The document summarizes efforts to develop a State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement (SARA) to make state authorization processes for distance education more efficient. SARA would allow states to recognize each other's approvals of institutions, rather than requiring separate approval in each state where an institution enrolls students. The Presidents' Forum and Council of State Governments are leading the initiative with input from regional compacts and other stakeholders. The goal is a voluntary agreement that streamlines processes while maintaining oversight of quality and consumer protections.
Piedmont Unified School District is seeking an Executive Director for its Northern Alameda Consortium for Adult Education (NACAE). NACAE is an alliance of members, including school districts, (Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, Emery, Oakland and Piedmont) and Peralta Community
Colleges (Berkeley City College, College of Alameda, Laney and Merritt) to provide better coordinated and improved services for adult learners with basic skills.
Piedmont Unified School District is seeking an Executive Director for its Northern Alameda Consortium for Adult Education (NACAE). NACAE is an alliance of members, including school districts, (Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, Emery, Oakland and Piedmont) and Peralta Community
Colleges (Berkeley City College, College of Alameda, Laney and Merritt) to provide better coordinated and improved services for adult learners with basic skills.
What can we learn from EQUAL? Jakub WilczekFEANTSA
Presentation given by Jacub Wilczek, Back on Track, Poland at a FEANTSA Conference on "Multiple Barriers, Multiple Solutions: Inclusion into and through Employment for People who are homeless ", Zaragoza, Spain, 2007
The experimental study of economic exchange behavior revealed many discrepancies between normative theory of strategic rationality (game theory) and actual behavior. In many games games where defection and competition is expected by game theory, subjects robustly display cooperative behavior. In the ultimatum game, for instance, a ‘proposer’ makes an offer to a ‘responder’ that can either accept or refuse the offer; if the responder refuses, both players get nothing. The rational outcome is a minimal offer by the first player and an unconditional acceptance of the offer by the second. In fact, proposers make ‘fair’ offers, about 50% of the amount, responders tend to accept these offers and reject most of the ‘unfair’ offers (less than 20%;Oosterbeek et al., 2004). Cooperative and prosocial behavior is also observed in similar games, e.g. the trust game and the prisoner’s dilemma (Camerer, 2003). Neuroeconomics, the study of the neural mechanisms of decision-making (Glimcher, 2003), also showed that subjects seems to entertain prosocial preferences. Brain scans of people playing the ultimatum game indicates that unfair offers trigger, in the responders’ brain, a ‘moral disgust’: the anterior insula, an area involved in disgust and other negative emotional responses, is more active when unfair offers are proposed (Sanfey et al., 2003). In the prisoner’s dilemma and the trust game, similar activations have been found: cooperation and punishment of unfair players elicit positive affective emotions, while unfairness elicit negative one (de Quervain et al., 2004; Rilling et al., 2002).
The received view of these behavioral and neural data is that human beings are endowed with genuinely altruistic cognitive mechanisms, a view now labelled “Strong Reciprocity” (SR). According to SR, an innate propensity for altruistic punishment and altruistic rewarding makes us averse to inequity (Fehr & Rockenbach, 2004). In this talk, I argue that this moral optimism is far-fetched. Yes, the ‘cold logic’ model of rationality is not an accurate description of our decision-making mechanisms, but the SR model, I shall argue, relies on unwarranted assumptions. I present another model–the ‘hot logic’ approach–according to which human agents are selfish agents adapted to trade, exchange and partner selection in biological markets (Noë et al., 2001). Cognitive mechanisms of decision-making aims primarily at maximizing positive outcomes and minimizing negative ones. This initial hedonism is gradually modulated by social norms, by which agents learn how to maximise their utility given the norms. The ‘hot logic’ approach provide a simpler explanation of cooperation and fairness: subjects make ‘fair’ offers in the ultimatum game because they know their offer would be rejected otherwise. Responders affective reaction to ‘unfair offers’ is in fact a reaction to the loss of an expected monetary gain: they anticipated that the proposer would comply with social norms. This claim is supported by other imaging studies showing that loss of money can be aversive, and that actual and counterfactual utility recruit the same neural resources (Delgado et al., 2006; Montague et al., 2006). This approach explains why subjects make lower offers in the dictator game (an ultimatum game in which the responder make an offer and the responder's role is entirely passive) than in the ultimatum, why, when using a computer displaying eyespots, almost twice as many participants transfer money in the dictator (Haley & Fessler, 2005), and why attractive people are offered more in the ultimatum (Solnick & Schweitzer, 1999). In every case, agents seek to maximize a complex hedonic utility function, where the reward and the losses can be monetary, emotional or social (reputation, acceptance, etc.). SR is thus seen as cooperative habits that are not repaid (Burnham & Johnson, 2005).
This presentation is all about the Alternative Learning System and the Formal Education here in the Philippines. This was made by our teacher in our NFE class.
Proposal success is cumulative, especially when carried out in collaborative networks where data can be shared, partnerships can be forged, learning can take place, different program areas can be linked, and diverse resources can be leveraged. This session gives practical hands-on training on how to engage in a continuous proposal building process including utilizing the catalogue of federal assistance, grants.gov and planning documents to anticipate and prepare for potential opportunities.
What can we learn from EQUAL? Jakub WilczekFEANTSA
Presentation given by Jacub Wilczek, Back on Track, Poland at a FEANTSA Conference on "Multiple Barriers, Multiple Solutions: Inclusion into and through Employment for People who are homeless ", Zaragoza, Spain, 2007
The experimental study of economic exchange behavior revealed many discrepancies between normative theory of strategic rationality (game theory) and actual behavior. In many games games where defection and competition is expected by game theory, subjects robustly display cooperative behavior. In the ultimatum game, for instance, a ‘proposer’ makes an offer to a ‘responder’ that can either accept or refuse the offer; if the responder refuses, both players get nothing. The rational outcome is a minimal offer by the first player and an unconditional acceptance of the offer by the second. In fact, proposers make ‘fair’ offers, about 50% of the amount, responders tend to accept these offers and reject most of the ‘unfair’ offers (less than 20%;Oosterbeek et al., 2004). Cooperative and prosocial behavior is also observed in similar games, e.g. the trust game and the prisoner’s dilemma (Camerer, 2003). Neuroeconomics, the study of the neural mechanisms of decision-making (Glimcher, 2003), also showed that subjects seems to entertain prosocial preferences. Brain scans of people playing the ultimatum game indicates that unfair offers trigger, in the responders’ brain, a ‘moral disgust’: the anterior insula, an area involved in disgust and other negative emotional responses, is more active when unfair offers are proposed (Sanfey et al., 2003). In the prisoner’s dilemma and the trust game, similar activations have been found: cooperation and punishment of unfair players elicit positive affective emotions, while unfairness elicit negative one (de Quervain et al., 2004; Rilling et al., 2002).
The received view of these behavioral and neural data is that human beings are endowed with genuinely altruistic cognitive mechanisms, a view now labelled “Strong Reciprocity” (SR). According to SR, an innate propensity for altruistic punishment and altruistic rewarding makes us averse to inequity (Fehr & Rockenbach, 2004). In this talk, I argue that this moral optimism is far-fetched. Yes, the ‘cold logic’ model of rationality is not an accurate description of our decision-making mechanisms, but the SR model, I shall argue, relies on unwarranted assumptions. I present another model–the ‘hot logic’ approach–according to which human agents are selfish agents adapted to trade, exchange and partner selection in biological markets (Noë et al., 2001). Cognitive mechanisms of decision-making aims primarily at maximizing positive outcomes and minimizing negative ones. This initial hedonism is gradually modulated by social norms, by which agents learn how to maximise their utility given the norms. The ‘hot logic’ approach provide a simpler explanation of cooperation and fairness: subjects make ‘fair’ offers in the ultimatum game because they know their offer would be rejected otherwise. Responders affective reaction to ‘unfair offers’ is in fact a reaction to the loss of an expected monetary gain: they anticipated that the proposer would comply with social norms. This claim is supported by other imaging studies showing that loss of money can be aversive, and that actual and counterfactual utility recruit the same neural resources (Delgado et al., 2006; Montague et al., 2006). This approach explains why subjects make lower offers in the dictator game (an ultimatum game in which the responder make an offer and the responder's role is entirely passive) than in the ultimatum, why, when using a computer displaying eyespots, almost twice as many participants transfer money in the dictator (Haley & Fessler, 2005), and why attractive people are offered more in the ultimatum (Solnick & Schweitzer, 1999). In every case, agents seek to maximize a complex hedonic utility function, where the reward and the losses can be monetary, emotional or social (reputation, acceptance, etc.). SR is thus seen as cooperative habits that are not repaid (Burnham & Johnson, 2005).
This presentation is all about the Alternative Learning System and the Formal Education here in the Philippines. This was made by our teacher in our NFE class.
Proposal success is cumulative, especially when carried out in collaborative networks where data can be shared, partnerships can be forged, learning can take place, different program areas can be linked, and diverse resources can be leveraged. This session gives practical hands-on training on how to engage in a continuous proposal building process including utilizing the catalogue of federal assistance, grants.gov and planning documents to anticipate and prepare for potential opportunities.
Federal systems have the capability of linking institutions, however configured for governing purposes, to each other and to state government through four central work processes: information management, program planning, budgeting, and articulation. These work processes are managed by a statewide agency with enough support and delegated authority to compel institutional attention to state priorities. Federal systems can make available credible and timely information on system needs and system performance to elected officials, to institutions, and to the public. They can use program approval and program review authority to limit program duplication and to encourage quality. They can reduce some of the inherent conflicts in the budgeting process and link resource allocation to system priorities. They can design and implement articulation initiatives. If they have a large private sector, they can involve private institutions in contributing to the achievement of state priorities. In federal systems, legislatures typically see themselves as custodians of institutional interests and intervene when they disagree with the way work processes are being used by the coordinating board.
A unified system links institutions to each other and to state government through a single governing board and chief executive. The effectiveness of board management of the four work processes depends upon executive leadership. Unified systems can provide less information on performance than federal systems partly to limit the capacity of external actors to insert themselves into system decisions. Despite providing less information, unified systems may communicate better with state government because of the single contact point for the Governor and legislators. When unified systems have constitutional status, this autonomy helps to guard against excessive external influence. Unified systems with strong executive leadership prevent mission creep, ensure program quality and avoid unnecessary program duplication through program review processes. They use the budgeting process to support strategic objectives. Governing boards for unified systems do not see the inclusion of private institutions in planning as part of their responsibility. When elected leaders have confidence in system leadership, the unified system requires little oversight from state government.
Confederated systems are harder to characterize. The use of work processes and links to state government may be different for each subsystem. More government agencies are involved directly with governing boards, and the Legislature often provides most of the coordination across subsystems. Confederated systems do not appear to have the capacity to engage in significant statewide strategic planning even though they may have a weak coordinating structure charged with that responsibility.
Source: https://ebookschoice.com/higher-education-governance/
Federal Funding for Mentoring: Past, Present & Future presented by the Mentoring Partnership of Minnesota; April 6, 2011; features panelist Joellen Gonder-Spacek. Part of monthly Quality In Action webinar series.
The Governance of Quality: Defining Experiences and Success Factors in Instit...HFG Project
he objective of the activity is to assess and document global experiences in institutional relationships that govern quality health services as well as provide practical and action-oriented guidance to countries on success factors in structuring institutional roles, responsibilities, and relationships. Countries seeking to develop new governance structures or to improve existing structures would have a resource, based on the results of documented country experiences, to successful approaches and lessons learned in structuring institutional roles, responsibilities, and relationships to enable, foster, and ensure ongoing quality.
The Governance of Quality: Defining Experiences and Success Factors in Instit...HFG Project
The objective of the activity is to assess and document global experiences in institutional relationships that govern quality health services as well as provide practical and action-oriented guidance to countries on success factors in structuring institutional roles, responsibilities, and relationships. Countries seeking to develop new governance structures or to improve existing structures would have a resource, based on the results of documented country experiences, to successful approaches and lessons learned in structuring institutional roles, responsibilities, and relationships to enable, foster, and ensure ongoing quality.
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT 5
Americans with Disability Act
Deanna Buchanan
Southern New Hampshire University
Americans with Disability Act was enacted in 1990 and prohibited the discrimination of individuals based on disabilities in all areas of life, whether private or public, in schools, transportation, and jobs. The main aim of the act is to ensure that all people who have disabilities are treated fairly and given similar opportunities as people without disabilities, in this case in higher education schooling institutions. In schools, the act requires the school administration, board of governors, teachers, subordinate staff, and the students who are not physically challenged to give the physically challenged students equal opportunities in extra-curricular activities such as clubs and bands and in academics (Francis & Silvers, 2015).
The stakeholders in the high school institution, are required to ensure that all the buildings can be accessed by any student who is physically challenged. For instance, all the buildings constructed after the act was enacted should be fully accessible by the physically challenged, ramps and wheelchair parking space, for example should be taken care of during constructions (Zazove et al. 2016) The club matrons and patrons, with permission from the school principal should move the extracurricular activities’, for example band classes to other rooms that are more accessible by the physically challenged. An interpreter should also be supplied in school events in case there are students who are hearing impaired.
The act has been effective after it was enacted. The managerial stakeholders have made an effort by modifying the way experiments and tests in laboratories are done and the class schedules to accommodate students with disabilities. They have allocated extra time for classes for the blind, who use the braille and note-takers, for example. The high school institutions have also helped the deaf and the blind get note-takers and readers in the library. Also, some high school institutions that offer computer classes have purchased special computer equipment for the visually and hearing impaired.
Most institutions, however, have insufficient funds to take care of the Act’s requirement. It is recommendable that they partner with welfare institutions such as USAID, private hospitals and the government to meet the stipulated requirements and to accommodate all the students equally.
References
Francis, L., & Silvers, A. (Eds.). (2015). Americans with disabilities. Routledge.
Zazove, P., Case, B., Moreland, C., Plegue, M. A., Hoekstra, A., Ouellette, A., ... & Fetters, M. D. (2016). US medical schools’ compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act: findings from a national study. Academic Medicine, 91(7), 979-986.
Discu ...
Department of Education Preliminary Regulatory Reform PlanObama White House
When President Obama unveiled his plan to create a 21st-century regulatory system that protects the health and safety of Americans in a cost-effective way, he called for an unprecedented government-wide review of rules already on the books. As a result of that review, the Department of Education has identified initiatives to reduce burdens and save money. Read the agency plan and share your comments, feedback and questions.
Visit WhiteHouse.gov/RegulatoryReform to view all the plans and learn more.
1. Meet SARA:
Developing a State
Authorization Reciprocity
Agreement
WCET Meeting
November 2 , 2012
San Antonio, TX
2. Federal “State Authorization”
Requirements
As a condition for institutional participation in
federal financial aid programs, U.S. Department of
Education rules require institutions to be approved
to operate in all states and territories in which they
serve students (“state authorization”), or to
document that such approval is not required by the
states or territories in which those students reside.
STATUS?
3. Three Initiatives
Presidents‟ Forum/Council of
State Governments
WICHE, SREB, NEBHE,
MHEC
Commission on Regulation of
Postsecondary Distance
Education
4. The Presidents’ Forum
Launched in 2004, The Presidents’ Forum is a
collaborative of regionally accredited, adult-serving
institutions and programs offering online higher
education, related national associations, and
stakeholder policy bodies that cover all sectors of
not-for-profit and for-profit higher learning. This
collaborative provides a venue to formulate
policies and action strategies that drive innovation
and best practices in online learning.
5. The Council of
State Governments
The Council of State Governments, founded
in 1933, is a non-partisan, nonprofit
organization that represents every elected and
appointed official in the three branches of state
government in the fifty states and U.S.
territories. CSG offers guidance and technical
assistance in dealing with interstate compacts
and other interstate agreements.
6. % of States that Assert Jurisdiction Over
Aspects of Unconventional Physical Presence
57%
45%
27%
20%
14% 12%
6% 6%
2%
Source: agency sites, WCET report, Dow Lohnes report, Eduventures correspondence and analysis
7. Background
States regulate the offering of postsecondary
education within their borders with widely
varying standards, policies, practices, and
„triggers” for application and enforcement.
Institutions vary in the degree to which they pay
attention to state regulation, particularly in
regard to activities they pursue outside their
home state, and especially in regard to
“distance” or “online” students.
8. Background (cont.)
At present, there is no alternative to each
institution separately pursuing state authorization
(or assurance that authorization is not required) in
each state and territory in which it serves
students.
Consequently, thousands of institutions must seek
approval/authorization in as many as 54 states
and territories.
That approach is inefficient and challenging for
institutions and states alike.
9. “SARA:”
State Authorization
Reciprocity Agreement
The Lumina Foundation has provided funding to
the Presidents’ Forum, working with the Council
of State Governments, to develop a “model
state reciprocity agreement” that states could
adopt to acknowledge other states‟ work and
decisions in regard to institutional authorization.
10. Working With Stakeholders
SARA, developed as a working draft by a team
familiar with these issues, is the current product
of that effort. Talks with:
Broad advisory committee
Regional higher education compacts
State regulators
State Higher Education Executive Officers
Accrediting organizations
U.S. Department of Education
Others to come
11. Goals
SARA offers a process that will support the nation
in its efforts to increase the educational attainment
of its people by making state authorization:
more efficient, effective and uniform in regard to
necessary and reasonable standards of practice that
could span states;
more effective in dealing with quality and integrity
issues that have arisen in some online/distance
education offerings; and
less costly for states and institutions and, thereby, the
students they serve.
12. Challenges
State laws, rules and regulation around these
issues are remarkably diverse and the reasons
for that diversity vary from state to state.
Any alternative to the current situation must
include a means of effective governance and a
workable model for financial sustainability.
13. Challenges (cont.)
Efforts to facilitate and enable good practice must
also maintain the ability to deal with bad
institutional behavior. In particular, states must be
able to trust other states to carry out their
responsibilities.
A fully effective means of dealing with these
issues requires a comprehensive national model
that will serve all interested states, accommodate
all sectors of higher education
(public, independent non-profit, and for-profit), and
embrace the diversity of institutional and
specialized accreditation.
14. Essential Characteristics of SARA
Acknowledges the traditional roles of members of the
accountability triad: federal government, states, and
recognized accrediting bodies.
Preserves full state oversight and control of on-the-
ground institutions and campuses.
Sets forth a reasonable set of “triggers” of “physical
presence.”
Requires institutional accreditation by an accrediting
body recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Education.
15. Essential Characteristics of
SARA (cont.)
Calls on states to assume the principal role in matters of
consumer/student protection while working in
partnership with recognized accreditors.
Shifts principal oversight responsibilities from the state
in which the “distance learning” is being offered to the
“home state” of the institution offering the instruction.
Lays out a model reciprocity agreement that states
could adopt, including outlines of a possible
organizational structure and financial plan to support
operations.
16. Issues SARA Does Not Address
SARA does not deal with issues of professional
licensing (i.e.
nursing, education, psychology), leaving that to
future work, probably carried out by others.
SARA intentionally provides minimal details on
the operation of the organization that will be
required to support SARA. Such an
organization could be constituted and managed
in a variety of ways.
17. Regional Higher Education Compacts
Regionals‟ interest in the issue
Meetings with heads of the
regionals, PF/CSG representatives
Cooperative work between PF/CSG
and WICHE (representing the four
regionals)
Goal: A SARA that both groups could
support and promote
Status: getting closer – much closer
18. Commission on Regulation of
Postsecondary Distance Education
Sponsored by SHEEO and APLU
Chaired by Hon. Richard W. Riley, former
U.S. Secretary of Education
Fourteen Commissioners
First meeting in June, one or two more to
come, report and recommendations
February, 2013
19. What’s next?
For all initiatives:
Additional conversations with
stakeholders
Outreach and education
Likely legislative action