Stakeholders’ Perceptions of the 2010 English Language Training Program Accreditation Act

Abstract

In response to the growing cacophony of concerns regarding student visa abuse, educational quality control, and national security issues, Congress passed Law 111–306, otherwise known as the English Language Training Program Accreditation Act (ELTPAA). It was signed into law by President Barack Obama on 14 December 2010. According to NAFSA: Association of International Educators (2010), the ELTPAA required that “intensive language training programs be accredited by an accrediting agency recognized by the Department of Education in order to be SEVIS-certified, issue Forms I-20, and enroll F-1 nonimmigrant students”. Regulations are often accompanied by research that studies various aspects of the respective policy and reports on its impacts or effectiveness. Research like this is necessary because without it, every new motion to regulate or deregulate would be full of unpredictable surprises every time — an untenable situation. Keeping with the tradition of research following law, and filling the gap left by Custer (2012) and ICEF Monitor (2016), using semi-structured interviews with ten relevant stakeholders close to the ELTPAA, a qualitative interview approach was used to answer the following research questions: • What are stakeholders’ perspectives on the ELTPAA? • In what ways were stakeholders impacted by the ELTPAA? • In what ways did stakeholders impact the ELTPAA? This study discovered that participants perceived the ELTPAA to be a harbinger of quality assurance, accountability, and conformity. There were also concerns about the English language training industry’s future as it relates to entrepreneurs, increased regulation, and digital adaptation or accommodation. The findings from this study suggest that there were two unintended effects that accompanied the ELTPAA’s passing; a legislative drafting error created a catch twenty-two situation in the ELTPAA’s wording and newly-established high barriers to entry distort the market. Stakeholders reported being impacted by the ELTAA when Intensive English Program (IEP) standards were raised, bad actors were thwarted, and competitive advantages were provided to IEPs hosted by larger and regionally-accredited universities. A network of stakeholders used a variety of approaches, from grass-roots activism to discussions on Capitol Hill, to brainstorm, draft, promote, lobby, and ultimately pass the bill into a law. Collaboration between stakeholders is well documented. The information gained in this study has several uses. Primarily, policymakers can use this study to better understand the implications of policy changes and regulation. It can also help to improve internal practices or help stakeholders deal with a possible rush of programs and institutions applying for reaccreditation in the future. This study can guide IEPs seeking accreditation for the first time by serving as a model or example of how to conduct a successful regulatory initiative and providing an increased awareness of the not-so-obvious benefits, and drawbacks, and challenges of operating in a newly-regulated industry. Ultimately, this study reveals what happened behind the scenes of the ELTPAA, its impacts, effects, how it is perceived, and lessons future industry leaders can learn from to further improve the English language training industry.