Home > Distance Education, Educational Leadership, Higher Education > Court “Vacates” Distance Ed Portion of State Authorization Regulation

Court “Vacates” Distance Ed Portion of State Authorization Regulation

By Russell Poulin, WCET

Today (July 12, 2011), the United States District Court for the District of Columbia struck down the distance education portion of the U.S. Department of Education’s (USDOE) ‘state authorization regulations.  The decision is as a result of a lawsuit brought by the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities. You can read the complete ruling on the Court’s website.  The ‘state authorization’ section begins on page 35.

On page 39 of the ruling is the statement …“The Court will vacate 34 C.F.R. § 600.9(c).”

As you might recall, § 600.9(c) is the new, short paragraph in the regulations released last October regarding distance education’s need to seek authorization in each state. The reason for the ruling is that the USDOE did not provide adequate opportunity in the Negotiated Rulemaking Process for institutions to comment, as stated on page 37:

“APSCU challenges § 600.9(c) on various grounds, but the Court need only address the argument that the Department failed to provide notice and opportunity for comment on subsection (c) of the State authorization regulations, as this subsection, or any variation thereof, was not included in the notice of proposed rulemaking.”

As we’ve noted before, the distance education language was not included in the original language proposed by the USDOE in June 2010 as part of its rulemaking process.  The rule appeared in the final ‘Program Integrity’ regulations released in October 2010.  As a result, the court seems to have agreed that the USDOE did not follow proper procedures in implementing the rule.  If the language had been included in the June 2010 proposed rules, WCET and the distance education community could have provided comments to improve the final regulation.

So what does this mean?

First, as we keep saying, we’re not lawyers and we’re not sure that we understand all of the nuances of this ruling.

Second, the USDOE could still appeal the ruling.

Third, as we said in a recent posting, even if the ‘state authorization’ regulation is repealed or struck down, institutions still have the obligation to comply with state laws.  State regulators are newly aware that there are many institutions operating in their states without approval.

Continued at: http://wcetblog.wordpress.com/2011/07/12/court-“vacates”-distance-ed-portion-of-state-authorization-regulation/

  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: