Docstoc

Kansas Insurance Agents Licensing Testing Waiver

Document Sample
Kansas Insurance Agents Licensing Testing Waiver Powered By Docstoc
					GOING THE DISTANCE WITH TITLE IV




 Meeting the Basic Regulatory Requirements &
 Safely Disbursing Title IV Aid in a Virtual World
GOING THE DISTANCE WITH TITLE IV


                   Presented by:




 Ronald L. Holt, Esq.    Sally Samuels, VP Reg. Affairs
 Brown & Dunn, P.C.      FAME, Inc.
 Kansas City, MO         Ft. Lauderdale, FL
 rholt@browndunn.com     ssamuels@fameinc.com
 816.292.7000            800.327.5772 Ext. 156
       Presented at the


2007 Annual Convention of the

     CAREER COLLEGE
       ASSOCIATION
   New Orleans, Louisiana



         June 14, 2007
Going the Distance: Agenda

• I. INTRODUCTION – From a Distance to Infinity
  and Beyond: Growth of Online Learning
• II. REGULATORY BASICS
• A. Institutional & Program Eligibility
  1. Title IV: HERA Requirements
  2. Accrediting: Approval Criteria
  3. State: Distance Requirements?
• B. Security & Privacy Issues: FERPA & GLB
Going the Distance - Agenda

 III. TITLE IV ADMINISTRATION
• A Student Eligibility
• B. Administering Title IV
• C. Pell Recalculations
• D. Returns of Ineligible Aid
• E. Timely & Accurate R2T4 Returns
Distance Education Compliance
Should Not Be Just „Getting By‟
I. INTRODUCTION




From a Distance to Infinity & Beyond:
     The Growth of Online Learning
  A View Toward the Distance

• I992: Peter Drucker predicted that
  over the next 50 years “schools
  and universities will change more
  drastically than they have since
  they assumed their present form
  some 300 years ago.” Barriers to
 Distance Learning, 2002 (Arthur Levine &
 Jeffrey Sun)
      Problems in the Distance

• 2002: Arthur Levine & Jeffrey Sun – Teachers
  College (Columbia University):
• Distance Learning has “stimulated
  intense passions, new and aggressive
  competitors, pressure for new…
  resources, an evolving regulatory
  environment, and more ambiguities
  than certainties about appropriate
  policy and practice.” Barriers to Distance
  Education (ACE & Educause)
 From a Distance to Infinity & Beyond


1. Distance ED Demo Project: 1998 HEA
  Reauthorization – 1999 to 2005
• “Distance ED” or E-Learning: separation by time
  or space between student and instructor
From a Distance - ED Demo Project:
Key Characteristics

• UOP, AIU, Kaplan, Walden, Capella, Jones Int‟l
• Texas Tech, Univ MD, Univ WA, ND Univ,
  Graceland, Regis U, Western Governors Univ
• Some participants had 700% growth over 6 yrs,
  mostly in full degree programs online
• Over 50% of online students in 25-34 yr range
• ED concluded no unique risk from distance: Title
  IV risk “has more to do with the integrity of
  the institution than with the way in which the
  education is offered”
From a Distance - ED Demo Project:
Conclusions Lead to 2006 HERA

• 3rd Rpt in 4/05 recommended relief from 50% rule
• Relief condition – acceptable delivery system
  does not have only:
  - “limited amount of email contact”
  - “grader or instructional assistant”
  - postings of course outlines/notes to Web
• Quality standards: emphasize “importance of
  interaction between the instructor and student”
• Risk in online institutions: rapid enrollment
  growth creating need for capital and expansion of
  administrative capacity (scalability feature)
From a Distance to Infinity & Beyond
2. Substantial Recent Online Growth

• 7-9-04 “Why the E-Learning Boom Went Bust”
• 00-01 to 04-05: percent of all 2 & 4 yr colleges
  with distance courses went from 34 to 62 (NCES)
• Students in online courses: 2.3 Million in 2004 to
  3.2 Million in 2005 (Sloan Consortium)
From a Distance to Infinity & Beyond
2. Substantial Recent Online Growth

• Middle States 50% online: 724 2000-01 to 1650
  2005-06
• Amer Assn Commty Colleges Survey: 15%
  growth in online enrollments from 05 to 06
     *70% said more online demand than met
• 2006 Eduventures nonprofit college survey:
  online enrollments - 20% of all professional and
  continuing education
• Online tuition $6.22 Billion 05 to $8.1 Billion 06
• 2006 eLearners.com study: 55% of all online
  students are ages 26-45
From a Distance to Infinity & Beyond
3. More Growth Projected
• Online program enrollments to grow from 1.6
  Million in 06 to 2.13 Million in 08 (Eduventures 4/07)
• Online % of all undergraduates enrollments to
  grow from 7-8 to 20 by 2012
• May 2007: Pearson Plc, largest educ. publ., to buy
  eCollege (+23%$, 32%P) $538 MM, 23% premium
• Apollo & Kaplan vertical integration to online HS
• “Most companies…investing in colleges
  want…online courses…globally” Eduventures
3. More Growth – Recent Stats

• NCES study: growing 10 X faster than traditional
• First calendar Qtr 2007 enrollment growth:
• Argosy Online (EDMC):          119%
• Walden (Laureate):             23%
• Axia (Apollo 2yr):             61%
• Grand Canyon University: „miracle in the desert‟ –
  700 students in „03 to 12000 students, most online
• Eduventures: „tipping point‟ reached – mainstream
  acceptance
3. More Growth – Acceptance

• Major universities, such as MIT & University
  of California are joining Second Life, the 3D
  virtual world
• Google is now establishing permanent
  transferable email addresses for students
  attending major universities
• Course content can be downloaded to an
  iPod and soon will be available on an iPhone
• DOE is now offering online instructor led
  courses on topics such as use of NLSDS
3. More Growth: Non-Traditional
        Adult Learners
*14 million undergrads, 1/3 over age 24 (CFHE)
* 70 million adults interested in more education,
   only 1/3 likely, Degrees of Opportunity (Capella)
* Predicts 2.7 million postsecondary student
   increase by 2015, largely nontraditional students
   ages 24-35
3. More Growth – Notable Points

• Local connection: Eduventures 4/07 study found
  64% online students lived in area of institution
• Online course avg 6-7 months, cost $11,000
• 50% of institutions outsource course development
• Since HERA, only 2 DETC online schools in T4
• DETC‟s Mike Lambert: “our schools are taking their
  time” DETC requirements tougher than FSA
• “Institutions should…use distance learning to meet
  the educational needs of rural students and adult
  learners” Sec Commn on Future of Higher Educ.
II. BASIC REGULATORY
REQUIREMENTS




   DOE, ACCREDITING & STATE
    DISTANCE ED REQUIREMENTS
A. Institutional & Program Eligibility
 for Distance Programs & Courses

• i) State licensure of institution and approval of
  program
• ii) Accreditation of institution and approval of
  distance program by distance accreditor
• iii) DOE certification of institution – meeting Title
  IV eligibility requirements.
  **No need to update ECAR listing (34 CFR
  600.21)for programs previously approved for
  brick & mortar format
A. Institutional & Program Eligibility
   1. Title IV Requirements

(a) Relief from 50% Rule
• HERA, eff. 7/1/06, for
  U.S. institutions,
  subject to certain
  conditions, eliminated
  50% limits on
  telecommunication
  programs & students.
  34 CFR §§ 600.2,
  600.7, 668.8, 668.38
1. Title IV (a) Relief from 50%

• “Telecommunications course”: uses
  technologies to deliver instruction to
  students separated by time or space
  from instructor and to support interaction
  between student and instructor §600.2
• Mailing Videotapes/DVDs to students
  doesn‟t qualify, unless instructor contact
• Not just email contact with unqualified
  teaching assistants
1. Title IV (a) Relief from 50%
  BASIC REQUIREMENTS:
1. Accrediting Body: distance ed in recognition
2. Accrediting approval of program for effective
  delivery via distance
3. Technologies assure regular and substantive
  student - instructor interaction
       1. Title IV (b) 50% Rule for
       “Correspondence” Programs
• If internet course does not meet HERA
  conditions, then it is subject to 50% Rule
• <1 yr certificate programs – no Title IV
• A. Courses – all “correspondence” courses as %
  of all courses/programs during award year
• Telecommunication courses are “corresp”
  courses if total of telecom & corresp exceeds
  50% of all courses (dual ground/cyber offerings
  count twice)
• B. Students – students taking “corresp” courses
  as % of all full-time/part-time students in award
  year 34 CFR 600.7 (a),(b),(h), (i) T4 ELIG
1. Title IV: (c) Key to HERA Compliance

 • Preamble to 11/1/06 Regulations, 71 FR 64378
   regular & substantive interaction requirement to
   distinguish approved telecommunications from
   correspondence courses.
   *“Regular” means “at regular intervals”
   *“Substantive” means “not trivial”
1. Title IV (c) HERA Compliance – Key

• No further FSA guidance is currently planned
• One possible application of “regular” is following
  “one day” rule of 34 CFR 668.3 (b)(2)
• Require student to have 1-on-1 interaction with
  instructor at least once a week: e.g., scheduled
  email chat or phone call
• Interaction requirement – impacts online program
  scalability in terms of instructor-student ratios
• Key is good faith efforts to maintain engagement
  of online student comparable to campus student
1. Title IV (c) HERA Compliance – Key

• For Title IV, don‟t need student-to-student
  interaction (some accreditors do require)
• Can use videotapes & discs if interactive: no
  intent to restrict delivery modes – can use
  synchronous or asynchronous
• E.g., self-paced instruction not precluded
• Foreign institutions, participating in FFEL
  program, do not qualify for waiver of 50% rule
2. Accrediting Criteria

(a) Distance in Scope: By 12/31/07 schools already
  offering distance programs must obtain qualified
  accreditor with distance in its scope Private DCL
(b) Distance Recognition: ALL Regional
  Accreditors, Some National Accreditors – ACICS,
  ACCET, ACCSCT, DETC Recently: COE, ABHES
  www.ed.gov/admins/finaid/accred/accreditation_pg11.h
  tml#Distance
(c) Criteria: specific distance criteria - accreditors
  www.ed.gov/admins/finaid/accred/accreditation_pg6.ht
  ml
2. Accrediting Criteria continued

• (d) Data: most accreditors currently not keeping
  cumulative data on distance courses/programs:
• NCA Higher Learning Commn: 442 online
  degree and certificate programs
• Middle States: 1650 institutions with online
  programs
• ACICS: 190 institutions with online courses
• DETC: 2 institutions in Title IV with online degree
  programs; 4-6 more expected by early 08
2. Accrediting (e) Common Criteria

(e) Substantive change: addition of program in
   which 50% > of courses offered via distance
(f) Dominant theme in accrediting criteria is
   substantial similarity of distance educational
   experience to brick & mortar experience
2. Accrediting (g) Common Criteria

i) Delivery model: “appropriate” or “timely and
   meaningful” interaction between faculty and
   students and between students
   *Timely responses to student queries
    *Monitoring/record of interaction: elec. footprint
2. Accrediting (g) Common Criteria

ii) Student integrity: systems assuring student enrolled
    is one doing coursework Dalhousie U – 6/07 Cheating
iii) Admissions Criteria: student aptitude, technical
    know-how, self motivation, adequate equipment to
    succeed online (COE, ACCET, DETC, Middle Sts)
2. Accrediting (g) Common Criteria

iv) Capable faculty:
   *Training/prior experience in distance pedagogy
   *Adequate technical resources
   * Class size & teaching load (WSU Econ Prof: double)
   *Oversight and assessment
   *Ongoing development/training
v) Program Content/Objectives: same academic
   content, objectives and achievement standards as
   brick & mortar program
vi) Program Schedule: frequency of courses allowing
   program completion in reasonable time
2. Accrediting (g) Common Criteria

vii) Student Services: adequate personnel and
   systems for admissions process, technical
   support, advising, scheduling, tutoring, placement
viii) Technical Support: adequate systems,
   maintenance and backup
2. Accrediting (g) Common Criteria

ix) Learning Resources: access to texts, reference
   materials, and tutoring
x) Records: security/privacy of student records
xi) Outcomes: completion, placement, licensing
2. Accrediting Criteria

xii) Financial Resources: adequate financial
   assets & budget to maintain & expand
   systems with enrollment growth
(h) Some Unique Criteria
• Advisory Board: include at least one distance ed
  professional (ABHES, Middle States)
• Title IV Revenue %: 50/50 first year limit and
  75/25 subsequent year limit (DETC)
• Degree Programs: only for Title IV (DETC)
• Course Team: faculty, instructional designer,
  technologist (DETC)
3. State Licensing Criteria

• (a) Jurisdiction: whether licensure required in
  states w/o headquarters or campus
• “The State of State Regulation of Cross-Border
  Postsecondary Education” www.dowlohnes.com
  (Mike Goldstein, Jay Vaughan)
3. State Licensing: (a) Jurisdiction

i) “Physical Presence” triggers for jurisdiction:
• Students taking exams in state (80%)
• Mailing address, telephone/fax nos. (75-80%)
• Recruiters or agents resident in state (75%)
• Internet server or other equipment (60%)
• Enrolling students (25%)
• Advertising or career fairs (few)
ii) Operating w/o license: potential liabilities
iii) Possible constitutional challenge/defense
iv) State grants: limit to approved online schools
        3. State Licensing:
  Jurisdiction Questions - Impact

• “The future of distance
  education is very much in
  question if it must operate in
  an environment with more than
  50 different regulatory
  systems.” Levine & Sun, Barriers to
 Distance Education (2002)
3. State Criteria     continued



• (b) Common Distance Criteria: few states have
  adopted distance specific requirements, instead
  using brick/mortar standards, but this is changing
• NGA 2001 “The State of E-Learning in the States”
  “States are exploring ways of assuring the quality
  of e-learning content, programs and learner
  achievement”
• www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menuitem.9123e83a
  1f6786440ddcbeeb501010a0/?vgnextoid=947b5a
  a265b32010VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD
3. State Criteria       continued


• Around 20 states reported to NGA: they have
  “ways of recognizing and accrediting e-learning
  institutions and online education and training
  providers”
• NGA - Key concerns of most states:
• Faculty: professional development/training
• Course Quality: curriculum
• Program Effectiveness: assessment
• Innovation: allowing flexibility w/o loss of quality
3. State Criteria     continued


(c) Topics Addressed by Some States:
• Disabilities: accessible formats for individuals
  with disabilities New Mexico
• Privacy/Security: Hawaii, Connecticut
• Curriculum, Instruction & Evaluation: Texas
(d) Distance Studies: task forces & studies of
  distance learning, technical resources, pedagogy.
  VA – inmate online access
 Visit Recent State Policies/Activities, Distance
  Learning/Virtual University at www.ecs.org/
II. Security Issues – Data Riches

• “If the computer age is continually testing how
  well institutions protect personal information,
  the nation‟s colleges and universities may be
  earning a failing grade.” NY Times, April 4, 2005
  “Schools are comparatively low-hanging fruit for
  hackers and thieves.” NY Times, April 4, 2005
  “Hackers see colleges as goldmines of private
  information.” Chronicle of Higher Education, May 12,
  2006
II. Security Issues - Exposure

*Colleges had 46% of ALL reptd breaches 2005
*2005 - 300,000 SSNs compromised at colleges
*2006 - over 300,000 just at Ohio Univ!
*70% college breaches: hackers 8/1/06 USA Today
II. Security Issues – Risk Areas

a)hackers - Purdue, Texas, Boston College,
   Duke, Ohio University, Cal State Northridge
   (pizza/grades)
b)unprotected data - Berkeley (laptop), U Minn
   (2 laptops – 13,000 students); Cal Poly; U. Cal
   S.F.(server)
c) rogue employees – Polk Cty. Comm. College,
   FL (SSNs – identity theft)
d) errant consultants - financial aid consultant
   lost files, Berry College (Atlanta), U Colo (lost by
   movers)
II. Campus Data Security – Attacks

• Cal State U – 400,000 students at 23 campuses
• System websites get 100,000 hits/day from
  hackers trying to reach student/employee data
• Online systems necessarily invite access: need
  latest firewall technology & wall off personal data
A. FERPA Obligations

   Family Educational Rights & Privacy Act,
   20 USC 1232g, 34 CFR 99.30 et seq.
1. No Releases - Other than specific
   exceptions (“directory info”, law
   enforcement, DOE program reviews), must
   not permit releases of personally identifiable
   student information without consent. 34
   C.F.R. § 99.30.
A. FERPA Obligations (continued)

2. FERPA Annual Privacy Notice (satisfies GLB
    req.) advise students of rights to
    i) Inspect records on 45 day request
   ii) Request corrections of inaccurate data
   iii) Give/deny consent to disclosures, other than
    to college officials or statutory exceptions
   iv) File complaint with DOE – address
    v) Opt-out of “directory information”
   * Identify records officer/administrators
        20 U.S.C. § 1232g (e); 34 C.F.R. § 99.7.
                                           III. Participation Issues



A. FERPA Obligations (continued)

3. FERPA Consent – Releases
   Schools can accept electronic signatures from
   student/parent as consent for release of records.
   34 CFR § 99.30(d); 06-07 FSA Handbook, Vol. II,
   at 2-158. FSA standards for electronic consent at
   http://www.ifap.ed.gov/dpcletters/gen0106.html
4. Disclosure log – keep log listing all disclosures
   by date, person/entity, information and
   consent/authorization
A. FERPA Obligations (continued)

5. Directory Information: Name, address,
   phone/email, DOB, birthplace, photo, major,
   enrollment status, grade level, attendance
   status, degrees, awards & sports - must notify
   student in annual FERPA notice and provide
   opt out rights.
   34 C.F.R. § 99.37. Sample Directory Notice
   www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/mndirec
   toryinfo.html.
                                             III. Participation Issues



A. FERPA Obligations (continued)

6. FERPA covers CEU programs –
   all traditional and non-traditional students.
7. Staff Access: need to know basis - “legitimate
   educational interest” in information and are trained
   about FERPA‟s requirements. 34 CFR 99.31.
8. Recordkeeping – retention for at least 3 years of
   all Title IV student records, 34 CFR 668.24, and
   longer for academic records under state law and
   accrediting requirements
B. GLB Information Security

1. Colleges - Financial Institutions:
   Gramm Leach Bliley (GLB) Act, 15 U.S.C.
  §§ 6801-6803, also known as “Financial
  Services Modernization Act”
2. Administrative Capability - 34 C.F.R. §
   668.16 (j); pp. 2-158 to 2-160 of 06-07
   FSA Handbook (outlines GLB duties).
   *Schools “must ensure that their
   [electronic] systems provide adequate
   safeguards.” 06-07 Handbook, p. 2-158
B.   GLB Information Security contin.

3. Information Security Plan
    16 C.F.R. § 314.4 (a)-(e) 5 Elements:
a) Designate plan coordinator
b) Identify internal/external risks:
      i) employees - training/oversight
      ii) data systems
      iii) detection/prevention practices
c) Design/implementation of safeguards
    responsive to identified risks
B.     GLB Information Security contin.

     d) Oversight of outside providers for
       outsourced security safeguard functions;
     e) Periodic evaluation/modification of
       program whenever material change in risks or
       in your operations.
B.    GLB Information Security contin.


4. Breach Notice:
   a) Local police, possibly FBI, Secret Service
      (size of breach/type of date: identity theft);
   b) Credit companies – if credit info exposed:
      Equifax, Experian & Trans Union
   c) Notice – to affected students/employees if
   SSNs & other sensitive info exposed: Letter
   www.ftc.gov/bcp/online/pubs/buspubs/idtre
   spond.htm
B.   GLB Information Security contin.

d) Notice to insurance carriers.
e) State Law Notice/ Filing Obligations
   19 states have laws requiring breach notice to
   one or more state agencies (NY, CA, FL are on
   list) and defining info to be given
f) Remedial Measures:
   *Special website to give help to consumers
   *Some banks & 1 college have offered free
   credit monitoring services to affected consumers
III TITLE IV - ONLINE
ADMINISTRATION




AWARDING, DISBURSING & REFUNDING
       AID IN A VIRTUAL WORLD
A. Student Eligibility

• ISIR comment codes resolved
• Enrolled in eligible program
   – Separate budgets
A. Student Eligibility (continued)

• Maintaining satisfactory academic progress
• High school diploma, GED, home schooled or
  ability to benefit
   – May need multiple ATB testers
B. Administering Title IV Aid

• Available financial aid staff
  – Phone
  – Email
  – Fax
  – By appointment
B. Administering Title IV Aid continued

• Financial aid information
   – Catalog
   – Consumer information
   – Entrance and Exit Interviews
   – Refund policy
B. Administering Title IV Aid continued

• Enrollment status
  – Did the student start
  – Status at end of add / drop
  – Modular training: were all the credits
    attempted
B. Administering Title IV Aid continued

• Attendance documentation
  – Clock hour schools
     • Tracking attendance for subsequent
       disbursements
     • Total hours meet graduation requirements
B. Administering Title IV Aid continued


• Attendance documentation continued
  – Credit hour non term
     • Tracking credits and midpoint of the
       academic years
  – Clock / credit hour conversion
     • Ensuring available seat time
B. Administering Title IV Aid continued

• Attendance documentation continued
• Standard, Non standard term
     • Pell calculation
     • Loan disbursements
   – Tracking last day of attendance
      • State
      • Accrediting agency
      • VA
      • Other contracts
B. Administering Title IV Aid continued


• Attendance documentation continued
  – Satisfactory academic progress
     • Count all attempts
B. Administering Title IV Aid continued

• Attendance documentation continued
• Don‟t make exceptions for computer problems
• Make sure required logins were met
• Can‟t use different policy for online
C. Pell Calculations

• Enrollment status
• Clock credit conversion
• Program configuration & aid delivery
  – Acceleration
C. Pell Calculations continued

• Recalculation
  – Modules, phases
  – Add / Drop period
D. Return of Ineligible Aid

 • No shows / cancellations
 • 30 day delayed disbursement for loans
 • Leave of absence
    – Requested
    – Documented
    – Approved
E. Timely and Accurate
Return of Title IV Funds

•   Documented last day of attendance
•   14 day requirement
•   Documented academic activity
•   Correct payment period or period of enrollment
   Going the Distance with Title IV
      Planning To Go Online…
         Got Questions ???
                   Contact Us




Ronald L. Holt, Esq.    Sally Samuels, VP Reg. Affairs
Brown & Dunn, P.C.      FAME
Kansas City, MO         Ft. Lauderdale, FL
rholt@browndunn.com     ssamuels@fameinc.com
816.292.7000            800.327.5772 Ext. 156

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Description: Kansas Insurance Agents Licensing Testing Waiver document sample