This paper examines the identity verification requirements introduced by the 2008 Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act and their implications for distance education programs. It surveys the federal mandate requiring institutions to confirm that the student who registers for an online course is the same person who completes and receives credit for it. The paper reviews three categories of compliance technology — biometric remote proctoring devices, webcam-based keystroke-recognition systems, and challenge-question software — and evaluates their costs, limitations, and privacy implications. It also addresses the broader debate over whether such requirements unfairly stigmatize online learners and burden institutions with compliance costs.
The paper demonstrates effective use of policy analysis combined with comparative technology review. Rather than simply summarizing the law, it systematically evaluates multiple compliance solutions against the criteria articulated by distance learning administrators — cost, privacy, ease of deployment, and integration into learning — allowing readers to assess each approach on consistent terms.
The paper opens with the policy context and legislative background, then transitions into the debate over privacy and institutional concerns. The central section is a technology-by-technology comparison of biometric, webcam, and software-based verification tools. The paper closes by describing existing proctoring practices and summarizing the compliance landscape, ending with a synthesis of the cost-versus-privacy trade-off facing institutions.
One significant privacy and security policy issue that emerged in higher education around 2009 concerns how to verify the identity of online students. The U.S. Department of Education, regional accreditors, colleges, universities, and trade associations were working to resolve how to implement a new federal policy requiring steps to authenticate distance learners. There has always been a natural question in distance education: how do you know who is actually doing the work for the credit? It is not like retail banking or video rental, where a shipping address suffices. Education's value comes from the coursework and interactions during classes, ultimately expressed in a degree granted for fulfilling the requirements of a program (Methods to Verify the Identity of Distance Learning Students, n.d.).
The Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act was passed in 2008 and had a significant impact on distance education programs. Specifically, the Act stated that the U.S. Department of Education "shall not require an accreditor to have separate standards, procedures or policies for evaluation of distance education. Accreditors must, however, require institutions that offer distance education to establish that a student registered for a distance education course is the same student who completes and receives credit for it" (ACE Analysis of Higher Education Act Reauthorization, 2008).
The proposed regulatory language indicates that colleges can verify a student's identity through techniques such as a secure log-in and passcode, proctored examinations, and new or other technologies and practices that are effective in verifying student identification (Parry, 2009). The Higher Education Act had been signed into law, and the question became what this would mean for colleges and universities in practical terms.
The law contains several changes to accreditation requirements, and accreditors were required to implement these changes immediately. Many of the Commission's current policies and practices were already in alignment with the new law. Unfortunately, the higher education community had limited experience in providing quality assurance for student authentication at scale. Regional accreditors planned to work together to develop, where possible, a common approach to their own strategies and means for enforcing this requirement during evaluations of institutions. Those strategies and means would likely include an accreditor policy statement or guidelines for institutions (New Distance Education Requirements of the Higher Education Act of 2008 Require Immediate Implementation, 2008).
Academic deans, distance learning administrators, and heads of distance education programs outlined key requirements to fit the needs of the diverse higher education market. Solutions needed to:
At its core, the provision is about clamping down on cheating. It states that an institution offering an online program must prove that an enrolled student is the same person who performs the coursework. The language prompted some colleges to explore technologies that authenticate online test takers by reading their fingerprints, monitoring them via webcam, or recording their keystrokes.
Some colleges see advantages for students in the new monitoring technologies: the devices allow them to take tests anytime, anywhere, rather than traveling to distant locations so a proctor can watch them take exams on paper. However, many college officials are distrustful of such technologies, noting that they are run by third-party vendors that may not adequately safeguard student privacy. Among the data that vendors collect are students' fingerprints and possibly even images from inside their homes. Some institutions feel this represents an unwelcome intrusion into a student's private life and are uncertain whether they want to extend their presence that far.
Officials also want flexibility in order to comply with the proposed law. They worry that the government will force them to use a particular method that could be too expensive or that would overemphasize exams relative to other forms of assessment. They also argue that the provision implies that cheating is more prevalent among online students than among students in a traditional classroom, which they consider an unfair characterization (Foster, 2009).
Critics have argued that the law threatens student privacy and will lead to excessive surveillance, including the use of thumbprint readers and webcams (Littlefield, 2008). The higher education law signed by President Bush demands that colleges authenticate test takers in online courses through sophisticated identification technology or exam proctors. While some officials believe the law will lend greater credibility to online learning, others say the new mandate is largely unnecessary (Carter, 2008).
Some school officials have said that having this law imposed on online programs is redundant and insulting. They feel there are lawmakers who do not believe that meaningful learning can occur in an online classroom environment. The law is seen as presuming that students cheat and are dishonest — a concern raised most often by people who do not fully understand how online courses are taught and assessed (Carter, 2008).
Institutions are using a variety of methods to verify the identities of distance learners in order to comply with the new federal law. Some are only verifying logins and passwords, while others are implementing new devices and software. For now, the government has left it to colleges to determine how they comply with the law, provided they do so adequately. Institutions must balance compliance with the federal requirement while keeping costs down and protecting student privacy.
You’re 38% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.