Four Year Public Colleges Comments and Suggestions for

Negotiated Rulemaking Session 3

Four year public colleges commend the Department of Education efforts to protect students and taxpayers from 

harmful institutional and programmatic practices. We welcome the opportunity to provide input during the 

negotiated rulemaking process.

The following represent several of the top concerns with current proposed regulations. Due to the broad scope 

of proposals, however, it does not represent an exhaustive list. 

Issue Paper #2: Standards of Administrative Capability

1) Career services language in 668.16 (h) (3) (i)

Four year public college’s offer a variety of quality career services to the students we serve, but remain 

concerned about ED regulating in this area and trying to define “adequate career services” as introduced into 

the regulations. When asked how this rule would apply to four year public colleges, the ED negotiator 

referenced concerns about institutions offering gainful employment (GE) programs with no career services 

whatsoever, or the type of career services that had been advertised. The language in this section needs to be 

updated to reflect rules against misrepresentation of career services for GE programs as suggested by other 

negotiators. 

2) Clinical or externship opportunities language in 668.16 (h) (3) (j)

Four-year public colleges offer a variety of programs requiring clinical or externship opportunities as part of a 

credential. The proposed regulation is not clear on the meaning of “accessible” clinical or externship 

opportunities. Synonyms for accessible include “nearby”, “open”, “available”, and “manageable”, which leads to 

more confusion. It is also unclear whether the proposed rule applies to all programs, or just GE programs. We 

note that clinical and externship opportunities are sometimes limited depending on the recognized occupation 

and/or licensure requirements, and may not be offered within 45 days of coursework completion depending on 

the timing of a clinical rotation. In some programs it may be difficult to distinguish between the required 

coursework and the clinical work. The language in this section should be clarified. 

Issue Paper #3: Gainful Employment

1) Small program rates language in 668.404 (g) 

While we understand the idea of sharing GE program data and metrics for institutions offering certificate 

programs with a limited number of borrowers (less than 30), we don’t think small program rate data will be 

useful. Students nor institutions will be able to decipher which of the small programs are leading to gainful 

employment, and which may not be. ED data could be useful if de-identified debt-to-income data by program is

shared to allow institutions and students to evaluate whether a program is leading to gainful employment as 

expected. This will allow institutions to evaluate programs with less than 30 borrowers. 
2) Institutional and programmatic information language in 668.43

Four-year public colleges commend ED efforts to build a disclosure website and appreciate the idea of sharing 

outcome measures and disclosures for all Title IV-eligible programs, regardless of whether they are subject to 

gainful employment regulation. We agree with other negotiators that comprehensive disclosures for 

undergraduate and graduate populations may be beneficial to all stakeholders. That said, we question whether 

ED should regulate in this area while trying to list out every effective disclosure item that will be presumably 

driven by consumer testing. ED has developed a variety of website tools for the public, including the College 

Scorecard, without enumerating every website element in regulation. Regulatory scrutiny may make effective 

consumer information more difficult to make available on an ED website if it subject to periodic regulatory 

review. 

Regarding the elements to be shared on a disclosure website, we note that some of the data referenced will not 

be readily available, including the total cost of tuition, fees, books, supplies and equipment for the entire length 

of a program, or the private loan debt of borrowers. We urge clarity from ED on any additional data reporting 

that would be required, and request that ED consider the use of current available data and limit requests for 

new institutional data. 

Issue Paper #6: Certification Procedures

1) Proposal to “ensure” that program may result in licensure language in 668.14 (32)

Compliance with a patchwork of state rules is a necessary task assumed by institutions as they offer education 

to students located in multiple U.S. States. Distance education and multistate delivery increases options to a 

variety of student demographics, including adult learners, veterans, parenting students, working students, and 

those who seek flexibility and specific training opportunities in a competitive, modern, and mobile economy.

Current proposed language suggests that institutions “ensure” programs will satisfy applicable prerequisites for 

licensure or certification requirements in a state. The current state regulatory landscape, unfortunately, does 

not always permit the institution to make a clear and definitive statement. Thus, to “ensure” creates a complex 

and troubling scenario for the institution to manage and, importantly, restricts availability of options to students 

nationwide.

The pandemic has allowed higher education to pivot into increased offerings of distance education. Four-year 

public colleges continue to be interested in serving students via distance education certificate programs, but if 

this proposed regulation moves forward it will likely lead many four-year public colleges to no longer make

distance education certificate and licensure programs eligible for Title IV aid. The language proposed here will 

lead to unreasonable administrative burdens that will ultimately reduce affordable certificate and licensure

programs via distance education for low-income students. We urge ED to work with all negotiators and 

stakeholders to improve this section of the regulations. 

2) Institutional information language 668.43 (5) (v)

Current regulations effective July 1, 2020, already require institutions to issue student disclosures regarding 

programs that lead to licensure or certification. The current regulations already require that disclosures be made 

to students on whether the program leads to certification or licensure in their state, but account for the 
complexity of the state regulatory landscape which does not always permit the institution to make a clear and 

definitive statement. At a minimum, the regulatory guidance should account for the fact that there will be cases 

where it will not be possible for an institution to determine whether a program meets state certification or 

licensure requirements.