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

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 209 / Friday, October 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations66881WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES2time prior to the start of the next termto evaluate SAP, thereby resulting instudents owing a repayment of title IV,HEA funds. Several commenters notedthat for some academic periods there isnot enough time to evaluate studentsprior to the beginning of the nextpayment period. These commentersnoted that this is particularly true forinstitutions with quarters and even mosttraditional calendar schools for theperiod after the summer term. Onecommenter stated that, in order toaccommodate the realities ofinstitutions that use the quarter system,all institutions that monitor theirstudents’ satisfactory academic progressmore frequently than annually shouldbe allowed to use the financial aidwarning status.Several commenters argued that theDepartment should not requireinstitutions to evaluate more frequentlythan annually. Numerous commentersdid not agree with the Departmentgiving additional flexibilities to thoseinstitutions that evaluate the satisfactoryacademic progress of its students eachpayment period rather than annually.One commenter stated that it wasunfair to ‘‘pressure’’ institutions to checka student’s satisfactory academicprogress more frequently than once peryear, particularly if they have stablestudent populations and goodgraduation rates. This commenterargued that these types of institutionsshould be allowed to use the flexibilityof the financial aid warning status evenif they monitored SAP less frequentlythan every payment period. Anothercommenter representing an associationnoted that some of its members objectedto what they perceived as theDepartment restricting flexibility whenan institution is in compliance with theminimum yearly requirementestablished under section 484(c)(1)(A) ofthe HEA. Another commenter arguedthat it would decrease student successto require all institutions to checksatisfactory progress each paymentperiod, as students would not knowfrom one term to the next what theireligibility for aid might be. Thiscommenter expressed concern that thiswould particularly disadvantage lowincome and minority students.One commenter argued that bystrengthening other parts of the SAPregulations, only one probationaryperiod for example, abuses could becurtailed, and institutions would not beencouraged to create more lenientpolicies.Discussion: The Departmentappreciates the fact that there could bean increased administrative burden forsome institutions to change thefrequency with which they monitor thesatisfactory academic progress of theirstudents to a payment period-bypaymentperiod basis. However,changing the frequency for monitoringsatisfactory academic progress is notrequired under these regulations;institutions still have the flexibility tocreate a policy that best meets the needsof their student body. If an institutionbelieves, for example, that evaluatingSAP every payment period would createtoo much uncertainty for their students,then they are not required to developsuch a policy.With respect to the commenter whosuggested that institutions with stablestudent populations and goodgraduation rates should be able to usethe flexibility of the financial aidwarning status even if they monitoredSAP on an annual basis, we do notbelieve it is appropriate to allowextended periods of financial aidwarning because this is essentiallyproviding title IV, HEA aid to studentswho are not making progress towardsprogram completion. We understandthat some institutions believe that theDepartment is unfairly placingrestrictions on institutions that chooseto stay with minimum annualevaluations, or to evaluate lessfrequently than every payment period.However, we do not believe that it isappropriate to continue to allow astudent who does not meet eligibilitycriteria to continue to receive title IV,HEA funds without a formalintervention by the institution in theform of an appeal approval or anacademic plan.Changes: None.Comment: Several commenters notedthat students who attend quarter schoolsface an inequity under proposed§ 668.34 in that they could lose title IV,HEA eligibility after 20 weeks, whereasfor a student at a semester school, theycould lose title IV, HEA eligibility after30 weeks, which is an academic year.These commenters asserted that thissubjects the student at a quarter schoolto more rigorous evaluation. Thesecommenters expressed concern thatinstitutions might choose to evaluate theSAP of their students annually in orderto level the playing field for theirstudents, as well as relieveadministrative burden.One commenter expressed concernthat the term ‘‘annually’’ in § 668.34 wassubject to interpretation and thatquestions would arise as to whether thisterm referred to every calendar year,every 12 months, or every academicyear. This commenter suggested that theDepartment revise § 668.34(a)(3)(ii) andVerDate Mar2010 14:10 Oct 28, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29OCR2.SGM 29OCR2(d) to refer to ‘‘every academic year’’rather than ‘‘annually’’.Discussion: The Department notesthat a student in a quarter programwould be evaluated three times in anacademic year, while the student in asemester program would be evaluatedtwice in an academic year. While someinstitutions may view this as a morerigorous evaluation, it also allows moreopportunities for intervention by theinstitution. We would hope that aninstitution would develop a policy thatwould best serve the needs of students,and that if the institution believes thatmore frequent evaluations would bebeneficial, that it would work withfaculty and other parties to attempt tomake such a review possible, forexample, by shortening the amount oftime that it takes grades to becomeavailable for evaluation.The Department notes thatinstitutions that currently reviewstudent progress annually choose toreview all students at a specific point intime, such as at the end of the springterm or spring payment period. TheDepartment agrees that this is anappropriate and reasonable institutionalpolicy for an institution that reviewsacademic progress annually. We do notbelieve that further regulatory languageis necessary to specify that the reviewshappen every academic year because ifthe review happens annually, itnecessarily will happen every academicyear.Changes: None.Comment: Several commentersindicated that the proposed SAPregulations will not work well fornonterm and nonstandard termprograms. They noted that becausestudents in these types of programscomplete payment periods at variouspoints during the year, institutions withthese types of programs would beunable to evaluate SAP at the end ofeach payment period. One commenterspecifically asked the Department toclarify how SAP in a nonterm programcould be evaluated under proposed§ 668.34. Another commenter noted thatinstitutions with 8-week terms wouldfind it overly burdensome to evaluateacademic progress every paymentperiod. This commenter indicated thatan unintended consequence of theproposed changes reflected in § 668.34would be that institutions withnonstandard term or nonterm programswould evaluate less frequently thancurrently, due to the administrativeburden. Several commenters suggestedthat to avoid this unintendedconsequence, the regulations shouldallow institutions with nontermprograms to set evaluations based upon