses….not colleges of continuing education. It is conceivable that someone may have misread the instruction.
They understood, but it was too difficult to do. For some colleges the data systems for the continuing education colleges are different than those for the main campus. Merging the data is difficult and would take calculations by hand.
They chose not to report the correct enrollments to IPEDS. A college might decide that it does not wish to report different enrollment numbers to IPEDS than it reported to the state, even though the requirements for each government entity are different.
Their data system was not ready. One college said that their data system simply was not ready to report the correct numbers.
Response from the Department
The Department was offered a chance to provide a written response, but they declined. In their discussion with me they noted:
Most of the reasons given above were not due to the IPEDS definition, but were due to errors or inaction by the colleges. That’s a fair point.
The definition asks colleges to: “Include all students enrolled for credit (courses or programs that can be applied towards the requirements for a postsecondary degree, diploma, certificate, or other formal award), regardless of whether or not they are seeking a degree or certificate.” There is no mention of how the courses are funded or whether the courses are offered by a continuing education college. They were very clear that students enrolled in for-credit courses in colleges of continuing education should have been included in the counts. The Department will not issue a clarifying document, but they plan to inform the state IPEDS coordinators when they next meet.
Overcounts: Some Colleges Using the Wrong Definition of “Distance Education”
As we talked to colleges, we learned that some colleges did not use the definition of “distance education.” IPEDS defines a “distance education course” as: “A course in which the instructional content is delivered exclusively via distance education. Requirements for coming to campus for orientation, testing, or academic support services do not exclude a course from being classified as distance education.”
Reasons for the Overcount
We heard different reasons for using their own definitions:
Misunderstanding the IPEDS instructions. One institution said that it tried to get a clarification on the definition and was still confused even after contacting the IPEDS call center.
They understood, but it was too difficult to do. The state and/or an accrediting agency may already have its own definition that differs from the IPEDS definition and it would be difficult to create another classification just for IPEDS. A few examples:
The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges defines distance education as when “a majority of instruction (interaction between students and instructors and among students) in a course occurs when students and instructors are not in the same place.” By majority, colleges are interpreting that to mean more than 50% of the instruction.
The Texas Coordinating Board defines a “Fully Distance Education Course” as having “mandatory face-to-face sessions totaling no more than 15 percent of the instructional time.” Therefore 85% of the instruction is at a distance.
They chose not to report the correct enrollments to IPEDS. A college might decide that it does not wish to report different enrollment numbers to IPEDS than it reported to the state, even though the requirements are different.
Response from the Department
In their discussion with me they noted:
Most of the reasons given above were not due to the IPEDS definition, but were due to errors or inaction by the colleges. Once again, that’s a fair point.
The IPEDS “distance education” definition (cited above) defines a distance education as being nearly 100% at a distance. The definition is clearly listed in the IPEDS Glossary. While they understand that states may have differing reporting requirements, they were very clear that they expect colleges to use this nearly 100% definition in reporting distance education enrollments. Again, the Department will not issue a clarifying document, but they plan to inform the state IPEDS coordinators when they next meet.
In Conclusion…
Some final thoughts:
As shown with the “distance education” definition examples, a college in Texas would need to report distance education as 51+% of a course to SACS, 86+% of a course to its Coordinating Board, and nearly 100% of a course to IPEDS. You can see the difficulties they face.
The Department did not seem to think that the errors from these anomalies were significant. From the enrollments numbers that were reported to IPEDS, about one-in-eight students take all of their courses at a distance and about one-in-four take at least some distance courses. Those are significant numbers and I’d like to see both colleges and IPEDS strive to make future counts as accurate as possible.
Those colleges waiting for a clarification from the Department will not see anything dramatic. They may want to call them if they have any questions or feel that they might not be reporting enrollments correctly.
Finally, we could ask the question as to whether the Department’s definition of “distance education” is a useful one? On the plus side, it is a clear definition. On the negative side, the “nearly 100%” definition does not reflect current practice. But, that’s a question for a different day. And it is a discussion that may need to include accreditors and states.
For now, let’s use the definitions as presented by the Department so that IPEDS has accurate data to inform federal financial aid policies.
Portland (aka the City of Roses, Bridgetown, Beervana, P-Town, Rip City, Stumptown, and PDX) welcomes you to WCET’s 26th Annual Meeting. There’s no way to tell if you’ll experience the usual rain, sun breaks, or gorgeous beautiful weather when you’re here. No worries though, there’s plenty to do when you’re not engaged in sessions, rain or shine.
Of course Portland’s rich with coffee and tea spots. But, if you’re interested in experiencing Beervana, choose from over 50 microbrews within the city. You can check out this map at PortlandBrewPubs’s web site of brewpubs in the Portland area. You can select downtown, Northwest Portland, and the Pearl and either walk or ride the Max or Streetcar. You cannot go wrong if you want to make it easy on yourself and head over to the Rogue Distillery and Public House and the Deschutes Brewery. Find the best downtown walking map at portlandmap.com.
Shop
Did you know Oregon does not have sales tax? Yes, you can shop tax free in Portland! Choose from the NW 23rd area or Pearl District, Downtown, or on the weekend visit Saturday Market on Saturday or Sunday (rain or shine) to check out up to 250 artisans sharing their work. Stop in and listen to some music while you enjoy a tasty meal from one of the food vendors. Of course, right across the street from the hotel is the Riverplace Marina, Shops, and Restaurants. Stop in for ice cream, sushi, drinks, or browse the shops just steps from the hotel.
Read
You must have heard about Powell’s City of Books. It takes up an entire city block and you need a map just to find your way around the store taking up 68,000 square feet.
Relax
Without leaving the city, you can take a little break and visit the beautiful Lan Su Chinese Garden created by artists in our sister city, Suzhou. It’s not just a garden, but it’s work of art, complete with a Teahouse. If you come early or stay late, you may want to take advantage of our rich climate and head out of town. Take a drive out on the Historic Columbia River Highway. Stop in to see Multnomah Falls, drive on to Hood River, or go all the way to Mt. Hood. If you want to head west, check out Cannon Beach, Lincoln City, or Pacific City on the Oregon Coast and stop in for some wine tasting on the way at one of the Willamette Valley Wineries.
As you are exploring new ideas and innovations at the annual meeting, be sure to get out and experience Portland. It’s not quite as extreme as Portlandiamakes us out to be. Enjoy the city and help us keep Portland weird!
Loraine Schmitt
Director of Distance Education
Portland Community College
Come join us at the 26th WCET Annual Meeting in Portland, Oregon on November 19 – 21. Early bird registration deadline is October 18.
In partnership with M-SARA (run by MHEC), the Online Learning Consortium (OLC), and the University Professional and Continuing Education Association (UPCEA), we offered two webcasts in August with updates on state authorization. The first webcast focused on state and federal regulations. The second provided background on the State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement (SARA) processes and an update on progress made by states in joining SARA.
Archives of the webcasts, the presenters’ slides, and responses to questions that were not verbally covered in each webcast are freely available for your use.
Seven Key Takeaways To save you some time, I’ve developed a list of seven key takeaways that will help you in your thinking about state authorization. Many of these are not new, but I’m surprised at the on-going misunderstanding and misinformation on some of these issues. Forgive the repetition, but we keep getting these questions. Repetition reinforces the message.
1, There is No Federal Regulation or Deadline I often hear, “I know that we have to be in compliance with federal state authorization laws by July 1 of (fill in the year).” That is not correct. There is currently no federal regulation for distance education. The regulation issued in 2010 (600.9 (c)) was “vacated” by the courts and the Department of Education will not enforce it. Earlier this year, a Negotiated Rulemaking Committee failed to reach consensus on a new regulation for distance education.
Therefore, there is no regulation. There is no deadline.
Don’t be confused about another regulation regarding distance education within a state. Enforcement of that one is delayed until July 1, 2015. But, that regulation (600.9 (a) and (b)) does not cover distance education across state lines.
The Department may issue a new regulation regarding distance education, but that effort is currently on “pause.” OLC (then operating as Sloan-C), UPCEA, and WCET jointly suggested to the Department of Education what should (and should not) be included in any new regulation. Such a regulation may be issued for public comment early next year.
2. States Expect You to Comply Now You are not off the hook. States expect you to follow their regulations BEFORE you conduct any regulated activity in their states. Depending on the state, this could include direct marketing, enrolling a student, expecting students to participate in a clinical experience. If the student is in another state from where you are located, you are expected to follow their regulations whether there is a federal regulation or not.
3. State Authorization Covers All of an Institution’s Activities in a State State Authorization regulations are not confined to distance education courses. There are states that regulate direct marketing, having faculty in a state, conducting field experiences (clinicals, practica, etc.) in a state, or just about any other activity that you might be conducting in another state. This is true whether those activities are tied to distance education or not.
4. SARA is Growing As of the webcast, SARA had nine states that were fully approved to participate in SARA. Several institutions from those states have already been authorized by their state to participate in SARA and now eligible for all the agreement’s benefits.
Looking to the future, SARA expects to have 20-24 states in the fold by the end of this calendar year and around 40 by the end of next year. Progress in each state can be tracked on the SARA website. Talk with the SARA Director in your region should you wish to promote it.
5. State Licensure Programs – Requires Separate Approvals and Not Covered by SARA Academic programs in fields that require state licensure (such as Nursing, Psychology, Social Work, and others) sometimes require extra approvals from the appropriate boards overseeing those professions in each state. The requirements vary widely by state and profession. Students have been restricted from participating in clinical experiences or kept from sitting for the licensure exam if they attended an institution that was not approved in the state.
SARA does not cover the authorization of academic programs in professional licensure fields. Whether it is a SARA member or not, colleges are expected to follow state regulations regarding these programs in each state.
In the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee discussions earlier this year, it was clear that the Department of Education is very interested in this issue. Once a new regulation is released for public comment, it will not be surprising if expanded requirements for notifying students about an institution’s approval status in each state for each profession in which it enrolls students.
6. The Origin of the C-RAC Guidelines Used by SARA We have heard many “interesting stories” about the origin of the C-RAC Guidelines for distance education programs. Among the theories that we have heard is that they were the product of for-profit colleges, corporations, or national accrediting agencies. I think I heard someone say that they came from the lost island of Atlantis. None of these are true.
The Guidelines are based on Best Practices developed almost two decades ago by the Council of Regional Accrediting Agencies (thus the initials C-RAC) and WCET. Over the years the regional accrediting agencies have updated the Guidelines. They were used to advise accreditation review teams on items they should exam in their campus visits. Most of the regional accrediting agencies still use these guidelines.
7. Should Institutions Pause in Seeking Authorization? No.
Given the pause in the federal regulation and the growing adoption of SARA, some wonder if it might be good to wait.
First, you should be following state regulations regardless of the federal regulation.
Second (if the first reason does not sway you and you are more focused on self-preservation), it looks like the federal regulation will return. I would not be surprised to see a short deadline for institutions to be in full compliance in each state in which it serves students. If you wait and discover that a state that is important for your enrollments is not part of SARA, you will probably want to quickly seek authorization. Don’t expect the state regulators to do you any favors. The regulators are great people, but they already have a long line of applications ahead of you. You might get trampled in the rush to seek approval.
Thank You to Our Partners I am very glad that we were able to partner on these webcasts. Within a few days in July, I learned that there were plans for at least three different webcasts with essentially the same content scheduled for the same August timeframe. It made sense for us to partner to produce these two webcasts in which we could share expertise and delve deeper into questions that you may have.
Thank you to Jenny Parks and the group at MHEC for hosting the reciprocity webcast. Thank you to Laurie Hillman of OLC for expertly moderating the regulations webcast. Thank you to Jim Fong of UPCEA for lending his expertise on the survey that we conducted on institutional progress in seeking authorization. Thank you to all our presenters. And thank you to Megan Raymond for organizing WCET’s webcasts while trying to pull together our Annual Meeting.
Your Turn Do you have additional takeaways that you would like to share or questions that you would like to ask? If so, please share them in the comment field.
Thank you!
Russ
Russell Poulin
Interim Co-Executive Director
WCET – WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technologies rpoulin@wiche.edu
Twitter: @RussPoulin
WCET’s Annual Meeting includes several sessions on state authorization and regulations.
Join us November 19-21 in Portland, Oregon.
What do Greeks, Vietnamese, Australians, and Americans have in common? The answer is no joke…
I travel a lot. For the past several years, I have accumulated over 200,000 miles per year, going around the world to speak about education reform, effective practices, education technology, learning analytics, and neo-millennial learning, to name a few. In fact, by my calculations I have spent over 15,000 hours in front of audiences over the past decade.
But lately, I have been socializing the concept of “Education 3.0.” I don’t know if I can say I coined the term or not – some other notable bloggers and leaders have been using it too – but in my estimation, if education was able to truly use the most effective, study driven practices from 1) neuroscience, 2) learning research, and 3) education technology, we could fix much of what is wrong with education at every level. As some of you know, my Research Center / Think Tank created a short-film (“School of Thought”), actually shooting in Hollywood last year. The premise for the 21 minute film was essentially a question: What could be, if Education 3.0 was actually implemented?
Education 3.0 can be found on two wheels at this technical college in Vietnam.
While I travel, I try very hard to keep my wits about me – I try to notice what education looks and feels like in other places. I not only deliver keynotes and workshops, but I also have lengthy conversations with educators at all levels and of all types. These insiders often give amazing feedback and insights regarding the state of education today. And while I am always humbled and inspired by the simple experience of traveling abroad (if you haven’t done so, add to your bucket list touring the Acropolis, swimming off at the beaches in Perth, or taking a motorcycle cab ride in Ho Chi Minh city…), I’m most fascinated by the similarities between educational issues we all seem to share.
Neuroscience: Apply What We Know about Learning
When in Vietnam I witnessed something I had seen in other Asian countries. I walked past classrooms (both K12 and Higher Ed) where students were asleep on pillows sold specifically for that context. Why? Because in many Asian cultures learning does not end when the school day is finished. Formal learning may happen over the course of 18 hours, every day. So, students will buy these specially designed pillows as well as quality recording devices and the teachers will lecture to the devices while some students sleep, others surf the web, etc. In Vietnam, my specific consulting was around the cultural implications of a lack of interactivity between the teacher and the students, but it was obvious that a paradigm from the USA is shared by many Asian cultures: time = Learning.
We know some interesting things about time and our brains. We know that waking up during a REM cycle can potentially impair a person’s cognitive ability, equivalent to being drunk. This impairment can last for several hours. Yet we still promote and/or require students to attend early classes. We have researchers like John Medina telling us that some learners (and some teachers!) should have all learning completed before noon, while others should not start until noon. Yet we do nothing to even test which students fall into which categories, let alone to act on it.
And we all know the trouble with the Carnegie Unit. You know, the 110 year old, industrial aged model that says spending X amount of time on a subject means it has been learned. Silly, right? Yet the rules, regulations, accreditations, and policies persist. Sure, Competency Based Education is trying to fight this notion, and is making some great headway, but there is a ton of enculturation and baggage to push through.
I heard some game manufacturers recently explain that they had a product which would guarantee students to learn math faster, retain it longer, and apply it better than any college Algebra course. Yet nobody would adopt it. Why? Because the teacher had to give up approximately 40% of their traditional teaching time (classroom time) and instructors wouldn’t do so.We know more about the brain than ever before. Without using neuroscience to inform practice, we’ll never reach Education 3.0
Education 3.0 had its roots in Greece.
Learning Research: Apply What We Know about Teaching
The Greeks showed me much of what I consider the origins of my cultural heritage. To walk the paths and roads where great philosophers stood, where ideas like democracy were first debated, and where architectural beginnings happened was humbling! But I also heard from educators who are struggling with yet another common American problem – the lecture.
I get the allure of lectures. I do! I go around the world (essentially) lecturing. But keep in mind a few things. I’m lecturing on about 12-15 total hours of material that I’ve developed over 20 years because I only have 1 hour with which to make an argument or propose an idea. Yes, there are new pieces every time, but 90% of the lectures are polished and have gotten solid feedback. A GREAT lecture can be amazing and I try in my keynotes to deliver a great lecture.
But in my classes it’s a different story! I rarely lecture at all anymore. I have those students for 45 hours a term – I don’t need to cram anything into an hour. And I know that nobody can create 45 amazing lectures per term. In fact, after polling about 20,000 teachers and professors, the average number of great lecturers on campus seems to be 3 and the total number of great lectures any one person delivers seems to be 3.
So, despite years of research and confirmation that lecturing should be rare and surgical in its use, we still see evidence in polls like the National Survey of Student Engagement which suggests that ½ of a college student’s experiences in every class, every term is lecture. Despite the work of Dr. Eric Mazur, lecturer of the year at Harvard, who has proven that lecturing doesn’t work, many teachers still engage in the practice. Despite Richard Light’s Harvard Assessment Seminars, showing that student’s best experiences in college are the non-lecture based classes, we still over-use it to a fault. Without using learning research to inform practice, we’ll never reach Education 3.0.
Education 3.0 can be found in the beaches of Australia.
Education Technology: Apply What We Know about Technologies
I was down under very recently. I spent some time in Melbourne training faculty with regard to effective use of education technology. The people in Australia are quite remarkable. They are simply the kindest culture of people (collectively) that I’ve experienced in my travels. But that kindness cannot mask the frustration by some faculty at the notion of being asked (forced?) to use ed tech.
In the states, we share this trouble. I have spent over a decade “e-vangelizing” the usage of education technology. I believe it is impossible to reach all students in meaningful ways without ed tech. History has shown us that education without technology cannot scale. Yet many educators still balk at the idea of infusing technology in the classroom and if they do, most still only substitute ed tech for non-technical activities. (Instead of paper test, they’ll use a computer test, etc.)
But as Puentedura points out nicely in his S.A.M.R. model of transformative use of ed tech, it is not until we actually Modify and/or Redefine our activities, making use of the power, scalability, and connect-ability of these tools, that we start to see substantive, meaningful changes for our students. Until we use education technology to inform practice, we’ll never reach Education 3.0.
Let’s Strive for Education 3.0
I’m honored to have been asked to share some thoughts with the WCET community. It’s been a few years since I spoke at your conference and I hope to do so again soon! But as we all strive to fix our own corners of education, I really hope we’ll start to let the same important frameworks and research-driven practices inform those fixes. I hope we’ll all start to strive for and use Education 3.0. There is a lot at stake.
Good luck and good teaching my friends.
Dr. Jeff D Borden
Dr. Jeff Borden (@bordenj), Pearson’s VP of Instruction & Academic Strategy is a consultant, speaker, professor, comedian, and trainer, all while leading the Center for eLearning (an Academic research center and think tank). As a University faculty member of 18 years and past college administrator, Jeff has assisted faculty, administrators, executives, and even politicians in conceptualizing and designing eLearning programs globally. Jeff has testified before the U.S. Congress’ Education Committee, blogs for Wired Innovations, provides global keynote addresses, promotes research findings from the academic think tank he directs, and has been asked to help determine the “Academic Vision” for Pearson Higher Education. To read Jeff’s blog, follow the cMooc his research group is building, or get more information, check out:
It has been a good summer and a good year for colleges finding ways to work together online. I’ve been meaning to note this development for some time, but this week’s developments with California State University Online prompted me to share my observations. Meanwhile, there have been exciting advances with inter-institutional partnerships, both old and new.
In a letter to campus leaders, Cal State University system office last month announced that Cal State Online will no longer operate as originally conceived.
The California State University System is replacing its distance education portal with a shared services model less than two years after its launch, as the system’s campuses decide they would rather do the work on their own.
What seems to be happening is that they are moving from an ambitious plan to “create a standardized, centralized, comprehensive business, marketing and outreach support structure for all aspects of online program delivery for the Cal State University System.” Although they ae abandoning much of the centralized academics, a shared services model was always part of the plan. It now appears like it will be the central focus. That may be what is politically feasible.
We will know more about next steps in the next few months. First, CSU officials will conduct a “listening tour” of each campus, gain advice from a new Commission on Online Education, and obtain feedback from an online discussion forum.
Some “Partnerships” Don’t Work As Expected
Please take one minute and 10 seconds to watch the U.S. Congressional leaders hold hands and sing “We Shall Overcome.”
That looked more uncomfortable than wearing Brillo underwear.
Colleges are Having Better Luck Singing in Harmony
While politicians seem to have an increasingly hard time in working in concert, there have been several recent announcements about colleges singing in unison:
Unizin emerges from the shadows and has big goals in sight A partnership among several large universities was highlighted by the e-Literate blog in May and was officially announced in June. They have ambitious goals that they could reach: “…we want to bias things in the direction of open standards, interoperability, and scale. Unizin is about tipping the table in favor of the academy by collectively owning (buying, developing, and connecting) the essential infrastructure that enables digital learning on our campuses and beyond.” See their website for more details.
Washington’s community colleges partner on competency-based learning
A dozen of Washington’s two-year colleges are partnering to create a competency-based degree that will increase student completion and speed student’s time to completion. They will rely on adaptive learning. Working together makes sense as it is project that is probably larger than any one institution could tackle and it leads to creation of compatible competency modules from the start.
eCampusManitoba is a new one-stop shop Students will be able to access one portal to learn about online offerings from institutions throughout the province.
The University of Missouri System begins course sharing By working together, they plan to allow students to enroll in courses at any of the four campuses. The goals are: “to create an online alternative for classes that typically have low enrollment, to broaden access to unique classes and to give partnering faculty members time to work on other projects, such as research, because they’re ideally alternating semesters of teaching their online courses.”
Pat James to head new California Community College System collaboration
Former WCET fellow Pat James will head the Online Education Initiative, which has at its goal to: “dramatically increase the number of California Community Colleges students who obtain associate degrees and transfer to four-year colleges each year by providing online courses and services within a statewide CCC Online Education system.”
Why Can’t We All Just Get Along?
This seems like a remarkable amount of activity and we are not even to August yet. Add to that the expansion of eCampusAlberta to more institutions and BCcampus continuing to expand its open textbooks.
Keeping with the collaborative theme, at the WCET Annual Meeting we will be featuring Nancy Zimpher, chancellor of the State University of New York (SUNY). One of the items she will discuss is Open SUNY, which is “a seamless way for you to access the courses, degrees, professors, and rich academics of all 64 SUNY campuses flexibility.”
We have been updating our profiles of e-learning consortia, but we have much more work to do. If you know of a partnership that is missing or if one needs to be updated, let us all know.
Collaboration is hot!
Russ
Russell Poulin
Interim Co-Executive Director
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
