∙1∙

Focus March 2015 | Volume 1 | Issue 1

FORUM The

∙2∙

Responding to Calls for Regulation of Education Abroad

O ver the past year The Forum has been actively engaged in advocating for its members and the field by discussing

with both legislators in the State of Minnesota and in Congress proposals for legislation to reg-ulate health and safety practices in education abroad. The Forum has reported on these legis-lative efforts and continues to be actively en-gaged to represent the best interests of Forum member institutions. It is critical for The Forum to participate pro-actively in the legislative pro-cesses at both the state and federal levels so that any legislation is informed by the expertise that education abroad professionals alone can offer.

The push for legislation to regulate specific education abroad health and safety practices stems from grassroots efforts calling for more data and uniform quality assurance practices. In my meetings and communica-tions with legislators I have come to appreciate how we share the same goal of helping to ensure that the student experience abroad is the very best that it can be.

However, I have also learned that proposals to regulate education abroad are often based on some mistaken assumptions. First, the prevail-ing view is that education abroad is a high risk educational activity; howev-er, there is no data to support this claim. Second, there is a tendency to lump together secondary education experiences with university-level edu-cation abroad, while we know these are quite different enterprises. Third, there is a lack of knowledge about what institutions and program provider organizations do to support student health and safety abroad.

Brian Whalen, President & CEO, The Forum on Education Abroad

President’s Corner

∙3∙

Finally, there is a lack of understanding about how education abroad as-sures quality through knowledge about and training in standards, and in meeting accreditation requirements.

Education abroad can best respond to calls for its regulation in three comple-mentary ways. First, as a field we can do a better job of placing front and center all that institutions, organizations and pro-grams do to try to ensure quality educa-tion abroad that is as safe as possible. Students, their families, legislators, and the general public are not aware of the health and safety best practices that un-

dergird our programs. They therefore cannot appreciate fully the health, safety and security work that is largely done behind the scenes, and which is essential to monitoring and helping to mitigate risk. We need to advo-cate actively on our own behalf by detailing the myriad ways that we work to develop and manage programs that are as safe as possible.

Second, we should respond to calls for regulation by finding reasonable ways to pro-vide the information that is being asked for at both the national and individual program lev-els. The Forum is now working with insurance companies to provide a comprehensive report regarding critical incidents that occur in edu-cation abroad. Based on claims data, this has the potential to be a highly representative sample that can help to paint a truer picture of the range, types and number of incidents that occur during education abroad. This report will provide for the first time data upon which leg-islative deliberations can be based rather than assumptions about incidents involving students during education abroad. In addition, data from the Critical Incident Database will help us further to understand these incidents.

“…as a field we can do

a better job of placing

front and center all

that institutions,

organizations and

programs do to try to

ensure quality

education abroad that

is as safe as possible.”

“..the prevailing view is that

education abroad is a high

risk educational activity;

however, there is no data to

support this claim.”

∙4∙

The Forum recently formed a Working Group to study and make rec-ommendations about how education abroad entities should comply with reporting regulations dictated by Title IX and The Clery Act. But legisla-tors are asking for more information than what is required by these laws, and we should be willing and able to find ways to be as transparent as possible about the health and safety of students on our programs while at the same time protecting their privacy as required by law.

Third, institutions and organi-zations should have their practices regularly reviewed objectively as part of overall quality assurance ef-forts such as those that are a part of regional or national accreditation processes. The Forum’s Quality Im-provement Program also provides this level of rigorous, objective re-view and can be used by itself to assure quality, or in conjunction with a broader institutional review.

There is both common ground and differences between the educa-tion abroad field and those who advocate for greater regulation. In 2007 the education abroad field faced a comparable situation with investiga-tions by the New York and Connecticut Attorneys General. Then, the call was for greater transparency about relationships between universities and colleges and independent program provider organizations, as well as greater transparency regarding pricing and how and why institutions limit students’ choices of programs. The field responded to that call by provid-ing more detailed explanations about pricing, the costs of education abroad and quality assurance, and the ways in which ethical standards are maintained.

We should respond to the current calls for the regulation of educa-tion abroad health and safety practices in similar ways. While no human activity, including education abroad, can ever be free of risk, we practice quality assurance when we strive to follow the field’s Standards, provide detailed information about our programs, and dedicate ourselves to con-

tinuous improvement.

∙5∙

H igher education globally is under increasing scrutiny regarding its escalating price and whether the price reflects its value. Students, their families, governments and corporations all have high expec-

tations for what higher education should deliver: learning, the hope of em-ployment, and marketable skills. In this environment, standardized quality assurance mechanisms validate the worthiness of higher education’s prom-ises.

Quality assurance in U.S. higher education is based on the regional ac-creditation system. In her recent publi-cation, Mapping The Landscape: Ac-creditation and the International Di-mensions of US Higher Education, Madeleine Green outlines how educa-tion abroad intersects with U.S. ac-creditation programs in uneven ways. Some regional accreditation programs have detailed ways in which institu-tional education abroad programming is judged, while others make little mention of such programs. U.S.-based independent program providers do not fall under these accreditation programs. International institutions host-ing U.S. students participate in their country’s quality assurance mecha-nisms. Independent program providers based in other countries may seek accreditation if such options are offered for their type of organization. When U.S. or internationally-based independent program providers work with Schools of Record, accredited U.S. institutions provide quality assur-ance by overseeing the academic program and faculty.

The Forum’s Quality Improvement Program (QUIP) is based on the U.S. accreditation model and designed to provide quality assurance, to as-sist both institutions to meet their regional or national accreditation

“…standardized quality

assurance mechanisms

validate the worthiness

of higher education’s

promises.”

Annmarie Whalen, Vice President for Programs & Resources, The Forum on Education Abroad

The Value Question: Quality Assurance in

Higher Education and Education Abroad

∙6∙

requirements and organizations working outside accepted accreditation structures. In education abroad, it has been a common practice that organi-zations and institutions conduct periodic reviews of their programs using pri-vate consultants or members of an advisory committee. While this is a use-ful tool to improve programs, such reviews do not provide the same meas-ure of quality assurance as QUIP reviews.

Like accreditation reviews, QUIP is objective, requires a rigorous self-study and site visits, is based on authoritative Standards of Good Practice for Education Abroad, and utilizes trained peer reviewers who make judg-ments about whether the institution’s or organization’s programs are in con-formity with the Standards. At the end of the process, a panel of experts re-views the self-study and peer review report and makes a final determination about whether or not the organization is in overall substantial conformity with the Standards. A determination of “yes” carries the most significant judgment available regarding the quality of education abroad programming.

The Forum closely monitors developments in accreditation and interna-tional quality assurance through its membership in the Council on Higher Education Accreditation International Quality Group. A significant part of re-cent debate in international quality assurance has focused on non-institutional providers of credit. While a relatively recent development in higher education, independent program providers have long been valued partners in education abroad, where, as non-institutional providers of credit, they sponsor and manage a significant percentage of education abroad pro-gramming.

“…the QUIP process

has been streamlined

and redesigned to

make it more user-

friendly while still

maintaining its rigor.”

∙7∙

Jodi Malmgren, Director of International and Off-Campus Studies, St. Olaf College

New Law Requires Incident Reporting by

Minnesota Colleges & Universities

I n May 2014, Governor Dayton of Minnesota signed the first law in the country to require incident data collection for education abroad pro-grams. Section 5 of the law requires all institutions eligible for state fi-

nancial aid to report deaths and hospitalizations that occur during and as a result of participation in an institution’s approved study abroad programs. Since last May, the Minnesota State Office of Higher Education (OHE) has begun work on implementation of the law. OHE created a reporting web-site and communicated with academic leaders and education abroad offic-es about the first reporting deadline of November 1, 2015.

A coalition of education abroad and legislative affairs experts across the State of Minnesota – representing the University of Minnesota, Minne-sota State Colleges and Universities (MNSCU), Minnesota private colleges, and education abroad providers—has advocated for the interests of institu-tions and education abroad participants. Coalition members, together with

The Forum recently subjected QUIP to an external review to assess and improve the program. As a result, the QUIP process has been stream-lined and redesigned to make it more user-friendly while still maintaining its rigor. It also includes a number of enhancements to the recognition that institutions receive when they complete the program successfully. In addi-tion, the new and improved QUIP is based on the 5th edition of the Stand-ards of Good Practice. While QUIP will remain a voluntary quality assurance program, and, unlike accreditation, does not involve any sanctions if organ-izations are found not to be in conformity with the Standards, it nonethe-less is the primary way that the education abroad field can validate the quality and value of its programming. In an era of heightened expectations for and scrutiny of higher education, this is an opportunity that all organi-zations and institutions that sponsor or manage education abroad pro-grams should consider.

∙8∙

The Forum on Education Abroad President Brian Whalen, met with legislative repre-sentatives and helped shape the text of the law. Two members testified at the Senate committee hearing. Since the law took ef-fect, coalition efforts have focused on defin-ing key terms of the law, clarifying report-ing requirements, and communicating with Minnesota institutions in advance of the an-nual report due date, in partnership with OHE.

Minnesota institutions are now collect-ing the first round of incident data for their student participants between August 1, 2014 and July 31, 2015. Campuses with es-tablished incident reporting procedures needed only to communicate about the new law, streamline processes, and determine who will submit the report. Other campus-es, especially those without a centralized education abroad office or staff, are devel-

oping incident data collection, response, and/or reporting procedures, as incidents may be variously reported to deans of students, education abroad advisers, faculty, or other responsible campus officials. All deaths and hos-pitalizations will be reported to OHE by institution and country, with total participant numbers added to enable calculation of incident rates. Institu-tions will not provide private student data, such as names of participants. OHE will aggregate and publish the data in compliance with applicable state privacy regulations, which allow reporting of hospitalizations only where the relevant dataset (i.e., institution and country where an incident occurs) includes at least ten students.

Section 14 of the law required OHE to provide recommendations for appropriate state regulation of postsecondary education abroad programs. The February 2015 OHE report resulted in revised legislation being pro-posed in the Minnesota House and Senate, where it awaits the first hearing

“In May 2014, Governor

Dayton of Minnesota

signed the first law in the

country to require

incident data collection

for education abroad

programs.”

TITLE TEXT

∙9∙

in March. The Senate bill’s sponsor, Senator Terri Bonoff, has requested

two significant changes to the existing legislation: (i) to report all incidents

by education abroad program name, host and type and (ii) to mandate

that Minnesota institutions request disclosure of incidents that occurred

abroad by surveying students upon completion of their program. The coali-

tion continues to advocate for the best interests of students and institu-

tions with the Office of Higher Education and our legislative representa-

tives.

Opinions expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of The Forum on Education Abroad.

The Forum encourages responses to the perspectives in this issue. Reflections, topic suggestions and other correspondence are welcomed, and all contributions will be considered for future publication.

Please send correspondence to: info@forumea.org

∙10∙

© The Forum on Education Abroad Dickinson College

P.O. Box 1773 Carlisle, PA 17013 info@forumea.org +1 717 245-1031