Overview
Title
To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide that non-Federal revenue generated through certain distance education programs may be counted purposes of the non-Federal revenue requirements applicable to proprietary institutions of higher education (commonly known as the 90/10 rule).
ELI5 AI
H. R. 8761 is a plan to let schools that make money from online classes count that money like regular money when adding up how much money they make that isn't from the government. This helps them follow special rules about where they can get their money from.
Summary AI
H. R. 8761 aims to change the Higher Education Act of 1965 to include non-Federal revenue from certain distance education programs as part of the non-Federal revenue requirements for proprietary institutions of higher education, known as the "90/10 rule." This bill would allow revenue from online or remote courses to be considered when calculating the non-Federal income needed by these institutions. Representative Owens and Mr. Bean of Florida introduced the bill, which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The proposed legislation, known as the "Ensuring Distance Education Act," seeks to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965. Its primary goal is to allow certain non-Federal revenues generated from distance education programs to be counted toward the non-Federal revenue requirements imposed on proprietary institutions of higher education. This is commonly referred to as the "90/10 rule." The 90/10 rule stipulates that proprietary educational institutions must obtain at least 10% of their revenue from non-Federal sources. The amendment highlights that revenue from programs conducted via distance education can be considered part of this non-Federal revenue, regardless of where these programs operate.
Summary of Significant Issues
One significant issue surrounding this bill is the potential financial impact it could have on proprietary institutions. By counting revenue from distance education as non-Federal revenue, these institutions may find it easier to meet the 90/10 rule requirements. However, the bill lacks a clear definition of the 90/10 rule, which could lead to confusion among stakeholders unfamiliar with its specifics. Furthermore, the phrase "regardless of the location from which such program is carried out" introduces ambiguity. This wording might result in inconsistent application of the rule across various states or territories, potentially sparking legal or regulatory challenges.
Impact on the Public Broadly
For the general public, particularly prospective students, this bill could lead to broader access to distance education programs. By easing the financial constraints on proprietary institutions, they may potentially expand their distance learning offerings. This could be beneficial for individuals seeking flexible education opportunities. Additionally, it could make education accessible to those residing in remote or underserved areas since distance learning doesn't require physical presence.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Proprietary Institutions: The primary beneficiaries of this amendment are proprietary institutions. By allowing them to count more of their revenue toward the 90/10 rule, they may have increased financial flexibility. This could enable these institutions to invest further in their educational offerings or expand their programs.
Students: Students attending or planning to attend such institutions may see more flexible and diverse educational opportunities, especially if institutions can leverage this rule to offer more robust online programs.
Policy Makers and Regulators: This legislative change could necessitate more precise guidelines to ensure consistent application across all regions. Clarifying the geographical scope and jurisdiction could mitigate potential legal and regulatory complications.
Overall, while the bill promises to provide proprietary institutions with more flexibility, it also raises questions about regulatory clarity and equitable implementation across different states. Stakeholders must weigh these potential benefits against the need for clear implementation guidelines and oversight.
Issues
The amendment to the 90/10 rule could have significant financial implications for proprietary institutions of higher education that rely on non-Federal revenue from distance education programs. This change might alter how institutions strategize their revenue-making methods to comply with the rule. (Section 2)
The lack of a clear definition for the '90/10 rule' could lead to misunderstanding among stakeholders who are not familiar with the specific requirements of this rule. Clarification and context are necessary to understand its implications fully. (Section 2)
The phrase 'regardless of the location from which such program is carried out' introduces ambiguity regarding jurisdiction and applicability, which might lead to inconsistent application of the rule across different states or territories. This might cause legal or regulatory challenges about which geographic locations are covered. (Section 2)
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the bill states that it may be referred to as the "Ensuring Distance Education Act."
2. Treatment of revenue from certain distance education programs for purposes of the 90/10 rule Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amendment specifies that revenue from distance education programs can be counted for the 90/10 rule, which relates to funding under the Higher Education Act, regardless of where these programs are conducted.