Legislation Accreditation and Higher Education

1. Truncated version for distribution July 23, 2014. Legislation Accreditation and Higher Education July 16, 2014 Ann T. Bentz, PhD Office of Academic Affairs Office of the Provost

2. Summary History of the relationship between the federal government and higher education (most material removed in this truncated version) Significance of the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 Consequences of noncompliance

3. Federal Funds for Higher Education 71 percent of students earning a bachelor’s degree graduate with debt, averaging $29,400.

4. US Department of Education • In October 1979, Congress passed Public Law 96-88 which created the present Department of Education • By law, control was still left in the hands of the states WHAT CHANGED?

5. National Center for Education Statistics (July, 2014) Postsecondary Institutions and Cost of Attendance in 2013–14; Degrees and Other Awards Conferred, 2012–13; and 12-Month Enrollment, 2012–13 Public 2- and 4-year institutions increased tuition, room and board, every year State support has decreased Federal support has increased ($166.7 billion in AY12 to $200 billion in AY13; values include military assistance) OVER $1.2 trillion dollars in student loan debt

6. 2008 • 2008 financial crisis resulted in private lenders unable to support student loans • Congress gave the DoE the power to buy student loans • With student loans moving to the federal government, substantial modifications were made to the HEA • By 2010, the entire federal student loan program moved to the federal government; private lenders could no longer provide student loans with government backing

7. Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA) of 2008 (Public Law 110-315)amended and reauthorized the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965 Passed by the House and the Senate on July 31, 2008 Signed by the President on August 14, 2008

8. Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 • Changed the responsibilities of the HE accrediting bodies (HLC) • From 1965 to 2008, HE just needed to be accredited in order to be eligible for Title IV funds • HEOA of 2008, by law, assigned direct monitoring of federal compliance to the accreditors • Now the accreditors must demonstrate to the DoE that institutions are following every federal legislation or the accreditors lose their authority

9. Electronic Code of Federal Regulationshttp://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=bdb908035bd6091e8059682444998375&r=SECTION&n=34y3.1.3.1.3.2.33.7 Title 34: Education PART 602—THE SECRETARY'S RECOGNITION OF ACCREDITING AGENCIESSubpart B—The Criteria for Recognition § 602.16   Accreditation and preaccreditation standards. (a) The agency must demonstrate that it has standards for accreditation, and preaccreditation, if offered, that are sufficiently rigorous to ensure that the agency is a reliable authority regarding the quality of the education or training provided by the institutions or programs it accredits. The agency meets this requirement if— (1) The agency's accreditation standards effectively address the quality of the institution or program in the following areas: (i) Success with respect to student achievement in relation to the institution's mission, which may include different standards for different institutions or programs, as established by the institution, including, as appropriate, consideration of State licensing examinations, course completion, and job placement rates. (ii) Curricula. (iii) Faculty. (iv) Facilities, equipment, and supplies. (v) Fiscal and administrative capacity as appropriate to the specified scale of operations. (vi) Student support services. (vii) Recruiting and admissions practices, academic calendars, catalogs, publications, grading, and advertising. (viii) Measures of program length and the objectives of the degrees or credentials offered. (ix) Record of student complaints received by, or available to, the agency. (x) Record of compliance with the institution's program responsibilities under Title IV of the Act, based on the most recent student loan default rate data provided by the Secretary, the results of financial or compliance audits, program reviews, and any other information that the Secretary may provide to the agency; and (amended in 2009)

10. Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 • Module 1: Program Integrity (http://www2.ed.gov/offices/OSFAP/training/materials/regupdatemod1.pdf) (Link is currently broken – pdf version available) • Module 2: Pell Grant (http://www2.ed.gov/offices/OSFAP/training/materials/regupdatemod2.pdf) (Link is currently broken ) • Module 3: Consumer Information (http://www2.ed.gov/offices/OSFAP/training/materials/regupdatemod3.pdf) (Link is currently broken – pdf version available) • (http://ifap.ed.gov/qadocs/ConsumerModule/ConsumerInfoataGlance.doc) http://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2009/integrity-qa.html Helpful Links: http://www.higheredcompliance.org/resources/program-integrity-rules.html Federal Student Aid Handbook: http://ifap.ed.gov/ifap/byAwardYear.jsp?type=fsahandbook&awardyear=2013-2014

11. Added slide due to broken linksJuly 23, 2014 http://www.higheredcompliance.org/resources/program-integrity-rules.html “Program Integrity Rules In 2010, the Department of Education adopted a new set of rules with major implications for colleges and universities. The new program integrity rules primarily focus on Title IV of the Higher Education Act and establish new compliance requirements for administrators to follow. Of the 14 topic areas in which changes were instituted, five topics of significant concern are changes to guidelines regarding credit hours, gainful employment, incentive compensation, misrepresentation and state authorization.”

12. 14 Areas in “Program Integrity” Rules • High School Diploma • Ability to Benefit • Misrepresentation • Incentive Compensation • State Authorization • Credit Hour • Written Arrangements to Provide Education Programs • Verification • Satisfactory Academic Progress • Repeated Course Work • Return of Title IV Funds (Modules) • Return of Title IV Funds (Attendance) • Disbursement for Books/Supplies • Gainful Employment

13. Misrepresentation • Misrepresentation “is any false, erroneous or misleading statement made directly or indirectly to a student, prospective student, member of the public, accrediting agency, state agency, or DoE” 34 C.F.R. 668.71 • “A misrepresentation may be made in writing, visually, orally, or through other means.” • “…a misrepresentation does not require a specific intent to deceive” (http://counsel.cua.edu/res/docs/Program-Integrity-memo.pdf) • Categories of Misrepresentation • Nature of our educational programs • Nature of our financial charges • Employability of our graduates • Relationship with the US Dept of Ed

14. 34 C.F.R. 668.72 • Nature of Educational Programs (list is not comprehensive) • Process and conditions for transferring/accepting credit • Requirements for program completion • Nature and extent of prerequisites • Course recommendations • Grounds for termination from a program • Program objectives • Characteristics of faculty/personnel

15. 34 C.F.R. 668.74 • Misrepresentation about employability of graduates (list is not comprehensive) • Knowledge about current or likely future conditions, compensations, or employment opportunities in program’s industry/occupation • Other requirements generally needed to be employed in the field • Failure to disclose factors that would prevent an applicant from qualifying for job requirements

16. 14 Areas in “Program Integrity” Rules • High School Diploma • Ability to Benefit • Misrepresentation • Incentive Compensation • State Authorization • Credit Hour • Written Arrangements to Provide Education Programs • Verification • Satisfactory Academic Progress • Repeated Course Work • Return of Title IV Funds (Modules) • Return of Title IV Funds (Attendance) • Disbursement for Books/Supplies • Gainful Employment

17. Credit Hour • 34 CFR 600.2, 602.24 • Definition: • Not less than “one hour of classroom or direct faculty instruction and a minimum of two hours out of class student work per week” for 15 weeks (common practice) • Equivalent work as established by the institution for lab work, internships, practica, studio work (NOTE: CDHE has established minimum contact time) • “Regulations create procedures that accrediting agencies must use to determine if an institution’s assignment of a credit hour is acceptable”

18. Credit Hour • One hour = 50 minutes 50 x 3 work hours x 15 weeks = 37.5hours of time that must be allowed for one credit 37.5 hours of time for 1 credit x 3 = 112.5 hours of time that must be allowed for three credits • Think about condensed courses • 112.5 divided by 5 = 22.5 hrs/day • 112.5 divided by 7 = 16 hrs/day

21. http://www.grantland.net/compliance.htm Past: we could show that our policies/procedures existed NO LONGER ACCEPTABLE Present: we must demonstrate that practice matches policy

22. HLC • In preparation for HLC • accountability worksheets based on federal “program integrity rules”

23. HLC • Worksheets • Credit hours • Delivery formats • Contact hours • Separate identification of all courses in compressed format, self-paced, or other alternate structure (“…a single five-week course awarding 10 credits would be subject to inquiry and justification.”) • Comparison of credits awarded across terms • Per term, number of UG students taking >18 credit hours; number of grad students taking >15 credit hours

24. HLC • Reviewers are to • “Scan course schedules to determine how frequently courses meet each week and what other scheduled activities are required for each course.” • “Pay particular attention to alternatively-structured or other courses with particularly high credit hours for a course completed in a short period of time or with less frequently scheduled interaction between student and instructor.” • “Where the institution offers the same course in more than one format, the team is advised to sample across the various formats to test for consistency.”

25. HLC • Worksheets and instructions to reviewers are designed to ensure that students from a Title IV institution are getting federal funding to support programs that are in compliance with federal law (consistency, clarity, rigor, transparency)

26. How do we know? • Bringing 400 current and former students back to class to repair academic integrity of their degrees – university is covering cost of tuition, fees, books • Fraudulently kept students enrolled even though they should have been dropped because of poor grades or attendance; misrepresented a student’s future employability; quoting higher salaries than the students earned; inflating job placement stats – penalty is $5500-$11,000 per student

27. Penalties • HLC withdrew accreditation because the university lacked administrative structure for sufficient oversight of, and resources to support, its teaching and learning process • Falsely certified compliance with federal aid programs - $3.7 million • Falsely certifying compliance with federal aid eligibility - $2.5 million

28. Penalties • Improperly awarded aid; financial need overestimated, exceeded loan limits - $868,000 • Institution placed on Probation by HLC for concerns related to • academic integrity; the quality and rigor of alternative or compressed format courses and programs (ten-day and four-week format); • the effectiveness of teaching and assessment within the alternative or compressed format courses and programs (ten-day and four-week format) • Institution had to immediately (April, 2013) cease offering courses shorter than 8 or 16 weeks

29. Penalties • Fabricated tutoring attendance records - $10 million • Failed to provide students with the educational program it promised - $1.6 million • No evidence of student attendance; other Title IV violations - $232,918 • No documentation that students “participated in an academically related activity”; did not ensure that student began attendance on or after the start of a course - $173,164 • $42,362,391 repayment to DoE

30. DoE Two Years of Negotiated Rulemaking for HEOA Program Integrity • “Comment: Many commenters believed that a Federal credit-hour definition will stifle institutions' ability to develop new and innovative education models, especially with regard to delivery methods. Several commenters believed that institutions' ability to respond creatively to changing pedagogies, circumstances, and student needs would be limited under the proposed credit-hour definition. • A few commenters believed that the proposed credit-hour definition would limit innovation in education at a critical time. One of these commenters believed that because of the economic recession, institutions need to be more innovative in developing alternative delivery methods. One commenter believed that institutions must be able to respond to the rapidly changing education sector. Another commenter believed that other nations are currently developing new educational models and the United States will fall behind these nations in education.” • “A few commenters believed that credit hours are not compatible with technological advancements in education.”

31. Negotiated Rulemaking • “Discussion: We do not agree with the commenters that the credit-hour definition in Sec. 600.2 will limit institutions' flexibility to creatively respond to innovations in educational delivery methods and changing student needs. A fundamental component of the credit-hour definition in Sec. 600.2 provides that institutions must determine the academic activity that approximates the amount of work defined in paragraph (1) based on institutionally established learning outcomes and verifiable student achievement. The definition allows institutions that have alternative delivery methods, measurements of student work, or academic calendars to determine intended learning outcomes and verify evidence of student achievement. • All institutions participating in title IV, HEA programs have a responsibility to ensure appropriate treatment of Federal funds, regardless of course format or educational delivery method. The definition in Sec. 600.2 provides institutions with a baseline for determining the amount of student work necessary for title IV, HEA program eligibility, but does not specify the particular program formats or delivery methods that institutions must use.” “Changes: None.”

32. HLC Annual MeetingApril, 2014NOTE: the information on the next three slides is UNC’s interpretation of the material presented • Federal Compliance Session • New guidelines were put into effect in 2012 • 50 self-studies • 56% had at least one criterion met “with concern” • Automatically results in follow-up action ranging from written report to follow-up visit • Large area of concern – CREDIT HOUR • Reviewers are asked to evaluate for… • Do dates/times on syllabus match published schedule of classes • Do compressed format courses have same learning outcomes, courses requirements for in and out-of class work • Does practice match policies for determining how credit is awarded

33. HLC Annual MeetingApril, 2014(UNC interpretation) • Do processes insure that faculty, adjuncts, internship supervisors, etc. know and apply policies regarding awarding of credit • Are student learning outcomes (SLOs) consistent across varying delivery formats – Faculty and deans need to know about all internal, state, and federal policies regarding credit hour award • Teams review all syllabi from randomly selected programs – looking at SLOs, assignments, courses requirements, etc. to determine whether these are appropriate to the number of credits assigned. Particularly interested in courses delivered through alternate formats • They may ask to sit in on face-to-face courses or in an online course, may want to talk with faculty, including adjuncts, about their awareness of credit hour policies.

34. HLC Annual MeetingApril, 2014(UNC interpretation) Red flags • Class meeting hours don’t match published schedule • SLOs and assignments are different for different delivery modes • Team goes to visit a class and finds it is not meeting at published time • Student complaints about workload for compressed courses (either workload is too high for amount of time available or syllabus substantially changed by eliminating readings, assignments, etc. due to time constraints) • Off campus programs doing their own thing (not abiding by policies) • Adjuncts don’t know about federal compliance requirements related to credit hour policies