2016 State Authorization (Distance Education or Correspondence Courses)
Note: This webpage is maintained for historical purposes only. Many of the regulations in the 2016 state authorization rule have been modified by subsequent rulemaking.
On December 19, 2016, the U.S. Department of Education (Department) promulgated new regulations governing the title IV programs. These regulations are often referred to as the “2016 State authorization rule.”
The 2016 State authorization rule, which was initially scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2018, establishes several new institutional eligibility and disclosure requirements to participate in the Title IV programs. Specifically, the regulations require:
On December 19, 2016, the U.S. Department of Education (Department) promulgated new regulations governing the title IV programs. These regulations are often referred to as the “2016 State authorization rule.”
The 2016 State authorization rule, which was initially scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2018, establishes several new institutional eligibility and disclosure requirements to participate in the Title IV programs. Specifically, the regulations require:
- an institution offering distance education or correspondence courses to be authorized by each State in which the institution enrolls students if such authorization is required by the State;
- an institution to document the State process for resolving complaints from students enrolled in programs offered through distance education or correspondence courses;
- an additional location or branch campus located in a foreign location be authorized by an appropriate government agency of the country where the additional location or branch campus is located; and
- an institution provide public and individualized disclosures to enrolled and prospective students regarding its programs offered solely through distance education or correspondence courses.
After public notice and an opportunity to comment, the Trump administration announced on July 3, 2018 it was delaying the effective date of selected provisions of the 2016 State authorization rule* for two years – from July 1, 2018 to July 1, 2020. The Department explained the delay was a result of concerns and confusion raised by regulated parties related to the implementation of the rule. The Department argued the delay would provide time to conduct further negotiated rulemaking to hear from the regulated community and consider possible revisions.
Shortly after the Trump administration announced delay of the 2016 State authorization rule, two unions – the National Education Association and the California Teachers Association – sued the Department arguing Education Secretary Betsy DeVos unlawfully delayed the effective date of the rule. The unions were represented by the National Student Legal Defense Network, an organization launched and led by several Obama administration officials.
Shortly after the Trump administration announced delay of the 2016 State authorization rule, two unions – the National Education Association and the California Teachers Association – sued the Department arguing Education Secretary Betsy DeVos unlawfully delayed the effective date of the rule. The unions were represented by the National Student Legal Defense Network, an organization launched and led by several Obama administration officials.
On April 26, 2019, U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler issued an order in favor of the unions, finding the Department unlawfully delayed the 2016 State authorization rule. Judge Beeler determined the Department erred by not subjecting the delay to the negotiated rulemaking process, as required by the Higher Education Act, and did not have good cause to forgo negotiated rulemaking.
Judge Beeler ordered the Trump Administration’s delay be vacated requiring the 2016 State authorization rule to go into effect. Instead of letting the rule go into effect immediately, however, Judge Beeler postponed the effective date for 30 days (from April 26, 2019) to minimize the risk of confusion or disruption. This short period was also intended to allow the Department the opportunity to notify affected stakeholders of the Court’s decision.
Judge Beeler was not persuaded to further delay the effective date of the 2016 State authorization rule beyond 30 days indicating that “[r]egulated entities believed until May 25, 2018 (when the Department issued its Delay-Rule NPRM) that the Distance-Education Rules were going into effect and had over seventeen months to prepare for them.”
Judge Beeler ordered the Trump Administration’s delay be vacated requiring the 2016 State authorization rule to go into effect. Instead of letting the rule go into effect immediately, however, Judge Beeler postponed the effective date for 30 days (from April 26, 2019) to minimize the risk of confusion or disruption. This short period was also intended to allow the Department the opportunity to notify affected stakeholders of the Court’s decision.
Judge Beeler was not persuaded to further delay the effective date of the 2016 State authorization rule beyond 30 days indicating that “[r]egulated entities believed until May 25, 2018 (when the Department issued its Delay-Rule NPRM) that the Distance-Education Rules were going into effect and had over seventeen months to prepare for them.”
Many of the requirements that created issues for institutions under the 2016 State authorization rule were addressed in the regulations that were finalized during the Trump Administration. To review these updated requirements, please see the CECU update on the Department’s Accreditation and Innovation rule and the Distance Education rule.
Please direct any questions related to the state authorization regulations to Nicholas Kent, Chief Policy Officer, at (571) 800-6524 or Nicholas.Kent@career.org