Relief found in Neumagen near Trier, a teacher with three discipuli. Around 180–185 CE. Photo of casting in Pushkin museum, Moscow.
The internet has given us the convenience of e-government but also the responsibility of managing streaming regulation of both the academic and business side of the US education industry. According to IBISWorld Industry Reports (NAICS 61131a) and a recent report — “Recalibrating Regulation of Colleges and Universities“ — released by a US Senate Task Force, the education industry may well be the most heavily regulated industry in the land.
Much of the perceived over-regulation can be traced back to the relative financial strength of the enforcement/conformity/compliance interest; compared to the financial strength of the user/owner/final fiduciary. The only effective method for limiting the excesses of the centralization and compliance cultures — excesses which are observed in all other developed nations and are known to choke economic growth and adaptation* — is through the “little industry-specific democracies” set up by national standards bodies such as the American National Standards Institute; identified in our own federal laws.
The parent legislation for the US higher education industry is the Higher Education Act of 1965; available in its entirety at this link:
Public Law 89-329 | November 8, 1965
AN ACT: To strengthen the educational resources of our colleges and universities and to provide financial assistance for students in postsecondary and higher education.
It was not until the National Technology Transfer & Advancement Act of 1995 and the issuance of Office of Management & Budget Circular A-119: Federal Participation in Consensus Standards shortly thereafter that the October 7, 1998 reauthorization of the 1965 parent legislation that we first see requirements to use voluntary consensus standards accredited by the American National Standards Institute for financial management.
Public Law 105–244 | October 7, 1998
AN ACT: To extend the authorization of programs under the Higher Education Act of 1965, and for other purposes.
The sections of interest to us are highlighted below:
‘‘SEC. 143. ADMINISTRATIVE SIMPLIFICATION OF STUDENT AID DELIVERY.
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—In order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the student aid delivery system, the Secretary and the Chief Operating Officer shall encourage and participate in the establishment of voluntary consensus standards and requirements for the electronic transmission of information necessary for the administration of programs under title IV.
‘‘(b) PARTICIPATION IN STANDARD SETTING ORGANIZATIONS.— ‘‘(1) The Chief Operating Officer shall participate in the activities of standard setting organizations in carrying out the provisions of this section. ‘‘(2) The Chief Operating Officer shall encourage higher education groups seeking to develop common forms, standards, and procedures in support of the delivery of Federal student financial assistance to conduct these activities within a standard setting organization. ‘‘(3) The Chief Operating Officer may pay necessary dues and fees associated with participating in standard setting organizations pursuant to this subsection.
‘‘(c) ADOPTION OF VOLUNTARY CONSENSUS STANDARDS.—Except with respect to the common financial reporting form under section 483(a), the Secretary shall consider adopting voluntary consensus standards agreed to by the organization described in subsection (b) for transactions required under title IV, and common data elements for such transactions, to enable information to be exchanged electronically between systems administered by the Department and among participants in the Federal student aid delivery system.
‘‘(d) USE OF CLEARINGHOUSES.—Nothing in this section shall restrict the ability of participating institutions and lenders from using a clearinghouse or servicer to comply with the standards for the exchange of information established under this section.
‘‘(e) DATA SECURITY.—Any entity that maintains or transmits information under a transaction covered by this section shall maintain reasonable and appropriate administrative, technical, and physical safeguards— ‘‘(1) to ensure the integrity and confidentiality of the information; and ‘‘(2) to protect against any reasonably anticipated security threats, or unauthorized uses or disclosures of the information.
‘‘(f ) DEFINITIONS.—
‘‘(1) CLEARINGHOUSE.—The term ‘clearinghouse’ means a public or private entity that processes or facilitates the processing of nonstandard data elements into data elements conforming to standards adopted under this section.
‘‘(2) STANDARD SETTING ORGANIZATION.—The term ‘standard setting organization’ means an organization that— ‘‘(A) is accredited by the American National Standards Institute; ‘‘(B) develops standards for information transactions, data elements, or any other standard that is necessary to, or will facilitate, the implementation of this section; and ‘‘(C) is open to the participation of the various entities engaged in the delivery of Federal student financial assistance.
‘‘(3) VOLUNTARY CONSENSUS STANDARD.—The term ‘voluntary consensus standard’ means a standard developed or used by a standard setting organization described in paragraph (2).’’. (b) REPEAL OF OLD GENERAL PROVISIONS.—Title XII (20 U.S.C. 1141 et seq.) is repealed. PUBLIC LAW 105–244—OCT. 7, 1998 112 STAT. 1617 (c) REPEAL OF TITLE IV DEFINITION.—Section 481 (20 U.S.C. 1088) is amended— (1) by striking subsections (a), (b), and (c); and (2) by redesignating subsections (d) through (f ) as subsections (a) through (c), respectively.
The evidence is overwhelming that the accredited consensus processes that deliver value in technology standards also deliver value in business standards; and vice-versa.
* Examples are Standards Australia, Standards Norway, Deutsches Institut für Normung, etc.
Related Links:
Will the Higher Education Act be Reauthorized in 2018?
GOP Begins Rewrite of Federal Aid Law
Dividing Lines Take Shape in Senate
