Skip to content

In a time of transitioning administrations, we ask, where do we go from here?

by Brenda Amaya, DEAC Accreditation Coordinator

For the last several weeks, Washington, D.C. seems to have been stifled by a cloud of uncertainty. Where do we go from here?You may have been wondering, will the Department of Education be dismantled? How will the new administration impact the education landscape? And most importantly, should you create a twitter account? Or better yet: If you have one, should you delete it?

With the confirmation of the new U.S. secretary of education, Betsy DeVos, the lingering cloud appears to be dispersing offering us an indication of the department’s likely direction for the next four years. Last week, I had the pleasure of attending the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) annual conference down the street from the White House. The conference presentations shed light on a multitude of issues and I hope to provide you with greater insight on the anticipated shifts of our education landscape.

This year’s conference featured congressional members from both sides of the aisle, each of whom spoke on the current political environment and its impact on the education landscape. I have summarized a comparison of the political stances of Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-North Carolina), Chair, House Committee on Education and the Workforce, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts), Member, Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. My key takeaways from these presentations are:

Prospects of Federal Regulation

  • Foxx explained that regulations would be rolled back under the new administration. Constraining regulations have contributed to the overwhelming administrative burden, and Foxx indicated that the House committee would focus on eliminating unnecessary cost to encourage continued support for accreditation standards. She said that, ultimately, it should be within the accreditor’s discretion to determine the manner of assessing quality of education.
  • Warren’s speech was a call to action for accreditors to actively participate with the federal government in safeguarding the government’s investment in education. She explained that it was not necessary for federal regulations to mandate the role of accreditors to protect students and that accreditors should work with the government by sharing information to take action against abusive institutions.

Deciding the Accreditor’s Role

  • Foxx agreed that accreditors should be entrusted to assess quality of education. She also cautioned that limited government reach does not excuse accreditors from their commitment to quality and improved student outcomes. Foxx explained that Congress’ role is not to direct accreditors on what is considered high-quality education, nor is it to indicate the outcomes that need to be monitored.
  • Warren expressed her continued support of reform for the broken accreditation system that primarily focuses on inputs as opposed to the direct assessment of outcomes. Warren explained that, if accreditors are negligent in their responsibility to protect students, the federal government is willing to take responsibility, no matter how large the accreditor or how many schools it oversees. Her speech invoked the previous administration’s endorsement of accreditors as enforcers of federal regulation.

The Promise for Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act

Foxx and Warren have opposing views on most issues, but they agreed on the obligation to prioritize the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act (HEA).

  • Foxx expressed optimism about the reauthorization of the HEA. She explained that the committee is currently working on the issue, but it does not have a timeline. Foxx said, “While HEA reauthorization is a top priority, it is not our only education priority.”
  • Warren reiterated her support of the previously proposed Accreditation Reform and Enhanced Accountability Act. Sens. Warren, Dick Durban, D-Ill., and Brian Schat, D-Hawaii, originally introduced the bill last year. The bill (1) proposes that the Department of Education establish outcome data that accreditors could use to monitor institutions, (2) requires accreditors to act aggressively and swiftly to sanction abusive institutions, and (3) requires accreditors to continue to ensure accountability of institutions.

The administration’s new direction remains uncertain, but one thing is clear: We must move forward. As you consider this insight, do you anticipate a new direction for your institution?

Brenda Amaya is the Accreditation Coordinator for the Distance Education Accrediting Commission (DEAC). She has been part of the DEAC team since 2012.

Legal Obligations to Online Students Under Title IX: Threshold Issues and Practical Considerations

keyboard_gavel_2Title IX compliance is an important issue that must not be overlooked by providers of distance education courses, programs and other online learning environments. DEAC thanks Gregory Ferenbach, Paul Thompson, and Naomi Harralson May from Cooley for graciously granting their permission to provide our Compass readers with their policy brief first published in Unbound.

Innovators in online education are hardly strangers to the legal uncertainty that often accompanies efforts to interpret and apply old laws to new realities. This post and the policy brief linked herein discusses one such area: legal obligations to online students under the federal statutory provision referred to as “Title IX,” which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in most educational programs and activities that receive federal funds. Specifically, 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a) states, “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”

Since Title IX was adopted in 1972, federal agencies have developed regulations and policy guidance that are both copious and far-reaching. In addition, recent incidents of sexual assault at many high-profile institutions have moved Title IX compliance into the national spotlight. Institutions that fail to comply with Title IX may face federal agency compliance reviews as well as individual lawsuits from victims and alleged offenders, both of which can be costly and may result in reputational damage.

If an institution receives federal funds in any form, then the institution’s “education programs and activities” (not just those that actually use the funds) are covered under Title IX, regardless of whether the entity is public, private, or proprietary. Even entities that do not qualify as an institution of higher education may be subject to Title IX. There is no exception under Title IX for online courses or programs. Furthermore, “education programs and activities” are not limited to credit-bearing courses but include activities that are extracurricular, research-oriented, or occupational in nature. They include programs and activities that are not directly operated by a recipient entity, but that the recipient entity requires or considers equivalent to an education program or activity, such as clinical experiences, internships, and participation in online discussion boards.

Thus, Title IX applies equally to adult learners enrolled in one online class a week and to full-time students living on campus, and regardless of whether you provide online courses as an extension of a large research university or as a corporation that has received a federal grant for workforce training that is offered online.

To learn more about this topic and the threshold issues for assessing compliance in distance education courses and other online environments, read the policy brief in its entirety here.

Distance Education and Professional Licensing

DEAC is pleased to welcome guest blogger, Sharyl Thompson, CEOsharyl of Higher Education Regulatory Consulting to offer her insights on the complexities of distance education programs and professional licensing.

Contrary to many predictions 15 to 20 years ago, distance education has not diminished or faded away. A recent report published by WCET (WCET Distance Education Report) shows the number of online enrollments has risen from 1.6 million in 2002 to 5.8 million in 2014. With the increase in distance education opportunities has come an increase in regulatory oversight – federal, state, and accreditors.

Although state authorization regulations have been in place for many years, many institutions were unaware of them until 2010 when the U.S. Department of Education proposed new rules under the Higher Education Act. And although the federal oversight of distance education was set aside by a federal court decision, institutions all over the country learned they must take measures to be in compliance with the authorization regulations of each state. Far too many institutions are still not addressing this important issue. Furthermore, institutions that offer programs that lead to a professional license are coming under greater scrutiny.

As state higher education regulators became more aware that institutions were offering licensure-track programs through distance education, they began, in the interest of consumer protection, to pay closer attention to whether or not such programs offered to students in their states met the professional licensure requirements in their state. From the institutional perspective, many believe that, as long as they know their licensure-track programs meet the professional licensure requirements in the state of their main campus or headquarters, that would be sufficient. This is not always the case, especially for distance education programs.

With distance education in the mix, it is vitally important that institutions be aware of where their licensure-track programs do not meet professional licensure requirements and disclose that information to the general public.

At the very least, institutions need to know where their students intend to practice the licensed profession for which they are studying. Why? Here’s an example: if I am a student taking courses in Minnesota from an institution located in Florida, I wouldn’t want to go through the entire program only to find out that I can only get licensed in Florida when I have no intention of practicing my profession there. Not only would I have spent thousands of dollars, I also would have spent thousands of hours – time that can never be regained.

A second responsibility for institutions is that, when they know (because they’ve done the research – or hired to have it done) that a licensure track program they are offering does not meet the professional licensing requirements in another state, they are responsible to disclose that information to the general public. The disclosure responsibility starts with ethics—doing the right thing. But it is more than that. Disclosure requirements are mandated in some state regulations and are included in the misrepresentation rules of the U.S. Department of Education (http://www2.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/finrule/2010-4/102910a.pdf). So, not disclosing is against the law. The State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement (SARA) also has disclosure requirements.

Institutions should act now and not wait. Institutions have an important obligation to inform students of whether or not the programs they are taking meet the professional licensure requirements in the state in which they intend to practice

Digital Accessibility – Know and Understand the Issues

By guest blogger: Lucien “Skip” Capone III, JD

illuminated-keyboard-1242287

Last November I attended a conference on regulatory compliance in higher education. The conference was held by my professional organization, the National Association of College and University Attorneys (NACUA). One of the sessions focused upon federal regulation of accessibility to online education under the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and accessibility to online course materials and school websites for students with disabilities.

I have been following this topic for several years with growing concern about implications for institutions that operate primarily online. It is important for institutions to fully understand the complexity of the issue. Most of the federal government’s enforcement actions have involved large, state-run institutions and on-line institutions. The evidence of this trend is embodied in a Complaint Resolution Agreement signed by the University of Phoenix with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) last June (2015). OCR’s investigation began after a student complained that the institution’s new online learning platform, “New Classroom,” was inaccessible to students using assistive technology. Highlights of the Resolution Agreement include requirements that the University:

• Create policies and procedures ensuring that new online content will be accessible as measured by the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 2.0).
• Audit accessibility of existing content, websites, portals, financial aid, admissions, and library resources and develop a corrective action plan to address problems within 18 months.
• Verify that content purchased from third-party vendors is accessible.
• Provide training for faculty, administrators and content providers at least annually.
• Put in place an IT Disability Coordinator.
• Have trained staff monitor Webpage; remediation must be accomplished within 24 hours of submission.
• Waive fees and tuition for the student and reimburse her for the cost of courses where she had accessibility issues.

Currently, there are no federal regulations that specifically address online accessibility for public or private institutions. All we have are general statements in the ADA and Section 504 that a school’s programs and offerings must be equally accessible to students with and without disabilities. The U.S. Department of Justice has been promising proposed regulations on this topic for at least 10 years but keeps delaying them (currently they are promised to be published this spring). The only other regulatory source is Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act governing accessibility of electronic and information technology. However, Section 508, by its terms, only applies to federal agencies. Nevertheless, the OCR appears to use them as the yardstick for measuring compliance with the general accessibility requirement of the ADA and Section 504.

Maintaining in-house expertise capable of implementing the Section 508 as well as WCAG 2.0 standards is an enormous undertaking. However, George Mason University (GMU) has published a very helpful Guide to Creating Accessible Electronic Materials and series of video tutorials. It is very important to review these materials and assess the steps your institution is taking to address digital accessibility.

How long can an institution go without at least starting this process? Not long. As learned from the University of Phoenix case, all it takes is a single complaint to OCR from a student or applicant. Once the complaint is received, OCR has carte blanche to look at an institution’s entire program, not limited in any way to the specifics of the complaint. If OCR finds that an institution is not in compliance, meeting its demands will be very costly (often including financial compensation to disadvantaged students and applicants).

I urge institutions to understand digital accessibility. In late December 2015, nine Democratic senators (Edward J. Markey (D-Mass), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Cory A. Booker (D-N.J.), Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.), Al Franken (D-Minn.) and Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.)) sent a joint letter to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) requesting that office “complete its review” of the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) “Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking” (ANPRM) for public accommodations websites, online systems, and other information and communication technologies (ICT).  Although the regulatory process moves at a glacial pace, it is very important to stay informed.

Skip Capone recently retired after spending 24 years as a campus general counsel in the University of North Carolina system. He has been a speaker on legal issues in higher education at several DEAC conferences and actively participates as a site team member.

December 6, 2015: Blurred Lines

By Susan Chiaramonte

blurred pic

In 2010, the U.S. Department of Education published regulations strengthening its misrepresentation rules (see 34 CFR § 668.71). Whether the public or the education sector knew it, these revised regulations expanded the Department’s scope of reach to cover any misleading information made by an institution, its employees, its agents (such as lead generation firms and education technology vendors) and any third party. Not only does the DOE regulation cover actual misleading statements, but also any statements that are likely to mislead students or the public. A violation of these regulations can lead to severe fines up to and including the loss of Title IV eligibility for institutions.

While the Department has not overtly expanded the use of this extended authority, mounting tensions are bringing change. The Department is facing increasing criticism regarding its oversight of the higher education sector which is trickling down to accrediting organizations and ultimately, institutions. For years this attention has been focused on for-profit institutions, but the recent Federal Trade Commission workshop that took place in Washington D.C. in October paints a different future.

Some may ask, “What does the Federal Trade Commission have to do with the Department’s 2010 regulations?” Well, the story continues in 2013 when the Federal Trade Commission updated their official guidance on deceptive marketing practices in the education sector. You may hear these guidelines commonly referred to as the Guides. To avoid any incorrect interpretations of the Guides, the following is an excerpt from FTC Focuses on Lead Generation Practices in Higher Education and Ed Tech:

…the Guides identified particular conduct that constitutes a deceptive practice, including any representation without qualification that a school is accredited, unless all courses and programs are accredited and any misrepresentation through pictures about facilities, training methods, or equipment.

Initially, the Guides were focused on vocational and distance education institutions, but with its publication, the FTC made it clear that it would enforce regulations against for-profit corporations in education which include lead generation companies and other related service providers. While every story has a villain, the antagonist in this tale is a little less clear.

Many in the education sector would like to point fingers at the increasing Federal oversight; however, the mounting complaints from students would indicate that institutions are also at fault for taking marketing liberties. As a society, we have found ways to entice consumers through effective marketing practices that may stretch the boundaries of truth-in-advertising.

Over the years, education has become a growing competitive market. Advancements in technology have allowed educational opportunities across geographic borders. The increase in accessibility provides challenges for institutions as they struggle to differentiate themselves from their competitors. While the struggles are real, there are three reasons institutions should take this heightened scrutiny seriously, the least of which centers on the Department’s and the FTC’s renewed focus.

  1. Do the Right Thing: Sometimes the answer is as simple as just doing the right thing. No one likes to be lied to, no matter how insignificant the consequences. Many students enroll in programs without understanding the “ins and outs” of higher education. Institutions have the responsibility to clearly communicate program benefits, requirements and costs. No games. Just the truth.
  2. Mirror, Mirror: Students can see through the façade. People want authenticity. They want the good, bad and the ugly, as long as it’s honest. They want to believe in something bigger and have respect for institutions that take responsibility for their actions. While deceptive marketing practices may initially lead to increased enrollments, they are not likely to turn into increased retention and completion rates. At the very least these deceptive marketing practices will leave a bad taste in students’ mouth, and at most, it will lead to negative word-of-mouth advertising. Institutions need to focus advertising and promotional efforts on the truth. Stand behind your “why” and students will believe and buy in too.
  3. Culture Club: Creating a culture that focuses on students and their success is the key to building honest relationships. A culture that focuses on the best interests of its students has built-in mechanisms to guard against the need for perceived innocent exaggeration. When serving students becomes the focus, institutions work harder to innovate and deliver programs and services that enable students to achieve their goals.

Institutions can take proactive steps to protect themselves, but more importantly they can implement practices that place student interests first. Students are looking for honesty, authenticity and sincerity. In a highly competitive and hostile environment, institutions can survive by avoiding blurred lines and doing the right thing. How does your institution focus on the truth-in-advertising and avoid blurring the lines? Join the conversation.

Susan Chiaramonte is President of EduCred Services. EduCred Services is a higher education consulting firm. EduCred Services mentors clients to adapt their unique strengths, programs, and organizational structures in support of educational options that are recognized for their value by meeting the needs of the 21st century student.