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

66884 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 209 / Friday, October 29, 2010 / Rules and RegulationsWReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES2category when measuring pace towardscompletion for each SAP evaluationperiod.Changes: None.Comment: One commenterrecommended that the Departmentrevise § 668.34(a) to require transfercredits to be considered whendetermining progress towards maximumtimeframe, but not for purposes ofdetermining the pace of completion foreach evaluation period. This commenterstated that counting transfer creditswhen looking at each evaluation periodwould give transfer students an unfairadvantage in the pace to completioncalculation.Another commenter noted that thepractice of excluding courses that werenot degree applicable from the pacecalculation for evaluating SAP hasprompted many students to changemajors in order to retain financial aideligibility. The commenter opined thatthis practice leaves the door open toabuse of the system. Additionally, thecommenter stated that the Departmentshould require that all courses that thestudent had attempted and completed inhis entire career be included in the pacecomputation for purposes ofdetermining the student’s progresstoward program completion.Discussion: The Departmentacknowledges that transfer students mayhave a slight advantage over otherstudents when an institution calculatestheir pace toward program completion.However, this inclusion of transfercredits in the calculation of pace willallow for a more level playing field forall students, and standardize treatmentof completed credits in the SAPevaluation. This is because includingtransfer credits in the calculation ofpace means we are considering allcompleted work for all students.We also note that the Department hashad a longstanding policy thatinstitutions are free to set their own SAPpolicy that deals with major changes asthey relate to measurement of maximumtimeframe. Therefore, if an institutionwishes to limit the number of majorchanges that it will allow a student,then it is free to set a policy that doesso.Changes: None.Financial Aid Probation and FinancialAid Warning StatusesComment: Many commenters foundthe definitions of the terms financial aidwarning and financial aid probation inproposed § 668.34(b) to be helpful.These commenters stated that it wasvery useful to have standard vocabularyto use when discussing SAP. Somecommenters noted that these terms andconcepts matched their current policywhile others requested slight changes tothe terms or definitions so that theyalign more closely with their owninstitution’s policies. Severalcommenters sought clarification,however, as to whether institutions arerequired under these regulations to usethe newly defined terms of financial aidwarning and financial aid probation intheir consumer information and othercommunications with students, orwhether we would allow them tocontinue to use their currentterminology. These commentersexpressed concern that their studentsmight be confused if they changed theterminology used in this area.Discussion: The Department intendsto allow institutions to have as muchflexibility as possible in developing anappropriate SAP policy for theirinstitution as well as consumerinformation materials for their students.However, institutions must incorporatethese regulations changes into theinformation that they provide tostudents; this includes ensuring that theinformation made available by theinstitution uses the terminology used inthese regulations.Changes: None.Comment: Several commentersexpressed support for the addition ofthe concept of a financial aid warningstatus, but believed that the use of thisstatus should be available to allinstitutions, regardless of how oftenthey performed a SAP evaluation. Someof the commenters asserted that thiswould allow institutions additionalflexibility in administering SAP thatwould be beneficial for students. Somecommenters also noted that it would bean administrative burden to reviewstudents more frequently. Othersindicated that they had stable studentpopulations and did not need toevaluate more often than annually. Atleast one commenter opined thatschools with good graduation andcompletion rates should be able to usethe financial aid warning statusregardless of how often they checkedSAP. Some commenters argued that thefinancial aid warning status should bean option for all institutions to useautomatically and without intervention,and for periods as long as a year or untilthe next scheduled evaluation. Onecommenter suggested that in exchangefor allowing all institutions to use thefinancial aid warning status regardlessof how often they evaluate students’academic progress, institutions shouldbe required to remind students of theirSAP standards at the end of anypayment period in which an evaluationis not done. Some commenters wantedVerDate Mar2010 14:10 Oct 28, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29OCR2.SGM 29OCR2to know if the financial aid warningstatus could be used to evaluate astudent’s progress and to help toprepare an academic plan and appealfor the student, so that the studentwould not suffer a lapse in eligibility.Discussion: While we appreciate thefact that institutions support theflexibility that the financial aid warningstatus provides, the Department feelsstrongly that this option should only beavailable when an institution evaluatesSAP each payment period. It isimportant to remember that a studentwho is on a financial aid warning statusis one who is not actually meeting SAPstandards.If an institution has a stable studentpopulation and does not believe it needsto evaluate SAP each payment period,then it is not required to do so. Werecognize that there is an additionaladministrative burden involved forinstitutions to evaluate every paymentperiod, but we also believe studentsbenefit from the early intervention ofthis approach. We believe that thisapproach will impact favorably onstudent completion rates, as well ashelp minimize student debt levels forthose that are not on track to completea program successfully. We note that,during the negotiated rulemakingprocess, several negotiators had a SAPpolicy that required checking astudent’s academic progress eachpayment period. These negotiatorsrelated numerous student successstories that resulted from earlyintervention. This demonstrated successwith this approach led to the negotiatorssupporting the proposed SAPregulations.We believe that it is important to getstudents back on track as soon aspossible, and not allow the continuedprovision of title IV, HEA aid tostudents who are not making progresstowards program completion under theinstitution’s SAP standards. Allowing afinancial aid warning status for onepayment period allows the institution toprovide an alert to that student of hisstatus, as well as provide any neededsupport services. The institution coulduse the time to meet with the studentand, if the situation means that anappeal will be necessary, to help thestudent prepare that appeal or toprepare an academic plan. The samebenefit is not realized if the studentsimply receives notice of theinstitution’s SAP policy, as he may notunderstand his individual status withregards to the policy.Changes: None.Comment: Several commentersexpressed support for the financial aidwarning and financial aid probation