The U.S. Department of Education (the Department) announced the termination of the negotiated rulemaking process for three Program Integrity and Institutional Quality issues that were part of a rulemaking process for Federal programs. The Department has decided not to make any regulatory changes on the issues of accreditation, state authorization, and cash management at this time, to allow for additional evaluation of recent changes in other regulations and industry practices. After reviewing feedback received during the negotiated rulemaking process, the Department determined that it needed to gather additional data, assess evolving industry practices, and evaluate whether existing regulations remain necessary or require modification.
Topics:
Accreditation | Accreditation, Authorizations, & Higher Education Act | Program Integrity & Gainful Employment
Memorandum Opinion reversing summary judgment in favor of the University and remanding. Appellants, four former students in the physician assistant program at Heritage University, brought consumer protection, contract, fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment claims against the University after the program lost accreditation five months into their two-year program, alleging that they had enrolled in the program in reliance on false statements that loss of accreditation would not adversely affect their education. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the University. In reversing and remanding on their Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA) claim, the Ninth Circuit found the consistency with which the University communicated that loss of accreditation would not interrupt their education or force them to transfer to a new program sufficient to show conduct affecting the public interest within the meaning of the CPA. Although appellants were aware of the program’s probationary status, the court also reversed and remanded on their contract and related claims, finding a genuine dispute as to whether it was reasonable for them to rely on the University’s statements regarding the potential consequences of a loss of accreditation.
Topics:
Accreditation | Accreditation, Authorizations, & Higher Education Act | Contracts
U.S. Department of Education Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) on Applying for Title IV Eligibility for Direct Assessment (Competency-Based) Programs. The letter addresses the process by which an institution may apply to use Title IV funds for a competency-based program that relies on direct assessment of competencies rather than clock or credit hours. Of note, the institution must “establish a methodology to reasonably equate each module in the direct assessment program to either credit hours or clock hours” and this methodology must be approved by an accrediting or State approval agency with direct assessment in its scope of recognition. The application must also address how the institution will determine whether the student is making satisfactory progress or has withdrawn or changed enrollment status.
Topics:
Accreditation | Accreditation, Authorizations, & Higher Education Act | Higher Education Act (HEA)
Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE) call for comments on draft Third-Party Providers Policy and Procedures. The new policy and procedures set definitions and expectations for institutions’ agreements with third-party providers, including online program managers. The procedures also provide for “intense scrutiny” of “excessive outsourcing of key business and operations or functions” and “written arrangements that include advertising, marketing, and recruitment services offered by the third-party provider.” Comments are due by October 20, 2023, and the new policy and procedures will become effective January 1, 2024.
Topics:
Accreditation | Accreditation, Authorizations, & Higher Education Act
