The State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement (SARA) would operate quite differently under proposed policy changes currently under consideration. In this post, I comment on some of the suggested ideas focusing on a few that “need improvement.” An upcoming post will focus on those ideas that I feel are ready to move forward. Some are long overdue.
Quick Background on SARA and Modifying Its Policies
SARA is an “agreement among member states, districts, and territories that establishes comparable national standards for interstate postsecondary distance education.” Each year, the member states openly seek proposals to improve the agreement’s Policy Manual. Kudos to those taking the time to traverse the long and tricky route from proposal to successfully adopt new or revised policy.
Thoughts on Some of the Proposals That Are Not Ready to Pass
The 2026 process just past the stage where public comments were taken on their initial proposed wording. Those submitting a proposal have until June 2 to modify or withdraw their proposal, if they wish. A second round of comments opens on June 9 and the regional compacts are to submit their votes by September 2.
There are some excellent proposals. Some have identified a problem that should be addressed, but (in my opinion) the initial wording still needs work.
Allow States to Enforce More “Consumer Protections:” Addressing the Washington Issue
The state of Washington has a law that may result in the state leaving SARA if its version of consumer protections are not met. Two proposals seek to address that issue.
UPCEA’s proposal (PMP26-0825) would allow a state to implement a specific consumer protection regulation if it they submitted it to the SARA modification process and it failed. As one commenter said on behalf of the MHEC Regional Steering Committee, the “RSC does not support any policy that would use previously recommended but unapproved policy as a basis for oversight…It could also encourage the submission of PMPs with the explicit understanding or intention that they will fail to address institution-specific actions.” I agree.
WICHE’s Regional Steering Committee submitted a nuanced proposal (PMP26-0808) that would allow a state to require an institution to seek authorization if: 1) the institution is not in compliance with one or more of “its education-specific consumer protection requirements,” 2) that non-compliance would harm students, and 3) absent SARA, the institution would need to apply for authorization in that state. During a Department of Education rulemaking a couple years ago, they tried to define an “education-specific consumer protection regulation” and failed to do so. An issue that came up in that discussion and in a comment on this proposal was related to DEI. Suppose one state requires inclusive instruction and another bans it. Both do so in the name of consumer protection. Where does that leave the states, institution, and students? That’s an example, but it caused the Department withdrew its proposal shortly after that question was asked. It’s only one example of strong definitions needed to make this proposal work.
On the WICHE RSC proposal, Erika Swain (University of Colorado Boulder) commented: “As written, this proposal would give states, at their sole discretion, applying an undefined standard, the authority to effectively opt participating institutions out of SARA – something that is antithetical to SARA’s mission and could cause real harm to students. I urge the authors to return to this proposal and give it the definitional rigor, structural guardrails, and explicit carve-outs it requires before advancing it further.” The MHEC RSC makes a good suggestion to create a broader working group across the regions. I think this proposal is a good starting point, but needs more work as found in the comments. The devil is in the definitions.
Some would say that questioning these state-focused proposals means that I’m against consumer protection. Frankly, I would like to see more consumer protections approved by SARA. However, it makes more sense to fight for protections that apply to all students in all states rather than reverting to a less-workable state-by-state model.
Allow Tribes to Join SARA as “States”
The conundrum of how to address the self-governed reservations and affiliated Tribal lands has been an issue since the reciprocity concept was first introduced. Proposal PMP26-0824(from the University of Colorado Law School)allows a Tribe to join SARA as a member “state,” much as the District of Columbia, territories, and Pacific “freely associated states” may join. As the proposal states: “Allowing states alone to authorize educational activity on Tribal land is inconsistent with the government-to-government relationship that exists between Tribes and other sovereigns.”
The proposed language sets a path for Tribes to join, but immediately switches its focus to the State Portal Entities (SPE) that oversee SARA for the state where a reservation is located. The assumption is made that only some (or none) of the Tribes could serve the SPE role on their own. While that may likely be true, to outsource oversight to another government implies a contract between the Tribe and the state assuming that duty.
Some issues that should be addressed:
- It should be made explicit that the regional compacts must review and approve such contracts during the state application and renewal process.
- Some entity within the Tribe needs to have the ultimate authority….both in its regulations and the Tribal office maintaining the final responsibility. While the SPE technical work can be outsourced, handling appeals and final interpretation of Tribal regulations should not be transferred.
- What happens if the state is not interested? For a host of reasons, it is very easy to imagine a state agency balking at serving in this outsourced role.
The idea of “outsourcing” the technical parts of the SPE role is an interesting one. If solved, it could help some of the Pacific territories or freely associated states join. They have similar scale problems.
I wrote a more detailed analysis and shared it with the proposers. This is another one that might require a committee to address.
Conduct the SARA Policy Modification Process Every Other Year
Sean Seepersad, Connecticut Office of Higher Education, proposes (PMP26-0800) that this Policy Modification Process be held biannually instead of every year. He submitted a companion proposal (PMP-26-0801) that would allow for a process for “exigent circumstances” in the off years.
Overall, there have been many proposals in recent years. In the recent webinar where all proposals were discussed, the burden on SPEs to participate in the process was cited as the reason for extending the timeline.
I wrote to Sean with concerns that this process is already moving slowly to protect students and the process has caused some proposals to die short by one vote for reasons, such as: they didn’t understand it, they ran out of time to consider it, they had a fundamental misunderstanding of what was proposed, or they wanted one or two words changed. Given the six-month extent of this process, it seems like the steps are the problem and not the frequency. If some of these proposals had been tweaked and accepted, they would not go through another whole year process.
I suggested an amendment (which certainly can be improved) that in the off years that proposals still be considered if they meet the following criteria:
- The proposal was submitted in the previous year
- The proposal received support from three of the four regional compacts.
- Both the proposer and one of the RSCs have indicated interest in continuing to seek approval for the proposal.
To my SPE friends, I really do appreciate the difficult job that you have and the time you spend on the modification process. I also realize that some of you were given this role on top a full-time job.
Given the frequent attacks on the consumer protections of SARA, a move that makes it appear to be less responsive is a dangerous one for the whole enterprise. Let’s find a good remedy for fixing this process.
Conclusion
There are 33 proposals this year and I’m sure that improvements will appear in the language for the next round. Let’s all come together to keep improving the lives of students attending institutions under the SARA protections.
Russ Poulin
CEO, EduPolicy Insights, LLC
https://edupolicyinsights.com/
Discover more from Edu Policy Insights, LLC
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.