On August 23, 2024, Carolyn Fast, director of higher education policy and senior fellow at The Century Foundation, in response to a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, dated July 24, 2024 (Docket ID ED-2024-OPE-0050), submitted comments to the U.S. Department of Education concerning the proposed rule on Program Integrity and Institutional Quality: Distance Education; Return of Title IV, HEA Funds; and Federal TRIO Programs. In the submitted comments, which you can read below, Fast supported the department’s proposals.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide public comment on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, dated July 24, 2024, Docket ID ED-2024-OPE-0050, on Program Integrity and Institutional Quality: Distance Education; Return of Title IV, HEA Funds; and Federal TRIO Programs. I am the director of higher education policy and a senior fellow at The Century Foundation, a progressive, independent think tank. I served as a negotiator on the rulemaking committee representing consumer advocacy organizations and civil rights organizations. I write to express strong support for the Department’s proposed rules. The proposed rules will provide the Department with access to critical data on distance education enrollment and student outcomes at Title IV institutions, provide relief to students affected by termination of distance education or in-person programs at their institution, and significantly strengthen protections for students and taxpayers.
I. The Department’s Proposed Changes to the Distance Education Regulations
A. The Department’s proposed changes will provide much-needed data on distance education programs.
The Department’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) includes several important changes to the regulations on distance education, including new data collection and reporting requirements regarding students enrolled in distance education programs. The explosive growth of distance education has led to increased use of Title IV funds to support distance education. The Department must be able to track distance education enrollment and to assess how much Title IV funding is allocated to distance education institutions and programs. The proposed rule changes will enable the Department to assess how Title IV funds are allocated to distance education and permit the Department, students, and institutions to better understand how Title IV distance education programs are serving students.
It is critically important for the Department to collect and analyze data on the effectiveness of distance education. Billions of dollars of federal aid are invested in distance education each year. Moreover, student outcomes may differ between distance education and in-person modalities. Studies have indicated that exclusively online postsecondary programs may produce comparatively worse student outcomes than in-person or hybrid programs. For example, a 2021 analysis by The Pew Charitable Trusts found that students who enrolled exclusively online were more likely to experience default on their student loans compared to students that attended partially online or in-person programs. In addition, some research has found that exclusively online students in bachelor’s degree programs were less likely to complete their degrees than those who enrolled in brick-and-mortar programs.
The disparities in outcomes between in-person and distance education modalities may be exacerbated by the involvement of Online Program Managers (“OPMs”), for-profit companies hired by public and nonprofit colleges to develop and operate online programs. OPM-operated online programs sometimes have different instructors, curriculum, marketing materials, recruiting staff, admissions criteria, academic advising, and/or career services than the same institution’s in-person programs. Most students are unaware of these differences when choosing a program. The Department’s proposed rule change would help to fill in the gap in available data to permit students, institutions, and the Department to better understand disparities in student outcomes between in-person and distance education offerings.
Many OPM contracts with institutions provide for tuition-sharing between the OPM and the institution, funneling as much as 50 percent of all tuition dollars to the OPM. OPMs that enter tuition-sharing agreements have a financial incentive to aggressively recruit students and increase enrollment to boost profits. In some cases, OPMs have allegedly engaged in deceptive recruiting. Some OPMs have also been reported to target marketing of high-priced, low-value online programs to low-income students and students of color, a practice referred to as “predatory inclusion.” The Department’s proposed rule change would help the Department, students, and researchers track enrollment demographics for distance education programs and identify where low-income students and students of color are overrepresented in online programs with poor outcomes.
The Department proposes to expand the definition of an “additional location” in 34 C.F.R. § 600.2 to include virtual locations where 100 percent of an educational program is provided through distance education or correspondence courses. This definition change will lead to several positive outcomes. First, the Department’s proposal to change this reporting will enhance the Department’s ability to assess where and how many Title IV dollars are being allocated to distance education programs.
Establishing a virtual location for exclusively online programs would also help the Department, students, and institutions measure and compare student outcomes in programs that are offered in different modalities at the same institution, as well as compare programs offered by different institutions. Currently, the Department lacks data to assess student metrics such as student completion rates, debt, or earnings metrics for online programs where an institution offers both online and in-person versions of programs with the same CIP code. The proposed change in “additional location” definition would enable the Department to obtain data on key student outcome metrics at distance education programs, such as student debt and earnings, and to distinguish this data from in-person programs offered by the same institution. This data would help the Department assess the effectiveness of Title IV investment in distance education programs and compare program outcomes in different modalities at the same institution, as well as permit the Department to assess distance education outcomes across institutions. It would also enable the Department to provide this data on College Scorecard, where it would help prospective students choose between modalities for the same program at an institution or between distance education programs offered at multiple institutions.
In addition, establishing a virtual location as a type of additional location would enable the Department to improve oversight by tailoring oversight efforts to a particular modality of instruction. For example, the Department would be able to focus program reviews on assessment of an institution’s compliance with requirements relevant to particular modalities, such as whether a distance education program meets requirements for regular and substantive interaction. This type of targeting would permit the Department’s oversight efforts to be more effective and efficient, benefiting taxpayers as well as students.
Finally, the proposed change to the definition of “additional location” in § 600.2 will enable students to qualify for a federal student loan “closed school” discharge if their institution terminates all online programs or all in-person programs at the institution, as the Department already makes available to students at any closed location. Many postsecondary students are unable to switch from one modality to another—online students, for example, may be located in states many miles away from the institution, making in-person enrollment impossible. The proposed rule change would thus provide important relief for both online and in-person students in the event that an institution terminates all programs in the students’ chosen modality.
The NPRM also includes a proposal to add a new definition of “distance education course” that would include courses that are offered exclusively through distance education, notwithstanding in-person non-instructional requirements, including orientation, testing, academic support services, or residency experiences. Adding this definition of a distance education course would provide clarity to institutions concerning when they have met the threshold for having to seek additional accreditor approval—institutions are required to seek additional accreditor approval when the institution passes a 50 percent threshold for the number of distance education courses or number of students enrolled in distance education, as explained in Dear Colleague Letter GEN-23-09. The new definition of distance education course would also provide clarity to institutions required to provide student-level reporting of distance education coursework under other changes required by the NPRM.
The NPRM would also amend § 668.41 to require institutions to report each recipient of Title IV assistance by enrollment status in distance education. This requirement will help the Department track and evaluate outcomes for students enrolled in distance education programs, including student access, persistence, completion, and post-college labor market success. In addition, it will help the Department assess whether institutions have reached the 50 percent threshold for distance education announced in Dear Colleague Letter GEN-23-09. Moreover, it will help the Department make this data available to students via College Scorecard, which would help prospective students make informed choices and compare outcomes at different programs and different program modalities.
While this proposal will require some institutions to modify data collection and reporting processes, institutions are already required to report information regarding distance education enrollment at the aggregate level for IPEDS. IPEDS reporting includes requirements that institutions report on the number of students enrolled fully in distance education, the number in some distance education courses, and the number in no distance education courses. Institutions must also already report the distance education category of its programs at each field of study and degree level for IPEDS.
In addition, many institutions already track student metrics on a student level and compare outcomes between online and in-person modalities to assess the effectiveness of their programs and modalities. Those institutions that do not already track and evaluate this data by modality will benefit from collecting and analyzing this data, which will help inform institution’s decision-making about program offerings, allocation of resources, and selection of outside partners to develop and operate online programs.
B. The proposed changes appropriately exclude asynchronous instruction from Title IV eligibility in clock-hour programs.
The proposed regulations would also amend §§ 600.2 and 668.3 to exclude asynchronous instruction from the definition of clock hour and from counting toward an institution’s definition of an academic year for clock hour programs. I strongly support this change. Under the proposed rule, asynchronous coursework could still be offered as part of clock hour programs, but it would not be counted toward a student’s eligibility for Title IV. This change would help prevent the waste of Title IV funds for activities that do not lead to student success in hands-on career training programs. Asynchronous activities in clock hour programs include activities such as scrolling through webpages or watching online videos. These activities are similar to homework, which does meet the required level of instructor engagement to count as Title IV eligible coursework.
The Department noted in the NPRM that students have repeatedly informed the Department during program reviews and oversight activities that the lack of direct engagement with instructors experienced in asynchronous clock hour program coursework hampered students’ ability to obtain the skills necessary to pass certification exams or obtain a job in their field. The Department also notes that surveys and evaluations of job training programs that are typically offered in clock hours have shown general concerns that distance education is not sufficient to provide learners with the type of “hands on” experience that they need and expect in those types of programs. Accordingly, the Department’s decision to return to its pre-2020 practice of excluding asynchronous coursework from Title IV eligibility in clock hour programs is an appropriate safeguard to ensure that coursework prepares clock-hour program students with the type of hands-on learning and student interaction with instructors that prepares students for success.
II. Proposed Changes to the Return of Title IV Regulations
The Department also proposed several changes to the regulations related to return of Title IV (“R2T4”) funding disbursed to a student where a student withdraws or does not begin attendance at an institution during the period covered by the Title IV funding. First, the Department proposes changes that would provide more flexible repayment requirements for withdrawn students. The proposed change to § 668.21(a)(2)(ii) would permit students who do not begin attendance in the payment period or period of enrollment to repay outstanding Direct Loans under the terms of their promissory note, rather than having to repay the full amount of the disbursed loan immediately. This change will help students repay their loans and avoid default.
In addition, the Department proposes changes to § 668.22(a)(1) that would create an incentive for institutions to voluntarily institute generous refund policies by exempting institutions with such policies from R2T4 calculations where students are made financially whole after withdrawing. This would make it less likely that students will owe a debt to the Department or the institution and make it easier for students to re-enroll. It also offers a benefit for institutions by providing the option of avoiding the inconvenience of having to complete R2T4 calculations for students who never attend or withdraw very early in the payment period.
The Department also proposes to change § 668.22(b)(2) by adding a new attendance-taking requirement for purposes of R2T4 calculations for courses offered entirely through distance education. This will provide accurate withdrawal dates for R2T4 calculations. The Department notes that without this requirement, institutions may use inaccurate dates, and sometimes use a date that allows the institution to keep the most money. Since distance education is statutorily eligible for Title IV only where it includes “regular and substantive” interaction between students and instructors, institutions typically use learning management systems that track student engagement. Institutions can use these same systems to take attendance.
The changes suggested by the Department related to R2T4 are logical and reasonable measures to ensure accuracy of R2T4 calculations. Institutions receive tens of thousands of dollars in federal aid and use students’ withdrawal dates to determine the amount of aid that the institution earned. In order to ensure that these calculations are accurate, institutions must track attendance to identify the correct withdrawal date. The Department’s proposal is a common- sense requirement that will ensure the accuracy of R2T4 calculations. Any inconvenience for institutions is strongly outweighed by the significant benefits of this change, which include more accurate R2T4 calculations, stronger stewardship of taxpayer funds, and fewer opportunities for institutions to “game” the system to secure Title IV funds which they are not entitled to.
III. Proposed changes to the Federal TRIO Regulations
The Department proposes to expand student eligibility for three programs offered to disadvantaged high school students—the Talent Search program, the Educational Opportunity Centers program, and the Upward Bound program. These programs are intended to prepare high school students from a program of postsecondary education. The proposed change would expand eligibility to all high school students, regardless of their citizenship or immigration status.
The Department’s proposal would help ensure that all children who attend high school in the United States can have the same access to TRIO services as their classmates. The change would also bring TRIO programs into alignment with other federal programs that allow recipients to spend funds on K–12 students without regard to immigration status. In addition, the changes would ease the administrative burden on TRIO providers by eliminating the requirement that TRIO providers screen participants for citizenship status.
The Department’s proposed rule which would ensure TRIO providers can serve all students and advance the goal of TRIO to serve individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds on the path toward postsecondary education.
Tags: distance education, higher education, online education
Proposed Rule Will Help Students Choose Quality Online Programs
On August 23, 2024, Carolyn Fast, director of higher education policy and senior fellow at The Century Foundation, in response to a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, dated July 24, 2024 (Docket ID ED-2024-OPE-0050), submitted comments to the U.S. Department of Education concerning the proposed rule on Program Integrity and Institutional Quality: Distance Education; Return of Title IV, HEA Funds; and Federal TRIO Programs. In the submitted comments, which you can read below, Fast supported the department’s proposals.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide public comment on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, dated July 24, 2024, Docket ID ED-2024-OPE-0050, on Program Integrity and Institutional Quality: Distance Education; Return of Title IV, HEA Funds; and Federal TRIO Programs. I am the director of higher education policy and a senior fellow at The Century Foundation, a progressive, independent think tank. I served as a negotiator on the rulemaking committee representing consumer advocacy organizations and civil rights organizations. I write to express strong support for the Department’s proposed rules. The proposed rules will provide the Department with access to critical data on distance education enrollment and student outcomes at Title IV institutions, provide relief to students affected by termination of distance education or in-person programs at their institution, and significantly strengthen protections for students and taxpayers.
I. The Department’s Proposed Changes to the Distance Education Regulations
A. The Department’s proposed changes will provide much-needed data on distance education programs.
The Department’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) includes several important changes to the regulations on distance education, including new data collection and reporting requirements regarding students enrolled in distance education programs. The explosive growth of distance education has led to increased use of Title IV funds to support distance education. The Department must be able to track distance education enrollment and to assess how much Title IV funding is allocated to distance education institutions and programs. The proposed rule changes will enable the Department to assess how Title IV funds are allocated to distance education and permit the Department, students, and institutions to better understand how Title IV distance education programs are serving students.
It is critically important for the Department to collect and analyze data on the effectiveness of distance education. Billions of dollars of federal aid are invested in distance education each year. Moreover, student outcomes may differ between distance education and in-person modalities. Studies have indicated that exclusively online postsecondary programs may produce comparatively worse student outcomes than in-person or hybrid programs. For example, a 2021 analysis by The Pew Charitable Trusts found that students who enrolled exclusively online were more likely to experience default on their student loans compared to students that attended partially online or in-person programs.1 In addition, some research has found that exclusively online students in bachelor’s degree programs were less likely to complete their degrees than those who enrolled in brick-and-mortar programs.2
The disparities in outcomes between in-person and distance education modalities may be exacerbated by the involvement of Online Program Managers (“OPMs”), for-profit companies hired by public and nonprofit colleges to develop and operate online programs.3 OPM-operated online programs sometimes have different instructors, curriculum, marketing materials, recruiting staff, admissions criteria, academic advising, and/or career services than the same institution’s in-person programs. Most students are unaware of these differences when choosing a program. The Department’s proposed rule change would help to fill in the gap in available data to permit students, institutions, and the Department to better understand disparities in student outcomes between in-person and distance education offerings.
Many OPM contracts with institutions provide for tuition-sharing between the OPM and the institution, funneling as much as 50 percent of all tuition dollars to the OPM. OPMs that enter tuition-sharing agreements have a financial incentive to aggressively recruit students and increase enrollment to boost profits. In some cases, OPMs have allegedly engaged in deceptive recruiting.4 Some OPMs have also been reported to target marketing of high-priced, low-value online programs to low-income students and students of color, a practice referred to as “predatory inclusion.”5 The Department’s proposed rule change would help the Department, students, and researchers track enrollment demographics for distance education programs and identify where low-income students and students of color are overrepresented in online programs with poor outcomes.
The Department proposes to expand the definition of an “additional location” in 34 C.F.R. § 600.2 to include virtual locations where 100 percent of an educational program is provided through distance education or correspondence courses. This definition change will lead to several positive outcomes. First, the Department’s proposal to change this reporting will enhance the Department’s ability to assess where and how many Title IV dollars are being allocated to distance education programs.
Establishing a virtual location for exclusively online programs would also help the Department, students, and institutions measure and compare student outcomes in programs that are offered in different modalities at the same institution, as well as compare programs offered by different institutions. Currently, the Department lacks data to assess student metrics such as student completion rates, debt, or earnings metrics for online programs where an institution offers both online and in-person versions of programs with the same CIP code. The proposed change in “additional location” definition would enable the Department to obtain data on key student outcome metrics at distance education programs, such as student debt and earnings, and to distinguish this data from in-person programs offered by the same institution. This data would help the Department assess the effectiveness of Title IV investment in distance education programs and compare program outcomes in different modalities at the same institution, as well as permit the Department to assess distance education outcomes across institutions. It would also enable the Department to provide this data on College Scorecard, where it would help prospective students choose between modalities for the same program at an institution or between distance education programs offered at multiple institutions.
In addition, establishing a virtual location as a type of additional location would enable the Department to improve oversight by tailoring oversight efforts to a particular modality of instruction. For example, the Department would be able to focus program reviews on assessment of an institution’s compliance with requirements relevant to particular modalities, such as whether a distance education program meets requirements for regular and substantive interaction. This type of targeting would permit the Department’s oversight efforts to be more effective and efficient, benefiting taxpayers as well as students.
Finally, the proposed change to the definition of “additional location” in § 600.2 will enable students to qualify for a federal student loan “closed school” discharge if their institution terminates all online programs or all in-person programs at the institution, as the Department already makes available to students at any closed location. Many postsecondary students are unable to switch from one modality to another—online students, for example, may be located in states many miles away from the institution, making in-person enrollment impossible. The proposed rule change would thus provide important relief for both online and in-person students in the event that an institution terminates all programs in the students’ chosen modality.
The NPRM also includes a proposal to add a new definition of “distance education course” that would include courses that are offered exclusively through distance education, notwithstanding in-person non-instructional requirements, including orientation, testing, academic support services, or residency experiences. Adding this definition of a distance education course would provide clarity to institutions concerning when they have met the threshold for having to seek additional accreditor approval—institutions are required to seek additional accreditor approval when the institution passes a 50 percent threshold for the number of distance education courses or number of students enrolled in distance education, as explained in Dear Colleague Letter GEN-23-09.6 The new definition of distance education course would also provide clarity to institutions required to provide student-level reporting of distance education coursework under other changes required by the NPRM.
The NPRM would also amend § 668.41 to require institutions to report each recipient of Title IV assistance by enrollment status in distance education. This requirement will help the Department track and evaluate outcomes for students enrolled in distance education programs, including student access, persistence, completion, and post-college labor market success. In addition, it will help the Department assess whether institutions have reached the 50 percent threshold for distance education announced in Dear Colleague Letter GEN-23-09. Moreover, it will help the Department make this data available to students via College Scorecard, which would help prospective students make informed choices and compare outcomes at different programs and different program modalities.
While this proposal will require some institutions to modify data collection and reporting processes, institutions are already required to report information regarding distance education enrollment at the aggregate level for IPEDS. IPEDS reporting includes requirements that institutions report on the number of students enrolled fully in distance education, the number in some distance education courses, and the number in no distance education courses. Institutions must also already report the distance education category of its programs at each field of study and degree level for IPEDS.
In addition, many institutions already track student metrics on a student level and compare outcomes between online and in-person modalities to assess the effectiveness of their programs and modalities. Those institutions that do not already track and evaluate this data by modality will benefit from collecting and analyzing this data, which will help inform institution’s decision-making about program offerings, allocation of resources, and selection of outside partners to develop and operate online programs.
B. The proposed changes appropriately exclude asynchronous instruction from Title IV eligibility in clock-hour programs.
The proposed regulations would also amend §§ 600.2 and 668.3 to exclude asynchronous instruction from the definition of clock hour and from counting toward an institution’s definition of an academic year for clock hour programs. I strongly support this change. Under the proposed rule, asynchronous coursework could still be offered as part of clock hour programs, but it would not be counted toward a student’s eligibility for Title IV. This change would help prevent the waste of Title IV funds for activities that do not lead to student success in hands-on career training programs. Asynchronous activities in clock hour programs include activities such as scrolling through webpages or watching online videos. These activities are similar to homework, which does meet the required level of instructor engagement to count as Title IV eligible coursework.
The Department noted in the NPRM that students have repeatedly informed the Department during program reviews and oversight activities that the lack of direct engagement with instructors experienced in asynchronous clock hour program coursework hampered students’ ability to obtain the skills necessary to pass certification exams or obtain a job in their field. The Department also notes that surveys and evaluations of job training programs that are typically offered in clock hours have shown general concerns that distance education is not sufficient to provide learners with the type of “hands on” experience that they need and expect in those types of programs. Accordingly, the Department’s decision to return to its pre-2020 practice of excluding asynchronous coursework from Title IV eligibility in clock hour programs is an appropriate safeguard to ensure that coursework prepares clock-hour program students with the type of hands-on learning and student interaction with instructors that prepares students for success.
II. Proposed Changes to the Return of Title IV Regulations
The Department also proposed several changes to the regulations related to return of Title IV (“R2T4”) funding disbursed to a student where a student withdraws or does not begin attendance at an institution during the period covered by the Title IV funding. First, the Department proposes changes that would provide more flexible repayment requirements for withdrawn students. The proposed change to § 668.21(a)(2)(ii) would permit students who do not begin attendance in the payment period or period of enrollment to repay outstanding Direct Loans under the terms of their promissory note, rather than having to repay the full amount of the disbursed loan immediately. This change will help students repay their loans and avoid default.
In addition, the Department proposes changes to § 668.22(a)(1) that would create an incentive for institutions to voluntarily institute generous refund policies by exempting institutions with such policies from R2T4 calculations where students are made financially whole after withdrawing. This would make it less likely that students will owe a debt to the Department or the institution and make it easier for students to re-enroll. It also offers a benefit for institutions by providing the option of avoiding the inconvenience of having to complete R2T4 calculations for students who never attend or withdraw very early in the payment period.
The Department also proposes to change § 668.22(b)(2) by adding a new attendance-taking requirement for purposes of R2T4 calculations for courses offered entirely through distance education. This will provide accurate withdrawal dates for R2T4 calculations. The Department notes that without this requirement, institutions may use inaccurate dates, and sometimes use a date that allows the institution to keep the most money. Since distance education is statutorily eligible for Title IV only where it includes “regular and substantive” interaction between students and instructors,7 institutions typically use learning management systems that track student engagement. Institutions can use these same systems to take attendance.
The changes suggested by the Department related to R2T4 are logical and reasonable measures to ensure accuracy of R2T4 calculations. Institutions receive tens of thousands of dollars in federal aid and use students’ withdrawal dates to determine the amount of aid that the institution earned. In order to ensure that these calculations are accurate, institutions must track attendance to identify the correct withdrawal date. The Department’s proposal is a common- sense requirement that will ensure the accuracy of R2T4 calculations. Any inconvenience for institutions is strongly outweighed by the significant benefits of this change, which include more accurate R2T4 calculations, stronger stewardship of taxpayer funds, and fewer opportunities for institutions to “game” the system to secure Title IV funds which they are not entitled to.
III. Proposed changes to the Federal TRIO Regulations
The Department proposes to expand student eligibility for three programs offered to disadvantaged high school students—the Talent Search program, the Educational Opportunity Centers program, and the Upward Bound program. These programs are intended to prepare high school students from a program of postsecondary education. The proposed change would expand eligibility to all high school students, regardless of their citizenship or immigration status.
The Department’s proposal would help ensure that all children who attend high school in the United States can have the same access to TRIO services as their classmates. The change would also bring TRIO programs into alignment with other federal programs that allow recipients to spend funds on K–12 students without regard to immigration status. In addition, the changes would ease the administrative burden on TRIO providers by eliminating the requirement that TRIO providers screen participants for citizenship status.
The Department’s proposed rule which would ensure TRIO providers can serve all students and advance the goal of TRIO to serve individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds on the path toward postsecondary education.
Notes
Tags: distance education, higher education, online education