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

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES266892 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 209 / Friday, October 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulationsschool diploma when they did notcomplete the required coursework toreceive an actual diploma from theschool and that these students mayincorrectly believe that the certificate oraward is a diploma.Discussion: Students who do notcomplete the required coursework toreceive a high school diploma from theirsecondary school by definition did notearn a high school diploma. Thesestudents are not eligible for title IV,HEA aid unless they meet the academicrequirement under one of thealternatives to a high school diploma in§ 668.32(e), or they are students withintellectual disabilities who are seekingPell, FSEOG, or FWS program assistanceunder § 668.233.Changes: None.Comment: One commenter asked usto clarify what would cause aninstitution to have ‘‘reason to believethat the high school diploma is not validor was not obtained from an entity thatprovides secondary school education.’’Discussion: We expect that there maybe a number of situations in which aninstitution will have reason to believethat an applicant’s high school diplomais not valid or was not obtained from anentity that provides secondary schooleducation. For example, institutionsmay come across information thatsuggests that the applicant’s diploma ortranscript was purchased with littlework expected of the student. OftenFAAs receive conflicting informationfrom students themselves, typically asremarks that cast doubt on someelement of the students’ applicationinformation. We expect the sameregarding valid high school diplomas.Moreover, institutions may have reasonto believe that a high school diploma isinvalid if they recognize the name of thehigh school as an entity that theyidentified in the past as being a highschool diploma mill.Changes: None.Comment: One commenter requestedthat we add a check box on the FAFSAfor applicants who completed secondaryschool in a foreign country and anempty space for them to fill in the nameof their secondary school. Thecommenter suggested that in thissituation, the student’s FAFSA wouldreceive a ‘‘C’’ code, not automatically,but at random, so that due diligencewould still be required by theinstitution.Discussion: When completing theFAFSA, applicants will be able to enterthe name of their high school if it is noton the Department’s drop-down list.Changes: None.Comment: One commenter expressedconcern that the wording of the secondnew question proposed for the FAFSA,as noted in the preamble to the NPRM,could be misleading and suggested thatthe Department use either of thefollowing questions instead:• In what State is the school listed inquestion #1 located? or• In what State was the school inwhich the student completed highschool located?Discussion: As we noted earlier in thispreamble, the 2011–2012 FAFSA asksfor applicants to indicate the name ofthe high school where they received orwill receive their diploma and the cityand State where the school is located.Changes: None.Return of Title IV, HEA Program Funds(§§ 668.22(a), 668.22(b), 668.22(f), and668.22(l))Treatment of Title IV, HEA ProgramFunds When a Student Withdraws FromTerm-Based Programs With Modules orCompressed Courses (§§ 668.22(a),668.22 (f) and 668.22 (l))Comment: Approximately 80commenters, mostly representinginstitutions, commented on theproposed changes to the treatment oftitle IV, HEA program funds when astudent withdraws from a programoffered in modules. Approximately 26of these commenters opposed theproposed changes, with somecommenters recommending that theDepartment not issue final regulations atthis time and instead seek further inputfrom the community.Many of these commenters believedthe proposed changes would be tooburdensome to institutions. Severalcommenters were concerned about theadditional administrative and financialburden the proposed changes wouldimpose on institutions by requiringthem to identify and process morestudents as withdrawals. A fewcommenters believed that, as a result ofthis burden, the proposed regulationswould discourage schools from offeringprograms in modules, potentiallycausing disruptive changes in courseofferings at institutions. A fewcommenters believed institutions wouldbe unable to comply with the proposedregulations because they are toocomplicated or too difficult to explain tostudents. One commenter believed theproposed regulations would force aninstitution to delay disbursements toprevent the institution or student fromhaving to return unearned title IV, HEAprogram funds if the student withdrew.Many of these commenters alsobelieved that the proposed changeswould be harmful to students becausesome students who withdrew afterVerDate Mar2010 14:10 Oct 28, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29OCR2.SGM 29OCR2completing one course in one modulewould earn less title IV, HEA programfunds. In particular, some commentersbelieved it was unfair to treat as awithdrawal a student who withdrewfrom a course or courses in the paymentperiod or period of enrollment, but whowould attend courses later in the samepayment period or period of enrollment,and wanted to know how to handle titleIV, HEA program funds in such cases.A few commenters believed theproposed regulations would discouragestudents from enrolling in programsstructured in modules, includingcompressed courses to acceleratecompletion of their program, which thecommenters believed was in conflictwith the provisions for two Federal PellGrants in one award year, which wereimplemented to support and makeequitable aid available for students whowish to complete their program sooner.A few commenters were concerned thata student who would now be counted asa withdrawal would be burdened withmore debt: To the institution for anyremaining balance of tuition and fees,and to the Department for Federal loansand or grant overpayments. Onecommenter noted that treating a studentas a withdrawal also has negativeconsequences for a student under theprovisions on satisfactory academicprogress and loan repayment.A few commenters believed theproposed regulations unfairly targetedcertain programs or institutions. Someof the commenters believed theproposed changes would treat studentsin module programs inequitably whencompared to students in moretraditional programs where courses areoffered concurrently. One commenterbelieved that the proposed regulationswould have a disproportionatelynegative affect for students in careertechnical programs, as many of thoseprograms are taught in a condensed,modular form. Some commentersbelieved the proposed regulationsunfairly focused on only term-basedcredit-hour programs.Approximately 25 of the commentersexpressed an understanding of theDepartment’s concern with studentsreceiving full or large amounts of titleIV, HEA program funds for a shortperiod of attendance during a paymentperiod or period of enrollment. Acouple of those commenters agreed withthe proposed changes. Others believedthat the current guidance from DearColleague Letter of December 2000,GEN–00–24, Return of Title IV Aid-Volume #1—which provided that astudent who completed only onemodule or compressed course within aterm was not considered to have