Tag Archives: Regulation and Compliance

As Feds Crack Down On For-Profit College, A Founder Heads To Prison For Fraud : NPR Ed : NPR

FastTrain, a for-profit school in Florida, collected some $35 million in student loans and federal financial aid and used deceptive advertising and pressure tactics to recruit students.

Source: As Feds Crack Down On For-Profit College, A Founder Heads To Prison For Fraud : NPR Ed : NPR

Library-Institution Misalignment: One Real-World Example | The Scholarly Kitchen

There seems to be a significant disagreement between academic libraries and their own host institutions with regard to an important rule change proposed by the Department of Education. That disagre…

Source: Library-Institution Misalignment: One Real-World Example | The Scholarly Kitchen

Who’s Regulating Troubled For-Profit Institutions? Executives at Other Troubled For-Profit Institutions

Most accreditors have connections to institutions similar to the ones they oversee. Here’s how those connections play out in the for-profit sector, where regulators have come under intense scrutiny.

from The Chronicle of Higher Education | News http://ift.tt/1S5tg4w

Accreditor demands answers from Mount St. Mary’s on numerous standards

In June, Mount St. Mary’s University received reaffirmation of its accreditation, with strong reviews, from the Middle States Commission on Higher Education.

But after a month of controversy at the Maryland institution, Middle States may be having second thoughts. It has told the university that it must provide answers by March 15 to questions about how “recent developments” may “have implications for continued compliance” with one requirement and four standards that are crucial to being accredited. And the standards in question aren’t minor technical issues, but core requirements on issues such as integrity, admissions and the way faculty members are treated.

The Mount St. Mary’s campus has been in turmoil since word leaked last month through The Mountain Echo, the student newspaper, that President Simon Newman had compared struggling students to bunnies that need to be drowned or killed with a Glock. The metaphor grabbed attention, but educators said the underlying debate was what really mattered.

Newman had proposed to use a survey — on which freshmen would be told there were no wrong answers — to identify those at risk of dropping out and to encourage them to do so in the first weeks of the semester. The idea was to raise the university’s retention rate, since those who leave very early in the semester don’t count in the total enrollment figures. Many professors and some administrators protested the plan, saying that the university has an obligation to try to educate those it admits.

For those just catching up on the controversy, here is an article about the initial report on the now infamous bunnies metaphor, an article on the firing of two faculty members who opposed Newman (and whom he subsequently reinstated), and another piece on growing national outrage. Throughout the furor, many have asked who has the authority to stop what they view as a deeply flawed president who has the backing (at least to date) of his board.

The answer may well be the Middle States accreditor. While Simon can ignore a request by the faculty that he resign (as he appears to be doing), he can’t ignore any subsequent finding from Middle States that some of his actions raise questions about institutional eligibility for accreditation.

A spokesman for the university released the following statement on the inquiry from the accreditor: "We are in receipt of an inquiry from Middle States and will be providing a reply according to their timeline. In June of 2015, Mount St. Mary’s University received the highest accolades when our accreditor reaffirmed our accreditation with no concerns. We welcome their recent request and are addressing it through the appropriate university channels."

Middle States has (in public on its website) only specified the standards on which it wants answers from Mount St. Mary’s; it hasn’t said that various actions specifically violate those standards. But reading the standards, there are phrases and provisions that appear to faculty members to be relevant to what has happened at the university. While faculty members continue to fear talking with their names quoted, given the recent firings, they say that they are encouraged that the accreditor is asking questions.

Here are some of the provisions about which Middle States has asked for a report from Mount St. Mary’s and why they could be significant:

  • Integrity. The integrity standards say: “In all its activities, whether internal or external, an institution should keep its promises, honor its contracts and commitments, and represent itself truthfully.” Faculty members say that this was violated when the college gave new students a survey without explaining its use, when faculty members were fired in violations of their contracts and when administrators said faculty members had broken university rules. The integrity provision also states that faculty members have the right “to question assumptions,” something faculty members say the university violated by criticizing professors for disagreeing with the president and not showing sufficient loyalty.
  • Admissions and retention. The standards state that colleges must have “programs and services to ensure that admitted students who marginally meet or do not meet the institution’s qualifications achieve expected learning goals and higher education outcomes at appropriate points.” Critics say that planning to weed out such students with a survey given before they started class violates that standard. Faculty members also note that the Middle States standards invite colleges to provide “evidence that support programs and services for low-achieving students are effective in helping students to persist and to achieve learning goals and higher education outcomes.” The implication of this language, professors say, is that the college is supposed to be committed to helping students persist, not trying to get them to leave.
  • Faculty. The standards require colleges to have “published and implemented standards and procedures for all faculty and other professionals, for actions such as appointment, promotion, tenure, grievance, discipline and dismissal, based on principles of fairness with due regard for the rights of all persons.” Faculty members said that while “published” rules at the colleges may provide for a faculty role in evaluating faculty members, Simon fired people without any faculty role or without any fair rationale. Further, they note that while the president rehired the faculty members, he cited “mercy” as the reason for doing so, suggesting there was nothing wrong with the dismissals.
  • Leadership and governance. The standards say that colleges must have “a climate of shared collegial governance in which all constituencies (such as faculty, administration, staff, students and governing board members, as determined by each institution) involved in carrying out the institution’s mission and goals participate in the governance function in a manner appropriate to that institution. Institutions should seek to create a governance environment in which issues concerning mission, vision, program planning, resource allocation and others, as appropriate, can be discussed openly by those who are responsible for each activity.” Faculty members say this has been violated by firing faculty members who disagree with the president, and by removing administrators and faculty members who don’t share the president’s apparent vision of a lesser emphasis on the liberal arts in the curriculum.
Editorial Tags: 

from Inside Higher Ed http://ift.tt/1UnR6ZW

Obama administration crackdown forces $95 million settlement from for-profit college chain

Cracking down on for-profit colleges may be the single best thing the Obama administration has done on education, and it’s gotten another win on that front. The Education Management Corporation, the nation’s second-largest for-profit chain, has agreed to pay a $95.5 million settlement in a case over its recruitment practices.

"Recruiters were pressuring students, supervisors were pressuring recruiters, managers were pressuring supervisors, all the way up the chain," [attorney Harry] Litman said. "The whole operation was designed with one goal in mind: to recruit anyone with, as they put it at EDMC, ‘a pulse and a Pell’ — a federal student-aid Pell Grant." […]

Education Management, partly owned by Goldman Sachs, allegedly violated a federal ban on per capita incentive compensation at schools that take part in government financial aid programs.

"Operating essentially as a recruitment mill, EDMC’s actions were not only a violation of federal law but also a violation of the trust placed in them by their students — including veterans and working parents — all at taxpayer expense," Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch said in a statement.

If you’re thinking, “Why have I never heard of this Education Management Corporation if it’s so big,” think of its brand names like The Art Institutes, Brown Mackie Colleges, and South University. Between 2003 and 2011, EDMC schools raked in $11 billion in federal education funding. And please, please don’t miss the part where it’s partly owned by Goldman Sachs.

from Daily Kos http://ift.tt/1QIaQWs

Report Claims FBI Paid Carnegie Mellon University $1M to Attack Tor

Report Claims FBI Paid Carnegie Mellon University $1M to Attack Tor

Last year, Tor—the service which allows people to use the internet with anonymity—was attacked. Now, a new report suggests that the FBI paid Carnegie Mellon University a cool $1 million to carry out the work.

At the time of the attack, Tor believed it had been carried out by Carnegie Mellon’s Computer Emergency Response Team. The attack ran from January ‘til July, during which time it was claimed that the researchers gathered information on Tor’s users. The CERT researchers had been due to present work about de-anonymizing Tor at a Black Hat security conference, which they abruptly cancelled—which only served to reinforce speculation that they’d been behind the attack.

Now, in a blog post on the Tor Project website written by its director Roger Dingledine, it’s claimed that the “researchers were paid by the FBI to attack hidden services users in a broad sweep, and then sift through their data to find people whom they could accuse of crimes.” The Tor Project believes—from “friends in the security community”—that payment could have been as high as $1 million. The team goes on to claim that it has “no indication yet that they had a warrant or any institutional oversight by Carnegie Mellon’s Institutional Review Board.”

If it’s true, Tor is right to be pissed: while security research is important, the attacks seems to have indiscriminately targeted at users, not simply at criminals. Still, that’s a big if. For it’s part, Carnegie Mellon certainly isn’t owning up just yet. “I’d like to see the substantiation for their claim,” said Ed Desautels, a PR officer, to Wired. “I’m not aware of any payment.”

The claim from Tor has come about in the wake of a report from Motherboard which describes the contents of legal documents used in the Silk Road 2.0 case. Contained within them are references to the fact that the accused, Brian Richard Farrell, was unmasked using information obtained by a ‘university-based research institute.’

It remains unclear exactly what happened and whether any payment was made. But that doesn’t stop Dingledine from an attack on modern academic ethical standards. “Whatever academic security research should be in the 21st century,” he writes, “it certainly does not include ‘experiments’ for pay that indiscriminately endanger strangers without their knowledge or consent.”

[Tor, Wired, Motherboard]

Illustration by Tara Jacoby; source image via Shutterstock

from Gizmodo http://ift.tt/1WTMKHQ