When the State authorization reciprocity agreement was created in 2013, few would have imagined that five years later almost every state in the United States would be involved.
Despite the first opposition, Massachusetts is expected to become the 49th state to join the accord later this year. If that happens, California will be the only state not to be a member of SARA – a regulatory framework that makes it easier for colleges and universities to gain state-level approval to offer online education at across the United States.
Marshall Hill, executive director of the National Council for SARA, said the team that worked to develop SARA “never thought that all states would join,” but that “now that we’re so close,” bringing California on board is “obviously objective.”
Many California institutions, he said, would strongly support the move.
Hill believes California will “eventually join” SARA, but it’s unclear when and how. California will have to adopt legislation to enable participation in SARA, and none were presented at this session. This means the first California could begin the SARA membership process is 2019, Hill said.
Passing the legislation required to join SARA is unlikely to be straightforward.
A bill had already been introduced in 2015, but the effort was scrapped after a coalition of consumer groups expressed strong opposition to the invoice. Joining SARA, they said, “would rob California of its authority” to regulate the state’s for-profit online institutions.
Bad experiences with for-profit businesses
California, perhaps more than any other state, has been burned down by for-profit companies in the past. California has been dubbed the “diploma mill capital of the worldAfter the federal government cracked down on an explosion of underground operators in the 1980s. Later, the for-profit chain Corinthian Colleges was founded in California. In 2015, the US Department of Education ordered the closure of Corinthian after discovering it had students misled on their employment prospects. Many Californians are keep fighting to get their money back.
Bob Shireman, senior researcher at the Century Foundation, has strongly criticized California’s plans to join SARA. He said it was “highly unlikely” that California would join SARA as it is currently conceived. “Institutions that crave out-of-state listings love the idea of joining SARA, but these institutions are often blind to the consumer protection needs of Californians,” said Shireman, who as as head of the Department of Education, led the Obama administration’s program. repression on for-profit higher education.
The for-profit colleges, however, aren’t the only ones who want California to participate in the reciprocal agreement. Kristen Soares, President of the California Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, said not being a part of SARA was an “administrative and financial burden” on the private nonprofits that his organization represents. She said joining SARA “would ease interstate regulatory requirements,” making it easier for California institutions to “serve students wherever they live.”
Robert Johnson, executive director of the California Association of Private Post-Secondary Schools, which represents an overwhelming majority of for-profit institutions, said many states have joined SARA “for very good reasons, including ensuring that each establishment must be approved and in good standing. ” (Note: this paragraph has been updated to correct the nature of association members.)
“The claim that for-profit companies can ‘play’ with SARA only holds true in the mind of someone who has a blind hatred for the industry,” Johnson said. “There is no political reason for refusing to support SARA. “
Currently, if a California institution wishes to offer online courses to students living out of state, it must enter into agreements with each state in which it wishes to operate. It can be a long and expensive process, Soares said. She said being part of SARA would eliminate the need for these kinds of agreements and save institutions tens of thousands of dollars.
However, Shireman said he believed SARA had been “oversold” to colleges because they would still need to make state-to-state deals for online training in professions requiring state licensing, such as teaching or nursing. “I think a lot of California institutions are under the illusion that joining SARA would dramatically increase their online enrollment or make it much easier for them to enroll students in other states,” he said. “But the reality is, there is no magic in SARA, and there are a lot of regulatory issues that it doesn’t address.”
While she is in favor of California joining SARA, Soares said the process would not be easy. Aside from opposition from consumer groups, California is one of the few states that does not have a higher education coordinating body to lead a legislative campaign. The creation of such an organization would be necessary for California to join SARA, as a state organization must decide which institutions can join SARA and who can’t. This body must also investigate and resolve any complaints against approved institutions.
While no “champion” has emerged to lead California to become a member of SARA, Russell Poulin, deputy director of research and analysis for the WICHE Cooperative for Education Technologies, believes he plans to create a community college online in California could provide a push for legislation, particularly if it is decided that the institution should enroll students out of state. “I think the California assembly will pass it eventually, but it’s been pretty political so far with no movement on the horizon,” Poulin said.
Reinforced protections for students
As the SARA framework requires that all types of establishments – public or private, not-for-profit or for-profit – be treated the same, without different requirements or burdens, consumer advocates fear that existing protections state for students against unsavory for-profit institutions will be “removed” if California joins SARA, Soares said.
The California legislature has worked hard in recent years to strengthen protections for students, especially at for-profit institutions, Soares said. The requirements to operate in California are “significant” and ideally should be maintained, she said. For example, for-profit institutions must contribute to a State Tuition Recovery Fund, which reimburses tuition fees in the event of an unexpected closure of an establishment. Institutions are also required to disclose the salaries of their graduates and the rate at which borrowers default on their loans.
Joining SARA “would completely eliminate” California’s ability to enforce these protections, Shireman said. He fears that if California joined SARA, it would become much easier for “problem institutions” to thrive in the state. “California would give up its right to protect California consumers,” he said.
A recent report of the Children’s Advocacy Institute at the University of San Diego Law School found that California currently exercises the strictest oversight of for-profit institutions in any state in the United States.
The report, titled “Failing U”, was very critical of those states that had joined SARA. He said the agreement “does not guarantee sufficient consumer protection standards, minimum performance standards or minimum standards with respect to state inspection, oversight and regulation of private post-secondary institutions in profit “. The report also says SARA is pushing for-profit schools to locate in states with “weak regulation.”
The report echoes concerns expressed by consumer groups such as Public Advocates, which has SARA previously described as a “race to the bottom formula for online education monitoring”.
Hill strongly contested this characterization of SARA. In a blog post Written in response to the “Failing U” report, Hill said that instead of a “race to the bottom” formula, SARA has come under fire for setting standards “too high, not too low”. He added that there was no benefit to an institution seeking to locate in states with weak regulations “because the provisions of SARA are uniform across the country.”
“No SARA institution is exempt from meeting the required SARA standards because of its size, prestige, wealth, political influence, accreditation, religious affiliation or sector (public, independent to nonprofit, independent for profit), ”Hill wrote. He added that the SARA does not reduce the power of a Member State’s Attorney General “to investigate and deal with fraud, misrepresentation or abuse on the part of any institution, including the SARA institutions to the inside or outside the State ”.
When asked how he responded to concerns that SARA was allowing for-profit institutions with bad practice to grow and attract more students, Hill said, “There is no evidence of widespread bad behavior ”in the quarterly reports it receives. He added: “I think it is fair to say that 48 States would not have joined SARA so far if they thought SARA would lead to this situation for their States. “
But Shireman suggests that these 48 (and soon 49) states may not have paid much attention. He noted that California, perhaps more than other states, is also wary of a federal government that “essentially repeals everything.”
“Now is the time for states to speak up and make sure their students are protected,” Shireman said. “I think California is unlikely to relinquish this authority anytime soon.”
