< Back to Main Site

EDUCAUSE review onlineEDUCAUSE review online

Online Learning Challenges: State Authorization, Federal Regulation

0 Comments

Policy Matters

Jarret Cummings (jcummings@educause.edu) is Policy Specialist in the EDUCAUSE Washington, D.C., office.

Comments on this article can be posted to the web via the link at the bottom of this page.

In his ­2011 State of the Union address, Barack Obama, president of the United States, stressed the importance of higher education to the nation’s future: “To compete, higher education must be within the reach of every American.”1 If this sounds familiar, it should. Presidents have been saying this since at least the 1980s. However, the Obama administration has tangibly demonstrated that it sees postsecondary education as central to the future of the United States. For example, it has consistently defended the Pell Grant increase initiated in 2009, even insisting on its preservation during debt-ceiling negotiations. To make the increase possible, it passed through Congress the most significant reform in federal student financial aid since the creation of the Direct Loan Program: the termination of the guaranteed student loan program, in which private lenders received subsidies to provide students with loans that the government largely guaranteed; and the reallocation of the program’s funds to expand the Pell Grant. In arguing for this shift, the administration stressed the need to maximize the country’s limited financial aid resources to support higher education access.

Even before the president’s speech, the U.S. Department of Education had begun to more actively exercise its regulatory authority over student financial aid, primarily motivated by concerns about for-profit institutions. Such institutions enroll 10 percent of postsecondary students while receiving roughly 25 percent of federal financial aid and accounting for 44 percent of student loan defaults within three years of graduation.2 Given these statistics, the department argued that the nation could no longer afford the double-edged sword of wasted resources and highly indebted students unable to repay their loans. It put forward new “program integrity” regulations to increase the likelihood that federal financial aid would support students in programs worth the personal and national investment.

The department acted, though, without fully realizing the impact its steps would have. The main example of this involves changes to the state authorization requirements for distance learning, including online learning. In its June 2010 notice of proposed rulemaking, the department reiterated the historical interpretation of state authorization—that is, to participate in federal financial aid programs, an institution had to be authorized to offer postsecondary education by the state in which it was physically located. The proposed regulations at that time simply clarified the standards for what counted as “state authorization.”3 When the department posted the final regulations in October 2010, however, it had inserted a new requirement for distance education programs. In essence, the new regulation clearly tied, for the first time, the financial aid eligibility of students in distance learning programs to whether their institutions are authorized by the state in which the student, not the institution, is located.4

Department officials likely viewed this as a modest revision to address an earlier oversight. After all, institutions have to follow state laws where they operate, so they should know if they need state authorization to deliver online learning where they have students. As the department would find, however, the law of unintended consequences thrives on such assumptions. Under the prior interpretation of state authorization, institutions had forged ahead with the delivery of online courses and programs, focusing on whether their students could access federal aid, not whether the institution might run afoul of another state’s laws. And few, if any, states were scouring the web for signs that authorization requirements were not being followed. Their processes were (and are) staffed largely to deal with a relative handful of new location-based or correspondence provider requests each year, not an online universe in which their citizens might easily access options from hundreds of providers located anywhere.

Concern about the reinterpretation of state authorization grew as institutions nationwide became aware that the new provision meant they had to fulfill the authorization processes, regardless of length or expense, of every state in which they had online students if they wanted to preserve those students’ access to federal financial aid. And some state processes could be quite lengthy and expensive, leading one online institution to estimate its cost for complying with all states’ authorization requirements at $150,000–$200,000 annually.5 Largely in response to college and university arguments about how burdens such as these might limit the provision of online learning, legislation was introduced in Congress to rescind the regulation.6 However, the new requirement was overturned in federal court before the bill could be acted on because the department had not allowed for sufficient public review and comment on it before publishing it in final form.7

The department has filed a notice indicating that it will ask a federal appeals court to overturn the lower court’s ruling, but the grounds for the appeal or when it might be heard is unknown at the time of this writing. To date, though, the distance learning provision has been the only part of its “program integrity” regulations overturned. With the regulations having taken effect on July 1, a number of complications for colleges and universities remain. For example, the issue of a federal definition of the credit hour as included in the regulations remains unresolved. Many in higher education view the definition as vague and unworkable, especially for online courses and programs. It is also considered to be a significant encroachment on the ability of institutions and academic programs to appropriately define the credit hour in relation to the demands of a given program.8

In addition, the regulations impose a new standard on distance learning programs for determining the last date of attendance for students who unofficially withdraw from their courses before completion. Previously, institutions could use the last date on which an online student logged in to the institution’s learning management system or online course as the withdrawal date and could calculate how much of the student’s financial aid to return to the department on that basis. Now an online student has to have actively participated in an academically meaningful class or faculty discussion for an online contact to qualify in establishing the last date of attendance. This creates different standards for online and traditional courses where none existed previously. Worse yet, the department has tried to apply the new criteria retroactively in enforcement actions, requiring institutions to return funds they previously would not have returned and threatening “substantial financial penalties” for decisions taken under the prior regulations.9

And even though the state authorization provision was overturned, another requirement—that institutions must make available, to distance learning students, information about where they can file complaints against the institution in the student’s state—was not.10 Likewise, over 80 percent of institutions participating in federal financial aid programs must comply with new reporting requirements governing how programs that are intended to prepare students for specific occupations (both degree and non-degree programs at for-profit institutions, and largely non-degree programs at non-profit institutions) can show that they are preparing students for “gainful employment.”11

Collectively, these policy developments illustrate some critical considerations for online learning. Traditional institutions are encountering, and most likely will continue to encounter, significant effects from the federal efforts to limit proprietary-sector financial aid abuses. In many ways, these effects arise from a failure to adapt the regulatory framework for financial aid to the unique context of online learning. And although these effects have highlighted the need to update that framework and the relationships it defines between students, institutions, states, and federal agencies, much of the work has not been effectively started, much less accomplished. In the interim, traditional colleges and universities will continue to face the unintended consequences of federal action in the form of increased financial and administrative burdens, providing significant motivation for collective engagement by federal, state, and institutional stakeholders to develop a regulatory structure that works for online learning.

Notes

1. The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, “Remarks by the President in State of Union Address,” January 25, 2011, <http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/25/remarks-president-state-union-address>.

2. PBS, “College, Inc.,” FRONTLINE, May 4, 2010, <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/collegeinc/view/>.

3. “Part II, Department of Education: Program Integrity Issues; Proposed Rule,” Federal Register, vol. 75, no. 117, June 18, 2010, p. 34850, <http://www2.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/proprule/2010-2/061810a.pdf>.

4. “Part II, Department of Education: Program Integrity Issues; Final Rule,” Federal Register, vol. 75, no. 209, October 29, 2010, p. 66867, <http://www2.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/finrule/2010-4/102910a.pdf>.

5. David Moltz, “Educators See Federal Overreach,” Inside Higher Ed, March 14, 2011, <http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/03/14/members_of_congress_and_college_officials_debate_higher_education_regulations>.

6. Molly Corbett Broad, President to President, vol. 12, no. 25 (June 27–July 1, 2011), American Council on Education, <http://www.acenet.edu/AM/Template.cfm?Section=2011P2P&CONTENTID=41821&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm#2>.

7. Doug Lederman, “’State Authorization’ Struck Down,” Inside Higher Ed, July 13, 2011, <http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/07/13/judge_voids_u_s_requirement_that_online_programs_get_state_approval>.

8. Moltz, “Educators See Federal Overreach.”

9. WICHE Cooperative on Educational Technologies et al., “Joint Statement of Concern Regarding the U.S. Department of Education’s Recent Enforcement of Last Date of Attendance Regulations,” April 14, 2011, <http://wcet.wiche.edu/wcet/docs/lastday-april2010/JointStatementOfConcern04-15-11.pdf>.

10. Russ Poulin et al., “Federal Student Complaint Regulation: Clarifying Misconceptions,” WCET Frontiers, July 19, 2011, <http://wcetblog.wordpress.com/2011/07/19/federal-student-complaint-regulation-%E2%80%93-clarifying-misconceptions/>.

11. Federal Student Aid, U.S. Department of Education, National Student Loan Data System Gainful Employment User Guide (Version 3.0), August 4, 2011, <http://ifap.ed.gov/nsldsmaterials/attachments/NSLDSGEUserGuide.pdf>.

EDUCAUSE Review, vol. 46, no. 6 (November/December 2011)

Jarret Cummings

Jarret Cummings serves as a policy specialist in the EDUCAUSE Washington Office. In this role, he advocates on behalf of higher education IT in relevant legislative and regulatory contexts, especially federal, and collaborates with representatives of EDUCAUSE member institutions to promote and facilitate effective, consistent institutional IT policies.

Cummings previously served as Special Assistant to the President of EDUCAUSE. In this capacity, he supported the president in assessing strategic and tactical issues and identifying and implementing appropriate solutions. He also supported the president's outreach efforts and managed special projects as assigned. Prior to this role, he served EDUCAUSE as Program Administrator for the EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative (ELI). In that position, he contributed to ELI strategic and operational planning while working with other staff members to plan and implement ELI activities, services, and resources.

Before joining ELI, Cummings worked for SunGard Collegis in information technology (IT) strategic planning, institutional strategic planning, and general management consulting. His clients included colleges and universities of all types. He focused on helping institutions link their technological progress to the achievement of their missions and strategic objectives, including their goals for advancing teaching and learning through technology.

Cummings began his career as a program analyst working with higher education grant programs at the U.S. Department of Education. After completing a master’s in public administration at Syracuse University, he joined the staff of the Executive Vice Chancellor of the California State University System to coordinate a system-wide strategic planning task force. Following that, Cummings worked with the University of North Carolina system as special projects director and later as special assistant to the system CIO. In those roles, he managed system-wide IT strategic planning and network infrastructure planning projects. He also analyzed state and federal IT policy issues for the system president and CIO and coordinated the CIO’s participation in the state’s joint select committee on information technology.

In addition to the MPA, Cummings holds a bachelor’s in philosophy from Southwestern University. His personal interests include weight training and motorcycling.

 

Tags from the Community

Most Popular

Stay Up-to-Date

RSS Email Twitter

Share Your Work and Ideas

Issues coming up will focus on administrative computing, designing the future of higher ed, digital engagement, and new business models. Share your work and ideas with EDUCAUSE Review Online.

E-mail us >

Purchase

EDUCAUSE Members: $6.00
Non-Members: $6.00
Close
Close


Annual Conference
September 29–October 2
Register Now!

Events for all Levels and Interests

Whether you're looking for a conference to attend face-to-face to connect with peers, or for an online event for team professional development, see what's upcoming.

Close

Digital Badges
Member recognition effort
Earn yours >

Career Center


Leadership and Management Programs

EDUCAUSE Institute
Project Management

 

 

Jump Start Your Career Growth

Explore EDUCAUSE professional development opportunities that match your career aspirations and desired level of time investment through our interactive online guide.

 

Close
EDUCAUSE organizes its efforts around three IT Focus Areas

 

 

Join These Programs If Your Focus Is

Close

Get on the Higher Ed IT Map

Employees of EDUCAUSE member institutions and organizations are invited to create individual profiles.
 

 

Close

2014 Strategic Priorities

  • Building the Profession
  • IT as a Game Changer
  • Foundations


Learn More >

Uncommon Thinking for the Common Good™

EDUCAUSE is the foremost community of higher education IT leaders and professionals.