Arkansas Legislative Council
Higher Education Subcommittee
August 13, 2025
Senator Dan Sullivan Members, we are going to call the Education Committee to order. There’s a sign up sheet out here. If we have people that would like to make public comment, you’re welcome. Let me just comment about that.
Today’s meeting is mostly about return on investment and the appropriateness for online education across the board. We hope to avoid getting involved in any specific instances where an online education program is appropriate or inappropriate at a certain school. Those boards and those universities will make those decisions appropriate for them. What we’re talking about today is whether our return on investment for our online programs benefits the state and Arkansans.
So if you kind of get off specific to a certain school, then don’t be surprised if I or someone says we’re off topic. But again, this is a public meeting. The public is welcome to speak. You’re welcome to give your comments. Again, the topic is whether it’s appropriate for online education.
So moving on, members, anybody have any questions on that? I’m sure you’ll give me a hand keeping everybody on our topic. Item B, there’s no action to be taken by the subcommittee. The report has been received. It requires institutions of higher ed to report to ALC annually upon the release of the previous year’s audit by Legislative Audit to the Chief Fiscal Officer of the state of the Legislative Council, the certification of the solvency of sufficient funds and a calculation of the number of days of cash on hand prepared by each institution’s financial officer.
That report will be read on Friday and we’ll have an opportunity to adopt or have questions at that point. Anybody have any questions on B? If not, we’ll move to C, the presentation. Representative Lundstrum, do you have a question?
Representative Robin Lundstrum Yes, sir. Arkansas Tech, it just has an X. What does that mean? Does anybody know?
Senator Dan Sullivan X’s on cash on hand isn’t a good thing, is it?
Representative Robin Lundstrum No, sir.
Senator Dan Sullivan They just haven’t reported it. So we’ll check on that and have an answer on Friday.
Representative Robin Lundstrum Okay, thank you, sir. Thank you.
Senator Dan Sullivan Glad, thank you. Other questions? Seeing none, we’ll move to item C, the presentation of higher education updates. I think you have a sheet on that. And we’re going to have Dr. Ken Warden come forward, Commissioner of Arkansas Division of Higher Ed. Yes, if you’ll come to the table, please.
And again, just to reinforce what we’re talking about today, number one is return on investment impacts on productivity formula. And two, the graduate outcome. So are all of those together for presentations?
Ken Warden Yes sir, it’s one presentation. I have a few slides on each.
Senator Dan Sullivan If you’ll introduce yourself, you’ll be recognized.
Ken Warden Yes, sir. Ken Warden, Commissioner at Arkansas Division of Higher Education.
Senator Dan Sullivan Thank you for being here today. And you may proceed.
Ken Warden Yes, sir. I have a few items that I was asked to address today, one of which is our progress with where we are on embedding a return on investment metric into the higher education productivity funding formula. The next would be, we’re going to discuss success in courses– excuse me, Arkansas course transfer system eligible courses by modality. And by that I mean, face-to-face versus online sections.
And then, lastly, we’re going to talk a little bit about accreditation in higher education and kind of what that landscape is and where we are on that. Yes, sir. So to begin, Ms. Emily, do I have control of the clicker on the slides? Yes, I do. Okay.
So the last time I was here, we went through a little more lengthy discussion on what return on investment meant and what that metric was and then how we might use that. Since I was here last, we have met twice. Our first meeting was an introductory meeting on June 25, where we described the metric and its intended use. And we sent data to committee members for their consideration.
The Higher Education Productivity Formula Committee was really the same committee with a couple of changes in members due to retirements and folks leaving and representation. And we also had members of administration attended. And so I’m here to update you all at one at one time. But your participation, that is also certainly welcome, of course. So we met again on July 23. I’m going to go into that in a little more detail. And then our next meeting is on August 27, so the end of this month.
Just as a reminder, the return on investment metric is us looking at Arkansas students who graduated from Arkansas public institutions and looking at the cost of their education. So their tuition, fees, books. We also added to that cost the amount of salary that they gave up in order to participate in that academic program. So how much money would they have made or the high school graduate would have made during the time that they were participating in their educational program.
And then we took and matched the wages after they graduated year over year cumulatively to see how long it took them to repay that through increased wages above a high school graduate in years and then what they made beyond that. And our data is really good from 2011 until now. So we started with the 2011 year. We clocked the 2015 graduation rate, because that’s a graduating class, 2011 to 2015 is four years. And then we measured from 2015 until 2023 to get those numbers.
And we did that by classification of instructional programs, two-digit level. So we didn’t look at every unique engineering degree. We looked at engineers. We didn’t look at every healthcare individual unique program. We looked at healthcare programs. And when you do that at that level, there’s about 35 classifications of degrees. And then, so we’re trying to figure out what is an acceptable number of years for the return to break even and start gaining. And then, how does that fit into the metric?
So in our last meeting in July– the first meeting in June was kind of an introductory setting the stage– in our meeting in July, what we did was look at the existing formula. So we revisited the existing formula. And we’re trying to find ways to simplify the existing formula. Our formula does exactly what it was designed to do, but it has a lot of pieces to it.
So the slide that you see before you has the formula and how it’s created and how its weighted. So on the four-year university side, you see 80% of the formula is based on effectiveness. And effectiveness drills down to credentials, which are certificates and degrees, progression, transfer success, and then gateway course success. Gateway courses are courses that students take that really are a good predictor of whether or not they’re going to complete their degree. And then time to degree, an adjustment for research on the four-year side, an adjustment of diseconomies of scale on the two-year side, and then efficiencies, which are core expense ratio and faculty to admin salary ratio.
There are some things in this formula that don’t change the bottom line. So in order to simplify the formula, we are looking at what can we remove from this formula and still have the same index. So each institution creates an index based on the certificates and degrees they produce. It goes through this formula. And then the institutions have a three year rolling average. The three year rolling average mitigates volatility. And then so after each year, the current past three years are compared to the previous past three years, and then they are funded based on how much they go up or down, with a 2% up or down limit.
So if we took an ROI metric, and there are statutory requirements that require us to consider these things, not exactly as they’re described, but things like affordability and effectiveness and efficiencies. And so these metrics are put in there by that. But if you look at what we’re doing with ROI, I think that the premise of return on investment really replaces some of these things. So a core expense ratio on an efficiency, we know that that category, at the end of the day, if we removed it completely and re-ran the numbers of the index, it doesn’t change much.
But the affordability metric, specifically time to degree, credits at completion– so time to degree is: Did you finish a four year degree in four years? How many credits did you have on a 120 hour degree? Did you have 130 credits or 120 credits and going over that? So really one of the things that we could do is just take the ROI piece and embed it right into the affordability piece or remove the affordability piece and add ROI to an effectiveness piece.
Now this is a lot of detail, but let me get to the crux of it. The perception of higher ed is that we cost too much, we don’t give relevant degrees, and that we’re indoctrinating students. So if we cut to the chase on ensuring a degree has relevance and value on a financial basis, we’re making a promise to these students and to the state taxpayers that their monies are going to be used in the right ways on degrees that have value and return.
So I think our institutions are ready to accept that and be accountable to that. And through this, this is what we’re going to do. So if a degree in the SIP code does not show a return and we put a multiplier where the affordability metric is– and let’s say that multiplier is 1. If it gets multiplied by 1 if that degree pays for itself in eight years or less, and a 0 if it doesn’t pay for itself in eight year or less, then we’re not going to pay them to do anything that doesn’t pay return in ROI because we’re going to multiply it by 0.
Another premise is that we have degrees that have a return on investment very, very quickly, two years, four years. Do we, rather than multiplying that degree value by 1, do we multiply it something above 1 so we reward our institutions at a premium for giving degrees that return on investment? Healthcare degrees return investment faster. Engineering degrees return on investment faster. We have in this, you see, one of the metrics is on the credential side.
There are some bonus points for awarding STEM degrees. Will STEM degrees have a high return on investment, STEM degrees and high demand degrees? Well, arguably, STEM degrees and high-demand degrees pay more, and so they’re inherently going to be part of return on investment. So what we’re doing now is we looked at the existing formula in July, we’re going to come back in August and try to set some thresholds on what is an acceptable demarcation of an acceptable return.
And should we just have it a go-no-go multiplier of 1 or 0 on whether we’re going to fund this degree? Or should we stratify that and pay more for degrees that show a quicker return? And, remember, this formula produces an index. The index is a number that’s attached to each institution using the same methodology. The institution is compared to itself with a new index.
Whatever we decide to do, we hope to have this wrapped up by the end of the calendar year and to come back to you all in the spring so that we can get your approval on that so that the institutions can start making decisions in the fall on what they’re going to offer, what they are going to change. I expect that the changes are going to happen quickly. But in order to be, I think, fair, we probably need to walk off of this formula onto the new formula so we have comparator years that are equivalent.
So it may be that we continue on this formula for three years, collecting new data for three years under the new metric. And in that third or fourth year, we measure to the new metric. Because there would be no way to compare effectively because it’s a completely new index number that’s going to be created. I’ll stop there and be happy to address any questions. I hope that makes sense. It’s kind of complicated, hard to simplify.
Senator Dan Sullivan We can appreciate complicated. So when you say that you’re going to present– you should have the research done by end of the calendar year in order to present to the legislature what that new formulary looks like. And then how does that directly affect what we will do as legislators appropriating funds for universities? Do you anticipate that will happen in the next legislative session?
Ken Warden So, if we embed this metric, we’re going to come back to you and say, here’s what this looks like, here’s what we decided on. Hopefully, it’s a lot less messy or it’s simpler than it is now. I think that’s a big move for us, a strategic move.
Because when you look at all of this, no offense to my colleagues who helped create it, I’ve been in higher ed since this was created and was a small part of the process– it doesn’t need to be this complicated. And people lose trust when we make these things this complicated. We can simplify this and get to the same ends with a more simple process. And I think that’ll help regain trust within the General Assembly and within the general public.
Senator Dan Sullivan So do you anticipate that someone in a degree field, some of our universities will be dropping some of those degree programs?
Ken Warden I do. And what we’re saying is that they don’t have to drop the program. If it’s so core to their mission that they need to keep doing a program that doesn’t show a return on investment, that’s fine. We’re just not paying for it.
Senator Dan Sullivan We, being the legislature, right?
Ken Warden The taxpayers of Arkansas and the legislature. Yes, sir.
Senator Dan Sullivan Taxpayers of Arkansas. Okay, we’re going to go to the list here. Representative Richardson, you’re recognized.
Representative Scott Richardson Thank you, Mr. Chair. Appreciate you being here and bringing this. It’s kind of an interesting idea and concept. And I was just curious, where did the inspiration come from to change the model and to approach it from a return on investment to the taxpayers, as opposed to generally funding pretty much any degree path that’s out there?
Ken Warden Well, first, thank you for the question. And it boils down to Arkansans are not participating in higher education at rates consistent with other states. Other states around the nation participate at a rate of about 62%. Arkansans participate at about 42%, give or take. So we can increase our participation by half and still be on par with the rest of the nation.
Now, whether I believe it’s true or not, the perception is we cost too much, we’re not giving relevant skills, and that we’re indoctrinating students. I have got to do something to help Arkansans understand that, by and large, there is a return on investment. And even people who aren’t highly educated and who haven’t been participating in higher education understand a dollar bill. So I’ve got to show them.
And this is a way that we not only hold our institutions accountable to producing degrees, but we also hold ourselves accountable to Arkansans and say that, Without a doubt, if you come come participate in one of our institutions that you’re going to have a better chance of earning a higher wage. Not on some national level of data that we don’t we can’t go pin down, these are Arkansas graduates. Arkansas Social Security numbers matched to Arkansas wages.
These are Arkansans and the money and wages they earned after they graduated. And so really it’s about entering into this process to regain the confidence of the General Assembly and the general public. I hope that makes sense.
Representative Scott Richardson That makes perfect sense. And seems like a good use of our institution. So I appreciate that. Thank you.
Senator Dan Sullivan Representative Garner, you’re recognized.
Representative Denise Garner Thank you, Mr. Chair. I can tell you that other states are looking at the same thing. And so far, at any of my national meetings, I have not had anybody say what we’re going to do about teachers and law enforcement and some of those professions that we absolutely need folks educated for, but are not going to make their return on investment in eight years.
Are we going to lower the cost of that education? Are we going to cut it out? Are we going to– how are we going to make sure that we’re still educating our teachers and our law enforcement and our early childhood educators and those folks that truly need to be educated? How are we going to look at that for a return on investment?
Ken Warden So there’s a couple ways to consider that. And what you’re speaking to is programs and professions that have high social value but that don’t earn great wages. We need people watching our children that are competent and capable. We need early child care workers. We need good parapros. We just don’t pay them well.
And it’s a very sticky situation because, as their wages go up, having two grandchildren in daycare, my kids, with two working parents, it’s all they can do to pay for childcare for two, and both of them work. So, how do we fix that? So there’s a couple different ways. We could create an exception list for certain high social value programs that we feel are important to us.
But what I will tell you is that when we look at most of those programs– and I’m going to use the two year education degree as an example. The two-year education degree does not have an eight-year return on investment. Those folks do not make more than a high school graduate with the data we collected. But if you take that same SIP code category, there’s an associate degree in that category and there’s a bachelor’s degree in the category. And the bachelor’s degree in that degree, as it does with most of these cases, shows an ROI.
So if we make our judgment based on the four-year degree return, assuming that the individuals who earn the two-year agree have a pathway to the four year degree, so we hold them harmless if the two year degree doesn’t ROI so long as the bachelor degree does, under the premise that if they go on, they’re going to have the opportunity to earn more than a college graduate. Does that make sense?
So we have a couple options there. We can look at exceptions lists or we could base our, make our judgments on the program at the bachelor degree level and it mitigates most of the situations you’re talking about.
Senator Dan Sullivan That’s a key question and one that we will want to keep a close eye on. Because we do need to compensate people in those fields and our numbers of those fields to keep the flow going. And I think we’re trying to move in that direction. Thank you for the question. Representative Hawk, you’re recognized.
Representative RJ Hawk Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess my question is concerning the two-year colleges. And yesterday you were on the tour of the Saline County Career Technical Center, right?
My question is, will the data for the secondary career centers, will that factor in if they’ve got credentials through an ASU Three Rivers or something like that? How does that factor into stuff like that? Because there are different career paths through that, and you can get degrees and credentials through that stuff. So do they have to be through an accredited college to be factored into this two year program?
Ken Warden So for clarification. Saline County is where we were yesterday. I’ll use that for an example. Those degrees are certificates and degrees that are awarded through ASU Three Rivers, particularly at that campus. So the short answer is, absolutely, yes. They don’t get funding for those students. But if those students complete a degree, then that would roll into this productivity. We don’t fund institutions for students. We only fund institutions for producing certificates and degrees.
Representative RJ Hawk Great. Thank you.
Senator Dan Sullivan Another very important question, Representative Hawk. Thank you very much. Senator English, you’re recognized.
Senator Jane English So along those same lines, so if we have a two-year degree in industrial maintenance and you have an associate degree, so how do you hook that to a four-year college degree? Or do you?
Ken Warden Yes, ma’am. The devil’s in the details. And we have several institutions that do this. So it really depends on what the two-year degree is. For industrial maintenance, for instance, that will roll in many times to a Bachelor of Applied Science degree. And what you do is you take that two-year technical degree– so I’m an automotive technician by trade.
There’s only like one institution or two in the nation that have a four-year degree in automotive technology. In Arkansas, we have several opportunities. I started with an associate’s degree in automotive service from Westark Community College, and I had a different color of hair, of course, and that was in another century.
But I finished a bachelor’s degree in vocational education, and many of those hours counted toward that. Our degree, when I was working for UA Fort Smith, prior to this appointment, if we had folks that finished an associate degree in automotive or welding, those rolled into a bachelor of applied science degree. And the upper level courses were more aligned with management, different types of leadership skills typically. But there’s a way to get from that to another degree.
Senator Jane English So what if they didn’t decide to go on further then, and maybe as a welder, they’re making a whole lot of money. And they’ve got a two-year degree. How does that show up on the return of an investment? Are we looking at mostly the four-year college return on investment?
Ken Warden No, what we did under the– so right now we have 2015 graduates eight-year timeline on all associate degrees and all bachelor degrees. So as this matures– that’s really all we had time to do with the bandwidth we have in the division. We’re doing that for the 2016-24 cohort, going back for the 15-24, and we’re also adding in technical certificates and certificates of proficiency.
Our goal after that is to do return on investment for all of those we’ve already done and graduate degrees in the following year. And then in the third year of this maturation process, Senator, I think you’re going to be eager to hear about this, we’re going to have done associate’s and bachelor’s, certificates of proficiency and technical certificates, graduate degrees, and then we’ll look at non-credit opportunities.
Because in my mind, the least common denominator here is whether someone takes a short-term certificate, non-degree diploma, whatever, or a degree is, how long did it take that degree to pay for itself and what was the long-term wage potential? We do not have that data in non-credit offerings. We started collecting it last year.
But as we increase our investment through Workforce Challenge from $800 to $3,000, we really need something more than anecdotal data to say, you finished this degree at this private institution, it was short- term. If we find that everyone in the state can go get a six week credential and get a $3 an hour raise, maybe we’ll do more of those. But I do think, apples to apples, that this is the way we do that. But it’s going to take a few years to get to that point because it’s all new data.
Senator Dan Sullivan Representative McGrew, you’re recognized.
Representative Richard McGrew And you may have already answered this in just that. But when we talk about the return on investment, and what I was hearing is through associate’s and bachelor’s degrees, but you just touched on certificates and all. There’s a huge demand for tradesmen, and there’s definitely a huge return on investment for that if you go to that. And the smaller two-year college and technical colleges are, you could say, hurting for those funds. So is this in the future going to equate into changing that direction to also help fund those situations?
Ken Warden So the short answer about the relevance of technical training and short-term degrees is yes. This will take into consideration those. As far as changing funding, you have to recall that this creates an index number for each unique campus. And that campus isn’t measured against every other campus. It’s measured against itself in the production of degrees. So them producing 20% more degrees won’t be reflected in a funding situation, but what it’s going to mitigate is us funding degrees that do not show a return. I hope that makes sense, sir.
Senator Dan Sullivan Senator Caldwell, you’re recognized.
Senator Ron Caldwell Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ken, I want to follow up on Senator English’s question and your explanation on trade classes. Are you basically saying the first year or two that they would take trade classes instead of things like literature and fine arts, that that would still apply toward their degree if they take the advanced management, accounting courses the last two years? Is that basically what you’re saying?
Ken Warden Yeah, so some of the things that we have going on right now is, because the way this formula is shaped, they only get credit in the formula for producing academic certificates and degrees. Short term training that doesn’t produce those doesn’t count in the existing metric. It probably won’t count even after we had ROI.
That’s why during the last session we asked to have the authority and the ability to create a non credit formula, so that our community colleges– because it’s based on certificate and degree, we ask students to take general education classes to meet that threshold, so that our institutions get funded. They’re doing exactly what we ask them to do and incentivize them to in a formula.
So having a non-credit formula– and what happens in many cases is we have some enroll in a short-term training program, let’s say for a welding program. And in order for them to get to associate degree, they’ve got to take 15 hours of general education credit. So, before they get there, they get a job offer and they didn’t want to maybe take comp one or comp two or college algebra, but they’ve met their employment goals. And they leave and they go meet their employment goals, but our institutions are harmed because they don’t hit the degree level.
So with a non credit formula we will also hopefully help fix some of that. This doesn’t do that directly. It just is about saying that we’re not going to fund things that we don’t see financial return for a participant.
Senator Ron Caldwell Good explanation. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Dan Sullivan So do you anticipate that maybe a degree– now, a bachelor’s degree is 120 hours. By going to this formula, do you anticipate that that number will get lower? 100, 90? But we’re not going to require some of those to get a degree?
Ken Warden I do not. I don’t think this will do that. Now we have, about a year and a half ago, the Higher Learning Commission sent out a white paper that said that they would consider and accredit sub-120 bachelor degrees.
So we have met with a group of our schools and we are exploring the option of doing a bachelor’s degree or a sub one that’s less than 120 hours. That’s kind of a different conversation. But it’s one of the things where I think really the proof is in the pudding.
What we haven’t done yet is had a program brought forth to us. We’ve got employers signed off that says, if these folks, if you grant them a bachelor’s degree at, let’s say, the 90 hour level, that we have a job for those folks. And there’s a place between a 60 hour degree and a 120 hour degree that’s employable, and that’s what I’m looking for. I’m looking for someone to raise their hand and say, we have a job for this individual with a bachelor’s degree that’s a sub 120, and there’s value in it, and we’ll hire those folks.
Senator Dan Sullivan Thank you.
Ken Warden Yes, sir.
Senator Dan Sullivan Representative Springer, you’re recognized.
Representative Joy Springer Thank you Mr. Chair. Good afternoon. So I’m just trying to take in what you’ve communicated today. So basically what you’re saying is that there are going to be certain things that are not going to be funded. However, you do not have all the data in order to support what you are speaking here generally. Is that what I’m hearing you say? Okay, well, help me out then.
Ken Warden Okay. I’m sorry. Can you ask the question again?
Representative Joy Springer Okay, so basically you’re saying that there are going to be some school where they go to a two year or four year that are not going to be funded by the state of Arkansas. And right now you’re saying that if there’s no return on investment, they’re not going to be funded. Are we together so far?
Ken Warden Yeah, so if–
Representative Joy Springer But we do not have the data to show what those are. So at this particular time, we don’t know what all those are going to be? Is that what I’m hearing now?
Ken Warden Well, we know, by two-digit SIP code the 35 bachelor degrees and the 25 associate degrees, we know which of those show return on investment and how long and which ones don’t.
Representative Joy Springer Okay, so where is that data? Would you share that data with us?
Ken Warden Yeah, I think I may– Emily, I don’t know if we did. After the last meeting, sent the handout for all the degrees, but I think we did. After the last meeting, we sent that out.
Representative Joy Springer Okay, can we– I would like to see that because I haven’t seen that. Because that would help me understand it better. Because right now it sounds like we’re just talking and don’t have any data. Okay, all right, I would like to see that data. Thank you.
Senator Dan Sullivan Can you get that back to us?
Ken Warden Yes, sir. We’ll resend that and we can rebroadcast that.
Senator Dan Sullivan Maybe I misunderstood. If we’re talking about not funding, we’re not necessarily talking about not funding institutions. We’re talking about not funding programs.
Ken Warden Yes.
Senator Dan Sullivan Okay. Big difference. Okay. We’ll get that information. Representative Ennett, you’re recognized.
Representative Denise Ennett Thank you, Mr. Chair. Hi, Commissioner Warden. I have a question. What protections are in place so that programs serving first generation, low income, rural, or special needs students aren’t penalized because the cost is more and the completion rates are slower?
Ken Warden So, in the formula right now, in the effectiveness metric, there are some points, and that is addressed statutorily, that we have to do that. So in that metric, if you do a drill down, if I opened up the full two page explanation of– and I don’t have it in the slideshow– of what was in the effectiveness piece, there’s multipliers for STEM and underserved. And I think that’s where it’s addressed.
Representative Denise Ennett So we’ll have that information before–
Ken Warden Yes ma’am, that’s in the existing formula.
Representative Denise Ennett Okay, thank you.
Senator Dan Sullivan And we will have more meetings to address issues like that. That’s important information for us to consider the funding formulas. Representative Beck, you’re recognized.
Representative Rick Beck Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I apologize if you covered some of this and it went over. I’m looking at this. I like the concept. I really do. But I look at it in trying to maybe drill down to the core, the root of this thing. It would appear to me that with the previous formula, one of the problems that the universities had was their students in some of their technical programs were being pulled out before they were completers of those courses.
And they are going to work in the field, which to me is the ultimate, what we want, right? I mean, we’d like to get that student educated and to a point where they are very employable and to the point that they say, I’m not even going to finish this, I’m going to work. And to me, so in my opinion, that’s a program we want to emulate, right, exactly.
But, so my question is, the only concern I have is we’re looking at this and we’re saying, okay, this program is not productive, so we’re not going to fund it as well as we would something else, whatever the index allows you to go. But my question, wouldn’t it be a better way to look at it to say, look at the programs that people are being hired out of before they complete, and say, we want more of that.
And whether it’s rewarding, those type of programs as opposed to saying, OK, yeah, you didn’t get a degree. So now what we’re going to reward is these degrees, the degrees that pay the money back. Great basic concept. But the better concept is saying, OK, and I’m just going to throw some numbers here, I took half the time and I put a person out there in a very employable situation, which I think is serving the general population or the student body that would go to university.
So is there a way within this that we can do that, that we could tweak and say, okay, these folks– because I have had some of the two year schools come to me and say our biggest problem with the old formula was that these people are being hired before we get through and we get nothing out of that. So if you could address that issue.
Ken Warden Yes, sir. And I think it is an issue. And I think that we have created a system that has caused this at some level. And the non credit funding formula that we want to stand up alongside this is how we address some of that. Because our institutions will then know and have an incentive to create a shorter program that addresses the core employable skills only and not artificially extending a program to meet a degree requirement. It’s employability skills.
And when we lift that formula, then our schools will be encouraged to do that. Right now they’re not, but we’re getting there. Another issue with the point is that we don’t have the data to prove that. And we know in some cases that that is true. I mean, personally, I had folks that when I taught that they was like, man, Ken, I want to finish, I just can’t afford it. I got a family to feed. I’m getting a job. I’ve already got this certificate, this credential. I gotta go. And I understand.
So I think that we’re working on that not just through this, but in other areas. And there’s a project that we volunteered to be a part of with the Richmond Fed. The Richmond Fed is looking at community college value outside of just degrees. So when these situations happen, and folks meet their employability needs and their job goals without completing a degree, that adds value to that individual and to the community. I think that’s what you’re saying.
And so we haven’t been measuring that but we volunteered to be a part of a process or a study that will help show that outside of the Richmond Fed service area. So we’re working on it, sir.
Representative Rick Beck And I would encourage somehow inputting into your new formula. Programs that facilitate someone going into what that program is set to, in other words, looking at something– it’s going to take more data, but it would be looking at something– likeI might get out of, I’m just going to use heating and air. I’m going to use heating and air as an example. I jumped out of my course of study and went to work. But a true indicator– and maybe it looks very well, I’m being paid and everything’s fine. But another matrix would be, how long did I stay there? Was I there for a few months and then I was back out?
Ken Warden As an employee? You mean retained?
Representative Rick Beck So that’s also a factor that should be considered because that’s the ultimate of what we want is someone making a living wage from here on out, right?
Ken Warden Correct.
Representative Rick Beck So more data for you to gather.
Ken Warden Well, it’s not perfect. There’s a lot of moving parts. And we are continuously doing better in this data collection. And I think, ultimately, as we start measuring and funding noncredit opportunities, I think it’s too much with noncredit because we don’t have data to complicate our existing productivity formula. That’s why personally I wanted a separate formula. And that’s what we’re working to do.
But as we gather data, because we started gathering data last year. As soon as I got here, I was working with a team that had already been working on it and we were collecting some data, but it wasn’t with fidelity. So now we have higher expectations of our institutions to send us the data for non degree programs.
And as we gather this data over four or five years, it might make a lot of sense that once we can model it, we know what it is, we know how much work is being done and what the returns are for those individuals who go out and meet their employability goals that we roll this back into one formula after we have enough information to do it responsibly would be my goal. I hope that makes sense.
Senator Dan Sullivan And, members, we’re going to come back here with this group again either next month or the following month. Or you see they have a meeting on the 27th. They’re gathering data. And then Ken and I talk fairly frequently. And we’ll be back with this committee as we gather new data. We’re going to kind of limit this discussion. But Representative Springer, you’re recognized.
Representative Joy Springer Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that. And maybe once I ask this question he can go out and get some additional information for me. So is this proposed funding from one that you’re developing, one that you came up with? Or is it one that’s being utilized by some other institution?
Ken Warden No, this will be ours. The one thing I will say that was close to this is there are a couple states who fund community colleges based on something similar to this premise. But no, this is unique. We’re getting a lot of phone calls about it from other places, from other places.
Representative Joy Springer This is something very unique that you and your staff came up with?
Ken Warden Well, we created the measurement and looked at just matching people’s salaries to their degrees. How we embed it, we’re still trying to figure that out. So I’m not saying that we came up with it, but it was an idea that we thought that we could, something we could use to really showcase the return of an education.
Representative Joy Springer And I guess, last question. I guess I’m trying to determine how is it that you believe that through this process it’s going to increase the graduation rate from these institutions. I mean, what is your evidence that that’s going to happen?
Ken Warden Well, until we run this metric, I don’t know that it will. But what I’m hoping to do is increase participation. Participation and graduation are two different things. But participation is a pretty good leading indicator. Because you can’t finish if you don’t start. So I’m hoping that people buy into that, we are going to guarantee that the degrees we fund as a state show there’s a better opportunity of long-term success for the students.
Representative Joy Springer But your opening statement indicated that you want to increase the graduation rate from 40% up to some of those–
Ken Warden Well, that was participation rate. Because the truth of the matter is they participate at 42%, but we only graduate about half of them. So our bachelor degree graduation rate is more like 23 or 24%.
Representative Joy Springer Okay, so you want to increase participation rates rather than graduation. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank You, Mr. Chair
Senator Dan Sullivan That’s a good segue into our next item on the agenda. Number two is your students and graduate outcomes for online versus in-person education.
Ken Warden Yes, sir. Thank you. So I really just have one slide, and there is a typo on it. It’s my fault. When you see, ‘On 276 face to face sections,’ that’s actually ‘276 unique courses.’ There’s multiple sections of that course. So these 276 courses were offered thousands of times over those three years. That’s just unique courses.
So we had 276 face to face courses in general education. And now that’s everything from Comp 1, Comp 2, College Algebra, history. All the Arkansas course transfer system courses is what we counted. And then we had 263 courses, not sections. There are also thousands of sections.
And so when we ran the data on student success by modality, so we compared, did students succeed more in face to face courses or online courses. The pass rates are there.
So we had an 86.6% pass rate on face-to-face courses and an 80% pass rate on online and online sections. I looked at a few data points on my own without running a full data analysis or statistical analysis on it. I tried to find something where we saw a much bigger difference, like maybe, was it a course with a lab where we say a 90/50 difference or a 90/80 success rate.
I, really, after a couple hours of kind of sifting through the data, I didn’t find any glaring outliers. But the story is that there is a marked difference between success in online versus face to face by 6.6% over the last three years in our public schools. But it’s probably not as big as some folks may have thought or perceived. And I’m happy to answer any questions about that.
Senator Dan Sullivan Thank you. Senator Boyd, you’re recognized.
Senator Justin Boyd Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, Dr. Warden, is that telling us that it’s better to have face-to-face classes or is that telling us there’s something different about the students that go into online versus face-to-face? I mean, should I be inferring anything? Or is it just, here’s what this one was and here’s this one was?
Ken Warden I hate to infer anything beyond that because you kind of get yourself in trouble without having the pure facts. Correlation and causation are two different things. What we know is this, this is factual, that in those courses the pass rates were less by 6.6% in online versus face-to-face.
When you drill into the demographics that participate in online sections versus face-to-face, people oftentimes question the rigor of online courses. But having studied education for a lot of years and being an educator, what I will tell you is the rigor of the course does not depend on the modality.
The rigor of the course is dependent on the faculty member. So a faculty member, online or face to face, can be as good or as bad. And that’s what it boils down to. In my opinion, the rigor the class is not on the modality, nor the engagement.
You can engage very well in online courses as you can in face to face depending on what the assignments are, how the course is taught, how it is led. There may be something in those demographics who engage in online versus face-to-face. We just didn’t examine that.
Senator Justin Boyd So just to clarify, so right now all we can say is pass rate was 86.6% in face-to-face and 80% online. And that’s where it stops.
Ken Warden For this particular instance, yes. Given more time, and if that’s something we wanted to dig into on your behalf or the group, we’ll be glad to maybe look at some demographic differences or things like that if you so chose.
Senator Justin Boyd Well, I mean, this just is a statistic. It doesn’t really give me any idea, is one better than the other? Yeah. So, thank you.
Senator Dan Sullivan And, members, again we’re not going to dive too deep into this right now. That’ll come later whether specific occupation does better or specific coursework. We will let people do their research and bring that to the table, and we’ll hear a little bit about that later today. But we’re not going to get into specific programs or what’s happening at a specific institution at this time. Representative Garner, you’re recognized.
Representative Denise Garner Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I just want to say, I kept my light on because that was my question as well, Senator Boyd. I just wanted to talk about the demographics issue because that is a huge issue. More of our folks online are single parents or working parents or the demographic could be completely different for online and for in person classes. So I think the demographic is extremely important in that particular statistic.
Ken Warden Yes, ma’am. This is just the question I was asked, so we answered the question that we were asked.
Senator Dan Sullivan And I agree. We’re going to have that get into detail on that a little bit later. Representative Ennett, you’re recognized.
Representative Denise Ennett Thank you, Mr. Chair. Dr. Warden, I have a question. When we talk about higher education institutions, do all of them have access to online learning?
Ken Warden Yes. I can say that with a lot of confidence. I can’t tell you that every section of every course or every course is offered in an online modality. But it’s just an expectation. Even our face-to-face courses have online tools. Even our most technical courses, whether you’re in an automotive course or a welding course or you’re in a Comp 1 course, there’s going to be a virtual component and a platform where you have your syllabus, where you have your lesson plan, where you have your lessons, where you have grade reporting. It’s just an expectation of schools today.
Senator Dan Sullivan And again, as we examine these, we’ll try to have a very narrow scope of what we’re going to look at so that we don’t get kind of get off the wall. I don’t see any more questions on that. We’ll move to item 3, higher education accreditation.
Ken Warden Thank you, sir. I was asked to speak a little bit about higher education accreditation and what that means and kind of the landscape of that. So I’ve just got a few slides. This first one really, as described by the Association of Specialized Professional Accreditors, describes a triad of higher education. And the role of the triad is the three entities operate independently, and each has a role in ensuring quality and independence defined and protected by laws.
So you have an accreditation agency, you have your state government, and you have the federal government. The accreditation itself is about quality in teaching and learning is what it’s intended to do. The state government authorizes and controls. And different states have different varying levels of controls. For instance, some higher education divisions like mine in other states are boards of regents. They’re much more dictatorial.
We are a coordinating board. We coordinate higher education efforts. And then you have the Department of Education, the Secretary of Education. And through the Higher Education Act has obligations and funding opportunities.
What I will tell you about accreditation that, in my opinion, has one of the biggest impacts is that if you’re not accredited, you don’t have the ability to award federal financial aid. So accreditation for us is a big thing for quality. But at the end of the day, if you can’t show quality, you can’t award federal financial aid. So I hope that makes sense. And I’m happy to come back and answer any questions, more questions about that.
Really with the landscape of higher education, in order to be a member of CHEA, the Council on Higher Education Accreditation, there’s certain things you have to do. You can’t just count yourself as an accreditor and then be approved by the Department of Ed, Federal Department of Ed, to accredit schools. And so the Council on Higher Education and Accreditation, CHEA, is the accreditor of accreditors, to put it simply. So all these accreditation entities must be blessed by CHEA in order for them to go evaluate quality and give people the ability to grant financial aid.
So there was a presidential executive order put out by President Trump recently, and you all may have seen that, and it was about reforming accreditation to strengthen higher education. Basically the order directed the Secretary of Education to deem what it calls unlawful discrimination and to promote academic excellence and institutional accountability. So there’s an executive order out recently at the federal level from the president.
And you all have probably read in the papers or saw in the news that Florida has an alternative effort. Florida really wasn’t happy with the SACSCOC. So Arkansas is what I would say is an HLC school. Our primary creditor in the state is the Higher Learning Commission. They used to be the North Central Accreditation Commission.
When the regional components were dissolved, so now there’s no rules or laws about, this is the regional accreditor. Higher Learning Commission went from North Central, but our schools are mostly accredited by the Higher Learning Commission. They are not SACSCOC like Florida. And we have not had some of those cross-grain things that Florida’s had with SACSCOC.
So Florida is working to create a commission of its own, an accreditor of its own called the Commission for Public Higher Education. There are states that have joined their conversation, and those include Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas. This group is not a CHEA member yet, and I don’t know what their timeline is. It could be tomorrow, but I would anticipate, and the folks I’ve talked to, that it’s going to take 24 months or longer for them to become a member of CHEA, because there’s a certain amount of things they have to do.
I’m of the opinion, personally, that I would rather kind of hold where we are and see that this entity becomes a member of CHEA. And then if it’s something we think our schools of the state of Arkansas should lean into, then we do it at that time. This is something, there’s a lot of things I want to be first on. This is not one of them. I have been told personally and in public with the Higher Learning Commission at some of their meetings is that they are not going to put themselves between the higher education institution and the general assembly or the legislative body of the state. They’re not in the business of doing that.
And what I’ve asked is Barbara Gelman Delaney is the CEO of the Higher Learning Commission, and I’ve asked her to come to our annual trustees training conference in December to talk to our boards of trustees about what the Higher Learning Commission is and what it isn’t and where they see their relationship and really address kind of their stance on the current landscape of higher education around the nation and how they’re going to react to that and work with our campuses.
So I’m happy to take questions. But just to kind of sum it up, it is kind of a different place today with the higher education accreditation. I don’t really feel that we should join the effort that’s going on with the Commission on Public Higher Education until maybe they get the CHEA thing figured out. And I’m sure they will do that. I have all the confidence in the world they’re going to do that, but I think it’s better for us to stay where we are and then look and see how that goes. And then if we want to lean into that later on, once that conversation evolves, then we do that.
Senator Dan Sullivan So if someone makes a recommendation for a shift, who makes that decision at the state level? Does the university make it? Does the legislature make it? Who makes those decisions?
Ken Warden Well, the institutions can choose which entity they want to be accredited with.
Senator Dan Sullivan So it’s not going to come before the legislature and we’re going to make a unilateral decision, from what you know now?
Ken Warden At this point in time, I guess that you guys make the laws, I enforce them or try to do that. Yeah, I guess that could be done. It’s within the realm of possibilities, but yeah.
Senator Dan Sullivan Okay. And you’re not prepared to speak on behalf of the president as far as what he’s going to say, are you?
Ken Warden No, sir. I don’t think I’m ready to do that.
Senator Dan Sullivan Good for you. Okay. That concludes Dr. Warden’s presentation. Anyone have any comments, closing comments? Thank you very much. And we’ll get together. And, Ken, so if people want to attend some of these meetings that you’re having with different groups you meet with, are those meetings open to legislators?
Ken Warden Sure, yeah, just let us know. We’ll be happy to–
Senator Dan Sullivan And so if people would contact you, then you could inform them when the next meeting is and where it is and they’re welcome to attend. And, members, I’d encourage you to do that. There’s a lot going on and we want to be fully transparent and informational too.
Ken Warden That’s right. They can reach out to us or work through the assembly and we’ll make it happen.
Senator Dan Sullivan Great, thank you very much. You’re excused. Folks, we’re going to move to the comment section. And again, this is a public meeting. You’re welcome to speak. Look forward to your comments, but let’s keep them on the topics at hand. Particularly if it’s online, not specific to any school. We’ll come to that later, but not today. First, Joshua Silverstein, you’re welcome to come to the table. And if you would, please introduce yourself and you’re welcome to present. And, guests, please kind of keep your comments short. We’re running past 4 o’clock and it’s getting late. There’s a button down there right in front of you. Push that. And if you would, introduce yourself and you may begin.
Josh Silverstein My name is Josh Silverstein. I’m a law professor in Little Rock, but I’m here in my individual capacity, not on behalf of my university. Thanks for this opportunity to testify. I was unsurprised to hear the commissioner’s comments that online learning has a marked difference in outcomes from in-person learning. T
hose findings are consistent with the research I have reviewed, including that gathered by people at my law school and other law professors. Very briefly on some terminology. We all know what in-person and fully online learning are. But there are a couple of other definitions that are important. Hybrid learning is a course where some classes are in person and some are held online. It’s usually 50-50, but it can be 75-25 or 60-40.
There’s also two types of online education we have to keep separate. Synchronous education is where the class is taught live like as if we were on Zoom. We can call that live online. Asynchronous education is where courses are recorded and students take the course on their own schedule. After controlling for the rigor of courses and the quality of students, here’s what the research generally finds on average. In-person is somewhat better than hybrid. Hybrid is significantly better than online. And live online is better than recorded online. And that’s exactly what common sense would tell us.
We also know that most constituencies are not big fans of online learning. If the pandemic taught us anything, one silver lining is that people with kids and in higher ed know that online learning is not as effective. I want to use legal education generally as an example because a lot of law schools have considered moving their part-time evening programs online. When collecting evidence from constituencies, as my law school has done, there has been overwhelming opposition to legal education being online in any format, and especially in the recorded online format.
So why might a school want to have an online program? Well, one option is it can bring in more students, and the second is it can create new types of access. And that’s been the motivation that some law schools have to try and change their part-time evening programs. For example, a number of schools have thought that if they move their part time programs online, it will improve access and thus access to justice. New people will be able to attend school and they might go back to rural communities and improve access to lawyers in rural communities.
The problem is, is we don’t have any evidence that that will happen. We don’t have any evidence that we’ll actually end up with more students if we move online. In fact, the people who want an in-person education who leave might be larger than those who want an online experience.
Another argument, as I said, is about total students. And some law schools are worried about the demographic cliff that’s supposedly coming. People started having fewer babies after the financial crisis, and so there may be fewer college students and law students and other graduate students in a few years. The problem is that there’s no evidence the demographic cliff is really going to hit places like legal education. And certainly right now, law schools are doing extremely well. Demand for legal education is increasing. And many law schools, including ours, are actually oversubscribed when it comes to students.
So basically, the evidence in favor of online is that it is a less effective product. And as a result, I think generally, legal education and most other graduate programs should remain in person. Just two brief final points. There’s been a lot of talk about doing recorded online versus live online, and people might wonder why that is. And one main justification that’s been provided is that with recorded online, students in other time zones will have more convenience in attending classes. T
he problem with that argument is recorded online is a demonstrably inferior product. Why would any school in any state use a demonstrably inferior product for the convenience of people in other states, rather than using the better education methods, the better modalities for the students in the home state? I’ll also say one last thing. There is a compromise model that is being talked about in legal education that might work. And that would be where you preserve in-person schooling, but allow certain students to attend the same classes remotely.
In this type of system, we would be able to preserve in-person learning that most constituencies favor and the research supports. We could use the most effective teaching methods, in law in particular. That question and answer can only happen when faculty can interact with students. But we could increase access for people who aren’t able to travel to places where law schools exist, like Little Rock, Fayetteville, and elsewhere. Given the current evidence, that’s the only type of program I would support in the legal education context.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify, and I’m happy to take any questions.
Senator Dan Sullivan I don’t see any questions. Thank you very much for your testimony. Is it Mr. Shelton, Ms. Shelton, Mr. Shelton? I appreciate the directness and brevity of your presentation. And if you would, please introduce yourself and you may begin.
Cragin Shelton Senator Sullivan and members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to speak before you. I’m Dr. Cregin Shelton. I would like to say that is an academic research degree title, not a medical degree. And my practice normally is to use that only when teaching a class. However, it relates to my experience that I wanted to talk about today.
I have since 1973 been a student in five post-graduate higher education programs and also taught both online and in classroom over those years. My experience has been specifically with the working adult population working, trying to get through degree programs. And supporting some of the statements that Professor Silverstein talked about, my experience has told me that, absolutely, if you go to an online program having direct live interaction, not only professor to student, but also student to student, is a tremendous benefit both to the learning activity and to the likelihood of graduation.
Specifically, my experience in my doctoral program roughly 15 years ago and current experience as a full-time student in the University of Arkansas at Little Rock program I’m in now, when you have working adults in the class, there is almost as much true life experience and professional experience traded student to student as there is in the professor to student or teacher to student relationship. There are two aspects that really benefit the live simultaneous online or in classroom working adult experience. One of these will go directly and be applicable in undergraduate and two year programs also.
The first is, as I said, folks working in a field with live experience that can bring that to the fore, and I have seen multiple professors, even in the last two years at the local university, really use this effectively in the classroom. The other goes to what I cannot cite as adequately researched yet, but I have a belief that research could and should be done on this. When the students are in the classroom together, whether that classroom is online, they’re all there together or in the physical classroom, they develop support study groups, mutual support groups that I believe make a difference.
And I saw this in my program 15 years ago as a student. More likelihood of bringing forward completion of degrees when people were having trouble. Asynchronous or totally isolated individual student who works at their own schedule in the middle of the night when they think they can get the time in requires much stronger drive and dedication than the structured group classroom where people get to know each other, where they can support each other and then create in the professional levels the post-graduation networking that can become critical to future success.
Are there any questions? I’m happy to have them. Like I said, I’ve gone through literally five decades of living the experience and the transition from the all-classroom world to the online world, both as teacher and as student.
Senator Dan Sullivan Thank you very much for your testimony. I don’t see any questions at this time, so thank you very much. Next is Tasha Alec, is that correct? And if you would please introduce yourself and you may begin.
Tasha Alec Hello, my name is Tasha Alec. I am currently a part-time student at Bowen. I am also working currently full-time in student affairs and higher education, though I am here as a student. I wanted to discuss the idea of online classes. I have spent years researching pedagogical methods for increasing learning and student retention. I am opposed to online education, especially for graduate programs and for legal education. I am a law student.
Having gone into a year now of legal education, I cannot imagine going through law school and being as successful as I would like to be in an online program. I have been a student and an educator throughout COVID and I do not think that we could give students the same level of education. I do believe that these programs will have lower outcomes, both on exams and in careers, and I do not believe that we should invest in a program that will decrease the quality of education received in Arkansas.
Instead, I do urge that we invest in expanding and improving these residential educational programs. I have been on both sides of it, and I really, truly believe that the best education is received in a classroom, especially a legal education. The interaction that we have with one another, with our professors, the cold calls, as awkward as they are, those help us to grow. They are just as important to our education as our textbooks. Part of becoming a lawyer is being willing to be in an uncomfortable situation and advocate for what you believe in.
I don’t think I could be sitting here today a year ago, and I have law school to thank for that. I certainly would not be sitting right now if we didn’t have a part-time program in Arkansas, because I would not have considered an online program. I would have left the state. So I am here because I care so much about our state and so much of our school. And I really want to see all of the students that come after me have the same opportunities or more that I do. I’m open to any questions.
Senator Dan Sullivan Thank you. I don’t see any questions. Thank you for your testimony. Members, just to be sure, we’ve heard several speak on law school. Whether one passes the bar or not will be the ultimate test of whether or not the legislature appropriates funds for these. So these decisions about a school having online or not having an online program, that’s going to be their decision. And we’ll judge the return on investment. Next, Mr. Chris Corbett.
Chris Corbett Hello. Thanks for your time. I know it’s getting late. I’ll be quick. My name’s Chris Corbett. Thanks for your time. And I’d like to do a little small presentation, three points here. Online classes. I wouldn’t have survived in law school with just online classes. I’m a professional engineer. I’ve got five degrees, three undergraduate degrees, a master’s degree in civil engineering, and a juris doctorate.
The three points I’d like for you all to think about in appropriating money for online only. One, the limited practical experience that you would get from an online class. I kind of relate that to going to the movie theater. It’s great to go to movie theater. They shut the door, they turn out the lights, there’s no phone calls, and you get to watch the movie. And that’s entertainment purposes.
But in the online classes, you’re there to learn, and you’re not going to have any distractions while you’re in class. The limited practical experience you get through online greatly impact your ability to practice law. Now, being a professional engineer, you might be able to be able to teach somebody the equation for a line, y=mx+-b. The Khan Academy is fantastic. When I suffered teaching my kids math because of my professional engineer and have higher education in math, I remembered well when my dad was trying to teach me algebra and I started crying when I was in sixth grade and dad was not having the patience to teach me math equations.
Now there might be some applications for online classes, but law school is not going to be the way to do it. Limited practical experience. Online law school will lack in-person interaction that’s required for the critical thinking skills for courtroom advocacy. Client counseling, you’re not going to do that online. People call me, when they call my law firm, they’re calling me with serious problems. They’re not calling me to be happy and go get a drink. They’re losing their business. They’re losing their wife or husband, and they need practical solutions. And they need someone that’s got good people skills, not someone that just sat and watched a video.
Networking challenges. One of my greatest benefits of going to school, law school here and practicing in the state of Arkansas is having colleagues that are in practice and doing stuff that I’m not doing. So I can call a buddy of mine and say, hey, have you encountered this problem before?
And the reason I have that connection is because I was in school, in law school, in person, and I would like to shout out to a lady by the name of Deborah Reese. She saved my law school career. My first semester of law school, I almost failed out. I’ve always been a good student, but coming from engineering, I designed bridges and foundations. The answer is black and white in engineering. It is yes or no. I didn’t get maybe. I didn’t understand maybe. Deborah Reese, if you’re out there and you see this video, thank you for saving my law school career and helping me pass the bar. And without Debra, I wouldn’t have made it. I wouldn’t have met her if I was just going to school online.
And then lastly, number three, engagement and accountability. Online formats can reduce the student engagement and accountability, and lacking the physical presence may lead to distractions and less rigorous participation. If you all are practicing professionals, PDH hours for engineers, professional development hours, CLEs, Continuing Legal Education for Lawyers, or CEUs, Continuing Education Units for Accountants, man, you go to sleep online. You know we’ve done it. You backed the video up. What did they say, that might be important. You’re just not getting that interaction with people online.
And so basically, to go over those last three: limited practical experience, networking challenges, you don’t get to meet your colleagues, and then engagement and accountability. And so if you’re asked to fund some only online programs, I ask that you seriously consider the outcomes of online only, especially if it’s just recorded. And there might be some applications somewhere, but definitely not for law school. Thank you for your time. Any questions?
Senator Dan Sullivan I see no questions. Thank you for your testimony. Mr Steinbach, you’re next on the list. And if you would please introduce yourself and you may begin.
Robert Steinbach Thank you, Mr. Chair. As you know, my name is Robert Steinbach. I’m a law professor. I’m columnist for the Democrat Gazette. And I appear in my individual capacity. I want to talk just briefly, I assure you, about two issues, online education and the accreditation issue that Mr. Warden also addressed.
You heard a fair number of commenters here today refer specifically to law schools, and I just wanted to sort of fill in that picture slightly. The reason it is a topic of consideration or conversation is because the Bowen Law School has recently decided to put its part-time program online. I’m not here to talk about the specifics of that, but that’s why you’re hearing more interest on that issue.
You aptly pointed out, Mr. Chair, that when it comes to law schools, we have one very good measure to determine that ROI, and that’s bar passage. As you know, I’ve written several articles about bar passage rates at various law schools and how they’re affected by things such as DEI. And so I agree entirely with you, but I don’t think it’s the only measure. I think there are two other measures that we need to investigate. The ability to get a job thereafter, and that means, what is the reputation of the entity, and is it affected by going online?
And I think that there is a role for the legislature to play in that, not to necessarily wait for it to come to fruition that an institution damages its reputation. And then of course the performance on the job. And you’ve heard comments about that already. I don’t need to extrapolate on that.
Why do schools go online, be it undergraduate or a graduate program? And often you’ll hear something about class size. It’s a fair point to have a conversation about. But again, it’s important, what do we mean by class size? Our schools, and I wrote a column on this, are for Arkansans. Yes, we welcome out-of-staters to a small degree, small percentage. The law school, just by way of example, has a rule that 80% of the students are supposed to be Arkansans.
So if we’re increasing class size, I think again the legislature has a role to ensure that we’re increase in class size for Arkansans. Because if what we’re doing by going online and advertising to California and New York to come send your online students here, it doesn’t help Arkansas. Those graduates aren’t going to come here. They’re not going to contribute to our state.
And you heard Mr. Warden’s participation rate of I think 42% and graduation rate roughly half. That’s not affected if we’re selling our product out of state. So I think again, the legislature has a role in ensuring that our tax dollars are spent on Arkansans.
One of the other justifications, both undergraduate and graduate, is for access to students. Well, sure, it’s easier if you live in a far part of the state to be able to attend online. But if we combine these two issues, that is ensuring that Arkansans are our students. And we know that there will be some cannibalization. That is, if you go online, some students, like Mr. Corbett said, Well, I wouldn’t do that. So are we replacing our in-person students with online students? And if so, why is that a goal? And I have a concern. It’s just a concern at this point.
But the word access, I must tell you, sir, reminds me of what I heard a decade ago when the term diversity, equity, and inclusion sprung up. Well, those are all good ideas, we were told. Who could be against that? But we know what diversity, equity, and inclusion turned out to be. It turned out to be propaganda for race-based preferences and quotas and set asides. We don’t need that, and we don’t need it repackaged under the title of access. The corporate world is telling their employees to come back to work. And the academic world is considering sending our students into their basements wearing footsie pajamas.
We need to be careful as we go down this path. And we need to make sure that we make sound decisions ahead of time and not simply wait for the outcome. Those are my thoughts on online.
Let me give you one brief thought on accreditation, and then, of course, if there are any questions, I’m happy to take them. The body that accredits law schools, Mr. Warden again aptly pointed out there are a whole bunch of different accrediting entities. The body that accredits law schools, somewhat oddly, is the American Bar Association, because it’s not an academic accrediting entity in large.
They have one leg that does this and they have pushed a leftist agenda throughout their existence, including having a mandatory DEI requirement, both for students and for faculty. Senator Sullivan, of all the representatives in this body, you, individually, have spoken the most strongly against the problem of DEI. You enacted Act 116, you enacted Act 747. ABA pushes DEI.
Now that President Trump has been elected and started to do some really positive things in higher education, the American Bar Association put on hold their mandatory DEI requirement. But rest assured, they’re waiting to jump back in. And so we need to be cautious about who we allow to accredit our schools. And I think, again, this body can consider whether we move away from the American Bar Association into a body that is not politicizing legal education. That’s all I have. I see Mr. Brown has a question.
Senator Dan Sullivan Yeah, I’ll call on him.
Robert Steinbach I’m sorry. By all means.
Senator Dan Sullivan Representative Brown, you’re recognized.
Representative Matt Brown Thank you, Mr. Chair. Professor, yeah, we’re not in school, so you can’t call on me anymore.
Robert Steinbach Indeed.
Representative Matt Brown One of the very few people in the room who’s actually had a legal education and been there in the trenches. This concept of asynchronous online learning is the most harebrained idea I’ve ever heard of, because that does not work with a law school education. For the members who haven’t been there, maybe could you explain a little bit about the Socratic method and the way that you actually teach law. And maybe talk about why going to YouTube University is not going to work when it comes to law school.
Robert Steinbach Thank you, Representative Brown. Of course, you’re absolutely right. And in part, my mistake of calling on you reflects exactly what you’re talking about. So this notion in law school is dialog. It’s a conversation. And you learn from that conversation. By the way, so do I as a professor. That’s what’s really wonderful about being a professor. But students learn from the conversation.
Professors gear the course based on how that questioning is going. No two classes are ever alike. I spoke with the former president of the University of Arkansas. Remember, he was the guy that was pushing to buy the online school from Arizona, Phoenix. And he said to me, you can’t do law school online because you have to have– or excuse me, Representative Brown, I misspoke– you can’t law school asynchronously. That means you watch some recorded lecture and take some notes at midnight to 3 a.m.
You have to do it live because it’s that interaction from which we learn law. Law is not a series of rules that are in the books. You can look those up on your own. You do so, I’m sure, in your practice. Law is understanding the process of law because this body changes the laws at least every two years.
So if I were to teach what you all passed two years ago, it wouldn’t be any good anymore. I teach students and Representative Brown understands how to analyze the law. That’s what we do in law school. And that’s why, for example, as I mentioned earlier, the issue of going online and going asynchronous– remember what asynchronous is.
Professor Silverstein told you what asynchronous is about. It’s about not being live in the classroom, logging into a video or reading some material. That is not a replacement. I’m frankly a little bit surprised that nobody from the administration, from the university has come to speak in favor.
Senator Dan Sullivan You know, folks, we’re getting too specific here for the purpose of this meeting. So I appreciate the discussion of law and we’ll have another meeting where people would have the opportunity to bring up specific topics. Representative, and I see there are a couple of people here, folks, let’s not get too specific on one particular topic. We’ll have an opportunity to do that. Today’s not that day. Representative Beck, you’re next.
Representative Rick Beck Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a quick question. I did not go to law school. So I understand the bar exam, would the bar exam, if I was in Louisiana taking a class in Arkansas, would that affect how I would perform on the bar in Louisiana? Or is the bar the same everywhere in every state?
Robert Steinbach Let’s pick a different state than Louisiana only because they have a different set of rules than every other state. So let’s say Oklahoma. So if, generally, now we have this common bar exam that you can waive into other states by taking. That’s changed over time. And now there are some changes in the bar exam that might tweak it. But you have to get admitted by state, but you can generally take one bar exam that is applicable to most states.
Senator Dan Sullivan Okay, again, let’s not get into the specifics of the legal and the bar right here today. We’ll have an opportunity to do that. But, again, today is not the day that we’re going to do that. Representative, you’re recognized.
Representative Denise Ennett Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Steinbach, is that your name?
Robert Steinbach Yes, ma’am.
Representative Denise Ennett So if I do represent several constituents who have disabilities, and sometimes their disabilities will not allow them to be able to sit in the classroom all the time. So how do you propose a person who wants to get a law degree who maybe because of their disabilities might not allow them to be in the classroom 100% of the time, how does that work?
Robert Steinbach We’ve had that. We’ve accommodated that. In fact, I had a student with a problem towards the end of the semester who otherwise already had disabilities and we used some electronic means to accommodate that. That’s a specific focus. I wouldn’t put that under the rubric of online education, but I think it’s a very good and important question.
Senator Dan Sullivan Thank you. I see no more questions. And members, again, we will address some of these specific issues in detail at a later meeting. And if you’ll contact me if you have constituencies that have specific questions about online, we’ll try to bring those up. For now, seeing no more comments, we are adjourned.