The Burden of Misunderstanding — from onedtech.philhillaa.com by Phil Hill
How ED’s outdated consumer-protection view of online education could lead to bureaucratic burden on every online course in US higher ed

Time to Comment
There are plenty of other points to be made on this proposed rule:

  • the lack of evidence supporting the treatment of online ed differently than f2f or hybrid;
  • the redefinition of regular and substantive interaction;
  • the impact of this simplification rule actually complicating matters for compliance; and
  • the risk of auto-withdrawal for 14-day inactivity periods, etc.

For now, I wanted to be more precise on what I believe is a misunderstood compliance burden of ED’s proposed rule, and ED’s inability to listen to feedback from colleges and universities and associations representing them. And that while the details of this proposed rule might seem arcane, it will have a major impact across higher ed.

It is very important to note that we are in the middle of the public comment period for these proposed rules, and that ED should hear directly from colleges and universities about the impact of the proposed rules. You can comment here through next Friday (August 23rd).

From DSC:
Phil brings up numerous excellent points in the above posting. If the Department of Education’s (ED’s) proposed rules on online attendance taking get finalized, the impacts could be huge — and negative/costly in several areas. Faculty members, directors and staff of teaching and learning centers, directors of online programs, provosts and other members of administrations, plus other relevant staff should comment– NOW — before the comment period ends next Friday (August 23rd).