Program Integrity and Institutional Quality Committee Match Agenda for Day One Completing Opening Remarks & Introductions, Adoption of Protocols, Discussion of Addition of New Committee Members, and Issue Paper 1 Review

Overview

As noted above, Day One of the Program Integrity and Institutional Quality Committee ran true to form with the day concluding exactly as outlined in the Agenda. A very quick recap of the morning session included Opening remarks from Under Secretary of Education James Kvaal; Requesting Funds The Department is proposing a maximum 180-day time frame which institutions subject to heightened cash monitoring and receiving funds under a reimbursement payment method (HCM2) must submit their final HCM2 requests after losing eligibility. The 180-day timeframe is tied to the Department’s late disbursement regulations in § 668.164.

Disbursing Funds

1. Requiring institutions to return remaining funds from Title IV recipients’ meal plan accounts to students instead of “sweeping” them (§ 668.164(c)(1)(i));

2. Increasing the amount of current year funds that may be credited against prior year charges from $200 to $300 to account for inflation (§ 668.164(c)(3));

3. Eliminating the provision allowing institutions to include the cost of books and supplies as part of tuition and fees (§ 668.164(c) and (m)); (The Department is concerned that lack of disclosure and transparency limits students’ ability to find less expensive materials or assess if their school is offering the most affordable arrangement. Under the proposal, the Department would maintain the allowance for including books and supplies in tuition and fees when institutions demonstrate “there is a compelling health or safety reason, or if the institution is the only option for students to access the books or supplies.” There was considerable discussion regarding the inclusion of “kits” – provided in specific types of programs (a.k.a. beauty and wellness) that the Department is once again targeting. Institutions offering these materials as part of their package must once again pay particular attention to this issue.)

4. Requiring institutions to issue a credit balance to any student that receives Title IV aid and has any amount of aid in excess of tuition and fees (§ 668.164(h)(1));

5. Revising regulations granting ED authority, on a case-by-case basis during the audit or program review processes, to direct institutions to make late disbursements beyond the 180-day limitation (§ 668.164 (j)(4)(i));

6. Allowing late disbursement of loan funds in any payment period regardless of whether the student successfully completed the period for which the loan was intended (§ 668.164 (j)(4)(ii)).

Day one concluded with a half an hour of public comment which was a choreographed
Key Takeaways

Day Two Primer
If your institution provides straight distance education program offerings or hybrid, distance education and bricks-and-motor programs at least one member of your institution’s academic and compliance staff should almost be mandated to audit today’s Federal Negotiated Rulemaking deliberations on Issue Papers Two: State Authorization (www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2023/program-integrity-and-institutional-quality-session-1-issue-paper-state-authorization-final.pdf) and Three: Distance Education (www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2023/program-integrity-and-institutional-quality-session-1-issue-paper-distance-education-final.pdf) .
State Authorization The Department is proposing a SIGNIFICANT series of proposed changes to the current regulations regarding State approval and licensure and State authorization reciprocity agreements. Here is a reprint of both the rationale and the proposals the Department is putting forward for revision.

Rationale: State Approval and Licensure (600.2) The Department is concerned that existing State authorization regulations, which allow States to exempt certain institutions from State approval and licensure requirements if the institution is accredited by an accrediting agency recognized by the Secretary or if the institution has been in operation for 20 years, do not ensure sufficient State oversight of those institutions. State exemptions of certain categories of institutions from approval could weaken the program integrity triad for institutions that want to participate in the Federal student aid programs, making students and taxpayers vulnerable. The Department is also concerned that States may have limited complaint processes that rely upon other entities without adequate monitoring by the applicable State.

State authorization reciprocity agreements (600.2 and 600.9) States may participate in reciprocity agreements, where two or more States enter into an agreement that authorizes an institution located and legally authorized in a State covered by the agreement to provide postsecondary education through distance education or correspondence courses to students located in other States that are covered by the agreement. However, the Department is concerned that these agreements have shortcomings that fail to protect students and taxpayers and that reduce States’ oversight of institutions. Additionally, we are concerned that some States are deferring all, or nearly all, of their oversight responsibilities to other States and the governing bodies that oversee these agreements for approval of educational institutions. The Department’s concerns are primarily related to two areas: complaints and governance.

Current State authorization regulations require that States in which institutions are located have a process to review and appropriately act on complaints concerning the institution, including enforcing applicable State laws. However, this means that States that have entered into a reciprocity agreement likely do not know about such complaints related to students in their State and do not monitor if their students are protected by the agreement in which the State is participating. This makes it difficult for States to make informed decisions when entering into or renewing agreements.

The Department is also concerned that the current reciprocity system is influenced by regulated entities, allows manipulation to evade State rules, and prioritizes administrative convenience over student and taxpayer protection. For example, the National Council for State Authorization Reciprocity Agreements (NC-SARA), in partnership with regional compacts made up of States, oversees the State authorization reciprocity agreements. However, the NC-SARA Board is composed not just of States and regional compacts of States, but also of representatives of accrediting agencies, and other stakeholders, including even institutions themselves. Furthermore, NC-SARA’s Board, under current policy, has veto power over any proposed changes to SARA policy – potentially further stifling States’ ability to improve consumer protections for SARA institutions. This means that the State role in the program integrity triad is being overseen by entities other than just States, including the regulated institutions the agreements are supposed to govern

Proposal: The Department proposes to amend regulations related to State authorization reciprocity agreements (§§ 600.2 and 600.9) in two ways: 1. The Department proposes requiring reciprocity agreements to require institutions to have a system to report student complaints to the State in which the student resides. Such a system could be operated by the administrators of the reciprocity agreement, but the institution would ultimately be responsible for ensuring that the complaints reach their students’ States. The Department is also interested in feedback on how to improve compliance and complaint reporting, including reporting to NC-SARA or a similar entity overseeing a reciprocity agreement, the Department, the State where the institution is located, and the institution’s accreditor.

The Department’s proposal would read as follows: (i) A State authorization reciprocity agreement must include a process for communicating information received on complaints regarding institutions or programs subject to the State reciprocity agreement to the State in which a student is located at the time of the student’s initial enrollment, as determined in accordance with paragraph (c)(2) of this section. (ii) If a State authorization reciprocity agreement is administered by an organization, the agreement must require that complaints received by States from institutions subject to the State reciprocity agreement are communicated to the organization. The organization must make information received on complaints public at least annually, including but not limited to the number and type of complaints by institution that is subject to the State reciprocity agreement.

2. The Department proposes that regulations governing State authorization reciprocity agreements require that the governing board of any entity that oversees a State authorization reciprocity agreement only include representation from State employees – including regulatory bodies, enforcement agencies, attorneys general, and licensing bodies – and members of the public. Institutional representatives would be prohibited from serving on the governing board. Public members would be required to be independent from institutions and could include students, higher education experts, and advocates and the Department is interested in the community’s feedback on a minimum number or percentage of representatives from each group.

The Department’s proprosal would prohibit Public Members from being connected to the States, institutions, and accrediting agencies, as the must not be: (1) A current or former employee of, member of the governing board, owner, or shareholder of, or consultant to, an institution or program that is subject to the State authorization reciprocity agreement; (2) A current or former member of any trade association or membership organization related to, affiliated with, or associated with an institution or program that is subject to the State authorization reciprocity agreement; (3) A current or former employee of or consultant to an accrediting agency that accredits an institution or program that is subject to the State authorization reciprocity agreement; or (4) A current or former employee of member of the program integrity triad other than States including the Department of Education and accrediting agencies).

Registration Information and Our Commitment To You Register for the livestream (cvent.me/q8g74M) to view the proceeding and stay tuned for daily updates each morning of the prior day’s proceedings, key takeaways, and anticipation of the day ahead just like this one!

CSPEN’s 6th Annual Higher Education Policy Meeting: Protecting and Supporting Career, Technical and Trades Education
(Yes, This Is THE One Everyone Raves About)
February 13-15 2024 Intercontinental DC Wharf Current Availability: 5 seats, 1 hotel room, 1 sponsorship
We’re Very Excited About This Years Vitally Important Agenda, And Hope You Can Join Us!

We at CSPEN have worked very hard and pulled from many resources, to put together what we believe to be an extremely timely and most relevant agenda for our schools and those who work with them. In the next week or so, we will share with you all the confirmed speakers, but wanted to get this agenda in your hands before we sell out (as of right now, we only have 48 tickets remaining and a handful of hotel rooms). Please note that this agenda may change slightly due to speakers schedules and possible additions. See below, and as always we look forward to your feedback!

CSPEN’s 6th Annual Higher Education Policy Meeting

Tuesday, February 13, 2024
1:00 – 2:00 Welcome and Opening Session
Department of Education Cybersecurity Compliance Update
Scott Tambert, Division Chief for Institutions of Higher Education (IHE) Cybersecurity, U.S. Department of Education
Davon Tyler, FSA Chief Information Security Officer and Director of the Enterprise Cybersecurity Group, U.S. Department of Education Technology Directorate, Office of Federal Student Financial Aid
2:00 – 3:00 Clery, VAWA, and Title IX Update
James Moore, Senior Advisor, Clery Act Compliance and Campus Safety Operations, Clery Group, U.S. Department of Education
3:00 – 3:15 BREAK
3:15 – 4:15 Regulatory Implementation of the 2022-2023 Final Rules
Financial Value Transparency and Gainful Employment Update
Expert Presenter(s) TBA
4:15 – 5:30 Federal Regulatory Update
Ben Miller, Deputy Under Secretary, U.S. Department of Education
5:45 – 6:45 Welcome Reception Sponsored by Conext
Wednesday, February 14, 2024
7:30-8:30 Breakfast 8:00 – 9:00 The Future of Education Workforce Infrastructure Education
Jane Oates, Senior Policy Advisor, WorkingNation
9:00 – 10:00 Higher Education Policy from the Media’s Point of View
Panel Discussion
Michael Stratford, Education Reporter, Politico PRO
Doug Lederman, Co-Founder & Editor, Inside Higher Ed
Katherine Knott, Federal Reporter, Inside Higher Ed
Eric Kelderman, Senior Writer, The Chronicle of Higher Education
10:00 – 10:15 Break Sponsored By Duane Morris
10:15 – 11:30 Higher Education Policy Analysis: The New Gainful Employment Rule
Jason D. Delisle, Senior Policy Fellow – Center on Education Data and Policy, Urban Institute
11:30 – 12:30 Higher Education Policy Analysis: Multi-Agency Focus on Marketing & LeadGen
Oversight of Both Institutions and Their Third-Party Servicers
Panel Discussion
Brandon Sherman, Counsel, Saul Ewing
Michelle Hon Donovan, Partner, Duane Morris
John Carreon, General Counsel & Chief Compliance Officer, Concorde Career Colleges, Inc.
12:30 – 1:30 Lunch Sponsored by TEN Government Strategies
1:30 – 2:30 2023-2024 Federal Negotiated Rulemaking Update
Student Loan Debt Relief & Program Integrity and Institutional Quality Committees
Panel Discussion
Jillian Klein, Senior Vice President of Government and External Affairs, Strategic Education, Inc.
David Cohen, President, Five Towns College
Michale McComis, Chief Executive Officer, Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges
John Ware, Director, Ohio State Board of Career Colleges and Schools
2:30 – 2:45 Break Sponsored by McClintock & Associates
2:45 – 3:45 Higher Education Policy from Top-level Higher Education Staffs’ Perspective
Panel Discussion
Workforce Innovation & Opportunity Act
Marek Laco, Professional Staff Member, House Committee on Education & the Workforce
Scott Estrada, Professional Staff Member, House Committee on Education & the Workforce
Higher Education Act Reauthorization
Chance Russell, Economist and Policy Advisor, House Committee on Education & the Workforce
Mary Christina Riley, Professional Staff Member, House Committee on Education & the Workforce
Amaris Benavidez, Professional Staff Member, House Committee on Education & the Workforce
3:45 – 4:00 Break
4:00 – 5:00 The Future of Higher Education Policy
The Honorable Lisa McClain
U.S. House of Representative, Congresswoman from Michigan’s 9th District
5:15 – 6:15 Reception Sponsored by Level Becker
Thursday, February 15, 2024
8:00-8:30 Breakfast 8:30 – 9:15 The Future of Education Workforce Infrastructure Education
The Honorable Pete Stauber
U.S. House of Representatives, Congressman from Minnesota’s 8th District
Panel Discussion
Scott Shaw, CEO & President, Lincoln Educational Services Corp. Andrea Snow, Senior Vice President & In-House Counsel, Ancora Education Robert Polston, CEO, Spartan College of Aeronautics & Technology Don Lefeve, Vice President of Corporate Affairs, Robotic Research Joel English, Executive Vice President, Aviation Institute of Maintenance, Centura College & Tidewater Tech
9:15 – 9:20 BREAK
9:20 – 10:00 The Current Status of Higher Education Policy and Its Future
The Honorable Tim Walberg
U.S. House of Representatives, Congressman from Michigan’s 5th District
10:00 – 10:15 BREAK
10:15 – 11:15 Higher Education Community Policy Perspectives
Panel Discussion
David Baime, Senior Vice President, Government Relations, American Association of Community Colleges
Mark Brenner, Vice President, Government Relations, Universal Technical Institute
Conwey Casillas, Vice President, Federal & Government Affairs, Apollo Group
Emmanual Guillroy, Senior Director, Government Relations, American Council on Education
11:15 – 11:30 Closing Remarks
NOON Institutions Free to Schedule Meetings with Their Elected Officials