Dear Secretary Cardona,
We write to you today on behalf of the Presidents Forum, which is composed of seventeen non-profit institutions committed to innovation in higher education and representing nearly a million students. The Forum is dedicated to prioritizing student needs and success above all other interests. With this approach and the unique student population we serve, we have become the leading voice for working learners in America.
As institutions that utilize technology and innovation to best serve our students, we emphasize the need for parity in mode and method regulation. As the education environment evolves, the importance for regulatory consistency has become more evident. We are committed to continuously improving student success outcomes for all students. We also are very concerned about the proposed regulations that focus on instructional modality and method rather than on outcomes. These regulations will be counter productive and will lead to accountability for the wrong metrics.
At the foundation of all of our comments today is our belief that embracing technology and innovation in higher education is radically improving student access and outcomes. Accountability and transparency are necessary components to ensure innovation leads to improved outcomes. Regulators should advance accountability and transparency that is agnostic to modality and reveres student outcomes as paramount.
Today, we write to apply this paradigm to proposed language contained in the July 23, 2024, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. In general, we worry these proposed changes are representative of a broader approach to roll back and limit distance learning. Specifically, our comments concern the proposed language contained in §668.41(h), §668.22(b)(3)(ii), and 600.2(1)(iv).
668.41(h): Reporting of student enrollment in distance education or correspondence courses. For each recipient of title IV, HEA assistance at the institution, the institution must report to the Secretary, in accordance with procedures established by the Secretary, the recipient’s enrollment in distance education or correspondence courses.
668.22(b)(3)(ii): An institution must, within 14 days of a student’s last date of attendance, document a student’s withdrawal date determined in accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of this section and maintain the documentation as of the date of the institution’s determination that the student withdrew.
600.2(1)(iv): In distance education, 50 to 60 minutes in a 60-minute period of attendance in a synchronous class, lecture, or recitation, where there is opportunity for direct interaction between the instructor and students.
In the case of 668.41(h), we understand that distance education courses are regulated under the Higher Education Act, and therefore requiring enrollment reporting is reasonable. Our greater concern is with the usage of this data once collected. It would be inappropriate to use this information to compare the quality of online and in-person learning. This study, published by the Center for Higher Education Policy and Practice, explains the dangers in making such comparisons. In short, “…Online, blended, and in-person delivery are modalities for learning, not proxies for the quality of instruction, pedagogy, and course design.” (Pg. 7)
Our principle of regulatory parity leads us to be extremely concerned about 668.22(b)(3)(ii). While we recognize and appreciate the intention of protecting taxpayer dollars by returning Title IV funds that are not being used appropriately, we believe the proposed rule violates this principle of parity. While many of our institutions have access to data to help identify when engaged distance-learners cease to engage, creating standards that aren’t applied to all modalities is problematic. The proposed carve-out for doctoral candidates further reinforces the perception that the Department treats elements of traditional education differently than online programs. We recommend that all institutions make timely title IV refunds regarding student withdrawals using the best data available to the institution regarding a student’s last date of attendance.
The concept of attendance is rooted in traditional in-person higher education. Our institutions are the leading forces in using innovation to better meet students where they are, and providing a learning process that works for them. This means that distance learning is more than creating an in-person classroom through video conferencing. In these unique and strategic modalities, the traditional usage of classroom attendance limits learners and diminishes our ability to provide accessible educational opportunities to learners of all backgrounds and at all stages of life. Furthermore, applying attendance as a measure of academic engagement for asynchronous learning and not for synchronous learning is an example of inconsistent regulation of modality.
Our concerns also involve the proposed definition change included in 600.2(1)(iv), which eliminates asynchronous instruction under the definition of “clock-hour.” Requirements that restrict asynchronous education limit the flexibility that many working learners need in order to be successful.
The assumption behind the proposed removal of asynchronous education from the definition of “clock-hour” is concerning. Asynchronous education is inherently no less effective than synchronous activities, and students can receive the same (or higher) level and quality of instruction from asynchronous learning opportunities. Again, we urge regulation promulgation that focuses on outcomes, rather than modality.
The Presidents Forum and Department of Education share the goal of providing quality, effective, and affordable higher education to learners across the country. Our institutions provide an invaluable resource to working and underprivileged learners, and maintain that parity in regulation, transparency, and accountability are necessary to providing the highest quality education to all students.
Sincerely,
Wesley Smith
Executive Director
Presidents Forum