REGULATIONS 2012
Where Are We Going? by Dennis Cariello photos by Cody Wiley
Te issues were there for all to see: the Department of Education’s program integrity regulations were being im- plemented but faced substantial and credible challenges in the courts; accreditors and, to a lesser extent, states were under pressure to exercise more oversight; and Congress was continuing to exert pressure on all three legs of the “triad” to do more, particularly with regard to proprietary schools. While big changes were unlikely, it was fairly easy to predict that implementation and enforcement of rules would be the thing to watch.
While it is hard to see much change on the im-
mediate horizon for higher education, the next set of real regulatory change is likely to be influenced by economics more than anything else. Indeed, economics are currently causing regulatory change–the program integrity regulations were enacted specifically in light of the increasing federal investment in higher education. But the economics of higher education are also likely to usher in new accountability measures and have an impact on the innovations being developed to increase school revenue.
REGULATING ACCOUNTABILITY
With the increased federal role in funding higher ed- ucation, and the increasing tuition costs, Washington, D.C. has become even more concerned about the use of
8 8 JULY/AUG 2012 •
TODAYSCAMPUS.COM
Dennis Cariello was Deputy General Counsel for Postsecondary Education and Regulatory Services at the US Department of Education in the Bush and Obama Administrations.
If, on January 1, 2012, you were trying to predict what the regulatory landscape in higher education would look like, it is likely you would have been pretty accurate.
federal higher education dollars and whether the increas- ing federal expenditure on education is actually leading to more employable graduates. Te gainful employment regulations–which, although undone in a recent court decision (Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities v. Duncan (June 30, 2012)), introduced a true outcomes-based regulatory concept to higher education–are merely part of a larger movement to tie accountability to federal spending.
It is difficult to see where the accountability trend
will lead. Already we’ve seen an effort to legislatively proscribe the use of federal education dollars on all university marketing efforts. Te Western Association of Schools and Colleges, which is working to ensure that the “level of student academic achievement–as well as other institutional outcomes–meet or exceed the levels demonstrated by comparable peer institutions,” has recently required greater transparency on school gradu- ation and retention rates, including taking into account adult learners as a specific category. While, at this time, the Department of Education seems likely to reenact the gainful employment rules, it remains to be seen if it–or Congress–would extend them to all of higher educa- tion. Of course, some would have would-be graduates take a competency test to exhibit knowledge or critical thinking skills acquired. All these efforts stem directly from economics–the cost of higher education coupled with the increasing role of Washington, D.C. in funding higher education.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44