> Skip to content
FEATURED:
  • The Evolution of Race in Admissions
Sign In
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
Sign In
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
Sign In
ADVERTISEMENT
News
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Show more sharing options
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
  • Copy Link URLCopied!
  • Print

Stay Awake for These 5 Issues During Negotiated Rulemaking

By  Eric Kelderman
January 11, 2019

The process of federal negotiated rulemaking is not sexy, fun, or even easy to understand. But the U.S. Department of Education’s latest effort to rewrite regulations could have deep consequences for higher education.

Next week the department begins a new round of rulemaking, bringing together dozens of higher-education constituents to try to hammer out agreement on numerous proposed changes in regulations, primarily relating to accreditation.

While accreditation is granted by private, nonprofit organizations, there are scores of federal requirements for the groups, which function as gatekeepers for more than $100 billion in student aid that the government gives out every year. In general, the proposed changes would lower the requirements for accrediting agencies and for colleges seeking accreditation, especially institutions that offer online programs.

We’re sorry. Something went wrong.

We are unable to fully display the content of this page.

The most likely cause of this is a content blocker on your computer or network. Please make sure your computer, VPN, or network allows javascript and allows content to be delivered from c950.chronicle.com and chronicle.blueconic.net.

Once javascript and access to those URLs are allowed, please refresh this page. You may then be asked to log in, create an account if you don't already have one, or subscribe.

If you continue to experience issues, contact us at 202-466-1032 or help@chronicle.com

The process of federal negotiated rulemaking is not sexy, fun, or even easy to understand. But the U.S. Department of Education’s latest effort to rewrite regulations could have deep consequences for higher education.

Next week the department begins a new round of rulemaking, bringing together dozens of higher-education constituents to try to hammer out agreement on numerous proposed changes in regulations, primarily relating to accreditation.

While accreditation is granted by private, nonprofit organizations, there are scores of federal requirements for the groups, which function as gatekeepers for more than $100 billion in student aid that the government gives out every year. In general, the proposed changes would lower the requirements for accrediting agencies and for colleges seeking accreditation, especially institutions that offer online programs.

Advocates for more accountability in higher education have mostly criticized the proposals as an invitation to lower-quality programs and predatory institutions.

ADVERTISEMENT

The meetings will take place over several days for the next three months and will be live-streamed for those who have a high tolerance for tedium. If that’s not you, here are five particularly important issues that will be discussed.

Accreditor recognition. In order for accrediting agencies to serve as gatekeepers for federal student aid, they must be recognized every five years by the Education Department — a sort of accreditation for accreditors. Under the last reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, which was passed in 2008, that process became more rigorous. More recently, the department began putting more pressure on accreditors about the student outcomes at the colleges the groups oversee.

Under the proposed rules, the department would streamline the recognition process, limiting the kinds of negative information about an accreditor’s members, such as lawsuits, that the government can consider when assessing an accreditor. Accrediting agencies could also gain federal recognition if they were only “substantially” compliant with federal rules, rather than completely meeting those standards.

Credit hours. In 2010 the Education Department set a definition for the amount of time an academic program should last for the purpose of awarding federal aid. The definition was necessary, the department said, because some institutions had been inflating the amount of credit they awarded for very short programs. American InterContinental University, for example, offered a nine-credit course over five weeks.

The department is proposing to eliminate the federal definition of the credit hour because some accreditors and distance-education providers have complained that the rule prevents them from offering competency-based programs that rely on a student’s mastery of a topic rather than the length of the course.

ADVERTISEMENT

Outsourcing education. Colleges now can allow up to half of an education program to be provided by an unaccredited entity, such as a private company that offers college courses. During the negotiated rulemaking, the department wants to consider raising or possibly eliminating that cap. In that case, an entire program could be offered under a college’s name even if it provided none of the instruction.

‘Regular and substantive’ interaction. Since the internet has become widely used for online courses, federal regulations have maintained a distinction between correspondence programs, which are typically self-paced, and distance courses, which are more traditionally structured. To prevent abuses, the latter require that students have “regular and substantive” interaction with an instructor. The “regular and substantive” rule also now applies to competency-based programs that want to avoid the stricter limitations on correspondence courses.

That rule was at the center of a bombshell report by the department’s inspector general in 2017. The report said Western Governors University, a nonprofit institution known for its competency-based teaching model, had violated the rule and so should repay more than $700 million in federal student aid. Consistent with the changes it is proposing in the process that begins next week, the department announced on Friday that the university had not broken the rule after all, and so would not have to repay that huge sum.

Under the department’s proposal, accreditors and colleges would have more flexibility in setting the amount of interaction and the definition of who would qualify as an instructor.

ADVERTISEMENT

State authorization. Under the Obama administration, the department finalized a rule requiring colleges to be authorized to operate in every state where they enrolled students online. The rule was meant to strengthen state consumer-protection laws and renew the state’s role as part of the “triad” overseeing higher education — including the federal government and the accreditors.

That rule was delayed under the Trump administration, and the proposed regulations would largely eliminate the previous state-authorization mandates, possibly eliminating requirements that programs offered in a state meet rules for state licensure and allowing students to pursue complaints about a program in their home state.

Andrew Mytelka contributed to this article.

Eric Kelderman writes about money and accountability in higher education, including such areas as state policy, accreditation, and legal affairs. You can find him on Twitter @etkeld, or email him at eric.kelderman@chronicle.com.

A version of this article appeared in the January 25, 2019, issue.
We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Leadership & GovernanceFinance & OperationsLaw & PolicyPolitical Influence & Activism
Eric Kelderman
Eric Kelderman covers issues of power, politics, and purse strings in higher education. You can email him at eric.kelderman@chronicle.com, or find him on Twitter @etkeld.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Related Content

  • Issues of Accreditation Predominate in New Rule-Making Announced by Education Dept.
  • Explore
    • Get Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Blogs
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Find a Job
    Explore
    • Get Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Blogs
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Find a Job
  • The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • DEI Commitment Statement
    • Write for Us
    • Talk to Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • User Agreement
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Site Map
    • Accessibility Statement
    The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • DEI Commitment Statement
    • Write for Us
    • Talk to Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • User Agreement
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Site Map
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Customer Assistance
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise With Us
    • Post a Job
    • Advertising Terms and Conditions
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
    Customer Assistance
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise With Us
    • Post a Job
    • Advertising Terms and Conditions
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
  • Subscribe
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Manage Your Account
    Subscribe
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Manage Your Account
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2023 The Chronicle of Higher Education
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin