Dear Secretary Cardona and Under Secretary Kvaal:
The Presidents Forum, representing 18 of the most innovative and forward thinking higher education institutions, is committed to serving working learners
in their education and in the public policy process. To that end, we write today to express our concern with the Program Integrity and Institutional Quality
Negotiated Rulemaking Committee’s proposal to alter state authorization. As institutions serving nontraditional students, many of whom cross state lines in
their educational journeys, we are deeply invested in ensuring that any regulatory adjustments prioritize the interests of students and institutions alike.
While Forum institutions are prepared to comment on any proposed rules resulting from the rulemaking process, we highly encourage the Department not to advance the reciprocity proposals.
Presidents Forum institutions have long been engaged in distance education regulatory policy within the higher education regulatory triad. For students to be well-served, it takes all three legs of the regulatory stool to do their part. In the instance of state reciprocity, the states have done an admirable job in creating a workable and efficient regulatory environment to balance operational realities with regulatory and student protection concerns. It is our view that state reciprocity issues should be addressed through the proven framework that exists within the State Authorization Reciprocity Agreements (SARA). Federal engagement on this issue is unnecessary and disruptive.
SARA is a state-to-state consortium agreement that has a distinguished history of solving many problems for states and institutions of higher education. While not perfect, we trust SARA, and the processes it has developed, to continuously improve and solve new issues that arise in distance and online education. The processes at SARA are transparent and the organization is actively solving some of the same issues that the Department has raised in its state authorization issue paper. In fact, the NC-SARA Board decided at its May meeting to assemble a working group on institutional closures.
The mission of the working group is to bring forth proposals for the 2025 SARA Policy Modification Process cycle on issues surrounding a SARA-wide teach out plan, teach out agreement, and records retention. The working group is made up of regional compact staff, NC-SARA staff, state portal entities, and board members.
We urge the Department of Education to honor a reciprocity agreement that has been approved by 49 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. The authorization of institutions has always been the purview of the states and the processes those states create. We urge the department to allow states to continue their stellar work in this area.
We are particularly concerned with the proposal to impose direct authorization requirements based on student enrollment thresholds. The proposed threshold is arbitrary and not supported by data. The connection between enrollment in a state and additional risk to the state has not been well established. Even if it had been well established, this risk should be handled through the SARA Policy Modification Process. The Department’s proposed threshold could reduce program offerings and hinder institutions’ ability to meet the diverse needs of students. In addition, institutions would likely either pass these costs for compliance to students or opt-out of serving students in some states, thereby harming students.
The proposal permitting states to enforce their own authorization requirements related to institutional closure undermines the benefits of a state reciprocity agreement. States willingly opted into abiding by SARA’s provisions, so it would be inaccurate to frame this issue as states being “prohibited” from enforcing these laws. Between 2018 and 2023 there were 29 closures among SARA participating institutions, far fewer than the 200-plus closures in non-SARA degree-granting institutions during the same period. In addition, states have the option to expand requirements related to closure through the SARA Policy Modification Process. As noted above, the NC-SARA board has assembled a working group to address institutional closures, using the process that states have agreed to use to handle reciprocity issues.
The suggested changes to the composition of the NC-SARA Governing Board are an interesting issue with very little positive impact. At issue are five board seats that are currently occupied by institutions of higher education on a board that consists of 18 members. We know of no instance of self-serving behavior that has been empowered through this board membership of IHEs. We are not even aware of an accusation of such behavior. However, your point is well-taken; if there is a possibility of a conflict of interest it can be addressed through the NC-SARA governance structure. The federal government has no role in dictating the board composition of a 501(c)3 organization through a negotiated rulemaking procedure. We recommend you voice this concern to the SARA community and allow the stakeholders managing that process to handle the issue appropriately.
We urge you to contribute ideas and express concerns to the states and rely on their judgment and action to continue regulating colleges and universities in their respective states. It is working and it will continue to work with your appropriate engagement.
Thank you for your attention to this critical issue. We look forward to continued dialogue and collaboration.
Sincerely,
The Presidents of The Presidents Forum