As the U.S. Education Department considers new rules for the oversight of distance-learning programs, online-education advocates say in a letter to be released on Monday that the toughening of regulations could hurt students instead of helping them.
In the letter, addressed to Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, leaders of three online-education groups call on the department to move away from a more-stringent method of awarding federal student aid based on state authorization. Called “active review,” the proposed regulations would require some state-authorization practices to become more rigorous in order for distance-learning programs to receive aid. Currently, some states grant authorization passively, based on prior accreditation or long-term operation within a state.
While the department has not yet defined what an “active review” must entail, it has suggested that such procedures should include an analysis of an institution’s financial position and its tuition-refund policy.
“The impact of the proposed regulations would be large-scale disruption, confusion, and higher costs for students in the short term,” the letter says. “In addition, there would be no long-term benefits for students.”
Under the draft rules, colleges would have to be approved to operate in each state where they enrolled students online. Colleges have complained that the rule would be burdensome to institutions and states, and would reduce access to online education.
The letter was signed by Kathleen S. Ives, chief executive officer and executive director of the Sloan Consortium; Robert Hansen, chief executive officer at the University Professional and Continuing Education Association; and Mollie McGill and Russell Poulin, interim co-executive directors of the Wiche Cooperative for Educational Technologies, a membership organization that promotes online education with the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education.
Beyond their complaints about the proposed regulations, the online-education groups offer a series of recommendations to the department. Among their proposals, the organizations urge the department to leave regulatory decisions to the states and to allow them to resolve conflicting and deficient rules.
“Trying to influence state practices by adding compliance requirements on out-of-state institutions will not achieve the desired (and seemingly amorphous) goal of improving state practice,” the letter states.
The organizations also press the department to recognize the concept of reciprocity as a means to authorization. Under the reciprocity approach, two states would agree to recognize the authorization of a program by the other state. During negotiations between the department and online-education groups on the proposed “state authorization” rules, reciprocity found favor with both sides and was included in the department’s final draft proposal.
Negotiations deadlocked, however, on the issue of “active review,” which department representatives said they would not abandon. Beginning in February the department and interested parties held periodic meetings on the issue. The possibility of compromise eventually broke down in May, when representatives of the two sides failed to reach consensus.
