 Thank you, Jason. So thank you for joining us and welcome to this p2n network webinar brought to you on behalf of the dolecraft think tank. As you probably noticed from our blog and our recent announcement and newsletter we wanted to go ahead and provide this informational webinar specifically on the higher learning commissions recent proposed policy changes to their assume practices. So to get us started real quick I wanted to go ahead and just let you know what we're going to be looking to talk about today. We're going to go ahead and just do a quick overview of the current assumed practices specifically highlighting those that are specific to dole credit as it relates to the accreditation of faculty and so as you may already know these assumed practices are not just in specifically designated to the process of reviewing and accrediting high school instructors. They actually are inclusive all faculty who teach in the higher learning for the High Learn Commission for the respective institutions so, but given the context of the webinar, obviously we're going to be talking about it in the sense of the partnerships and do of dole credit in the state of Illinois. We're going to be doing a quick overview and highlighting some of the recent amendments to the dole credit quality act, along with system rules associated with the Illinois Community College Board. And then lastly we're going to go ahead and specifically call out some of these policy changes that have been proposed to be able to give you an opportunity to not only view them alongside us but hopefully may ask a few general questions along the way. I did want to say though that this, as I mentioned is information only the between our work at the current time does not have any position in this. We simply just wanted to share this information with you, given that the call for feedback is part of the informal process the HLC has initiated moving into its formal process of the first and second reading in the coming months. With that being said, I do want to go ahead and introduce myself along with my co presenter so my name is Rodrigo Lopez I am the director of P 20 initiatives for the Center for between engagement and Northern Illinois University. And joining me here today is Ms Amy Galvin, Amy. My name is Amy Galvin. I am the government affairs director with Stanford Children Illinois. I'm familiar with a lot of folks on this line but for those who are not familiar with stand. We are a nonprofit organization that works to advance educational equity and youth justice. Our policy work cuts across four different areas adequate equitable funding, early literacy, youth justice and high school success and dual credit falls firmly within that high school success bucket and so our work in the dual credit space is what brings me here today. And as we partner with a lot of organizations around the state and districts to grow dual credit enrollments, and it basically create good good policy strong policy that supports districts as they as they build those programs up. Thank you Amy. I would also like to encourage everyone to go ahead and just take a quick minute to introduce yourselves in the chat. And with that, as I said, because it's information I'm sure many of you might be hearing this about this for the first time, or have some knowledge about the role's policy changes and so I encourage you to also ask questions dropping comments for others to respond to as we go through some of this information and today's webinar. Before I start to talk about HLC though I do want to go ahead and highlight some just general information about the people in our work I do see that the list of participants, many of you are part of the network so thank you for joining us. And some of you may not be familiar with our work and so I do want to encourage you to visit our website I do want to encourage you to sign up for a newsletter. Jason, who is the senior director of learning partnerships with the people in our work as well as the College of Education and I you helps coley the people with network and so he's going to drop in the link in the chat. And that is going to take you not only to our website but also to subscribe to the newsletter. But as, as you can see, we are representative and inclusive of educators and organizations as early as early childhood to post secondary education and training so we look forward to becoming part of the network if you're not already a part of our work. So to get that being said specific to the between our work and our work. And as I mentioned the beginning to do a credit think tank is leading this webinar in thinking behind it. And I just wanted to share a couple thoughts about who we are and what we do, but it is a group of practitioners both in the secondary and post secondary. We came together about a few years ago to discuss both opportunities and challenges policy related but specifically with practice as it relates to policy has been coming through Illinois to enhance opportunities for students and do a credit. So diving straight into the higher learning commission assume practices as they currently stand. And it is one of six regional creditors in the US. And so Illinois is part of the HLC, and it is also along with 18 other states. And so specifically calling this out, as you can see, the assume practices are best understood as a matter of fact, it is what institutions use to set policy and procedures at the institutional level. And typically what we found out is these assume practices may be reviewed annually. And so last time this was review was about a year ago. In thinking about the assume practices today what we're going to be talking about is the teaching and learning where the language and guidance specifically as to how institutions go about reviewing and proving qualified faculty comes from. So specifically calling this section out, you can see from the various languages I just mentioned that these institutions rely on various language from the HLC to set direction and policy at the institution. A few things that I want to call out specifically though, is that, as it currently stands I folded some relevant and important language, which you'll see later on, has been part of some of the sections that are being proposed changes are being proposed for in specific academic institutions HLC members specifically are looking not only at academic credentials, but maybe looking to look at setting minimum thresholds for other types of experiences as part of that evaluation process. As you can see that their bullet point that is something that they oftentimes refer to as equivalent experience. And so, one thing that I wanted to go ahead and share with you is that that link, which we'll also share in the chat is to a document the HLC put out several years ago to help institutions. And to help the guidance is through the process of creating their institutional procedures as to how to go about quality determining qualified faculty. A couple bullet points that I that I got down the slide comes directly from this document. The document is several pages long. It includes a lot of important information and relevant information for those who are looking to get better informed about how institutions go about determining the different factors use when determining if a faculty is qualified. Specifically, though, I know one conversation that we've had not only through the dual career think tank but I know the state of Illinois has also been very focused on is the potential use by institutions of using tested experience as a substitute, or in addition to supplementing academic credentials. One thing that I do want to call out as you're reading through that though, is that, as it currently stands one of the pieces of critical information in this document talks about how teaching itself. That is teaching experience years of teaching experience cannot be exclusively used to qualify up faculty member. So let's just say a very high level, just overview of the current assumed practices but before we go to looking at the HLC policy changes that have been proposed, we did want to go ahead and do an overview and highlight a few components of Illinois to accredits policies, specifically with the dual credit quality act and the ICC B system rules. And I'm going to turn it over to Amy. Thank you. So most as I'm sure many of you know, the statute for governing how how Illinois has a dual credit program is the dual credit quality act. That was recently amended it I think it was originally launched about 2016 this has been amended in 2019. And again, in the last year which is going into effect as of January 1 this year so the part the overall act is a really big piece of legislation that essentially again set up set of all the rules for how dual credit programs work which is that that colleges have content or have control over quality and content. There's minimum teaching or quality hasions to teach determines what a student will be eligible, how many courses they could take, you know where the courses are taught how much they cost etc etc. One of the more recent iterations of the are in her, you know amendments to the law was the model partnership agreement, which is could be used as a default agreement to essentially say, you know, and it outlines similar roles that this is what the secondary partner does this post secondary partner does. And I think that there's a link there so you can read all of that statute there. The newer piece extended professional development plans, among other things but I think we'll get into those so as you guys may know professional development plans was the state's fix for expanding dual credit programs, while having an ongoing teacher shortage. The original PDP plans set up some basic requirements for teachers to, you know, enter an agreement with their secondary post secondary partner to say, I will go and get these course requirements in the meantime I can teach this dual credit course, while I'm finishing up and pursuing my necessary credentials and most instances. That's typically a couple, a couple courses that they'll graduate courses that they would need to round out those credentials. So the more recent I'll stop is the, I'm sorry, I think the next slide actually gives the detail on PDP plans if I'm not mistaken. Yeah, so, so the, so the most recent amendments did essentially three things. First, it extended the PDP plans so those were intended to sunset. Basically our teacher shortage has not been solved. So this this was an extension of the program so that folks would have another three years to not to continue the on current PDP plans but that there was a more another three years of opportunity to enter into PDP plans. We also added a CTE instructor pathway so allowing folks to be interimally qualified to teach a CTE dual credit course while they become fully qualified that was a new addition. And then it added a notification for pet faculty so that they would essentially know that this was happening so that they were in the loop at the secondary side that there was that their college and institution was entering into a partnership with a high school for CTE dual credit. And then the newest piece was it added mixed enrollment which would allow a classroom to have mixed enrollment, high school and college credit students in the same classrooms with differential instruction. How that how that instruction looks and plays out is is something that's decided within the partnership and the post secondary institution obviously still maintains control over quality. And that was a that was a fix for the teacher shortage that we've heard a lot of districts that they needed just additional flexibilities that we've got, you know, some kids that are ready for the some kids that are, and there's some data collection around there so that we can see how that program is working. As it as it rolls out. So, did you want to take this working? Yeah, yeah, absolutely. So, I think in alignment with the dual credit quality act and as many as many of you know working in the community college sector. through their systems rules manual also provide guidance to community colleges in working with dual credit programs and setting their dual credit partnerships and so just to kind of a bulleted list of items that are included in these rules. Rules manual. As you can see, very much aligned with what Amy was just talking about in relation to the dual credit quality act, but we wanted to reference it here because it is another component that is used in reference when setting programmatic policies and procedures to help guide the direction of dual credit programs in various regions and so again, at the top of the list is also a language is inclusive of how to go about qualifying and how to conduct or to teach dual credit courses, which just in general, it is very much the same as relates to both the dual credit quality act and some of the language that is currently valid in HLC with the with the minimum thresholds. And so I'm going to turn it back to Amy though because most recently as you know because of the amendments that have gone into effect. There is currently an open common period to change to these rules. Yes, there is, and I can throw that link in the chat too. So, so as Gregory would say an ICCB has has kind of their implementation rules here. They're asking for open common period through the 19th. You'll see it's pages seven through 13 of the document itself has and then it's like blue highlighted and underlined with changes are right now the rule, the proposed rules are really straightforward it follows the statute. It's the call for comments is making sure that the a that that folks understand what those rules are and that be they will, that the policy that the statute will be implemented with fidelity essentially, and that those rules do match with the intent of the law. And so, or you know if you need, you know, if districts need greater clarity in a piece or you know how does this plug in or how does this relate to these other pieces. This would be the time to submit those comments. And you can submit them by sending an email to Matt Barry there he's the ICCB policy director. And like I said those are due on the 19th which is a Sunday so no, but essentially they're set up 45 days from when this was posted and that was back in September so. Perfect. Thank you Amy. So, again, it was just kind of real quick overview, letting you know what the current assume practices are also giving you a little bit of information about the dual credit quality act the ICCB rules along with these proposed changes to the rules. And so I do know that we have questions in the chat so I think we're just going to go and wait and answer as many of those as we can. And after this section here specifically going to go ahead and call out the language, most of it verbatim that has was put out by HLC to HLC members. And so for context, the document if you had the chance to see it and review it with the added language or the strike through language was asking HLC members to be able to reflect on that and provide feedback. And requesting really kind of information or comments as to what would be helpful for them when receiving guidance on these three items, the equivalent experience, significant progress towards degree in the periodic evaluation of faculty. Now this initial feedback is due by next week on February 15. But as I mentioned, and this is something that they call out in their communication. This is a part of an informal process and we do anticipate that additional opportunities for HLC members will be forthcoming as part of their official process through the first and second reading of these proposed changes. I just wanted to kind of put it here in front and center so you can kind of think about these changes as they as a as a pertain to these different specific items. A couple of things that I wanted to go ahead and call out specifically from their communication as you can see is that this is work that the HLC has been engaged with specific to dual credit for some time now, as we know, based on the most kind of amendments to dual credit quality going back to 2019. There was a lot of conversations around the PDP plans which I know we have a question about specifically looking to figure out how institutions could be looking to be in compliance with these assumed practices but at the same time be responsive to the Illinois legislation. I'll go ahead and just kind of call out one specific item though in their in in their communication, which is that part of these proposed changes that they've drafted has been in close collaboration with two important agencies organizations I should at the one at the regional level and one at the national level, the Midwestern Higher Education Compact, as well as the National Association of Concerned Women Partnership programs also known as NACEP, to which ILSEP is the state chapter. And with that being said, this communication was specifically noted the challenges that they have become knowledgeable about as it pertain to the accreditation of instructors to be looking to who want to teach dual credit and so, again, coming back to the assumed practices as a whole, the assumed practices to pertain to all institutions for all faculty, but the proposed changes here as they mentioned in their communication are specifically highlighting the need to be able to go ahead and bring further equity as to how schools and partnerships can go about qualifying faculty to teach. So, in other words, kind of one of the main things that they're looking to do. Again, verbatim is that one of the major goals is to eliminate any restrictive impact that the current HLC requirements have on student access. And that is specifically to be able to increase the number of students who may become from underserved backgrounds or rural areas. So if you recall, some of this language was actually provided in one of some of the first slides, as they currently are written. And so what I've done for you here is I literally copy and pasted these proposed changes and so the strength through is language that is being proposed to be removed from the particular set of policy and the bolded language would be added language. The highlighted text is really just kind of for us for here because I wanted to make sure that I specifically called out that section because as we were just referencing both the language from the amendment to the Quality Act but also ICC rules manual. This is I believe one of the most important here for the state of Illinois. As you're reading it, I think one of the specific things that I do want to call out from this highlighted section is this area where it starts with significant progress towards credentials, equivalent experience, or some combination thereof. And again, I think there was a question about PDP plans, but Amy, I'm not sure if you wanted to maybe go ahead and add some context to that. Sure. So regarding the I'm going to throw in the chat so is be had some guidance that came out around the most recent changes to the Dual Credit Quality Act and they did a really nice job of showing a the PDP pathways and and defining mixed enrollment in there. And so this particular policy change would again some things that we've heard with PDP plans is that HLC is does not find this as in compliant and so this our reading of this is that this essentially would it makes space for CDC for PDP plans with that line significant project progress towards credentials. And we would read that as a as a nod towards understanding that PDPs are in place and are acceptable to HLC. I think I can keep going into more detail, but I think that I know I think we're probably going to have an opportunity to maybe dive into some of that history as well. So, the next set that we pulled out from this communication, as you can see, it's really I think twofold. This language here that's bolded. Oops, sorry about that. Specifically is calling out the high school dual credit instructors progressing towards the achievement achievement of those credentials so again thinking about the PDP plans as it's written in the Illinois Dual Credit Quality Act. But another comment I think that we have heard in the field for many years is how some institutions have been able to go through the process of accrediting. Not accrediting I'm sorry, approving qualified faculty with credentials that may be similar to those of teaching assistants. And so this language here included in the parentheses, and as part of the first sentence is also indicative I think of some of the items that Amy was referencing with the legislation and some of the progress being made. I think I wanted to go ahead and call out specifically with these two sets of changes that are being proposed is, and we'll get to it more in depth here soon is that if you recall, the test experience language is currently in the assume practices is not really is not new. So, what they're including here as part of the tested experience is clarity as they state in their communication is further languish to inform institutions of the opportunities that they may be able to implement to review a candidate's credentials beyond the academics, beyond teaching or supplementing of the teaching experiences. The section that's highlighted here at the bottom with the strike through is just a call out to just note that it is not being removed it was just changed to a different section of the assume practices within the within the B section of the policy. And you'll see here soon in the next slide. The other item we wanted to call specifically from these changes that have been proposed. Is that at the bottom with the bullet language is once again you're looking at added language that will help clarify. Two institutions that used of the allowing an instructor's current progress to be counted towards the credentialing of their status as a dual credit instructor or as an adjunct as a faculty of that institution. So again I think coming back to this one of the things we wanted to go ahead and specifically reference is that the HLC has started the process to be able to better understand what type of guidance moving forward if these proposed changes were to be accepted by the board would help institutions better understand how to go about setting procedures and policy at the institution level that will help them dictate and measure equivalent experience or that significant progress towards degree. The third item there, although very important, I think it does not necessarily relate to some of the progress and work that dual credit partnerships are looking for in in their partnerships. Again, I think one of the things we will do want to call out is that if you are an HLC member, or if you know of your HLC member is to encourage them to look into this communication to look into to look into this process to consider providing feedback. To the HLC before the deadline, but definitely looking for additional information that may be forthcoming as part of their formal process and to engage with them specifically to the these proposed changes. One of the items that we found on their site is that relatively soon here I imagine within the next several weeks. The formal process will begin with the first reading, typically in February or, like I said, within the weeks leading into March. And then with the second reading in June. So in terms of a timeline or formal process of that timeline we don't have one yet but we will definitely be looking to share that out. So if we are able to get hold of that, that way, I think going back to the work of the dual credit think tank but all the other practitioners and other organizations have been very active in this space. I know this is of high importance for many of us and so we would definitely like to get that information out to as many people as possible. And being said, I do want to pause here kind of use this screen to just kind of look at some of the questions we may have gotten received. As we were talking about some of the information on the slides, but also just kind of reference that in addition to the links that were dropped in the chat. You have access to the slide deck, and you have access to these links that provide you not only with additional information about dual credit. But you know, we obviously would love for you to share this with others to help them become knowledgeable about this or just to continue conversations and thinking about how to join this work. I'm ready to jump in with questions for both of you from the chat that I've got organized here if the two of you are ready. I'd like to preface this though by saying to everybody on the call just as a reminder, we are obviously not. And actually from rules making type of work and HLC is a little bit different than the ICCB call out for example where is an actual governmental agency, the types of clarifications you are asking for here. While I am very interested in Amy's and Rodrigo's answers to your questions. These are exactly the kinds of things that you should be providing as comments so I just want to stress that a question can be the best actually form of a comment. In response to rulemaking and will require the rule makers to sharpen their pencils a little bit and it actually helps them out to they may think they've been clear about that and and haven't been clear. And so, so these are, these are really great questions that can become your feedback regardless of the answers that Rodrigo and Amy are about to give you so I'm going to mostly go in order, Joanne when I skip your first question don't worry I'm going to bundle them back to back so I will get back to both of them so So first, we had a question from Terry and you ended up talking a little bit about it. When you talked about the, the higher education compact the Midwest higher education compact and NACEP, but Terry's question was specifically how will these align to the NACEP requirements. So to the degree to which you can speak of that and again I will give a call out as I hand it off to them. We do have we have multiple illicep members here today and much of the board is actually here and illicep is our state chapter of NACEP and we'll throw the link to illicep in the chat here in just a moment while the question gets answered so go for it. Thank you Jason. So, I think what I'll say to that I'm just kind of from previous experience working for a community college that was undergoing the process for accreditation with NACEP. For those that are familiar with NACEP they have various standards, one of them being on faculty and part of the standard is the review of credentials and approving of credentials and so from what I can recall. What I'm looking at it specifically right now is that there is, it asks for alignment is just looking for alignment between the institution's processes procedures as to how they go about hiring other faculty, whether it be full time or adjunct. There isn't necessarily anything different that I believe these proposed changes would be looking to do that would contradict or add to what NACEP would be requiring those institutions who are currently accredited or looking to attain accreditation by them. Amy I'm not sure if you have anything else to add or if you are familiar with NACEP's accreditation. I thought that was all that was all you. Okay, sure. But as Jason said I think I would just add that you know, we do know that a few illicit members or whether on the board or just as part of the community at large are accredited by NACEP so that definitely would be something that we would love for them to maybe look at potentially looking to provide feedback to HLC as it relates to that to NACEP accreditation and standards with faculty. Sounds great. Thank you. The next question is certainly one we have often heard from from school districts and so this came from Dan. The college told us as something similar I should say maybe not this exact but questions along this line but Dan's question was, our college told us that they can't allow us to have a teacher on a professional development plan a PDP, because we will not accept that when the college is under review. So, can we now continue to have teachers on PDPs and have them begin teaching dual credit courses, if they have more than 18 hours completed in a master's degree program. Amy, do you want to start with that and then maybe I'll just add to it. So, I think the question that is actually kind of cutting to the heart of this issue, which is, you know, the state had introduced PDPs several years ago. And, again, as a way to address the teacher shortage and a lot of colleges said, wait a minute, this is putting us out of compliance with HLC and our accreditation status is being threatened. And then, you know, the conversation kind of bad. It was, you know, which is, which is correct state law or HLCs accreditation and there, there is no right answer there there it's a very, very gray area. We see and we stand for children obviously we, we believe in professional development plans it's something that we pursued and so we read these, these, this rule proposed rule change as a positive thing for PDP plans that it's that the HLC is saying, you know, we recognize that this is causing confusion in the field. This seems to be something that other states are pursuing. This is this is their way to alleviate that that that conversation and that pressure that they that if these rules as proposed are accepted. That would be exactly what that would mean is that you could continue to use PDP plans or use PDP plans and without fear of HLC saying you're not in compliance. I think that that that's what the comments are asking for is that is this something that you are using is this something that you that is helpful to your institution that that's yeah. Yeah, and I think the only thing I would add is I know that just kind of working through the tool career think tank and other members of that community, or within other organizations is that we have heard of some of those just practical challenges as to how to go about going back to the the potential benefits of a PDP plan but the process behind and the communication actually back to the state agencies who are, I think, most recently has been clarified. We'll be looking to track that the the actual approval of a PDP plan but also the progress of the completion of that PDP plan. Is that correct Amy. Okay, thank you. I'm going to go on to the next questions. So this one, again a perfect question for for a response to the rules. Please clarify mixed classrooms. What does that mean. Does that mean those meeting the college prerequisite for the course with those who do not meet the college prerequisite for the course. This is from me, and this was from Joanne mixed classrooms means everyone meets the course prerequisite, but some elect not to take the course for dual credit. It's a great question. So it's actually the former so the addition of that language the dual credit quality act now allows for partnerships to include students who would not have, or do not meet the minimum competencies or prerequisites of that course to participate in the course. They would be enrolling in the course only for high school credit. Going into the course they would be become knowledgeable of that fact and kind of help through that process. And so they would have the benefit of taking the course but they would not be able to, if successfully completing the class at the end of the semester or the academic year however it's offered would not have the benefit of receiving the college credit but they would be in class in the class taking the class with those students who would be enrolled. Both on the college side and the high school side and if they successfully complete the course would be receiving both the high school and college credit at the same time. And to your comment about currently there are practices in which students may be participating in a dual credit class having met all the minimum competencies or prerequisites but elect not to enroll for college credit for various reasons, you know, in their own personal academic plan. I would just add that there is differential instruction and that is still left up to, again the partnership and the post secondary partner to decide what that would look like. Yeah, that's a great point Amy. Thank you for bringing that up yeah so and I think currently is as practice in those cases, there are had been some partners who currently have done differential instruction, but I do believe that the language actually is specified in the bill that into part of the bill introduces about allowing for the electing to bring in differential instruction, rather than kind of just leaving it open to the partnership to kind of negotiate or consider. And I've got another question from Joanna and again I do I do just want to reiterate that while listening to Rodrigo and Amy's answers their answers are exceedingly clear and easy to follow. This doesn't mean these will be HLC's answers and so please do not hesitate to repose these same questions as comments directly to HLC if you're a school district. If you're with your post secondary institution to do that, by all means we would encourage encourage that feedback that's the purpose of today so with that said, another clarification question from Joanne. Can you provide clarity on what actively collaborating means under quote, or otherwise actively collaborating with a higher education faculty member unquote, and I will just add. This is a perfect example because I know in my head, what I want this to mean, and this is what I would choose to act on in a school district or community college role. But without knowing from HLC yes we might find out a few years later that they don't agree with my working definition of it and, and so clarity will help. So, Rodrigo Amy, your answers to that one. Yeah, and that's a, that's a great point Jason I think for calling that out and just kind of pre facing what I'm about to say as well because I think so kind of speaking, not to the inclusion of this language and this proposed policy changes but just from practice. I think community colleges would would agree that in working with schools. There is kind of onboarding in continuous professional development or learning opportunities for collaboration between high school instructors and faculty. And so some of that is just procedural nature, like orientation training, reviewing of course syllabi professional development in the content area. Again, from just knowing how this is practice. That's what they may be referring to. I'm not exactly sure if that is what that entails or it would be inclusive of other requirements that will allow for an faculty member, or in a high school to be reviewed and considered based on what they're looking to add to those changes so Amy I'm not sure maybe you have a different interpretation of that. Just that that's somewhere that I would that would be my you know crux of my comment is that you know how do you define this term exactly you know if and going through I think that's, as Jason said like going through this document being like I don't know what I would interpret it this way but somebody else would say it this way like that's exactly how you could come at these comments and say, you know, this I you know I this isn't this isn't detailed enough for us or, you know, this would be my, you know, choice of how we would do it but, you know, whatever so yeah that's that's you're on the right track. So I do want to jump in and putting on my political science hat here. What Amy just said if you heard what Amy just said of Amy also has that question. The one thing I would ask is if you have this question. Don't rely on just Amy to put that question forward for example, the more people this is like when we have a technology issue. The more people who call the help desk with that same issue. The more likely that issue is to rise to the top of the pile and the more likely that issue is to have depth put into the work around it to clarify it so. Again, this is something where well we know there isn't a lot of time left there's only just over a week to go here if there if there is an opportunity to formally or informally pull people together regionally and talk about it and if you have you know, submitting that or having multiple regions submit that can can be a benefit to helping hlc help everybody be as clear as possible with this effort. We have any other questions in the chat. We do not at this time and I did a couple minutes ago ask if there are any other questions to drop them in the chat so. Yeah, no problem. Well I think you know obviously we'll we're going to hang out here for a few more minutes. Thank you for your time. We'll give you about 15 minutes back if you need it before your next meeting or your next phone call. On the screen, again, just links to our P 20 network site. We do have presence in social media. And of course, if you're not yet registered for the newsletter please consider joining and subscribing. We will continue to share any information we we receive or find out regarding this hlc proposed policy changes but along with other initiatives and efforts to continue to work on increasing access for dual credit students in the state of Illinois. And the last thing I'll say though with that in mind is that the dual credit think tank has placed us as its top priority identified as a top priority within the many different challenges and opportunities that we are very familiar with. So one of the items that we will continue to work outside of these hlc proposed policy changes is looking to convene practitioners to develop or share our practices and proceed procedures that are currently in place. To be positively influencing the direction that they want to go with with their programming specifically as it pertains to identifying high school instructors and getting them approved to teach dual credit courses in the state of Illinois so just look out for that information. And as I said many of us haven't worked in the field or currently working in the field, have experienced and so really we're looking to go ahead and share out as much as possible for others who may be getting started, or who have very specific questions about a particular situation that they are looking to resolve. So, with that being said thank you so much for joining us and we look forward to staying in touch with you.