Happy June! I've spent the last couple of days talking to friends out east about how to clean ash off their lawn and patio furniture‐ so that’s new.

The deadline for submitting the SARA data report is fast approaching! Hopefully you're done or, like me, just waiting one last group to pass over their info on out‐of‐state placements.

By now you may have heard the collective screaming and crying coming from several offices on campus as people react to the 212 pages (1077 in draft form) of proposed regulations issued by ED last month. There's some stuff we knew was coming (a new look and section on Gainful Employment), a section that will be keeping many of us outside of state authorization awake at night for a bit (Financial Value Transparency ‐ aka Gainful Employment regs. for the rest of us – Data friends if you want to have a separate side convo about this I’d be more than happy to facilitate), requirements for “adequate career services (regardless of modality it should be noted), the load of new data that will be required on our consumer information pages, and everyone's favorite State Authorization and Professional Licensure.

We're still in the (wildly and unbelievably short) comment period but here's what is proposed: for 34 CFR 668.14(b)(32)(b). . .

(32) In each State in which the institution is located or in which students enrolled by the institution are located, as determined at the time of initial enrollment in accordance with 34 CFR 600.9(c)(2), the institution must determine that each program eligible for title IV, HEA program funds—(i) Is programmatically accredited if the State or a Federal agency requires such accreditation, including as a condition for employment in the occupation for which the program prepares the student, or is programmatically pre‐accredited when programmatic pre‐accreditation is sufficient according to the State or Federal agency; (ii) Satisfies the applicable educational prerequisites for professional licensure or certification requirements in the State so that a student who completes the program and seeks employment in that State qualifies to take any licensure or certification exam that is needed for the student to practice or find employment in an occupation that the program prepares students to enter; and (iii) Complies with all State consumer protection laws related to closure, recruitment, and misrepresentations, including both generally applicable State laws and those specific to educational institutions;

Most of this is probably a bit familiar as it's almost identical to what they proposed in 2022, and once again it would appear that they didn't talk to institutions or some of the consumer protection groups.

So let's break down the issues:

1. For a Professional Licensure program, we would have to "determine" if the education being provided would satisfy the licensure requirements in the state where the student is located at the time of initial enrollment (i.e. before they start classes). If not, the student will not be able to use Title IV funds to pay for the program.

• This eliminates the option to use "unable to determine" as currently allowed. This option would be eliminated from 668.43(a)(5)(v) as well.
• There's no proposed action to allow students to acknowledge that they understand and use federal funds regardless.
• This seems to have been written by someone who has never tried to get the Psychology licensing board in HI on the phone.
• What evidence would we need to confirm that we have "determined" that the education does meet the state's requirements?
• Has anyone told the various state boards that we're all going to be calling and requesting reviews and letters etc etc?
• What if the student ‐ like the one I spoke with last week ‐ wanted to leave NJ and come to a CU campus b/c of our reputation for her Bachelors in Teacher Ed, stay here for two years post degree and then apply for reciprocity in NJ or someplace else (or as the student said "I'm like 20 I don't know where I want to go yet or even how long I'll be a teacher")

2. "Complies with all State consumer protection laws...." (iii) is a very slippery slope. Very. Maybe I'm a higher education conspiracy theorist but allowing states to identify which laws will be waived and which are enforced, due to political climate we will find some states rejecting institutions from delivering content on subjects that has been deemed inappropriate or objectionable by the powers that be in those states ‐ courses and programs that touch on issues of diversity, equity or inclusion, LGBTQ+ studies, African American history, sociology, and heath care for women as well as many other subjects or topics may be seen as "violating" a state law and thus we will find institutions expelled from delivering content or programs in a state (on‐ground or online) and students left holding credits and potentially a loan balance for a degree they won't be able to complete.

Additionally ‐ this particular single sentence renders a reciprocity agreement like SARA somewhat toothless. Part of SARA is the participating states not enforcing any laws they want or additional fees to institutions delivering education in another state. This sentence would open that door back up, lessening the value of reciprocity. Before SARA, MN charged schools by the FTE to deliver in the state. MA wouldn't allow SUNY's CC's to deliver in the state.... This would allow for those pre‐SARA rules to creep back in.

What would remain the same ‐ notifications & disclosures.

Again, these are just proposed at the moment. The ED only gave 30 days for review and comment which is so short I have gotten an earful from a number of higher ed attorneys, and they are spicy! The negotiated rulemaking is set to take place this fall and we'll know more about when and who is going to be on that committee in the coming months. Until then.....

What does this mean for you right now: I suggest not panicking but taking a hard look at where your students are located and what programs they're enrolled in. If you have students in states that may have recently passed laws about what can and cannot be taught there, maybe see if you can find the pre‐SARA rules about reciprocity and how they were applied. If you have students enrolled in programs where you're unable to determine if the education you're providing will allow them to sit for licensure, look again. How many students would that effect if we were unable to provide them federal aid? If this were all to go into effect, it wouldn't be until 7/1/24 ‐ not that it's so far away but it gives us time to focus and make careful and informed decisions.

If you’re looking for more reading on this, the folks at WCET have done a great job breaking it down in two parts: Part I – Part II

That's a bummer of a long email on a Friday, isn't it? Sorry about that! Have a great weekend everyone and as always, please don't hesitate to reach out if you have questions or need more information!

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