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

66836 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 209 / Friday, October 29, 2010 / Rules and RegulationsWReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES2conveyed to prospective students. Topromote the goal of facilitating informedchoice, the disclosure must be simpleand meaningful.The Department intends to develop inthe future a disclosure form and will beseeking public comment about thedesign of the form through theinformation collection process underthe Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995(PRA). While the form will bedeveloped through that process, theregulations require institutions toprovide clear and prominent notice,delivered to students at appropriatetimes and in promotional materialsprior to enrollment. Until a form isdeveloped and approved under the PRAprocess, institutions must comply withthese disclosure requirementsindependently. In addition, we agreewith the comments that disclosuresalone are likely to be inadequate andhave proposed to establish programperformance standards in our NPRM onProgram Integrity—Gainful Employmentthat was published in the FederalRegister on July 26, 2010 (75 FR 43616).Changes: Section 668.6(b) has beenrevised to provide that an institutionmust prominently provide theinformation it is required to discloseabout a program in a simple andmeaningful manner on the home page ofits program Web site, and provideprominent and direct links to this pageon any other Web page containinggeneral, academic, or admissionsinformation about the program. Therevised provision also states that aninstitution must use the disclosure formdeveloped by the Secretary when itbecomes available and the disclosureinformation must be displayed on theinstitution’s Web site in an open formatthat can be retrieved, downloaded,indexed, and searched by commonlyuse Web search applications. An openformat is one that is platformindependent,is machine-readable, andis made available to the public withoutrestrictions that would impede the reuseof that information.Finally, § 668.6(b) has been revised toprovide that an institution must makethe information available in thepromotional materials conveyed toprospective students.Placement RatesComment: Many commenters objectedto using the placement rate calculationin § 668.8(g) arguing that it is overlyburdensome and administrativelycomplex. The commenters opined thattracking a student for 180 days aftergraduation for a period of 13 weeks wastoo long and believed that it would bevirtually impossible for the Departmentor any other auditor to affirm theaccuracy of the placement data becausethe tracking period represents nothingmore than a snap-shot of how manystudents were employed for 13 weeks atthe time the data was collected. Thecommenters asserted that if theDepartment requires placementinformation to be disclosed to students,the information that an institutioncurrently provides to its accreditingagency, which routinely assesses thatinformation, would be more accurate. Inaddition, the commenters wereconcerned about potential conflicts withthe misrepresentation provisions insubpart F of part 668 on the groundsthat any placement rate disclosed tostudents would be obsolete as soon asit was posted to an institution’s Website. Some of the same commentersobjected to the proposed alternative ofrelying on State-sponsored workforcedata systems arguing that there is noconsistency between the States thatmaintain employment outcome data,and that in many cases the datacollected fails to provide a full andaccurate depiction of the demand,growth, and earnings of keyoccupations.A number of commenters opposedusing the placement rate calculation in§ 668.8(g) arguing that it is a highlyrestrictive measure developed solely forextremely short programs offered by afew institutions. The commenters notedthat an institution is already requiredunder § 668.41(d)(5) to disclose anyplacement rates it calculates and that itwould be confusing to students todisclose any additional rates beyondthose that it is required to calculateunder accrediting agency or Staterequirements. Some of thesecommenters suggested that in caseswhere an institution is not required byits accrediting agency to calculateplacement rates, the institution shouldcalculate the rates using a methodologyfrom a national accrediting agency orthe State in which the institution isauthorized to operate. Under either theagency or State methodology, thecommenters requested flexibility indetermining the rates for degreeprograms because employmentopportunities for graduates of degreeprograms are much more diverse thanfor graduates of occupationally specifictraining programs.One commenter stated that itsinstitution’s mission of educatingworking adults is at odds with theconcept of placement rates—many ofthe institution’s students are alreadyemployed and enroll to enhance theircareers through further education. Inaddition, the commenter stated that itVerDate Mar2010 14:10 Oct 28, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29OCR2.SGM 29OCR2would be impractical to administer a jobplacement regime for students takingonline programs who reside throughoutthe world. The commenterrecommended that placement rates becalculated in accordance with aninstitution’s accrediting agency or Staterequirements, but that the proposeddisclosures should not apply wherethere are no agency or Staterequirements. As an alternative, thecommenter suggested that regionallyaccredited institutions, which are notrequired to track employment outcomes,conduct post graduation surveys askingprogram graduates if they are working intheir field. An affirmative responsewould count as a ‘‘placement’’ even ifthe graduate maintained the sameemployment he or she had whileattending the institution. Along thesame lines, another commentersuggested that the Department allow aninstitution that is not required by anoutside agency to calculate placementrates, to develop and implement amethod that best reflects the make-up ofits student body, including surveys,collecting employer documentation, orother methods.One commenter objected to using theplacement rate calculation intended forshort-term programs in § 668.8(g)because all of its programs were at orabove the baccalaureate level. While thecommenter stated that requiring publicdisclosure of relevant outcomes putspressure on an institution to ensure thatit is providing a good education to itsstudents, the commenter suggested thatunless an institution’s accreditingagency or State requires it to discloseplacement rates, the institution shouldonly disclose rates that it calculates onan annual basis for internal purposes orany employment or placementinformation it receives from surveyingits students. Another commenter madethe same suggestions and asked theDepartment to clarify that placementrates would only need to be updatedannually.Another commenter argued that theplacement rate methodology in§ 668.8(g) was never intended forgainful employment purposes and madeseveral recommendations including:(1) Excluding from the total number ofstudents who completed a programduring an award year, the students whoare unable to seek employment due toa medical condition, active militaryduty, international status, continuingeducation, incarceration, or death. Inaddition, an institution could excludethose graduates who certify they are notseeking employment or those that it isunable to locate. The commenterspecified the documentation an