| A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | AA | AB | AC | AD | AE | AF | AG | AH | AI | AJ | AK | AL | AM | AN | AO | AP | AQ | AR | AS | AT | AU | AV | AW | AX | AY | AZ | BA | BB | BC | BD | BE | BF | BG | BH | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Document ID | Agency ID | Docket ID | Tracking Number | Document Type | Posted Date | Is Withdrawn? | Federal Register Number | FR Citation | Title | Comment Start Date | Comment Due Date | Allow Late Comments | Comment on Document ID | Effective Date | Implementation Date | Postmark Date | Received Date | Author Date | Related RIN(s) | Authors | CFR | Abstract | Legacy ID | Media | Document Subtype | Exhibit Location | Exhibit Type | Additional Field 1 | Additional Field 2 | Topics | Duplicate Comments | OMB/PRA Approval Number | Page Count | Page Length | Paper Width | Special Instructions | Source Citation | Start End Page | Subject | First Name | Last Name | City | State/Province | Zip/Postal Code | Country | Organization Name | Submitter Representative | Representative's Address | Representative's City, State & Zip | Government Agency | Government Agency Type | Comment | Category | Restrict Reason Type | Restrict Reason | Reason Withdrawn | Content Files | Attachment Files | Display Properties (Name, Label, Tooltip) |
2 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0001 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | Other | 2023-02-15T00:00Z | TRUE | Requirements and Responsibilities for Third-Party Servicers and Institutions Dear Colleague Letter | FALSE | On Feb. 16, 2023, we corrected the content of the table titled "Recruitment- and Application-Related Activities" to add information that was inadvertently omitted during the publication process. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0002 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | Other | 2023-02-17T00:00Z | TRUE | Requirements and Responsibilities for Third-Party Servicers and Institutions | FALSE | On Feb. 28, 2023, we updated this letter to extend the public comment period, establish a future effective date for the guidance, and extend the reporting deadline for institutions and third-party servicers. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
4 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0003 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lee-er4y-b5t1 | Public Submission | 2023-02-22T05:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0002 | 2023-02-21T05:00Z | Comment(s) | Anonymous | Anonymous | I am in my tenth year as a chief academic officer at a small college with a religious mission. We hold regional, national and programmatic accreditation from three accrediting agencies. I have served on 10 accreditation teams, 5 of them as the team chair. I've also served as chair of an accrediting agency appeal panel and on accreditation taskforces. I've worked as a faculty member, and also as a financial-aid officer. For several years, I was the administrator responsible for our financial aid office, and I've been involved in numerous audits. I've overseen our contractual relationships in the academic space for nearly a decade. Part of our religious mission involves maintaining very low tuition and other costs for our students. We do not want our students to accrue significant debt! Many of our students have lower socioeconomic backgrounds, and we work hard to control costs. One way we do this is by working with a smaller, nimbler student information system (SIS) and learning management system (LMS). These are excellent tools for us, with responsive and helpful companies charging extremely reasonable rates. They serve us better than major vendors, and they have a lower cost. But they are not Third Party Servicers -- or they were not until this Dear Colleague Letter defined them as such. The same problem obtains for an assessment system we use to warehouse student assessment data online and for a contractual partner that provides a small number of online courses for us. The assessment vendor is established -- but not, so far as I know, a TPS. The online-course provider was reviewed by both our institutional accrediting agencies and the Ohio Department of Higher Education, even down to accessing details about course content and faculty credentials. We engaged in thorough vetting. But now, these relationships may be eliminated because of the new TPS definitions. A clear and immediate impact for us will be one of a few detrimental outcomes. First, our partners could become TPSs, with associated increased costs, which we would have to fund, and I don't know how that does not increase student costs. Second, our partners could decline to become TPSs, in which case we would have to stop using them before the semester ends, throwing our entire educational operation into immediate chaos. I strongly support regulation of third parties who are involved with Title IV beyond simple ledger systems (like our SIS). I support regulation of third parties that engage in recruiting students, or managing entire online programs. But I equally strongly think that expanding the TPS definition as done in this DCL will (1) raise costs for students, mostly hurting smaller institutions and underserved populations, (2) put some providers out of business, reducing innovation in higher-education technology and (3) prove significantly disruptive to academic operations for smaller, less-resourced colleges like mine. I would very much like to see the Department refocus its TPS work on the bad actors in our industry, where regulation is needed. | Private/Non-Profit Institution of Higher Education | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0004 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | leh-fnnc-xd3n | Public Submission | 2023-02-23T05:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0002 | 2023-02-23T05:00Z | Comment(s) | Anonymous | Anonymous | I support this change. As an academic library administrator and librarian and a parent of two college students, I am appalled that the price of tuition, fees, housing, and course materials continue to rise beyond what our students can pay, in large part because public higher education has increasingly outsourced rather than do work in-house. Faculty often refuse to adopt free open educational resources that would save students and institutions huge amounts of money because they want to use the materials developed by for-profit companies. Why am I paying fees for the college's learning management system if professors have just offloaded all instructional content and design to for-profits that offer full courses pretending to be textbooks? Textbooks should be the supporting material- not the whole class. I'm frustrated and cannot afford to pay for my kids to attend college and then pay even more so the in-house employees do not have to do their job. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
6 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0005 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lei-v95k-pym1 | Public Submission | 2023-02-24T05:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0002 | 2023-02-24T05:00Z | Comment(s) | L Joseph | Schmoke | Boca Raton | FL | United States | The proposed TPS requirements are overkill. The "Affect of New Rules" pendulum, rather than resting comfortably in the middle, is teetering over the cliff that is radical change. That is irresponsible. The folks at ED should know better. | Federal Agency | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
7 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0006 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lem-7ccf-amnj | Public Submission | 2023-02-27T05:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0002 | 2023-02-26T05:00Z | Comment(s) | Michael | Horn | Lexington | MA | United States | This is an extraordinary show of overreach and misguided regulation that steps into the internal affairs of accredited colleges and universities. The proper way to regulate this industry is by regulating the colleges and universities themselves at the point of accreditation based on student outcomes. Why officials in Washington, and not the colleges themselves, are best positioned to monitor contracts with outside parties that serve students is unclear. Yet the impact will be felt in higher costs and a stunting of needed innovation on behalf of students. The problems with the approach are numerous. The regulatory red tape will increase costs at a time when most agree that the price of higher education has risen too high. It will also favor incumbents over nimble startups that do not have the budgets to comply.  Nonprofits like Get Schooled, which provides first-generation, low-income students with support to complete their financial aid applications, will likely fall under the guidance and waste resources on red tape. Startup companies that pioneer new innovations will struggle to comply with the costs of annual audits. This will favor larger, slower-moving incumbents with bigger balance sheets, which will cripple critical innovations for students. The cost of the compliance will almost certainly get passed on to universities, which will then pass those costs to students through higher tuition. The new regulation barring any foreign companies or those led by foreign nationals from holding these contracts is likely a blatant violation of America’s trade treaties with other nations. Contracts with German software giant SAP are likely now illegal. A leading Canadian learning company, D2L, is barred from the market. Startups like Stellic, founded by a Pakistani, are locked out. Of course, the chances of a university successfully replacing its back-end systems by the May 1 deadline are nil, so how will this be enforced? Is Cal State-Chico really supposed to rip out its SIS because SAP is the company behind it? What's more, rather than create transparency around a limited slice of contracts numbering in the hundreds, the Education Department will now be responsible for monitoring tens of thousands of contracts. This will also overburden its small but zealous team and lead to less transparency than anticipated. To be clear, there are many bad online college programs that have a miserable return on investment for students, just like there are many bad brick-and-mortar programs. Yet the instinct to intervene into which companies private and public accredited colleges are allowed to do business with or to micromanage the contracts with third-party organizations is misplaced. The regulation of inputs — how a college does its work — will only lock institutions into set ways of doing things and inhibit innovation. Policy should instead focus on student outcomes and empower schools to figure out the best ways to deliver. Better policy would do things like tie the ability of college programs to participate in federal aid programs on the condition that their students get good-paying jobs when they leave and repay their debt. Or Congress could pass policy to require that colleges share in the risk when student borrowers don’t repay what they borrow. Under this model, schools would have the incentive to cut off companies that added costs without benefiting students. Yes, these moves might require working with Congress. They would involve deliberation and be slower than issuing regulations by fiat. They would also likely require compromise. No one will get everything. Yet such a process would also spare students and colleges and universities this disaster. It wouldn’t accidentally violate trade agreements, and it would boost innovation, affordability, and value for students. | Academic/Think Tank | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
8 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0007 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lem-xdtr-6mam | Public Submission | 2023-02-28T05:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0002 | 2023-02-27T05:00Z | Comment(s) | Anonymous | Anonymous | This feels like a gross overreach of the role of the Department of Education and the worst kind of additional bureaucracy for very little return on value. What was the goal of expanding TPS definitions to include software used to track regular university business? This does not solve a perceived problem with security or access to student level personal data by overseas providers. What purpose is there for the DOE to track the multitude of systems in use by higher education to provide their services to students? This letter has caused much confusion and is unclear regarding the definitions of TPS rather than providing guidance that could have been useful within context of goals for an update. | Institution of Higher Education | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
9 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0008 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | len-7p56-tbv8 | Public Submission | 2023-02-28T05:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0002 | 2023-02-27T05:00Z | Comment(s) | Anonymous | Anonymous | As the owner of a consulting business that works with education technology companies and post-secondary institutions, I am writing to express my concern about the defining language and expansion of scope of ED-2022-OPE-0103. I recommend that the FSA change the language in the guidance to more clearly specify and limit which types of technologies, services, and products are deemed to be Third Party Servicers. Clearer, more specific language will be helpful in excluding the broad range of current and future products and services that have no direct bearing on FSA or Title IV programs. My interpretation of the Feb 16 "Dear Colleague" letter is that the language referring to organizations and companies that are now to be considered Third Party Servicers is either ambiguous (and thus confusing), or represents such a broad expansion of oversight for the FSA. In either case, this new guidance has introduced new and serious concerns, confusion, or challenges to both education technology companies and the institutions that they serve. After reading the guidance multiple times, I (perhaps optimistically) presume that the language is simply vague and unintentionally ambiguous. I.e. the FSA does not mean to include the broad range of education technology products and services that nearly every higher education institution relies on to deliver their services and pursue their missions. For example, with respect to technology products, some have already interpreted the FSA guidance to now include Student Information Systems (and associated internal management systems), Customer Relationship Management Systems (and associated communications, outreach, and retention tools), Learning Management Systems (and associated teaching and learning tools). All of these technologies are widely used by post-secondary institutions with the sole purpose of empowering their faculty, staff, and students in pursuit of their mission. Few, if any, of these technologies play any part in the administration of federal Title IV programs, though they are all critical to supporting the institutions’ academic programs that qualify for Title IV. And almost invariably, each of these products is ultimately controlled and administered by the post-secondary institutions themselves. My presumption that these technology products are NOT meant to be included by the new FSA guidance is based on my understanding behind the motivation for this guidance, which is to protect students, post-secondary institutions, and federal funds from predatory or incompetent Third-Party Servicers. These TPS are only those organizations or companies who play an active, unchecked role in student recruitment or administration of FSA or Title IV programs. Thus, a Learning Management System, for example, should not be considered a TPS because, while it does support academic programs that qualify for Title IV FSA, it does not administer or interact with Title IV programs itself. Another example: Technology products that support student retention or engagement are typically controlled by the post-secondary institution. Yet while student retention is a relevant factor to Title IV programs, the tools that institutions choose to use through their own staff members in pursuit of higher rates of student retention are not relevant to the flow of FSA funds. If, however, my presumption is incorrect and the FSA has intentionally included many (and possibly more) of the education technology products, companies, and services represented above, both higher education and the companies/organizations that support them have much more to worry about. Such a definitional change of TPS would seem a significant overreach, one that is unlikely to achieve any good and certainly may hinder progress through additional costs, distractions, or the overall chilling effect that regulation can have on education technology. My primary objective in writing this letter is to seek greater clarity in language and a restricted scope for the FSA’s definition of TPS so as not to include current and future products and services that post-secondary institutions need in order to succeed. I have purposely avoided discussion of companies more relevant to Title IV programs (such as Online Program Managers) in order to focus my concerns on what I deem to be the most glaring problem arising from the new guidance. Over the past 25 years I’ve worked on both the institutional and commercial side of education and I know that we depend on public-private partnerships for continuous innovation, with education technology in particular playing a greater role in achieving greater efficiency and better outcomes for their students. I hope the FSA will continue to stay out of the way of these partnerships so that they can flourish, and ensure FSA guidance is clearly limited to the administration of Title IV programs. | Federal Agency | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
10 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | leo-mmdi-ln9l | Other | 2023-02-28T05:00Z | FALSE | Requirements and Responsibilities for Third-Party Servicers and Institutions | 2023-02-28T05:00Z | 2023-03-31T03:59:59Z | FALSE | 2023-02-28T05:00Z | This letter updates guidance to institutions that contract with a third-party servicer (TPS) to administer any aspect of the institution’s participation in the student assistance programs authorized under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA). On Feb. 28, 2023, we updated this letter to extend the public comment period, establish a future effective date for the guidance, and extend the reporting deadline for institutions and third-party servicers. | https://downloads.regulations.gov/ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009/attachment_1.docx | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
11 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0010 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lep-pqkq-gvkh | Public Submission | 2023-03-01T05:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-01T05:00Z | Comment(s) | Anonymous | Anonymous | I would like to start by saying I am all for additional oversight on Third Party Servicers to ensure the safety of our student data and quality services are provided. It is unclear what Ed does with the information on TPS' schools have been reporting in the past. I've been reporting TPS' for my school for 13 years now and have never received any feedback on our contracts with reported TPS'. I feel the updated DCL is a misguided overreach. The new definition of a Third Party Servicer will be overly burdensome for schools to keep up with reporting of all the contracts the school maintains and implements for day to day operations. There is no single person at a school with oversight over every contract that is signed, making it even more difficult for even the best schools to comply with the new reporting requirements. Furthermore, the FSA staff at Ed can barely keep up with processing updates and renewals of the PPA prior to this change; the new definition of TPS will make this task even more difficult for the folks at FSA. With our ECARs locked for changes while we await response from Ed, schools are unable to make updates, making it impossible to comply with the 10-day reporting window. Also, the DCL is unclear whether the intent is to include or exclude contracts with providers for Student Information Systems (SIS) and Learning Management Systems (LMS) to be reported as Third Party Servicers. The language needs to be updated to make this more clear. In my opinion, the DCL needs to be scaled back to a more reasonable definition of TPS, as it was prior to the February 2023 changes. Thank you for considering. | Private/Non-Profit Institution of Higher Education | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
12 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0011 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | leq-iut7-f4yn | Public Submission | 2023-03-02T05:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-01T05:00Z | Comment(s) | Anonymous | Anonymous | Upon reading the updated DCL for the TPS, is that in regards to new contracts or existing ones as well? The institution I work for has been partnered with a TPS in processing title IV for years and though I understand the provisions detailed on the letter, if our school has been partnered with them for years, will they also be given the given deadline to amend their software? If not, when is the school required to terminate contract to remain in compliance? | Financial Aid Administrator | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
13 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0012 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | ler-bkba-l3i2 | Public Submission | 2023-03-03T05:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-02T05:00Z | Comment(s) | Instructional Technology Council (ITC) | The Instructional Technology Council (ITC) is a not-for-profit membership organization that provides guidance and professional development to institutions of higher education throughout North America, particularly community colleges in the United States. ITC is an Affiliated Council of the American Association of Community Colleges. We are submitting this comment on behalf of our members, many of whom are seeking additional guidance from us regarding the Dear Colleague letter of February 15, 2023 with the Subject: Requirements and Responsibilities for Third-Party Servicers and Institutions. Our member institutions utilize computer services and software such as student information systems (SIS) and learning management systems (LMS) which may be provided using the Software as a Service (SaaS) module or be “cloud based.” As such, the provider has access to, and/or maintains control over, the systems to at least some extent. However, for the most part, the content, configuration and Title IV relevant decision making, if any, of the software or systems is under the direct control of the institution. ITC is aware that 34 CFR 668.2 “Third party servicer:” (1)(ii) (F) specifically excludes from the definition of a third party servicer (TPS) the providing of computer services or software however DCL ID: GEN-23-03 of February 28, 2023 states that ED considers “Providing computer services or software in which the provider has access to, or maintains control over, the systems needed to administer any aspect of the Title IV programs, whether through manual or automated processing, including, but not limited to, systems related to financial aid management, recruitment and enrollment, admissions, registration, billing, and learning management” to be TPS. We noted the exclusion of computer products and/or services that reside at and are under the control of the institution and but not if the provider performs any activity on behalf of the institution within a system. SaaS vendors often perform software upgrades and other operations on behalf of our institutions. In an effort to fully comply with the new guidance, our members have expressed grave concerns that SIS and LMS systems provided using the SaaS (cloud based) model will no longer be excluded per 34 CFR 668.2 (1)(ii) (F) and ask additional guidance with regard to that. We strongly encourage ED to maintain the full exclusion provided for in 34 CFR. If, however the intent of GEN-23-03 is indeed to regulate cloud-based LMS and SIS software and services we would request that proviso be rescinded as soon as possible. We do not feel it is necessary or appropriate and offer the following analogy. SIS and LMS systems are common tools in higher education, but institutions are the ones who use those tools. When an electrician wires a house, the governing authority can and should require the electrician and all of their subcontractors to be properly trained and licensed, and the governing authority can and should inspect the outcome of their work. But if the practitioners and outcomes comply with all relevant regulations, to require registration and audits of the pliers, screwdrivers and wire cutters in the electrician’s toolbox seems not only to be overreach, it’s downright silly! Our members are committed to following government regulations to the letter. However, the current (perceived) need by our members to report any software or service that meet the broadest interpretation of TPS criteria listed in GEN-23-03 or to contact their School Participation Division for specific guidance on every cloud based software product or service they license will have great cost in terms of time and labor. ITC has already received assurances from larger LMS and SIS vendors that they are aware of the new guidance and these companies have government relations teams working on compliance, also using the broadest possible definitions. The cost to our vendors gets passed on to our members and these, along with internal costs, get passed along to students. We do not feel that a broad interpretation or case-by-case analysis of software and services is in the best interest of our students. ITC and our members do hope that the wording is simply unclear and that there is no intent to classify LMS and SIS software and systems as TPS. If that is the case, clarification is all that would be needed. We thank you for your consideration of our members’ concerns, and look forward to your reassurance that could-bases SIS and LMS systems will continue to be excluded from the definition of TPS as per 34 CFR 668.2 (1)(ii) (F). On behalf of the Council; Chair, Board of Directors [Formatted document attached.] | Association/Organization | https://downloads.regulations.gov/ED-2022-OPE-0103-0012/attachment_1.pdf | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
14 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0013 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | ler-fq4a-t5hq | Public Submission | 2023-03-03T05:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-02T05:00Z | Comment(s) | J Ritchie | Morrow | Lincoln | NE | United States | Regarding DCL GEN 23-03 on Third Party Servicers, most state grant agencies assumed this DCL did not apply to them, as we administer our state programs. Regarding GEN-Q2, we are writing to confirm with you our understanding that state grant agencies performing FAFSA completion events and utilizing FAFSA data to award state aid programs are not a TPS in the completion of these functions. | State Higher Education Office | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
15 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0014 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | les-sxbq-fbxk | Public Submission | 2023-03-06T05:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-03T05:00Z | Comment(s) | Henry | Willard | Lake Jackson | TX | United States | This will be a tremendous new reporting burden for many institutions of higher education as the entire education technology industry has shifted towards the Software-as-a-Service model. This overly-broad language will cause project delays and inflict compliance costs on schools already burdened by declining enrollments and statewide budget cuts. It will also cause consolidation across the education technology industry, stifling competition and increasing future costs due to this loss of competition. I hope that the ED will consider a total recision of this guidance, and revise its efforts solely for the specific Online Program Management entities that are gaming the system. | Institution of Higher Education | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
16 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0015 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lex-ep3c-xh66 | Public Submission | 2023-03-07T05:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-06T05:00Z | Comment(s) | Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science | As a nonprofit, graduate-level health sciences university, we are very concerned about the potential for disruption to clinical rotations if hospitals and clinics that provide those crucial curricular experiences are to be considered third-party servicers (TPS). We are community-based, which means that we rely on our network of community and clinical partnerships for help in the education of our health professions students, who in turn gain access and exposure to diverse patient populations and healthcare and biomedical settings. We support the department’s efforts for transparency but respectfully urge consideration of the potential unintended consequences of the expanded definition of TPS and related requirements. | Private/Non-Profit Institution of Higher Education | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
17 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0016 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lex-be2z-l9mz | Public Submission | 2023-03-07T05:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-06T05:00Z | Comment(s) | Noodle | See attached file(s) | Business | https://downloads.regulations.gov/ED-2022-OPE-0103-0016/attachment_1.pdf | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
18 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0017 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | ley-rpe3-c8zv | Public Submission | 2023-03-08T05:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-07T05:00Z | Comment(s) | ACOSS Consulting Group | The broadened scope of this regulation appears to now cover clinical facilities for programs like nursing. Hospitals are unlikely do what is required to become 3rd party servicers under the new guidance. As a result, this will send shockwaves to nursing programs (and other critically needed healthcare programs) across the country. It will dramatically constrict healthcare workforce production and inhibit healthcare providers’ ability to deliver quality care. The guidance should be redefined to address the true concern – OPMs. Beyond simply providing space for clinical rotations, hospitals and institutions of higher education are working more closely together to address critical workforce needs. They are collaborating on curriculum, aligning facilities, equipment and human resources to expand training capacity and innovate/improve the training of nurses and other healthcare professionals. The broad nature of this new guidance would stifle this momentum as the expanded definitions create too much risk for the healthcare providers. The final version of the guidance should be written in a way that does not constrict institutions of higher education and hospitals systems from working more closely together to more effectively address workforce gaps. | Education Consultant | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
19 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0018 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | ley-k65w-njmd | Public Submission | 2023-03-08T05:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # 2023-03261 | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-07T05:00Z | Comment(s) | Ruth Ann | Murray | Boston | MA | United States | I have worked with educational third party providers for many years. Academic institutions need to focus on their educational offerings and provide the best research, learning, and learning experience possible. This is where their talents lie. Partnering with a third party allows us to utilize their expertise in outreach and communications while focusing on our core strengths. We are saved the expense of growing our own marketing expertise and save precious headcount caps for faculty for teaching, publication, and research. As those of us in the non-profit field face competition from very large for-profits, the 3rd party alliances are critical to keep great programs out there and giving prospective students choices. We have worked with several partners, including AllCampus and we keep a strict firewall between our duties and responsibilities. We determine content, set prices, maintain our stringent academic standards and admission requirements. Their role is completely outside of academics - they help to market our message and present good strategies. The University is also the ultimate authority on where and how we advertise and exercise control over all marketing messages and collateral. | Private/Non-Profit Institution of Higher Education | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
20 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0019 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lf0-276x-s93r | Public Submission | 2023-03-09T05:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-08T05:00Z | Comment(s) | Geoff | Bradshaw | Madison | WI | United States | I am writing to express my deep concern that the language include in the guidance appears to be so general and so broad as to include delivery of study abroad programs, logistics operations and providers to support study abroad, branch campuses abroad, as well as online course delivery that may be unrelated to US financial aid. Likewise the language included in the guidance calls in question use of recruitment agents for international student recruitment, including non-aidable international students. In many ways, this language seems similar to 2021 Veterans Affairs guidance, that initially barred use of third part agents, but was later amended to include specific exception of international recruitment. I implore the USED team to include specific exemptions that protect higher education institutions in our ability to operate international programs that provide our students with the global experiences needed for life and work in a global community. | Two-Year Public Institution of Higher Education | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
21 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0020 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lf0-2cwi-ks3i | Public Submission | 2023-03-09T05:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-08T05:00Z | Comment(s) | Robert | Carolin | San Diego | CA | United States | It has come as a big surprise that the Department of Education in its efforts to fix one problem has now created a plethora of larger problems with this new proposed regulation. As has been mentioned, US universities need to remain competitive with a whopping $48 billion dollars in direct contribution to our economy. As we leverage our relationship with third-party entities overseas, we carefully scrutinize them in their efforts to promote our institution for prospective students. By the inclusion of US citizen requirements, you have essentially killed these efforts. Likewise, we regularly work with entities overseas (program providers/overseas partner institutions) that host our students on study abroad programs. Again, as we carefully select these locations and providers, they essentially will become non-compliant with our efforts to promote "soft" diplomacy abroad...a priority with the current administration. I ask that the Department of Education work with organizations such as AIRC, Forum on Education Abroad, NAFSA, ACE, ASSCU etc. to rework the language of this regulation to tackle the exact issue needing to be addressed, unscrupulous entities taking advantage of unsuspecting students. | Four-Year Public Institution of Higher Education | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
22 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0021 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lf0-918e-7c1p | Public Submission | 2023-03-09T05:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-08T05:00Z | Comment(s) | Thomas | Cavanagh | Orlando | FL | United States | I encourage you to withdraw the Dear Colleague Letter and revise it following extensive consultation with both the institutional and provider communities. There are significant implications inherent in the letter that are complex and far reaching. For example, if an institution is using a foreign owned learning management system (such as the popular D2L Brightspace from Canada), there is no conceivable way to comply with a September 1 deadline to evaluate, procure, and implement something else. In addition, there may be existing multi-year contracts that cannot be broken and the institution itself may simply not be able to afford to switch. It would create a financial and human resources burden on institutions and ultimately take away from their ability to serve students. | Four-Year Public Institution of Higher Education | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
23 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0022 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lf0-znsk-xkl0 | Public Submission | 2023-03-09T05:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-09T05:00Z | Comment(s) | Anonymous | Anonymous | Dear Annmarie Weisman Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Planning, and Innovation Office of Postsecondary Education My comments to the DCL titled "Requirements and Responsibilities for Third-Party Servicers and Institutions" are from the point of view of an International Students recruitment partner for US Universities for on-campus, full-time degree programs. We fully support the DOE's goals of protecting the rights and data of students, universities and American nationals and at the same time reduce the pressure of rising funding requirements of universities to support Title IV programs. In relation to the same, we would like to share 4 comments: 1. The intent seems to be to understand the OPM ecosystem better. On the contrary, the student recruiters for full-time, on-campus degree programs also seem to fall into the purview of TPS definition which may not be the intent in the first place. 2. Restriction on foreign ownership: For helping students from various countries to understand the opportunities in USA and supporting them in the preparation for US universities and application process, it requires a lot of personalized attention and on-ground support and hence most organizations involved in this support to international students and based in the home countries of these students. Thus, expecting only American owned and operated companies to localize their support in 80+ countries would be unrealistic. Thus, this should not apply to international student recruiters. 3. Linkage to Title IV programs: Most international students do not receive scholarships and instead pay 3-4x higher tuition costs (as compared to in-state students) and hence have no linkage to the Title IV programs. This also excludes international student recruiters from the TPS definition. 4. International students are a solution. They cross-subsidize the domestic students and hence we need to support international student recruitment partners. We work with Indian students who aim to study in top universities/colleges around the world and support them in a unique manner by giving them access to a community of mentors (current international students). We provide our students full transparency about the universities, its programs, the opportunities and the challenges with the help of these mentors. Every student going abroad for education changes the life of their family and many times their village/town. Our request would be to acknowledge the need for student support and consider our concerns. | Business | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
24 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0023 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lew-zjkx-7dog | Public Submission | 2023-03-09T05:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-06T05:00Z | Comment(s) | University of West Florida | State | Q. If the software vendor does not have access to the data stored within the system, do they qualify as a TPS? An example would be CRM systems, such as Slate or Salesforce. These systems are used for recruitment and enrollment, but the vendor does not have access to the data. Another example would be course instruction systems, such as Canvas, etc. Again, the vendor does not have access to the data. In addition, for the computer services category, if Financial Aid data is not being used, is the vendor considered TPS? | Four-Year Public Institution of Higher Education | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
25 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0024 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | ley-twqq-4r40 | Public Submission | 2023-03-14T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-07T05:00Z | Comment(s) | EDUCAUSE | Please see attached for the comments of EDUCAUSE (educause.edu) in relation to Docket ID ED-2022-OPE-0103, which concerns U.S. Department of Education Dear Colleague Letter GEN-23-03. | Association/Organization | https://downloads.regulations.gov/ED-2022-OPE-0103-0024/attachment_1.pdf | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
26 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0025 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lf1-hcxu-oaes | Public Submission | 2023-03-14T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-09T05:00Z | Comment(s) | David | Aronofsky | Missoula | MT | United States | This Dear Colleague Letter appears to have the unintended consequences of barring contracts between US higher education institutions and overseas institutions for the latter to provide instruction and education support services for US students enrolled in exchange and study abroad programs paid for with federal financial aid dollars. If I am mistaken and the intent is to bar such contracts, the proposed restrictions will effectively shut down most or all such programs including those funded by the Department. This needs to be clarified, because a number of overseas universities which have reviewed the proposed changes have been advised by their attorneys that such exchange and study abroad programs may need to be put on hold. As a retired US university professor who designed, directed and taught in dozens of study abroad, faculty led and exchange programs overseas involving US students receiving financial aid, I can easily say that without contracts between my US university employers and overseas higher education institutions, as well as non-US individual faculty members and non-US entities providing student support services such as housing, in-country transportation, catered meals, etc., these programs would not have occurred. Please clarify this in the Instruction part of the proposed rules. As to reporting these programs in connection with overall US institution reporting requirements, I see no problem as long as reporting guidelines are clear. Thanks for considering these concerns. Sincerely, David Aronofsky, Ph.D., J.D. aronofskyd@mso.umt.edu | Teacher | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
27 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0026 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lf1-jczc-6uzx | Public Submission | 2023-03-14T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-09T05:00Z | Comment(s) | Helene Fuld College of Nursing | See attached file(s) | Private/Non-Profit Institution of Higher Education | https://downloads.regulations.gov/ED-2022-OPE-0103-0026/attachment_1.pdf | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
28 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0027 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lf1-l3ir-nzkl | Public Submission | 2023-03-14T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-09T05:00Z | Comment(s) | Anonymous | Anonymous | The updated guidance in GEN 23-03 raises many questions and concerns for individuals in the financial aid office. First, the expanded definition of what a TPS is creates a significant oversight and reporting burden for financial aid offices who are responsible for reporting TPS information to the Department, especially at a large university. There is no one individual on campus who is responsible for contracting at our institution, therefore it would be difficult, especially for contracts outside the financial aid office, to ensure that all agreements have the required language incorporated into their contracts and that they're appropriately reported to the Department on our ECAR. While I applaud the Departments efforts for heightened oversight of TPS, the current guidance seems overreaching and to create an unreasonable burden for financial aid staff. Moreover, if forces financial aid to be involved, at least tangentially, in operations far outside the purview of the financial aid office, which is generally not received well by other departments. Moreover, there are implications for schools that offer health programs, particularly at clinical sites, since it would appear that under the new guidance, they would now be considered a TPS. Our administration has serious concerns that clinical sites, along with other entities that we engage with for experiential learning, will chose not to partner with us due to the additional regulatory requirements and audit costs associated with their designation as a TPS, impacting the quality and breadth of education that we can provide. I would urge the Department to reconsider their current guidance on who is considered a TPS and partner with colleges, universities, and NASFAA to cultivate a reasonable list of entities that should be reported and develop a different mechanism for reporting so that the responsibility for reporting does not lie solely in the lap of the financial aid office. Second, the expanded definition of TPS is unclear on whether or not Student Information Systems like PeopleSoft, Banner, etc. that operate in the cloud are considered TPS. Higher education technology in todays environment is most frequently offered in a Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) model and hosted on the cloud, so additional clarification is needed in regards to cloud-based SIS/ERP systems and whether or not they meet the new definition of a TPS. Third, many schools employ part-time staff in their financial aid office. Some of those staff may also work part-time at other local colleges or universities. The scope of their work at each school is covered under each schools annual audit, and there is no shared service arrangement between the two schools (they simply both happen to employee the same individual on a part-time bases. Under the new guidance, would someone who works as a part-time EMPLOYEE (not a contractor/consultant) at multiple institutions be considered a TPS? Based on the Q&A (GEN-Q10), it would suggest that an employee in this situation would be considered a TPS because they perform functions or services on behalf of another institution. I would urge the Department to reconsider this guidance as I do not believe the intent of the regulation is to penalize individuals who cannot find full-time employment in a financial aid office, or to impose additional expenses on those individuals as a result of TPS audit requirements. Lastly, I would urge the Department to provide additional guidance on full-time employees that work as contractors for TPS (like NASFAA's Blue Icon) doing remote processing for other colleges. As you know, there has always been a shortage of financial aid professionals and inadequate staffing in financial aid offices. This has only been exacerbated by the pandemic. As a result, colleges and universities all over the United States have turned to consulting firms, like Blue Icon, to supplement their financial aid operations with remote processing. As a result, Blue Icon has recruited financial aid professionals who work full-time in financial aid offices during the day to consult for them on evenings and weekends and perform remote processing tasks for their client schools. It would seem that based on the current guidance, if an employee of our institution worked as a consultant/contractor for Blue Icon, that we would be required to report them as a TPS on the ECAR. Can you confirm this is correct? Thank you for your consideration. | Other | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
29 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0028 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lf1-mrpe-15cb | Public Submission | 2023-03-14T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-09T05:00Z | Comment(s) | Lakeshore Technical College | Local | Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on Requirements and Responsibilities for Third-Party Servicers and Institutions. Lakeshore Technical College is a public, regionally accredited rural two-year college located in the Village of Cleveland, Wisconsin. We educate approximately 8,000 students annually in both credit and non-credit programs, and these students are supported by just under 300 full-time employees (of whom, 100 are full-time faculty). Community partnerships are essential to the long-term success of our college and our local economies. As products of our community, it is impossible to untangle the relationship between our college and our community institutions (both public and private). The framework outlined in the Dear Colleague Letter dated 02/15/2023 for identifying a third-party service provider is so vast and all-encompassing the implementation would be overly burdensome for our college, our community partners, and for the Department of Education. Specifically, we interpret the Dear Colleague Letter as requiring us to identify any entity, public or private, as a third-party servicer if: (1) we have a contractual relationship with the entity and (2) the entity engages in recruitment or retention regardless of whether the specific contractual relationship is for recruitment and retention services. We are concerned the Department of Education has not fully thought through the implications of this. Here are some examples of how this will impact our college and community partners: Our college partners with 39 public and private high schools to provide dual enrollment opportunities. Teachers and guidance counselors at these high schools often encourage students to take their first dual enrollment course, take additional dual enrollment courses, and enroll in college after high school graduation. These public and private high schools will be third-party servicers per the Dear Colleague Letter. Many of our college programs require students to complete practicums or clinicals as a requirement for graduation to ensure students get hands-on, real-world experience. We enter into contractual agreements with 70 public and private employers to provide these practicums and clinical experiences. While students are supervised by our faculty while completing practicums and clinicals, it is very common for employees at these sites to encourage students to continue their education. These public and private employers will be third-party servicers per the Dear Colleague Letter. Our college works with students and employers to accommodate tuition reimbursement. As part of this process, employers provide signed documentation stating the student is an employee and eligible for tuition reimbursement. It is natural these employers encourage the student to continue their education. Last academic year, we had 205 students utilize their employer’s tuition reimbursement, and each one of their employers will be a third-party servicer per the Dear Colleague Letter. Note these are not all the circumstances where we anticipate new third-party servicers per the Dear Colleague Letter. We estimate at least 200 entities, public and private, will become third-party servicers per the Dear Colleague Letter. We hope the department reconsiders this updated definition of a third-part servicer. | Two-Year Public Institution of Higher Education | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
30 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0029 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lf2-icrw-k65g | Public Submission | 2023-03-14T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-10T05:00Z | Comment(s) | Lindsay | Allen | Prague | Czech Republic | As the director of a study abroad program for US-based students, I am deeply concerned about the burden posed by the proposed new guidance on Title IV funding. While the objective of this increased oversight is understandable, the language is so broad as to potentially threaten the ability for US institutions to send students receiving federal financial aid on study abroad programs, and for these programs to deliver instruction, assess student learning, and develop curricula or course materials. While study abroad is beneficial for all students, students who do not come from families with means may stand to benefit even more than most from the opportunity to broaden their horizons, build cultural capital, and gain confidence. As our field works hard to come back from the major setback posed by the pandemic and as US colleges and universities struggle to do their work with ever-tightening budgets, I worry that the language in this guidance will do more harm than good. I hope that it can be reconsidered to find a way to achieve greater oversight without further handicapping the work that international education professionals do every day to support our students. | Private/Non-Profit Institution of Higher Education | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
31 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0030 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lf2-rqcb-e1a1 | Public Submission | 2023-03-14T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-10T05:00Z | Comment(s) | Anonymous | Anonymous | This dear colleague letter is a huge over-reach, and needs to be revised. | Distance/Non-Traditional Educational Provider | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
32 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0031 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lf3-2p6l-7hg0 | Public Submission | 2023-03-14T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-10T05:00Z | Comment(s) | Anonymous | Anonymous | What problem is the department trying to solve in their "Dear Colleague" letter of February 16? The perceived definition of a Third Party Servicer seems incredibly broad, and will likely result in additional costs for colleges and universities. As the leader of a Student Information Service technology company, that provides mission critical software to allow faculty and administration to do perform their jobs, I am concerned of the cost and burden that could be created under this new guidance. We provide tools that allow colleges and universities to do their jobs, but any decisions relative to Title IV administration or execution are made by the institutions themselves. Schools require such technology partners to make an institution function efficiently. If defined as an TPS, technology providers (such as LMS, SIS, Student Success, Course Registration, CRM, etc) will likely need to charge for the administrative and risk burden that would come with such a designation. In turn, this could stifle investment and new product development. I would appreciate greater clarity on what the department wants to prevent, fix, modify or improve so that the definition of FSA matches the intent. As currently worded, I fear that this could deeply impact the industry, with little good coming for colleges and universities. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
33 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0032 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lf4-r7np-km5p | Public Submission | 2023-03-14T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-11T05:00Z | Comment(s) | Anonymous | Anonymous | This new position established by ED in the dear colleague letter will hurt our institutions, hurt students, and hurt the competitiveness of our sector. It is ill-conceived, poorly thought-through and egregiously over-broad. It is obviously ideological in nature and makes our department seem like the puppet of a nationalistic communist dictatorship; indeed it has similar overtones as the regulations banning tutoring companies in China. What is the point of banning Pearson or D2L or another company domiciled outside of the US from serving our institutions with their products and technologies? Whoever wrote this very clearly has had ZERO experience actually administering a higher education institution or teaching students or running a company in the private sector. Full compliance to these regulations will be virtually impossible. The audit and joint/several liability requirements are patently ridiculous in the burden and chilling effect they will place on the sector. This is an awful development for US higher education. | Other | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
34 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0033 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lf6-xmtw-sm58 | Public Submission | 2023-03-14T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-13T04:00Z | Comment(s) | McClintock & Associates, PC | I am writing to post comments related to Dear Colleague Letter GEN-23-03 on the expanded definition of Third-Party Servicers (TPS). I am writing from the perspective of a CPA firm to understand the potential audit requirements of these providers. Auditors and institutions need clearer guidance to understand responsibilities under the March 2023 Audit Guide (Audit Guide). Questions we pose to the U.S Department of Education (ED) are related to TPS who provide services not specifically covered by the Audit Guide (e.g., recruiting, retention). • It appears these entities would not have to perform an audit, correct? • Would they be subject to audit requirements related to servicer contract, incentive compensation and GLBA even if none of their services are covered by the Audit Guide? • Has ED considered if auditors would be willing to perform audit services on limited areas (as noted above) and if uncertainty exists surrounding audit requirements? • Is ED in conjunction with the Office of Inspector General going to provide more specific information regarding whether an audit is required? | Other | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
35 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0034 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lf6-xpdw-rajc | Public Submission | 2023-03-14T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-13T04:00Z | Comment(s) | Anonymous | Anonymous | I would like more clarification on Third party providers & as one commenter put it "supplemental" course material. For example, Salesforce is a Third party provider of software & online supplemental course training materials. Salesforce provides schools with education software capable of tracking recruitment & financial aid. Salesforce also targets underage children with free courses,& encourages schools to use salesforce's online supplemental training courses as part of the schools approved education programs. Salesforce does a bait & switch, where the training includes paid proctored multi-choice exams, of which there are over 40 so-called "Certifications" & "Accredited Certifications" sold between $150 to $6000. Salesforce University (otherwise known as Trailhead) is not accredited or certified by the Distance Education and Training Council (DETC) nor any other federally approved program. Many students buy several certifications to increase the odds of gaining employment but then discover they need experience. To gain experience Salesforce & its partners recommend the students volunteer, by first selling salesforce to a new customer; however, there is no way for a student to get paid for salesforce's products to US based customers; therefor salesforce gains new customers by the student volunteering as unpaid marketers, sales, forum help desk, and so on. While Salesforce champions alternative education, the alternative education is limited to courses exclusively offered thru salesforce's paid certification programs, which are necessary to apply for work & used as a replacement for a federally approved education; however, if its so easy to learn then there is no reason not to be able to learn on the job. Unfortunately they are not alone, as National Geographic has also expressed similar interest in making their online courses required to work for related jobs. Like a pyramid scam, these type of third parties are focused on training & recruitment to further sell products that the students can not sell; as well as, compelling the student members to conspire by insisting that their employers limit hiring to fellow members with the same training; thereby, resulting in illegal violations of the National Labor Relations Act including: Exclusive Hiring Hall Agreements, Closed Shops & discrimination based on membership. Like affinity scams, these third parties focus on false claims of identity group shortages to create competition & hatred between institutions segregated by protected classes; thereby, creating racism & sexism by offering the preserved benefit of employment those compelled into joining discriminatory segregated networks. Switching jobs or schools often results in losing membership access to the training & any required renewal course (via loss of an email / user name). Company's can suspend membership for any reason, which ends access to certification regardless of if federal funds paid for the certification exam. Similarly many software companies can end access to their products & thus block access to the data, so the regulations should definitely be expanded to cover Third party providers for both schools & students. Especially since these third parties want schools, students & employers to follow their requirements, but ignore US government regulations. Its important to note that there are at least 3 comments defending third party software providers. None of them object (or even address) the requirement to hand over data if access is blocked. Instead they all claim that it would be burdensome for schools to report the third parties. In case a third party blocking data access, a school would need to report quickly & government action to regain the data may need to be quickly enacted. Therefor there needs to be ways to quickly report the third party & different levels of urgency. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
36 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0035 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lf7-11yj-4apu | Public Submission | 2023-03-14T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-13T04:00Z | Comment(s) | Anonymous | Anonymous | I am stating my deep concern for the language used in this recent guidance. The broadening of terms has now exceeded the initial scope, focusing on the functions of student recruitment and retention. The US Department of Education has seemingly swept study abroad programs and providers of these programs into TPS considerations. By doing so, it will sever access to these life-changing and career-enhancing opportunities to any students needing financial aid to study abroad, therefore discouraging access and decreasing diversity. The proposed guidance states that Title IV funding cannot be used by students “if the servicer (or its subcontractors) is located outside of the United States or is owned or operated by an individual who is not a U.S. citizen or national or a lawful U.S. permanent resident. This prohibition applies to both foreign and domestic institutions.” Study abroad programs require the partnership of non-US-based institutions, researchers, academics, hosts, and a variety of administrators to deliver safe, educationally sound experiences. I request that the US Department of Education clearly exempt study abroad programming and state that higher education institutions are permitted to operate their international study-abroad programming and international institutional partnerships so that all students have the opportunity to become global citizens. | Private/Non-Profit Institution of Higher Education | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
37 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0036 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lf7-1e7h-ww6w | Public Submission | 2023-03-14T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-13T04:00Z | Comment(s) | Anonymous | Anonymous | I work for a university engaged with a third-party servicer to assist with marketing, recruitment, and retention efforts related to an online MBA program. We aspired to launch an online MBA program when it became clear that we were missing out on a portion of our market who could not attend classes on campus. These students were shift workers... nurses, police officers, etc., and other professionals with careers and responsibilities that did not allow for classroom attendance. These students wanted to attend their local university for graduate education, yet we did not have the resources to market and recruit enough to launch an online offering. We partnered with Academic Partnerships (AP) to help us negotiate this challenge and have maintained a positive, fruitful relationship with them for almost 8 years. They have helped us achieve measured growth with sustainable student numbers that allow us to meet the needs of our students for distance learning offerings. AP has helped us get the messaging out about our great program and coordinate retention efforts to keep our pulse on our students’ success. As a program, we have never given up control of admissions, advising, enrollment, or curriculum. We have never been coerced into making program decisions. In fact, it is quite the contrary where we have worked together to discuss and highlight best practices and the possibility of implementation, if a good fit. While I understand the Department of Education’s desire to investigate third party predatory practices, it seems better to address the organizations where concerns have been leveraged, not those that working together positively for the benefit of students. | Distance/Non-Traditional Educational Provider | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
38 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0037 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lf7-1yvm-n5ba | Public Submission | 2023-03-14T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-13T04:00Z | Comment(s) | Anonymous | Anonymous | I am stating my deep concern for the language used in this recent guidance. The broadening of terms has now exceeded the initial scope, focusing on the functions of student recruiting and retention. The US Department of Education has seemingly swept study abroad programs and providers of these programs into TPS considerations. By doing so, it would sever access to these life-changing and career-enhancing opportunities to any students needing financial aid to study abroad, therefore discouraging access and decreasing diversity. The proposed guidance states that Title IV funding cannot be used by students "...an institution may not contract with a TPS to perform any aspect of the institution’s participation in a Title IV program if the service (or its subcontractors) is located outside of the United States or is owned or operated by an individual who is not a U.S. citizen or national or a lawful U.S. permanent resident. This prohibition applies to both foreign and domestic institutions." Study abroad programs require the partnership of non-US-based institutions, researchers, academics, hosts, and a variety of administrators to deliver safe, educationally sound experiences. I request that the US Department of Education clearly exempt study abroad programming and state that higher education institutions are permitted to operate their international study-abroad programming and international institutional partnerships so that all students have the opportunity to become global citizens. | Distance/Non-Traditional Educational Provider | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
39 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0038 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lf7-3saa-vhmd | Public Submission | 2023-03-14T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-13T04:00Z | Comment(s) | Anonymous | Anonymous | I am stating my deep concern for the language used in this recent guidance. The broadening of terms has now exceeded the initial scope, focusing on the functions of student recruiting and retention. The US Department of Education has seemingly swept study abroad programs and providers of these programs into TPS considerations. By doing so, it would sever access to these life-changing and career-enhancing opportunities to any students needing financial aid to study abroad, therefore discouraging access and decreasing diversity. The proposed guidance states "...an institution may not contract with a TPS to perform any aspect of the institution’s participation in a Title IV program if the service (or its subcontractors) is located outside of the United States or is owned or operated by an individual who is not a U.S. citizen or national or a lawful U.S. permanent resident. This prohibition applies to both foreign and domestic institutions." Study abroad programs require the partnership of non-US-based institutions, researchers, academics, hosts, and a variety of administrators to deliver safe, educationally sound experiences. I request that the US Department of Education clearly exempt third party contracts in support of study abroad programming and state that higher education institutions may continue to contract with non-U.S. based organizations and individuals in furtherance of study abroad programming without risking their Title IV programs or requiring additional compliance steps and reporting addressed in the new guidance. Universities already carefully follow the guidance issued by the Department specific to use of Title IV funding by study abroad students. | Other | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
40 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0039 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lf7-3vhc-yv75 | Public Submission | 2023-03-14T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-13T04:00Z | Comment(s) | Morgan | Inabniet | United States | o I am stating my deep concern for the language used in this recent guidance. The broadening of terms has now exceeded the initial scope, focusing on the functions of student recruiting and retention. The US Department of Education has seemingly swept study abroad programs and providers of these programs into TPS considerations. By doing so, it would sever access to these life-changing and career-enhancing opportunities to any students needing financial aid to study abroad, therefore discouraging access and decreasing diversity. The proposed guidance states "...an institution may not contract with a TPS to perform any aspect of the institution’s participation in a Title IV program if the service (or its subcontractors) is located outside of the United States or is owned or operated by an individual who is not a U.S. citizen or national or a lawful U.S. permanent resident. This prohibition applies to both foreign and domestic institutions." Study abroad programs require the partnership of non-US-based institutions, researchers, academics, hosts, and a variety of administrators to deliver safe, educationally sound experiences. I request that the US Department of Education clearly exempt third party contracts in support of study abroad programming and state that higher education institutions may continue to contract with non-U.S. based organizations and individuals in furtherance of study abroad programming without risking their Title IV programs or requiring additional compliance steps and reporting addressed in the new guidance. Universities already carefully follow the guidance issued by the Department specific to use of Title IV funding by study abroad students. | Institution of Higher Education | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
41 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0040 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lf7-3yst-tozn | Public Submission | 2023-03-14T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-13T04:00Z | Comment(s) | Daniella | Widdows | Hampden-Sydney | VA | United States | I am very concerned about the specific language used in this recent guidance, which will have a severely negative effect on most of my students' ability to study abroad. The proposed guidance states "...an institution may not contract with a TPS to perform any aspect of the institution’s participation in a Title IV program if the service (or its subcontractors) is located outside of the United States or is owned or operated by an individual who is not a U.S. citizen or national or a lawful U.S. permanent resident. This prohibition applies to both foreign and domestic institutions." Study abroad programs require the partnership of non-US-based institutions, researchers, academics, hosts, and a variety of administrators to deliver safe, educationally sound experiences. I request that the US Department of Education clearly exempt third party contracts in support of study abroad programming and state that higher education institutions may continue to contract with non-U.S. based organizations and individuals in furtherance of study abroad programming without risking their Title IV programs or requiring additional compliance steps and reporting addressed in the new guidance. Universities and colleges, such as the one where I work, already carefully follow the guidance issued by the Department specific to use of Title IV funding by study abroad students. | Institution of Higher Education | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
42 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0041 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lf7-42v1-0pok | Public Submission | 2023-03-14T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-13T04:00Z | Comment(s) | Gretchen | Young | Norton | MA | United States | I am writing to make known my deep concern for the language used in this recent guidance. The broadening of terms has now exceeded the initial scope, focusing on the functions of student recruiting and retention. The US Department of Education has, hopefully unintentionally, swept study abroad programs and providers of these programs into TPS considerations. By doing so, it would sever access to these life-changing and career-enhancing opportunities to any students needing financial aid to study abroad, therefore discouraging access and decreasing diversity. The proposed guidance states "...an institution may not contract with a TPS to perform any aspect of the institution’s participation in a Title IV program if the service (or its subcontractors) is located outside of the United States or is owned or operated by an individual who is not a U.S. citizen or national or a lawful U.S. permanent resident. This prohibition applies to both foreign and domestic institutions." Study abroad programs require the partnership of non-US-based institutions, researchers, academics, hosts, and a variety of administrators to deliver safe, educationally sound experiences. I request that the US Department of Education clearly exempt third party contracts in support of study abroad programming and state that higher education institutions may continue to contract with non-U.S. based organizations and individuals in furtherance of study abroad programming without risking their Title IV programs or requiring additional compliance steps and reporting addressed in the new guidance. Universities already carefully follow the guidance issued by the Department specific to use of Title IV funding by study abroad students. | Institution of Higher Education | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
43 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0042 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lf7-45xm-iosx | Public Submission | 2023-03-14T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-13T04:00Z | Comment(s) | Laura | Thomason | Owings Mills | MD | United States | I am stating my deep concern for the language used in this recent guidance. The broadening of terms has now exceeded the initial scope that focused on the functions of student recruiting and retention. The US Department of Education has seemingly swept study abroad programs and providers of these programs into TPS considerations. Doing so would sever access to these opportunities for students needing financial aid to study abroad, therefore discouraging access and decreasing diversity. The proposed guidance states "...an institution may not contract with a TPS to perform any aspect of the institution’s participation in a Title IV program if the service (or its subcontractors) is located outside of the United States or is owned or operated by an individual who is not a U.S. citizen or national or a lawful U.S. permanent resident. This prohibition applies to both foreign and domestic institutions." Study abroad programs require the partnership of non-US-based institutions, researchers, academics, hosts, and a variety of administrators to deliver safe, educationally sound experiences. I request that the US Department of Education clearly exempt third party contracts in support of study abroad programming and state that higher education institutions may continue to contract with non-U.S. based organizations and individuals in furtherance of study abroad programming without risking their Title IV programs or requiring additional compliance steps and reporting addressed in the new guidance. Universities already carefully follow the guidance issued by the Department specific to use of Title IV funding by study abroad students. | Institution of Higher Education | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
44 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0043 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lf7-4aa6-f8bw | Public Submission | 2023-03-14T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-13T04:00Z | Comment(s) | Emily | McCrossen | Geneseo | NY | United States | I am stating my deep concern for the language used in this recent guidance. The broadening of terms has now exceeded the initial scope, focusing on the functions of student recruiting and retention. The US Department of Education has seemingly swept study abroad programs and providers of these programs into TPS considerations. By doing so, it would sever access to these life-changing and career-enhancing opportunities to any students needing financial aid to study abroad, therefore discouraging access and decreasing diversity. The proposed guidance states "...an institution may not contract with a TPS to perform any aspect of the institution’s participation in a Title IV program if the service (or its subcontractors) is located outside of the United States or is owned or operated by an individual who is not a U.S. citizen or national or a lawful U.S. permanent resident. This prohibition applies to both foreign and domestic institutions." Study abroad programs require the partnership of non-US-based institutions, researchers, academics, hosts, and a variety of administrators to deliver safe, educationally sound experiences. I request that the US Department of Education clearly exempt third party contracts in support of study abroad programming and state that higher education institutions may continue to contract with non-U.S. based organizations and individuals in furtherance of study abroad programming without risking their Title IV programs or requiring additional compliance steps and reporting addressed in the new guidance. Universities already carefully follow the guidance issued by the Department specific to use of Title IV funding by study abroad students. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
45 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0044 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lf7-4d4y-nj02 | Public Submission | 2023-03-14T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-13T04:00Z | Comment(s) | Rocio | Ruiz | New Brunswick | NJ | United States | o I am stating my deep concern for the language used in this recent guidance. The broadening of terms has now exceeded the initial scope, focusing on the functions of student recruiting and retention. The US Department of Education has seemingly swept study abroad programs and providers of these programs into TPS considerations. By doing so, it would sever access to these life-changing and career-enhancing opportunities to any students needing financial aid to study abroad, therefore discouraging access and decreasing diversity. The proposed guidance states "...an institution may not contract with a TPS to perform any aspect of the institution’s participation in a Title IV program if the service (or its subcontractors) is located outside of the United States or is owned or operated by an individual who is not a U.S. citizen or national or a lawful U.S. permanent resident. This prohibition applies to both foreign and domestic institutions." Study abroad programs require the partnership of non-US-based institutions, researchers, academics, hosts, and a variety of administrators to deliver safe, educationally sound experiences. I request that the US Department of Education clearly exempt third party contracts in support of study abroad programming and state that higher education institutions may continue to contract with non-U.S. based organizations and individuals in furtherance of study abroad programming without risking their Title IV programs or requiring additional compliance steps and reporting addressed in the new guidance. Universities already carefully follow the guidance issued by the Department specific to use of Title IV funding by study abroad students. | Financial Aid Administrator | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
46 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0045 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lf7-4sj4-axf3 | Public Submission | 2023-03-14T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-13T04:00Z | Comment(s) | Lee | Frankel | Needham | MA | United States | I am stating my deep concern for the language used in this recent guidance. The broadening of terms has now exceeded the initial scope, focusing on the functions of student recruiting and retention. The US Department of Education has seemingly swept study abroad programs and providers of these programs into TPS considerations. By doing so, it would sever access to these life-changing and career-enhancing opportunities to any students needing financial aid to study abroad, therefore discouraging access and decreasing diversity. The proposed guidance states "...an institution may not contract with a TPS to perform any aspect of the institution’s participation in a Title IV program if the service (or its subcontractors) is located outside of the United States or is owned or operated by an individual who is not a U.S. citizen or national or a lawful U.S. permanent resident. This prohibition applies to both foreign and domestic institutions." Study abroad programs require the partnership of non-US-based institutions, researchers, academics, hosts, and a variety of administrators to deliver safe, educationally sound experiences. I request that the US Department of Education clearly exempt third party contracts in support of study abroad programming and state that higher education institutions may continue to contract with non-U.S. based organizations and individuals in furtherance of study abroad programming without risking their Title IV programs or requiring additional compliance steps and reporting addressed in the new guidance. Universities already carefully follow the guidance issued by the Department specific to use of Title IV funding by study abroad students. | Other | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
47 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0046 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lf7-6fi3-qnra | Public Submission | 2023-03-14T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-13T04:00Z | Comment(s) | Anonymous | Anonymous | I am stating my deep concern for the language used in this recent guidance. The broadening of terms has now exceeded the initial scope, focusing on the functions of student recruiting and retention. The US Department of Education has seemingly swept study abroad programs and providers of these programs into TPS considerations. By doing so, it would sever access to these life-changing and career-enhancing opportunities to any students needing financial aid to study abroad, therefore discouraging access and decreasing diversity. The proposed guidance states "...an institution may not contract with a TPS to perform any aspect of the institution’s participation in a Title IV program if the service (or its subcontractors) is located outside of the United States or is owned or operated by an individual who is not a U.S. citizen or national or a lawful U.S. permanent resident. This prohibition applies to both foreign and domestic institutions." Study abroad programs require the partnership of non-US-based institutions, researchers, academics, hosts, and a variety of administrators to deliver safe, educationally sound experiences. I request that the US Department of Education clearly exempt third party contracts in support of study abroad programming and state that higher education institutions may continue to contract with non-U.S. based organizations and individuals in furtherance of study abroad programming without risking their Title IV programs or requiring additional compliance steps and reporting addressed in the new guidance. Universities already carefully follow the guidance issued by the Department specific to use of Title IV funding by study abroad students. | Four-Year Public Institution of Higher Education | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
48 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0047 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lf7-7k8f-sf3z | Public Submission | 2023-03-14T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-13T04:00Z | Comment(s) | Anonymous | Anonymous | Oversight is a good thing, however I have deep concern for the language used in this recent guidance. The broadening of terms has now exceeded the initial scope, focusing on the functions of student recruiting and retention. The US Department of Education has seemingly swept study abroad programs and providers of these programs into TPS considerations. By doing so, it would sever access to these life-changing and career-enhancing opportunities to any students needing financial aid to study abroad, therefore discouraging access and decreasing diversity. Study abroad is already challenged by diversity issues. These guidelines will return it to the purview of the privileged. The proposed guidance states "...an institution may not contract with a TPS to perform any aspect of the institution’s participation in a Title IV program if the service (or its subcontractors) is located outside of the United States or is owned or operated by an individual who is not a U.S. citizen or national or a lawful U.S. permanent resident. This prohibition applies to both foreign and domestic institutions." Study abroad programs require the partnership of non-US-based institutions, researchers, academics, hosts, and a variety of administrators to deliver safe, educationally sound experiences. I request that the US Department of Education clearly exempt third party contracts in support of study abroad programming and state that higher education institutions may continue to contract with non-U.S. based organizations and individuals in furtherance of study abroad programming without risking their Title IV programs or requiring additional compliance steps and reporting addressed in the new guidance. Universities already carefully follow the guidance issued by the Department specific to use of Title IV funding by study abroad students. It's been my great pleasure to work with many students of diverse backgrounds who depend on federal financial aid in their university studies. I've helped these students find the most affordable and appropriate opportunities. They have returned with life-changing experiences - stronger, bolder, and with new appreciation for both the US and the world. I've seen students open doors and continue into graduate programs and professions that might not have been open to them - or visible to them - without these experiences. Not only will this guidance prevent many of them from participation in study abroad, it will serve to impoverish our workforce and country. | Institution of Higher Education | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
49 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0048 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lf7-avdn-8rfx | Public Submission | 2023-03-14T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-13T04:00Z | Comment(s) | Malin | Hilmersson | Denver | CO | United States | o I am stating my deep concern for the language used in this recent guidance. The broadening of terms has now exceeded the initial scope, focusing on the functions of student recruiting and retention. The US Department of Education has seemingly swept study abroad programs and providers of these programs into TPS considerations. By doing so, it would sever access to these life-changing and career-enhancing opportunities to any students needing financial aid to study abroad, therefore discouraging access and decreasing diversity. The proposed guidance states "...an institution may not contract with a TPS to perform any aspect of the institution’s participation in a Title IV program if the service (or its subcontractors) is located outside of the United States or is owned or operated by an individual who is not a U.S. citizen or national or a lawful U.S. permanent resident. This prohibition applies to both foreign and domestic institutions." Study abroad programs require the partnership of non-US-based institutions, researchers, academics, hosts, and a variety of administrators to deliver safe, educationally sound experiences. I request that the US Department of Education clearly exempt third party contracts in support of study abroad programming and state that higher education institutions may continue to contract with non-U.S. based organizations and individuals in furtherance of study abroad programming without risking their Title IV programs or requiring additional compliance steps and reporting addressed in the new guidance. Universities already carefully follow the guidance issued by the Department specific to use of Title IV funding by study abroad students. | Private/Non-Profit Institution of Higher Education | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
50 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0049 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lf7-bd4a-2jgo | Public Submission | 2023-03-14T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-13T04:00Z | Comment(s) | Molise Italian Studies | As the owners of a small study abroad business with part of its mission aimed at increasing equity within study abroad and increasing the number of opportunities available for historically marginalized communities, I am deeply concerned about the language used in this recent guidance. The broadening of terms has now exceeded the initial scope, focusing on the functions of student recruiting and retention. The US Department of Education has seemingly swept study abroad programs and providers of these programs into TPS considerations. By doing so, it would sever access to these life-changing and career-enhancing opportunities to any students needing financial aid to study abroad, therefore discouraging access and decreasing diversity. The proposed guidance states "...an institution may not contract with a TPS to perform any aspect of the institution’s participation in a Title IV program if the service (or its subcontractors) is located outside of the United States or is owned or operated by an individual who is not a U.S. citizen or national or a lawful U.S. permanent resident. This prohibition applies to both foreign and domestic institutions." Study abroad programs require the partnership of non-US-based institutions, researchers, academics, hosts, and a variety of administrators to deliver safe, educationally sound experiences. I request that the US Department of Education clearly exempt third party contracts in support of study abroad programming and state that higher education institutions may continue to contract with non-U.S. based organizations and individuals in furtherance of study abroad programming without risking their Title IV programs or requiring additional compliance steps and reporting addressed in the new guidance. Universities already carefully follow the guidance issued by the Department specific to use of Title IV funding by study abroad students. | Business | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
51 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0050 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lf7-bo9k-69kg | Public Submission | 2023-03-14T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-13T04:00Z | Comment(s) | CIS Abroad | As the leader of a CIS Abroad, a 23 year old education abroad organization, I have deep concern for the language used in this recent guidance. The US Department of Education has seemingly swept study abroad programs, and providers of these programs, into TPS considerations. The effect: This will sever access to these life-changing and career-enhancing opportunities to any students needing financial aid to study abroad, therefore discouraging access and decreasing diversity. My request: The US Department of Education must clearly exempt third party contracts in support of study abroad programming and state that higher education institutions may continue to contract with non-U.S. based organizations and individuals to further study abroad programming without risking their Title IV programs or requiring additional compliance steps and reporting addressed in the new guidance. Universities already carefully follow the guidance issued by the Department specific to use of Title IV funding by study abroad students. | Distance/Non-Traditional Educational Provider | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
52 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0051 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lf7-cyot-4hyo | Public Submission | 2023-03-14T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-13T04:00Z | Comment(s) | Anonymous | Anonymous | See attached file(s) | Institution of Higher Education | https://downloads.regulations.gov/ED-2022-OPE-0103-0051/attachment_1.pdf | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
53 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0052 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lf8-8h2c-vhld | Public Submission | 2023-03-14T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-14T04:00Z | Comment(s) | Anonymous | Anonymous | I am stating my deep concern for the language used in this recent (GEN-23-03) Requirements and Responsibilities for Third-Party Servicers and Institutions guidance . The broadening of terms has now exceeded the initial scope, focusing on the functions of student recruiting and retention. The US Department of Education has seemingly swept study abroad programs and providers of these programs into TPS considerations. By doing so, it would sever access to these life-changing and career-enhancing opportunities to any students needing financial aid to study abroad, therefore discouraging access and decreasing diversity. The proposed guidance states "...an institution may not contract with a TPS to perform any aspect of the institution’s participation in a Title IV program if the service (or its subcontractors) is located outside of the United States or is owned or operated by an individual who is not a U.S. citizen or national or a lawful U.S. permanent resident. This prohibition applies to both foreign and domestic institutions." Study abroad programs require the partnership of non-US-based institutions, researchers, academics, hosts, and a variety of administrators to deliver safe, educationally sound experiences. I request that the US Department of Education clearly exempt third party contracts in support of study abroad programming and state that higher education institutions may continue to contract with non-U.S. based organizations and individuals in furtherance of study abroad programming without risking their Title IV programs or requiring additional compliance steps and reporting addressed in the new guidance. Universities already carefully follow the guidance issued by the Department specific to use of Title IV funding by study abroad students. | Institution of Higher Education | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
54 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0053 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lf8-a3hm-fnv6 | Public Submission | 2023-03-14T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-14T04:00Z | Comment(s) | Elin | Melchior | Bristol | VT | United States | I believe that study abroad is a crucial part of tertiary education and will help our young people succeed in a global world. I cannot overstate its immediate chilling impact on the ability of a diversity of students to access international study opportunities, including direct enroll, exchange, and faculty-led programming. And thus, I am stating my deep concern for the language used in this recent guidance. The broadening of terms has now exceeded the initial scope, focusing on the functions of student recruiting and retention. The US Department of Education has seemingly swept study abroad programs and providers of these programs into TPS considerations. By doing so, it would sever access to these life-changing and career-enhancing opportunities to any students needing financial aid to study abroad, therefore discouraging access and decreasing diversity. The proposed guidance states "...an institution may not contract with a TPS to perform any aspect of the institution’s participation in a Title IV program if the service (or its subcontractors) is located outside of the United States or is owned or operated by an individual who is not a U.S. citizen or national or a lawful U.S. permanent resident. This prohibition applies to both foreign and domestic institutions." Study abroad programs require the partnership of non-US-based institutions, researchers, academics, hosts, and a variety of administrators to deliver safe, educationally sound experiences. I request that the US Department of Education clearly exempt third party contracts in support of study abroad programming and state that higher education institutions may continue to contract with non-U.S. based organizations and individuals in furtherance of study abroad programming without risking their Title IV programs or requiring additional compliance steps and reporting addressed in the new guidance. Universities already carefully follow the guidance issued by the Department specific to use of Title IV funding by study abroad students. | Federal Agency | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
55 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0054 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lf8-bhev-crhx | Public Submission | 2023-03-14T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-14T04:00Z | Comment(s) | Ian | Lim-Bonner | RI | United States | I have witnessed firsthand the power of international education and study abroad. I, myself have studied abroad three separate times, and I have helped hundreds of students have similar life changing experiences. I am stating my deep concern for the language used in this recent guidance. The broadening of terms has now exceeded the initial scope, focusing on the functions of student recruiting and retention. The US Department of Education has seemingly swept study abroad programs and providers of these programs into TPS considerations. By doing so, it would sever access to these life-changing and career-enhancing opportunities to any students needing financial aid to study abroad, therefore discouraging access and decreasing diversity. The proposed guidance states "...an institution may not contract with a TPS to perform any aspect of the institution’s participation in a Title IV program if the service (or its subcontractors) is located outside of the United States or is owned or operated by an individual who is not a U.S. citizen or national or a lawful U.S. permanent resident. This prohibition applies to both foreign and domestic institutions." Study abroad programs require the partnership of non-US-based institutions, researchers, academics, hosts, and a variety of administrators to deliver safe, educationally sound experiences. I request that the US Department of Education clearly exempt third party contracts in support of study abroad programming and state that higher education institutions may continue to contract with non-U.S. based organizations and individuals in furtherance of study abroad programming without risking their Title IV programs or requiring additional compliance steps and reporting addressed in the new guidance. Universities already carefully follow the guidance issued by the Department specific to use of Title IV funding by study abroad students. I know because I worked at a university in their study abroad office and I continue to work with dozens of universities and their study abroad offices in my new role. | Individual | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
56 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0055 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lf8-c1zt-zpjg | Public Submission | 2023-03-14T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-14T04:00Z | Comment(s) | Amelia | Dietrich | Philadelphia | PA | United States | Dear fellow educators, I'm writing to express my concern regarding the recent Dear Colleague Letter guidance on “(GEN-23-03) Requirements and Responsibilities for Third-Party Servicers and Institutions” issued on Wednesday, February 15, and updated on Tuesday, February 28. As this guidance currently stands, I'm concerned that it will have an extremely negative impact on US students and limit their opportunities to participate in high impact practices such as education abroad programming. I urge you to reconsider this guidance. As a professional educator and scholar of student development and educational outcomes, I devote my career to investigating the benefits of participation in education abroad (also called study abroad or student mobility) as a high impact practice that positively and powerfully influences students and institutions of higher learning in many important ways, including: - persistence to graduation (https://doi.org/10.36366/frontiers.v23i1.331) - better grades (https://doi.org/10.36366/frontiers.v31i2.461) - identifying career goals (https://doi.org/10.36366/frontiers.v34i1.593) and achieving better employment outcomes after graduation (https://doi.org/10.36366/frontiers.v32i3.577) - increased civic engagement within their communities (https://doi.org/10.36366/frontiers.v24i1.333) - increased intercultural competencies to strengthen their ability to relate and succeed in our local multicultural communities and with others around the world (https://doi.org/10.36366/frontiers.v26i1.366) - stronger engagement with and sense of belonging at their home institution (https://nsse.indiana.edu/research/annual-results/2020/hips/hips-belonging.html) The expanded definition of Third-Party Servicer (TPS) in your new guidance would subject education abroad programs to TPS rules in a series of problematic ways. In particular, this section: “…an institution may not contract with a TPS to perform any aspect of the institution’s participation in a Title IV program if the servicer (or its subcontractors) is located outside of the United States or is owned or operated by an individual who is not a U.S. citizen or national or a. lawful U.S. permanent resident. This prohibition applies to both foreign and domestic institutions.” would prohibit U.S. institutions from partnering with foreign-owned universities for semester abroad programs, contracting U.S. or foreign-owned venders that utilize subcontractors, or offering workforce development programs including international co-ops, internships and practicums if they include placements at foreign-owned institutions or organizations. As it currently stands, thousands of U.S. college and university students participate in international education programs through such means. The guidance, if not adjusted or withdrawn, would take that opportunity away from them. I imagine that isn't the intention of this regulation, so I hope the DOE will consider excluding the education abroad sector from the scope of this guidance. With sincere thanks for your time and consideration, Dr. Amelia J. Dietrich Senior Director for Research and Publications, The Forum on Education Abroad Managing Editor, Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad | Other | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
57 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0056 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lf8-ckio-ap9x | Public Submission | 2023-03-14T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-14T04:00Z | Comment(s) | Accès Study Abroad | R Alex Neff Director, Accès Study Abroad Strasbourg, France As the director of a study abroad provider for US college students based in France, I am stating my deep concern for the language used in this recent guidance. The new guidelines will not meet the stated aim of regulating functions of student recruiting and retention. They go much further by excluding almost every opportunity for study outside the United States for US students. They guidelines as they are currently worded could be interpreted to consider as a TPS all study abroad programs, and all US college programs based outside the United States. They would therefore be forbidden from accepting payment if it includes Title IV funds. This would have a dramatic and chilling effect on the international education sector. If applied as the proposed guidelines now state, only wealthy students receiving no Title IV funds would be able to benefit from these life-changing opportunities. I am a US national and have devoted my career to teaching and couseling American college students as they learn French language and culture abroad. I have seen the profound impact that the study abroad experience can have on US citizens. Like all US study abroad providers in France, Accès Study Abroad has a legal entity in this country (as indeed any foreign university program would have to have if operating in the United States). In keeping with French law, we and most other study abroad providers in France contract with local professors to teach and have a partnership with a local university. It appears that under the new Title IV guidelines, no such programs would not be eligible to enroll students receiving Title IV funds. I assume that it is not the intention of the DOE to cripple the international education sector, and urge you clarify accordingly. The proposed guidance states "...an institution may not contract with a TPS to perform any aspect of the institution’s participation in a Title IV program if the service (or its subcontractors) is located outside of the United States or is owned or operated by an individual who is not a U.S. citizen or national or a lawful U.S. permanent resident. This prohibition applies to both foreign and domestic institutions." Study abroad programs require the partnership of non-US-based institutions, researchers, academics, hosts, and a variety of administrators to deliver safe, educationally sound experiences. I request that the US Department of Education clearly exempt third party contracts in support of study abroad programming and state that higher education institutions may continue to contract with non-U.S. based organizations and individuals in furtherance of study abroad programming without risking their Title IV programs or requiring additional compliance steps and reporting addressed in the new guidance. Universities already carefully follow the guidance issued by the Department specific to use of Title IV funding by study abroad students. | Institution of Higher Education | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
58 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0057 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lf8-fi9n-4966 | Public Submission | 2023-03-14T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-14T04:00Z | Comment(s) | David | Griffin | Boston | MA | United States | I am stating my deep concern for the language used in this recent guidance. The broadening of terms has now exceeded the initial scope, focusing on the functions of student recruiting and retention. The US Department of Education has seemingly swept study abroad programs and providers of these programs into TPS considerations. By doing so, it would sever access to these life-changing and career-enhancing opportunities to any students needing financial aid to study abroad, therefore discouraging access and decreasing diversity. The proposed guidance states "...an institution may not contract with a TPS to perform any aspect of the institution’s participation in a Title IV program if the service (or its subcontractors) is located outside of the United States or is owned or operated by an individual who is not a U.S. citizen or national or a lawful U.S. permanent resident. This prohibition applies to both foreign and domestic institutions." Study abroad programs require the partnership of non-US-based institutions, researchers, academics, hosts, and a variety of administrators to deliver safe, educationally sound experiences. I request that the US Department of Education clearly exempt third party contracts in support of study abroad programming and state that higher education institutions may continue to contract with non-U.S. based organizations and individuals in furtherance of study abroad programming without risking their Title IV programs or requiring additional compliance steps and reporting addressed in the new guidance. Universities already carefully follow the guidance issued by the Department specific to use of Title IV funding by study abroad students. | Institution of Higher Education | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
59 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0058 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lf8-gvla-ywmm | Public Submission | 2023-03-14T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-14T04:00Z | Comment(s) | Tricia | Berry | Johnston | IA | United States | Please ensure these regulations do not impact Education Abroad programming. | Other | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
60 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0059 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lf8-h5oe-cbzk | Public Submission | 2023-03-14T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-14T04:00Z | Comment(s) | Tanya | Kramer | Fargo | ND | United States | I am stating my deep concern for the language used in this recent guidance. The broadening of terms has now exceeded the initial scope, focusing on the functions of student recruiting and retention. The US Department of Education has seemingly swept study abroad programs and providers of these programs into TPS considerations. By doing so, it would sever access to these life-changing and career-enhancing opportunities to any students needing financial aid to study abroad, therefore discouraging access and decreasing diversity. The proposed guidance states "...an institution may not contract with a TPS to perform any aspect of the institution’s participation in a Title IV program if the service (or its subcontractors) is located outside of the United States or is owned or operated by an individual who is not a U.S. citizen or national or a lawful U.S. permanent resident. This prohibition applies to both foreign and domestic institutions." Study abroad programs require the partnership of non-US-based institutions, researchers, academics, hosts, and a variety of administrators to deliver safe, educationally sound experiences. I request that the US Department of Education clearly exempt third party contracts in support of study abroad programming and state that higher education institutions may continue to contract with non-U.S. based organizations and individuals in furtherance of study abroad programming without risking their Title IV programs or requiring additional compliance steps and reporting addressed in the new guidance. Universities already carefully follow the guidance issued by the Department specific to use of Title IV funding by study abroad students. | Four-Year Public Institution of Higher Education | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
61 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0060 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lf8-htv6-0t3f | Public Submission | 2023-03-14T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-14T04:00Z | Comment(s) | Trish | Sangelo | Highlands Ranch | CO | United States | As a study abroad coordinator for over 30 years, I agree this will negatively impact our student's ability to participate in our program and have the opportunity to understand thier place in the world, and how it impacts them. Negatively impact their retention and graduation rates, since study abroad is widely recognized as a High Impact Practice; Disadvantage financially needy students, who are often from underrepresented and underserved populations, from their peers; Negatively impact the nation’s capacity for international understanding and competitiveness by severely limiting students’ exposure to programs that bridge the gap between theory and practice. | School Administrator | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
62 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0061 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lf8-in5n-hm80 | Public Submission | 2023-03-14T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-14T04:00Z | Comment(s) | Mary Alice | Haas | Denver | CO | United States | I am very troubled by the recent proposed regulatory change, (GEN-23-03) and how it could affect students in need pursuing study abroad programs. The US Department of Education has added study abroad programs and providers of these programs into TPS considerations. By doing so, it would cut off life-changing and career-enhancing opportunities to any students needing financial aid to study abroad, therefore discouraging access and decreasing diversity. The proposed guidance states "...an institution may not contract with a TPS to perform any aspect of the institution’s participation in a Title IV program if the service (or its subcontractors) is located outside of the United States or is owned or operated by an individual who is not a U.S. citizen or national or a lawful U.S. permanent resident. This prohibition applies to both foreign and domestic institutions." Study abroad programs require the partnership of non-US-based institutions, researchers, academics, hosts, and a variety of administrators to deliver safe, educationally sound experiences. I request that the US Department of Education clearly obsolve third party contracts in support of study abroad programming and state that higher education institutions may continue to contract with non-U.S. based organizations and individuals in furtherance of study abroad programming without risking their Title IV programs or requiring additional compliance steps and reporting addressed in the new guidance. Universities already carefully follow the guidance issued by the Department specific to use of Title IV funding by study abroad students.  | Institution of Higher Education | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
63 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0062 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | 857a60f4 | Public Submission | 2023-03-14T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # 2023-03261 | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-14T04:00Z | Comment(s) | Middle States Commission on Higher Education | The Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE) appreciates the opportunity to provide comment in response to the Department’s Request for Information regarding the bundled services exception to the incentive compensation ban, Docket ID: ED-2023-OPE-0030, Federal Register Number 2023-03261, February 16, 2023. | Accreditor - Regional | https://downloads.regulations.gov/ED-2022-OPE-0103-0062/attachment_1.pdf | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
64 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0063 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lf8-lsis-w72c | Public Submission | 2023-03-14T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-14T04:00Z | Comment(s) | Anonymous | Anonymous | I write to urge you to advocate for making education abroad accessible to every student regardless of financial need. The recent U.S. Department of Education’s (DOE) Dear Colleague Letter guidance on “(GEN-23-03) Requirements and Responsibilities for Third-Party Servicers and Institutions” issued on Wednesday, February 15, and updated on Tuesday, February 28, will have an extremely negative impact on US students. The comment period is only open until March 29, 2023 and the changes are due to go into effect on September 1, 2023. Please urge the DOE to formally exclude education abroad from this guidance. If implemented as currently written, the potential for negative impact on the ability of colleges and universities to provide high quality education abroad experiences for their students cannot be overstated. It would likely result in a complete halt to the participation of students receiving Title IV funding (basically most forms of financial aid), which could: • Disadvantage all but the wealthiest students who do not rely on any aspect of FAFSA financial aid; • Specifically disadvantage financially needy students, who are already massively underrepresented within study abroad; • Negatively impact student retention and graduation rates, since study abroad is widely recognized as a High Impact Practice; • Negatively impact the nation’s capacity for international understanding and competitiveness by severely limiting students’ exposure to programs that bridge the gap between theory and practice. The expanded definition within the proposed guidance as to what constitutes a Third-Party Servicer (TPS) indicates that every aspect of an education abroad program, which by its definition includes instruction and student assessment, would be subject to TPS rules, as stated: “Providing any percentage of a Title IV-eligible program at an institution, including: • Establishing requirements for the completion of a course and/or evaluating whether a student has met those requirements; • Delivering instruction or mandatory tutoring; • Assessing student learning, including through electronic means; or • Developing curricula or course materials, unless the institution maintains full control of the curriculum/materials and delivers the instruction itself.” The expanded definition pertains to: • Foreign-owned institutions of higher education and third-party study abroad providers that provide courses to U.S. students who participate in education abroad programs; • Courses that are co-taught by faculty from institutions outside the U.S. alongside faculty at U.S. institutions; • Educational programs that are offered by consortia, non-profit, and education abroad organizations in which an institution may participate. The following section of the guidance is also extremely problematic: “…an institution may not contract with a TPS to perform any aspect of the institution’s participation in a Title IV program if the servicer (or its subcontractors) is located outside of the United States or is owned or operated by an individual who is not a U.S. citizen or national or a. lawful U.S. permanent resident. This prohibition applies to both foreign and domestic institutions.” This would automatically prohibit U.S. institutions from: • Providing educational programs on campuses affiliated, but not wholly owned, by U.S. institutions; • Partnering with foreign-owned universities and international education organizations for study abroad programs; • Contracting U.S., vendors that utilize subcontractors, as well as foreign, or foreign-owned vendors • Offering workforce development programs, including international co-ops, internships, and practica that form part of a student’s academic program, if they include placements at foreign-owned organizations or institutions. While I am based in Illinois, I work for a London (UK)-based not-for-profit study abroad organization. We provide study and study and internship programs for over 50 US colleges and universities including several in Illinois. As I understand the proposed guidance, students would no longer be able to participate in any of our programs – including those where their home campus faculty teach in one of our locations – and utilize their financial aid. I do not believe that the intention of this legislation is to shut down education abroad and, as such, it is vital that study abroad explicitly fall outside the scope of this new guidance. Former Illinois Senator Paul Simon knew the value that education abroad has for our students, our communities, our state, and our country and I urge you to ask that the Department of Education work with organizations such as AIRC, Forum on Education Abroad, NAFSA, ACE, ASSCU etc. to rework the language of this regulation. | Other | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
65 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0064 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lf8-pdj8-mhgo | Public Submission | 2023-03-14T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-14T04:00Z | Comment(s) | Angela | Luedke | Wilmington | NC | United States | Department of Education, I am stating my deep concern for the language used in this recent guidance. The broadening of terms has now exceeded the initial scope, focusing on the functions of student recruiting and retention. The US Department of Education has seemingly swept study abroad programs and providers of these programs into TPS considerations. By doing so, it would sever access to these life-changing and career-enhancing opportunities to any students needing financial aid to study abroad, therefore discouraging access and decreasing diversity. The proposed guidance states "...an institution may not contract with a TPS to perform any aspect of the institution’s participation in a Title IV program if the service (or its subcontractors) is located outside of the United States or is owned or operated by an individual who is not a U.S. citizen or national or a lawful U.S. permanent resident. This prohibition applies to both foreign and domestic institutions." Study abroad programs require the partnership of non-US-based institutions, researchers, academics, hosts, and a variety of administrators to deliver safe, educationally sound experiences. I request that the US Department of Education clearly exempt third party contracts in support of study abroad programming and state that higher education institutions may continue to contract with non-U.S. based organizations and individuals in furtherance of study abroad programming without risking their Title IV programs or requiring additional compliance steps and reporting addressed in the new guidance. Universities already carefully follow the guidance issued by the Department specific to use of Title IV funding by study abroad students. A concerned citizen, Angela Luedke | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
66 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0065 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lf8-q8hf-6a8h | Public Submission | 2023-03-15T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-14T04:00Z | Comment(s) | Adrian College | See attached file(s) | Private/Non-Profit Institution of Higher Education | https://downloads.regulations.gov/ED-2022-OPE-0103-0065/attachment_1.pdf | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
67 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0066 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lf8-qtmt-kukq | Public Submission | 2023-03-15T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-14T04:00Z | Comment(s) | Jennifer | Evanuik | Midland | MI | United States | I am a professional in the field of international education within higher ed. I have concerns about the impacts of this proposed change in regulations on students who seek to participate in international programs. The vast majority of our international academic programs for students at my university are administered in partnership with overseas entities/vendors. If implemented as currently written, the potential for negative impact on the ability of colleges and universities to provide high quality education abroad experiences for their students cannot be overstated. It would likely result in a complete halt to the participation of students receiving Title IV funding, which could: Negatively impact their retention and graduation rates, since study abroad is widely recognized as a High Impact Practice; Disadvantage financially needy students, who are often from underrepresented and underserved populations, from their peers; Negatively impact the nation’s capacity for international understanding and competitiveness by severely limiting students’ exposure to programs that bridge the gap between theory and practice. I am asking that the regulations be modified to take into account the many overseas business relationships that faciliate vital international exchange programs at the collegiate level. | Institution of Higher Education | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
68 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0067 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lf9-orx0-d4wn | Public Submission | 2023-03-15T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-15T04:00Z | Comment(s) | University of Richmond | We need more guidance to avoid confusion re the impact of this legislation on non-credit, professional education programs that are either not eligible for Title IV Funding (in most cases fewer than 300 hours) or not approved for Title IV Funding by the University (in a smaller number of cases) | School Administrator | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
69 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0068 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lf9-pczp-xyu1 | Public Submission | 2023-03-22T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-15T04:00Z | Comment(s) | Anonymous | Anonymous | Please add clarification about the impact of this legislation on a higher education institution that makes use Title IV Funds to support degree-seeking students, but also offers non-credit, professional education programs that are not eligible for Title IV funding or make not use of Title IV funding. Make specific reference to the fact that programs/courses that are not eligible or make no use of Title IV funding are not affected by this legislation and that they are still free to engage with overseas TPS to help deliver online programming to non degree seeking, professional education students. Taking away this facility will seriously impact our ability to offer a broad range of excellent programming to students while having no impact at all on the serious Title IV funding issues that this legislation is designed to address. | Academic/Think Tank | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
70 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0069 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lf9-qaox-jonq | Public Submission | 2023-03-22T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-15T04:00Z | Comment(s) | Jillian | Balow | Moseley | VA | United States | As the former superintendent of public instruction for the Commonwealth of Virginia and the State of Wyoming, I am long-time advocate for our nation’s education system. I understand what it takes to build the strongest possible education experience and have worked my entire career on behalf of students from preschool to postgraduate. Students need access to the right curriculum at the right time and in the right place in order to reach their full potential. The close partnership between Online Program Managers (OPMs) and institutions of higher learning has driven progress against all of these imperatives. The Department of Education’s effort to significantly undermine the ability of colleges and universities to partner with OPMs to deliver flexible, affordable, and impactful education to students is highly disappointing and threatens to derail progress in online education. Online education is now a central pillar of the broader education system. The investment and innovation attributable to this public/private partnership have played an important role in making this possible. Even casual observers saw the importance of online education when the pandemic forced schools to close. The education system adapted to incredible challenges thanks to the fact that OPMs and schools, working in close concert, never stopped efforts to take online education to the next level – the success is measurable and ongoing. Positivity surrounding online education has steadily grown in the wake of the pandemic. 57 percent of students responding to a recent survey said they were more optimistic about online education after the pandemic than they were before the pandemic. 82 percent of faculty surveyed by a task force at Harvard University said they wanted to apply the lessons they learned and approaches they adopted while teaching online to their in-person classrooms. Recent McKinsey research “shows that students and faculty are eager to continue using new classroom learning technologies adopted during the pandemic, but institutions could do more to support the shift.” Given the myriad of challenges associated with the rapid and nearly universal shift to online learning during the early days of the pandemic, this broadly positive feedback is particularly noteworthy. Students respond well to online education, accessing coursework and curricula that aligns with their goals in a cost-effective, flexible manner. And unlike in the past, when gains in higher education disproportionately benefited “traditional” students, progress in online programs has expanded the reach of the education system to “non-traditional” students. This means more students with disabilities, students from lower-income communities, minorities, and others will have greater access to higher education and all the benefits it entails. Thanks to OPMs and schools’ ongoing work to make the system the best it can be, students can now access specialized programs that reach beyond what’s attainable (in a cost-effective way) through traditional in-person classrooms. Arguments in support of revised guidance appear to claim that the bundled services exception is leading stakeholders to prioritize profit over student outcomes. Available data does not support this conclusion. Online education is more cost-effective than traditional, in-person learning by a wide margin. According to the Education Data Initiative, “private institutions on average charge $60,593 for an online degree vs $129,800 for an in-person degree.” The average cost of a credit hour attained through in-person instruction at a public university is $491.20, while the average for online instruction is $320.80 per credit hour. The vast majority – roughly 90 percent – of colleges and universities working with OPMs are public, non-profit entities. The Department of Education has introduced new and severe uncertainty into an equation that has worked wonders for higher education in America. This threatens future progress and calls into question the future viability of partnerships that have done so much to improve education. The revised guidance will have a chilling effect on innovation and the expansion of quality online education. I urge the Department to ignore uninformed and dangerous calls to revoke the bundled services exception that makes these partnerships possible and focus instead on policy that makes education more accessible. Thank you Jillian Balow Research and Evidence: https://hechingerreport.org/what-researchers-learned-about-online-higher-education-during-the-pandemic/ https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/education/our-insights/how-technology-is-shaping-learning-in-higher-education https://educationdata.org/cost-of-online-education-vs-traditional-education | Institution of Higher Education | https://downloads.regulations.gov/ED-2022-OPE-0103-0069/attachment_1.docx,https://downloads.regulations.gov/ED-2022-OPE-0103-0069/attachment_1.pdf | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
71 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0070 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lf9-t9uo-tad8 | Public Submission | 2023-03-22T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-15T04:00Z | Comment(s) | Ben | Iverson | Sioux Falls | SD | United States | As Director of International Programs at Augustana University in Sioux Falls, SD, I am stating my deep concern for the language used in this recent guidance. The broadening of terms has now exceeded the initial scope, focusing on the functions of student recruiting and retention. The US Department of Education has swept study abroad programs and providers of these programs into TPS considerations. By doing so, it would sever access to these life-changing and career-enhancing opportunities to any students needing financial aid to study abroad, therefore discouraging access and decreasing diversity. The proposed guidance states "...an institution may not contract with a TPS to perform any aspect of the institution’s participation in a Title IV program if the service (or its subcontractors) is located outside of the United States or is owned or operated by an individual who is not a U.S. citizen or national or a lawful U.S. permanent resident. This prohibition applies to both foreign and domestic institutions." Study abroad programs require the partnership of non-US-based institutions, researchers, academics, hosts, and a variety of administrators to deliver safe, educationally sound experiences. The United States needs a globally educated populace with intercultural competence, language skills, and friendships and partnerships around the world. Our economy and national security depend on it. Programs like Fulbright, the Critical Language Scholarship, and others are evidence that the federal government is vested in developing such expertise. The proposed guidance accomplishes exactly the opposite of those aims. I request that the US Department of Education clearly exempt third party contracts in support of study abroad programming and state that higher education institutions may continue to contract with non-U.S. based organizations and individuals in furtherance of study abroad programming without risking their Title IV programs or requiring additional compliance steps and reporting addressed in the new guidance. Universities already carefully follow the guidance issued by the Department specific to use of Title IV funding by study abroad students. Furthermore, recruitment of foreign students via paid recruitment agencies overseas has been a long accepted practice. Small institutions like mine in the United States do not have the resources to send university representatives to all of the places we recruit students from. As a result, trusted agency partners provide a needed service to foreign students seeking to study in the United States. Attempts to curtail this industry are elitist, and only serve to help a handful of institutions who already enroll the majority of international students, while the majority of American universities will struggle. Our local communities benefit greatly from the diversity international students bring, and our local economies benefit greatly from the expenditures of these students. It's hard enough to compete against countries like Canada that have more favorable employment rules and other factors important to international students. Please do not put US institutions at a competitive disadvantage. The students, and their talents and resources, will go elsewhere. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
72 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0071 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lf9-uadv-z502 | Public Submission | 2023-03-22T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-15T04:00Z | Comment(s) | Anonymous | Anonymous | o I am stating my deep concern for the language used in this recent guidance. The broadening of terms has now exceeded the initial scope, focusing on the functions of student recruiting and retention. The US Department of Education has seemingly swept study abroad programs and providers of these programs into TPS considerations. By doing so, it would sever access to these life-changing and career-enhancing opportunities to any students needing financial aid to study abroad, therefore discouraging access and decreasing diversity. The proposed guidance states "...an institution may not contract with a TPS to perform any aspect of the institution’s participation in a Title IV program if the service (or its subcontractors) is located outside of the United States or is owned or operated by an individual who is not a U.S. citizen or national or a lawful U.S. permanent resident. This prohibition applies to both foreign and domestic institutions." Study abroad programs require the partnership of non-US-based institutions, researchers, academics, hosts, and a variety of administrators to deliver safe, educationally sound experiences. I request that the US Department of Education clearly exempt third party contracts in support of study abroad programming and state that higher education institutions may continue to contract with non-U.S. based organizations and individuals in furtherance of study abroad programming without risking their Title IV programs or requiring additional compliance steps and reporting addressed in the new guidance. Universities already carefully follow the guidance issued by the Department specific to use of Title IV funding by study abroad students. | Institution of Higher Education | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
73 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0072 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lf9-wpbs-wbtm | Public Submission | 2023-03-22T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-15T04:00Z | Comment(s) | Western Washington University | State | Western Washington University in Bellingham, WA 00380200 wishes to register concern that Dear Colleague Letter ID: GEN-23-03 specifies that educational content and instruction require reportage as a TPS and prohibits contracting with a TPS that is outside of the United states or is owned or operated by an individual that is not a U.S. citizen or national, or a lawful U.S. permanent resident. The U.S. Department of Education has historically provided strong support for study abroad programs. Federal guidance even goes so far as to specify that study abroad programs do not have to be a required part of the eligible program at the home school for the student to be eligible to receive FSA funds, though the credits earned must apply to graduation requirements. However, we fear that GEN-23-03 essentially prohibits awarding students Federal Student Aid to enroll in study abroad programs. Is this really the intent? Concerns: • Vast decrease in students participating in study abroad programs across the United States with the resulting loss of global skills and access to personal and professional opportunities • The resulting inequity associated with financially-secure students having the financial ability to participate in study abroad programs whereas most financially at-risk students would be unable to participate in study abroad, due to lack of Federal student financial aid eligibility for study abroad programs • Increased educational indebtedness of students who would end up borrowing through private educational lenders to finance study abroad We recommend that the Department of Education eliminate the prohibition against servicers located outside of the U.S. An alternative that would also address the issue would be to provide a more narrow definition of servicers subject to the new rule that more adequately focuses on the Department’s specific concerns. Thank you for your consideration, Western Washington University | Distance/Non-Traditional Educational Provider | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
74 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0073 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lfa-2k1k-an3p | Public Submission | 2023-03-22T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-15T04:00Z | Comment(s) | Sarah | Dulay | United States | Thank you for providing the opportunity to comment on ED-2022-OPE-0103, concerning the Department’s most recent Guidance on Third Party Servicers (“TPS”). For the past 17 years I have worked within higher education and currently serve as the Director of Library Services at a college in Illinois. My vast involvement in the area of higher education, libraries and mental health provides me with the experience and understanding to convey the adverse effects your most recent Dear Colleague letter sets into motion. Every higher education institution across the nation will be impacted, however, it is our students who will be the most severely harmed in the process. I have had an opportunity to review the February 15 Guidance and believe that the Department has broadened the definitions of TPS far beyond its original intent. At this point, nearly every service company that the college partners with would automatically become a TPS, most importantly, subject to yearly audits and joint and several liability. Consequently, we expect many of these providers to cease partnering with our college – as well as many other colleges – at great detriment not only to the college itself, but to the millions of students nationwide that will be adversely affected by the loss of these partnerships. In particular, my area of expertise involving Library Services, Mental Health, and Assessment will be impacted should we lose the additional services of numerous providers that assist the college with assessment, mental health support to students, and other Academic areas. Should the college lose assistance with assessment, the adverse effects to the college and our students would be detrimental. Students need to be assessed to be certain they are acquiring the skills and expertise they will need in the workplace. As a career focused college, this is especially important for our students. Not having the support of providers to help with this would be detrimental. Second, if we lose our partner that provides mental health support services for our students, the impact to the students would be devastating. For instance, numerous students have taken advantage of the program the college provides to students for their mental health needs. The provider even provides information relating to time management and finding balance in life. In this time of greater stressors, due to such things as the COVID pandemic, racial injustice, and high inflation, losing access to this service would cause horrible impacts to our students. As a Libraries and Higher Education expert, I hope that you take into account the concerns I have raised. I strongly believe that the Department’s most recent Guidance was overly broad in its definition of TPS and inadvertently pulled in servicers that should not fall under that label. These servicers, as I have noted above, should not have to register as TPS, should not have to conduct TPS audits, and should not be held jointly and severally liable with the institution to the Secretary of Education for any statutory or regulatory violations in connection with Title IV of the Higher Education Act. I respectfully request that the Department withdraw its February 15 Guidance in its entirety and instead, draft new guidance that more carefully addresses its concerns with specific TPS or the specific areas of servicers it truly wishes to include under TPS rules and regulations. As written, I strongly believe that students will be unnecessarily harmed, and that that was not the intention of the Department. Thank you in advance for your consideration. | Other | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
75 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0074 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lfb-7lqn-8f1i | Public Submission | 2023-03-27T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-16T04:00Z | Comment(s) | Anonymous | Anonymous | Recruitment and Application-Related Activities: 1. Can you define “Interacting with prospective students?” For example, if a website (not owned by the institution) maintains information about your program, and that website provides the ability for the prospective student to fill out a form to request information, is this considered interacting? 2. If a website (not owned by the institution) provides an assessment to help the prospective student determine if he/she is “ready” to explore that career, would that website be considered a TPS? 3. If an institution’s website maintains information on the enrollment process, does the hosting company fall under the TPS umbrella? 4. If an institution utilizes a software company to obtain electronic signatures on documents, does the software fall under the TPS umbrella? 5. The first paragraph of the TPS seems contradictory to the second paragraph of the Non-TPS. For example, the TPS states “providing prospective students with information on educational enrollment, application and document requirements, deadlines, and the enrollment process” while the Non-TPS also allows for mailing of “policies, procedures” which could constitute the same information. Most student handbooks contain information on educational programs. Consumer Information: 1. Would a company, who provides Title IX training to the institution’s staff, be considered a TPS? Computer Services/Software and Record Maintenance: 1. Most learning management systems are hosted by the company that provides it. Those companies typically maintain and update their software which means that they do have control over the system. However, the company does not access or update any student-level information. Would that company, which provides the learning management system, be considered a TPS? 2. Would a private lender be considered a TPS because of the billing? 3. Does the server company, where a TPS software is located, be considered a TPS even if the server company does not have access to the TPS software/data? Instructional Content: 1. Learning Management Systems typically have examinations or assessments that are automatically scored/evaluated. For example, a multiple choice examination would automatically be scored by the software once the student completed the examination. Would the company, that provides and hosts the learning management system, be considered a TPS? | Private/For-Profit Institution of Higher Education | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
76 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0075 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lfb-fyx3-vkrd | Public Submission | 2023-03-27T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-16T04:00Z | Comment(s) | Anonymous | Anonymous | re: Foreign ownership restriction in new TPS guidance We are a small, privately owned, Canadian-based marketing technology company that has served US Title IV schools for nearly 20 years and will now fall under the revised definition of a Third Party Servicer. Our business has always taken regulatory compliance seriously as we understand the risk to our school clients. And in spirit we welcome the expansion of TPS to include companies such as ours. However, as written, the new restriction on foreign ownership in the revised guidance will prohibit us to continue to serve our US schools clients. During a webinar hosted by CSPEN, DOE representative Ben Miller indicated that the revised guidance stemmed from concern by the department that foreign companies would be difficult to enforce penalties on for violations. While we understand this concern, the reality for our company is that loss of access to Title IV schools would be devastating, and in the theoretical event we were deemed to have violated regulations, we would be just as likely to pay our fines as any US counterpart. The foreign ownership provision does not solve this enforcement problem as a US LLC could simply close and restart under a new corporate shell to avoid payment. We also feel the unintended consequence of this will hurt US access to global innovation and investment in technology that serves students interests. If US-based schools and EdTech companies are to have access to the global marketplace, the global market place must have access to the US market in turn. The United States and Canada enjoy a free trade agreement, and are each others largest trading partners. We ask the department to reconsider their position in this matter. In lieu of that, we ask the department to clarify what they deem to be ‘foreign’ ownership: Is 49% of a US LLC foreign owned? 1%? Are companies owned by private equity subject to these regulations if they are funded by non-US individuals? Does this apply to publicly traded companies, and would they need to disclose the foreign ownership of their shareholders? We thank you for your consideration. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
77 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0076 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lfb-k5qq-cg1v | Public Submission | 2023-03-27T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-16T04:00Z | Comment(s) | Anonymous | Anonymous | Our institution has significant concerns about the proposed changes to the rules around third-party servicers (“TPS”) because the current language expands the definition of a TPS so broadly as to sweep in any entity providing just about any type of service, regardless of whether that service directly involves the actual management of Title IV funds. For example, the new rules mean that entities providing services related to recruiting (including the recruitment of international students who are, by statute, not eligible to receive Title IV funds), IT, and assistance in creating academic content become TPS entities. They also impose onerous reporting deadlines that create moresignificant additional administrative costs for every institution (and the Department, as well). Such a broad definition operates as a disincentive to innovation because of the significant risk it creates for outside entities who would otherwise assist institutions in carrying out their academic mission. For instance, on its face, the new guidance precludes our institution from offering study abroad programs unless a partner foreign institution agrees to classify itself as a TPS, subject themselves to regulation by a U.S. agency as a result, and accept the significant burdens and risk imposed upon them based upon their status as a TPS. Many institutions of higher education abroad are unlikely to agree to those conditions, significantly reducing opportunities for students. We encourage the Department to more carefully craft the definition of a TPS (and related guidance around how to determine whether an entity qualifies as a TPS) to ensure that it only controls entities performing a function(s) directly related to the administration of Title IV funds. The proposed definition, which includes any that entity “performing any aspect of the institution's participation in a Title IV program” is extremely overbroad. That is because just about any activity an institution performs is, at least tangentially, related to its participation in Title IV programs. Our institution urges the Department to: • More narrowly define a TPS, so that it is clear that a TPS must perform some function directly related to the administration of Title IV funds. • Create a carve-out from the definition of a TPS for, at minimum, entities: o Providing bundled services. o Engaged in the recruitment of international students who are not Title IV eligible. o Offering services related to study abroad. o Providing IT services that do not directly relate to the administration of Title IV funds. o Located outside the United States and/or owned by non-U.S. citizens. • Reduce the burdensome reporting requirements related to entities with whom an institution contracts, especially those related to report the contractual terms between an institution and an outside entity both initially and subsequently at any time those terms change. | Private/Non-Profit Institution of Higher Education | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
78 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0077 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lfb-mk4j-moby | Public Submission | 2023-03-27T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-16T04:00Z | Comment(s) | Sara | Squires | CO | United States | I am greatly saddened to learn of yet another barrier that the DOE is imposing on our students. I work at a Community College where our student population already faces many barriers and obstacles that make achieving their educational goals more difficult than for more privileged communities. We offer a study abroad program that we work incredibly hard to create in ways that make the opportunity accessible to ALL students. Some of these students may require funding. The use of 'on the ground' experts, companies, consultants, and other valuable resources (ie. third parties) while studying abroad in another country are a very important element to the overall enrichment and cultural validity of the programs. It is necessary to collaborate with entities on site at each foreign destination planned in the program to provide the most efficient and accurate visits possible for our students. Limiting access to these programs to students who require funding is absurd and outrageous. We should be working harder to SUPPORT opportunities for American students seeking enrichment and culture. This new guidance will create precisely the opposite effect. Or, by ending partnerships with third parties that have taken years to cultivate, we will be knowingly and actively and drastically reducing the value of the programs and further taxing our college staff and resources to recreate opportunities and serving as guides on their own which could lead to these programs dissolving or being provided much less frequently. Either way, this proposed guidance will create devastating effects on Study Abroad programs across the country. How are we to create and cultivate citizens of the world when there are such barriers created that squelch the very spirit in which these programs are intended? This type of mentality and restrictions will move us backward instead of forward in progress. We cannot understand others if not given the opportunity to go outside the walls of our own spaces to learn and grow. We cannot success in cultivating future leaders in this manner. I implore you to seriously and deeply consider what this imposed guidance would mean and the overall effects on our young Americans. | Two-Year Public Institution of Higher Education | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
79 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0078 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lfa-6kce-p1qw | Public Submission | 2023-03-27T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-15T04:00Z | Comment(s) | DePaul University | DePaul University (“DePaul”) is a private, not-for-profit institution incorporated in the state of Illinois, currently serving 21,000 students across ten colleges and schools. Since its founding in 1898, DePaul has been dedicated to making education accessible to all, with special attention to underserved and underrepresented communities. True to this commitment, in the early 2000s, DePaul strategically developed an infrastructure to offer fully online courses and degree programs. The online modality allowed DePaul to expand its brand and reach populations of students who, for a number of reasons, are not otherwise able to access education on DePaul’s campus. DePaul’s entry into online courses and degrees came at an upfront cost that was, and still is, problematic. While DePaul routinely engages in strategic digital marketing and has admissions counselors on staff, it was clear that offering these services on a targeted basis for all online programs would be cost-prohibitive under the university’s current structure. After a careful RFP process and due diligence, DePaul partnered with an Online Program Management firm (OPM). DePaul’s OPM provides expertise in marketing, web-presence, and recruiting. It provides bundled services that would have required an initial investment that DePaul was not able to make. The programs that our OPM helped DePaul implement would not have been possible without them. Indeed, the first program that DePaul offered in partnership with the OPM existed before the OPM relationship but struggled with enrollment. Now, the program is a healthy staple of DePaul’s online portfolio. DePaul retains complete control over admissions, academic content creation, teaching, assessment, tuition and fee setting, financial aid processing, class size, and student support. This ensures that the quality of the academic experience and the opportunities available to students taking online courses are equal to students who are physically on campus. The partnership with our OPM has not affected DePaul’s tuition or fees, which are set through an internal process at the University. A revenue-shared agreement guarantees that we both strive to achieve enrollment targets and offer programs that meet students’ needs and expectations, and incentivizes innovation and mutual accountability. DePaul’s experience is proof that responsible OPMs can and do operate under the current guidance in ways that profoundly benefit both students and institutions alike. | Institution of Higher Education | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
80 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0079 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lfa-9nfy-yngn | Public Submission | 2023-03-27T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-15T04:00Z | Comment(s) | Kourosh | Homayounpour | North Bethesda | MD | United States | Before retiring from George Washington University recently I was in charge of our boot camp programs that we ran jointly with 2U, Inc. We started with a coding boot camp and about 200 students in 2017 and by 2022 we were offering boot camps in seven subject matter areas and graduating about 750 students a year. We offered coding, cybersecurity, data analytics, digital marketing, FinTech, product management and UX/UI boot camps. The online modality makes these programs available to a wider audience both geographically and for those who work full-time. But more importantly, these boot camps increase access to skills needed in today’s job market and new careers by providing a lower tuition and, in most cases, by removing the barrier of a prior university degree. More than 15 percent of our graduates entered their program with only a high school diploma. Launching, marketing and recruitment of qualified students and instructors, and maintaining high quality online programs requires significant staff time and substantial upfront and ongoing investments that many higher education institutions find difficult to provide. A revenue share partnership with 2U allows accredited colleges and universities to launch technology boot camps and degree programs with little upfront investment and much faster than normal. This model also incentivizes 2U to strive for a high-quality program with strong student retention and learning outcomes. As a higher education professional I would like to emphasize a fact that tends to get overlooked in discussions about the subject, namely the institutional oversight of all academic matters such as curriculum, teaching methods, learning outcomes, hiring of faculty, etc. At my institution I had our full-time faculty from the appropriate school review and vet the curriculum for each of our boot camps and also approve the hiring of the instructors. We also approved all marketing assets and collateral. In my professional opinion institutions of higher education should have the flexibility to enter into revenue share agreements with third party providers such as 2U for the simple reason that it is essential for their mission of increasing access, affordability and educating the workforce. K. Cyrus Homayounpour Higher Education Consultant | Private/Non-Profit Institution of Higher Education | https://downloads.regulations.gov/ED-2022-OPE-0103-0079/attachment_1.docx,https://downloads.regulations.gov/ED-2022-OPE-0103-0079/attachment_1.pdf | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
81 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0080 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lfb-gckn-7vtr | Public Submission | 2023-03-27T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-16T04:00Z | Comment(s) | University of Denver | Local | Please see the attached letter from the University of Denver. | Private/Non-Profit Institution of Higher Education | https://downloads.regulations.gov/ED-2022-OPE-0103-0080/attachment_1.pdf | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
82 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0081 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lfb-q8b3-beks | Public Submission | 2023-03-27T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-16T04:00Z | Comment(s) | The University of North Carolina System Office | State | Commend exceeds 5000 characters. Please see attachment. | Federal Agency | https://downloads.regulations.gov/ED-2022-OPE-0103-0081/attachment_1.pdf | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
83 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0082 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lfb-rfoc-ghv4 | Public Submission | 2023-03-27T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-16T04:00Z | Comment(s) | SUNY Directors of Online Distance Learning Environments | The SUNY Directors of Online Distance Learning Environments (DOODLE) is concerned about the Requirements and Responsibilities for Third-Party Servicers and Institutions that the Department of Education released in February. The DOODLE organization is an association of multiple individuals that work on SUNY Campuses in the distance learning field, and we are concerned as the scope of the requirements seems to go far beyond just regulating Online Program Management companies. The proposed language will likely impact almost every technological system we utilize on our campuses in SUNY in both our face-to-face and online programs. Furthermore, the regulatory burden of keeping track of, renegotiating, and ensuring we meet the requirements are going to require a significant amount of work. With declining enrollment across the state, we do not have the ability to hire more staff to help manage this process, so we will have to pass the cost of any new staff on to students through tuition and fees. This is clearly not in the best interest of our students. All SUNY campuses have both internal and external (NYSED) governance structures that evaluate technology, curriculum, and policy decisions – the addition of DOE oversight is unnecessary. While we agree that the OPM market should be reigned in, these requirements and responsibilities should be refined in a way that there isn’t an unintended significant impact on SUNY and all its institutions. Below we outline some of our main concerns. Retention of Students Under the current definition, any tool that has built-in reports on attendance, academic engagement, or automates outreach to students may inadvertently be caught up in over-regulation. Many SUNY schools utilize early warning systems such as Starfish that pull data from the LMS, identify students for outreach, and help local student success personnel start conversations with students. Should the definition stay, the same campuses will need to hire more support people to take the place of the software that is helping us do this work. There needs to be greater clarity between the use of technology as an aid to internal student success teams and the outsourcing of student retention initiatives to external partners. Computer Services/Software and Record Maintenance If the above definition stays and is interpreted broadly, both the Blackboard LMS and the D2L Brightspace LMS could be considered a TPS and subject to greater oversight. The trend in higher education has been to Software as a Service (SAAS), where instead of running servers internally, an outside entity provides the digital infrastructure to deliver courses. With the broad way the language around Computer Services is defined, this may increase substantially the amount of regulation on software used by our institutions. We believe it is important to work with the best company available for our needs, not the best company that is located in the United States. There needs to be a better definition of why the location of the TPS matters, and there need to be clearer definitions that recognize modern software maintenance and server practices where often external teams manage the tool so that internal teams can focus on the students. Instructional Content We would like to see greater clarification in the Instructional Content session to further clarify the institution and faculty's ability to set their curriculum and choose their course materials. This freedom should include the ability to purchase course materials and textbooks, the ability to use openly licensed learning materials, and the ability to work with consortiums. SUNY currently has partnerships with Open Education Providers and we have participated in innovative teaching approaches such as the Carnegie Mellon Pathways program which is focused on student success in Mathematical Reasoning Courses. The regulations need to be clarified in a way that focuses on external control over teaching objectives, curriculum, and course materials, while still allowing institutions, departments, and faculty to choose materials that align with the curriculum. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
84 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0083 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lfc-01em-nn1m | Public Submission | 2023-03-27T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-16T04:00Z | Comment(s) | Washington State University | State | See attached file(s) | Four-Year Public Institution of Higher Education | https://downloads.regulations.gov/ED-2022-OPE-0103-0083/attachment_1.pdf | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
85 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0084 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lfc-meyd-q6f4 | Public Submission | 2023-03-27T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-17T04:00Z | Comment(s) | Christie | Jardine | Spartanburg | SC | United States | I am writing to urge you to advocate for making education abroad accessible to every student regardless of financial need. The recent U.S. Department of Education’s (DOE) Dear Colleague Letter guidance on “(GEN-23-03) Requirements and Responsibilities for Third-Party Servicers and Institutions” issued on Wednesday, February 15, and updated on Tuesday, February 28, will have an extremely negative impact on US students. The comment period is open until March 29, 2023. Please urge the DOE to formally exclude education abroad from this guidance. If implemented as currently written, the potential for negative impact on the ability of colleges and universities to provide high quality education abroad experiences for their students cannot be overstated. It would likely result in a complete halt to the participation of students receiving Title IV funding, which could: • Negatively impact their retention and graduation rates, since study abroad is widely recognized as a High Impact Practice; • Disadvantage financially needy students, who are often from underrepresented and underserved populations, from their peers; • Negatively impact the nation’s capacity for international understanding and competitiveness by severely limiting students’ exposure to programs that bridge the gap between theory and practice. The expanded definition of what constitutes a Third-Party Servicer (TPS) indicates that every aspect of an education abroad program, which by its definition includes instruction and student assessment, would be subject to TPS rules, as stated: “Providing any percentage of a Title IV-eligible program at an institution, including: • Establishing requirements for the completion of a course and/or evaluating whether a student has met those requirements; • Delivering instruction or mandatory tutoring; • Assessing student learning, including through electronic means; or • Developing curricula or course materials, unless the institution maintains full control of the curriculum/materials and delivers the instruction itself.” The expanded definition pertains to: • Foreign-owned institutions of higher education that provide education to U.S. students who participate in exchange programs; • Courses that are co-taught by faculty from institutions outside the U.S. alongside faculty at U.S. institutions; • Educational programs that are offered by consortia, non-profit, and education abroad organizations in which an institution may participate. The following section of the guidance is also extremely problematic: “…an institution may not contract with a TPS to perform any aspect of the institution’s participation in a Title IV program if the servicer (or its subcontractors) is located outside of the United States or is owned or operated by an individual who is not a U.S. citizen or national or a. lawful U.S. permanent resident. This prohibition applies to both foreign and domestic institutions.” This would automatically prohibit U.S. institutions from: • Providing educational programs on campuses affiliated, but not wholly owned, by U.S. institutions; • Partnering with foreign-owned universities for semester abroad programs; • Contracting U.S., foreign, or foreign-owned vendors that utilize subcontractors • Offering workforce development programs, including international co-ops, internships, and practicums that form part of a student’s academic program, if they include placements at foreign-owned organizations or institutions. I believe that the intention of this legislation is not to shut down education abroad and that this sector should and must fall outside the scope of this new guidance. I am a US Citizen and work within education abroad at a private, non-profit college in South Carolina. I have worked in education abroad for a decade, including several years working for a TPS called DIS-Study Abroad in Scandinavia, which partners with nearly 200 different US colleges and universities and enrolls nearly 1,500 undergraduate students at its programs in Copenhagen, Denmark, and Stockholm, Sweden every fall and spring semester. Studying abroad changed my life and led me to work in this incredible industry and earn my M.S. concentrating in Global Student Mobility from Northeastern University. I know you understand the immense value that education abroad has for our students, our communities, our state, and our country, and I urge you to ask the DOE to formally exclude education abroad from this guidance. Thank you. | Private/Non-Profit Institution of Higher Education | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
86 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0085 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lfc-nyka-2ump | Public Submission | 2023-03-27T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-17T04:00Z | Comment(s) | Mariette | Thomas | United States | I am stating my deep concern for the language used in this recent guidance. The broadening of terms has now exceeded the initial scope, focusing on the functions of student recruiting and retention. The US Department of Education has seemingly swept study abroad programs and providers of these programs into TPS considerations. By doing so, it would sever access to these life-changing and career-enhancing opportunities to any students needing financial aid to study abroad, therefore discouraging access and decreasing diversity. The proposed guidance states "...an institution may not contract with a TPS to perform any aspect of the institution’s participation in a Title IV program if the service (or its subcontractors) is located outside of the United States or is owned or operated by an individual who is not a U.S. citizen or national or a lawful U.S. permanent resident. This prohibition applies to both foreign and domestic institutions." Study abroad programs require the partnership of non-US-based institutions, researchers, academics, hosts, and a variety of administrators to deliver safe, educationally sound experiences. I request that the US Department of Education clearly exempt third party contracts in support of study abroad programming and state that higher education institutions may continue to contract with non-U.S. based organizations and individuals in furtherance of study abroad programming without risking their Title IV programs or requiring additional compliance steps and reporting addressed in the new guidance. Universities already carefully follow the guidance issued by the Department specific to use of Title IV funding by study abroad students. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
87 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0086 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lfc-o3zd-73nm | Public Submission | 2023-03-27T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-17T04:00Z | Comment(s) | Keith | Hunt | Spartanburg | SC | United States | I am commenting in protest to GEN-23-03 and the proposed changes that will negatively impact international education/study abroad process regarding Requirements and Responsibilities for Third-Party Servicers and Institutions. The impact will be significant to U.S. students and higher education institutions within the U.S. | Four-Year Public Institution of Higher Education | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
88 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0087 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lfc-ojgh-2v10 | Public Submission | 2023-03-27T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-17T04:00Z | Comment(s) | Anonymous | Anonymous | Exempt study abroad programs from this regulation. As written, the guidance would likely result in a halt to students receiving Title IV funding, which could: • Negatively impact their retention and graduation rates, since study abroad is widely recognized as a High Impact Practice; • Disadvantage financially needy students, who are often from underrepresented and underserved populations, from their peers; • Negatively impact the nation’s capacity for international understanding and competitiveness by severely limiting students’ exposure to programs that bridge the gap between theory and practice. Furthermore, US institutions would be prohibited from: • Providing educational programs on campuses affiliated, but not wholly owned, by U.S. institutions; • Partnering with foreign-owned universities for semester abroad programs; • Contracting U.S., foreign, or foreign-owned vendors that utilize subcontractors • Offering workforce development programs, including international co-ops, internships, and practicums that form part of a student’s academic program, if they include placements at foreign-owned organizations or institutions. | Four-Year Public Institution of Higher Education | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
89 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0088 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lfc-puxp-9uz5 | Public Submission | 2023-03-27T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-17T04:00Z | Comment(s) | Organization for Tropical Studies | This law would severely impact our ability to deliver, quality, transformational educational experiences in Costa Rica and South Africa. Without contracting third-party organizations to deliver specialized educational topics like language study and homestay engagement activities. | Association/Organization | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
90 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0089 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lfc-q2iu-8f4t | Public Submission | 2023-03-27T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-17T04:00Z | Comment(s) | Anonymous | Anonymous | The way this guidance is written, it applies far more broadly and has severely negative unintended consequences. If implemented as currently written, the potential for negative impact on the ability of colleges and universities to provide high quality education abroad experiences for their students cannot be overstated. It would likely result in a complete halt to the participation of students receiving Title IV funding, which could: Negatively impact their retention and graduation rates, since study abroad is widely recognized as a High Impact Practice; Disadvantage financially needy students, who are often from underrepresented and underserved populations, from their peers; Negatively impact the nation’s capacity for international understanding and competitiveness by severely limiting students’ exposure to programs that bridge the gap between theory and practice. Please update this to explicitly exclude university sponsored international education experiences. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
91 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0090 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lfc-qsow-mafa | Public Submission | 2023-03-27T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-17T04:00Z | Comment(s) | Jordain | Moore | Naples | NY | United States | If implemented as currently written, the potential for negative impact on the ability of colleges and universities to provide high quality education abroad experiences for their students cannot be overstated. It would likely result in a complete halt to the participation of students receiving Title IV funding, which could: - Negatively impact their retention and graduation rates, since study abroad is widely recognized as a High Impact Practice; - Disadvantage financially needy students, who are often from underrepresented and underserved populations, from their peers; - Negatively impact the nation’s capacity for international understanding and competitiveness by severely limiting students’ exposure to programs that bridge the gap between theory and practice. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
92 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0091 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lfc-rwkx-gcka | Public Submission | 2023-03-27T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-17T04:00Z | Comment(s) | Aurora | Margarita-Goldkamp | MD | United States | I am commenting to share my concern for the language used in this recent guidance. First of all, I do understand the need for regulatory guidance concerning foreign-owned TPS especially where concerned in the tasks related to assisting with financial resources and processes. However, I strongly believe that this new proposed guidance would destroy the immense benefits of intercultural exchange on the US. This exchange is largely enabled by contracting with TPS for incoming international student and talent, and outgoing study abroad opportunities for US college students. Therefore, I am urging the department to consider redefining TPS to allow for foreign-owned services specifically for coursework, retention, and recruitment. The broadening of terms has now exceeded the initial scope, focusing on the functions of student recruiting and retention. The US Department of Education has seemingly swept study abroad programs and providers of these programs into TPS considerations. By doing so, it would sever access to these life-changing and career-enhancing opportunities to any students needing financial aid to study abroad, therefore discouraging access and decreasing diversity. The proposed guidance states "...an institution may not contract with a TPS to perform any aspect of the institution’s participation in a Title IV program if the service (or its subcontractors) is located outside of the United States or is owned or operated by an individual who is not a U.S. citizen or national or a lawful U.S. permanent resident. This prohibition applies to both foreign and domestic institutions." Study abroad programs require the partnership of non-US-based institutions, researchers, academics, hosts, and a variety of administrators to deliver safe, educationally sound experiences. I request that the US Department of Education clearly exempt third party contracts in support of study abroad programming and state that higher education institutions may continue to contract with non-U.S. based organizations and individuals in furtherance of study abroad programming without risking their Title IV programs or requiring additional compliance steps and reporting addressed in the new guidance. Universities already carefully follow the guidance issued by the Department specific to use of Title IV funding by study abroad students. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
93 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0092 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lfc-t479-v9yj | Public Submission | 2023-03-27T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-17T04:00Z | Comment(s) | Tasha | Cary-Waselk | United States | To Whom is May Concern, I am currently an employee at a U.S. higher education institution voicing my concern for (GEN-23-03) Requirements and Responsibilities for Third-Party Servicers and Institutions. I have worked with students who wish to study abroad for the past 7 years and have seen how it has positively not only them, but our campus. This guidance would cease these international opportunities that our country needs, and negatively impact an entire sector of higher education. I implore you to amend this guidance as global learning opportunities are necessary to create a community of respect for others of different backgrounds. Our students return renewed and with a sense of purpose to take what they have learn abroad and bring it to our own community. The broadening of terms has now exceeded the initial scope, focusing on the functions of student recruiting and retention. The US Department of Education has seemingly swept study abroad programs and providers of these programs into TPS considerations. By doing so, it would sever access to these life-changing and career-enhancing opportunities to any students needing financial aid to study abroad, therefore discouraging access and decreasing diversity. The proposed guidance states "...an institution may not contract with a TPS to perform any aspect of the institution’s participation in a Title IV program if the service (or its subcontractors) is located outside of the United States or is owned or operated by an individual who is not a U.S. citizen or national or a lawful U.S. permanent resident. This prohibition applies to both foreign and domestic institutions." Study abroad programs require the partnership of non-US-based institutions, researchers, academics, hosts, and a variety of administrators to deliver safe, educationally sound experiences. I request that the US Department of Education clearly exempt third party contracts in support of study abroad programming and state that higher education institutions may continue to contract with non-U.S. based organizations and individuals in furtherance of study abroad programming without risking their Title IV programs or requiring additional compliance steps and reporting addressed in the new guidance. Universities already carefully follow the guidance issued by the Department specific to use of Title IV funding by study abroad students. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
94 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0093 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lfc-tc2x-w46a | Public Submission | 2023-03-27T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-17T04:00Z | Comment(s) | Renee | Bowling | OH | United States | Hello. I comment on the proposed guidance from my perspective as a graduate student at a public flagship university studying higher education internationalization and as a small town Midwesterner privileged to follow a career in international education. As a former head of college counseling and administration in an American-curriculum international school, I had a front-row seat to the expansion of internationalizing institutions and TPS from multiple countries and contexts. There is no doubt that with other countries having established national internationalization agendas and captured market share in the past decade that the U.S. is behind the curve in having a coherent approach to our national strategic priorities in international higher education. What I see in the guidance, however, is a reaction to current domestic concerns that, while legitimate, represent a response with broad ramifications on the ability of our higher education institutions to compete and collaborate in the global education market. There is deep value in international exchange and collaboration for individual students, for campuses and communities, and for the common good of America’s future. Our national diplomacy in science and innovation, ability to attract and retain high quality talent, industries’ competitiveness, and our ability to develop global leadership are directly impacted by our openness to and investment in global learning which benefits from the value added by national partners who bring their practitioner knowledge and regional and local relationships to benefit U.S. institutions’ international footprint. For many U.S. campuses facing decreased federal and state budgets and demographic shifts in enrollment, bringing the duties TPS providers perform in-house would be cost-prohibitive and our students, innovation, and communities would suffer. In particular, I am concerned that U.S higher education investments in international branch campuses, joint degree programs, consortia partnerships, and study abroad experiences would be negatively impacted. Even the COIL and virtual exchange that expanded access to high impact practices in the pandemic utilized co-construction of curricula with educators worldwide to exemplify ethical international engagement, and it would be a step backwards to suspend these initiatives. The education abroad experiences that are now rebounding from a global pandemic face this new domestic threat, and given universities' strapped budgets post-pandemic, many are likely to cancel programs rather than have the capacity to rebuild them at higher cost. There is a lack of clarity around who or what constitutes TPS: does it rest on ownership or location of operation? What about foreign legal entities operating domestically in education? Or partial foreign-domestic partnerships operating internationally and domestically? Over 300 transnational higher education institutions exist internationally, not even counting study abroad and service providers, and the U.S. currently leads in offshore experimentation, but the field is shifting toward multipolarity and it would be a large loss to U.S. higher education to have to pull out of many of these efforts. The guidance seems most concerned with the misuse of federal aid by foreign entities. The vast majority of U.S. institutions do not rely on TPS for financial aid processing, but for educational partnership and delivery. The framers might distinguish between activities that create liability and those that do not, keeping in mind that U.S. institutions are regulated and retain legal liability in U.S. courts, making potential losses recoverable. This concern seems incompatible with over two decades of allowing for portability of U.S. financial aid to foreign higher education institutions by U.S. students seeking to study internationally, students I have personally counseled. Such programs enhance our stature internationally and lead to diplomatic goodwill and long-term collaborations in teaching and research. The public good mission is a key function of higher education accountable to the public. Today, that mission involves educating students for global leadership at home and abroad. We need students who will be able to work with diverse others to solve wicked global problems that are interdisciplinary in nature and with groups from different worldview perspectives. If the proposed guidance is to be enacted, I strongly recommend that it be a partial provision with specific relevance for certain TPS relations and activities, not a blanket ban that chills productive, successful, and historic international education collaborations. In particular, oversight for global reputations and program and course development, delivery, and credit should remain in the academic freedom of individual U.S. higher education institutions to determine with their educational partners. | Student | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
95 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0094 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lfc-vbcb-348e | Public Submission | 2023-03-27T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-17T04:00Z | Comment(s) | Katie | Daywalker | Chico | CA | United States | If implemented as currently written, the potential for negative impact on the ability of colleges and universities to provide high quality education abroad experiences for their students cannot be overstated. It would likely result in a complete halt to the participation of students receiving Title IV funding, which could: -Negatively impact their retention and graduation rates, since study abroad is widely recognized as a High Impact Practice; -Disadvantage financially needy students, who are often from underrepresented and underserved populations, from their peers; -Negatively impact the nation’s capacity for international understanding and competitiveness by severely limiting students’ exposure to programs that bridge the gap between theory and practice. | Institution of Higher Education | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
96 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0095 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lfc-vnkz-9qnd | Public Submission | 2023-03-27T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-17T04:00Z | Comment(s) | Allison | Jardine | Dresden | ME | United States | Hello, I'm writing today to communicate my concerns regarding the Dear Colleague Letter guidance on “(GEN-23-03) Requirements and Responsibilities for Third-Part Services and Institutions.” I'm concerned that this guidance will disrupt opportunities for US students to participate in education abroad programs, as well as financially disrupt underrepresented students. I’m asking the DOE to formally exclude education abroad from this guidance. Sincerely, Allison Jardine of Dresden, Maine | Private/Non-Profit Institution of Higher Education | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
97 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0096 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lfc-w14v-ra6m | Public Submission | 2023-03-27T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-17T04:00Z | Comment(s) | Santa Barbara City College | See attached file(s) | https://downloads.regulations.gov/ED-2022-OPE-0103-0096/attachment_1.pdf | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
98 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0097 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lfc-zmax-ttsn | Public Submission | 2023-03-27T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-17T04:00Z | Comment(s) | Erika | Richards | Marblehead | MA | United States | Study abroad and international educational exchange is an extremely valuable opportunity for students enrolled in a university program. The United States needs citizens who are well versed in different cultures and have some degree of intercultural understanding. International study and the opportunity to reside in a different country while being taught about where they are studying is an enriching and rewarding experience. It has many added benefits such as expanding good will toward the US, scientific exchanges, and the recruitment of foreign talent. We, in the field of international education, have be working diligently toward making this opportunity more widely available to a diverse group of students who may be from lower socio-economic backgrounds, minoritiy students and first-generation college students. The most recent guidance about Third-Party Services threatens to harm the efforts we have spent the past few decades committed to expanding these opportunities. Study abroad and exchange programs with foreign institutions does not pose risks to federal financial aid and there is no liability to the Department of Education. Congress permits certain foreign institutions to participate directly in the Title IV programs despite being outside of the US and under foreign ownership so certainly it is not Congresses' intent to exclude educational exchange through this new guidance. It seems the impact to study abroad is an unintended consequence of these new guidelines. I implore you to exclude international education from your guidance. Thank you for your time. | Institution of Higher Education | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
99 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0098 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lfd-0qz3-b7no | Public Submission | 2023-03-27T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-17T04:00Z | Comment(s) | Ximena | Ospina | Chico | CA | United States | The February 15, 2023 Dear Colleague Letter expands the definition of third-party servicers in a way that entirely disrupts international education at U.S. colleges and universities. This includes partnerships in support of international student recruitment, U.S. study abroad, and global academic collaboration and exchange. The new updated guidance expands the definition of third-party servicer to activities sharing no similarity to the list included in its regulations. These are entities that provide instructional content consisting of "any percentage of a Title IV-eligible program", perform functions and related activities in recruitment and application process, student and institutional eligibility, and student retention. These are many individuals and entities who are essential to the success of international education activities, but who are unrelated to the institution’s actual administration of Title IV funding. Title IV funds are used by American students who cannot independently fund their study abroad experiences. If students cannot use Title IV funds for study abroad, the opportunity becomes out of reach for all but the wealthiest of Americans who do not receive federal aid. The prohibition on using entities outside the U.S. to provide ANY instructional content would restrict study abroad to locations to have U.S.-owned services and campuses. The education abroad community champions access to programs and diverse locations, both of which would be severely curtailed under the updated guidance. Urge the Department to rescind the February 15, 2023 published guidance. If this is not granted, the Department should clarify that study abroad programs, international partnerships and international student recruitment and retention are not covered by this new TPS guidance. | Four-Year Public Institution of Higher Education | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
100 | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0099 | ED | ED-2022-OPE-0103 | lfd-375c-nlm2 | Public Submission | 2023-03-27T04:00Z | FALSE | Comment on FR Doc # N/A | FALSE | ED-2022-OPE-0103-0009 | 2023-03-17T04:00Z | Comment(s) | Elizabeth | Ford | United States | I am writing to express my concern over harmful new guidance from the Department of Education which could drastically impact international education offerings at U.S. colleges and universities and diminish the career readiness of U.S. college graduates. In a Dear Colleague letter dated February 15, the Department of Education announced a change in its interpretation of what constitutes a “third party servicer” to include entities involved in student recruitment and retention, enrollment management, curriculum and course development, instruction delivery, learning assessment, and marketing dissemination. Now being classified as a Third-Party Servicer (TPS) means these entities would be subject to a new and onerous layer of federal regulations, reporting, and restrictions, including the requirement TPS cannot be "located outside of the United States or [be] owned or operated by an individual who is not a U.S. citizen or national or a lawful U.S. permanent resident." As such, this expanded interpretation could—among other effects—seriously jeopardize U.S. higher education institutions’ international student recruiting contracts, study abroad programs for American students, and partnerships with foreign institutions around the globe. The implications could be of severe and wide-ranging detriment to the faculty, curriculum, and financial health of U.S. colleges and universities and the workforce readiness of American college graduates who must be ready to compete in a global marketplace. | Private/Non-Profit Institution of Higher Education |