Two co-authors, also doctoral students at Cardinal Stritch, join me to explore and provide the content for this post. Welcome… LePra George and Nicole Van Ert.
Assignment II: Case Analysis of a Compelling Contemporary Issue Facing Higher Educational Institutions –GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS AFFECTING HIGHER EDUCATION
Students will work in individuals to write a short paper on government regulations affecting higher education. Students should identify the ONE major government and accreditation regulations and provide an overview with a definition. Then design a strategy for implementing a recommended change within the higher education institution, or system, e.g., how would organize a system or process to address the regulation?
What are some of the government regulations?
Affordable Health Care Act, FERPA, HIPAA, Red Flags Rule, FISMA (Federal Information Security Management Act), PCI DSS (Data security standards credit card industry, which is not a law, but a standard), Accreditor and Certification Requirements, HLC (higher learning commission).
Department of Education Regulations
Credit Program Length and Tuition, Records of Student Complaints, Verification of Student Identity, Title IV, Default Rates, Campus Crime, Athletic Participation, Students Right to Know, Contractual Relationships, Consortial Relationships, & Truth in Advertising and Recruitment
Truth in advertising and recruitment is becoming a growing area of concern as more tax dollars are going to fund for-profits and the student success seems to be forgotten.
The Good… For-profit colleges are currently necessary in higher education. The existing capacity of non-profit and public higher education is insufficient to satisfy the growing demand for higher education, especially with the shift in demographics of more non-traditional students returning to school.
The Bad… According to a report by the US State Senate in 2010, “the for-profit colleges examined employed 35,202 recruiters compared with 3,512 career services staff and 12,452 support services staff, more than two and a half recruiters for each support services employee” (2010, p 8). The recruiter/student ratio would be one recruiter for every 53 students. The report also indicated that recruiters of for-profit colleges create a false sense of urgency to enroll and inflate the prestige. This comes as no surprise as many of these same colleges have been accused of using incentive structures. For example, Apollo, parent company of the University of Phoenix, paid $78 million to settle a 2002 lawsuit claiming that it illegally paid its recruiters based on the number of students each recruiter enrolled (O’Reilly & Golden, 2009).
The Ugly… More than half a million students enrolled in for-profit colleges during 2008-09 left without a degree or certificate by mid 2010 and have the financial burden earning levels of debt that exceed current earning that will most likely last throughout their lives.
During the Obama administration, as part of a rulemaking package enacted in October 2010, the Department of Education has attempted to regulate some of the problems in for-profit schools:
- The Department of Education ensured that recruiters at for-profit schools cannot not be compensated based on the number of students they enrolled. (Recruitment)
- The Department of Education prohibited colleges from making misrepresentations about their educational programs, financial charges, and graduate employability (Advertising)
- The 90/10 rule (more of an FA regulation, not really related to our topic, but seems important)
- The requirement that no more than 30% of students default within 3 years (Recruitment)
- In June 2011, the Department of Education finalized a new regulation that defined colleges’ obligation to “provide gainful employment in a recognized occupation.” (Recruitment)
Non-for Profit examples breaching truth in advertising
In 2007 Drake University was criticized for advertising with pictures that depicted diversity that some said did not exist and definitely didn’t accurately reflect Drake. David Maxwell, president at the time, said, “We did something where we featured an African-American student, and I had to think hard about whether it was overstating things. But to not feature this student would have been wrong. She was involved in crew and many activities. She’s such a part of this place — truly a part of the face of Drake.” However, many questioned why an African-American was highlighted in the ad, when many other ethnic backgrounds had similar achievements. A similar story came out about Seton Hall University when alumni, Joel Mahan, spoke up saying his alma mater was misrepresenting itself in advertising campaigns also leading people to believe there was great diversity on what he believed was actually a “largely White Catholic university”. The University of Wisconsin-Madison was also in the spotlight for false advertising when it leaked that they digitally photoshopped a black student into a photo of white football fans in 2000. This cost them more than $60,000 to recall the embarrassing and controversial ads (Butterman, 2007).
STILL NEED TO DO:
How to design a strategy/process for implementing?
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ON FINAL REGULATIONS ON PROGRAM INTEGRITY
Definitions:
- “misrepresentation” as “any false, erroneous or misleading statement made to a student, prospective student or any member of the public, or to an accrediting agency, a State Agency or to the Secretary by the institution, one of its representatives or persons with whom the eligible institution has an agreement to provide educational programs, or to provide marketing, advertising, recruiting, or admissions services.”
- “substantial misrepresentation” as “any misrepresentation on which the person to whom it was made could reasonably be expected to rely, or has reasonably relied, to that person’s detriment.”
Further explanation:
- Specifically disallow false, erroneous or misleading statements about an institution’s accredited status. Failure by an institution to disclose that a degree in a program area requires specialized accreditation also is categorized as a misrepresentation.
- Directly address misrepresentations regarding transfer of credit: “whether a student may transfer course credits earned at the institution to any other institution” and “conditions under which the institution will accept transfer credits earned at another institution.”
- Include in “misrepresentation” false, erroneous or misleading statements about whether successful completion of a course of instruction qualifies a student to receive, apply to take or take licensure examinations or nongovernmental certification required as a precondition for certain types of employment.
In sum, institutions now have significant additional responsibility with regard to what is said about the college, university or program and who makes statements about the institution, involving both the content of a representation (ads/campaigns) and who makes the representation (recruiters).
* Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA)
** U.S. Department of Education (USDE)
References:
Butterman, E. (2007). Truth In Advertising. Higher Education. Retrieved July 10, 2014, from http://diverseeducation.com/article/7134/
Reilly, C., & Golden, D. (2009). Apollo Settles University of Phoenix Recruiting Suit (Update 3). Bloomberg. Retrieved July 9, 2014, from http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a7cFhPKPB1mA
Most Recent Federal Update as of November 3, 2010 http://www.chea.org/Government/FedU1pdate/CHEA_FU3.html
Leadership, Learning, Service & Research 