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

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES266882 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 209 / Friday, October 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulationscalendar dates rather than paymentperiod completion. One commenterstated that these ‘‘scheduled satisfactoryacademic progress calculation’’ periodscould then be used as the basis for thestudent’s continued receipt of aid orplacement on financial aid warning.This commenter also suggested that werevise § 668.34 to make the financial aidwarning status available to thoseinstitutions with nonterm programs thatevaluate student academic progressmore frequently than annually but notin conjunction with payment periods.The commenter expressed that muchconfusion will result if the Departmentdoes not address how institutions withnonterm programs, where the annualreview date chosen for SAP review doesnot coincide with a payment period, cancomply with these regulations.Another commenter stated that theDepartment should consider studyingdifferent instructional delivery modelsin order to determine how to bestregulate accountability for institutionsthat need to evaluate SAP for studentsin nonstandard programs.Discussion: The Departmentrecognizes the complicated monitoringthat institutions with nonterm andnonstandard term programs will need toimplement to comply with § 668.34 forevaluating the academic progress ofstudents in these programs, if theychoose to evaluate SAP on a paymentperiod-by-payment period bases. This isbecause, for these programs, institutionscould have students completingpayment periods on a daily basis. Weunderstand why institutions may find iteasier to set one particular calendar dateto evaluate the SAP of all of theirstudents in these programs. However,we do not believe that this approachwill work because on any given date,any particular student could be at thebeginning, middle, or end of a paymentperiod. The SAP review must accountfor completed coursework, and studentsin the middle of a payment period, forexample, might still have days or weeksto go to finish that work. We do believethat the institution could set a particulartime period when it evaluates SAP forall of its students. For example, theinstitution could set a policy that SAPevaluation will occur for all studentsupon the completion of the paymentperiod in a given month(s). Theevaluation would then include all of thecoursework that an individual studentcompletes for the payment periodcompleted in that month. We do notbelieve that evaluating students at anymoment in time other than at the end ofa payment period is an appropriatemeasure of the student’s currentprogress towards program completion,as it is not generally possible to evaluatethe work in progress. By evaluating allof the most recently completed work, aSAP evaluation will be most accurate inportraying a student’s progress, and willenable the institution to evaluate SAPprior to making the payment for the nextpayment period thereby insuringpayments only to eligible students. Wehave, therefore, made a change to theproposed regulations to clarify that theevaluation must occur at the end of apayment period. With regards to thecommenter who suggested that theDepartment should conduct a study inorder to determine the best way toregulate accountability for students innontraditional programs, we will takethis recommendation under advisement.Changes: We have revised§ 668.34(a)(3)(ii) to provide that, forprograms longer than an academic yearin length, satisfactory academic progressis measured at the end of each paymentperiod or at least annually to correspondto the end of a payment period.Comment: Two commenters notedthat the proposed SAP regulations donot address students with disabilitiesand their needs, especially during theappeals process, as such students mayneed several appeals.Discussion: When evaluating astudent appeal under § 668.34, aninstitution may take into considerationfactors that could have affected thestudent’s academic progress. Thesefactors can include whether the studenthas a disability or other extenuatingcircumstances. Additionalconsiderations may also be given in anacademic plan for a student who has adisability as long as applicable title IV,HEA program requirements arefollowed. Therefore, we do not believethat it is necessary to include anyadditional regulatory language onevaluating the SAP of students withdisabilities or the appeals process forthose students.Changes: None.Comment: One commenter, whoexpressed concern that the proposedSAP regulations were cumbersome,asked whether the regulations wouldpermit two specific types of situations.First, the commenter asked whether aninstitution could retain the ability toutilize the financial aid warning statusif its SAP policy stated that it wouldbegin monitoring a student’s academicprogress after the student’s firstacademic year, and then continue tomonitor the student’s progress everypayment period thereafter. Second, thecommenter asked whether a studentcould continue to receive title IV, HEAaid without further appeal if the studentis in financial aid warning status and heVerDate Mar2010 14:10 Oct 28, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29OCR2.SGM 29OCR2or she submits, and continues to meetthe terms of, an acceptable academicplan.Discussion: The proposed regulationsallow for significant flexibilities forinstitutions. If the institution wishes tomonitor at different periods in time,such as at the end of the first year, andthen by payment period after that, it isfree to do so. In this situation, onlythose students who are evaluated eachpayment period may receive theautomatic financial aid warning status.With regard to the second scenariodescribed by the commenter, a studentwho has appealed a determination thathe or she is not meeting satisfactoryacademic progress and is attending hisor her program under an approvedacademic plan because he or she is onfinancial aid warning status remainseligible for title IV, HEA aid as long ashe or she continues to meet theconditions of that plan. In such asituation, the student’s academicprogress would simply be re-evaluatedat the same time as the institution’sother title IV, HEA aid recipients areevaluated, unless its policy called for adifferent review period.Changes: None.Comment: One commenter noted thatat his institution summer is considereda trailing term, and the institutionevaluates SAP at the end of the springterm. The commenter asked whethersummer coursework could be usedretroactively as part of the student’sacademic plan. The commenter alsoquestioned whether the institutioncould state in its SAP policy that itreviews SAP after all work for theacademic year is completed. Under thisapproach, the institution would reviewsome students in the spring and othersafter they complete summer term.Another commenter asked how tohandle an optional summer term.Discussion: An institution may chooseto state in its SAP policy that itmonitors academic progress at the endof the student’s completion of theacademic year. These SAP regulationsstill leave the flexibility to theinstitution to determine what policywill best serve its students. We note,however, that under an institution’sSAP policy, the institution mustevaluate all of the student’s courseworkat some point, and that the financial aidwarning status described in § 668.34(b)is only available to institutions thatevaluate a student’s academic progressevery payment period.If an institution evaluates SAP bypayment period, then it would evaluatea student’s academic progress at the endof each payment period that the studentattends. If the institution evaluates SAP