Office of Postsecondary Education - U.S. Department of Education

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 209 / Friday, October 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations66871WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES2educational program that can beprovided by the non-degree-grantinginstitution. One commenter stated that,currently, some national accreditingagencies allow students the opportunityto take more than 50 percent of theireducational program from the nondegree-grantinginstitution.Discussion: We acknowledge theimportant role that an institution’sfaculty and leadership play in thedevelopment of written arrangements aswell as the role of accrediting agenciesin monitoring the use of sucharrangements in accordance with theirstandards. However, as we learnedduring negotiations, accreditingagencies have differing practicesconcerning the review of writtenarrangements, and some accreditingagencies do not routinely review writtenarrangements. As such, we believe thatit is important to establish a thresholdfor the amount of the educationalprogram that can be offered under awritten arrangement by an institutionunder common ownership with a hostinstitution. Accrediting agencies mayestablish a more restrictive measure ifthey wish to do so.Changes: None.Comment: One commenter expressedconcern that proposed § 668.5(a) wouldaffect the Service Members OpportunityCollege Army Degree (SOCAD)Institution Agreements currently inplace, which allow 75 percent of aneducational program to be provided bythe non-degree-granting institution.However, the Contract Administrator ofSOCAD provided a separate commentstating that the proposed regulationswould not affect the currentrelationships provided to members ofthe military.Discussion: As noted earlier, theproposed limitations in § 668.5(a)(2)apply only to written arrangementsbetween two or more eligibleinstitutions that are owned or controlledby the same individual, partnership, orcorporation. To the extent that theeligible institutions that participate inSOCAD are not owned or controlled bythe same individual, partnership, orcorporation, they are not subject to theproposed changes in § 668.5(a)(2).Changes: None.Comment: One commenter supportedthe clarification that the enrollinginstitution has all the necessaryapprovals to offer an educationalprogram in the format in which it isbeing provided. Another commenterargued that it is nonsensical to requirethe enrolling institution to have all thesame approvals as the providinginstitution. The commenter stated thatwritten arrangements exist to permitflexibility for students and additionaloptions for students in pursuing theireducation goals. One of the benefits ofsuch arrangements, argued thecommenter, is to provide student accessto learning resources and opportunitiesthat the degree-granting institutioncannot provide. For example, writtenarrangements may afford studentsaccess to online learning from aninstitution with demonstratedcompetencies in providing distanceeducation. Our clarification in thepreamble to the NPRM that theinstitution enrolling the student musthave the approval to offer an educationprogram in the format in which it isbeing offered limits the ability forcampus-based schools to offer cuttingedgeonline delivery methods for someprograms even when these onlinecourses are provided by affiliated andfully accredited institutions. Onecommenter argued that the Departmenthad failed to provide data to supportthis limitation. Another commentersuggested that there should be atransition or grace period to allowinstitutions to get any needed approvals.Discussion: We agree that writtenarrangements are designed to provideeducational flexibility for students andto allow them access to resources andopportunities that may not be availablefrom their degree-granting institution.However, we believe that it is importantthat the degree-granting institution haveall the necessary approvals to offer theeducational program in the format inwhich it is being offered. We note thatonly in cases in which an institution isoffering more than 50 percent of aneducational program through distanceeducation is the institution required toreceive approval from its accreditingagency to offer distance education.Therefore, a student who is taking onlya few courses online as part of a writtenarrangement would not be likely totrigger the requirement that aninstitution seek approval from itsaccrediting agency to offer distanceeducation. We do not see a need for atransition or grace period to allowinstitutions to get any needed approvalsbecause we believe that mostinstitutions already have the necessaryapprovals in place.Changes: None.Requirements for ArrangementsBetween Eligible Institutions andIneligible Institutions or Organizations(§ 668.5(c))Comment: One commenter supportedthe expansion of the list of conditionsthat preclude an arrangement betweenan eligible institution and an ineligibleentity reflected in proposed § 668.5(c).VerDate Mar2010 14:10 Oct 28, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29OCR2.SGM 29OCR2Another commenter stated that the listof exclusions in proposed § 668.5(c) isoverly broad. This commenter agreedwith the Department’s intent butpointed out that denial of recertification(§ 668.5(c)(iv)) may be due to a factorsuch as program length. The commentersuggested that we narrow § 668.5(c)(iv)to cover only denials of recertificationthat are based on the institution’s lackof administrative capability or financialresponsibility.Discussion: We appreciate the supportfor the expansion of the list ofconditions that preclude an arrangementbetween an eligible institution and anineligible entity reflected in § 668.5(c).We disagree with the commenter whorecommended that we limit the denialof recertification condition to cover onlythose recertification denials that arebased on the institution’s lack ofadministrative capability or financialresponsibility. An institution that has itsrecertification denied because it doesnot offer one or more programs ofsufficient length to qualify to participatein the Title IV, HEA programs hascommitted a serious programmaticviolation that the Department believesshould be included in this prohibition.Changes: None.Disclosures to Students (§§ 668.5(e) and668.43(a)(12))Comment: Several commenterssupported the requirement thatinstitutions providing an educationalprogram under § 668.5(a), (b), or (c)inform students when part of theireducational program is provided by adifferent institution and of additionalcharges that the student may incurwhen enrolling in an educationalprogram that is provided in part byanother institution. They noted that allcommunication to students should beclear, user-friendly, and understandable.One commenter suggested that werevise § 668.43(a)(12)(ii) to require theinstitution to include in its descriptionof its written arrangements the Websites along with the names and locationsof the other institutions or organizationsthat are providing the portion of theeducational program that the degree- orcertificate-granting institution is notproviding. Another commenter askedwhether § 668.43(a)(12)(iv) requires theinstitution to include in its descriptionof its written arrangements an estimateof the costs incurred by students takingonline courses (e.g., the costs ofpurchasing a computer and obtainingInternet access).A few commenters requestedclarification on whether the requiredstudent notifications apply only toeducational programs that require