CCA Sends Letter to ED on Refund Dear Colleague

March 23, 2004

Sally Stroup
Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education
U.S. Department of Education
1990 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006

Dear Assistant Secretary Stroup:

Last month, the Office of Postsecondary Education published a Dear Colleague letter (GEN-04-03) on Return of Federal Funds. That letter includes a number of policy changes that are the subject of ongoing review by CCA. However, one part of that letter requires immediate response, in that it contradicts the plain language of the regulation and makes new policy in a manner that will have a negative impact on many students at CCA member institutions.

The letter states:
Except in unusual instances, at an institution that is required to take attendance, we would expect that the date of the institution's determination that the student withdrew would be no later than a week after the student's withdrawal date--the last date of academic attendance as determined by the institution from its attendance records (§668.22(b)(1)).

. . . If an institution follows a policy that states when absences will be treated as withdrawals, the date of determination would be no later than the date specified in the policy, as long as that date is not later than one week after the student's withdrawal date.

This statement is in direct opposition to the clear language of section 668.22(j)(2), which states:
An institution must determine the withdrawal date for a student who withdraws without providing notification to the institution no later than 30 days after the end of the earlier of the ¿
(i) Payment period or period of enrollment, as appropriate, in accordance with paragraph (e)(5) of this section;
(ii) Academic year in which the student withdrew; or
(iii) Educational program from which the student withdrew.

The regulation as written has stricter requirements for students at institutions that are required to take attendance in determining what percentage of the payment period has been completed. However, the regulation does not make a distinction in the manner of establishment of the date of determination of withdrawal. It is unacceptable to single out attendance-taking institutions for differential treatment based simply on faulty assumptions about how those institutions operate or how their students behave.


It is simply not true that a student who misses a week of class without prior notice has dropped out. In fact, the majority of those students return to complete the payment period. One CCA member institution reviewed their records to determine the actual experience with students who went AWOL for more than one week. The school sends out postcards and makes absentee phone calls every week to the students who have missed the previous week of school, which means their last day of attendance was 6 - 10 days earlier. The average number of such students for this quarter has been 30/week. On the average the school hears from 17 (50%) of them; however 27 (90%) of them return the next week.

The following chart shows the records from this term:

Date # Inquiries # Responded #Returned the next week
1/23 38 15 34
1/30 (Snow) 59 46 57
2/6 26 12 24
2/13 19 9 16
2/20 (President¿s Week) 71 26 68
2/27 26 11 21
3/5 29 12 22
3/12 22 15 18

Of this sample of 290, ultimately 96% (278) returned to classes. Experience has shown that with tutoring and make-up work, the students can successfully resume their education. Among the reasons given by the returning students are: illness of a family member, child care problems, transportation difficulties, death in the family, loss of housing, and jury service.

It is wrong to change the plain meaning of a regulation through the use of a policy interpretation. It is unacceptable to do so in a way that causes harm to students and imposes additional burdens on institutions. CCA urges you to revoke this portion of Dear Colleague letter GEN-04-03 as quickly as possible.

Sincerely,

Nancy Broff

return to top of page