Page 1 of 31

Report from the Distance Learning and Educational Innovation Subcommittee

Definition of “distance education” in 34 CFR 600.2

● The Department’s original proposal would have revised the regulatory definition of “distance education” 

to include clarifications of the phrase “regular and substantive interaction between students and the 

instructor,” which is a required component of the statutory definition. The Department proposed 

defining that phrase to include interactions between students and members of an instructional team. 

The Department indicated that its intent was to provide greater clarity to institutions regarding 

requirements for distance education and to accommodate innovative instructional models other than 

traditional synchronous instructional courses.

● During the first subcommittee discussion, a number of subcommittee members indicated support for 

the concept of an instructional team, but indicated a preference for a greater role for subject-matter 

experts on such teams. Following the first subcommittee session, the Department composed language 

incorporating the subcommittee’s discussion regarding the importance of subject-matter experts to 

instructional teams. This language has since been updated to reflect ongoing discussions and is 

presented below.

● The Department originally proposed having accrediting agencies define the term “distance education” 

and “correspondence course” and define their own requirements for fulfillment of the definition. The 

subcommittee generally opposed that idea, and following the first subcommittee meeting the 

Department sent new language that would once again have the Department define the term.

o The Department offered an idea for a waiver process in which, following promulgation of 

regulations defining distance education, institutions could apply to their accrediting agency and 

the Department to use a model that was not explicitly covered by that definition, but met the 

statutory definition of the term. The Department noted that if it defined the term “distance 

education”, it would likely be unable to regulate to accommodate new instructional models 

(such as competency-based education) quickly enough to keep up with technology, and this 

process could offer an “escape valve” for innovations to occur if they were compliant with the 

statute.

o In this process, institutions would be required to supply a reasoned basis for its adoption of the 

new model, and would be required to evaluate the model and report to the accrediting agency 

and the Department. If approved by both the accrediting agency and the Department, the 

Department would publish a Federal Register notice that established the institution and the 

model it was using as meeting the statutory definition of distance education.

o Subcommittee members have not yet completed their discussion of the waiver process. Initial 

conversation on the idea of introducing a waiver process was met with mixed reactions from the 

subcommittee; some subcommittee members seemed supportive of the concept while others 

were concerned that such an approach could harm students. Still other members of the 

subcommittee were confused about how, as it is purposed in the current language, a course 

could meet the statutory definition of “distance education” but not the regulatory definition of 

the same term.

● Two members of the subcommittee circulated a separate proposal to define “distance education” 

that would require interactions to be initiated by the instructor; occur through predictable and 
Page 2 of 31

regular intervals; and both engage students in teaching and learning and provide systematic 

assessment of student learning. 

o Under the proposal, the definition of an “instructor” could include members of an instructional 

team, provided it included at least one faculty member (as determined by the accreditor) who 

provides regular and substantive interaction to students.

o Similar concerns were raised as with the Department’s proposal, except that there was no 

concern raised about the statutory appropriateness of this proposed definition.

● No members of the subcommittee opposed the inclusion of a definition of “instructional team” into 

the definition of “distance education” and all members supported requiring the inclusion of a 

subject-matter expert into that definition. However, subcommittee members expressed several 

different views and concerns regarding the requirements and composition of an instructional team:

o Some members expressed the view that because the statutory definition of distance education 

requires regular and substantive interaction with the “instructor,” any instructional team must 

include one or more subject-matter expert(s) that would be required to have regular and 

substantive interactions with students. Some members indicated that an instructional team 

should include a subject-matter expert who had the “primary responsibility” for interacting with 

students, where other members of the instructional team would identify problem areas and 

refer students to subject-matter experts when needed; and

o Some members indicated that requiring people to refer students to subject-matter experts does 

not reflect the current or future state of distance education, which is increasingly using analytics 

to identify struggling learners in order to refer them to subject-matter experts for assistance.

● The subcommittee has not yet completed its discussion of the definitions of “regular” and 

“substantive,” but will report out on those concepts at the next full committee meeting. Areas of 

concern include:

o Requirements for regularity that are too restrictive will impose unnecessary administrative 

burden, such as mandating an instructor “check-in” with a student when the student did not 

need or request such a check-in;

o A definition of “regular” that is not sufficiently descriptive would not resolve confusion and 

uncertainty about the term and could dissuade institutions from using instructional models that 

lack scheduled class sessions (such as some programs offered utilizing competency-based 

education);

o A definition of “regular” that is too infrequent could impact quality in higher education 

programs and risk taxpayer funds.

o A loose definition of “substantive” that does not focus on an academic process involving student 

learning could lead to educational models that de-emphasize learning in favor of administrative 

check-ins with students.
Page 3 of 31

Most recent redline language from the Department regarding the definition of “distance education”:

34 CFR 600.2:

*****

Distance education: means eEducation that uses one or more of the technologies listed in 

paragraphs (1)(i) through (1)(iv)(4) of this definition to deliver instruction to students who are separated 

from the instructor or members of an instructional team and to support regular and substantive 

interaction between the students and the instructors or members of an instructional team, either 

synchronously or asynchronously.

(1) The technologies that may be used to offer distance education include—

(1)(i) The internet;

(2)(ii) One-way and two-way transmissions through open broadcast, closed circuit, cable, 

microwave, broadband lines, fiber optics, satellite, or wireless communications devices;

(3)(iii) Audio conferencing; or

(4)(iv) Video cassettes, DVDs, and CD-ROMs, if the cassettes, DVDs, or CD-ROMs are used in a 

course in conjunction with any of the technologies listed in paragraphs (1)(i) through (3)(1)(iv) of this 

definition.

(2)(i) An instructional team includes an instructor and one or more staff members that perform an 

instructional function. Members of an instructional team may have different and complementary roles 

and qualifications, as required by the institution’s accrediting agency, such as to share information, 

answer questions, provide direct instruction, provide assessment or feedback, monitor a student’s 

academic progress, or provide student support related the student’s success in a particular course or 

competency.

(ii) For purposes of this definition, an instructor is a subject-matter expert, by virtue of academic 

credentials or a combination of academic credentials and work experience, as defined by the accrediting 

agency;

(iii) For purposes of this definition, an instructional team must ensure that—

(A) One or more instructors have the primary responsibility for interacting with students regarding 

subject-matter content and for assessing a student’s learning and mastery of course content.

(B) It monitors each student’s academic engagement and success and ensures that a subjectmatter expert is responsible for promptly and proactively providing academic assistance, when needed, 

on the basis of such monitoring, or upon request by the student. 

(iii) General academic advisors or counselors are not considered to be members of an instructional 

team. 

Comment [A1]: See also attached proposal 

from subcommittee members Jillian and Leah 

(with input from Russ)
Page 4 of 31

(3) For purposes of this definition, regular means the frequency or periodicity of contact that is 

established by the institution in accordance with any applicable requirements of its State or accrediting 

agency, in which –

(i) The interactions are initiated by an instructor or a member of an instructional team; and

(ii) (A) For a course that is worth three or more credit hours, interactions occur at least once for 

each week of instruction; or

(B) For a course that is worth less than three credit hours, interactions occur at least once every 

two weeks of instruction.

(4) For purposes of this definition, substantive means related to the subject matter under 

discussion for the course.

(5) Waiver Authority. Under procedures established by the Secretary, the Secretary may, through 

publication in the Federal Register, permit an institution or group of institutions to define the courses in 

one or more educational programs as “distance education” rather than “correspondence courses” using 

an instructional model that does not meet one or more of the requirements under paragraphs (1) 

through (4) of this definition if the institution or institutions demonstrate that—

(i) The instructional model ensures that each course in the program or programs meets the 

statutory definition of “distance education” under 20 USC 1003; and

(ii) Each institution’s accrediting agency has specifically reviewed and approved the educational 

program for which the institution seeks the waiver and the agency has determined that the program 

meets all of its applicable requirements.

*****
Page 5 of 31

Issues related to State authorization for distance education in 34 CFR Part 600 and Part 668

● The Department’s original proposal was to eliminate the regulations for State authorization for distance 

education that were promulgated in 2016, including both the institutional eligibility regulations in Part 

600 and the disclosure requirements for distance education and correspondence courses in 34 CFR 

668.50.

● During the first subcommittee session, subcommittee members expressed support for some aspects of 

the regulatory language promulgated in 2016. Following that session, the Department composed 

language designed to incorporate the subcommittee’s discussion with a number of changes. The most 

recent redline language is presented below.

● One subcommittee member asked that the Department eliminate references to “residence” in a State, 

since that concept could be conflated with legal residence requirements. That member asked that the 

Department use the term “located” in order to reflect the most common term used by States.

● Some Subcommittee members supported a requirement for verifying a student’s location only once 

upon admission to a program. For programs leading to professional licensure, the Department 

incorporated this idea into its current redlines below. The subcommittee has not yet completed its 

discussion of this matter. 

● The subcommittee generally supported the concept of reciprocity agreements for State authorization, 

though there were differences of opinion regarding the requirements for such agreements. All 

subcommittee members agreed that the definition of reciprocity agreements should include the 

requirement that such an agreement not prohibit states from enforcing “laws or regulations of general 

applicability.

o The Department included language that would prohibit a reciprocity agreement from creating a 

conflict with State laws or regulations. Some subcommittee members supported that concept, 

but others indicated that it did not resolve concerns about reciprocity agreements reducing 

consumer protection requirements imposed by some States.

o Several subcommittee members had concerns regarding the possibility that State authorization 

reciprocity agreements would prevent States from enforcing certain specific consumer 

protection requirements, and proposed to maintain the language in the 2016 regulations that

prohibits reciprocity agreements from waiving both general and specific consumer protections.

One subcommittee member proposed to define a reciprocity agreement to involve only 

authorization by a State in order to avoid conflicts with consumer protection requirements or 

laws of general applicability.

o Others maintained that allowing States to maintain requirements directed at educational 

institutions while also participating in reciprocity agreements would undermine the purpose of 

reciprocity agreements and result in institutions being once more subject to numerous state-bystate requirements.

o Several subcommittee members also proposed language that would require that state 

reciprocity agreements be governed and controlled by member states, and accordingly that the 

majority of governing board positions for such agreements be reserved for member state 

representatives. These subcommittee members also proposed representation on the board 

from a state AG office or a nonprofit that serves consumer and/or student interests. Other 

members expressed concerns about this proposal because it could result in the Department 
Page 6 of 31

regulating a private organization’s board structure if the organization was responsible for 

overseeing the reciprocity agreement.

o Two subcommittee members expressed concern about NC-SARA’s use of the Department’s 

flawed financial responsibility standards as an eligibility criterion for participation in NC-SARA.

● The subcommittee generally agreed that if a concept of reciprocity is included in the regulations, there is 

a need to link that concept to Title IV eligibility through requirements for State authorization in 34 CFR 

600.9. Following the first subcommittee session, the Department reintroduced language that would 

require institutions to meet any applicable State authorization requirements for distance education and 

explicitly state that such requirements could be met through reciprocity agreements.

● The subcommittee began discussions about requirements for a State-based complaint process in order 

for an institution to be considered authorized by a State for Title IV eligibility purposes, but there was 

disagreement on this point because at least one State still lacks a complaint process for students 

enrolled in distance education programs. The subcommittee has not yet completed its discussion on this 

issue.

● During the first subcommittee session, numerous members indicated support for at least some of the 

disclosure requirements imposed in the 2016 regulation. The subcommittee has not yet completed its 

discussion regarding disclosure requirements.

o Several subcommittee members requested that most or all of those requirements be 

reintroduced in this regulation because they provided useful information to students regarding 

distance education programs, including whether States had taken adverse actions against an 

institution.

o There were concerns expressed by some members of the subcommittee about the utility of 

excessive disclosure requirements and whether they actually confuse or overwhelm, rather than 

inform, consumers. The Department was urged by more than one member of the subcommittee 

to take a coordinated approach towards disclosure requirements, and to consumer test 

disclosures.

o The majority of the subcommittee supported the inclusion of disclosure requirements regarding 

whether programs that were intended to lead to professional licensure would meet educational 

requirements for licensure in a State, particularly a State in which a student was located, 

although at least one member expressed concern about the regulatory burden these 

requirements have imposed on institutions. Following the first subcommittee session, the 

Department attempted to incorporate the ideas expressed in that discussion by drafting a 

general requirement – for all institutions, not just those using distance education – to disclose 

whether the program would meet State educational requirements for professional licensure if 

the institution had made such a determination for a given State.

o In the second session, the majority of the subcommittee also supported a student-specific 

disclosure that had been included in the 2016 regulation regarding whether the program would 

meet licensure requirements in the State in which the student was located. Institutions would 

be required to provide such a disclosure to a prospective student prior to enrollment. The 

Department drafted that requirement in response to discussions by the subcommittee.

o Several subcommittee members expressed support for disclosures for how a student can submit 

a complaint to a State, citing the value of students understanding where and how to submit 

complaints to a State-based authority. The subcommittee has not yet completed its discussion 

on this topic.
Page 7 of 31

Most recent redline language from the Department regarding State authorization for distance 

education:

34 CFR 600.2 Definitions:

*****

Reciprocity agreement for State authorization: An agreement between two or more States that 

authorizes an institution located and legally authorized in a State covered by the agreement to provide 

postsecondary education through distance education or correspondence courses to students located in 

other States covered by the agreement and does not—

(1) Prevent the State from enforcing its laws or regulations of general applicability; or

(2) Result in a conflict between a State’s statutes and regulations and the requirements of the 

agreement.

*****

34 CFR 600.9 State authorization:

*****

(c)(1)(i) If an institution that meets the requirements under paragraph (a)(1) of this section offers 

postsecondary education through distance education or correspondence courses to students located in 

a State in which the institution is not physically located or in which the institution is otherwise subject to 

that State's jurisdiction as determined by that State, except as provided in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this 

section, the institution must meet any of that State's requirements for it to be legally offering 

postsecondary distance education or correspondence courses in that State. The institution must, upon 

request, document the State's approval to the Secretary; or

(ii) If an institution that meets the requirements under paragraph (a)(1) of this section offers 

postsecondary education through distance education or correspondence courses in a State that 

participates in a State authorization reciprocity agreement, and the institution is covered by such 

agreement, the institution is considered to meet State requirements for it to be legally offering 

postsecondary distance education or correspondence courses in that State, subject to any limitations in 

that agreement and to any additional requirements of that State. The institution must, upon request, 

document its coverage under such an agreement to the Secretary.

(iii) For purposes of this paragraph and for disclosures related to State licensure under 34 CFR 

668.43(a)(5)(v), an institution makes a determination regarding the State in which a student is located at 

the time the student is admitted to an educational program.

(2) The institution must document that there is a State process for review and appropriate action 

on complaints from students concerning the institution either in the States in which the students are 

located, or the State in which the institution’s main campus is located.

Comment [A2]: See also attached proposal 

from subcommittee member Russ, and also 

from subcommittee members Carolyn and Sue
Page 8 of 31

*****

34 CFR 668.43 Institutional information:

(a) Institutional information that the institution must make readily available to enrolled and 

prospective students under this subpart includes, but is not limited to—

(1) The cost of attending the institution, including—

(i) Tuition and fees charged to full-time and part-time students;

(ii) Estimates of costs for necessary books and supplies;

(iii) Estimates of typical charges for room and board;

(iv) Estimates of transportation costs for students; and

(v) Any additional cost of a program in which a student is enrolled or expresses a specific interest;

(2) Any refund policy with which the institution is required to comply for the return of unearned 

tuition and fees or other refundable portions of costs paid to the institution;

*****

(5) The academic program of the institution, including—

(i) The current degree programs and other educational and training programs;

(ii) The instructional, laboratory, and other physical facilities which relate to the academic 

program;

(iii) The institution's faculty and other instructional personnel; and

(iv) Any plans by the institution for improving the academic program of the institution, upon a 

determination by the institution that such a plan exists;

(v) If an educational program is designed to meet educational requirements for a specific 

professional license or certification that is required for employment in that field, or is advertised as 

meeting such requirements, information regarding whether completion of that program would be 

sufficient to meet licensure requirements in a State for that occupation, including—

(A) A list of all States for which the institution has determined that completion of the program 

would fulfill educational requirements for licensure; 

(B) A list of all States for which the institution has determined that completion of the program 

would not fulfill educational requirements for licensure;
Page 9 of 31

(C) A list of all States for which the institution has not made a determination regarding whether 

completion of the program would fulfill educational requirements for licensure; and

(vi)(A) Prior to each prospective student's enrollment, any determination by the institution under 

subparagraph (v) regarding whether the program meets applicable educational prerequisites for 

professional licensure or certification in the State where the student is located, or an attestation that 

the institution has not made such a determination.

(B) Such disclosure shall be made directly to the student in writing, which may include through email or other electronic communication. 

*****

(b) The institution must make available for review to any enrolled or prospective student upon 

request, a copy of the documents describing the institution's accreditation and its State, Federal, or 

tribal approval or licensing. The institution must also provide its students or prospective students with 

contact information for filing complaints with its accreditor and with its State approval or licensing entity 

and any other relevant State official or agency that would appropriately handle a student's complaint.
Page 10 of 31

Changes to the clock-to-credit conversion requirements

● The Department’s original position was to revise 34 CFR 668.8(l), restoring the clock-to-credit hour 

conversion formula that existed prior to the 2010 program integrity regulations. Accordingly (for 

programs subject to clock-to-credit conversion a semester credit hour would have to include at least 30 

clock hours of instruction and a quarter credit hour at least 20 hours of instruction. Work outside of 

class would have no bearing on the conversion. Current regulations establish a conversion formula of 

37.5:1 and 25:1 for semester credit hours and quarter credit hours respectively, unless (as approved by 

an accreditor or State agency) students’ work outside of class combined with clock hours of instruction 

meets or exceeds 37.5 clock hours for a semester hour clock hours for a quarter hour in which case an 

institution may use a 30:1 (clock hours to semester hours) or 20:1 (clock hours to quarter credit hours).

● Department representatives offered that the current conversion formula is awkward, difficult to enforce 

and has accomplished little since most programs subject to clock-to-credit hour conversion have the 

requisite outside coursework to support using a 30:1 or 25:1 conversion and do so if permitted by their 

accreditors. 

● Most subcommittee members were supportive of the Department’s position. A few members, while not 

outwardly supportive, indicated that they can accept the change. No members of the subcommittee 

expressed opposition to the change.
Page 11 of 31

Most recent redline language from the Department regarding the clock-to-credit conversion:

34 CFR 668.8 Eligible program:

*****

(k) Undergraduate educational program in credit hours. If an institution offers an undergraduate 

educational program in credit hours, the institution must use the formula contained in paragraph (l) of 

this section to determine whether that program satisfies the requirements contained in paragraph (c)(3) 

or (d) of this section, and the number of credit hours in that educational program for purposes of the 

tTitle IV, HEA programs, unless—

(1) The program is at least two academic years in length and provides an associate degree, a 

bachelor'’s degree, a professional degree, or an equivalent degree as determined by the Secretary; or

(2) Each course within the program is acceptable for full credit toward completion of an eligible 

program offered by the institution that institution'sprovides an associate degree, bachelor'’s degree, 

professional degree, or equivalent degree as determined by the Secretary, provided that—

(i) The institution's degree the eligible program requires at least two academic years of study; and

(ii) The the institution demonstratescan demonstrate that students enroll in, and graduateat least 

one student graduated from, the degree program during the current or most recently completed award 

year.

(l) Formula. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (l)(2) of this section, for For purposes of 

determining whether a program described in paragraph (kh) of this section satisfies the requirements 

contained in paragraph (c)(3) or (d) of this section, and determining the number of credit hours in that 

educational program with regard tofor purposes of the tTitle IV, HEA programs—

(i1) A semester hour must include at least 37.5 clock hours of instruction;

(ii) A or trimester hour must include at least 37.5 clock hours of instruction; and

(iii) A quarter hour must include at least 25 clock hours of instruction.

(2) The institution's conversions to establish a minimum number of clock hours of instruction per 

credit may be less than those specified in paragraph (l)(1) of this section if the institution's designated 

accrediting agency, or recognized State agency for the approval of public postsecondary vocational 

institutions for participation in the title IV, HEA programs, has not identified any deficiencies with the 

institution's policies and procedures, or their implementation, for determining the credit hours that the 

institution awards for programs and courses, in accordance with 34 CFR 602.24(f) or, if applicable, 34 

CFR 603.24(c), so long as—

(i) The institution's student work outside of class combined with the clock hours of instruction 

meet or exceed the numeric requirements in paragraph (l)(1) of this section; and
Page 12 of 31

(ii)(A) A semester hour must include at least 30 clock hours of instruction; and

(B) A trimester hour must include at least 30 clock hours of instruction; and

(C(2) A quarter hour must include at least 20 clock hours of instruction.

(ml) An otherwise eligible program that is offered in whole or in part through telecommunications 

is eligible for title IV, HEA program purposes if the program is offered by an institution, other than a 

foreign institution, that has been evaluated and is accredited for its effective delivery of distance 

education programs by an accrediting agency or association that—

(1) Is recognized by the Secretary under subpart 2 of part H of the HEA; and

(2) Has accreditation of distance education within the scope of its recognition.

(nm) For Title IV, HEA program purposes, eligible program includes a direct assessment program 

approved by the Secretary under §668.10 and a comprehensive transition and postsecondary program 

approved by the Secretary under §668.232.
Page 13 of 31

Changes to the limitation on hours exceeding State minimum requirements for employment

● The Department did not offer a proposal but rather invited discussion among the subcommittee 

members on possible changes to the current regulatory limiting the length of a gainful employment 

program to no more than 150 percent of the minimum number of hours required for training in the 

occupation for which the program prepares students (as established by the State where the institution is 

located of a Federal agency).

● Department representatives explained the Department’s motivation for seeking to revise the applicable 

regulation, 34 CFR 668.14(b)(26). Ostensibly, the Department believes that the current rule inhibits 

institutions offering primarily cosmetology and massage therapy programs from increasing the number 

of hours in a program to the extent necessary to meet licensure requirements in neighboring states 

from which a significant number of students may be seeking employment. The Department is further 

concerned that, in addition to any effects this may have on a program’s competitiveness, it restricts the 

economic mobility of graduates.

● Most subcommittee members expressed opposition to any change in the existing regulation, citing fears 

of artificially inflated program length and the resulting increases in student debt by borrowers in those 

programs. 

● Some members were amenable to broadening the current regulation but felt strongly that there would 

need to be safeguards in place against the arbitrary lengthening of programs. Among those suggested by 

the Department were:

o Limiting the length of a program to no more than 150 percent of the minimum number of hours 

required for training in the occupation for which the program prepares students (as established 

by the State where the institution is located or a Federal agency), or the minimum program 

length for training established by any State in the Census Region or Census Division of which the 

State where the institution offering the program is located, and any adjacent state not in that 

region.

o Limiting the length of programs to no more than 150 percent of the minimum number of hours 

required for training in the occupation for which the program prepares students (as established 

by the State where the institution is located or a Federal agency), or the minimum number of 

hours required for training in the occupation for which the program prepares students in any 

State that is adjacent to the State in which the institution is located.

● One member proposed an alternative safeguard that would require an institution seeking an increase in 

program length to petition its accrediting body to do so. The institution would have to present a sound 

reason for seeking agency approval to extend a program’s length to meet the needs of students wishing 

to seek employment in other states. There would have to be a specified cap of the state requirement 

where the students were wishing to seek employment. This cap should be determined based on data, in 

order to ensure it is sufficient to address the program and is not arbitrary. There was guarded support 

among some members for this proposal.

● One member of the subcommittee noted that the scope of this topic should be/should have been

included in the Gainful Employment negotiated rulemaking.

● Overall, support for changes to the existing rule was lacking.
Page 14 of 31

Most recent redline language (which has not been reviewed by the subcommittee) from the 

Department regarding the limitation on hours exceeding State minimum requirements for employment:

34 CFR 668.8 Eligible program:

*****

(e) Qualitative factors. (1) An educational program that satisfies the requirements of paragraphs 

(d)(3)(i) through (iv) of this section qualifies as an eligible program only if—

(i) The program has a substantiated completion rate of at least 70 percent, as calculated under 

paragraph (f) of this section;

(ii) The program has a substantiated placement rate of at least 70 percent, as calculated under 

paragraph (g) of this section;

(iii) The institution can demonstrate, in accordance with 34 CFR 668.14(b)(26) that the number of 

clock hours provided in the program does not exceed by more than 50 percent the minimum number of 

clock hours required for training in the recognized occupation for which the program prepares students, 

as established by the State in which the program is offered, if the State has established such a 

requirement, or as established by any Federal agency; and

(iv) The program has been in existence for at least one year. The Secretary considers an 

educational program to have been in existence for at least one year only if an institution has been legally 

authorized to provide, and has continuously provided, the program during the 12 months (except for 

normal vacation periods and, at the discretion of the Secretary, periods when the institution closes due 

to a natural disaster that directly affects the institution or the institution's students) preceding the date 

on which the institution applied for eligibility for that program.

*****

(26) If an educational program offered by the institution is required to prepare a student for 

gainful employment in a recognized occupation, the institution must—

(i) Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the length of the program and entry level 

requirements for the recognized occupation for which the program prepares the student. The Secretary 

considers the relationship to be reasonable if the number of clock hours provided in the program does 

not exceed by more than 50 percent the minimum number of clock hours required for training in the 

recognized occupation for which the program prepares the student, as established by the State in which 

the institution is located, if the State has established such a requirement, or as established by any 

Federal agency; 

NOTE FOR NEGOTIATORS: The Department wishes to discuss how, outside of the 50% safe 

harbor, it can ensure adequate worker mobility without encouraging states to add or elevate licensure 

requirements or students and taxpayers to spend more than necessary to qualify for employment.
Page 15 of 31

(ii) Establish the need for the training for the student to obtain employment in the recognized 

occupation for which the program prepares the student; and

(iii) Provide for that program the certification required in §668.414.

*****
Page 16 of 31

Changes to satisfactory academic progress (SAP)

● The Department’s original position was to revise 34 CFR 668.34, simplifying SAP rules related to 

calculating pace for clock-hour programs, providing an additional option for establishing maximum 

timeframe, and clarifying the application of SAP for subscription-based programs.

● The Department proposed to remove the requirement to measure pace for non-term credit-hour 

programs and clock-hour programs. Since for these programs a student may not receive a subsequent 

disbursement of Title IV funds until successfully completing both the hours and weeks in a payment 

period, SAP rules related to pace are unnecessary. 

● Institutions would be permitted to measure maximum timeframe for credit-hour programs in calendar 

time as well as in credit hours. Programs using measuring maximum timeframe in calendar time would 

be required to measure pace by determining the number of hours that the student should have 

completed at the evaluation point in order to complete the program within maximum timeframe.

● Subscription-based programs would be required to measure maximum timeframe in calendar time and 

measure pace by determining the number of hours that the student should have completed at the 

evaluation point in order to complete the program within the maximum timeframe.

● Subcommittee members were generally supportive of the Department’s redline language and the 

reasons it offered for wanting to make changes to the existing regulations governing SAP. One member 

expressed the desire for more flexibility in applying SAP to subscription-based programs given that the 

Department’s proposed disbursement changes for such programs already have a progression element. 

Although the degree of support varied among members, no direct opposition to the Department’s 

position was expressed. 
Page 17 of 31

Most recent redline language from the Department regarding satisfactory academic progress:

34 CFR 668.34 Satisfactory academic progress:

*****

(a) Satisfactory academic progress policy. An institution must establish a reasonable satisfactory 

academic progress policy for determining whether an otherwise eligible student is making satisfactory 

academic progress in his or her educational program and may receive assistance under the title IV, HEA 

programs. The Secretary considers the institution's policy to be reasonable if—

(1) The policy is at least as strict as the policy the institution applies to a student who is not 

receiving assistance under the title IV, HEA programs;

(2) The policy provides for consistent application of standards to all students within categories of 

students, e.g., full-time, part-time, undergraduate, and graduate students, and educational programs 

established by the institution;

(3) The policy provides that a student's academic progress is evaluated—

(i) At the end of each payment period if the educational program is either one academic year in 

length or shorter than an academic year; or

(ii) For all other educational programs, at the end of each payment period or at least annually to 

correspond with the end of a payment period;

(4)(i) The policy specifies the grade point average (GPA) that a student must achieve at each 

evaluation, or if a GPA is not an appropriate qualitative measure, a comparable assessment measured 

against a norm; and

(ii) If a student is enrolled in an educational program of more than two academic years, the policy 

specifies that at the end of the second academic year, the student must have a GPA of at least a “C” or 

its equivalent, or have academic standing consistent with the institution's requirements for graduation;

(5)(i) The policy specifies—

(i) for all programs, the maximum timeframe as defined in paragraph (b) of this section; and

(ii) for a credit hour program using standard or nonstandard terms, the pace, measured at each 

evaluation, at which a student must progress through his or her educational program to ensure that the 

student will complete the program within the maximum timeframe, as defined in paragraph (b) of this 

section, and provides for measurement of the student's progress at each evaluation; andcalculated by--:

(ii) An institution calculates the pace at which the student is progressing by(A) In a program that is 

not a subscription-based program, either dividing the cumulative number of hours the student has 

successfully completed by the cumulative number of hours the student has attempted. or by 

determining the number of hours that the student should have completed at the evaluation point in 
Page 18 of 31

order to complete the program within the maximum timeframe. In making this calculation, the 

institution is not required to include remedial courses; and

(B) In a subscription-based program, by determining the number of hours that the student should 

have completed at the evaluation point in order to complete the program within the maximum 

timeframe.

(6) The policy describes how a student's GPA and pace of completion are affected by course 

incompletes, withdrawals, or repetitions, or transfers of credit from other institutions. Credit hours from 

another institution that are accepted toward the student's educational program must count as both 

attempted and completed hours;

*****

(b) Definitions. The following definitions apply to the terms used in this section:

*****

Maximum timeframe. Maximum timeframe means—

(1) For an undergraduate program measured in credit hours, a period that is no longer than 150 

percent of the published length of the educational program, as measured in credit hours or expressed in 

calendar time;

(2) For an undergraduate program measured in clock hours, a period that is no longer than 150 

percent of the published length of the educational program, as measured by the cumulative number of 

clock hours the student is required to complete and expressed in calendar time; and

(3) For a graduate program, a period defined by the institution that is based on the length of the 

educational program.

*****
Page 19 of 31

Changes to Written Arrangements to Provide Educational Programs

● The Department’s original proposal was to revise 668.5 to permit institutions to enter into written 

arrangements with unaffiliated entities to provide up to 100% of an educational program, requiring 

accreditor approval for arrangements in excess of 25 percent of a program. Currently, such 

arrangements are capped at 50 percent and require accreditor approval above 25 percent.

● There was not widespread support for the proposal during the first session. Many Subcommittee 

members expressed that they did not believe arrangements above 50 percent were necessary, given 

that half a program is already a significant amount to be offered by someone other than the institution. 

One subcommittee member asked ED to provide data on how many institutions utilize the existing 50% 

authorization to inform further discussion on the proposal.

● The Department’s new proposal (which the subcommittee has not yet discussed) would set the limit for 

written arrangements at 75 percent, because many accreditors have policies requiring that at least 25 

percent of a program be earned at the institution awarding the credential; and would require 

accreditors approve any arrangements in excess of 50 percent. The new proposal also removes the 

existing regulatory language preventing arrangements between an eligible institution and an ineligible 

institution or organization owned or controlled by the same individual, partnership, or corporation for 

arrangements below 50 percent of a program.
Page 20 of 31

Proposed definition of “distance education” – February 2019

Submitted by subcommittee members Jillian Klein and Leah Matthews with input from Russ Poulin.

Distance education

600.2

Instructor: An instructor can include one or more persons employed by the institution, making up an 

instructional team, so long as this team includes at least one faculty member, as defined by the criteria 

established by the institution’s accrediting agency, who must be among those who regularly and 

substantively interacts with the student. 
Page 21 of 31

State authorization for distance education proposed changes – February 2019

Submitted by subcommittee member Russ Poulin.

The proposed changes to the state authorization for distance education regulations (§600.2, 

§600.9, and §668.50) were developed by Cheryl Dowd, Dan Silverman, and Russ Poulin of 

WCET. 

Our thoughts guiding our proposals:

 The protection of students and of Title IV financial aid expenditures are primary 

concerns to be addressed.

 We sought to make language conform with state regulations and with institutional 

practice, where possible.

 We used the 2016 language as a base.

 There are two types of institution-wide state approvals: 1) those obtained directly by 

the state, if any, and 2) those obtained through a reciprocity agreement. We tried to 

more clearly delineate the two and use parallel wording and structure in subsequent 

sections when compliance requirements differed based on the type of approval 

obtained by an institution.

 There was some confusion regarding the 2016 language regarding reporting 

requirements for complaints. We wanted to assure that the student receives 

notification of the processes they will use and not receive notices for processes for 

which they will not receive help. For example, students in a state may have different 

refund policies depending on the institutional approval. The student should receive the 

information appropriate for them.

 We tried to simplify language.

 In the comment boxes, we explain our reasoning.
Page 22 of 31

§600.2 Definitions.

State authorization reciprocity agreement1: An agreement between two or more States that 

authorizes an institution located and legally authorized in a State covered by the agreement to provide 

postsecondary education through distance education or correspondence courses to students 

locatedresiding in other States covered by the agreement and does not prohibit any State in the 

agreement from enforcing its own statutes and regulations, whether general or specifically directed at 

all or a subgroup of educational institutions. 

 

1 This definition was added to section 600.2 by 81 FR 92232 on 12/16/2016. The effective date of those regulations has been delayed 

until July 1, 2020. We propose to delete this definition.
Page 23 of 31

§600.9 State authorization.

(a)(1) An institution described under §§600.4, 600.5, and 600.6 is legally authorized by a State if 

the State has a process to review and appropriately act on complaints concerning the institution 

including enforcing applicable State laws, and the institution meets the provisions of paragraphs 

(a)(1)(i), (a)(1)(ii), or (b) of this section.

(i)(A) The institution is established by name as an educational institution by a State through a 

charter, statute, constitutional provision, or other action issued by an appropriate State agency or State 

entity and is authorized to operate educational programs beyond secondary education, including 

programs leading to a degree or certificate.

(B) The institution complies with any applicable State approval or licensure requirements, except 

that the State may exempt the institution from any State approval or licensure requirements based on 

the institution's accreditation by one or more accrediting agencies recognized by the Secretary or based 

upon the institution being in operation for at least 20 years.

(ii) If an institution is established by a State on the basis of an authorization to conduct business in 

the State or to operate as a nonprofit charitable organization, but not established by name as an 

educational institution under paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, the institution—

(A) By name, must be approved or licensed by the State to offer programs beyond secondary 

education, including programs leading to a degree or certificate; and

(B) May not be exempt from the State's approval or licensure requirements based on accreditation, 

years in operation, or other comparable exemption.

(2) The Secretary considers an institution to meet the provisions of paragraph (a)(1) of this section 

if the institution is authorized by name to offer educational programs beyond secondary education by—

(i) The Federal Government; or

(ii) As defined in 25 U.S.C. 1802(2), an Indian tribe, provided that the institution is located on tribal 

lands and the tribal government has a process to review and appropriately act on complaints concerning 

an institution and enforces applicable tribal requirements or laws.

(b)(1) Notwithstanding paragraph (a)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section, an institution is considered to be 

legally authorized to operate educational programs beyond secondary education if it is exempt from 

State authorization as a religious institution under the State constitution or by State law.

(2) For purposes of paragraph (b)(1) of this section, a religious institution is an institution that—

publicly identifies itself as having, in part or in whole, a religious mission, or that maintains an 

institutional religious affiliation.

(i) Is owned, controlled, operated, and maintained by a religious organization lawfully operating as 

a nonprofit religious corporation; and
Page 24 of 31

(ii) Awards only religious degrees or certificates including, but not limited to, a certificate of 

Talmudic studies, an associate of Biblical studies, a bachelor of religious studies, a master of divinity, or a 

doctor of divinity.

(c) If an institution is offering postsecondary education through distance or correspondence education 

to students in a State in which it is not physically located or in which it is otherwise subject to State 

jurisdiction as determined by the State, the institution must meet any State requirements for it to be 

legally offering postsecondary distance or correspondence education in that State. An institution must 

be able to document to the Secretary the State's approval upon request.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1001 and 1002)

[75 FR 66946, Oct. 29, 2010]

600.9 State authorization.

2

*****

(c)(1)(i) If an institution that meets the requirements under paragraph (a)(1) of this section offers 

postsecondary education through distance education or correspondence courses to students located 

residing in a State in which the institution is not physically locateddomiciled or in which the institution is 

otherwise subject to that State's jurisdiction as determined by that State., except as provided in 

paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section, Forfor each State in which a student is located, tthe institution must

,upon request, document to the Secretary that the institution either:

(i) mMeets direct compliance requirements, if any, of that State's requirements for it to be 

legally offering postsecondary distance education or correspondence courses in that State. The 

institution must, upon request, document the State's approval to the Secretary; or

(ii) MetMeets reciprocity requirements if If an institution that meets the requirements under 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section offers postsecondary education through distance education or 

correspondence courses in a State that participates inis a member of a State authorization reciprocity 

agreement, and the institution is covered byapproved by its State to participate in such agreement, the 

institution is considered to meet State requirements for it to be legally offering postsecondary distance 

education or correspondence courses in that State, subject to any limitations in that agreement and to 

any additional requirements of that State. The institution must, upon request, document its coverage 

under such an agreement to the Secretary.

(2) Location of a student is initially determined at the time of enrollment in an academic

program, consistent with other determinations of student eligibility, it must also be reevaluated each 

time an institution makes a new award to a student.

(32) If an institution that meets the requirements under paragraph (a)(1) of this section offers 

postsecondary education through distance education or correspondence courses to students located 

 

2 Section 600.9 was revised through the publication of 81 FR 92232 on 12/19/2016. The effective date of section 600.9(c) has been 

delayed until July 1, 2020. We propose to delete this language.

Comment [RP3]: These changes were 

proposed by the Department and are outside 

the scope of the Subcommittee.

Comment [RP4]: State consumer protection 

laws are based upon the location of the 

student when receiving instruction and not 

the student’s state of residence (where they 

pay taxes, have a driver’s license, etc.). It’s a 

subtle but important difference.

For example, say that I am an active duty 

military person with Colorado residence who 

is stationed in Texas while taking online 

courses from an institution in New Hampshire. 

Asking the student to complain to Colorado 

will be frustrating for the student as it has no 

jurisdiction.

Comment [RP5]: We defined the two types 

of institutional approvals here in two bullets. 

When the requirements for an institution 

differ by the type of approval in subsequent 

language, we mirror the language and format 

of this section. That should make it easier for 

institutional personnel to understand.

Comment [CD6]: These suggestions make 

clear that States are “members’ of the state 

authorization reciprocity agreement and 

institutions “participate.” Also suggest 

avoidance of the word “covered.”

Comment [RP7]: This language is taken from 

a Dear Colleague letter issued by the 

Department in March of 2011.

https://ifap.ed.gov/dpcletters/attachments/G

EN1105.pdf (See question 20)
Page 25 of 31

residing in a State in which the institution is not domiciledphysically located, for the institution to be 

considered legally authorized in that State, the institution must document that there is a State process 

for review and appropriate action on complaints from any of those enrolled students concerning the 

institution—

(i) In each State where the institution met direct compliance requirements, in which the 

institution's enrolled students are located, if that state has a complaint processreside; or

(ii) In each State where the institution met reciprocity compliance requirements, tThrough a 

State authorization reciprocity agreement which designates for this purpose either the State in which the 

institution's enrolled students are locatedreside or the State in which the institution's main campus is 

located.

(d)3An additional location or branch campus of an institution that meets the requirements 

under paragraph (a)(1) of this section and that is located in a foreign country, i.e., not in a State, must 

comply with §§ 600.8, 600.10, 600.20, and 600.32, and the following requirements:

(1) For any additional location at which 50 percent or more of an educational program (as 

defined in § 600.2) is offered, or will be offered, or at a branch campus—

(i) The additional location or branch campus must be legally authorized by an appropriate 

government authority to operate in the country where the additional location or branch campus is 

physically located, unless the additional location or branch campus is physically located on a U.S. military 

base, facility, or area that the foreign country has granted the U.S. military to use and the institution can 

demonstrate that it is exempt from obtaining such authorization from the foreign country;

(ii) The institution must provide to the Secretary, upon request, documentation of such legal 

authorization to operate in the foreign country, demonstrating that the foreign governmental authority 

is aware that the additional location or branch campus provides postsecondary education and that the 

government authority does not object to those activities;

(iii) The additional location or branch campus must be approved by the institution's recognized 

accrediting agency in accordance with §§ 602.24(a) and 602.22(a)(2)(viii), as applicable;

(iv) The additional location or branch campus must meet any additional requirements for legal 

authorization in that foreign country as the foreign country may establish;

(v) The institution must report to the State in which the main campus of the institution is 

located at least annually, or more frequently if required by the State, the establishment or operation of 

each foreign additional location or branch campus; and

(vi) The institution must comply with any limitations the State places on the establishment or 

operation of the foreign additional location or branch campus.

 

3 Section 600.9(d) was effective July 1, 2018. We propose to retain this language.

Comment [RP8]: Institutions should be able 

to document the complaint process in states 

in which their students are located. However, 

some states (e.g., California) have no oversight 

or complaint process for public or non-profit 

institutions offering distance courses from

out-of-state. Efforts to get California to create 

a complaint process has been fruitless. 
Page 26 of 31

(2) An additional location at which less than 50 percent of an educational program (as defined in 

§ 600.2) is offered or will be offered must meet the requirements for legal authorization in that foreign 

country as the foreign country may establish.

(3) In accordance with the requirements of 34 CFR 668.41, the institution must disclose to 

enrolled and prospective students at foreign additional locations and foreign branch campuses the 

information regarding the student complaint process described in 34 CFR 668.433(b), of the State in 

which the main campus of the institution is located.

(4) If the State in which the main campus of the institution is located limits the authorization of 

the institution to exclude the foreign additional location or branch campus, the foreign additional 

location or branch campus is not considered to be legally authorized by the State.
Page 27 of 31

§668.50 Institutional disclosures for distance or correspondence programs. 

(a) General. In addition to the other institutional disclosure requirements established in this and 

other subparts, an institution described under 34 CFR 600.9 (a)(1) or (b) that offers an 50 percent or 

more of an educational program that is provided, or can be completed solely through distance education 

or correspondence courses, excluding internships and practicums, must provide the information 

described in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section to enrolled and prospective students in that program.

(b) Public disclosures. An institution described under 34 CFR 600.9(a)(1) that offers an 50 percent

or more of an educational program that is provided, or can be completed solely through distance 

education or correspondence courses, excluding internships and practicums, must make available the 

following information to enrolled and prospective students of such program, the form and content of 

which the Secretary may determine:

(1)(i) Whether the institution is met direct compliance requirements or authorized by each 

Statemet reciprocity compliance requirements in each State in which enrolled students are or will be 

enrolled in reside to provide the program;

(ii) Whether the institution is authorized through a State authorization reciprocity agreement, as 

defined in 34 CFR 600.2, to provide the program; and

(iii) An general explanation of the consequences, including ineligibility for title IV, HEA funds, for 

a student who changes his or her State of residence to a State where the institution does not meet State 

requirements or, in the case of a GE program, as defined under § 668.402, where the program does not 

meet licensure or certification requirements in the State;

(2)(i) If the institution is required to provide a disclosure under paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section, 

aA description of the process for submitting complaints, including contact information for the receipt of 

consumer complaints at the appropriate State authorities in the State in which the institution's main 

campus is located, as required under § 668.43(b),; and

(ii) If the institution is required to provide a disclosure under paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section, 

and that agreement establishes a complaint process as described in 34 CFR 600.9 (c)(2)(ii), a description 

of the process for submitting complaints that was established in the reciprocity agreement, including 

contact information for receipt of consumer complaints at the appropriate State authorities;

(3) A description of the process for submitting consumer complaints in each State in which the 

program's current or prospective enrolled students are located, including: reside, including contact 

information for receipt of consumer complaints at the appropriate State authorities;

(i) If the institution met direct compliance requirements, the complaint process of the State 

where the student is located.

(ii) If the institution met reciprocity compliance requirements, the complaint process required by 

the State authorization reciprocity agreement in which the State or institution are located..of which the 

State is a member.

Comment [RP9]: The suggestion to move to 

“50 percent or more of an educational 

program” was rooted in a concern that 

“solely” was ill-defined and could easily be 

circumvented to avoid compliance.

The “50 percent” is suggested because:

50% of a program is the threshold used to 

define an “additional location.” 

 If an institution begins to offer 50% or 

more of its program at a distance, then 

most (all?) accrediting agencies seek a 

review of the program.

 We would be protecting student who are 

receiving the bulk of their instruction at a 

distance or via correspondence.

One problem is that 50% is hard to define, but 

since it is already in use other places, there 

are lessons that can be learned from those 

cases.

Many states actually cover ANY activity in a 

state whether it is related to distance 

education or not. NC-SARA affects distance 

education and a limited amount of face-toface activity.

Comment [RP10]: This was an ill-defined 

requirement. There are a very large number of 

permutations of the consequences depending 

on variations in student activity and state 

regulations. If the institution does not cover 

the particular permutation for a given student, 

is it at risk?

Does adding the word “general” still allow for 

informing students that there are 

consequences, but relieves the institution of 

specific consequences?

Comment [RP11]: We are in agreement for 

the notice for complaint processes, but tried 

to simplify the language in the next section.
Page 28 of 31

(4) Any adverse actions taken by a State entity has initiated, and the years in which such actions 

were initiated, related to postsecondary education programs for which 50 percent or more of the 

program was offered solely through distance education or correspondence courses at the institution for 

the five calendar years prior to the year in which the disclosure is made;

(5) Any adverse actions taken by an accrediting agency has initiated, and the years in which such 

actions were initiated, related to postsecondary education programs offered solely throughthat could be 

50% completed through distance education or correspondence courses at the institution for the five 

calendar years prior to the year in which the disclosure is made;

(6) Any adverse actions taken by a State authorization reciprocity agreement in which the 

institution participates, and the years in which such actions were initiated, related to postsecondary 

education programs that could be 50% completed through distance education or correspondence courses 

at the institution for the five calendar years prior to the year in which the disclosure is made;

(67) Refund policies with which the institution is required to comply by any State in which 

enrolled students reside for the return of unearned tuition and fees as required by the State or State 

authorization reciprocity agreement or for the State in which enrolled students are located; and

(78)(i) The applicable educational prerequisites for professional licensure or certification for the 

occupation for which the program prepares students to enter in—

(A) Each State in which the program's enrolled students are locatedreside; and

(B) Any other State for which the institution has made a determination regarding such 

prerequisites;

(ii) If the institution makes a determination with respect to certification or licensure prerequisites 

in a State, whether the program does or does not satisfy the applicable educational prerequisites for 

professional licensure or certification in that State; and

(iii) For any State as to which the institution has not made a determination with respect to the 

licensure or certification prerequisites, a statement to that effectas to the protocol used to determine 

whether the program satisfies applicable educational prerequisites and why the institution was not able 

to make a final determination.

(c) Individualized disclosures. (1) An institution described under 34 CFR 600.9 (a)(1) or (b) that 

offers an educational program that 50% or more is provided, or can be completed solely through 

distance education or correspondence courses, excluding internships or practicums, must disclose directly 

and individually—

(i) Prior to each prospective student's enrollment, any determination by the institution that the 

program does not meet or cannot determine if the institution meets licensure or certification 

prerequisites in the State of the student's residence; and

(ii) To each enrolled and prospective student—

(A) Any adverse action takeninitiated by a State, or an accrediting agency or State authorization 

reciprocity agreement related to postsecondary education programs offered by the institution solelyfor 

which 50 percent or more of the educational program is provided through distance education or 

correspondence study within 30 days of the institution's becoming aware of such action; or

Comment [RP12]: “Taken” typically means 

that there is a finding against an institution.

“Initiated” means that the review is just 

beginning.

We’re suggesting that only “taken” actions be 

listed.

Comment [RP13]: Is five years too many?

Comment [CD14]: Rationale: Since 

participation in a reciprocity agreement can 

be used to demonstrate compliance, any 

significant adverse action by such an entity is 

relevant, too.

Comment [RP15]: There was considerable 

disagreement among state authorization 

professionals about the meaning of this 

section. We tried to clarify it.

The intent is that the student receives the 

notification of the refund policy that applies to 

him or her. Some interpreted the original 

wording to require the institution to notify the 

student of all refund policies for the state or 

institution, whether it was applicable to the

student or not. That would seem like a 

confusing disservice to the student.
Page 29 of 31

(B) Any determination by the institution that the program ceases to meet licensure or 

certification prerequisites of a State within 14 calendar days of that determination.

(2) For a prospective student who received a disclosure under paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section and who 

subsequently enrolls in the program, the institution must receive acknowledgment from that student 

that the student received the disclosure and be able to demonstrate that it received the student's 

acknowledgment.
Page 30 of 31

State authorization for distance education proposed language – February 2019

Submitted by subcommittee members Carolyn Fast and Sue Huppert.

(1) The Department should retain the Department’s 2016 regulatory language defining state 

authorization reciprocity agreements.

In 2016, the Department issued a regulation that defined “state authorization reciprocity 

agreement” in Part 600.2 to require that such agreements permit member states to enforce all 

state consumer protection laws, including education-specific consumer protection laws, against 

member schools operating in their states. The Department should retain this language, which 

would ensure that online students have the same protections as students enrolled at traditional 

brick-and-mortar schools. 

(2) The Department should add language to the “state authorization reciprocity agreement” 

definition that ensures that reciprocity agreements are governed and controlled by member states.

The National Council on State Authorization Reciprocity Agreements (“NC-SARA”), has 

grown to include 49 member states. NC-SARA is administered by a non-state entity which is 

governed by a board that includes few state regulators, yet has ultimate authority for establishing 

NC-SARA policies. While states can chose to withdraw from the agreement, states have little 

direct control over NC-SARA policy. State “portal agencies,” the agencies that administer NCSARA in member states, hold only a few positions on the governing board. There are also no 

representatives of state consumer-protection agencies, such as state attorneys general offices, and 

no representatives of nonprofits that serve consumer or student interests, on the governing board. 

The Department should add language to Part 600.2 that ensures that state authorization 

reciprocity agreements are governed and controlled by member states. 

Proposed language: 

The Department should retain the language added to Part 600.2 in 2016 (in italics below) and 

add a provision on state governance and control (in italics and bolded below): 

State authorization reciprocity agreement: 

(a) An agreement between two or more States that authorizes an institution located and 

legally authorized in a State covered by the agreement to provide postsecondary education 

through distance education or correspondence course to students residing in other States 

covered by the agreement that (1) does not prohibit any State in the agreement from enforcing its 

own statutes and regulations, whether general or specifically directed at all or a subgroup of 

educational institutions; and (2) is governed and controlled by member states.

 

(b) State authorization reciprocity agreements comply with section (a)(2) where the 

agreement’s governing structure: 

(1) allocates at least 50% of positions on its primary governing board to state 

higher education officials currently employed by a member state higher 

education agency; and 
Page 31 of 31

(2) allocates at least one position on its primary governing board to a 

representative of a member state attorney general’s office or a 

representative of a non-profit organization representing the interests of 

consumers and/or students.