By Hugh T. Ferguson, NASFAA Senior Staff Reporter
On Tuesday, the Department of Education (ED) published proposed regulations its 90/10 rule for for-profit colleges, Pell Grant Eligibility for Prison Education Programs, and procedures for institutions undergoing changes in ownership. A pair of negotiated rulemaking committees met last year to discuss the regulations and reached consensus on 90/10 and the Pell Grant Eligibility topics during the sessions, but did not come to consensus on the change of ownership paper, which is reflected in ED’s proposed rule.
NASFAA will be digging into these documents and would welcome member perspectives as we review and craft our own comments. As a reminder, ED has already delayed the publication of five regulations that were included in the 2021-22 negotiated rulemaking agenda, until April of 2023.
Stay tuned to Today’s News for more details along with an updated analysis from NASFAA.
Publication Date: 7/26/2022
ED Releases Updated Draft Regulatory Text for Student Debt Relief
2023 Year in Review: NASFAA's 10 Most Popular Original Articles
Today's News for December 4, 2023
FSA Outlines Provisions of Federal Tax Information and FAFSA Data Use
ED Under Secretary Kvaal Shares Hope for Reduced Burden With New FAFSA
Today's News for December 1, 2023
FSA Debriefs Updates to 2024-25 FAFSA Form, Processing System, and Partner Portal
Today's News for November 30, 2023
FSA Officials Focus on FAFSA Simplification, Regulatory Updates at 2023 Training Conference
Today's News for November 29, 2023
2023 Year in Review: The 10 Most Downloaded “Off The Cuff” Episodes
Today's News for November 28, 2023
NASFAA Urges FSA to Engage With the Higher Ed Community on Pending FAFSA Changes
Today's News for November 21, 2023
GAO: ED Did Not Apply Practices to Prevent Fraud in Student Debt Cancellation Proposal
Today's News for November 17, 2023
NASFAA Urges FSA to Engage With the Higher Ed Community on Pending FAFSA Changes
Today's News for November 16, 2023
Today's News for November 16, 2023
ED Announces New Framework to Hold Loan Servicers Accountable
FSA Announces 2024-25 FAFSA Will Go Live By December 31, ISIR Delivery Delayed
Today's News for November 15, 2023
ED Releases Guidance on Borrower Defense School Notification Process
Today's News for November 13, 2023
Today's News for November 8, 2023
Student Debt Relief Negotiators Dive into ‘Hardship’ Discussion in Second Day of Neg Reg
ED Kicks Off Second Negotiated Rulemaking Session for Student Debt Relief
Today's News for November 7, 2023
NASFAA Joins Letter to House Education Committee on the DETERRENT Act
ED Releases 2024-25 College Financing Plan
Today's News for November 2, 2023
Today's News for November 1, 2023
Over 300,000 Federal Student Loan Borrowers Received Incorrect Bills From Their Servicers
Today's News for October 26, 2023
Today's News for October 25, 2023
Panels Discuss Strategies and Challenges to Measuring the Value of Higher Education
Today's News for October 18, 2023
NASFAA Comments on Second 2024-25 Draft FAFSA
NASFAA Signs Onto Letter Requesting FAFSA Release Date
Student Debt Relief Negotiators Discuss Parameters for Cancellation in Second Day of Neg Reg
Today's News for October 12, 2023
ED Kicks Off First Negotiated Rulemaking Session for Student Debt Relief
Today's News for October 11, 2023
Higher Ed Groups Urge Biden Administration to Support Federal Student Aid in Upcoming Budget
Today's News for October 6, 2023
ED Announces an Additional $9 Billion in Student Debt Forgiveness for 125,000 Borrowers
Advertisement
Peter G | 7/26/2022 2:3:50 PM
I'm not sure if I'll say it in public comment, but there seems to be a tension between raising the bar and wanting to address the cost of college.
For PEP, one of the main places this shows up is the requirement that accreditors perform an on-site visit. I inquired how much that costs (and did not get a response) but in the past I understood it to be low five figures, not even counting the school's time to make it happen. That is absorbable if you are looking at a larger scale program, but given the limited space in some facilities, we are looking at maybe a dozen part-time students per year (and maybe not even that) and maybe 10-12k in revenue in year one even before accounting for actual operational costs, which will be substantial and frankly we were already going into this assuming it would run at a loss.
I was also a bit surprised by the expansion of the definition to include incarcerated youth. I'm sure there will be exceptions, but I think this will actually result in a decrease vs. what has been offered which clearly wasn't Congress' intent. While appreciating what ED is thinking IN THEORY, the tension here in reality is that most juveniles just based on age (and how that feeds diploma/GED status) aren't Title IV eligible, and I suspect there are going to be relatively few cases where it makes sense to build out all this infrastructure. We're among the largest districts in the country and we serve a very small handful of incarcerate youth a year. We just won't be able to serve those students anymore unless they can self-pay or the state steps in.
You must be logged in to comment on this page.