On June 24, 2024, the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued its final rule revising the regulation implementing Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The new regulation establishes specific requirements, including the adoption of specific technical standards, for making the services, programs, and activities offered by state and local government entities to the public through the web and mobile applications accessible.
This rule, which currently covers only public universities and colleges, went into effect on June 24, 2024, with compliance expected in the next two to three years, depending on the size of the total population the institution serves. We anticipate, however, that these regulations will eventually serve as a template for further action by the DOJ and the Department of Education, which would also apply to private institutions.
Background – Ensuring Equal Access
The rule came about, in part, as a recognition of the increasing reliance on web and mobile content as well as the challenges, such as lack of independence and privacy, that can stem from accessibility barriers to this content. Additionally, the rule recognizes that accessible digital spaces benefit everyone. Finally, voluntary compliance with accessibility guidelines has not resulted in equal access for individuals with disabilities; accordingly, organizations urged the Department to take regulatory action to ensure web content and mobile app accessibility. According to the Department of Justice, this rule is necessary to help public entities understand how to ensure that individuals with disabilities will have equal access to the services, programs, and activities that public entities provide or make available through their web content and mobile apps.
Updates Made in the Regulation
This rule adds a new subpart (H) to the Title II ADA regulation, 28 CFR part 35, that sets forth technical requirements for ensuring that web content and mobile apps that state and local government entities, including public universities and colleges, provide or make available, directly or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. The rule applies one consistent standard to both web content and mobile apps (including social media platforms) to ensure clarity and reduce confusion. Additionally, the rule preempts state laws affecting entities subject to the ADA only to the extent that those laws provide less protection for the rights of individuals with disabilities.
The Department of Justice has adopted the internationally recognized accessibility standard WCAG 2.1 Level AA success criteria and conformance requirements (including for captioning). Public entities are expected to adhere to this standard unless they comply by conforming their web content to WCAG 2.2 Level AA, which provides equivalent or greater accessibility.
The rule emphasizes that public entities are responsible for complying with their ADA obligations even when their services, programs, or activities are offered through contractors such as learning management system companies, content from publishers, YouTube videos, social media, and the institution’s mobile app. Thus, institutions are now responsible for the accessibility of any vendor that provides services related to their websites or mobile presence.
There are, however, five very limited compliance exceptions.
Archived web content that is not currently being used. However, in order to be exempted this content must meet four additional requirements. WCET and SAN have reviewed those requirements and believe that it will be very difficult for institutions to meet them.
Pre-existing conventional electronic documents such as word processing, presentation, PDF, or spreadsheet files, unless those documents are used to apply for, gain access to, or participate in the public entity’s services, programs, or activities.
Content posted by a third party if the third party is not controlled by, or acting for, the entity.
Individualized password-protected documents about a specific individual, their property, or their account. Note that this does not includepassword-protected content, such as instructional content in a learning management system.
Preexisting social media posts made by an institution before the date the institution must comply with the rule.
Compliance Timeframe
The date by which institutions must be compliant with the new rule is based on the population served by the public entity:
Large entities, those institutions serving a total population of 50,000 or more, must comply by April 24, 2026.
Small entities, those institutions serving a total population of less than 50,000, must comply by April 26, 2027.
Note that the total population is not the population of the institution; rather, it is the population of the area that the institution serves. For example, the total population of a public state university would be the total population of that state. The total population of a community college would be the total population of the district that it serves. WCET and SAN believe that this means that almost all four-year and two-year institutions would be considered large entities and must comply by April 24, 2026.
WCET will focus on accessibility during the month of August with a special emphasis on these regulations. Here is some of what we have planned:
Frontiers posts from accessibility experts in the field.
Newly announced Closer Conversation event about the regulations for members to discuss their institutional challenges and concerns and share how they plan to address these regulations. Seats are limited! Register now.
A new, member-only resource: Access for All: New Accessibility Rules For Public Entities. This brief outlines the regulations in greater detail and includes a flowchart highlighting key questions to guide an institution’s processes to ensure compliance. This resource is only available to WCET and SAN members. Click the links below to download.
Recently WCET had the opportunity to work with a coalition of organizations including the Online Learning Consortium, Complete College America, the Thurgood Marshall College Fund, and the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education to examine the role that Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) can play in shaping artificial intelligence.
As the report explains, “The significance of AI in modern society cannot be overstated. Its influence spans across all sectors, heralding a new age of innovation and problem-solving. However, this wave of change also brings challenges, particularly in ensuring equitable access and representation within AI fields.
HBCUs, with their history of academic excellence and commitment to inclusivity, are uniquely positioned to address these challenges, turning them into opportunities for their students and the broader community.”
But, in order to do this, HBCUs must adopt strategies around curriculum development, faculty training, infrastructure enhancement, and partnership building that center AI in their campuses and the greater community.
Focusing on HBCUs – Critical Timing in Inclusive AI Development
Why focus on HBCUs? HBCUs have a long legacy of excellence and inclusivity to bring to bear on our exploration and adoption of artificial intelligence. HBCUs excel at embedding cultural competence into their curriculum and preparing graduates for impacting their communities and our greater world. Additionally, HBCUs have long played an outsized role in producing STEM graduates. The McKinsey Institute for Black Economic Mobility reported that while in 2018 Black students only earned seven percent of all STEM baccalaureate degrees, HBCUs produced almost a quarter of those graduates. The need to create racial parity in artificial intelligence is especially critical.
By 2045, the McKinsey Institute for Black Economic Mobility reports, generative AI has the potential to widen the Black/White household wealth gap by $43 billion annually – but, if implemented carefully, the technology may have beneficial impacts instead. Additionally, it is imperative that ethical AI systems be developed in consultation with as diverse a group of stakeholders as possible. As the White House AI Bill of Rights states, “Automated systems should be developed with consultation from diverse communities, stakeholders, and domain experts to identify concerns, risks, and potential impacts of the system.” HBCUs are uniquely positioned to play a role in the development of ethical AI systems.
There are a number of actions that HBCUs can take that the report lays out. These include:
Prioritizing ethical AI education,
Strengthening AI research partnerships,
Centering the needs of the Black community in AI,
Implementing AI governance at the institutional level,
Building and enhancing AI operations at the institutional level,
Advancing AI pedagogy,
Implementing comprehensive AI integration across the curriculum,
Promoting cross-disciplinary AI literacies,
Leading in AI curriculum innovation,
Developing strategic industry partnerships,
Promoting experiential learning for an AI-driven job market,
Supporting AI research and innovation.
HBCUs should also prioritize strategic activities that will assist them in becoming leaders in the advancing AI revolution. These strategic activities include:
Curriculum development and approval, Year 1, high priority
Faculty hiring and training, Years 1-2, high priority
Resource allocation and infrastructure setup, Years 1-3, medium priority
Funding and grant applications, ongoing, high-priority
Industry partnerships, Years 2-4, medium priority
Community outreach and education, Years 2-5, low priority
Global engagements and conferences, Years 5-10, low priority
It is imperative that HBCUs play a critical role in the development, evolution, and implementation of AI, especially generative AI tools. Kate Crawford writes in Atlas of AI, “Artificial intelligence is not an objective, universal, or neutral computational technique that makes determinations without human direction. Its systems are embedded in social, political, cultural, and economic worlds, shaped by humans, institutions, and imperatives that determine what they do and how they do it.”
With their history of STEM training and strength in contextualizing academic instruction, HBCUs are uniquely situated in shaping the AI landscape for the better. As Leading the Revolution concludes, “In a world where AI will undoubtedly play a pivotal role, the question should not only be how to adapt to this technological revolution but who gets to lead it. HBCUs have a unique opportunity to ensure that the narrative surrounding AI is diverse, equitable, and inclusive as the technology itself promises to be.”
We’ve been waiting with bated breath to see if the U.S. Department of Education would surprise us when they released the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and proposed regulations related to the most recent negotiated rulemaking.
What follows is our analysis of the NPRM and some thoughts on how to make your voice heard. Please note that time is of the essence. You only have a 30-day window in which to make your voice heard on these regulations that will have a massive impact on distance education and digital learning.
What the Department did and didn’t release and why the Department cares about distance education
Readers may remember the most recent negotiated rulemaking that was concluded earlier this spring focused on several items, including:
state authorization reciprocity,
attendance taking for distance education courses,
distance education data reporting requirements,
disallowing federal financial aid for asynchronous clock hour programs,
accreditation,
cash management,
return to Title IV, and
TRIO programs for undocumented students. (The latter being the only area where negotiators reached consensus.)
Earlier this week, the Department released the distance education-related regulations and return to Title IV regulations for public comment. In a blog post published on July 17th, the Department indicated that it would publish proposed regulations related to cash management, reciprocity, and accreditation “by next year” as it is “tak[ing] additional time to carefully consider these important, complicated issues, and refine solutions that address important challenges for students while balancing the need for quality oversight and improved student protections with the burden on institutions and changes impacting college accrediting agencies.”
Rulemaking Reminder
A quick reminder of the rulemaking process. Because negotiators did not reach consensus in all but one area of the negotiated rulemaking, the Department is able to propose its own language for the rules through its NPRM. The publication of the NPRM in the Federal Register in the next few days starts the clock ticking on 30 days for the public to comment. At the end of that 30-day period, the Department will review all public comments, make any changes to the proposed language that it feels is warranted, and then will publish the final rules. If those final rules are published by November 1, 2024, then they will go into effect on July 1, 2025. If they are published after November 1st, they will go into effect July 1, 2026.
Why Did They Propose These Regulations?
You may be wondering what the Department’s rationale for these proposed regulations is. We repeatedly heard during negotiations that the Department has a responsibility to protect students and ensure that the sizeable federal investment in higher education through Title IV federal financial aid is protected. In that July 17th blog post, Under Secretary James Kvaal, writing for the Department, reiterated that these proposed rules would “further protect students and taxpayers” and “update and improve outdated processes, consolidate rules, and establish more consumer-friendly policies for students to access the aid to which they are entitled.”
Attendance Taking for Distance Education Courses
What the Department is proposing
Under current regulations, an institution must follow a complex set of rules to determine the amount (if any) of disbursed federal aid should be refunded to the Department of Education if a student withdraws from a course or the institution. If a student withdraws without official notice from a distance education course(s), the institution must determine the “last day of attendance” for that student. The Department of Education defines the “last day of attendance” as the last time the student participated in one of the activities associated with “active engagement” in a course. This might include taking a test, submitting a paper, or participating in an online discussion about the course content. Logging into the learning management system without any other activity does not count.
Citing some amorphous instances of institutions not adequately documenting the student’s last day of attendance, the Department proposed the following to “simplify” and improve the accuracy of determining the student’s last day of course activity:
Require that attendance be taken in all distance education courses. While they use the word “attendance,” the Department appears to mean documenting the last instance of academic engagement for EACH student with the exception of dissertation research courses.
Within 14 days of a student’s last date of attendance, the institution must effectively withdraw a student and document that withdrawal date.
Our analysis and concerns
We are dubious that the proposed regulations would “simplify” compliance for institutions. As we reported back in March, we talked with individuals from several institutions and NASFAA (the financial aid organization) and heard that with the exception offully-online institutions or those institutions that are already taking attendance, the proposed regulations would not simplify things at all. In fact, they thought it would greatly increase the work involved for such actions with the addition of necessary policy creation, faculty development, software changes, and the faculty and administrative time to take attendance on each and every student for each and every course.
We also have grave concerns regarding the 14-day requirement. We are concerned that this proposed language will inadvertently negatively impact adult learners. Many of the individuals we spoke with reminded us that with adult learners, it is not uncommon for them to not engage in coursework for a period of time but still complete the course successfully. Additionally, this 14-day requirement will create more burden for faculty to understand, administer, collect, and archive formal leave of absence notices for students who will be gone for more than 14 days. Examples of such leaves include students on temporary military duty or those experiencing health issues. Finally, there are academic implications. To improve student learning and address academic integrity requirements, some faculty have employed authentic assessment techniques that engage students in research or studies in the community or their chosen profession. Sometimes, these assignments take more than 14 days of research or fieldwork. Meanwhile, the instructor is available for questions, but the possible lapse in academic engagement will need to be documented.
Disallowing financial aid for asynchronous clock-hour courses and programs
What the Department is proposing
Although most financial aid is disbursed to students through the credit hour, some programs use clock hours as the basis for financial aid disbursement. This type of disbursement is most prevalent in practical programs like welding or cosmetology. In clock-hour programs, aid is literally determined by the number of student participation minutes associated with the program.
During the recent negotiated rulemaking, the Department expressed concern that institutions offering asynchronous clock hour programs were not adequately tracking the amount of time students spent in their asynchronous courses. One negotiator went so far as to accuse asynchronous clock-hour programs of being nothing more than students watching a bunch of YouTube videos. For “evidence” the Department cites a New America analysis of a survey conducted by another organization. Unfortunately, the survey was about student satisfaction with COVID-era remote learning, and there appears to be no mention of whether the instruction was asynchronous or synchronous, as often happened during COVID. As a result, the Department is proposing to “disallow enrollment in asynchronous distance education courses for programs that use the clock-hour method of financial aid disbursement.” It is important to note that this only applies to clock-hour courses and does not impact credit-hour courses.
Our analysis and concerns
Although the Department cited problems with institutions accurately tracking the time students participate in asynchronous clock-hour courses, it was unable to provide specific institutional examples or the scope of the problem. They said that they witnessed some institutions that spent lots of time and money getting it right. We understand the Department’s concern, but we worry about those institutions being punished for the non-compliance of others. We are also very afraid that this prohibition will hurt the students in these programs, many of whom have the greatest need for financial aid. During the negotiated rulemaking public comment period, we heard many current and former students speak about how they would be unable to participate in face-to-face clock-hour programs and would be forced to withdraw from their asynchronous programs should the Department pull financial aid for those programs. For a Department that expresses a desire to help those students most in need, this decision to eradicate financial aid for asynchronous clock-hour courses and programs seems likely to hurt the very students the Department purports to help.
Creating a “virtual location”
What the Department is proposing
Institutions currently report students as participating in one of three physical locations: a) the main campus, b) a branch campus, or c) an additional location (which the Department defines as a “physical facility that is geographically separate from the main campus of the institution…at which the institution offers at least 50 percent of an educational program.”
In addition to the existing three location categories, a fourth, “virtual location,” would be added for “which the institution offers 100 percent of an educational program through distance education or correspondence courses, notwithstanding requirements for students to complete on-campus or residential periods of 90 days or less.” The institution would assign the student to one of these four locations.
This Department claims this new classification will be beneficial as it will help it:
“…measure and better understand student outcomes and the amount of Title IV fund program funds being expended in each setting”,
“…conduct more accurate program oversight including through better tailored program reviews”,
“…improve the Department’s ability to determine the States where title IV, HEA recipients are located”,
Qualify students for “closed school discharges” if the institution ceases its online offerings but does not completely close.
Our analysis and concerns
There are some definite benefits, but we are not sure we have been given the full details of exactly how this will work, so we have some reservations. As to the benefits listed above:
We support student outcomes research but have questions.
We are in favor of better institutional program reviews.
We do not recall the Department citing the need for student location data during the negotiations until they realized they did not have it in analyzing a proposal regarding state authorization reciprocity. They used SARA data, which works fine for everyone except California.
The ability for students to receive benefits if an institution shutters its online operations is a worthy benefit. Most institutions making the change have moved completely online, but it is possible that an institution could return to fully on-campus instruction.
The Department is expected to analyze the costs for compliance for each of its recommendations. Unfortunately, there is no separate analysis of implementing a virtual location. We are not sure if this is an oversight or if they considered it part of their analysis for collecting data, as outlined in the next section of this post. There will be a great need for work and coordination between the institutional registrar, provost, financial aid, and distance education leadership to make policies and implement the required technical changes. There will be a cost. We have more significant questions about the data collection proposed.
Collecting more data on distance education courses and programs
What the Department is proposing
As noted with the creation of the Virtual Location proposed above, the Department is keen on collecting additional data on distance education. In the Virtual Location discussion, they cited the purposes of “program oversight, audits, looking at outcome metrics, and College Scorecard program-level data, including debt, earnings, and completion.”
A few negotiators also proposed that for each student receiving Title IV financial aid, “the institution must submit to the Secretary, in accordance with procedures established by the Secretary, a report regarding the recipient’s enrollment in distance education or correspondence courses.” The Department goes on to write (p. 41) that “the proposed addition of a definition for distance education course would enable the Department to better assess the effectiveness of distance education and compare its outcomes with those of traditional in-person instruction.”
This is a significant increase in institutional data reporting. The Department will provide the details later (“we would explain the details of this reporting in guidance pertaining to the operation of the Department’s systems”) along with an opportunity for institutions to provide feedback on the proposed data collection elements.
To give time for that process and institutional implementation, the effective date is delayed to July 1, 2026, so institutions will have sufficient time to make the necessary changes.
Our analysis and concerns
As we wrote back in March, we are still trying to figure out the long-term implications. While we have long advocated for more data about distance education, we are heartened that the Department recognizes that this will take effort and time for both the FSA staff and the institutions. The delay and opportunity for feedback are welcomed.
We do have significant concerns:
The original proposal by negotiators was for simple student-level data on enrollment modalities. This has morphed far beyond what was discussed to include: program oversight audits, outcome metrics, College Scorecard program-level data, debt earnings, completion rates, the amount of Title IV funds expended on distance education programs, and the State in which the distant student is located while enrolled. During rulemaking, the Department never provided such an extensive list for negotiators to give their reactions. We can see where collecting some of this information might make sense, but others make us worry about the possibility of seeking reasons to defund distance education programs.
Even with the delay, we are concerned about the Department’s ability to manage this process internally and in giving proper direction to institutions and their financial aid software providers.
Importantly, we have sincere concerns about how the Department might use such data. We hope clear research questions are elucidated when they propose the data elements. Meanwhile, we are all aware of “research” that pins differences in student success on modality while overlooking differences in the population served. And in the long list of items the Department suggests, the necessary demographics are missing. We are worried that the Department might erroneously make a correlation equals causation argument regarding student success in distance education. As if to validate our concerns, in this NPRM the Department cites research of COVID courses, which is not generalizable to all distance education. There is so much wrong with this approach. Watch for more from us on this issue.
The Department punted on any cost analysis, but it will likely be significant. When the Department cites its cost calculations for the package, it would be nice if it acknowledged the huge missing asterisk of the cost information that is not collected for this data proposal.
Finally, the proposal falls short of its own goals. If they want to make the comparisons between distance and on-campus students that they are touting, then they need information on ALL students.
How you can get involved…and you must
It’s critical that we respond as a community to help the department understand how these regulations will impact students and institutions. How can you get involved? Comment! Institutional personnel, program personnel, or individuals may comment during the 30-day public comment period.
How to comment
If you wish to comment as an institution or program, you should work with your institution’s government relations office. But you don’t have to comment as an official representative of your institution; you can comment as a private citizen.
Each NPRM announcement provides directions on how to comment in the Summary section of each notice. You are directed to submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at regulations.gov.At regulations.gov under FAQ, you will find the instructions for finding a rule on the site and submitting comments. Please note that the Department will not accept comments by fax, email, or submission after the comment period ends. You are advised to include the Docket ID (that will come in the Federal Register version, and we will update this post when it is published) at the top of the comments and submit your comments or attachments in Microsoft Word format.
Who can comment
Comments can come from institutions/organizations or individuals. Official comments from an institution or organization are important, but be sure that you have the approval of the President or whomever has authority. We do not want you to lose your job. You can also comment as an individual. You can state your place of employment and expertise but be clear that it is your own opinion.
What should you say
Here is your opportunity to ask clarifying questions, show support for the language, express challenges that could have unintentional consequences on students or your institution, suggest alternatives (they like that), or raise other concerns.
We suggest that, if possible, you explain the impact of the proposed regulations on students and your institution and, wherever possible, provide helpful suggestions that improve the proposed regulations.
More than we have seen in previous NPRM announcements, the Department provided a series of tips to consider when preparing your public comment. Suggestions include:
being concise,
referring to specific sections and subsections in order to organize your submission,
and, where possible, support your argument with data-driven evidence.
Finally, we often share that volume matters for letters to the Department. However, we want to be clear that the number of comments is important, but the comments should provide substance that is useful for the Department. The Department noted that a well-supported comment is more informative than many form letters.
Next steps
As previously shared, the comment period will end 30 days after the official release of the NPRM, approximately August 21st (we will update this post with the official date once it is released in the Federal Register). The Department must review and respond to the submitted comments. The announcement of the final regulations will include the Department’s response to the comments in the preamble of the Federal Register announcement. Final regulations that are released by November 1, 2024, will be effective July 1, 2025.
A few months ago, we were thrilled to welcome Barry Briggs, one of our interns at WCET and Every Learner Everywhere, as a guest author for a great post about Minority Serving Institutions. Today, we are excited to have Barry back on Frontiers to share his research on the impacts of quality digital learning. This work focuses on how Hispanic Serving Institutions create nurturing digital learning environments that enhance student success by showing care, honoring culture, and fostering a sense of community.
Barry has recently completed his internship with us, and we send him our best wishes for his future endeavors. Thank you once again, Barry!
Enjoy the read, Lindsey Downs, WCET
In recent years, the shift to digital learning has brought numerous challenges and opportunities for educational institutions, particularly Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs). While the transition to online education has enabled greater accessibility, it has also highlighted the need for a nurturing and caring environment that caters to the unique needs of Hispanic students. Now, more than ever, there is a call for education that caters to the culturally diverse audiences institutions aspire to reach. In education, there should be no one-size-fits-all.
Why is this Important?
Creating a nurturing and caring environment in digital learning is essential for several reasons:
cultural responsiveness,
student engagement, and,
retention and success.
Hispanic students often come from diverse cultural backgrounds which influences their educational experiences.
Showing Care in a Virtual World
A more nurturing environment acknowledges and respects these cultural differences, promoting a sense of belonging. As a result, nurtured students are often more engaged and more likely to succeed. A caring environment that prioritizes student well-being and support fosters higher levels of engagement. Students who feel supported and valued are more likely to persist and succeed in their studies. This is particularly crucial for HSIs, where retention rates can be a significant concern.
As Michelle Pacansky-Brock argues, one of the most effective ways to create a nurturing environment is by humanizing online education. Instructors can achieve this by creating personal connections, such as using personalized video messages to introduce themselves, sharing their backgrounds, and expressing their commitment to student success. Dr. Luke Dowden, Chief Online Learning Officer at Alamo Colleges, advises these messages should be authentic. Authenticity helps develop that personal connection between faculty and students and shows students the life the faculty member leads.
For example, in recorded or live videos, allow pets and children to be heard in the background. I agree that the more authentic a professor is in the digital space, the more relatable they are to their distance-learning students. Professors should be accessible by maintaining regular virtual office hours and encouraging students to reach out with questions or concerns can make a significant difference. Sharing personal stories that relate course content to real-life experiences, including the instructor’s own, helps students see the relevance of their studies and builds a personal connection.
Consider the Impact of Culture
Culturally responsive teaching acknowledges and incorporates students’ cultural references in all aspects of learning. It creates an ecosystem of care and respect for the different cultures blended within the classroom. Instructors can enhance the course by integrating diverse content, such as perspectives and examples that reflect the experiences of Hispanic communities. Place value on students’ experiences by creating assignments that encourage them to learn more about their cultural backgrounds This helps bridge the gap between the world of education and everyday life experiences. It is time that we move past just celebrating cultural heritage by recognizing and celebrating cultural events, days, and traditions relevant to Hispanic students. Although this acknowledgment fosters a sense of pride and belonging, it mitigates the importance of these students to just certain holidays rather than creating a space at the table for their culture in its totality. Traditional celebrations have the potential to “othering” Hispanic students, further making them feel like they don’t belong in online higher educational learning when it is the only aspect of culture that is celebrated.
Creating a Sense of Community
Creating a sense of community in a digital space can be challenging, but it is crucial for a nurturing environment. Implementing peer mentoring programs provides students with guidance and support from their peers, which helps new students navigate the challenges of digital learning. Facilitating the formation of virtual study groups where students can collaborate, share resources, and support each other academically fosters a sense of community. Dr. Jory Hadsell, Vice Chancellor of Foothill-De Anza Community College District, relates that he has seen some students who would often take online classes together so that they could keep the virtual comradery going for as long as possible.
Building on this foundation of community, access to support services is vital for student success in digital learning. Institutions should ensure that online Hispanic learners can access academic advising by offering virtual academic advising sessions to help them plan their courses and address any academic challenges. Institutions should also provide access to virtual counseling services and mental health resources to support students’ emotional and mental health, guaranteeing that all learners have access to reliable emotional support. This is another way to foster that sense of belonging and care students need to persevere in their programs.
Continuous Feedback
To further enhance this nurturing environment, continuous improvement is essential. Solicit regular feedback from online Hispanic learners to understand their needs and make necessary adjustments. This can be achieved through surveys, one-on-one Zoom calls, and questionnaires to gather feedback on the effectiveness of teaching methods, course content, and support services.
Encouraging students to share their concerns and suggestions through open communication channels, such as virtual office hours or anonymous suggestion boxes, helps maintain open lines of communication. Acting on the feedback received to make tangible improvements in the learning environment demonstrates a commitment to online Hispanic students’ success.
Fostering a nurturing and caring environment for digital learning at Hispanic-Serving Institutions is crucial for the success and well-being of Hispanic students. By humanizing online education, embracing culturally responsive teaching, building a strong virtual community, providing comprehensive support services, and continuously seeking feedback, educators can create an environment where all students feel valued, supported, and empowered to succeed. As we continue to navigate the evolving landscape of digital learning, these strategies will help HSIs effectively serve their student community.
In the last month, you may have seen a flurry of articles indicating the demise of the Federal regulatory landscape as we know it. This is due to a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Loper Bright Enterprises vs. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce. Many articles argue that the sky is falling on the development of federal regulations. The word “chaos” has been used by multiple colleagues with smart minds. Truthfully, it could be several years before we actually see the impact of the court’s decision on administrative rules due to eliminating the 40-year-old precedent colloquially called the “Chevron Deference.” As we will explain, you can anticipate that courts, Congress, and administrative agencies will react and forge a path forward in light of the new decision.
There are deep legal nuances addressed in the court’s opinions, but in this post, we will focus on the information you need to understand the case and its potential impact on recent and future Federal regulations, specifically those addressing distance education.
If you take nothing else away from today’s blog post, understand that no Federal regulations were immediately overturned by this ruling. There will be legal challenges to existing Federal regulations in the future, but rules are the rules until they aren’t. We will keep you posted on court challenges as these recent opinions will likely affect many areas of life in the United States, including our work to comply with U.S. Department of Education regulations.
The Background
Chevron Deference
Congress delegates regulatory functions through statute to administrative agencies. The agency must interpret its authority within the limits provided by Congress. On occasion, regulations are challenged via lawsuit as exceeding statutory authority.
In 1984, when reviewing Environmental Protection Agency regulations, the U.S. Supreme Court created a new doctrine for interpretation of statutory authority in its opinion in Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council.
Under this doctrine, courts would defer to an executive agency when the statute was either silent or ambiguous in its interpretation, or there could be multiple reasonable interpretations. After the 1984 ruling, the “Chevron Doctrine” (which spawns the Chevron Deference) became the standing case law used by the courts.
It was noted in the Loper Bright Enterprises majority opinion and in other recent articles that the Supreme Court, since 2016, has moved away from the Chevron Deference in favor of other interpretive principles. In other words, the Supreme Court has downplayed the impact of overturning this doctrine by maintaining that since 2016, the court has not been giving deference to an agency’s interpretation of a statute and has instead used other methods to determine Congress’ meaning of a statute.
What about the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)?
If the issues around the Chevron Deference and Loper Bright Enterprises weren’t complicated enough, we must also consider the Administrative Procedure Act. The APA is a Federal statutory law created by Congress in 1946 that provides specific steps that Federal agencies must follow to develop and issue regulations. We often reference the APA when the U.S. Department of Education initiates negotiated rulemaking. In addition to directing that the agency must provide transparency through the release of notifications and opportunities for public comment, the APA also directs that federal courts decide all relevant questions of law arising from challenges to the agency’s regulations. In fact, the APA states that the courts should apply “independent judgment” to determine if an agency exceeded its authority.
Loper Bright Enterprises (2024) – The Ruling about Chevron Deference
Majority Opinion
The Loper Bright Enterprises vs. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce concluded with a 6-3 decision. Chief Justice Roberts in writing for the majority opinion, indicated that the legal question was whether the Chevron Doctrine, the deference to agency interpretation established in a 1984 court opinion, should be overruled or clarified.
The court held that Chevron is overruled, ruling thatthe Chevron Doctrine conflicts with the APA. The opinion states that the APA was enacted by Congress as a check on administrators who may act beyond what was contemplated in legislation. Specifically, the opinion cites the applicable statute, 5 U.S.C. 706, stating that the APA specifies that the courts, not agencies, will decide “all relevant questions of law” arising from the review of an agency’s action.
It is important to note that the opinion states that in overruling Chevron the court does not call into question prior cases that relied upon Chevron. This means that decisions in previous cases that relied on the Chevron Deference are still lawful and in effect despite the court’s change in interpretive methodology.
Corner Post (2024) — The Under-the-Radar Ruling that Also Matters
Statute of Limitations
Several days after the Looper Bright Enterprise ruling, the court issued a ruling in Corner Post, Inc. v Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System that deals with how the statute of limitations for challenging regulations should be calculated. Federal Statute, 28 U. S. C. §2401(a), directs that there is a time limit for a plaintiff to bring a civil claim against the United States. The legal challenge must be filed “within six years after the right of action first accrues.”
So, does the clock start ticking for those six years? Corner Post states that the six-year clock starts when the party is injured rather than the long-time practice of starting the clock when a regulation becomes final.
The majority opinion explained that they applied a long-standing legal principle, the traditional accrual rule, to determine when the injury came into existence for the statute of limitations to start. The court will look to when a particular plaintiff has cause of action or injury. The court said they rejected a special definition for purposes of regulatory review for failing to follow the APA.
What might this mean for higher education? Now that the statute of limitations has effectively been expanded to the time of injury rather than the time the regulation was released as final, we believe we will see court challenges increase in the years to come. In the Corner Post case, the business did not even exist when the six-year limit was reached. In this ruling, the Court declared that they can still claim injury and challenge the rule.
It is only logical that expanding the view of the start time for the statute of limitations to be the time of injury will cause court challenges to regulations to increase in the years to come. Long-standing higher education regulations may come under review. This could have massive implications and we are not sure why it has not received more attention from the general and higher education press.
Concurring and Dissenting Opinions Provide More Context
Concurring opinions (when the justice(s) agree with the majority but add different legal principles) and dissenting opinions (when justice(s) disagree and have different interpretations of the law) are sometimes useful for understanding additional context and implications of the majority opinion. For more on the concurring and dissenting opinions for Loper Bright Enterprises and Corner Post, you may go to the “Postscript” section at the end of this post.
What Happens Next?
That is a good question! The Loper Bright Enterprises case has been sent back to the lower courts to re-litigate and review the statutory authority of the agency, but without the use of the Chevron Deference. How the courts will interpret the agency’s authority remains to be seen.
Additionally, the Corner Post case appears to offer an opportunity for significant expansion of eligible plaintiffs to challenge regulations. These challenges could include regulations that are decades old if there is a particular plaintiff who did not encounter an injury until many years later and is within the statute of limitations.
Moving Forward, We Could See the Following from Congress, Courts, and The Administrative Agencies.
Congress
Congress sits in a prime position to mitigate the negative outcomes of these decisions. The concern about the influx of court challenges to regulations may pressure Congress to act. It is within Congress’ authority to amend the APA.
Relying on Congress indeed feels largely unlikely given its slow movement over the last many years. Policy analysts, including our colleagues at the American Council on Education (ACE), have long shared that the failure of Congress to act in a timely manner has caused the U.S. Department of Education to fill the gap with regulations. Some have described the Department’s heavy hand in regulation development as “legislating by agency action.” Jon Fansmith, Senior Vice President for Government and National Engagement at ACE wrote in his opinion essay in Inside Higher Ed, that it is laughable that Congress “will become models of efficient, detail-oriented legislative action.” The regulation developments may seem like a Band-Aid approach, but they have arguably been necessary considering the evolution of higher education since the last reauthorization of the Higher Education Act in 2008.
In amendments to or in the development of new statutes, Congress should consider that they have been placed on notice to develop less ambiguous statutory language, update outdated statutes, and/or, more specifically, address the subject matter expertise of the administrative agencies. Congress could even amend the existing federal statutes to specifically address the statute of limitations and agency authority in developing regulations. Is that a Pollyanna thought? Maybe, but one can hope.
Courts
We will need to watch future federal court decisions to see how the courts interpret and analyze statutory authority. We will need to be prepared for the likelihood that the different circuit courts may apply different interpretations of statutory authority. This would mean that we might not have uniform application of Federal regulations across states, which gets very exciting for institutions operating across state lines. It’s possible that the courts might still take into account an agency’s expertise in the interpretation of statute. If that happens, perhaps the expertise of the agency could still influence the interpretation of statute and the development of regulations.
What we are likely not to see, however, is any variation in the interpretation and application of Corner Post. The interpretation of that ruling is very clear, and, as a result, there will be the possibility that regulations that we believed to be beyond the statute of limitations and set in stone could be litigated.
It’s also important to note that legal challenges to regulations are not likely to be specific to only certain administrative agencies. Expect challenges to regulations developed by a wide range of agencies and not just the Department of Education.
It is worth noting that some policy analysts do not believe that these two decisions will create chaos or generate any great significant changes to the regulatory landscape. As shared by Inside Higher Ed,referring to the opinion of Jason Delisle, a nonresident senior policy fellow at the Urban Institute’s Center on Education Data and Policy, the Chevron Deference has not been consistently applied in the courts and the Supreme Court has not relied on it since 2016. As a result, there may be less significance to this decision.
An additional complication involves the invitation for massive growth in court challenges that these decisions (and several others by this Court) invite to be filed. If the rush to sue becomes real, the Federal Courts could become equally as bogged down as Congress.
Administrative Agencies
Generally speaking, there are two areas in which agencies are affected. First, agency regulations could be subject to review if there is a plaintiff with a cause of action that has not exceeded the statute of limitations. Moving forward, the agency also will not have a thumb on the interpretation scale since courts will not be required to defer to the agency’s interpretation of its statutory authority to create regulations. It will still be important for the agency to continue to prepare its interpretation for consideration by the court, but the court will not be required to accept it. Second, when developing new regulations, agencies should be abundantly clear in expressing their statutory authority lest they find their regulations overturned by the courts.
How Do These Court Opinions Affect Higher Education and Distance Education?
U.S. Department of Education regulations are ripe for legal challenges. The ranking member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP), Bill Cassidy, prepared a letter to Secretary Cardona seeking answers from the Secretary by Friday, July 19, as to the possible impact of the overturned Chevron Deference on the Department. The letter expresses that the Loper Bright Enterprise decision is an opportunity for agencies to re-examine their roles relative to Congress.
The letter expressed concern about whether the Department would adopt and faithfully implement the new decision and provided a list of examples for which he maintains that the Department acted without authorization from Congress and “has flagrantly and repeatedly violated the law.” The questions submitted to Secretary Cardona very pointedly ask how the Department will change its processes and obtain greater involvement from Congress to address policy issues.
Several policy analysts have predicted regulatory areas that are ripe for a legal challenge.
The Center for American Progress (CAP) predicts that in addition to Student Debt Relief, Financial Value Transparency and Gainful Employment as well as Borrower Defense to Repayment may also be challenged. Our colleague Phil Hill with the On EdTech Newsletter shared his perspective that it is less likely that the Department can produce rules or guidance addressing Third Party Servicers and other distance education-related rules from this year’s negotiated rulemaking. And Jon Fansmith of ACE shared similar predictions of ripe issue areas, adding Title IX and pending regulations on state authorization and website accessibility that he believes “will face new, heightened scrutiny.”
These viewpoints signal the appetite for legal challenges to the Department’s actions.
What Should Institutions Do?
The best thing for institutions to do is this: not jump to conclusions.
As previously stated, rules remain the rules until they are no longer rules. Compliance with existing rules is critical. We will notify you as changes occur.
The process of legal challenges to existing regulations will take time. It will take time for courts, agencies, and attorneys to determine a path to successfully challenge regulations, and at this time, that path is not entirely clear. There is potential for legal challenges, but it is unclear the influence the Department will have in expressing its statutory authority. We can expect that the development of new regulations “should” include a stronger emphasis on the Department’s authority to develop regulations.
This is just the first review from SAN and WCET on the impact of the court decisions. We will likely be following the aftermath of these new decisions for the next several years. Stay tuned as we share the next steps by courts, Congress, administrative agencies, and attorneys to untangle the short and long-term effects of Loper Bright Enterprises and Corner Post.
~ Cheryl, Russ, and Van
Cheryl Dowd
Senior Director, State Authorization Network & WCET Policy Innovations
Russ Poulin
Executive Director, WCET Vice President for Technology-Enhanced Education, WICHE
Van Davis
Chief Strategy Officer, WCET
Postscript – A Deeper Look at Concurring and Dissenting Opinions
Loper Bright Enterprises
Concurring opinionswere provided by Justice Thomas and Justice Gorsuch to support the majority opinion while further addressing the issues of the Constitution’s separation of powers and the understanding of the common law principle of stare decisis (legal precedent).
The dissenting opinion, written by Justice Kagan also on behalf of Justice Sotomayor and Justice Jackson, indicated the belief that Congress understands that there could be ambiguities and would prefer interpretation by the responsible agency and not the court. The primary concern raised in the dissenting opinion is that agencies have expertise in these administrative areas, courts do not. The agencies were charged by Congress with administering the statute and therefore best positioned to address an ambiguity or gap if after all normal interpretive tools, the court cannot determine Congress’ intent.
Justice Kagan maintains that the statutory conflict with the APA is “generally indeterminate” indicating that the APA did not prescribe any standard of review for construing statutes. Additionally, the court maintains its authority by a determination of whether the agency “construed (the statute it administers) reasonably.”
The dissenting opinion states that Congress often passes statutes that contain ambiguities and gaps that could be considered intentional by Congress, believing that the regulatory experts are in a better position to fill the gaps. The argument was made that when considering the role of the administrative agency Congress deems them expert, experienced, and politically accountable. Congress confers on the agency the authority to develop rules that implement the statute that is subject to ambiguity or gap.
Corner Post
The concurring opinions provided by Justice Barrett and Justice Kavanaugh support the majority opinion that a claim brought under the Administrative Procedures Act “accrues” (i.e. starts) when the plaintiff is injured by the agency rule. Justice Barrett’s argument relies on previous case law to indicate that a litigant cannot bring an APA claim unless and until they suffer an injury. She argues that if the current statute is a poor fit for modern APA litigation, then Congress must create the solution to enact a specific statute of limitations for claims brought based upon the APA. Justice Kavanaugh argues that he believes it is a critical point that the plaintiff can obtain relief from the case only because the APA in federal statute, 5 U.S. Code 706, authorizes the court to hold unlawful and set aside regulations.
The dissenting opinion, provided by Justice Jackson, who wrote the dissenting opinion to include Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan, maintained that there is a hazard when the court determines for all purposes when the cause of action first accrues. Additionally, the dissenting opinion raised their concern of manipulation by decades-old trade groups finding a plaintiff new to the regulations to achieve the requirement of the particular plaintiff with a cause of action filing a challenge within the six-year statute of limitations.
Today, we are delighted to feature a guest post by an esteemed author who has been at the forefront of tracking online, hybrid, and technology-supported learning trends in Canada. Since 2019, Nicole Johnson, Executive Director of the Canadian Digital Learning Research Association, has worked to provide valuable insights into the evolving landscape of higher education in Canada. In this post, Nicole delves into the key findings from the CDLRA’s recently published 2023 Pan-Canadian Report – thank you Nicole for sharing these results with us!
Enjoy the read,
Lindsey Downs, WCET
In 2019, nearly five years ago, I began working with the Canadian Digital Learning Research Association (CDLRA) to track online, hybrid, and technology-supported learning trends at higher education institutions across Canada. A lot has happened since then, and the higher education landscape has shifted profoundly. Several noteworthy trends that have emerged in the Canadian higher education landscape are hybrid learning and flexibility, the use of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), and issues related to student readiness and faculty competencies for teaching in digital contexts.
Drawing upon the findings of the CDLRA’s recently published 2023 Pan-Canadian Report (Johnson, 2023), I’ll discuss each trend in more detail and share my concluding thoughts about the future.
Hybrid Learning and Flexibility
The 2023 Pan-Canadian Digital Learning Survey asked respondents (administrators, teaching and learning leaders, and other teaching and learning staff) whether they expected increased course or program offerings in different modalities over the next 24 months.
By far, respondents expect to see the greatest increase in courses and programs offered in a hybrid (partially online) format. Anticipated growth in hybrid courses also aligns with a common perception held by the majority of respondents: that all or most students desire the option of learning online some of the time.
The trend toward hybridity versus fully-online or fully in-person learning experiences is tied to a desire among students (and some faculty) for more flexibility. The 2023 Pan-Canadian survey asked respondents an open-ended question where they were asked to share their opinion about what drives student modality preferences. The responses varied and touched on topics like:
balancing other responsibilities with studies (e.g., work, caregiving),
transportation issues, and,
cost of living concerns,
highlighting that there are many individual-centric reasons underlying student demand for more flexibility in how they complete their studies.
Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI)
For many of us in the field of digital learning, the topic of Generative AI (GenAI) has dominated discussions about teaching and learning practices for the past year. In late 2022, when OpenAI launched ChatGPT, tensions surrounding the use of GenAI in higher education quickly emerged. The CDLRA published a special report titled Generative Artificial Intelligence in Canadian Post-Secondary Education with recommendations for incorporating GenAI into educational practices (Veletsianos, 2023) based on our survey findings.
Overall, respondent opinions about the use of GenAI in education indicate a sense of duality: that GenAI has the potential to be both problematic and beneficial. The chart below, found in the CDLRA’s 2023 Pan-Canadian Report, shows that while many respondents believe that it will be used to cheat, they also agree that students will use GenAI as a study tool. At the same time, respondents indicated that they thought AI would make teaching both more challenging and more efficient.
Readiness to Learn and Readiness to Teach
When presenting the 2023 survey findings, I have been asked on several occasions what I have found most surprising about this year’s results. My answer has been that the Canadian higher education system is experiencing a “readiness conundrum” of sorts. This readiness conundrum encompasses both the readiness of students and the readiness of faculty to teach technology-supported learning experiences.
The survey findings showed that just over half of respondents were concerned that students are entering higher education unprepared in terms of academic readiness and general life skills. At the same time, although many students are digitally savvy when it comes to communicating with friends and family using a smartphone, this does not necessarily mean that they have learned how to engage with learning technologies or have been taught how to communicate in a professional manner in online spaces. Additional wraparound support may be needed to help students develop education-specific digital skills.
There are also concerns about faculty competencies for teaching with technology and in online environments. The survey asked respondents whether they thought that faculty had the skills and know-how to teach in different modalities. The greater the technology requirements of a modality, the less confident respondents were in the competencies of faculty at their institution.
It might seem that the obvious answer should be additional training for faculty; however, the survey findings also show that faculty fatigue and burnout top the list as the most pressing teaching and learning challenges at Canadian institutions. A solution that adds to faculty workload is not likely to be viable, much less well-received, and potentially unfeasible (depending on the collective agreements between institutions and faculty unions).
I do not think there are any easy answers for solving our readiness conundrum; however, finding strategies and interventions to better support students and faculty is critical. The current challenges must be overcome to ensure that online, hybrid, and technology-supported learning experiences are taught well and delivered to students who are prepared for the academic and technological demands of their courses. There is certainly a need for further research in this area.
Concluding Thoughts
In closing, the term that best describes the myriad of changes in Canadian higher education is “digital transformation.” EDUCAUSE defines digital transformation as “a series of deep and coordinated culture, workforce, and technology shifts that enable new educational and operating models and transform an institution’s operations, strategic directions, and value proposition” (para 1). The CDLRA’s 2023 research findings indicate that technology use, especially technology pertaining to hybrid learning and GenAI, is becoming increasingly embedded in higher education. As with any type of transformation, tensions, and challenges will be part of the process as we settle more deeply into our digital age. In my role as a researcher and leader in understanding macro-level trends, my hope is that there is continued collaboration amongst colleagues in the digital learning space (across institutions and across countries) to help one another find the best solutions for overcoming our present challenges and those that are still to come.
In today’s ever-evolving landscape of higher education, Distance Education/State Authorization Compliance[1] plays a crucial role in ensuring institutions follow laws, regulations, and guidelines. This process:
is critical for institutions to ensure that they are operating within the legal requirements of each state, and,
provides protections for both students and the institution itself by helping to facilitate the quality of education.
Distance Education/State Authorization compliance can be a complex and time-consuming process, as each state has its own set of regulations and requirements for out-of-state institutions. These requirements may include obtaining approval from the state’s higher education agency, registering with the state’s attorney general’s office, or submitting to regular audits and reporting.
As such, compliance positions and roles are critical for colleges and universities that offer distance education programs, as failure to comply with these requirements can result in serious consequences for institutions, including fines, loss of accreditation, and/or sanctions. Even more, non-compliance can also impact students, potentially leading to issues with financial aid eligibility or transferability of credits.
To ensure state authorization compliance, institutions must stay informed of the latest regulations and requirements in each state in which they operate. The professionals who complete this work often must work closely with legal counsel, regulatory affairs professionals, academic officers, faculty, and staff.
While 276 compliance professionals participated in the study, two major themes emerged from their responses. The information gleaned from the study’s findings will help to inform future research and may be beneficial for higher education administrators when identifying professionals working in these areas who may need additional support, and when reimagining new compliance tools, or even pinpointing areas for improvement.
Distance Education Compliance Professionals play a vital role in ensuring that higher education institutions adhere to laws and regulations. As such, their expertise and skill set should be highly valued by institutions looking to avoid costly legal battles and maintain a good reputation. One would expect that individuals serving (successfully) in these roles would be compensated and respected accordingly. However, research indicates that the salaries for these professionals vary greatly and often correlate to one’s location, experience, title/position, educational attainment, and other factors.
One of the main factors that can influence a compliance professional’s salary is their title/position within the organization. For example, survey results reveal that the average salary for these compliance professionals in the United States is between $60,000 to $65,000 annually. However, this figure can range from as low as $25,000 for entry-level positions/titles such as “Coordinator” or “Assistant” to over $100,000 for those with senior-level roles/titles such as ‘Director, Assistant/Associate Vice Provost”. Interestingly, some of the lower salaries can be attributed to the 7% of these professionals who are employed only on a part-time basis.
An additional indicator of salary was educational attainment. Approximately 24% of research participants earned over $100,000 per year. However, many of those earners held advanced degrees (master’s or terminal degrees). Those with advanced degrees, such as a Master’s, Doctoral degree (EdD or PhD), Juris Doctor (JD) degree, etc., tend to command higher salaries than those with high school credentials, or even an Associate’s or Bachelor’s degree.
Regional Differences
Further, as can be imagined, the region in which a person is employed impacts their salary. In the case of the 2023 survey, the majority of the data (54.3%) comes from a single region (the Southern Regional Education Board), while only 4.1% of the responses came from the New England Board of Higher Education (NEBHE) region. Although the survey was distributed nationally, the responses are not representative of all regions. Obtaining a more equal distribution of responses would allow salary data that is more reflective of the national landscape of State Authorization Professionals.
Job Duties
Higher education institutions often face financial constraints that make recruiting full-time staff and offering competitive salaries difficult. The financial challenges facing colleges and universities are immense. This situation can result in high workloads for existing staff.
As such, many compliance professionals report that they perform a myriad of duties.
Thus, the range and duties/tasks a person performs can impact salary. Accordingly, the survey results reveal that the overwhelming majority of respondents (92.5%) have additional responsibilities outside of state authorization and general compliance. As seen in the 2017 original survey, many of the respondents who earned over $100,000 were senior-level administrators who spent less than 10% of their time on state authorization or general compliance.
Theme 2: Policy and the Regulatory Landscape
Approximately five years passed between the time of the original state authorization professional survey and the second. In that time, state authorization and distance education compliance requirements and responsibilities burgeoned and gained more focus at the national level. Also, during that time, the number of states and institutions participating in reciprocity through SARA (State Authorization Reciprocity Agreements) increased and we’ve seen a flurry of regulatory activity from the U.S. Department of Education. These regulations have added and modified institutional responsibilities relating to state authorization, distance education, professional licensure compliance, and tying compliance to eligibility for federal financial aid.
Additionally, institutions have become more aware of compliance obligations to the states when conducting out-of-state activities. And, importantly, as we globally persevered through the COVID-19 pandemic, which saw institutions of all kinds forced to quickly shift to emergency remote learning. Although data suggests that enrollment in distance education courses is not currently as high as it was during the pandemic, it does suggest that enrollment in distance education courses is higher now than pre-pandemic. Each of these factors, and many more, influence the responsibilities of State Authorization Compliance professionals at an institution.
As noted earlier, in the 2023 survey, most respondents (92.5%), indicated that they have additional responsibilities outside of state authorization and general compliance, compared to 80% from the 2017 survey. The additional responsibilities range from instructional design and faculty development to accreditation and student success. For a list of the additional responsibilities submitted by survey respondents, please refer to the expansive information in Appendix I of the report.
Between both surveys, the amount of time spent on state authorization work appears to remain consistent. In 2017, 56% of respondents spent 25% or less of their time on state authorization, while another 15% spent all their time on state authorization. In 2023, approximately 58% of respondents spent 20% or less of their time on state authorization, while only 4% spent all their time on state authorization. The increase in participation in reciprocity could account for the small decreases we see here.
However, a notable change came in terms of the time spent on professional licensure compliance. In 2017, 67% of respondents did not work on professional licensure at all. In 2023, the number of individuals not working on professional licensure at all had dropped to 13.7%, and 69% of respondents spent between 1-39% of their time on professional licensure, with 2.5% even spending all their time on professional licensure.
The major shifts we see in responsibility, especially the increase of professional licensure compliance duties added to the state authorization professional, show how this role is growing and adapting to the regulatory requirements relating to distance education and out-of-state activities. To participate in SARA, institutions have professional licensure compliance responsibilities. The U.S. Department of Education also has professional licensure compliance requirements tied to federal financial aid. It is important to note that the 2023 survey was completed before the final rules relating to certification procedures enhanced institutional obligations relating to professional licensure programs. If this survey is repeated in the coming years, we recommend an analysis of the impact of those regulations on the State Authorization Professional.
In future surveys and research opportunities, we believe it would be highly important to track the changes in a similar manner to those discussed above. Doing so, over time would allow us to better understand how these policy changes influence the responsibilities, salaries, and work environments of State Authorization and Distance Education Professionals.
Leveraging the Survey Information: Addressing Staffing Needs
As many of the survey respondents noted that they often feel overwhelmed and understaffed due to the myriads of tasks required, and to the fact they operate as a “team of one”, we encourage all to utilize the survey information to benefit your role at the institution. Though the survey has limitations, we encourage institutions and state authorization professionals to analyze the data to assist in making informed decisions regarding staffing requirements, and to the scope and duties of the state authorization professional.
We also believe that this data can be used to better educate and inform administrators and/or senior-level leaders on the importance of the role. Moreover, some professionals have noted that they may utilize the survey data to justify the hiring of new staff. Therefore, utilizing the survey data to justify the hiring of new staff is a strategic approach that can provide valuable insights into the operational needs of an institution.
Because the survey results not only contain important details regarding the typical tasks required of these positions (such as: researching, analyzing regulations, completing complex state applications, data reporting, etc.), the data also provides insight into the timing and commitment required to complete said projects. Thus, the survey can really be of value to institutions and staff when establishing the scope of responsibilities typically handled by state authorization professionals so that job roles can be clearly defined and allocated more efficiently. This may include planning to ensure the institution has the necessary resources in place to support compliance, whether that be personnel or technological resources.
Expanding the Research
The purpose of this study, like any research project, is to advance, challenge, and extend the existing knowledge in this field. However, our primary hope is that the experiences and insights shared by these professionals promote confidence and impart wisdom for newcomers to the field when considering regulatory, ethical, and operational opportunities. We also hope that this research will spark conversations among campus leaders about the importance of the work and the critical need for increasing budgets to expand compliance teams.
Even more, the research can be expanded to cover a number of additional topics. Because the field of state authorization and distance education compliance has grown rapidly over the past decade, institutions and their respective staff are still learning how to best develop these roles and empower these professionals to be successful.
That stated, as the field continues to grow, so does the opportunity to learn, grow, and gain experience about the trends in the role and how we might advance the research of the profession. Some possible avenues for the future that could expand on the research in meaningful ways include:
Region-specific challenges: Identify whether state authorization professionals face challenges specific to the region in which the institution is located (geographic region, urban/rural, etc.).
Role-specific challenges: Identify whether state authorization professionals face challenges specific to different types of institutions (public/nonprofit, large/small, etc.).
Impact of regulatory changes: Analyze the impact that regulatory or policy changes have had on the allocation of duties and resources at the institution.
Impact of technology: Investigate whether new tools or technologies are impacting the effectiveness of the role of the state authorization professional.
Work-life balance and job satisfaction: Investigate factors influencing work-life balance and job satisfaction among state authorization professionals.
Dive more deeply into team and/or departmental structure: Gain a better understanding of the impact of centralized vs. decentralized structures.
Risk Management: Understand the importance of risk assessments and management, note benchmarking strategies to mitigate risk, and utilize data analytics.
Career Development: Identify strategies to promote growth in the field, pinpointing areas that require additional training, development, and networking.
Concluding Thoughts
Maintaining compliance with distance education activities is vital for today’s colleges and universities. Failure to comply could lead to stiff fines, penalties, accreditation issues, and even the loss of Title IV eligibility. The individuals who bear the responsibility of ensuring compliance with the distance education-related regulatory standards/guidelines are critical to safeguarding the success and reputation of an institution.
These compliance professionals often have a myriad of responsibilities and are also required to collaborate with numerous stakeholders. Their peers run the gamut of the General Council and Legal Departments, Financial Aid officials, Offices of Assessment and Accreditation, Provosts, Deans, and many more. Moreover, these professionals are responsible for interpreting and implementing federal, state, and local regulations that affect higher education institutions. Many of the individuals work closely with faculty, staff, and administrators to develop policies and procedures that ensure compliance with laws such as the Clery Act, Title IX, FERPA, and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Not only must these professionals stay abreast of changing regulations, but also with industry standards/best practices from the field, so they can effectively manage compliance efforts. In addition to managing regulatory compliance, these professionals also contribute to the overall success of institutions by promoting a culture of ethics and accountability. They also provide training and resources to campus community members on compliance issues, and they investigate complaints and violations to ensure prompt resolution. Their expertise and dedication to compliance not only protects institutions from legal and financial risks, but also helps to foster equitable, safe, and inclusive environments for students, faculty, and staff.
By understanding the importance of these roles and how to fulfill them effectively, leaders in the academy can better serve their institutions. This research goes a long way to close the gap on the dearth of information that has long since permeated this field. The report also makes an important case for identifying the vast duties required for campuses to remain compliant with state and federal requirements.
Higher education has an important role to play when it comes to providing information to students searching for educational programs that leads to a license or certification. In that light, what information should be provided by the institution to formerly incarcerated students who are looking for professional or licensure programs? While some states do have barriers that this student group must, many do not prohibit these students from accessing certain programs and may want to ensure they are providing the required and helpful information when needed.
We often hear the U.S. Department of Education (Department) express concern for a student’s “worthless degree.” Such a descriptor is typically applied when a student cannot gain employment in their chosen field. Public disclosures regarding state prohibitions to employment for formerly incarcerated individuals were addressed recently in new regulations for prison education programs for currently incarcerated individuals receiving Pell Grants. However, the question remains: how should colleges and universities support formerly incarcerated students who have enrolled at their institution? Many of these students need assistance and guidance to navigate the various state laws and processes to make informed decisions about education and career goals. Additionally, how can we support the students without requiring them to self-identify as formerly incarcerated individuals?
The State Authorization Network (SAN), as an organization that regularly addresses state variation of laws and regulations, determined that since states differ so widely, we should begin to address the differences and similarities of rules and regulations for licensed professions for employment of formerly incarcerated individuals. To pursue an initial review of the variations, SAN obtained the assistance of two undergraduate interns to compare a sample set of state rules, with the sample representing each region of the United States. We are pleased to welcome our guest contributors, Charisma Barrow and Chrischen Thompson, to share their findings on state processes and opportunities.
As you will see from the interns’ preliminary research, states vary, as expected. However, what is consistent is that there are prohibitions for employment based on the incarceration status of the student. These students would have difficulty navigating the variations and requirements and may ultimately pursue a degree program for which they would be prohibited from seeking employment in the occupation. We hope that by sharing this preliminary research, institutions will consider how they share program information publicly to avert student disappointment if they encounter barriers to employment after completing the educational program.
Analysis by Charisma Barrow, Fayetteville State University
Researching the occupational licensing restrictions for recently incarcerated individuals in a specific set of states reveals variation in such restrictions among the states. The states analyzed in this section include:
California,
Minnesota,
New Jersey, and,
Wyoming,
State Comparisons
California stands out with its lenient approach, allowing inquiries into criminal history primarily when mandated by law or for positions in criminal justice. In contrast, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Wyoming impose stricter restrictions, often barring individuals from professions directly related to their convictions. For example, Minnesota restricts those convicted of offenses involving vulnerable adults from working in nursing homes, while New Jersey’s broad exclusions encompass various crimes of moral turpitude, which impacts a wide range of occupations. Wyoming’s rules also reflect a direct connection between the nature of the offense and professional duties, with long-term bans in place for certain severe crimes. Each state, however, offers programs to support the reintegration of ex-offenders into the workforce, highlighting efforts to balance public safety with the goal of reducing recidivism through gainful employment.
California
California has the most lenient restrictions when it comes to recently incarcerated individuals. Employers can only ask about an individual’s criminal history if the employer is a criminal justice agency, or a state or local agency required by law to conduct a criminal background check. A history of felonies, misdemeanors, and arrests are permitted to be requested for up to 7 years after conviction. Employers in California cannot inquire about marijuana convictions that are more than 2 years old. Juvenile criminal records are also off-limits to employers.
Recently, the California Workforce Development Board (CWDB) announced new opportunities in the state for training, education, career opportunities, and other supportive services for formerly incarcerated or otherwise justice related residents.
Minnesota
In the states of Minnesota, New Jersey, and Wyoming, a person can be barred from obtaining a license in a profession that directly corresponds to a previous conviction. For example, in Minnesota, if the offense involved a vulnerable adult, the individual would likely be unable to work in any position in a nursing home or group home. This also includes other occupations such as working security or law enforcement if the crime had anything to do with firearms. If the crime included money, the individual would be barred from working at a bank or other financial institution.
The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis is working to help mitigate these barriers by assisting individuals who have criminal records in finding sustained, gainful employment to produce savings and other benefits for both the ex-offenders and society.
New Jersey
The New Jersey State Board of Medical Examiners and the New Jersey Bar will revoke or not allow a license to individuals convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. These crimes include sexual assault, theft, domestic violence, fraud, forgery, theft, endangering the welfare of a child, manslaughter, tax evasion, and bribery. Those convicted of drug crimes and other offenses under the category of “moral turpitude” are barred by law from many positions, from public employees and firefighters to insurance adjusters. Said individuals would also be barred from obtaining a teaching license if they are guilty of all first and second-degree crimes, sexual offenses, certain drug offenses, and crimes against children. Many former prisoners will also have their driver’s license suspended 6 months to up to 2 years.
One way New Jersey is helping those impacted by these barriers is through the state’s career services. Here, they can help remove some of the common barriers to employment for ex-offenders, assisting with issues such as driver’s license restoration, referrals to community mental health programs, job search preparation classes that take place at halfway house facilities, and community release programs under Parole supervision.
Wyoming
In the state of Wyoming, a prior conviction cannot be considered regarding employment if the convictions are more than 20 years old, with a few exceptions. These exceptions include the person still being under a sentence, or the sentence was completed fewer than 10 years ago if the offense is “directly related to the specific duties and responsibilities of that profession or occupation.” Examples of this include convictions of violent crimes or sexual misconduct. In that case, that person will be barred from occupations such as teaching, being a guide, being a social worker, being a family or marriage counselor, being a nurse, chiropractor, or dental hygienist.
Wyoming’s Department of Corrections (WDOC) has implemented a release planning program for recently incarcerated individuals. Release planning includes several aspects, such as treatment, housing, supervision, employment, education, healthcare, and other services. The WDOC develops a transition plan by assessing the individual’s risk for recidivism and their treatment needs. Offenders identified as medium to high risk/special needs will have enhanced case management services, including additional release consultations, referrals, assistance with community transition, and additional case planning to address special needs and individual risk. The WDOC offers competency-based coursework designed to help students improve academic, vocational, or life skills.
Conclusion – Regulatory Spectrum for Supporting Students
In conclusion, the research into occupational licensing restrictions for recently incarcerated individuals across California, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Wyoming reveals a spectrum of regulatory approaches. California stands out for its leniency, allowing inquiries into criminal history primarily in positions mandated by law to conduct background checks. In contrast, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Wyoming impose stricter regulations, often barring individuals from certain professions directly related to their offenses. These states also offer various programs aimed at mitigating employment barriers for ex-offenders. The initiatives discussed above highlight ongoing efforts to balance public safety with rehabilitation and reintegration, underscoring the need for nuanced policies that support successful reentry while addressing societal concerns.
Analysis by Chrischen Thompson, University of Texas (UT)
This analysis examines the criminal justice reforms and barriers to reentry faced by individuals with criminal records in five U.S. states:
Colorado,
the District of Columbia (D.C.),
Louisiana,
Massachusetts, and,
Oklahoma.
State Comparisons
Each state presents unique challenges and approaches to addressing the complex issues surrounding reintegration into society for those with past convictions. By impartially examining their policies, reforms, and initiatives, we aim to highlight similarities, differences, and notable aspects while considering the need for a balanced approach that promotes rehabilitation and public safety.
Colorado
Colorado faces challenges in ensuring fair access to higher education and occupational licensing for individuals with criminal records.
Specific requirements based on sentence length and the disclosure of criminal histories during the college admission process hinder opportunities for incarcerated individuals.
Additionally, the absence of formal agreements for credit transfer complicates the reentry process for those seeking to continue their education (Johnson, 2020). While advocating for policy changes to expand educational opportunities, Colorado recognizes the importance of public safety considerations and may impose certain limitations based on the nature of offenses. Notable reforms include advocating for policy changes to abolish limits on sentence length for accessing postsecondary programs and prioritizing federal funding for education in correctional facilities.
District of Columbia (D.C.)
D.C. confronts substantial occupational licensing and postsecondary education obstacles for individuals with criminal records. Strict licensing regulations and limited access to federal financial aid exacerbate the challenges of reentry into society. However, community-based organizations and legal aid clinics are crucial in providing support and resources (Miller, 2019). D.C.’s approach includes advocating for policy changes to reform licensing laws and incorporating occupational licensing considerations into reentry planning while maintaining appropriate safeguards for public safety. Significant aspects of D.C.’s approach include advocating for policy changes to reform licensing laws and incorporating occupational licensing considerations into reentry planning.
Louisiana
Louisiana faces significant postsecondary education and occupational licensing barriers for individuals with criminal records. Strict occupational licensing regulations and moral turpitude clauses pose challenges, particularly in professions crucial to public safety and welfare. While supporting the rights of individuals with criminal histories through advocacy organizations, Louisiana also recognizes the necessity of considering public safety concerns when granting licenses for certain professions. Notable aspects include advocacy organizations such as Operation Restoration and Voice of the Experienced (VOTE), which both support the rights of individuals with criminal histories.
Massachusetts
Massachusetts has emerged as a leader in criminal justice reform, implementing strategies to remove barriers for individuals with criminal records seeking education and licensure opportunities. Example reforms include banning work placement denials based on convictions over five years old and preventing the use of certain criminal records in decision-making processes (Jones, 2020). It is essential to consider the nature and severity of infractions to strike a balance between promoting rehabilitation and upholding public safety standards. Massachusetts’ commitment to legal aid and advocacy organizations, reentry programs, and state-level policy reforms demonstrates a comprehensive framework for addressing barriers to education and licensure.
Oklahoma
Oklahoma has undertaken significant criminal justice reforms to reduce barriers for individuals with criminal records seeking education and occupational licenses. Notable reforms include banning work placement denials based on convictions over five years old and preventing the use of certain criminal records (Brown, 2019). While promoting reentry opportunities, the state maintains certain limitations and restrictions based on the severity of offenses, recognizing the importance of public safety considerations. Oklahoma’s focus on appeal rights for individuals with restricted licenses and data collection and reporting requirements highlights its commitment to transparency and accountability in the licensing process.
Comparative Analysis: Recognizing Common Themes and Differences
Different criminal justice reform approaches and reentry barriers are heterogeneous, especially across the five states included in this sample, but similarities can also be seen among others. all of the states in this analysis emphasize discussion and consideration of the obstacles to attaining education and employment for people with criminal backgrounds and propose a balanced position addressing safety concerns at the same time.
Fairness and inclusivity in the resettlement process are two significant issues that have been repeatedly raised, as described in the development of state initiatives previously described, necessitating policy reforms and legal reforms to ensure justice. Some of the states have been successful through policy advocacy and law reform, such as Colorado, D. C., and Massachusetts. States like Louisiana and Oklahoma have adopted a different approach centered on community participation and supportive services that aim to remove systems of inequality and barriers to future employment.
Another reoccurring feature in this state sample was a focus on gathering and using data. Dealing with the collection and reporting of information is crucial for objective assessment of the challenges in each state and the impact of their initiatives. States like Massachusetts and Oklahoma are data-centric in their approach to continuous improvement of criminal checks on applicants by developing data collection and reporting capacity. This is part of the broader reforms they are initiating.
Although diverging programs and plans are adopted by individual states, there is still a general idea that is commonplace for all: the balance of supportive formerly incarcerated individuals and public safety concerns (Smith, 2020). For example, the Massachusetts ban using five-year or older convictions for workplace decisions, while also having safety measures in place in cases involving crimes likely to be detrimental to public peace.
By comparing each of these five states, we can see thatpeople with criminal pasts get the same opportunities as others, but will have different routes and hurdles to overcome when trying to complete their education and receive occupational licensing. Other states can draw inspiration from the fundamental matter of interest that all of these states hold, to ensure a smooth reintegration process for those living in their state who have served their sentences. In addition, these states can give concrete power to implement restrictions and regulations based on the nature and seriousness of the crime so that public security is safeguarded. The government uses different approaches and engagements to construct a support platform for releasing the prisons, with the essential well-being of the general society as the top priority simultaneously.
Next Steps from SAN
Licensure issues are complex, and we know it is important to support all students effectively in pursuing their career goals. Although this post did not address the new professional licensure regulations and amended notifications that will become effective in a few weeks (July 1, 2024!), SAN wants to remind you that we’ve got your back.
Related to the analysis offered today, in the next year, SAN intends to offer a follow-up post here on WCET Frontiers that will consider the ethical responsibilities of institutions to provide public disclosures to inform undocumented students enrolling in programs that lead to a license or certification addressing state barriers to a license or employment. Additionally, SAN will provide more on the state prohibitions to employment for formerly incarcerated individuals. The Department’s regulation addressing eligible prison education programs is an initial model for disclosures. Effective July 1, 2023, in addition to other disclosure requirements required in federal regulations, 34 CR 668.43(a)(5)(vi) directs that an institution must provide a disclosure if the prison education program leads to a license or certification when there is a prohibition on the licensure or employment of the formerly incarcerated individuals in any other state. We plan to communicate with and share example processes from institutions that provide public disclosures to inform prospective and enrolled students of barriers and prohibitions.
Thank you to the SAN interns! Great job! More coming in 2025!
I have tremendous respect for the innovative technologies and dedicated educators who tirelessly work to help their students achieve their educational goals. Today, I’m thrilled to welcome Julie Delich, who will share her insights on supporting virtual students. Julie will discuss practical steps that instructors and staff can implement, and she’ll also highlight important considerations for using emerging technologies, such as AI, in the classroom. Thank you, Julie, for these valuable ideas and strategies to help distance education students succeed!
Enjoy the read,
Lindsey Downs, WCET
While distance learning offers unique opportunities for institutions and students alike, it also presents challenges that require strategic solutions to ensure student wellness and success. As educators, we must harness emerging technologies to provide scalable, 24/7 support systems for our students.
By leveraging emerging technologies like AI, we can effectively guide students to create a culture of help-seeking behaviors and systems that support students staying on track throughout their educational journey.
Looking Ahead with Practical Steps
To address the multifaceted needs of students in distance learning, institutions can adopt several practical strategies:
Increase the Capacity of Advising Staff – Balancing the student-to-advisor ratio ensures that students receive the personalized attention they need, and technology offers a path to increased advisor capacity.
Offer Online Counseling – Providing accessible online counseling services allows students to seek help regardless of their location.
Leverage Emerging Technology – Utilizing AI for conversations through chat or text can significantly enhance the students’ sense of connection to the institution.
Considerations For Emerging Tech
When integrating emerging technologies into student support frameworks, it’s important to consider the following:
Focus on the conversation, not just the tech. Tools should connect humans and accelerate conversations, not deflect them. For example, texting students can provide institutional leaders with rapid insights into student sentiment and well-being, covering areas like belonging, self-efficacy, and engagement.
Use Informal Insights to Constantly Improve. Continuous feedback mechanisms should be in place to capture informal insights from students. This enables institutions to make informed decisions and respond to emerging needs.
Build Systems for Crisis Intervention. Integrate systems that can identify and respond to crises promptly, ensuring students receive immediate support during critical times.
Ideas for AI Supported Student Support
Effective Text Nudging
Effective nudging involves building trust and fostering relationships between students and AI tools. Here are key strategies:
Establish trust to enable a relationship with AI. Establishing a parasocial relationship where students feel comfortable and trusting towards AI can enhance engagement.
Proactivity. Proactive outreach helps prevent issues before they arise, guiding students to take necessary actions in advance. Students don’t know what they don’t know.
Teach Emotional Literacy. Educating them on emotional literacy allows them to recognize situations where seeking help is beneficial. This includes teaching them to label and manage their emotions effectively.
Human Centered, AI Enhanced Coaching
Some institutions have begun embedding emotional intelligence into their proactive outreach.
For instance, research from The Partnership for Education Advancement, Norfolk State University, The Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence, and Mainstay demonstrates that “how you say it matters.”
This highlights the importance of using emotionally intelligent and culturally relevant language in increasing student engagement. This approach led to over 7,000 additional students actively engaging with AI coaching.
AI technology solutions like Mainstay offer AI success coaching and pulse checks, guiding students and understanding their evolving needs to help them persist throughout the student lifecycle. By integrating human centered design with AI capabilities, these tools create a supportive and responsive educational environment.
Juneteenth, celebrated annually on June 19th, marks a pivotal moment in American history—the day in 1865 when enslaved African Americans in Galveston, Texas, were informed of their freedom, years after the Emancipation Proclamation was signed. This day symbolizes the end of slavery in the United States and is a profound reminder of the resilience and enduring spirit of African Americans.
For educators, this day can inspire curriculum development, community engagement, and reflection on policies to ensure a commitment to equity and inclusion.
As we observe Juneteenth this week, I hope we can embrace the chance to educate ourselves and others about this important day. In line with that vision, WCET and Every Learner Everywhere present the following article on recognizing Juneteenth and offer ideas on how to integrate this important day into higher education settings.
Enjoy the read, Lindsey Downs, WCET
Juneteenth is a pivotal moment in American history that commemorates the end of slavery and the ongoing pursuit of freedom and equality for all.
The Significance of Juneteenth in Higher Education
Juneteenth serves as a powerful reminder of the systemic barriers and injustices that have historically denied educational opportunities to Black Americans and other marginalized communities. It underscores the need for higher education institutions to actively dismantle these barriers and create inclusive learning environments that empower all students to thrive.
Celebrating Juneteenth on college campuses is an opportunity to:
Acknowledge the Legacy of Oppression: By recognizing Juneteenth, institutions can confront the painful history of slavery and its enduring impact on access to education for Black communities. This acknowledgment is crucial for fostering understanding, healing, and progress.
Promote Inclusive Curricula: Juneteenth encourages the integration of diverse perspectives and experiences into academic curricula, ensuring that the contributions and struggles of Black Americans are accurately represented and celebrated.
Foster Dialogue and Understanding: Observing Juneteenth can facilitate open and honest conversations about race, equity, and social justice, fostering a deeper understanding among students, faculty, and staff.
Inspire Ongoing Commitment to Equity: Juneteenth serves as a catalyst for higher education institutions to evaluate their policies, practices, and campus climate, and to take meaningful steps towards creating truly equitable and inclusive learning environments.
Juneteenth and Educational Freedom
The pursuit of educational freedom is inextricably linked to the broader struggle for civil rights and social justice. Juneteenth represents a pivotal moment in this ongoing journey, reminding us that true freedom cannot be achieved without equal access to quality education.
By recognizing Juneteenth, higher education institutions can:
Increase Access and Affordability: Institutions can prioritize initiatives that remove financial barriers and provide support systems for underrepresented and marginalized students, ensuring that education is accessible to all.
Foster Inclusive Campus Climates: Creating welcoming and supportive environments for diverse students, faculty, and staff is essential for promoting educational freedom and empowering individuals to reach their full potential.
Inspire Civic Engagement and Leadership: By engaging with the principles of Juneteenth, institutions can empower students to become agents of change, equipped with the knowledge and skills to advocate for social justice and educational equity in their communities.
Supporting Students on Juneteenth
Institutions of higher education can better support minoritized student populations on Juneteenth in the following ways:
Amplify Black Voices and Experiences: Provide platforms for Black students, faculty, and staff to share their stories, perspectives, and experiences. Invite Black scholars, activists, or community leaders to speak about the importance of Juneteenth and its relevance to educational equity.
Increase Representation and Support: Prioritize efforts to recruit and retain more Black faculty, staff, and administrators who can serve as mentors and role models for Black students. Provide comprehensive support services, such as academic advising, tutoring, and mental health resources, tailored to the unique needs of minoritized student populations.
Foster Dialogue and Understanding: Facilitate open and honest conversations about race, equity, and social justice within the campus community. Encourage students, faculty, and staff to engage in difficult but necessary dialogues that promote understanding and foster a more inclusive campus culture.
Collaborate with Community Partners: Establish partnerships with local organizations, community leaders, and advocacy groups working to advance educational equity for minoritized populations. Collaborate on initiatives, programs, and resources that support the success of these students.
By taking these steps, institutions of higher education can honor the spirit of Juneteenth and demonstrate a genuine commitment to supporting minoritized student populations, particularly Black students, in their pursuit of educational excellence and personal growth.
Integrating Juneteenth Into Curriculum
Institutions of higher education can integrate Juneteenth into their curriculum to enhance educational equity in the following ways:
Incorporate Juneteenth into General Education Courses: Include discussions, readings, and assignments related to Juneteenth in relevant general education courses, such as American history, African American studies, sociology, and political science. This exposure can help all students understand the significance of Juneteenth and its connection to the ongoing struggle for racial justice and educational equity.
Develop Juneteenth-Focused Courses: Offer dedicated courses that explore the historical context, cultural significance, and contemporary relevance of Juneteenth. These courses can delve into topics such as the legacy of slavery, the Civil Rights Movement, and the ongoing fight for racial equality in education and other spheres of society.
Encourage Research and Scholarship: Support faculty and student research projects that investigate the historical, social, and educational implications of Juneteenth. This can contribute to a deeper understanding of the barriers faced by marginalized communities and inform strategies for promoting educational equity.
Promote Inclusive Pedagogy: Encourage faculty to adopt inclusive teaching practices that incorporate diverse perspectives, experiences, and narratives related to Juneteenth and its significance. This can create a more inclusive and equitable learning environment for all students.
Provide Professional Development: Offer professional development opportunities for faculty and staff to enhance their understanding of Juneteenth, its historical context, and its relevance to educational equity. This can equip educators with the knowledge and skills necessary to effectively integrate Juneteenth into the curriculum and campus culture.
By integrating Juneteenth into the curriculum and campus life, institutions of higher education can raise awareness, foster dialogue, and promote a deeper understanding of the ongoing struggle for educational equity and racial justice. This approach can empower students to become agents of change and contribute to the creation of more inclusive and equitable learning environments.
Recognizing Juneteenth in higher education is not merely a symbolic gesture; it is a commitment to actively dismantling systemic barriers, promoting inclusive excellence, and ensuring that every learner has the opportunity to pursue their educational aspirations freely and equitably.
Learn more about Juneteenth and Advancing Educational Equity:
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.OK
