By Hugh T. Ferguson, NASFAA Managing Editor
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: RIF Will 'Not Directly' Impact Students and Families
Today's News for March 18, 2025
Murray_DeLauro_Baldwin_Letter_ED_RIF
Federal Judge Orders Trump Administration to Temporarily Reinstate Fired Federal Workers
Today's News for March 14, 2025
Off the Cuff - Episode 322 Transcript
OTC Inside the Beltway: Mass Layoffs at ED, Chances of a Shutdown, and the PSLF Executive Order
ED Plans to Lay Off Nearly Half of Its Workforce
Today's News for March 12, 2025
Trump Directs ED to Revise PSLF Eligibility Citing Concern Over ‘Illegal’ Activities
Today's News for March 10, 2025
Report: ED Reduces FSA Staff Who Handle Financial Aid Complaints
Today's News for March 6, 2025
Today's News for March 5, 2025
'Our Department’s Final Mission' – McMahon Outlines Vision for ED
ED Releases More Guidance After DEI Dear Colleague Letter
Today's News for March 4, 2025
Off the Cuff - Episode 320 Transcript
ED Begins Processing FAFSA Batch Corrections
Today's News for February 28, 2025
Today's News for February 27, 2025
ED Disables IDR and Loan Consolidation Applications, Citing Court Injunction
Today's News for February 26, 2025
Court Ruling Affirms Blocking of SAVE Plan While Next Steps for the Program Remain Uncertain
Today's News for February 25, 2025
What Cuts in Institute of Education Sciences Funding Means For Higher Education Research
Today's News for February 24, 2025
Trump’s Pick to Lead ED Advances Through Committee
Today's News for February 21, 2025
How ED’s Revised Options for Gender on the FAFSA Will Impact the Correction Process
Today's News for February 18, 2025
Senate Questions Linda McMahon on Efforts to Dismantle ED and the Future of Higher Education Funding
Today's News for February 14, 2025
ED Extends GE/FVT Institutional Reporting Deadline to September 30
New ED Guidance Changes Definition of FTI to Include Derived Total Income Values from ISIR
House Education Committee Advances DETERRENT Act
Trump Nominates Nicholas Kent for ED Under Secretary
Today's News for February 13, 2025
‘Practical Challenges’ Force ED to Delay Final Metrics for GE FVT Data
Today's News for February 12, 2025
Webinar Transcript: FAFSA Data Use in 2024-25 Live Webinar
Today's News for February 11, 2025
Senate Schedules McMahon’s Confirmation Hearing for Next Thursday
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.