Given substantial delays in the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service’s (USCIS) issuance of receipt notices and adjudication of I-765 applications for employment authorization by F-1 students seeking optional practical training (OPT), USCIS is making it easier for students to complete their 12-month OPT within the requisite 14 months.
To read the full text of this Duane Morris Alert, please visit the firm’s website.
Expanding access to postsecondary education for low income students includes more than just assistance with tuition and fees. Many low income students also need help with daily food costs while they pursue higher education. That need can adversely impact academic progress if not addressed. Needs have been exacerbated by the pandemic and high unemployment, and impact students whether they study on ground or online. Food insecurity among college students is gaining more attention, with the opening of college food pantries and other community support initiatives. The federal government is also stepping up. The U.S. Department of Education, in coordination with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, has issued new guidance to postsecondary institutions to raise awareness about temporarily expanded Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) eligibility for students and urges institutions to make students aware of this resource. The expansion of benefits will be in effect until 30 days after the COVID-19 public health emergency is lifted. The new guidance can be found here: https://ifap.ed.gov/electronic-announcements/022321SNAPbenefitseligiblestudsCOVID19pandemic
On Feb. 22, 2021, the U.S. Department of Education distributed the FY 2018 draft cohort default rate (CDR) notification packages to all eligible domestic and foreign schools for those schools enrolled in the Electronic Cohort Default Rate (eCDR) notification process. Any school not enrolled in eCDR may download their cohort default rates and accompanying Loan Record Detail Reports from the National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS®) via the NSLDS Professional Access website.
The time frame for appealing the FY 2018 draft cohort default rates under 34 C.F.R Part 668, Subpart N begins on Tuesday, March 2, 2021 for all schools.
Under the Title IV financial responsibility regulations at 34 C.F.R. 668.171(d)(6), the Department has discretion to determine that a Title IV institution is not able to meet its financial or administrative Title IV obligations (which can lead to a letter of credit requirement or other potential adverse action) if the institution’s two most recent official cohort default rates are 30 percent or greater and such circumstance is likely to have a material adverse effect on the financial condition of the institution, unless the institution has a challenge, adjustment or appeal pending or successfully finalized.
Note that any school that did not have a borrower in repayment, during the current or any of the past cohort default rate periods, will not receive a FY 2018 draft cohort default rate notification package. These schools are considered to have no cohort default rate data and no cohort default rate.
https://ifap.ed.gov/electronic-announcements/022221FY2018DraftCDRDistributedFeb222021
A common question for colleges today is whether to reduce tuition prices if they cannot provide on-campus classes due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The short answer, both legally and morally, is that colleges should not charge students for services they cannot or do not deliver.
The ultimate answer is more complex and requires a disaggregating analysis of the services that that were included in the price of tuition, including a review of the value associated with in-person interactions.
To read the full text of this article by Duane Morris partner Tony Guida, please visit the University Business website.
Hiring season is fraught with questions and uncertainties; preparing employment applications; interviewing, drafting offer letters….. What questions can be asked? What questions should be asked? These concerns are even more pronounced when it comes to immigration status, and immigration sponsorship. Those tasked with the hiring process often ask, whether it is legal to ask applicants about their immigration status, how to ask that question, and even more important, “Do we have to sponsor for immigration status if the applicant needs it?” Continue reading “University Hiring Season is Here: Immigration Questions and Strategies”
On September 2, 2020, the U.S. Department of Education (“Department”) published a Final Rule, available at https://ifap.ed.gov/federal-registers/FR090220, on distance education and innovation. The regulations are effective July 1, 2021; however, institutions are permitted to voluntarily implement any or all provisions as of September 2, the date of publication of the final rule. The Department states that the rule is intended to “strike a balance” between fostering increased innovation in distance education offerings while protecting students and taxpayers.The rule makes the following regulatory changes:
• Allowing asynchronous delivery of some courses or portions of courses delivered as part of clock hour programs (this significant change was made in response to public comments on the proposed rule);
• Providing flexibility to distance education, competency-based education (CBE), and other types of educational programs that emphasize demonstration of learning rather than seat time when measuring student outcomes;
• Clarifying the distinction between distance education and correspondence courses and more clearly defining the requirements of “regular and substantive interaction” between students and faculty and the permissibility of engaging instructional teams in the delivery of education through distance learning;
• Clarifying the requirements for direct assessment programs, including how to determine equivalent credit hours and how to distribute aid to simplify administration, reduce confusion, and protect taxpayers;
• Limiting the requirement for institutions with strong track records to obtain approval from the Education Secretary for only the first direct assessment program offered by the school at a given credential level;
• Requiring institutions to report to the Education Secretary when adding a second or subsequent direct assessment program or establishing a written arrangement for an institution or organization that is not eligible to participate in the title IV, HEA program to provide more than 25 percent, but no more than 50 percent, of a program;
• Recognizing the value of “subscription-based programs,” and simplifying rules regarding the disbursement of title IV funding to students enrolled in these programs; and
• Requiring prompt action by the Department on applications by institutions to the Education Secretary seeking certification or recertification to participate as an eligible institution in the HEA, title IV program.
The rule also adds a definition of “juvenile justice facility” to ensure that students incarcerated in a juvenile justice facility continue their eligibility for Pell Grants.
Additional regulatory changes include:
• Encouraging employer participation in developing educational programs by clarifying that institutions may modify their curricula based on industry advisory board recommendations without relying on a traditional faculty-led decision-making process;
• Simplifying clock-to-credit hour conversions and clarifying that homework time included in the credit hour definition do not translate to clock hours, including for the purpose of determining whether a program meets the Department’s requirements regarding maximum program length;
• Encouraging institutions to give students equal credit for time spent preparing for and participating in lecture and laboratory courses;
• Clarifying that an institution may demonstrate for purposes of participating in title IV, HEA programs, a reasonable relationship between the length of a program if the number of clock hours does not exceed either 150 percent of the minimum requirement to work in the State in which the institution is located or 100 percent of the minimum hours in an adjacent State;
• Providing that the Education Secretary will rely on the accrediting agency or State authorizing agency to evaluate an institution’s appeal of a final audit or program review determination by the Department that includes a finding about the institution’s classification of a course or program as distance education or the institution’s assignment of credit hours; and
• Encouraging closing institutions to offer quality teach-outs by permitting the application of sanctions to individuals or institutions affiliated with other institutions that closed without executing a viable teach-out plan or agreement.
The final rule culminated a rulemaking that began nearly two years ago, building on the Trump administration’s Rethink Higher Education agenda that “challenged past practices, assumptions, and expectations about what ‘college’ is, what it should do, and how it should operate.” It remains to be seen whether these regulations would be subject to amendment from a change in Secretary, but we view this set of rules as less controversial than others amended or rescinded by Secretary DeVos (such as Gainful Employment and Borrower Defense to Repayment) and not likely to be a priority for change by a new Administration. Institutions of higher education should familiarize themselves with these rule changes as they develop distance education programs.
Duane Morris was a sponsor of the 2020 ASU GSV summit. Several of our attorneys presented at this year’s virtual conference. Below are replays from select sessions.
Consumers of education services – students of all ages and the entities that serve them – are hungry for dramatic changes in the education landscape that will deliver increased access, equity, affordability, quality and workforce relevance. Ed Tech has begun to deliver on those needs in extraordinary ways, and the potential is untapped. However, innovation in the market has outpaced how existing regulations and policy govern education as a service. This session will: (1) review friction points our lawyers have observed between Ed Tech models and the current state, federal and accreditor regulatory regimes that apply to educational businesses and educational institutions (and how to spot, anticipate and plan for them), (2) report on recent changes in federal law and policy to promote and foster innovation (including the U.S. Department of Education’s new Distance Education and Innovation Final Rule and increased accreditor flexibilities) and (3) discuss threats and opportunities that may arise from the next Congress and Administration, and how Ed Tech stakeholders can help shape education policy.
Speakers
EdTech providers increasingly are crossing over from a supporting role to education delivery. Join us to talk about what the regulatory and legal ramifications are to being a school.
Moderator: Tony Guida, Partner, Duane Morris LLP
Speaker: Michelle Donovan, Partner, Duane Morris LLP
This interactive session will cover some of the common legal issues that emerging EdTech companies grapple with in the areas of IP ownership, privacy, and data protection.
Speaker: Michelle Donovan, Partner, Duane Morris LLP
Since the global pandemic forced most college campuses to resort to online instruction in March 2020, college students across the country have filed more than 150 lawsuits against their schools seeking refunds of tuition and related fees.
This month, a federal judge in Boston made the first dispositive ruling in such a case against Northeastern University – tossing out most of the claims asserted by the students in a putative class-action matter. Judge Richard G. Stearns of the District of Massachusetts found in Chong v Northeastern University, 20-10844-RGS, that the contract between the university and its students (the Financial Responsibility Agreement, “FRA”) did not specifically include a right to in-person instruction. The Judge noted that the FRA ties the payment of tuition to the registration for courses, “not to the receipt of any particular method of course instruction.”
The Judge also dismissed the students’ claims seeking a refund of certain student fees, such as student activity fees, finding that they paid the fees to support certain campus facilities – not necessarily to gain access to them. Thus, the Court gave no credence to the students’ claims that they should receive a refund of activity fees because the school prevented them from accessing those facilities due to the pandemic.
However, the Court did allow the students’ claims seeking a refund of campus recreation fees to go forward, finding that the students’ payment of those fees may have implicitly created a right to attend home athletic events and use the campus gym and fitness facilities, which ceased on March 12.
Judge Stearns’ ruling may be a sign of things to come for the many similar lawsuits currently pending against colleges and universities throughout the country. However, as in this case or any breach of contract action, these rulings will likely turn on the specific language of the applicable contract between the institution and the student.
On October 9, 2020, the Department of Education (the “Department”) posted an Electronic Announcement announcing the rescission of and replacement for the 2016 Handbook for Campus Safety and Security Reporting. Through this announcement, the Department is rescinding the guidance in the 2016 Handbook and replacing it with a Clery Act Appendix to the Federal Student Aid (“FSA”) Handbook. The electronic announcement identifies and explains the significant changes between the 2016 edition and the new Clery-related Appendix. The Department anticipates that this rescission and publication of the new Appendix will help simplify Clery compliance. Continue reading “Department of Education releases new Clery Act Appendix; Rescinds 2016 Handbook for Campus Safety and Security Reporting”
On September 25, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the DHS agency with jurisdiction over F-1 foreign student visa holders, published new proposed regulations that would end the long time U.S. practice of issuing “Duration of Status” to F-1 students. Instead, F-1 visa holders would be limited to 2 or 4 year visa terms depending upon their country of origin, and be required to reapply for F-1 Status through USCIS to obtain extensions, or to leave the United States and apply for an extension . The proposed regulations were immediately criticized by the higher education community. The rules were called ill-conceived, misguided, unnecessary, and a burden to an industry that has already seen a steady decline in international student admissions. Continue reading “Proposed Student Visa Rules will Upend Decades of U.S. Policy and Practice”
