The Department Spends Day One Explaining and Responding to A Multitude of Questions, Concerns, and Open Opposition to Its New Student Tuition and Transparency System (STATS) Accountability Proposal
Overview
From the outset of yesterday’s first day of session two, it was apparent that this negotiation would take on a very different tone from the positivity and optimism of the prior negotiations. Following the first hour of the day’s completion of relatively perfunctory welcomes, introductions, and an overview, as soon as the Department and Non-federal negotiators actually opened discussions on the “Preliminary Discussion Guide: Student Tuition and Transparency System (STATS) and Earnings Accountability,” it was self-evident that these negotiations were going to be more contentious.
Below is a very brief summary of some of the key discussions which arose during consideration of Topics One through Three.
Topic One: Accountability Technical and Conforming Changes
* Application and Reporting
Several Non-Federal negotiators asked a number of questions – seeking clarity and expressed concerns with the notification process revisions/proposals. Non-Federal negotiators stated on several occasions their concerns with the proposal and whether it made sense, was truly feasible, and noted problems that would likely arise under various circumstances/scenarios. The Department attempted to respond to many of the questions, comments, and positions raised and stated that they would be willing to accept proposals from the AHEAD Committee negotiators. (Note: This issue touches on several different portions of Topic One proposed changes.)
* Limiting the Consequences for Failing Programs to Solely Loss of Federal Direct Loan Eligibility
Several Non-Federal negotiators expressed immediate opposition to the discussion draft’s proposal to limit the consequences under Part 668, Subpart S for GE programs failing the earnings premium measure to loss of Direct Loan Program eligibility only. A lengthy discussion ensued and continued throughout a significant portion of the morning session, into the afternoon, and will likely be a constant refrain throughout the week’s deliberations and efforts to come to consensus.
* Institutional & Programmatic Information
Several Non-Federal negotiators commented on various portions of the proposals related to the publication and access of key information on a website to be established and maintained by the Department. Key comments focused both in support of and opposition to: a) the addition of new data on program completion length (i.e. the median length of calendar time); b) the removal of both the debt-to-earnings data and rates; and c) institutional cross-referencing of the website on each institutional program website.
* Appeals
Some Non-Federal negotiators expressed their support for the narrowly defined appeals processes – which limit the appeals solely to appeals based upon the Secretary’s erroneous calculations, while others expressed the desire to discuss this matter in greater detail and provide additional proposals.
Topic Two: General Definitions, Cohort Construction and Comparison Groups
* Definitions
Throughout the presentation by the Department of the repeals, revisions, and additions to the definitions in order to align the definitions with the new OBBB statutory language there were a series of discussions on many of the proposals.
* The rationale and impact of the removal of the entire debt-to-earnings regime is a major portion of the repeals in the definition and thus the eligibility assessment requirements. This is a major departure from all past efforts to assess institutional and program eligibility under the Gainful Employment regime, but is not a part of the OBBB statutory language and thus the Department is choosing to abolish the whole metric.
* The substantial re-write of the “Cohort Period” definition was noted for its complexity – it may undergo revisions as part of either Department, or more likely, Non-Federal negotiator recommendations.
* Issues with the use of Census Bureau data – stipulated in the OBBB – was another topic for discussion and will likely be fodder for efforts to refine the data sets the Bureau constructs and are used within the calculations.
There were other discussions as well, but in the interest of this summary we will share more as recommendations and new proposals are provided later in the week.
What’s Next
The AHEAD Committee got into Topic Three as was outlined in the agenda and began to work through the actual development of the new STATS regulatory proposals, but we are withholding a summary of the discussions started yesterday until completion of today’s deliberations so that we can provide a more accurate, comprehensive summary given the interplay between these three topics.
Topic Three: Student Tuition and Transparency System (STATS): Metric Calculation
* § 668.401 Student tuition and transparency system scope and purpose
* § 668.402 Student tuition and transparency system framework
* § 668.403 Calculating earnings premium measure
* § 668.404 Process for obtaining data and calculating earnings premium measure
* § 668.405 Determination of the earnings premium measure
Topic Four: Student Tuition and Transparency System (STATS): Reporting Requirements
* § 668.406 Reporting requirements
* § 668.407 Severability
Topic Five: Earnings Accountability and Student Warnings
* § 668.601 Earnings accountability scope and purpose
* § 668.602 Earnings accountability criteria
* § 668.603 Low-earning outcome programs
* § 668.604 Certification requirements for Gainful Employment (GE) programs and eligible non-GE programs
* § 668.605 Student warnings
* § 668.606 Severability
Want To Follow Along
If you or members of your institution/team are interested in following along throughout today’s proceedings or those taking place Wednesday – Friday, you can register to participate virtually here (centralstatesedu.us11.list-manage.com/track/click?u=75e01bde202d593ed21c1c91c&id=0828d66120&e=05bce952ad) .
Don’t Miss CSPEN’s Post-Negotiation Summary & Analysis
CSPEN is pleased to announce that Bryan Cook, Director of Higher Education Policy, Urban Institute will be joining us as part of our AHEAD Committee Accountability Neg Reg Summary webinar to be held on Monday, January 12th from 2-3 PM ET. Many of you know Bryan and his team from the publication of two Gainful Employment and Financial Value Transparency reports supported by CSPEN and several other key publications, all centered around the accountability proposals.
Bryan has agreed to share his comments on this week’s negotiations, their outcome, and his takeaways as a researcher heavily involved in these policy deliberations.
