Hello and Happy Monday!

Two in one month!? HA! I'm making up for missing March!

Two quick (lol) things ‐

NC‐SARA announced this morning the next steps in their renewed policy modification process ‐ the public comment period and the May 10th public session with the Board. I recommend taking the time and reading through some of these proposals, if you can, and see what may be coming our (and the state's) way. There have been some changes and some cobbling together of proposals from the initial listening session from March. There are three in particular I have my eye on:

• PMP‐0381: Professional Licensure ‐ the proposal is to remove the phrase "after all reasonable efforts" from 5.2. 100% please & thank you. This is such a problematic phrase with no universal oversight by the states. And if some of the other proposed policies get through unchanged that increase the oversight of individual state, we could see that phrase imposed on us in various ways by states outside of CO when we deliver PL programs online.
• PMP‐0365: Remove the C‐RAC Guidelines ‐ YES PLEASE. Those were not written or intended for this kind of use. The other interesting thing about this proposal is that the language modification is to "remove any use of the CRAC Guidelines or any proposed replacement." So.... this would also mean not replacing them with the 21st Century Guidelines....
• PMP‐0340; Enforcement of state consumer protection laws ‐ This one has the potential to be the most problematic and concerning to me. Specifically, the proposed revisions to SARA policy 2.5(k) and (l) would allow member states to dictate which state laws can be waived or enforced under the guide of state consumer protection laws. While I do agree that the states should be more involved in consumer protection, this could be used by states as a red herring in the future to expel institutions that deliver educational content that is counter to some of the new state laws/regulations popping up relating to DEI and other subjects.

I am curious to see what comes out of the Board meeting and public comments and how this process unfolds in its inaugural run.

In case you were wondering what all the noise coming from the various attorneys’ offices and those who work in federal compliance was last week, the ED released a blog post (which I guess is how they’re communicating these days?) on April 11th letting everyone now that they’re putting a pause on their sub‐regulatory guidance from 2/15/23 re: TPS and the associated reporting requirement until they have had time to process the 1000+ comments that they received. In addition, they noted the following:

• The Department does not consider contracts involving the following activities to constitute third‐party servicer relationships:
  • Study abroad programs.
  • Recruitment of foreign students not eligible for Title IV aid.
  • Clinical or externship opportunities that meet requirements under existing regulations because they areclosely monitored by qualified personnel at an institution.
  • Course‐sharing consortia and arrangements between Title IV‐eligible institutions to share employees to teach courses or process financial aid.
  • Dual or concurrent enrollment programs provided through agreements with high schools and local education agencies, which are exempt because they do not involve students receiving Title IV aid.
  • Local police departments helping to compile and analyze crime statistics, unless they write or file a report on behalf of an institution for compliance purposes.

ED also noted that, ‐

• They intend to remove the provision of the guidance document pertaining to foreign ownership of a third‐ party servicer.
• They will carefully review public comments on areas of confusion or concern and consider clarifying and narrowing the scope of the guidance in several areas, including software and computer services, student retention, and instructional content.
• The 9/1 due date for reporting is paused and will now be “at least 6 months after” the publication of the revisions/changes.

As I mention in the previous email on this, federal regulation relating to Third Party Servicers, OPMS and State Authorization (among other things) are up for review discussion and revisions this year. The ED held three days of listening sessions on all the topics last week and Negotiated Rulemaking is expected to take place this November.

What does this mean for us ‐ For right now, as I mentioned two weeks ago various state regulations on "physical presence" are a thing that may need a second look from you and your campus. Who have you contracted with and for what? Where is that Third‐Party located and what is that state's regulation or regarding physical presence? Again, if you can, connect with the folks on your campus who have been working on the TPS issues and help them understand the potential need for physical presence permissions. Then start to gather information about who these companies are, the actions that they are performing on behalf of or under the name of your campus, and where they are located and begin researching the state requirements around physical presence. You may find that you have to do nothing, but you may find that you need to go through a process to get a “location” approved.

As always, if you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me!

Erika

Erika G. Swain
Associate Director for State Authorization
Office of Academic Affairs
University of Colorado System
e: swaine@cu.edu
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Assistant Director for Compliance and Authorization
Office of Data Analytics | Office of Institutional Research
University of Colorado Boulder
e: Erika.Swain@colorado.edu
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
o: (303) 735‐8184
c: (518) 637‐9785

“Today I will be a Bulgarian Minister of Education,” Bokonon tells us. “Tomorrow I will be Helen of Troy.” – Vonnegut, Cat’s Cradle