Community College Proposal for ED Approval of State Ability-to-Benefit (ATB) Plans 

After carefully considering the Department’s proposal for state ATB plans and recognizing our 

shared goal of serving and protecting the vulnerable student population served by ATB 

programs, community colleges wish to propose an alternative approach. Historically, higher 

education institutions have consistently opposed “bright line” standards for federal graduation 

rates and similar metrics, such as are being proposed by the Department. While they are 

appealing in their lack of complexity, such standards obscure the diversity of students and their 

needs, as well as institutions. When it comes to ATB, these standards also create a disincentive 

to build programs for this key, underserved population, limiting the on-ramps to opportunity 

that ATB was designed to create.

Community colleges’ alternative proposal is focused on ensuring program quality in state ATB

plans by requiring state, local, and/or county governments to make a significant financial 

commitment to the institutions that provide ECCPs and seek ATB eligibility for selected 

students. State financial commitment will help ensure that the state is fully invested in 

delivering quality ECCPs. 

Specifically, community colleges propose the following:

Any institution participating in a state ATB plan receive at least one-third (1/3) of its 

supporting revenues for its aggregate ATB programming from non-federal public 

sources (i.e., state and/or local). 

(Given the nature of institutional revenue streams, it is not practical to apply the onethird standard to individual ECCP programs, but there is no effective difference on the 

campus level because money is fungible.)

When a state commits resources and support to colleges that enable them to enroll students 

who lack a high school diploma, the federal government should in turn support that effort, 

recognizing the quality control incentive in the state’s investment. 

To further ensure program quality and prevent conceivable abuse, the community colleges 

propose capping the number of students who could qualify under the state plan:

The total number of students who could potentially qualify under a plan should be 

limited to one percent of the total enrollment in a state’s public institutions of higher 

education. 

(Current ATB numbers suggest that the number of students made eligible under any 

state plan will be far lower than that.)
State plans that meet the two thresholds outlined above—required state funding and 

enrollment caps--and whose institutions offer otherwise qualifying ECCPs, should be approved

by the Department.

The number of students likely to qualify under ATB state plans is extremely small in relation to

the overall pool of ATB students, not to mention all Title IV recipients. We do not believe that 

any state would propose any plan that it believes exploited students in any way. Concerns 

along those lines are unfounded, yet ironically the proposed regulations in the redline 

documents provided by the Department subject only the state plan process to this additional 

layer of “protection.”. 

Community colleges also propose deleting Sec. 668.157(a)(6) as proposed by the Department. 

The statutory requirement that a career pathway program “enables an individual to attain a 

secondary school diploma or its recognized equivalent” is better addressed in proposed Sec. 

668.157(a)(1)(2). Community colleges believe leaving both clauses in the regulation will cause 

confusion. They are both aimed at the same end, yet employ different language towards that 

end. Furthermore, the language in Sec. 668.157(a)(1)(2) is appropriately more flexible than the 

language in subsection (6). 

Pathways to a high school credential are generally an important part of career pathways 

programs, but the ATB regulations must account for the context into which the career 

pathways definition, borrowed in toto from another statute, is being applied here. ATB was 

established to grant financial aid to qualified students who desire to pursue higher education 

without first obtaining a high school credential. This aspect of the career pathways definition, 

therefore, is an odd fit for ATB requirements, yet it is statutory. Community colleges have 

repeatedly identified this aspect of the career pathways definition as a barrier to enrolling more 

ATB students. The greater degree of flexibility accorded to institutions in Sec. 668.157(a)(1)(2) 

best deals with this inherent tension between the statutory language and the context to which 

it is being applied. 

In a separate document, community colleges propose the specific regulatory language to effect 

these changes.