Feds Delay State Authorization Rule

That is good news.

 

This is good news. The idea that New World Order University that sites on an island with little oversight can take money from people in say Wisconsin, but a US accredited school like say Aspen University can't without jumping through 100 hoops and getting a bond is ridiculous. (Not that I am a fan of either btw).

 

sticky wicket

Here is a question for the attorneys who read this website:

Since online education is interstate (because it crosses state boundaries via the internet), should it be exempt from State rules and/or is regional accreditation enough governance?

 

Wrong question. Since online education is interstate should some schools be subject to state regulations and others not. Because that is how the law they were trying to set up reads..

 

I'm not an attorney, but I can tell you that interstate commerce can be subject to State rules, if it involves powers that are traditionally delegated to the States. And regulation of education is one of those powers.

Another traditional State power is regulation of alcohol. And as a result, there is a chaotic mess of rules and regulations regarding the interstate shipment of wine (an issue of particular interest here in California). In some states, you can order a case of fine wine direct from a winery in California, and have it delivered right to your door. But depending on the state, this may require varying degrees of paperwork, taxes, permitting, and hassle. And in other states, this seemingly straightforward act of interstate commerce would be classified as criminal.

And the inconsistency doesn't necessarily even stop at the State level. In some states, some but not all counties are "dry". Or a given county can be "wet", but certain cities within that county can be "dry". Nobody dares to ship wine to any address in Kentucky, for example, because the patchwork of local alcohol regulations is complex and confusing, and it's a felony if you get it wrong. It's a felony in Utah too, but at least the law is simple, because it applies statewide.

Unfortunately, it wouldn't surprise me if distance education ultimately faces similar issues. Some states will be reasonable about out-of-state DL providers, especially if they have recognized accreditation. But there is no guarantee that every state will be reasonable. The political reality is that it is difficult to get 50+ state and territorial governments to act in unison.

 

Here is the Wet/Dry map for Texas.

https://www.tabc.state.tx.us/images/wetdry.gif

 

Another issue involving both DL and alcohol: what happens when a "dry" school offers distance education? For example, several members of this forum are in DL programs with the University of Cumberlands, which has the following to say about alcohol use (emphasis added):

So alcohol use by UC students is flatly prohibited "at any time and any place" -- "even if lawful". And this applies to the university's "activities off campus". So the policy would seem to apply even to a DL student at home in a "wet" state.

It would be interesting to ask University of Cumberlands DL students if they actually adhere to these stringent "dry" requirements while enrolled. On the other hand, UC has a history of punishing students and faculty based on their Internet postings, so it wouldn't be fair to pose the question.

 

Apparently it is legal to ship wine to any community in Texas, regardless of whether it is wet or dry. So out-of-state wine producers can ignore local regs (in this case). However, it is still necessary to meet all state requirements, which may be summarized as follows:

Of course, Texas is pro-business so their regulations are relatively simple. The rules can be more complicated in other states.

 

Dang, what mess that all must be. I think I would resort to selling widgets instead. What could go wrong with widgets?

 

But as we know, universities are not just interstate but they are also international. So what are those implications?

 

Understood. Maryland started this mess by trying to force all online colleges and universities to register with Maryland if they have Maryland residents enrolled. Then conceivably, all 50 states and territories can mandate that all online colleges and universities must register in each state and territory in the union. Registering in all 50 states and territories could get unnecessarily complicated. Why have the feds temporarily put a stop to this?

 

In general, the state governments decide if a given school can operate.
But in general, the federal government decides if a given school is eligible for financial aid.
So that's why the feds are involved.

Obviously the feds only want to fund study at legitimate institutions.
That's why only schools with recognized accreditation are eligible.
But doesn't "legitimate" also mean "properly licensed", as well as "properly accredited" ?

If you lived in Maryland and wanted to enroll in an out-of-state DL program, the Maryland state government would probably never know.
In practice, you could probably get away with it, even the out-of-state program wasn't properly licensed in Maryland.

But -- what if you also wanted federal financial aid?
In that case, the feds would obviously know that you were in Maryland, and also that your school was out-of-state.
So should they (1) check to see if your out-of-state school is operating legally in Maryland?
Or should they (2) simply blow off Maryland law and fund your potentially illegal study at an unlicensed out-of-state school?

They'll probably go with (1).
But in that case, any out-of-state school that wants to enroll Maryland students and be eligible for federal financial aid will have to go through Maryland state licensing requirements, no matter how onerous they may be. And the same would apply to every other state.

If all states had reasonable licensing policies, perhaps with automatic exemptions for schools with recognized accreditation, there would be no problem.
In the real world, there are 50+ state and territorial governments, and they may not all be reasonable.

 

In general, international schools aren't eligible for federal financial aid anyway. So if you live in Maryland and wanted to enroll in an unlicensed non-US DL program, you are presumably funding it with private money. In that case, neither the state nor federal government will know about it. So the issue of state licensure will probably never come up.

Suppose it did come up. In that case, an unlicensed non-US school would theoretically be in violation of Maryland law, for offering DL programs to Maryland residents without a proper license. But realistically, how many Maryland residents are in DL degree programs with UNISA or Athabasca or London or other non-US schools? Realistically, is the State of Maryland going to pursue legal action against a school located in some other country that only enrolls a handful of Maryland residents?

 

Good points by you.

 

All of this is stemming from the fact that the State of Maryland is trying to get all online colleges and universities to register with Maryland "if a Maryland resident enrolls" with them. Conversely, if this is allowed to be upheld -- and if all the other 50 states and territories reciprocate with similar mandatory registrations -- then it would also drive University of Maryland University College out of business (UMUC is the 100% online division of Maryland's university system). That's what makes this entire scenario somewhat perplexing.

 

If different states require schools to pay them money for students (called 'registering') then what of the poor students? The schools will raise tuition to cover the cost, they could raise all tuition, or, raise tuition for the states that require payments. this means the people that want to attend the school are hurt, and the people living in the state might not have as many choices as people in other states.

This was one of a couple strategies the federal government started to try and drive for profit schools out of business. it is turning out the more effective approach has been to get them hooked on 90/10 financial aid, and then be confused by reports, to the point of closing the school ala Corinthian. I suspect the giant for profits wont make it to 2016.

 

Very interesting. So as long as a for-profit is under the 90/10 ratio, then they will make it passed 2016?

Here is a list of where each for-profit institution stands for the year 2012:
https://studentaid.ed.gov/sites/default/files/fsawg/datacenter/library/9010Report20112012.xls

Or you can run different years here:
https://studentaid.ed.gov/about/data-center/school/proprietary

 

My understanding is that most UMUC students are military, and that most of the non-military students are Maryland residents. So non-military, non-Maryland students are only a relatively small part of UMUC's enrollment. The other states could, in theory, make it difficult for such students to enroll at UMUC -- but if they are only a small part of UMUC's market, this would not drive UMUC out of business.

 

The 90/10 rule was enacted by Congress in 1998 (when both the House and Senate were Republican). I personally doubt that it will put the large for-profit education companies out of business by 2016, but even if it does, it will have taken 18 years to do so, which doesn't seem particularly "effective".

 

A clarification: I have been reliably informed that international schools may, in fact, be eligible to participate in US financial aid programs -- but only for B&M students. So if you were a US citizen living in (for example) England, you could get federal financial aid to attend an English university on a B&M basis.

However, international DL programs aren't eligible for such aid. So the basic point in the previous post stands -- a Maryland resident pursuing a DL degree from a non-US school would presumably be using private money, and probably neither the federal nor state government would be aware of it.