At 11th hour, judge blocks Trump’s pause on federal funding (Higher Ed Dive)

“UPDATE: Jan. 28, 2025: A U.S. District judge halted the government’s temporary freeze on federal funding just minutes before it was set to take effect at 5 p.m. Tuesday, according to news reports. U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan in Washington, D.C., blocked the Trump administration’s directive for one week.

The challenge came from a coalition of organizations that filed a on Tuesday. The plaintiffs, represented in the legal challenge by Democracy Forward, include the National Council of Nonprofits, the American Public Health Association, Main Street Alliance, and SAGE.” 

Other coverage:

Please look out for future Policy Matters updates with the latest on this developing story.

 

Department of Education reminds institutions that misrepresentation rules extend to third party service providers

On January 16, the U.S. Department of Education published  to remind institutions of their obligations to avoid misrepresentations when working with third-party service providers, including Online Program Managers (OPMs). While noting this is not an exhaustive list, the Department provides examples and warnings relating to the following practices: (i) inaccurately identifying an individual employed by an external service provider such as an OPM as being employed by the institution itself; (ii) inaccurately presenting a sales representative or recruiter as an academic advisor; (iii) and describing a version of a program provided in partnership with an external service provider as an institution’s campus-based version of the program when there are meaningful differences. Many of the examples provided involve third party employees implying affiliation with the institution or the institution failing to properly disclose the involvement of an external service provider in the program. According to the Department, this letter was intended to remind institutions that the Higher Education Act’s prohibition on providing false, misleading, or inaccurate information about the nature of educational programs “applies equally to circumstances where an institution has arranged for an external service provider to exclusively manage functions of online programs, such as recruitment, advising, and clinical placements.” 

 

NEW Primers and Insights Resource – 

Introducing a new resource tailored for higher education professionals looking to build online and professional educational partnerships with foreign universities: International Policy Matters to International Program Success: Considerations for International Programming in Online and Professional Higher Education. This resource provides a broad overview of some of the most critical policies that affect international online and professional education programming. More importantly, it provides UPCEA members with key questions to ask about a potential international online and professional education program in order to adequately measure the policy risk involved. Knowing what questions to ask during the project planning and vetting stage will help surface risks that can help institutions judge the merits of a given international education project, and if they proceed, avoid delays and challenges during implementation. 

 

U.S. Department of Education Reveals New Distance Education and Program Integrity Rules: Final Outcomes and Responses to Concerns Raised by UPCEA

In this blog post, UPCEA Senior Policy Fellow and Associate Director of Compliance and Policy at the University of Michigan’s Center for Academic Innovation, Ricky LaFosse, summarizes key issues from the Department of Education’s new distance education and program integrity rules addressing a number of topics raised during negotiated rulemaking in 2024, along with the final decisions made by the Department. 

 

Other News

The Department of Education recently published new distance education and program integrity rules that address a number of topics raised during negotiated rulemaking sessions held in early 2024. Many of the proposals shared in the Department’s July 24, 2024, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) have been rescinded. Of those that remain, most are scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2026. Not all of the issues raised in the associated negotiated rulemaking sessions for these rules had even made it to the proposed rule stage, however, and the Department has now formally terminated its rulemaking efforts with regard to those remaining issue areas (i.e., State Authorization, Cash Management, and Accreditation and Related Issues). 

From the beginning, the Department’s rulemaking sessions had involved several highly controversial proposals that had the potential to significantly impact UPCEA’s membership, particularly with regard to the administration of online programs. For example, the Department was considering restricting interstate reciprocity benefits and establishing enrollment caps, requiring attendance taking for distance education courses based on recorded instances of academic engagement, and removing Title IV student aid eligibility from asynchronous clock hour programs. These could have had the effect of raising costs for institutions and students, and, in some cases, may have actually resulted in students having fewer protections despite the Department’s stated intention to enhance those protections.     

Given the controversial nature of what was being considered during this rulemaking cycle, UPCEA—often in collaboration with several other higher education membership and advocacy organizations—raised a number of questions and concerns that were shared via letters to the Department and through public comment opportunities. Specifically, UPCEA submitted or contributed to the following: 

Below is a summary of key issues raised in these documents along with the final decisions made by the Department.

Mandatory Attendance Taking for Distance Education

UPCEA and its collaborators expressed concern over the proposed mandate for attendance taking in distance education settings, arguing that it could lead to confusion and potential harm to students, who could be inappropriately withdrawn from courses after 14 days with no recorded instance of academic engagement. We also noted that significant administrative burden and confusion could follow for faculty and staff who may sometimes need to juggle multiple versions of attendance or track engagement across multiple platforms all while applying unique definitions to ensure accurate record keeping. 

Result. In its final rules, the Department removed its proposed provision under § 668.22(b)(3)(ii) for required attendance taking in distance education courses, stating that it was “persuaded by concerns about the need for continued development in [student engagement tracking] tools to make them consistently effective for this [attendance taking] purpose, including the need for system interoperability.” The Department did, however, express continued concern over the potential for abuse in this area but believed removing this provision for the time being would “provide more time to evaluate technological changes that can better track student engagement.” 

“Virtual Locations” and New Distance Education Data Reporting

A number of comments submitted to the Department voiced apprehension over the proposal to establish “virtual locations” largely for data reporting purposes. UPCEA and other commenters feared that this development, combined with the related proposal to establish unique distance education enrollment data reporting obligations using yet-to-be-determined prompts, would be used as a tool to diminish online education offerings. In addition to the added burden unique to distance education, there had been a concern that, in part due to the different populations of students often served through distance education, direct comparisons made across online and in-person programs could potentially produce flawed data that may, nevertheless, be used to inform future policymaking efforts. 

That being said, we did not outright oppose these changes given the potentially valuable data to be collected for research purposes. We also voiced support for students gaining easier access to closure protections through the addition of a virtual location designation, which the Department suggested would be the case. Instead of asking the Department to abandon these proposals, we sought a delay to the effective date along with more information regarding the motives and anticipated use cases for these data collection efforts. 

Result. In the final rules, the Department has removed the definition of a virtual additional location from §  600.2. In doing so, however, it uses the rationale that this provision may be unnecessary in consideration of the similar proposals relating to the expanded collection of distance education enrollment data through National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS) reporting. Though, it acknowledges this would have no effect on closed school loan discharges, which had been another policy aim of the virtual location proposal. Institutions will not be required to report new distance education enrollment information until July 1, 2027, which pushes the deadline back a full year from what had initially been proposed. Regarding concerns over the use of those data to create potentially misleading comparisons across modalities, the Department states that it “would not evaluate information about distance education in a vacuum [and various demographic] factors would also be taken into account when developing policies around distance education.” 

Asynchronous Clock Hour Courses

Regarding the Department’s proposal to remove eligibility from asynchronous clock hour programs, UPCEA and others noted that there are already requirements in place to ensure these programs still provide opportunities for regular and substantive interaction. If the concern was primarily over the lack of institutional capabilities to track engagement and ensure the proper amount of time is being spent for each “clock hour” tied to aid disbursement, meanwhile, then we suggested that more guidance on how to do this to the Department’s satisfaction might be preferable to an outright elimination of these programs. 

Result. The Department has removed this proposal from its final rules but does note that it “will continue to conduct oversight on how institutions offer any asynchronous clock hour programs and may revisit this issue at a later date through a future rulemaking effort if we find continued evidence of widespread problems.”

State Authorization Reciprocity 

While most of the questions and concerns highlighted above are reflected in public comment submissions that UPCEA participated in, there were a number of issues from this same rulemaking cycle, such as those involving state authorization, which never culminated in a proposed rule being issued by the Department. When it appeared as though such a proposal was still forthcoming, however, UPCEA and a number of other organizations co-signed a letter to the Department to express concerns over various proposals featured in issue papers that had been shared with negotiators at the time. 

Of primary concern, the Department had been considering setting enrollment limits for the applicability of reciprocity agreements such as the State Authorization Reciprocity Agreements (SARA) and permitting states to separately enforce a broad range of “closure” laws (e.g., surety bond and teach-out requirements) regardless of what a reciprocity agreement might say on the matter. These moves could have, in effect, removed some of the main benefits of SARA for institutions by requiring institutions to follow a patchwork of state laws. Additionally, these rule changes could have unintentionally removed protections from students in a number of states due to the relatively weak—if not nonexistent—distance education oversight and enforcement capabilities outside of SARA in those states. UPCEA and other organizations expressed concern over the Department’s interference with a voluntary agreement among states and institutions of higher education and asked the Department to instead allow for existing policymaking processes specific to SARA, which states have a prominent voice in, to address concerns over student protections. 

Result. The Department appeared to be receptive to these arguments. In withdrawing its state authorization rulemaking efforts, the Department stated that “it is worth evaluating how State-led efforts at improving state authorization proceed before making further regulatory changes.” The Department continues, “This particularly involves the policy modification process adopted by the National Council for State Authorization Reciprocity Agreements (NC-SARA) . . . [and] allowing this policy modification process to continue is one way to address the Department’s goals.”

Concluding Thoughts

As is reflected in the signature lines to letters and comments linked above, UPCEA engaged in this advocacy work largely through important collaborations with other organizations, including ACE, WCET, QM, OLC, the National Association of Colleges and University Business Officers, and the American Association of Community Colleges. We thank these organizations for their many contributions to the collective advocacy efforts that have been so necessary over this past year in support of online and continuing education. Likewise, we extend our thanks to individuals from UPCEA member institutions who have shared their concerns with us and the broader UPCEA community, which we have been able to amplify through these collaborative efforts. Given the amount of change that has taken place between the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and these final rules, it appears as though these efforts, along with the 450+ public comments that ED received, have been impactful and that the Department is carefully considering the community’s input in good faith. We appreciate the Department doing so.   

A common theme found throughout the Department’s responses to public comments is that, while a number of key proposals have been withdrawn, this does not mean the Department will not provide oversight over the underlying issues that prompted these rulemaking efforts in the first place. The Department has also made clear that, as it continues in this oversight role, it may engage in future rulemaking efforts on these same topics at a later date. We recommend that institutions carefully review both the final distance education regulations and the termination notice to learn more about the potential abuses the Department had been concerned with. Additional guidance may be gleaned from the Department’s responses to public comments and descriptions of how the existing regulatory framework will be enforced to achieve the Department’s policy goals of protecting students along with the investments made by taxpayers in Title IV programs.  

 

Ricky LaFosse, JD, PhD is UPCEA’s Senior Policy Fellow and the Associate Director of Compliance and Policy and the University of Michigan’s Center for Academic Innovation. Ricky had more than a decade of online education compliance and policy experience, and has long supported the work of UPCEA’s Policy Committee, including as a former Chair.

Proposed Distance Education Rules Are Now Likely To Be Finalized Before the End of the Current Presidential Term

On December 30, the U.S. Department of Education (Department) shared the  of its new program integrity and distance education regulations, which call for the collection of new but yet-to-be-established distance education and correspondence course enrollment data reporting categories with obligations for institutions set to begin on July 1, 2027. Other provisions included in these rules, such as the addition of a “distance education course” definition, are scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2026. While the Department’s  associated with these rules had initially included proposals to remove Title IV eligibility from asynchronous clock hours programs, establish “virtual locations,” and require institutions to take attendance for all distance education courses through documenting instances of academic engagement, each of these more significant proposals were removed from the final version.

Meanwhile, on December 24, the Department also  that it has terminated what had been ongoing rulemaking efforts concerning “State Authorization” (e.g., placing a number of restrictions on state authorization reciprocity agreements), “Cash Management,” and “Accreditation and Related Issues.” These topics were negotiated during the same rulemaking sessions that culminated in the final regulations described above. A proposed rule on these remaining topics was never released, however. Now, these specific topics have been withdrawn from further rulemaking efforts for the foreseeable future.

 

 (Higher Ed Dive)

“Fifty higher education groups on Friday urged the U.S. Department of Education to  for the new gainful employment and financial value transparency regulations. Colleges have until Jan. 15 to meet the reporting deadline for the new regulations, a date the Education Department has already  after releasing rules last year. The gainful employment rule requires career training programs to prove their graduates earn enough to pay off their federal loans and meet certain earnings thresholds — or else risk losing access to Title IV federal financial aid.” 

 

 (Inside Higher Ed)

“Representative Tim Walberg, a Michigan Republican, has been selected to chair the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, picking up the gavel for the 119th Congress from longtime committee leader Virginia Foxx of North Carolina. […] In , the representative said he wants to bolster school choice, make college more affordable, boost apprenticeships and internships, pass a bipartisan short-term Pell Grant bill for workforce training programs, and reauthorize the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, which governs workforce development programs.” 

 

 (NASFAA)

“President Joe Biden on Wednesday signed into law , a bipartisan bill that makes October 1 the official launch date of the FAFSA each year. The FAFSA Deadline Act, introduced by Rep. Erin Houchin (R-Ind.), who sits on the House Committee on Education and the Workforce,  with a 381-1 vote and . Specifically, the law makes October 1 the official launch date for the FAFSA each year and directs the Department of Education (ED) to certify by September 1 that the FAFSA will be ready by October 1. However, if ED anticipates that the FAFSA will not launch on October 1, the department will need to testify before Congress to explain why.” 

 

Other News

 

Policy Matters: Primers and Insights

As institutions of higher education continue to innovate with online courses and professional continuing education programs, having a general understanding of the regulatory landscape that such initiatives are subject to is critical to their long-term success. These resources provide an introduction to foundational topics in federal legislation and regulations impacting online and professional continuing education for universities and colleges.

Major Updates

Recently Proposed Distance Education Regulations, Changes to Third-Party Servicers, Incentive Compensation, Are Unlikely to Move Forward
The Department of Education’s recent negotiated rulemaking session aimed to revise key regulations, including those related to distance education. However, consensus among stakeholders wasn’t reached, leaving the Department to decide on proposed language. While some, like distance education, were selected for advancement by the Biden Administration, others—such as state authorization and accreditation—were postponed for future rulemaking.

The Department missed the November 1st federal calendar deadline to release the final distance education rules, which if released by then could have been implemented by July 1, 2025, however missing that deadline means if the rules are to be released, any potential implementation would not occur until July 1, 2026. A separate set of rules were imagined to be worked through by the outgoing administration earlier this summer, including reworking third-party servicers and incentive compensation. Although the Biden administration could still finalize these rules before leaving office, the incoming Trump administration would likely want to overturn them through executive or congressional action.

Had the election gone differently, these regulations might have been prepared for implementation. However, under the current political landscape, their chances of being finalized, and then also their eventual survival are slim. Still, taking note of these proposals remains crucial, as their potential impacts could resurface in future discussions. Other policies like Gainful Employment (GE) and Financial Value Transparency (FVT) could also be on the chopping block. 

 

Linda McMahon Nominated as Trump’s Pick for Education Secretary

Donald Trump has announced Linda McMahon, Chair of the Board at the America First Policy Institute (AFPI), as his nominee for Secretary of Education. Previously, McMahon served as Administrator of the Small Business Administration under Trump from 2017 to 2019. Earlier in her career, she was President and CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE). If confirmed, McMahon’s policy priorities may reflect AFPI’s recent work in higher education, which can be explored here. Notably, she authored a September op-ed advocating for Pell grants to support short-term training programs, which may indicate where her efforts in the incoming administration will be focused. Read more.


Other News

 

Major Updates

Department of Education Warns Institutions on Misleading Representations, Urges Compliance
The US Department of Education’s Federal Student Aid (FSA) recently released an announcement bulletin that highlights activities that could indicate institutions are engaging in substantial misrepresentations—such as misleading claims about program costs, job placement, or licensure—and as such, face serious penalties. The bulletin emphasizes that institutions must avoid false or unsubstantiated statements to potential students, as violations can result in fines or restrictions on federal financial aid participation. Institutional staff should carefully review marketing materials and statements to ensure compliance and avoid misleading representations that could harm students and the institution’s standing. Please share this information with your institutional leadership and marketing teams, and be sure to also note our brand new resource below—Marketing Considerations Through the Lens of Regulations, Policies and Compliance.

The following are, according to the Department, “examples of instances observed by FSA in its oversight activities that could result in non-compliance. This is not an exhaustive list and other conduct not included may constitute actionable substantial misrepresentations.

  • Schools have compared their job placement rates to that of peer institutions without sufficient and demonstrable substantiation.

  • Schools have stated or implied that their degrees or certificates will help students become licensed in a field that does not require licensure.

  • Schools have made unsubstantiated claims about their “ranking” compared to other schools, for example by claiming without any basis that they are the number one liberal arts college in the country.

  • Schools have marketed certain characteristics of their faculty that are inaccurate or unrepresentative.

  • Schools have made statements that may mislead prospective students into thinking they are a public school or a non-profit school.

  • Schools have advertised or published documents stating a program’s cost of attendance or net price that are inaccurate or pertain only to a minority of students.”

For more details, you can access the full announcement here.

 

Marketing Considerations Through the Lens of Regulations, Policies and Compliance – NEW Primers and Insights Resource

Introducing a new resource tailored for higher education marketers and recruiters: Marketing Considerations Through the Lens of Regulations, Policies and Compliance. This guide provides an introduction to regulations that can impact marketing in online and professional education. It provides key insights on compliance essentials, as well as highlights the risks of noncompliance and strategies for navigating these laws and regulations. Whether you want to assess or refine existing campaigns or launching new initiatives, this resource is designed to help ensure your marketing practices are transparent, effective, and aligned with regulatory requirements. Explore it now to boost your compliance and marketing success! Access our new Policy Matters: Primers and Insights – Marketing Considerations Through the Lens of Regulations, Policies and Compliance.

 

Unimplemented Third Party Servicers Guidance To Get Officially Withdrawn – Negotiated Rulemaking on Topic Still To Come

The US Department of Education has announced it will formally withdraw its proposed guidance to regulate third-party servicers (TPS), which had aimed to extend oversight to companies contracting with colleges, including online program managers (OPMs). Originally issued in February 2023, the guidance faced pushback from higher ed groups, including UPCEA, citing negative impacts to institutions. The Department delayed the guidance, and then announced it would be replaced, and it never officially took effect. The withdrawal will be finalized within weeks, but the potential for change still is looming, as the department shifts its focus to a formal negotiated rulemaking process for updating TPS regulations. Read more.

Other News

Major Updates

Reporting Deadline on GE and FVT Pushed to 2025
The Department of Education (ED) has announced a further delay in the reporting deadline for Gainful Employment (GE) and Financial Value Transparency (FVT) until early 2025. Initially extended to October 1, 2024, the deadline has now been pushed to January 15, 2025. This follows a series of calls from institutions and organizations including UPCEA, as well as a recent letter from a group of bipartisan senators asking for additional clarification and time to implement this reporting, especially given issues with FAFSA. ED aims to release the first complete GE/FVT results in time for the next award year to guide students’ college decisions. Read more.


A Collection of FAFSA Updates and Resources

  • The Long-Awaited FAFSA Autopsy Is Here (Inside Higher Ed)
    • “A government watchdog’s investigation into last year’s rollout of the new Free Application for Federal Student Aid found that Education Department officials failed to properly test and prepare the form and launched it despite signs that it was not ready for wide release—an oversight that proved disastrous.

      The department’s missteps are detailed in two documents from the U.S. Government Accountability Office released Tuesday. Their findings were at the center of a House higher education subcommittee hearing Tuesday that featured testimony from two GAO officials, where lawmakers on both sides of the aisle pressed for answers about who was to blame for the failures and called for accountability.” Read more.

  • Secretary’s Cover Letter: A Focus on Improving the FAFSA Experience (US Department of Education)

 

Other News

Major Updates

Digital Accessibility Requirements For Online Learning | UPCEA Primers + Insights – NEW
How Disability Anti-Discrimination Laws Impact Online Courses and Programs

Across UPCEA’s membership and higher education more broadly, every individual plays an important role in fostering inclusive environments. Digital accessibility is not just a regulatory requirement but a cornerstone of inclusive learning environments. There are substantial accessibility requirements from the Department of Justice recently established which will apply broadly to public universities (and possibly other institutional categories) in the coming years. As part of our commitment to support and enhance UPCEA members’ understanding of federal compliance issues, we are proud to announce the latest addition to our Policy Matters: Primers and Insights series, titled “Digital Accessibility Requirements for Online Learning and Programs.”

This brand new resource details digital accessibility requirements primarily from a legal perspective. However, it is ultimately intended to serve as a more foundational resource to help those working in a wide range of roles to both support risk mitigation efforts and implement appropriate measures to create a more inclusive online learning landscape. This publication is designed to empower every member of the UPCEA community, in various roles, to understand US federal accessibility expectations and enforcement, as well as compliance tips to consider. 

We hope you will find this resource helpful and encourage you to continue the important conversation around digital accessibility in online learning by sharing any additional resources and examples you may have as well as questions and concerns in our CORe discussion thread about the resource. Access our new resource.

This resource is the latest in our new compliance series, Policy Matters: Primers and Insights – helping you navigate policy frameworks critical to higher education in the United States. Find additional Policy Matters: Primers and Insights here.

 

Other News

  • Funding Opportunities Shared from US Department of Education OCTAE:

    • $25 Million Good Jobs Challenge Notice of Funding Opportunity – will support sectoral partnerships that bring together diverse stakeholders, including employers, labor unions, education institutions, training organizations, community-based organizations, and others to develop high-quality training programs that lead directly to a good job. EDA anticipates making five to eight awards ranging from $1 million to $8 million, which are anticipated to be announced in winter 2024. Applications due September 27, 2024.

    • Applications for New Awards; Transitioning Gang-Involved Youth to Higher Education Program – inviting applications for fiscal year 2024 for the Transitioning Gang-Involved Youth to Higher Education (TGIY) Program. The TGIY Program aims to provide a funding opportunity for organizations that work directly with gang-involved youth to help such youth pursue higher education opportunities that will lead to certification or credentials. Applications due September 24, 2024.

    • Department of Labor Workforce Development Grants – YouthBuild – DOL will award grants through a competitive process to organizations providing pre-apprenticeship services that support education, occupational skills training, and employment services to opportunity youth, ages 16 to 24, who are performing meaningful work and service to their communities. The YouthBuild program model prepares participants for quality jobs in a variety of careers, in diverse industry sectors, particularly in infrastructure sectors, and includes wrap-around services such as mentoring, trauma-informed care, personal counseling, transportation supports, and employment preparation — all key strategies for addressing violence in communities. YouthBuild applicants must include construction skills training and may include occupational skills training in other in-demand industries. Applications due September 18, 2024.

    • Strengthening Community Colleges Training Grants – to build community colleges’ capacity to meet the skill development needs of employers and equitably support students in obtaining good jobs in in-demand industries. Grantees will enhance sector-based career pathways programs using strategies rooted in evidence and designed to build further evidence on the effectiveness of sector-based career pathways programs in leading to positive employment outcomes. Successful applicants will use the diverse strengths of their Strengthening Community Colleges Partnership members to accomplish and sustain systems change. Applications due September 24, 2024.

Major Updates


New Distance Education Regulations Proposed by ED Includes Required Attendance-Taking, Additional Reporting – Public Comment Open Until August 23

UPCEA Members Take Note, and Make a Comment!
The US Department of Education recently released the proposed regulations for Distance Education, Return to Title IV, and TRIO. In another major announcement, they signaled in a blog post that other topics including State Authorization, cash management, and accreditation will be published by next year. The Department also updated the community that Third-Party Servicers would have its own negotiated rulemaking session and Incentive Compensation Ban would have revised guidance by the end of the year as well. Quite the substantive blog post for higher education policy wonks!

The Distance Education, Return to Title IV, and TRIO proposed regulations are available here. The public comment period runs until August 23. We encourage you to share with your institutional administration and discuss how you’d like to respond to the various proposed regulations. Those changes which are most important to the UPCEA community include:

  • Require Attendance-Taking in 100% Distance Education Courses – Mandatory attendance-taking for each student for 100% distance education courses, except for dissertation research courses within doctoral programs. This is to track if federal financial aid should be returned to the ED if the student withdraws from the course or institution. If so, the institution must document the last day of attendance for that student, and if the student does not engage in a course for 14 days, must withdraw the student from the course and document that date.
    • To the Department, this requirement is not achieved by a user simply logging in to the LMS, they must take some other form of academic engagement, such as taking a test, engaging with a discussion post, etc.
    • While the Department estimates institutions can “often easily determine when students stop attending because a school’s systems can often identify when students submit assignments or interact with instructors and students during lectures and course discussions, and students are often continuously monitored to track academic engagement,” we at UPCEA estimate that this will likely require your institutions to develop and track attendance in ways that you have not previously, and may require coordination of disparate systems to make it happen.

 

  • Additional Virtual Location for 100% Distance Education/Correspondence Programs – The Department is proposing that a new institutional location apply to all of an institution’s 100% distance education and correspondence programs. The Department’s goals with this new virtual location category is to capture data about an institution’s distance education programs to better measure outcomes of these programs, provide better oversight through program reviews, and determine the states where federal financial aid students are located. It also has suggested this provision for if an institution stops offering all distance education courses, as well as if an institution stops offering in-person instruction, but still has distance programs. In the Department’s words, this is to “provide greater protection for students if an institution offering both distance education and in-person instruction suspends coursework in one modality but maintains the other. Students whose modality has been discontinued and who may not wish to, or may not be able to, continue in the alternative modality, would be eligible for closed school discharges”. The Department notes the additional locations are still 100% distance education even if requirements for students to complete on-campus or residential periods of 90 days or less exist.

 

  • Reporting on Title IV Student Enrollment in Distance Education or Correspondence Courses – The Department is proposing additional data to be collected on distance education and correspondence courses, which would be a much broader set of data than institutions have provided on these students and courses to this point. The Department indicated they would be collecting more data, but they indicated the specific details of that reporting have not yet been determined, but wanted to establish the general requirement ahead of releasing those details and indicated it could include program oversight audits, outcome metrics, College Scorecard program-level data, debt earnings, completion rates, the amount of Title IV funds expended on distance education programs, and the State in which the distant student is located while enrolled. They have indicated the effective date of this provision would be July 1, 2026.

 

  • Disallowing Asynchronous Distance Education Clock-Hour Programs – While different from credit-hour programs that are offered on most UPCEA member institutional campuses, clock-hour programs are a measurement of the student’s minute-by-minute work on their learning. Since 2020, the Department has allowed for asynchronous clock hour instruction, but are now proposing that it be pulled back, because they believe the flexibility has been abused by providers.

 

  • New Definition for 100% Distance Education Course – The Department has proposed a new definition for a Distance Education Course: “A course in which instruction takes place exclusively as described in the definition of distance education in this section notwithstanding in-person non-instructional requirements, including orientation, testing, academic support services, or residency experiences.”

These are not final regulations, and still have the opportunity for the community to shape the final rules. We encourage our membership to review the draft regulations and provide their insights and comments to the Department before August 23. Your analysis and feedback are crucial for shaping the final regulations. Share this information with your distance education program administrators. This will certainly also require the review of your institutional government affairs/legal counsel and those who are involved with administering financial aid, reporting, or teaching distance education at your institution.

Take time, and make a comment before August 23. The Department is asking that your comments do the following:

  • Be concise but support your claims.
  • Explain your views as clearly as possible and avoid using profanity.
  • Refer to specific sections and paragraphs of the proposed regulations throughout your comments, particularly in any headings that are used to organize your submission.
  • Explain why you agree or disagree with the proposed regulatory text and support these reasons with data-driven evidence, including the depth and breadth of your personal or professional experiences.
  • Where you disagree with the proposed regulatory text, suggest alternatives, including regulatory language, and your rationale for the alternative suggestion.


Work with your institutional government affairs team if you will be commenting on behalf of your organization. We also note that anyone can also submit comments as an individual citizen, separate from representing your institution.

If these regulations are released in their final form before November 1 of this year, they could take effect July 1, 2025.

 

Supreme Court Chevron Decision Erodes Administrative Regulatory Framework

In a landmark decision, the US Supreme Court voted 6-3 to significantly curtail the Chevron doctrine, a long-standing principle since 1984 that allowed federal agencies considerable leeway in interpreting ambiguous laws, and instructed lower courts to defer to agencies on regulatory and decision making. This shift, which restricts the power of agencies including the Department of Education, could have profound implications for higher education, and the broader US regulatory landscape. The ruling states that future regulatory changes by agencies cannot take part in interpreting laws set by Congress and gives more power to both the original legislative language, but more so with the judicial branch in setting regulatory affairs. Higher education regulations could face a period of uncertainty as courts take a more active role in interpreting statutes directly, potentially leading to a vastly different regulatory environment, with potential benefits as well as pitfalls for institutions. This change may affect everything from distance education, to accreditation standards, and we encourage colleges and universities to closely monitor and adapt to changing educational regulations. Read more.

Other News

 

Major Updates

ED Sends Distance Ed, R2T4, TRIO Rules to OIRA for Final Review Before Release and Public Comment
The US Department of Education has advanced a set of proposed regulations to the Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review. This submission marks the final procedural step before the proposed rules are made available for public comment. The proposed regulations encompass several key areas previously addressed during negotiated rulemaking sessions earlier this year, specifically focusing on Distance Education, Return of Title IV (R2T4), and TRIO Programs.

Absent from this submission are the topics of State Authorization, Cash Management, and Accreditation. We anticipate those topics’ proposed regulatory changes should be released at a future date. We continue to monitor the situation closely, particularly to see if any of our recommendations, noted below, which were submitted earlier this month in collaboration with other organizations, are incorporated into the proposed distance education regulations. We will provide updates as new information becomes available, including when the regulations are released, and open for public comment.

 

Coalition Letter on Proposed Distance Education Regulations, Offering Alternatives 

We joined a letter to the Department of Education addressing proposed regulations that would affect distance education programs. In this letter, we expressed our concerns regarding the recent proposed changes to: 

  • Enact mandatory attendance-taking in all distance education courses 
  • Not allowing distance education for clock hour courses

We are worried about the institutional burdens as well as how it will affect students’ outcomes, especially for marginalized communities. With our peer organizations (WCET, OLC, QM, DEAC, and AACC) we proposed thoughtful alternatives within the letter. We all are committed to ensuring that any new regulations strengthen—rather than weaken—student access to high-quality distance education programs. There also were a number of provisions proposed which we support, and highlighted those and a few caveats within the letter. We encourage you to share with your institutional administration as well as contact elected officials and share our letter and continue to stay informed. 

 

Other News

 

  • US Department of Education Opens Applications for Basic Needs for Postsecondary Students program (Federal Register)
    Applications for new awards are due by August 5th. The program provides grants to eligible institutions of higher education (IHEs), or a consortia or system of such institutions, to advance systemic and sustainable solutions to student basic needs insecurity through support programs that address the basic needs of students and to report on practices that improve outcomes for students. 

 

Major Updates

  • UPCEA Co-Signs Request to Congress on FAFSA Fix Proposal
    In a letter led by the American Council on Education (ACE), UPCEA joined with other organizations to seek legislation for crucial adjustments to the FAFSA process to enhance its efficiency and fairness. Key proposals include ensuring institutions are not held liable for discrepancies in determining student aid eligibility, extending the ability to transfer unspent Federal Work-Study funds, establishing an earlier statutory deadline for the FAFSA release, requiring comprehensive assessments of recent changes affecting students’ financial aid, among many others. Read the full letter.

 

  • State Authorization Reciprocity Proposals | Take Action and Read Our Letter to the Department of Education
    Along with our esteemed partners, UPCEA this month joined with WCET, QM, OLC, NACUBO and American Association of Community Colleges to send a letter to the US Department of Education about recent proposals on State Authorization reciprocity expressing our concerns. This letter dives deep into the issues impacting students and institutions that these proposed regulations would create.

    The Department of Education is planning to implement new regulations that will profoundly impact online education and the future of our students. The proposed rules could alter state authorization reciprocity agreements for institutions participating in SARA, particularly affecting those with over 500 students in another state. The proposed regulations also may impose new requirements to abide by laws related to closure in each state. We encourage you to reach out to your federal and state officials, as well as institutional leadership. Please read, share, and utilize this letter as a basis for your outreach. Your voice is crucial in shaping the future of online education. Read our letter.

 

  • Ricky LaFosse Joins UPCEA as Senior Policy Fellow
    Ricky LaFosse has been appointed as the new Senior Policy Fellow at UPCEA, further strengthening our commitment to excellence in policy and compliance in online and professional education. With over 10 years of experience in higher education and online learning compliance, LaFosse brings a wealth of knowledge and expertise to the role. LaFosse currently serves as the Associate Director of Compliance and Policy at the University of Michigan’s Center for Academic Innovation. His extensive background in higher education policy, including serving as an advisor to multiple national organizations and former chair of UPCEA’s Policy Committee, prepared him for the fellowship at UPCEA. His deep understanding of accreditation processes, compliance issues, and government relations will be invaluable in developing and implementing strategies to advance UPCEA’s policy priorities. We look forward to seeing the positive impact of his fellowship on our organization and the broader higher education community we serve.

 

Other News