Presidents’ Forum of Excelsior College

DRAFT

Memo

To:Members of the Presidents’ Forum

From:John Ebersole, Paul Shiffman

Date:December 6, 2006

Re:Outcomes of the Presidents’ Forum of Excelsior College Working Session, November 14-15, 2006, Hyatt Hotel and Conference Center, Denver, Colorado.

We are writing to thank you for your continued participation in the work of the Presidents’ Forum and to briefly summarize the outcomes of our discussions at the Working Session held in Denver, Colorado on November 14-15, 2006. We would also like to alert you to our plans to convene the next meeting of the Presidents’ Forum on March 22 or 23, 2007 in Washington, D.C. Additional information about this event will be sent to you in the near future.

Background

In March, 2006, the Presidents’ FORUM of ExcelsiorCollege identified important agenda issues for further analysis and action. These issues arise from the widely held concern that institutions that offer educational instruction by means of on-line distance learning are inhibited by at least three significant detrimental forces. The first is divided and frequently conflicting jurisdictional oversight. The second is an erratic marketplace that confuses both consumers of distance learning services as well as educational accreditors and state regulators who have the responsibility to evaluate or authorize the degree programs of distance learning institutions. The third is the relative lack of consistent qualitative data that would improve public information, understanding and confidence in the outcomes of distance learning.

Outcomes of the November 14-15, 2006 Working Session

The FORUMaddressed the agenda issues surfaced at its March, 2006 meeting by creating three study panels each charged to develop a strategy for action toserve as the basis for a program planning Working Session held in Denver, Coloradoon November 14-15, 2006. The organization and outcomes of the panel discussions were as follows:

Panel 1 - Compact for Multi-State Endorsement of Accreditation of Institutions, Chaired by Robert Mendenhall – Western Governors University,was charged to address jurisdictional issues by analyzing the potential for the formation of an Interstate Compact for Accreditation Alliances. Such a Compact mightemploy strategies to encourage trans-regional educational accreditation and, create bilateral agreements among states for regulatory authorization or licensing of institutions.

Panel 1 - Outcomes and Assignments

Michael Goldstein (Dow Lohnes & Albertson PLLC) presented a review of state regulation of distance learning based upon a periodic study (Project ALLTELL) that his firm conducted in cooperation with the State Higher Education Executive OfficersAssociation (SHEEO) and the Council on PostsecondaryAccreditation (predecessor to the present-day CHEA). He offered an overview of findings based on responses from 37 state agencies. Mr. Goldstein also provided to the group a paper he recently authored that reviewed “The State of State Regulation of Cross-Border Postsecondary Education: A Survey and Report on the Bases for the Assertion of State Authority to Regulate Distance Learning (November, 2006).” Mr. Goldstein apprised the participants that, in his opinion, the cross-border regulatory barriers have become more significant as more state regulators (and legislatures) have come to realize the potential audience for and impact of technology-mediated learning. His objective was to offer a stimulus to interstate cooperation in this most important area of postsecondary education. Several broad themes emerge from Mr. Goldstein’s’ research:

  • First, most states consider the conduct of “instructional” activities the appropriate trigger for stateoversight. However, the term “instructional” abides a multitude of definitions, from the aggregation oflearners in “electronic classrooms” to individual students interacting with the institution via the Internet,and in a number of states there is no definition at all, the application of the term is a matter of specificcircumstances.
  • Second, some agencies consider whether an institution is “operating” within their state. Again, the term“operating” is differently defined, and again in many cases not defined at all.
  • Third, a substantial plurality of states consider as part of their determining whether to assert jurisdiction the degree to which an institution “directly targets” their residents.
  • Finally, Mr. Goldstein pointed to the lack of consistency among the states in terms of how they view theregulation of e-learning. Some states have established rigorous criteria to determine when an institution isengaged in sufficient activity within its borders to mandate an assertion of its regulatory authority. At theother extreme are states which have taken the position that the mere act of enrolling their citizens in an e-learningprogram, without any further institutional contact with the state, is sufficient to require thatinstitution to seek and secure state authorization. Mr. Goldstein emphasized that the varied triggers of state jurisdiction appear to have the “perverse effect” of discouraginginnovations in e-learning.

The Forum could be a highly effective vehicle for bringing state regulators, regional accreditors, and distance learning providers together to stimulate the understanding and acceptance of accreditation by state policy makers/regulators as a means for reviewing institutions for acceptance of cross-border provision of learning services. Based on the discussions at the Denver Working Session, Panel 1 was asked to continue to work to bring more detail torecommending means to work with accreditors (state and regional) to bring their attention to learning outcomes rather than the measure of inputs. Panel 1 was asked to:

  1. Propose a model for regional accreditation that would include state accreditors/regulators as participants in the institutional accreditation process (i.e. as part of the site visit team). This model should also focus upon strengthening annual reports to state officials by emphasizing outcomes data that is transparent.
  2. Draft model state legislation,to promote reciprocal state regulatory authorization and certification of institutions, thatwould recognize accreditation (approval to operate in an institution’s home state) as a means to endorse an institution to operate cross-border in that state. The object of the legislation would be to increase the free flow of higher education across state boundaries and the access of the national citizenry to higher learning. Such model legislation (compact) will be utilized to engage with the National Council of State Legislatures (NCSL), the National Governors Conference (NGA), the State Higher Education Executives Organization (SHEEO), and other key organizations to address our issues.
  3. Engage with ACE and CHEA to revisit and evaluate current efforts at national accreditation for institutions that offer education at a distance across multiple jurisdictions.
  4. Contact leadership within the National Governors Association to solicit interest in participating in a dialogue to address reciprocal state regulatory authorization and licensing of institutions.

Panel 2 - Compact for Principles of Practice in Learning Outcomes Transparency, Chaired by Michael J. Offerman – Capella University, was charged to deliver three products for consideration at the Working Session:

  • A recommendation for a uniform approach to institutionally-based learning outcomes transparency;
  • A Compact for Principles of Practice in Learning Outcomes Transparency that could be adopted by other institutions and could be disseminated to the National Governor’s Association, state boards, policy-makers, accreditors, and regulatory bodies;
  • A recommendation for an educational program that informs state and federal regulatory bodies so that they understand the efficacy and legitimacy of distance learning.

Panel 2 -Outcomes and Assignments

During the course of the work of the panel, the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC) released several white papers on accountability and transparency. The third of these papers, “Toward a Public Universities and Colleges Voluntary System of Accountability for Undergraduate Education (VSA),” asserted the intention of NASULGC and the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU) to create the VSA. The Learning Outcomes Transparency Panel decided to adopt the basic framework of the VSA, adapting it for our type of institutions.

Based on the discussions at the Denver Working Session, the Learning Transparency Panel was asked to continue to work to bring more detail to its proposal for moving “Toward an Adult-Serving, Primarily Online Colleges and Universities Voluntary System of Accountability for Undergraduate Education(VSA-Adult Online)”. Specifically,the panel was requested to:

  1. Develop templates or mock-ups of what institutional (transparency) reports might look like so that stake holders have something more tangible to consider. ExcelsiorCollege, CapellaUniversity and UMUC have agreed to develop model templates, and CharterOakCollege indicated that it may also develop one.
  2. Consider the selection of particular instruments that we would use for engagement and possibly value-added assessments. It was recommended that consideration be given to using the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) since it is going to be used by NASULGC and AASCU and has recognition nationally.
  3. Consider a strategy to define and address the use of a (standardized) value-added approach to assessment. Even with the limitations identified in using such an approach for our institutionsand student bodies (possible misleading comparisons by the media and policy makers), there was a definite direction that our institutions need to offer substantial proof that we are going to be transparent, and to do so in a way that allows inter-institutional comparisons.
  4. Consider means to gain agreement on standardization of student data and measures of student engagement, develop shared definitions on how to portray graduation rates and retention rates, and adopt common instruments such as the NSSE.
  5. Consider development of additional recommendations for transparency of program level learning outcomes.

Panel 3 - Strategy for Outreach to Engage Policy-Makers, Chair, Roger Sublett – Union Institute and University, was charged to recommend strategies to form strategic alliances to educate regulators, accreditors, and policy-makers as to the efficacy of our approach to learning, the students we serve, and the policy changes we require to address the needs of emerging populations of potential students.

Panel 3 - Outcomes and Assignments

The Outreach Panel determined its charge to provide strategies for outreach to educate policy makers and key stakeholders about the field of online learning was dependent upon the outcomes of the deliberations of Panels 1 and 2 and must be directed towards supporting the recommendations of those groups. Based upon the discussions, Panel 3 was asked to develop a three-year Forum Outreach Plan for consideration and adoption at the next Forum meeting. It was recommended that the plan consider strategies to achieve the following:

  1. Identify the institutions and organizations that comprise “our” core community in the online learning sector and a definition of how we define our universe.

1.Develop brief descriptions (Smart Briefs) aboutthe core institutions for dissemination that summarize:

  1. The history of the creation of the institutions
  2. The founding/unique mission
  3. The populations of learners we serve
  4. Significant contributions to societal welfare
  1. Create a compendium of “champions” whose success highlights ourmodels for access, affordability, accountability, and student achievement. The champions list should be compiled with consideration of:

1Targeting strategic locations for key policy makers and change agents.

  1. Selecting individuals with compelling stories from our graduates that highlight the vision and legitimacy of our approaches to providing higher education to adult students.
  2. Developing support from leaders among leaders; focusing on change agents who are action oriented.
  1. Identify and engage with higher education partnership organizations.

1.As a high priority, explore collaborations with the State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO), The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL College Access and Affordability Project) and the National Governors Association (NGA) - (Center for Best Practices and Future Works) that is designed to help states expand postsecondary access and attainment for working adults to identify critical needs/issues of concern to the states in the provision of online distance education and to demonstrate the power and transparency of our model for learning.

2. Work with the Governors in the states which we represent and through the NGA to present the Forum agenda for policy and regulatory actions that advance the mission of our institutions.

3.Collaborate with state agencies (licensing) and regional accreditors to promote recognition and support for the services offered by our institutions.

4.Meet with the leadership of the “Big 6” Associations (chaired by ACE), and the military, to seek recognition and support for the Forum agenda in association advocacy initiatives including association media.

  1. Brand our online community as “Leadership on the Cutting Edge of Higher Education”

1.Solicit a series of essays by leaders in the field of online distance education that underscores the innovation and pioneering leadership in adult distance education embodied in the services offered by our institutions. Focus upon the following:

  1. Intellectual foundations of adult distant education.
  2. Challenges and changes in adult/distance education.
  3. Directions for the future—how we can meet the needs of emerging populations of adult learners.

In summary, there was considerable discussion about both the written and verbal reports considered at the Working Session suggesting that our highest priority for outreach should be to the state based organizations (National Governors Association, SHEEO and NCSL) rather than to higher education associations. The first three suggestions appeared to be accepted by the group; they believed we needed a three-year plan to implement the outcomes of the first two panels, and suggested that Panel III continue to work torefine our vision for implementation—make it real—make it possible---develop a workable plan of action that will use both our time and resources wisely.

Program Planning for the Next Meeting of the Presidents’ Forum

March 22 or 23, 2006

  1. Hold the next meeting of the Presidents Forum in Washington, D.C. to provide access to a broad representation of state and federal policy makers, accreditors, distance learning providers and higher education institutions and associations.
  2. The theme of the Forum may focus upon “Crossing Borders in Higher Education” or “Leadership on the Cutting Edge of Higher Education”.
  3. Bring accreditors, policy makers, SHEEO’s, and stake holder organizations (Big 6, CHEA, AARP) to the table with us to dialogue about how we may move together to remove regulatory barriers to access (cross-border operations):
  4. What do the states require from online institutions to more rationally assess what is being done, to establish acceptable standards of accountability, and to relax regulatory barriers?
  5. What should institutional transparency mean?
  6. Can we adopt a template for voluntary institutional transparency of outcomes data?
  7. Are there common measures we can apply for institutional accountability?
  8. Can we learn from the advances of other countries?
  9. Can we adopt strategies for outreach to policy makers and stakeholders to advance the recognition and acceptance of online learning?

 Page 1