In this blog post, I comment on the future of the Department of Education’s “pause” and what this means for those signing the Department of Defense’s MOU. We also announce a partnership to bring you a series of two webcasts to help bring clarity on these (and many other) state authorization issues.
The U.S. Department of Education Regulation on “Pause”
As of last week, there were no immediate plans by the Department to move forward in issuing a new proposed language for the regulation. The official word is that they are on “pause” with the federal state authorization regulation. My guess is that they do “want to get it right” and that they take their time to create a new process.
The federal state authorization regulation has hit the “pause” button.
Therefore:
There is no federal deadline for compliance with state authorization regulations for distance education.
Don’t get confused by the Department’s letter announcing a one year “delay” on enforcing the part of the state authorization regulations. That letter references sections 600.9(a) and (b), which are about regulating institutions within a state and is NOT about distance education. You can learn more about the differences in a blog post that Greg Ferenbach of Cooley, LLP wrote for us earlier this year. In brief, some states are still confused about what the Department wants in terms of authorizing colleges within their state and they needed another extension. Otherwise, some colleges would have lost their financial aid eligibility.
It is unclear what next steps the Department will take. It is likely that they may wait until after the elections this fall before moving forward.
Finally, state regulations are still in force. States expect you to be in compliance prior to enrolling students, marketing, or performing any regulated activity in their state.
The U.S. Department of Defense’s Memorandum of Understanding Joins the “Pause”
The Department of Defense issued a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that institutions must sign if they wish to offer Tuition Assistance to their students in the military. We received questions about how to interpret the state authorization language, which, in part, refers to the U.S. Department of Education regulations. Of course, Education’s distance education regulation is on “pause” for now.
Question 29 addresses state authorization. Both Cooley and we (at WCET) are taking that response to mean that the Department of Defense will follow the Department of Education’s lead in the “pause” on enforcing state authorization. Since Defense has been referencing Education’s state authorization regulation all along, it makes sense that they wait until the Department of Education issues the new regulation.
Announcing Two State Authorization Webcasts
Need more updates and details? WCET partners with the Online learning Consortium, the University Professional & Continuing Education Association, and the Midwest Higher Education Compact’s State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement to offer two informational webcasts:
August 14: State Authorization for Distance Education: The Future for REGULATIONS
Covers the latest on the state, federal, and military regulations. It also advises colleges on what to do next.
(2:00 PM Eastern / 1:00 PM Central / Noon Mountain / 11:00 AM Pacific)
August 19: State Authorization for Distance Education: The Future for RECIPROCITY
Everything you ever wanted to know about the State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement (SARA).
(2:00 PM Eastern / 1:00 PM Central / Noon Mountain / 11:00 AM Pacific)
Learn more about these free webcasts. Separate registration is needed for each event and we do expect that they will fill-up. An archive of each webcast will be made available.
It is great that these organizations are working together to give you these updates.
Meanwhile, have a great summer!
Russ
Russell Poulin
Interim Co-Executive Director
WCET – WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technologies
rpoulin@wiche.edu
In an address to the Council of Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) yesterday, Ted Mitchell (Under Secretary for Postsecondary) Education announced a ‘pause’ on state authorization. This announcement was reported in the Chronicle of Higher Education and Inside Higher Ed today. I’ll share what I know about this.
The Department’s Earlier Announcement of a Delay was Not about Distance Education
The Department of Education published a notice a few days ago that it will delay the deadline for state authorization compliance by another year. The letter references sections 600.9(a) and (b), which are about regulating institutions WITHIN A STATE and is NOT about distance education. You can learn more about the differences in the two types of ‘state authorization’ in a blog post that Greg Ferenbach of Cooley, LLP wrote for us earlier this year. In brief, some states are still confused about what the Department wants in terms of authorizing institutions within their state and they needed another extension or some of their colleges would have lost their financial aid eligibility.
There Has Been Considerable Contact with the Department about the Distance Ed Regulation
WCET joined with Sloan-C and UPCEA to write a letter to Education Secretary Arne Duncan and Under Secretary Mitchell about our concerns with the direction the Department was taking and to give recommendations on how the Department might proceed. I have also been talking with numerous groups and individuals that have been writing their own letters or have used their contacts.
On Tuesday of this week, Marshall Hill (Executive Director of the National Council on State Authorization Reciprocity Agreements) and some high-ranking members of the National Council leadership board met with Mr. Mitchell. According to Marshall, Mr. Mitchell was aware of many of the concerns that they raised and was very supportive of reciprocity. From that meeting, Mr. Mitchell indicated that more work needed to be done, but did not suggest the delay.
Mr. Mitchell’s reference in the Inside Higher Ed article about addressing a “specific problem” showed that our message was being heard.
Ted Mitchell’s Announcement to CHEA
The original timeline was for the Department to issue proposed distance education regulations for public comment in July or August. They would address the comments and issue a final version of the new regulations by the end of October. That date was important, as it is the deadline for regulations that are to be implemented by July 1 of next year.
Given that Mr. Mitchell is new in his position as Under Secretary and the great concern from all sectors about both types of ‘state authorization’ regulations, it is understandable that the Department would wish to put a pause on proposing a new regulation. Additionally, the “reauthorization” of the higher education act (which governs the federal financial rules) is now getting underway. State authorization has already been a political football in those discussions.
It will be interesting to see if this issue is left for reauthorization or if they will create another process to address this issue. I will let you know what I learn. Meanwhile, I’m having conversations with organizations of states about engaging with the Department on real dialogue on this issue. As we suggested in our letter, if the Department has concerns about what states are doing or not doing, they should directly involve the states in seeking solutions.
State Regulations are Still in Place
As a reminder…there is no pause or delay on state regulations. States expect institutions to follow their laws and regulations before enrolling students or performing any other regulated activity in that state…whether there is a federal regulation or not.
Russ
Russell Poulin
Interim Co-Executive Director
WCET – WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technologies
rpoulin@wiche.edu
Connecticut’s innovative new program to attract students with some credits, but no degree has had amazing success in grabbing the attention of its target audience. Thank you to Ed Klonoski, President of Charter Oak State College, who describes “Go Back to Get Ahead,” which started only a few weeks ago.
Russ Poulin
I am here to tell you a story that contains the seeds for a new and powerful approach to degree completion. It is my hope that this description of Connecticut’s Go Back to Get Ahead program will provide the key elements necessary to rolling out a successful statewide program in your locality.
Thanks to the work of Lumina Foundation, the idea that American higher education must find a way to educate more working adults in order to provide the economy with a sufficiently skilled workforce is now gaining traction among the political class (i.e. governors). We also know that today 40% of college students are over age 24 while only 15% are 18-24, residential and full time. The current student population is part time and older; in fact, this is the new majority. And to make that change even more important, in Connecticut, we are seeing a 1.8% annual decline in our eighteen year olds.
These three facts, when taken together, make this the perfect moment to get serious about adult degree completion. Lumina talks about raising the postsecondary attainment level of our workforce to 60% by 2025. In Connecticut, because we have no natural resources (gas, oil, timber, farming, etc.), we believe we must hit 70% degree attainment in our workforce within the next decade.
Nationally, the work in degree completion has been gaining strength in the past five years thanks to efforts like the Adult College Completion Network and the The Graduate! Network, Inc.. When planning the Connecticut initiative, I spoke to program directors in states including Indiana, Georgia, and Texas. My own institution, Charter Oak State College, has been focused on helping adults complete a degree for 40 years. But I am here today to tell you about a new program that our Governor launched which is helping shape a dynamic new approach to re-enrolling returning adult students.
Connecticut Targets Students with Some College but No Degree
The Go Back To Get Ahead program is a direct result of Connecticut legislation: “An Act Improving College Completions.” The bill, which went into effect July 1, 2014, seeks to encourage Connecticut residents “who previously enrolled in an associate’s or bachelor’s degree program, but left such program prior to its completion, to return to an institution of higher education to earn a degree.” The bill was amended to add residents who completed associate degrees but did not go on for their bachelor’s.
Connecticut governor Dannel P. Malloy has been the driving force for this project. The Governor is a strong supporter of workforce improvements and, as a result, he proposed $20 million for this program; $2 million for administration and the remainder to provide financial incentives. The program will pay for up to three free courses plus standard fees at the part time rate. The money is paid to the colleges and deducted from each student’s bill. To receive this incentive, students must matriculate and carry a minimum of 6 credits per semester. Students will receive the first incentive in their first semester, the second in the next semester, and the third in their final semester (to drive completion).
The Connecticut State College and Universities system gave the project to Charter Oak State College to manage, and we began our work while the General Assembly was still debating the budget. In May, the legislature passed a budget that included $6 million for Go Back To Get Ahead, and the program launched on June 2—just 120 days after the Governor first announced it.
The program will accept returning students from any regionally accredited institution, but only allows them to receive the incentive to return to one of the 17 colleges in the Connecticut State Colleges and Universities System (4 state universities, 12 community colleges, and 1 online college). So GBTGA is the key enrollment growth strategy for our system.
How We Organized Go Back To Get Ahead
As I mentioned, the program is being administered by Charter Oak State College (COSC). A small, dedicated Go Back To Get Ahead enrollment staff was hired by COSC to advise all the returning students and support the business office processes. The Provost of COSC is the project manager. COSC staff are taking the lead roles in marketing the project, purchasing and setting up the CRM to manage the project, training staffs at the 17 colleges to manage the referral funnel and to use the CRM, and training staff on the reimbursement process.
The Provost and her staff have committees with representation from each of the 17 colleges to develop processes, program guidelines, and eligibility requirements. The Provost has developed a communication structure to keep the 17 colleges informed. Charter Oak staff (the President, Provost, Marketing Director, Chief Financial Officer, Chief of Information Technology, and Director of Admissions) meet with the President of the Board of Regents regularly to keep them updated and to affirm decisions. The Connecticut Distance Learning Consortium (CTDLC) is providing its Call Center to support call overflow and off hour calls. The program is determined to answer every call in real time.
Telling Students about Go Back To Get Ahead: Act While Supplies Last!
Working with the information technology, institutional research, and other staff at each of the 17 colleges, COSC developed an unduplicated list of potential students (over 80,000) to invite to return to college. A personalized letter signed by the Governor and the President of the Board of Regents (BOR) was sent during the month of June to this list of potential returnees. This is being augmented by a statewide media campaign comprised of radio spots, social media, Internet ads, etc. and a public relations campaign featuring the Governor, President of the BOR, and other college presidents. The campaigns and marketing will drive the potential students to a URL or phone number so they can begin the process of returning.
The project is designed to encourage the students to take action. Students must matriculate by September 30, 2016. The program will end June 30, 2018. However, once the money is depleted, no additional students will be admitted. This is the retail nature of the incentive. It is literally, “buy one get one while supplies last.” The early results were spectacular because this “act now” message really worked. For Charter Oak, it was remarkable to see adult degree completers acting quickly—this never happens to us in our normal recruitment conversations.
The Response from Students Has Been Huge
Let’s look at the data. The program is in its third week as of this writing. Our current count for inquiries is 3,141 and we have referred 1,185 students to one of the 17 institutions. We are converting 37% of our inquiries to referrals. The success rate for the online inquiry form is 95.4%. That means almost everyone who starts the form finishes it. We put a special source code on the letters we mailed to our dropouts and 885 of the inquiries are from those letters (28%). That means that more than 70% of the inquiries are from students who heard about the offer from the media or from recipients of the letter.
It is too soon to measure the conversion rate from referrals to matriculants, but we have insisted on a 48 hour turn around for contacting referrals, and that has happened. The institutions in our system were concerned that Charter Oak would harvest all the returning students because like Excelsior and Edison, Charter Oak State College is a degree completion specialist, with a 6 credit residency requirement, extremely flexible course transfer policies, and an aggressive approach to Prior Learning Assessment strategies (tests and portfolios).
So far Charter Oak is averaging 22% of the referrals, which seems reasonable. That number may increase slightly over time, but students are choosing from all 17 of our institutions. What Charter Oak provides is low cost, online, and completion friendly solution for students who are very close to attaining either the Associates or the Bachelors. In my opinion, this is part of the special sauce that makes this program work.
What We’ve Learned So Far
So to wrap this up, the Go Back To Get Ahead program is succeeding (we may actually run out of money for free courses in 45 days at our current rate of success) because the program included the following elements:
Gubernatorial support (Governor Malloy is doing press conferences for the program).
A lead organization that can manage the project planning and deployment.
Retail marketing incentive (buy one, get one free).
Both direct mail and targeted statewide media marketing.
Centralized CRM system for managing enrollments, communication, and reporting.
An institution that specializes in degree completion (low residency requirements, liberal credit transfer policies, and adult student focus).
I hope this short program description generates some interest in the topic. I will be happy to report back in the fall when we have numbers on enrollments, institutional choices, and cost per enrollment. Then next semester I will have numbers on persistence. If asked, I can also share our eligibility requirements (the small print that is part of every buy one, get one offer).
For the first time, WCET partnered with UPCEA and Sloan-C in providing recommendations on distance education policy. We stated our positions in a letter delivered on Friday to Secretary Arne Duncan of the U.S. Department of Education. In the letter we addressed the upcoming state authorization regulations that the Department is expected to release for public comment this summer.
Our hope is to influence the process prior to the Department publishing the regulations for public comment. In the letter, we…
Acknowledge the federal court’s recognition that the Department has the authority to issue such a regulation.
Express our concern that the Department’s intent to ask states to change their review procedures will cause confusion and added costs for students.
Present recommendations including that the Department return to the 2010 propose regulation that said that the Department would simply check that colleges are following state laws. In addition, we also supported military exemptions (for active duty soldiers, their families, and Veterans Administration facilities), an exemption for institutions with only a few students in a state that would work better than the one currently proposed, and a requirement for notifying students about licensure requirements. We also suggest that the Department work more directly with the states if it has concerns about existing state regulations and new federal regulations that would conflict with state requirements.
We understand that not all of our institutions will agree with every recommendation in the letter. We balanced several factors in our decision-making including: existing state and federal laws, the Department’s need to protect federal financial aid funds, institutional burden in compliance, and protecting students as consumers. The impact on students was paramount in our thinking at all times.
We Will Have a Greater Impact if Institutions Express Their Opinions
We invite you to weigh in. You can do so now or use language from our letter. If you prefer, you can wait until the proposed regulations are published (probably in July) and submit reactions to specific language then. Or you can do both.
The Honorable Arne Duncan
Secretary of Education
Office of the Secretary
United States Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue S.W., Room 7W301
Washington, DC 20202
We encourage you to let your opinion be known.
And I look forward to our groups working together in the future.
Russ
Russell Poulin
Interim Co-Executive Director
WCET – WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technologies
rpoulin@wiche.edu
The 2012 Fall Enrollment component of the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) survey collected data for the first time on enrollment in courses in which instructional content was delivered exclusively through distance education, defined in IPEDS as “education that uses one or more technologies to deliver instruction to students who are separated from the instructor and to support regular and substantive interaction between the students and the instructor synchronously or asynchronously.” These Web Tables provide a current profile of enrollment in distance education courses across states and in various types of institutions. They are intended to serve as a useful baseline for tracking future trends, particularly as certain states and institutions focus on MOOCs and other distance education initiatives from a policy perspective.
We have previously done our own analysis of the new IPEDS data at both e-Literate and WCET blogs. While the new report is commendable in its improved access to the important dataset, we feel the missing analysis and potentially misleading introductory narrative takes away from the value of this report.
Value of Report
The real value of this report in our opinion is the breakdown of IPEDS data by different variables such as state jurisdiction, control of institution, sector and student level. Most people are not going to go to the trouble of generating custom tables, so including such data in a simple PDF report will go a long way towards improving access to this important data. As an example of the data provided, consider this excerpt of table 3:
The value of the data tables and the improved access to this information are precisely why we are concerned about the introductory text of the report. These reports matter.
Need for Better Analysis and Context
We were hoping to see some highlights or observations in the report, but the authors decided to present the results as “Web Tables” without any interpretation. From one standpoint, this is commendable because NCES is playing an important role in providing the raw data for pundits like us to examine. It is also understandable that since this was the first IPEDS survey regarding distance education in many years, there truly was no baseline data for comparison. Even so, a few highlights of significant data points would have been helpful.
There also is a lack of caveats. The biggest one has to do with the state-by-state analyses. Enrollments follow where the institution is located and not where the student is located while taking the distance courses. Consider Arizona: the state has several institutions (Arizona State University, Grand Canyon University, Rio Salado College, and the University of Phoenix) with large numbers of enrollments in other states. Those enrollments are all counted in Arizona, so the state-by-state comparisons have specific meanings that might not be apparent without some context provided.
Even though there are no highlights, the first two paragraphs contain a (sometimes odd) collection of references to prior research. These citations beg the question as to what the tables in this report have to say on the same points of analysis.
Postsecondary enrollment in distance education courses, particularly those offered online, has rapidly increased in recent years (Allen and Seaman 2013).
This description cites the long-running Babson Survey Research Group report by Allen and Seaman. Since the current IPEDS survey provides baseline data, there is no prior work on which to judge growth; therefore, this reference makes sense to include. It would have made sense, however, to provide some explanation of the key differences between IPEDS and Babson data. For example, Phil described in e-Literate the fact that there is major discrepancy in number of students taking at least one online course – 7.1 million for Babson and 5.5 million for IPEDS. Jeff Seaman, one of the two Babson authors, is also quoted in e-Literate on his interpretation of the differences. The NCES report would have done well to at least refer to the significant differences.
Traditionally, distance education offerings and enrollment levels have varied across different types of institutions. For example, researchers have found that undergraduate enrollment in at least one distance education course is most common at public 2-year institutions, while undergraduate enrollment in online degree programs was most common among students attending for-profit institutions.
This reference indirectly cites a previous NCES survey that used a different methodology regarding students in 2007-08.
That survey found that enrollment in at least one distance education course was “most common” at public 2-year colleges and the new data reaffirms that finding.
Enrollment in fully distance programs was “most common” in students attending for-profit institutions and the new data reaffirms that finding. However, leaving the story there perpetuates the myth that “distance education” equals “for-profit education.” The new IPEDS data show (see Table 1 below from a WCET post by Russ) that 35% of students enrolled exclusively at a distance attend for-profit institutions and only 5% of those who enroll in some (not all) distance courses attend for-profits. People are often amazed at what a big portion of the distance education market is actually in the public sector.
A 2003 study found that historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) and tribal colleges and universities (TCUs) offered fewer distance education courses compared with other institutions, possibly due to their smaller average size (Government Accountability Office 2003)
What a difference a decade makes. Both types of institutions show few of their students enrolled completely at a distance, but they now above the national average in terms of percentage of students enrolled in some distance courses in Fall 2012.
Rapidly changing developments, including recent institutional and policy focus on massive open online courses (MOOCs) and other distance education innovations, have changed distance education offerings.
Only a small number of MOOCs offer instruction that would be included in this survey. We’re just hoping that the uniformed will not think that the hyperbolic MOOC numbers have been counted in this report. They have not.
Upcoming Findings on Missing IPEDS Data
We are doing some additional research, but it is worth noting that we have found some significant cases of undercounting in the IPEDS data. In short, there has been confusion over which students get counted in IPEDS reporting and which do not. We suspect that the undercounting, which is independent of distance education status, is in the hundreds of thousands. We will describe these findings in an upcoming article.
In summary, the new NCES report is most welcome, but we hope readers do not make incorrect assumptions based on the introductory text of the report.
Deb Gearhart, Ohio University, recently told me the inspiring story of one of their distance graduates who overcame several life challenges on his road to a degree. After several youthful bad decisions, this student was sentenced to life imprisonment through California’s three-strike rule. We are very pleased that this student has agreed to share his story about how he turned his life around and the role of education in his journey. Inspiring! Russ Poulin
Undoubtedly, amongst the most amazing sights to behold upon entering San Quentin State Prison are the randomly scattered, too high and remote to displace, wildflowers growing out of the cold, hard and otherwise desolate granite boulders that make up the seemingly impregnable perimeter walls. A casual observer may easily miss these or mistake them for something less significant, but a discerning eye, born of familiarity with such wonders, will see them for what they truly are: Life in spite of…
My story is an embodiment of that natural phenomenon: the aspiration of tiny seeds taking root in the most hopeless circumstances, against all odds, and endeavoring to bear fruit.
Sajad Sakoor went from “three strikes” imprisonment to a bachelor’s degree.
From the Despair of Prison the Hope from Education
When I, as a young man, went to prison with a twenty-five to life sentence, I resolved to convince myself that I would never again have an opportunity to matter – to be of any importance to anyone, that I should be content with spending the rest of my life in a cage. For several years I sought refuge in this newly carved niche of hopelessness and despondency, even gaining a perverse sense of succor from it. But then, almost miraculously, some seeds of wisdom were planted and – with education providing the proper nourishment – my sense of self-worth and efficacy evolved from one of obscurity (in every sense of its Latin origin) to one of hope and awareness. I’ve been pursuing higher education ever since.
I have come to believe in the redemptive power of education:
how it inspires hope for the future;
how it enables one to better position himself/herself in society;
how it facilitates the transition of all people, incarcerated or not, from beneficiaries to benefactors;
how it transforms the individual, making him/her a beacon and source of guidance for others.
This education helped me realize my own human potential and gave me the wherewithal to maximize it, making me a force multiplier for effectuating change in others. Indeed, for the duration of my seventeen years in prison, I either stood in front of a white board and taught or was preoccupied with benefiting from the instruction of others. Even when we did not have boards, markers, or classroom access – having to convene on the yard in less than ideal weather, we persevered.
Having seen and felt the impact of knowledge, I could not now go back to a state of ignorance. But it was not always this way.
From a Life Sentence to a Life of Learning and Service
The experiences and circumstances of my youth – which would inevitably predispose me to a life of crime and incarceration – were for so long predicated on a profound sense of ignorance. This lack of education, once it takes hold, has debilitating effects on the people: socio-economic conditions are weakened, access to resources is diminished, and establishment of preventative measures (which could have inoculated against the impending malady of drugs, gangs, and violence) become unattainable.
The natural corollary for this fatalistic condition was not only crime, but also an addition to that destructive criminal lifestyle which seemed to be the panacea for all afflictions, a respite from the doldrums. My life had devolved to such a point in this situation that I would find the gates of prison welcoming me while still a teenager. Having not learned the lessons therein, I would – less than two years after release – find my way back to that very dungeon; this time with a life sentence.
This time would be different though. This time I would meet volunteers who came into prison every day to teach us. This time I would see the impact of education on a people who lacked it for so long. This time I would be surrounded by a caring people, a people who only cared to serve the greater good. This time I would see the essence and embodiment of altruism, of helping others realize their best. Having witnessed this example of magnanimity, having been cultivated by it, I would never be the same again.
Whereas before my conduct was based on a predetermined archetypical behavioral model – defined by the criminal lifestyle, a model that used the example of power as a means to garner influence, I now saw the world through a completely different lens. I saw the world as a hopeful place, a place where so many could be impelled to do better just by coinciding with an example of goodness. I would come to believe for all times that it is not the example of power, but rather the power of the example that wins the day.
My incarceration thereafter is replete with instances of living up to this example of selfless service to others: I taught a formal G.E.D. preparatory class, tutored in adult basic education, started five self-help groups, created the curricula for these groups, facilitated the daily discussion groups, taught Islamic studies, participated in gang intervention symposiums, started gang intervention groups, and gave back in ways that I couldn’t even fathom when I first entered prison.
You can find Sajad in the bottom left corner with his fellow Ohio University graduates.
Shortly after release, I was accepted into the PhD program at the Western Institute for Social Research. I am not only employed as a teacher at a non-profit, which establishes educational programs for prisoners, but also plan on working with other non-profits and our elected officials to bring attention to the issues that affect the incarcerated.
Whether it is the causative or contributory factors that facilitate incarceration, or that predispose some to recidivate after release, I intend to study these at the grad level and work collaboratively with others to find meaningful solutions. My doctorate will be not only in service of those who need it the most, but also a testament to the transformative power of education. I will have proven that an investment in education can take a person from the Department of Corrections (D.O.C.) to being a doctor.
It was a discerning eye that saw the seedling that pushed through the granite boulders in spite of everything designed to hold it back. It will take more discerning eyes to help it grow. It will take more helping hands to nurture those seedlings so they spawn other seedlings. Eventually, the overwhelming volume and force can cover the prison walls and growing roots that are strong enough to tear those walls down.
We must have that discerning eye. We must have those helping hands. We can matter in their lives so their lives can matter.
The U.S Department of Education’s Negotiated Rulemaking process is designed to advise the Department on regulations that they are seeking to implement or change. Negotiators are chosen to represent the different constituencies that have an interest in the outcome.
Thanks to support from many of you, I was selected to be the negotiator representing the distance education community on the latest “NegReg” (as it is affectionately called) committee. One of the six issues under consideration was the return of the federal state authorization for distance education regulation that had originally been issued in 2010, but had been set aside by the courts on procedural grounds.
On Tuesday May 20, the Committee we had our final vote on the proposed language. I voted “no.” I was joined in withholding consent by all the representatives of every higher education sector. Nine out of sixteen negotiators voting “no” is a high ratio.
Although we made much progress, there were some items that I could not support. In this blog post I will outline my views on what happened. These are purely my observations and opinions.
Celebrating the end of Negotiated Rulemaking. One reg was harder to stomach than a hot dog at Nationals Park…but that’s another story.
My Position on Authorization
So that you know where I’m coming from, unlike many in the distance education community, I believe that the states still are responsible for consumer protection and that institutions should follow state laws. I don’t agree with all their laws and regulations and processes and whatnot, but I’d rather work to fix them or create alternatives, like reciprocity.
I also believe the Department should be able to use a college’s authorization status in a state as a determining factor for eligibility for federal financial aid. I do not believe that the Department should impose its will as to what the states should use as authorization criteria.
We Made Progress!
The original regulation (§600.9(c)) issued in 2010 was only two sentences long. The last proposed draft covered 8 pages, 15 sections, and spilled over into another regulation. This wordiness was sometimes due to a propensity to use ten words where one would suffice, but I will not dwell on that fact…even though it bothers me. On the positive side, there were clarifications that arose from questions uncovered by the original language.
Items that I liked:
The concept of an interstate reciprocity agreement was recognized as one of two methods for achieving authorization. The second is directly being authorized by a state.
An institution authorized in its home state is considered authorized for the purposes of providing federal financial aid to students in a foreign country. This had been an open question.
Under certain conditions, members of the armed forces, their spouses, or their children would continue to be authorized for the purposes of federal financial aid if they move to another state. This conflicts with state laws, but would hope that we could work with states figure this out. Additionally, I’ve since had a great conversation with the Veterans Administration and I think we need to consider some form of exemption for students interning at VA Hospitals. As you may have heard, they already have enough other problems.
The Line in the Sand: Disallowing Exemptions
The main point of contention was around paragraph (8)(i), which (in the last official draft) read:
An institution is not considered to be authorized to offer postsecondary distance or correspondence education in a State for purposes of institutional eligibility for funding under the HEA if it is exempt from State approval or licensure requirements based solely on accreditation. years in operation, or other comparable exemption.
In an earlier section, states were also asked to identify institutions authorized in their state “by name.”
The Department’s Position on Exemptions
The Department asserts that the accountability “Triad” is based upon action by three partners:
Accrediting agencies review institutions and grant accreditation based on quality considerations.
States review institutions and authorize them to operate in their state based upon consumer protection considerations.
The U.S. Department of Education uses the actions of the accreditors and the states as the base (but not only) criteria for allowing an institution to offer federal financial aid.
The Department reasons that if the state is using only accreditation for its review, then there really is no longer a Triad. Accreditation criteria are the only considerations that have been reviewed. The Department included other perfunctory criteria (such as years in operation or physical presence in a state) as similar examples of review criteria that they deem inadequate for purposes of effective state oversight.
Other negotiators supported this position by saying that if there is no review in a state, then the “bad actor” institutions will be free to harm students in those states. I believe that there are students who are being harmed. I have talked to enough students to cringe at the actions of selected colleges from all higher education sectors.
My Objections
This is all good in theory, but it is not defensible in reality.
Students will be hurt in the short time for dubious long-term gain. While states would endeavor to implement this new rule, institutions that are currently operating legally in dozens of states will have their status called into question. What will be the new authorization criteria for a state? What will they charge an institution to be reviewed? Will my institution decide to remain serving students in that state?
I applaud the Department personnel for proposing a three-year timeline with the possibility for extension to help ease the burden of implementation. I’m unconvinced that the promised added protections will outweigh the added costs to students and the confusion that will accompany the new limbo status in each state of nearly all institutions teaching students at a distance.
“Active review” is not very active…and does not add to consumer protection. The Department sought an “active review” of colleges offering distance education from states. As defined, it required a state to review only a few more items to make the review active. Examples cited of what activities comprised an “active review” involved choosing from a list that included: the institution’s fiscal viability, student refund policy, the institution’s history in providing distance education, and others. My guess is that most states would tend to perform the minimum required. This has been confirmed in conversations with a few state regulators. If that’s the case, then this proposal does not provide the additional consumer protection that some cited as being the reason for this requirement. What’s the point of all this disruption for no benefit?
“Active review” would be tough to implement. Reviewing a few more documents sounds simple enough, but state regulators must have laws and regulations that guide their actions. Implementation would require each state:
Changing legislation and/or regulations.
Developing implementation processes, including funding mechanisms. Students will ultimately bear the additional cost.
Staffing the review process. Most states are not interested in adding more staff.
Conducting the review process on all the institutions already legally operating in that state.
If it does not already exist, creating a public list of authorized institutions.
Multiply that times most every state (we think about 45 states would need to take these actions) and this is not easy. It will be tough to get legislative attention to pass a law that will help institutions from other states, even though those institutions are serving people residing in their state. In fact some legislators might see it as an opportunity to keep institutions out of their state through inaction.
If we are doing the right thing for students, then being “tough to implement” would not be a reasonable objection. Since there is no real benefit to students, then it would be more prudent to focus each state’s limited compliance resources where they will benefit students.
Leave the determination with the state. Unfortunately, state regulators were not represented among the negotiators. At a recent meeting of state regulators, a representative of the Department presented the recommendations. There was a very high level of concern about the proposed language. One regulator told me privately that he was not aware of any uptick in complaints that he could attribute to the growth in distance education. The regulators are closest to what needs to be done. If they think additional regulation or oversight is needed, then they propose it. If some states are neglecting their duties, then let’s develop a process to engage the regulatory community in defining best practices and implementing processes that definitely will help students. This back door process of expecting colleges from other states to pressure states to better regulate them does not strike me as a recipe for successfully meeting student needs.
Three Controversial Items: Minimums, the Death Penalty, and Licensure Notifications
De Minimis is More Confusing than Helpful
The Department added two minimum thresholds under which an institution would not need to seek authorization (for purposes of federal financial aid) in a state. A college would not need to seek authorization if it:
Offers less than 50 percent or more of a postsecondary program through distance or correspondence education in that state; and
Does not exceed an unduplicated headcount of 30 students a year in that state.
The idea was to relieve colleges from having to go through authorization for only a few students in a state. A great idea!
HOWEVER, a later section says that the institution must meet “the additional requirements for legal authorization in that State as the State may establish.” What does that mean? If a state requires that you obtain authorization for serving only one student at a distance, then the state’s stricter standard is now the Department’s standard in that state. I’m still hard-pressed to think of a single situation where these provisions will help. They were kind-hearted (and the first one matches other federal requirements), but in the end have no effect but to cause confusion.
If You Lose Authorization, the Financial Aid Death Penalty is Immediate
If your institutions loses authorization in a state, then you must immediately notify your students and immediately stop disbursing federal financial aid. I call it the death penalty because, as written, the language is a guillotine hanging above the heads of institution.
We agree with the Department that if the removal of authorization is “for cause” (the institution is found negligent in treating students) then that college should no longer receive aid. Hand me the draw string for that sharp blade hanging over that college’s head.
But, what if the reason were a clerical oversight, such as “oops, our check for fees was lost in the mail” or “we missed a deadline by a few days”? I also cited two examples of outrageous actions by states. California once defunded its oversight office leaving colleges in the lurch. A few years ago, Maryland gave institutions two months to comply with a complex set of new regulations and (at the same time) they had tremendous staff turnover. Both situations left institutions officially unauthorized in those states through actions outside of their control.
The Department was uncomfortable with including language to allow for a redress period or flexibility for the Department to review extraordinary cases. Who will get punished? Students.
Notifying Students about Licensure Programs
The most calls that I have received from students has been in regards to the failure of institutions to notify students whether its programs in licensed professions (such as Nursing, teacher ed, psychology) meet important criteria in the student’s state. A regulation compelling notification to students of an institution’s ability to meet licensure requirements in a state is needed.
The last proposal would not allow an institution to enroll a student in a licensure program if it did not meet the academic criteria for that student to receive certification or sit for licensure exams in the student’s state. An exception would be allowed if the student signs a waiver demonstrating the student’s understanding of this shortfall.
One kicker on this issue, the Department wishes to issue this rule for ALL institutions, not just those teaching students in other states via distance education. In that case, the college would need to meet the regulations of the state in which it is located, not the student’s home state…as I understand it.
Proposed Timeline for Enforcement
Although it is not explicit in the text, upon direct questioning the Department personnel said that they were recommending that institutions be given until July 1, 2018 to be in full compliance in all states in which they serve students at a distance.
Next steps
You are thinking: “So….Russ, if this language got thrown out, why did you spend sooooo much blog space telling us about it?”
Since we did not reach consensus, the Department is free to issue its own language for public comment. July would seem like a reasonable timeframe for them to do so. Based on the feedback they receive, the Department will respond and issue a final regulation by the end of October of this year.My guess is that the current language will be the basis for what they propose.
BUT, we should try to influence the process both before and during the comment period. There are conversations happening among distance education leaders, higher education leaders, state regulators, and others.
It would be good to develop as consistent a message as possible. I have seen letters for others that essentially object to the whole notion of state authorization, but provide no vision for moving forward. In my opinion, we have a duty to help provide that vision.
We will be coming back to you for help in getting this message out. Be prepared. Thank you for persisting.
Russ
Russell Poulin
Interim Co-Executive Director
WCET – WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technologies
rpoulin@wiche.edu
Colleges increasingly comply with state authorization regulations for distance education, but they often do so by choosing not to enroll students from some states. These are some of the findings of the latest survey on institutional progress in state authorization.
We are often asked “what are others doing about state authorization?” This survey was created to find the answer to that question and to gauge progress over time.
WCET partnered with UPCEA (University Professional and Continuing Education Association) and M-SARA (Midwestern State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement) in the third administration of the “What are Institutions Doing (or Not Doing) About State Authorization” survey. The previous surveys were conducted in 2011 and 2013.
Methodology and Demographics
The survey was implemented during January and February 2014.
The sample was created by combining membership and email lists from WCET and UPCEA institutions and removing duplicate responses, as well as using a list from the Higher Education Directory.
Overall, 577 individuals started and 498 qualified. Not all respondents completed every question. The 498 participants was significantly higher than in years past.
Community colleges were 25% of respondents, as well as 30% from private, non-profit, 4-year institutions and 36% from public 4-yar institutions.
Institutions Increasingly in Compliance
Colleges possessing all the authorizations from each state in which they serve students grew from 5% in 2011 to 25% in 2014.
One-third (31%) of responding colleges have yet to apply to a single state.
For those that have not applied to a state, some of the top reasons include: the cost is too high, waiting for SARA, collecting information for applying, and (my personal favorite) waiting for more clarification.
Colleges Denying Admissions in Selected States
About one-third of respondents plan to seek authorization in every state.
About three-quarters (72%) of respondents decided not to admit students in some states.
Arkansas, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Alabama, and Maryland lead the list of states where out-of-state colleges are no longer accepting students into distance education programs. Every state, DC, and Puerto Rico all have at least one institution not planning to enroll students within their boundaries.
Compliance is Costly
Overall, for those who incurred some compliance costs, the median was $7,750 and the mean was $28,833 for non-staff compliance expenses.
Larger institutions (more than 20,000 FTE) are averaging more than $60,000 in costs. Public, 4-year institutions are averaging more than $40,000 in costs.
Institutions average about .5 FTE dedicated to compliance, with more FTE engaged for larger institutions.
Colleges Need to Improve Notifications Regarding Their Authorization Status
About half of responding institutions place notifications concerning state authorization issues on their websites and/or recruitment materials.
About half of schools notify students from non-authorized states when they apply or register.
Nearly one-in-five institutions (19%) do not notify students about authorization at all.
Thank you!
Thank you to Jenny Parks (M-SARA) and Tanya Spilovoy (North Dakota University System) for advising on the wording of the survey questions. Thank you to Jim Fong from UPCEA for his masterful data handling skills in conducting the survey. They have been fabulous partners.
Russell Poulin
Interim Co-Executive Director
WCET – WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technologies
rpoulin@wiche.edu
Many WCET members are involved in “reinvention” of their institutions and the change management that it implies. Project DAVID engaged leaders in liberal arts colleges in sharing their innovations. Thank you to Ann Hill Duin and Eric Childers for their work and for Ann in providing this guest blog post. Their ebook includes articles describing how these institutions are thinking about change. Even if you are not a liberal arts college, you may find these thought pieces on change helpful.
Russ Poulin
What is Project DAVID, and how did it come about?
It’s no secret that these are transformative times with major factors demanding increased performance and targeted outcomes. Continued success demands reinvention.
Project DAVID is about showcasing strategic reinvention underway across higher education. We use a set of themes–Distinction, Analytics, Value, Innovation, and Digital opportunities (thus, DAVID)–to identify how institutions are positioning themselves for future success. The purpose is to showcase strategic reinvention underway as a means to foster conversation among institutions about the keys to their future success and the degree to which those keys are shared. Where there is no strategic reinvention, the colleges perish. Thus, this work is critical.
Ann determined the DAVID themes as part of a presidential search with a small liberal arts college, a search that reignited her vocational calling and subsequent development of this project. Using grounded theory methodology, throughout 2013 she visited with presidential and/or other leadership at 20 (primarily Lutheran) institutions, discerning approaches to strategic reinvention and inviting each institution’s leadership to contribute to the Project DAVID eBook. As a result, presidents, provosts, CIOs, faculty, and staff share, in this collection of 27 chapters, how they are positioning their institutions for future success.
How is this set of liberal arts colleges working on strategic reinvention?
A great deal of reinvention is underway across these liberal arts institutions. For example:
President Lemons (Susquehanna University) shares about their university-wide conversation on The Future of the Academy.
Instructional technologists Autumm Caines and Wen-Li Feng describe their collective leadership and the strategic role of the Learn, Share, Explore series in forging Capital University’s future.
President Henning (Grand View University) writes that “the disruption that’s needed is in the way we price, package, and finance the education we provide, more so than in the delivery of education. The real issue is cost.” He shares about the impact of the Financial Empowerment Plan.
Provost Ty Buckman shares how Wittenberg University’s Innovation Task Force identified themes and outcomes “indigenous” to the institution: student success programming, more robust academic advising, high impact pedagogical practices, and new ways for alumni/ae to engage in the educational mission of the university.
Provost Ramsay and the team at Muhlenberg College share “how a presidential initiative found its way into the front door and the vigilant corridors of the shared governance system of a small college…[and] how a college learns to move in quick currents and uncharted territories and, because it moves, positions itself to possibly craft a new facet of its institutional identity.”
And Professor Brennan at California Lutheran University writes that “when these elements [DAVID] come together, we all share in that joy of witnessing the development of an authentic action-oriented energy toward purpose.”
As a number of these institutions are part of the Lutheran Educational Conference of North America (LECNA), we led a workshop on Project DAVID as part of LECNA’s annual presidential meeting in February. Presidents of these 40 institutions emphasized that their institutions live at the intersection of mission and market, that “The continual challenge is to pass on the core values of liberal arts education from one generation to the next in a way that is relevant to the marketplace demands of each new generation” (President Ries, Concordia University-St. Paul).
Regarding strategic reinvention, the presidents emphasized the need to develop practical programs for meeting the needs of students (i.e., to redesign undergraduate programs, develop programs for a diverse market, and ensure that mission is applied to contemporary needs and issues); the importance of embracing the centrality of student success (outcomes, graduation, employment); and above all, the need to create a culture of innovation through collaboration.
Regarding collaboration, they stressed that leaders must value collaboration for it to work; that academic and administrative partnerships are key for efficiency, diversity, stewardship, inclusion, and productivity; and that if they would collaborate regardless of theological differences, ethics and other differences, they could thrive. They asked, “Together, how might we reform, innovate, articulate, collaborate, and fortify higher education and liberal arts education–twenty-first century skills–for a changing world?”
Project DAVID Colleges
So, how might colleges reinvent themselves – via collaboration?
While there’s interest in reinvention, and great interest in the imperative for collaboration, operationalizing these ideas is extremely difficult.
Not surprisingly, we have found resistance to change, resistance to opening up the dialogue, and in some cases, resistance to the term “reinvention.” Even though institutional leadership realizes the need for reinvention and collaboration, in some sectors, there’s still resistance to talk about what to do.
Despite Eugene Tobin’s (Mellon Foundation Program Officer) call that “The future of liberal arts begins with collaboration,” (2013, 133), leadership often still sees collaboration as losing power, resources, and institutional identity.
Thus, reinvention and collaboration are difficult, and there is no template to follow for operationalizing such work.
There are, however, a number of resources emerging to operationalize collaboration. For example, the National Institute for Technology in Liberal Education is working to design and implement a collaboration toolkit, including a workshop for the upcoming Association for Collaborative Leadership conference. Presidents, provosts, and faculty across five institutions–Concordia U Texas, Texas Lutheran, Texas Wesleyan U, Schreiner U, and Lubbock Christian U–are using an early version of this toolkit as a means to broaden foreign language offerings.
What are the next steps?
Phase two of Project DAVID will include even greater focus on identity and collaboration. We welcome connecting with those institutions that are willing to engage with authentic conversation–locally and in collaboration with other institutions–regarding strategic reinvention, identity and collaboration.
The remaining years of this decade will present each of our institutions with “Goliath facing” moments. We encourage you to download and use this eBook as a means to foster conversations of consequence regarding strategic reinvention and future success.
Ann Hill Duin
Professor
University of Minnesota ahduin@umn.edu
NOTE: Since publishing this blog post, the Department released an updated document that includes proposed wording resulting from discussion at the April meeting. — Russ
Members of the U.S. Department of Education’s Negotiated Rulemaking Committee proposed many options for the federal rules that institutions would need to meet regarding the state authorization of distance education. The Department was interested in addressing the concerns expressed by several negotiators. In this post, I highlight what appears to be the latest language on the most important issues.
For those from institutions that offer programs in licensure-related areas (nursing, social work, etc.), whether at a distance or on-campus, be sure to read the section on licensure.
A reminder that the Department personnel are keen on reinstating this regulation. If the Department is going to return this regulation, we want to try to improve the language within the constraints put on us by the Department and the constraints of a negotiated progress. Therefore, this is an update with minimal discussion of merit. I would love your feedback.
Also, there are many items that would require further definition or are left to the states to define. That fact is known. Comments focusing more on the concepts than the fact that a term needs to be defined would be must helpful.
The Department is working on the next version and they have given us a chance to make more suggestions through April 30, so I do not have exact language to share. I will present my best understanding of what is currently on the table. Any errors or misconceptions are purely my own.
Exemptions
The Department originally proposed that states could no longer exempt institutions based upon accreditation, years of service, or “comparable exemption” (such as lack of “physical presence” in a state). There was worry about the impact on state, institutions, and students about such a regulation since we estimate that about 45 states use exemptions. It was unclear if the Department was trying to force an extensive review by each State. They were not. They feel that the state needs to “actively review” the institution based on more criteria than just accreditation, since accreditation’s role is to focus on academic quality.
For exemptions, a state would have to do the following:
Exempt institutions by name. The state would have to take action to exempt an institution and not just post on its website that institutions meeting certain criteria are exempt. A few states do not exempt by name now.
Have a complaint process that allows the state to resolve complaints and enforce applicable state law.
Beyond accreditation, review at least two of the following criteria: the institution’s fiscal viability, refund policy, programs in which students can enroll in that state, estimated tuition and fees for a year, institution’s complaint process, and the institution’s history in providing distance education. Note: This list is of recent construction and could use suggestions.
Thank you to our friends from Boise State University and the University of Alabama-Birmingham for helpful emails with suggestions to me on the exemptions issue.
Implementation Date for the New State Exemption Standard
Based on the clarification of what a state needs to do to exempt an institution, fewer states than originally thought will need to do anything to change their regulations. For those that do need to make changes, there was interest in giving them time to change state laws and implement at process. While the state is working on this, the institution remains eligible up to July 1, 2018. Students enrolled at that point remain eligible through the duration of completing their degree requirements.
It is hoped that all states will have adjusted their exemptions and allowed states to comply by July 1, 2018. A one-year extension is allowed for institutions in states if the institution has applied and the state has not completed processing applications. The Department also gave itself leeway to change the 2018 date, if needed.
Minimum Enrollments in a State
The Department clarified its proposed language regarding 50 percent of a program and added an additional minimum before compliance is required.
The 50 Percent Threshold
Prior to this meeting, the Department suggested that an institution would be subject to this regulation only if it “offers or will offer 50 percent or more of a postsecondary education program through distance or correspondence education to student in that State.” This resulted from a suggestion of mine that the Department align the distance education regulation with their rules regarding “other locations” of an institution that are physically located in another state.
They did clarify that the 50 percent means that it takes only fewer than thirty students (see below) who has completed or plans to complete at least 50 percent of the requirements of their degree via distance or correspondence education while residing in another state to move beyond the 50 percent threshold. It is NOT meant to capture students who are commuting across state lines and taking their courses either face-to-face or via hybrid courses.
They also clarified the if a state has a more stringent requirement, that requirement triggers the need for the institution to follow the federal requirement in that state. For example, some states require approval if you enroll only one student in one course via distance education. Since the state has a more stringent requirement that would trigger the need for the institution to also meet federal requirements in that state.
Thirty Students in a Year
Responding to a suggestion from one of the consumer protection groups, the Department also proposes that if an institution enrolls 30 or fewer students in a State, it is considered to be legally authorized in that state. This is aimed at the instances when an institution enrolls students in only a few courses, enrolls only a few students in a degree program, or is part of an interstate agreement in which students enroll in a few courses from other colleges. The 30 students would be total unduplicated headcount for an academic year.
To be honest with you, the 30 student “de minimis” was given to us late on Friday and there are many details to be figured out about how this works (or does not work) with the 50 percent threshold or how it would work, in general.
Licensure Programs
In licensure programs (such as nursing, physical therapy, teacher education, etc.), institutions would be required to notify students if completion of the programs would meet the educational requirements for certification of sitting for licensure or certification exams in the student’s state. If not, the student could still enroll if the student provides written acknowledgment that the student understands that program does not fulfill those requirements. If applicable, this written notice would include that the student understands if additional requirements (beyond the program, such as coursework, field experience, or other) must be completed to obtain licensure in that state.
Troubling to several negotiators was that this requirement would apply to all licensure programs whether on-campus or at a distance. Since this discussion was advertised as being about distance education, there was worry that this provision was beyond our scope. The Department’s lawyer assured us that it is within our scope.
Reciprocity
There is still strong support for reciprocity in the language even though some negotiators would like to see (what I think are) very strict requirements on reciprocal agreements. Some new proposed language includes:
There was discussion about what happens if a student “is not satisfied with the result of the student complaint process provide for under the agreement.” The current thinking is that student’s can also complain in their home states unless that home state actively participated in the original complaint process.
Changing the previous requirement that institutions automatically lose their right to grant aid in state if the institution’s state withdraws or is removed from a reciprocity agreement. That action could be beyond the institution’s control and there is time given for the institution to seek authorization on its own.
Next Steps and Final Words
The Department is taking suggestions from negotiators by April 30. The Committee holds its final meeting on May 19-20. Based on the outcome of this process, the Department will create a final version and hold an open comment period.
The Department has made numerous changes and improvements based upon suggestions by the negotiators. They are to be commended for this.
Even so, the negotiators are trying to judge the impact of the entire package. Your input on these key issues will help.
Russell Poulin
Interim Co-Executive Director
WCET – WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technologies
rpoulin@wiche.edu
If you like our work, join WCET!
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
