The difficulty of implementing the newly created Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education (TEACH) Grant program quickly became apparent as negotiators began discussing the new program Tuesday at the first day of negotiated rulemaking.

Negotiators said they hoped to make the new aid available to as many students as possible, but worried that many students would sign up for the program and then become burdened with additional debt because they would not fulfill the requirements of the program and the grants would turn into unsubsidized direct student loans. Negotiators also expressed concern that the statutory language creating TEACH Grants could make many potential teachers ineligible for the program even though they might benefit from the new program.

Tuesday was the first of three days of the first round of negotiated rulemaking for the TEACH Grant program, which becomes effective July 1, 2008. The majority of the day was spent reviewing the negotiated rulemaking process and adopting protocols that will govern the process. The Department also provided a summary of the issues that negotiators will wrestle with over the next couple days.

Negotiators then began discussing some issues the Department faces when determining which institutions will be eligible to distribute the new aid.

The following are the issues highlighted by negotiators Tuesday and some of their preliminary thoughts and concerns about these issues:

Tuesday's Negotiations

Department officials began the discussion by asking if accreditation and state approval is a sufficient standard to judge if an institution's teacher preparation course work is rigorous enough to make the school eligible to administer the TEACH Grant.

Negotiators generally agreed that accreditation and state approval was sufficient and warned that if other criteria were considered it might open the door to looking at other standards for other aid programs. There was some concern that other criteria might be useful, but more time was needed to consider what other criteria might be appropriate.

Department officials then asked if alternative teacher certification programs should only be eligible for the new aid if it is offered by an institution of higher education.

Negotiators argued that many alternative teacher certificate programs are not affiliated with higher education institutions and the Department would be missing an opportunity to help students in these programs if the programs were ineligible.

However there was some concern that the statutory language would not allow these programs to be eligible. Department officials suggested that the language is restrictive and wouldn't allow alternative programs to be eligible unless the program is affiliated with an institution.

Negotiators then discussed if community colleges should be eligible for the new aid programs. They said that students at community colleges should benefit from this new program, but worried that unless the schools met certain requirements many students would take the grants without fully understanding their obligations, which could lead to increased debt for these students. Negotiators generally agreed that community colleges should be articulated with a four-year teacher certificate program and students should be fully informed about their obligations. They also questioned if the statutory language would allow community colleges to be eligible.

Negotiators then discussed if institutions that don't offer teacher certificate programs should be eligible. Department officials noted that undergraduate math and science students who plan to teach might benefit from the program. Again, negotiators recognized that eligibility should be as broad as possible, but the same hurdles of making sure the grants don't become loans and statutory language remained.

The statutory language and grants turning to loans challenges will continue to surface as negotiations continue today and Thursday. Over the next two days negotiators plan to discuss the following TEACH Grant issues (An overview of the program is included below these issues to put these issues in context):

Institutional Eligibility

• How should regulations define the requirement to "provide supervision and support services" to teachers?

• Should the definition of post-baccalaureate be discussed?

• Should institutions be required to participate in the TEACH Grant program if they are eligible?

• What information or counseling must schools provide to TEACH Grant recipients?

• Will TEACH Grants that convert to unsubsidized direct loans be counted against a school's cohort default rate?

Student Eligibility

• Should a student be allowed to get TEACH Grants for their undergraduate and master degrees?

• What should happen to students who change out of an eligible program before graduation? Or, change back into an eligible program and confirm their intent to teach?

• How should the term "retiree from another occupation" be defined?

• Does the school have to validate a teacher or retiree's "expertise in a field in which there is a shortage of teachers?" If so, how?

• GPA requirement issues, including documentation and losing and regaining eligibility

• Is the GPA requirement cumulative and when is it measured?

• If the student meets the test score criteria is the GPA relevant?

• Is a list of eligible admission tests necessary?

• Are graduate students eligible if they meet both the GPA requirement and the admission test requirement or just one of the two?

• Remedial and noncredit courses could reduce the grant award?

• Will an separate application/service agreement/promissory note be required in addition to the FAFSA?

• Can students be eligible for TEACH Grants if they are concurrently enrolled?

• How will TEACH Grants that convert to Direct Loans be treated with regard to Stafford Loan limits?

Service Agreement/Conversion of Grant to Loan

• How does the service agreement regarding teaching in critical subjects relate to elementary school teachers?

• Can a student retain some of the grant if they complete a portion of their teaching obligation?

• How will grant recipients know what state and local education agencies designate as critical subject areas? What happens if this subject is taken off the critical subject list?

• How will recipients know what schools are low-income and what if the school is redefined and is no longer low-income?

• Will teachers with extenuating life circumstances be allowed to take more than eight years to complete their teaching obligation?

• What if a recipient has only completed two years of teaching after seven years?

• How is the eight year period determined for different students, like students who teach for a few years and then go to graduate program? Or, go to school part-time and teach part-time?

Repayment

• Will grant recipients have a grace period before entering repayment?

• What repayment terms and conditions will apply to grants that convert to loans?

Conforming Changes

• How with R2T4 issues be handled?

• Overpayment issues

Determination of Awards

Application

• The application would be the FAFSA?
• Require eligibility document with an official EFC?