The Department of Education (ED) recently published a resource page detailing its upcoming negotiated rulemaking hearings for the week of October 4. The public will have the opportunity to register for a given virtual session, access related documents and obtain additional information concerning the negotiated rulemaking process for the weeks ahead. Stay tuned to Today’s News for coverage of the upcoming sessions and be sure to catch up on our Negotiated Rulemaking coverage.
Publication Date: 10/1/2021
Today's News for September 6, 2024
Deep Dive: Proposed Rules on R2T4, Distance Education, and TRIO programs
Today's News for July 25, 2024
Education Department to Publish NPRM on Distance Education, R2T4, and Federal TRIO Programs
Today's News for July 18, 2024
Is Your Campus Ready for New Regulations Effective July 1, 2024?
Third Day of Neg Reg Session Focuses on Cash Management, Accreditation
ED Kicks Off Final Negotiated Rulemaking Session On R2T4 and Distance Education
Student Loan Debt Negotiating Committee Reconvenes for Financial Hardship Discussion
ED Continues Neg Reg Session With Discussion of Return to Title IV Funds and Accreditation
ED Continues Neg Reg Session With Discussion on State Authorization and Distance Education
ED Hosts Second Neg Reg Session Focusing on Cash Management
ED Announces Fourth Neg Reg Session to Provide Debt Relief for Borrowers Facing Financial Hardships
Top Congressional Democrats Call on Biden Administration to Hold Fourth Neg Reg Session
ED Kicks Off First Negotiated Rulemaking Session for Program Integrity and Institutional Quality
Student Debt Relief Negotiators Discuss New Amendments in Third and Final Neg Reg Session
ED Releases Updated Draft Regulatory Text for Student Debt Relief
Student Debt Relief Negotiators Dive into ‘Hardship’ Discussion in Second Day of Neg Reg
Student Debt Relief Negotiators Discuss Parameters for Cancellation in Second Day of Neg Reg
ED Kicks Off First Negotiated Rulemaking Session for Student Debt Relief
ED Details Upcoming Negotiated Rulemaking Session for its Student Debt Relief Committee
Federal Appeals Court Blocks ED’s New Borrower Defense Rules
Biden’s Debt Relief Plan Heads to Negotiated Rulemaking Public Hearing
Kvaal, Cordray Testify During House Education Subcommittee Hearing
Deep Dive: Department of Education’s Proposed Ability to Benefit Regulations
Deep Dive: ED’s Proposed Financial Value Transparency and Gainful Employment Regulations
NASFAA Submits Written Comments on ED’s Intent to Establish Negotiated Rulemaking
NASFAA Gives Comments on R2T4 and Third-Party Servicers at ED’s Public Hearings
Thousands of Public Comments Prompt ED to Remove Third-Party Servicer Guidance Effective Date
ED to Publish Proposed Rule on Income-Driven Repayment, Previews Gainful Employment Changes
ED Issues Final Rules on 90/10 Rule, Prison Education Programs, and Change in Ownership
ED Delays 5 Regulatory Rules to Spring 2023
Neg Reg Day 3: Negotiators Far From Consensus on Gainful Employment Regulations
Neg Reg Day 3: Committee Tackles Gainful Employment, Financial Responsibility
Second Bout of Neg Reg Sessions for Programmatic Eligibility Committee Get Underway
Peter G | 10/1/2021 2:19:53 PM
After reading through the 'False Certification Discharge' I have some significant concerns. I hadn't seen any of these my first 8 years as a director, but have seen 8-10 since COVID hit, and it feels like some advocacy groups are steering students to this option as a catchall/Hail Mary approach.
Trying to be brief:
1) The regs should require ED / Servicers to inform schools of the specific issue being contested and provide the claim materials to the school, in the same way it's proposing to give students direct access to the material provided by the college. They already have a right to info under FERPA, but data extracted to a servicer may be missing key pieces or context, esp. if we've not been informed what specifically we're responding to which is often the case with these.
2) There's no clear standard of proof given. I think everyone agrees that a school responding to a student's statement that they don't have a diploma with "Well, sign this anyway" is problematic. But what if the response is "Unfortunately you would need to certify you have a diploma or GED"? What the student hears ("just sign the form") may be different than what's expressed (I'm informing you of your rights/options). How is that going to be documented, much less adjudicated? Do we cease informing students of their legal options and require them to just figure it out entirely on their own? The proposal seems to suggest these are cut and dry and some probably are, but moving the line risks pushing many routine advising discussions into contested territory.
3) #2 would generally be fine if every student were straight out of high school, or if there were a national database of diploma/GED receipt. As proposed this would probably push us back to collecting proof of diploma, but that creates other barriers for students, particularly many older or foreign students.
Peter G | 10/1/2021 2:19:48 PM
4) The Department here is completely evading a major potential morass which is homeschool. Federal and many states' rules are ambiguous, and most schools aren't positioned to be experts (we struggle even navigating our own state's contradictory requirements) so we are often accepting homeschool "documentation" that is little more than self-certification. We could easily end up with a cottage industry a decade down the road advising home school students on how to prove the documentation their college/univ accepted was invalid in some fashion.
#5) If I'm reading the Identity Theft section right the Department seems to be opening the door to cases around the relatively common issue we all know exists but usually can't prove of "Mom/Dad signed my prom note." I'd be curious how they are thinking about that issue.
#6) They should be thinking about some standard of limitation here that is built around legal documentation requirements. We responded to one false certification claim for loans from 1999-2000, where, as above, it seemed to just be a Hail Mary hope that we no longer had any documentation. If the loan had been 3 years earlier we likely wouldn't have.
You must be logged in to comment on this page.