After two and one-half days of meeting, Team V (General and Non-Loan Issues) finished its negotiations on Wednesday without reaching consensus. There were 31 issues on the table. Two issues resulted in a stalemate: year-round Pell and consumer information.
Year-Round Pell
The amendments made by the HEOA require that a student may receive up to two Federal Pell Grant Scheduled Awards during a single award year if the student is enrolled at least half-time for more than one academic year, more than two semesters, or the equivalent time during a single award year. The student must also be enrolled in a certificate, associate degree or baccalaureate degree program.
ED negotiators withdrew proposed language requiring the recalculation of a second Federal Pell Scheduled Award due to a change in the student's enrollment status. ED also relaxed its position on calculating a Pell grant during a crossover period allowing schools to make the determination of which award year from which to make Pell payment, unless the student requests a specific year because he or she can reasonably be expected to receive a greater amount of Pell Grants over the two award years. These changes were well received by non-federal negotiators. However, the topic of acceleration as stated in the following proposed regulatory language resulted in an ongoing debate:
§690.67: Receiving Up to Two Scheduled Awards During a Single Award Year.
(a) Eligibility. An institution shall award up to the full amount of a second Scheduled Award to a student in an award year if the student--
(1) Has successfully completed the credit or clock hours of the first academic year in the award year and
(2) Is enrolled at least as a half-time student.
Many non-federal negotiators objected to ED's interpretation of acceleration. This language means that a student must complete all hours in the school's defined academic year before receiving a second scheduled Pell Grant award in the same award year. Negotiators argued this requirement as being inconsistent with how Pell is paid during the regular academic year and that it presents numerous complexities for implementation. They also argued that this interpretation of acceleration would preclude students who enroll less than full time for one or more terms from ever receiving a second scheduled Pell Grant award, which they believe runs counter to Congressional intent. Negotiators felt that many of ED's concerns regarding acceleration are addressed under satisfactory academic progress (SAP). ED stated SAP does not go far enough as a viable safeguard for enforcement of year-round Pell. ED takes the point of view that there must be accountability of these federal funds and schools have the option of either completion of the first academic year before receiving a second scheduled Pell Grant award or mandatory recalculation. Negotiators rejected it all.
Consumer Information
The HEOA expands the list of information that institutions are required to make available to prospective and enrolled students. In addition to the requirements listed in §485(a) of the HEA, institutions must now also include information on the placement of and types of employment obtained by graduates of the institutions' degree or certificate programs.
Negotiators discussed at length the following proposed regulatory language:
(d) General disclosures for enrolled or prospective students. An institution must make available to any enrolled student or prospective student through appropriate publications, mailings or electronic media, information concerning -
(5) The institution's placement (STRIKEOUT "rate" )information.
The placement of, and types of employment obtained by, graduates of the institution's degree or certificate programs. This information includes the institution's placement rate for any students, if it calculates one, and may be gathered from alumni surveys, student satisfaction surveys, State data systems, or other relevant sources, however the institution must disclose the source, time frame, and methodology associated with the information;
Original proposed language from ED stated "placement rate". Negotiators argued that the requirement of a "placement rate" was going beyond what is stated in statute. ED revised the language and proposed "placement information", adding "Includes the institution's placement rate for any students, if it calculates one". Negotiators disagreed on whether schools that are not required to calculate a placement rate, but do so for their own purposes, must disclose that rate. Some negotiators felt that if some schools already have to provide a placement rate, then all schools should have to provide the same type of information. Other negotiators felt this was an unfair comparison of different types of schools and presents an unfair cost to schools for something that is not required by statute. Negotiators continued to debate this issue at length and subsequently failed to reach consensus on this issue.
Without consensus on all 31 issues, ED is not obligated to honor agreements reached with the non-federal negotiators on any issue previously agreed upon when it writes regulatory language to be published as a proposed rule this summer.
By Eunice Powell
Associate Director for Professional Assessment, Training, and Regulatory Assistance
Posted 05/15/09 to www.NASFAA.org. Redistribution to non-NASFAA institutions is prohibited. Please submit Web site questions or comments to Web@NASFAA.org.
