U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION

**PUBLIC REGIONAL HEARING ON**

**NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING**

Thursday, October 2, 2008

9:00 a.m. -- 4:00 p.m.

Smothers Theater

Pepperdine University

Malibu, California

**[P R O C E E D I N G S]{.underline}**

> **MR. BERGERON:** \--when they will interpret during the proceedings.
> Otherwise, they will be here until we hear that someone has that
> particular need. With that, I am going to go ahead and ask if Andy
> Benton could come and say a few words.
>
> **MR. BENTON:** Just a word of welcome. We are delighted that
> Pepperdine was selected as a venue for one of these hearings, and we
> welcome you to Malibu. One of my predecessors, Norvel Young, would
> describe our campus by saying we have 830 acres in Malibu, smog-free,
> sun-kissed, ocean-washed, island-girded, and mountain-guarded. I was
> never so clever, but I always thought that Norvel had it just about
> right. If you\'d like coffee while you\'re here today, you can go
> outside this building and around the corner to a building we call
> \"The HAWC,\" the Howard A. White Center. They also have snacks. And
> then, when it comes time for lunch, you\'re very welcome to go to our
> cafeteria, which is\--you have to go around the construction to the
> Tyler Campus Center, and our cafeteria is really quite good. We don\'t
> get very many complaints, which, on a college campus is pretty unusual
> not to have complaints about cafeteria food. We\'re delighted to be a
> part of the government process. We believe in that, and we\'re
> grateful that we do have a Higher Education Act to be discussing, and
> now to participate in the process of framing the regulations.
>
> Welcome to our campus. I hope it\'s a productive day. Thank you.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** Thank you, Dr. Benton. want to thank you for making
> your campus available. We have thoroughly enjoyed our time having
> arrived here yesterday evening on the campus, and we look forward to
> spending more time with you and your staff. You know, we appreciate
> all the support we\'ve gotten from everybody here. So, thank you.
>
> With that, I will invite either Danny or Harold to say a few words, or
> we will get started.
>
> **MR. MADZELAN:** Ditto. Again, welcome, everyone, and thanks for
> having us here. We look forward to hearing your suggestions, your
> comments, your concerns about this reauthorization legislation in the
> manner in which we in the Education Department in cooperation and
> consultation with you folks in the field implement these new
> provisions through our regulatory process. Thank you.
>
> **MR. JENKINS:** I would just add a little bit about the structure of
> what we\'re doing. Congress has enacted a statute which, in many
> respects breaks new ground, but in many other respects, it amends
> programs that have existed for a long time. And what we\'re doing here
> is to implement regulations to administer the statutes that Congress
> has enacted. So, in other words, we\'re kind of filling in the gaps
> that they left when they enacted the statute.
>
> And the regulations\--the negotiated rulemaking process relates only
> to certain programs in the statute. So, that\'s primarily what we\'re
> here to listen to your comments about. These include primarily the
> Title IV programs, and especially the student financial aid programs.
> That\'s about it.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** Our first person who is testifying is Joy Brittain.
>
> If you could indicate, when you speak for the record, your name and
> the organization you are representing, that would be great. Thank you,
> Joy.
>
> **MS. BRITTAIN:** Good morning, and welcome to the West Coast.
>
> My name is Joy Brittain, and I direct an Upward Bound Math Science
> program, which is part of TRIO. I\'m also representing as past
> President of the Western Association of Educational Opportunity
> Personnel, one of the ten regions part of the Department of Education
> that comes together through the national organization, the Council for
> Opportunity in Education, and I just have three small items.
>
> The first one comes to Talent Search, one of the TRIO Programs. In the
> HEOA\--and it includes several changes in the Talent Search. The
> legislation modifies and expands its purpose, including college
> completion, whether students pursued a rigorous program of study in
> high school, received their high school diploma on time, and it also
> now includes required services section, specifying that projects must
> provide students with high-quality academic tutoring services, proper
> guidance in secondary and postsecondary course completion, assistance
> in completing college entrance exams, and admission of financial aid
> applications. This is a dramatic change, a dramatic change, from
> Talent Search, from where it came from being pretty much a
> dissemination program. And in order to achieve these goals, it will
> need to increase its intensity, and also the services within this
> area.
>
> And so, representing TRIO, we urge the Department of Education to
> reduce the number of participants from 600 to a lower number. In order
> for TRIO to really assume these responsibilities, having 600 students
> would be an impossibility. And this would allow Talent Search projects
> to provide more targeted services in a more consistent basis.
>
> And although funding is more dealing with appropriations than what you
> are here to hear, we do encourage the Department to increase the cost
> per student in order that the Talent Search projects can meet its
> objectives. The second program that I like to talk about is the
> Student Support Services. It is our understanding that the Department
> of Education is considering a plan to delay the Student Support
> Services competition, and while under the Section 403(a)1(B), from the
> HEOA, the Department has given authority to provide a one-time limited
> extension to synchronize the awarding of grants, we ask that this
> extension be limited to one year. And the reason why we\'re asking
> this is that this will provide the time necessary to get the law and
> the regulations in sync so that we are all on the same page. It also
> allows sufficient time for the Student Support Services programs, both
> those seeking a renewal grant and those writing for the first time, to
> be prepared to submit an application consistent with the new laws and
> regulations. We believe that this would be a win-win situation for
> both the TRIO community and the Department of Education. And then, the
> last item has to do with the annual performance reports. For the first
> time, Congress defined prior experience by prescribing outcome
> criteria for those TRIO Programs\--for all TRIO Programs. And in
> addition, just as in the case mentioned earlier regarding Talent
> Search, Congress included new required services provisions and amended
> previously existing permissible services within the TRIO Programs.
>
> In order for these changes to occur in the current TRIO projects and
> to complete the APRs, which is a necessity for all TRIO Programs\--in
> a timely manner\--we strongly encourage the Department to update the
> materials as soon as available, and to disburse them\--and disburse
> this information to all of the TRIO community as soon as possible. We
> want to adhere to what has been defined, and what will be considered
> renewable and considered amended through the negotiated rulemaking,
> and we want to make the best efforts to bring that information to the
> Department.
>
> Thank you.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** Thank you, Joy.
>
> We\'re going to hold off just a minute\...see our transcriber is in
> the room, so let me just see how long it will take him to get set up.
> So, we\'re just going to\--just hold just a minute. Thank you.
>
> \[Pause.\]
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** So, I\'ve been told the recording\--they were
> recording and it started before we got to this point, so that we can
> go ahead and continue, and he\'ll just get the tape in order for them
> to get the complete record. So, we\'ll go ahead and have Jeff Ross
> come and join us. Again, introduce yourself by saying what
> organization you\'re representing. Good morning.
>
> **MR. ROSS:** Yes. My name is Jeff Ross, and I\'m with Taft Community
> College in California, and I would like to thank you for the
> opportunity to comment on the Higher Education Opportunity Act, but
> most specifically, those sections that deal with individuals with
> intellectual disabilities.
>
> I am the Director of Student Support Services at Taft College, and
> I\'m also the founder of the Transition to Independent Living Program,
> which is a residential program for individuals with the developmental
> disabilities who learn vocational and life skills while living on our
> college dormitories and off-campus housing.
>
> Our students access the entire campus socially, and are integrated in
> traditional classes with supports if they demonstrate a desire and
> meet entrance requirements that are established by the institution.
> The program was established in 1995, and we have currently 48 students
> enrolled, a three-year waiting list, and an additional 200
> applications that are waiting to be processed. We have 162 graduates
> from the program with a Taft College Certificate of Completion, and 98
> percent of these students live independently, and 95 percent of those
> individuals are competitively employed. I am also a cofounder of the
> California Consortium for Postsecondary Options for Individuals with
> Developmental Disabilities, which is quite a title\--which is quite a
> title, but anyway, it\'s kind of descriptive. This consortium is
> composed of professionals from California community colleges,
> California state universities, University of California, K-12
> transition programs, Department of Developmental Services, regional
> centers, Department of Rehabilitation, State Council on Developmental
> Disabilities, parents, and, most importantly, students with
> intellectual disabilities. This organization disseminates information
> regarding postsecondary options, works in the policy arena, and
> provides technical assistance to existing postsecondary programs, and
> those institutions that are interested in starting new programs. My
> professional experience speaks to my passion for the establishment of
> postsecondary programs throughout the Nation, and I work very
> diligently in the halls of Congress to get this amendment passed, that
> deals with intellectual disabilities. My experience, which is 32 years
> in the field, leads me to comment on a few of the sections that
> actually made it through the bill. First of all, regarding definition
> of students with intellectual disabilities, this requires that
> students with intellectual disabilities to participate on not less
> than a half-time basis as determined by the institution, with such
> participation focusing on academic components.
>
> Now, as these students are actually moving into a postsecondary arena,
> we really think that the Department really needs to give us some
> flexible guidelines, but some real, true guidelines, on what exactly
> is a half-time student. We think that\--we need to know if this is­-if
> this determination is done solely by the program. We want to know if
> the academic Senate has involvement in this determination. We want to
> know the implications on what happens with accreditation standards
> when it comes to determining half-time students\--half-time status for
> these individuals, or is this just merely an administrative statement?
>
> One of the other components just on the definitions, also, is that it
> requires\--in regular enrollment in credit-bearing courses with
> non-disabled students offered by the institution, auditing or
> participating in courses with non-disabled students offered by the
> institution, of which the student does not receive regular academic
> credit, enrollment in noncredit-bearing, non-degree courses with
> non-disabled students, and participation in internship or work-based
> training in settings with non-disabled students. The original
> versions, the House version and the Senate version, were actually more
> inclusive than what the final language actually came out to be. We
> feel that we need to have multiple models\--for universities and, in
> particular, in my instance, community colleges\--so that these
> students can access a curriculum, the entire curriculum, and not only
> be regulated to mainly an academic course. We feel that the mission of
> community colleges, which is a vocational mission and, indeed, that
> also recognizes the academic mission, can be better served if the
> student has greater access to the curriculum. The next aspect,
> too\--and regarding that, too\--is, one of the things that I think
> that we need to be aware of, too, is that many community college
> campuses throughout the United States are open access colleges, where
> you do not have to have a high school diploma to enter these programs.
> So, right now, we actually do\--these students are already on our
> campuses. They are actually in inclusive environments, and are not
> doing so well. They are coming to us unprepared and, as an
> institution, we are being taxed with our disabled student programs and
> services because we are trying to provide accommodations for some of
> these programs where these students actually are not able to benefit.
> So, we think that we need to design programs that actually will\--like
> the program we have at Taft\--that actually can provide a real
> certificate, and these students can come out and become productive
> members of society.
>
> Well, the next aspect I would like to talk about is the National
> Technical Assistance Center, and\--which is the coordinating center
> that is established by this legislation. I feel that the coordinating
> center is key to the establishment and implementation of new programs,
> and my experience with the California Consortium providing technical
> assistance to a number of postsecondary institutions brings me to this
> conclusion. We feel that the\--or I feel that the competitive process
> needs to be extensive in that the community colleges, the state
> colleges and universities, as well as private colleges deserve equal
> consideration as candidates for this coordinating center, and that all
> geographic areas are represented. One could also argue for the
> creation of multiple centers throughout the country.
>
> I thank you for your time and your ear, and if I can assist the
> Department in any manner with the implementation, I would be honored.
> I believe this legislation is key to the unlocking \[of\] the college
> door for this population and, with proper implementation, this
> underserved student body will prosper.
>
> Thank you.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** Thank you.
>
> Pat Hurley.
>
> **DR. HURLEY:** Good morning.
>
> I'm Dr. Patricia Hurley, Associate Dean for Financial Aid at Glendale
> Community College, and Vice President for Federal Relations for the
> California Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators. CASFAA
> is the largest state financial aid association in the country,
> representing more than 1,700 financial aid administrators from over
> 500 California postsecondary institutions. We extend you a warm
> welcome, warmer than normal, and thank you for selecting our state as
> one of your sites.
>
> The Higher Education Opportunity Act includes numerous new provisions
> requiring additional institutional reporting requirements, campus
> security reporting, institutional consumer information, and loan
> disclosure information. But as practicing aid administrators, our
> comments today are focused on some of the issues we will be facing in
> our own offices. Addressing the student eligibility issues on Part F
> for Title IV under parent information and loan eligibility, we feel
> that students whose parents\--well, the law states that students whose
> parents who refuse to support them or complete a FAFSA form are now
> eligible for an unsubsidized student loan. It is our understanding
> that this section does not change the students\' dependency status,
> but there is some confusion over this in the field, and we\'re
> requesting some clarification. If this doesn\'t rise to the level of
> regulation, then perhaps a \"dear colleague\" letter would help clear
> that up.
>
> With professional judgment issues, the law also offers additional
> examples of circumstances where an aid administrator may use
> professional judgment to assist a student. The law preserves our
> ability to use our own judgment to make need analysis judgments when
> warranted by mitigating circumstances and prescribes that a
> professional judgment decision be exercised on a documented
> case-by-case basis. We\'re concerned that this specificity in the law
> may lead some aid officers to believe that their authority is limited
> to the circumstances that are described in the law. So, we are asking
> the Department to reconfirm the broad application of professional
> judgment allowed under the law, and the principal that financial aid
> officers are the sole authority on whether a student\'s circumstances
> merit a professional judgment decision.
>
> The law also states that students who become ineligible due to prior
> drug convictions while receiving Title IV aid may become eligible for
> Title IV aid if they completed two unannounced drug tests. The
> Department agreed in prior negotiated rulemaking sessions that Title
> IV eligibility requirements concerning drug offenses should not be
> determined by the institution, but left up to direct communication
> between the student and the Department. We request that this policy be
> continued, and that this new provision be incorporated into the
> current process. There were some sections on ACG Grant, and we support
> the reinstatement of the Department\'s authority to develop a set of
> courses that can serve as an alternative to the state\'s definition of
> rigorous high school curriculum, and believe that the current set of
> courses have worked well, and they provide us with a method of
> qualifying students in private high schools, where the curriculum may
> differ from the state-prescribed curriculum but be equally or more
> rigorous.
>
> Under the TEACH Grant, we applaud the law\'s provision that allows the
> Department to define extenuating circumstances under which the
> recipient may be excused from teaching the full four years without
> penalty of the grant being converted to a loan. We request that the
> Department establish regulations that are broad enough to include a
> variety of reasonable circumstances, and a process by which the
> recipient may appeal a negative decision on the part of the Secretary.
>
> California is one of the states that requires civil confinement\--and
> this is a new provision under the law\--for previously incarcerated
> sexual offenders. The law now prohibits institutions from awarding
> Pell Grants to these individuals; however, it is unclear how
> institutions will obtain this information, and it is likely in a state
> as large as California, that it could be difficult for institutions to
> acquire this information despite their best efforts. We request that
> the Department develop a way to report this status on the ICER, if
> possible. Under Part B, we have been working with our sister
> organization, the California Community College Financial Aid
> Association for clarification that lenders and guarantors can assist
> institutions with in-person loan entrance and exit counseling. This
> became confused during other recent legislation and the regulation
> process.
>
> The law specifically exempts these activities in the definition of
> prohibited gifts, but in another section only specifies that guarantee
> agencies may assist institutions with exit counseling. It is our
> understanding that Congress intended to allow both lenders and
> guarantee agencies to assist colleges with loan entrance and exit
> counseling, but could only address the exit counseling issue, because
> entrance counseling is regulatory and not statutory.
>
> There are many reasons why loan counseling delivered by the lender or
> the guarantee agency is very effective, not the least is the
> increasing complexity of the programs that make it difficult for aid
> officers to deliver the most updated and accurate information to
> students. We request that the Department specifically reaffirm this
> important role of lenders and guarantors in the upcoming regulations.
> We are also concerned about cohort default rates, and it is
> anticipated that the increase in the number of years over which the
> loan cohort default rate is calculated will increase the average
> cohort default rates for all institutions.
>
> Institutions may appeal an adverse ruling due to a high default rate
> and if they have a low number of student borrowers. This is because
> the law already recognizes that the default rate is not a measure of
> institutional integrity in these cases. However, to get to that point,
> the institution must submit a detailed appeal to the Department after
> the default rates are published. This seems to be an unnecessary
> clerical burden for both the institution that has to prepare the
> appeal, and the unit in the Department of Education charged with
> reviewing it. In addition, although the institution is then exempted,
> the adverse publicity generated by the published default rate can have
> a negative effect on the institution\'s enrollment. So, we are
> supporting the proposal from the California Community Colleges
> Financial Aid Administrators Association to provide an automatic
> exemption, and not require the calculation of a default rate for these
> institutions. And finally, the law speaks to some length about
> simplifying the application process and creating an easy FAFSA, and
> there are a number of provisions relating to simplifying the FAFSA
> form, including cutting the number of questions by 50 percent.
>
> And, considering the new criteria and eligibility items created in the
> law, we seriously question how that can be done and maintain the
> FAFSA\'s ability to do basic screening for students\' Title IV
> eligibility. The Higher Education Opportunity Act also promotes
> creating an easier FAFSA. It is part of the simplifying the process.
> We believe that there are some students for which this approach is
> ideal, specifically, those eligible for and participating in programs
> like TANF, SSI, and other public service programs directed to
> documented low-income families or individuals. We are very concerned
> about the loopholes that a simplified form may create for other
> students and families with more complicated financial situations.
> While we recognize all the inadequacies of the current system, we urge
> the Department to approach FAFSA revisions cautiously, and with
> sufficient testing to avoid creating more loopholes and unfairness
> into our already imperfect system. And we thank the Department for
> allowing us this opportunity to comment. Thank you.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** We\'ve got a couple of follow-up questions, I think,
> and I\'ll start by making a comment, or a\--that the Secretary, I
> think, yesterday released a plan for vastly simplifying the FAFSA, and
> so, I commend it to your review.
>
> I think that the plan calls for using two financial data elements for
> awarding federal aid, and only two: the AGI and the exemptions claim
> to the tax return. So\--and we have a further conversation at some
> point about how that might play out in practice for institutions, but
> I would commend it to your review, and we\'ll have some conversations,
> I\'m sure, around that, after you\'ve had a chance to review it. It
> was late last night. She was speaking at 6:00 East Coast time, so I
> don\'t know to the extent anybody\'s had time to really think about
> that.
>
> My question, though, is related to confusion around unsubsidized loan
> eligibility. And could you speak a little bit more about what
> that\--how that confusion is playing out. We\'ve heard some concerns
> and I just want to make sure that, as we develop some preliminary
> guidance, that we respond to the concerns that you have.
>
> **DR. HURLEY:** I think even though it\'s stated in the law, I think,
> some people are confused about whether this means you can\--the
> student becomes independent, which they do not, but you\'re treating
> them like an independent student, because you\'re not requiring
> parents\' information. So, how that happens becomes kind of confusing.
> And then, if there\'s confusion over whether they\'re dependent or
> independent, that follows through to whether then they qualify for an
> additional \$2,000 unsubsidized or \$6,000 unsubsidized on the
> additional loan amount.
>
> So, I think it just needs some clarification, because we\'re used to
> thinking of situations like that as being dependency override
> situations. And in this case, it really is not.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** Right. And also, there is confusion or concerns
> about how you even get an application from a student in this
> circumstance, because, in general, we reject applications from-­that
> are received that don\'t provide\--don\'t collect parents\' financial
> information for dependent students, right? So it\'s\--
>
> **DR. HURLEY:** Well, I think there\'s a whole lot of clarification on
> this. At what point does this parents\' refusal to supply the
> information become a reason to not include it at all? That kind of
> goes against our forever, longstanding philosophy that it\'s the
> parents\' responsibility, and no matter what, they\'re\--unless there
> are really mitigating, tenuous circumstances, parents are required to
> provide that information. So, I think it\'s\--there will be a lot of
> confusion about this particular issue. Once families find out about
> it, the question is, are they\--is it a real situation or is it a
> family that\'s taking advantage of this provision under the law. And I
> don\'t have a sample\--I really don\'t have a suggestion for how to
> regulate that, I\'m afraid, right now.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** That\'s okay. I just wanted to make sure that, as we
> address the issues, that we address whatever your concerns are. And if
> others have concerns about that, we\'ll ask them about that, too.
>
> Danny, I think, maybe has a question.
>
> **MR. MADZELAN:** Yeah, Pat, I had one question about your comment
> with respect to cohort default rate calculations. And
> somehow\--providing for an automatic appeal.
>
> Just let me\--the\--right now, you can\--I think the word we use is
> \"challenge\"\--the calculation. And that\'s\--you know, do you have
> the right number in the numerator and the right number in the
> denominator, that kind of thing. But the appeal\--what we talk about
> is in the context of a proposed sanction. And so, I know that the
> community colleges and others have proposed some kind of an annual\--I
> don\'t know quite the right way to say this-­reporting or indicator by
> the Department that if this particular year\'s default rate were to,
> you know, result in a proposed sanction, it really wouldn\'t because
> the school has few borrowers or something like that. So, I guess my
> question is\--are\--because an appeal of a sanction only occurs when
> the sanction is being proposed, either three years of high default
> rates or the one year over 40, are you suggesting that every
> year\--that when we publish a cohort default rate, if it is high\--you
> know, over 25 percent, that we automatically indicate that, yeah, this
> is high, but you know, it would not be one of the three years, for
> example, that would count towards a possible sanction.
>
> Again, I\'m\--part of this I\'m struggling with this is the way we\'ve
> constructed our cohort default rates where you can challenge one thing
> and appeal something else. And\--
>
> **DR. HURLEY:** Right. Well, since that provision is in the law as
> almost an exemption, we would like to treat it as\--I mean, my\--this
> is my point of view\--it should be treated as an exemption. It could
> easily be part of the FISAP. Schools could report their loan
> participation rates, and if they fall below that, then they don\'t
> even go into the calculation of the cohort default rate. Now, that
> would be my preference.
>
> **MR. MADZELAN:** Okay. So, there would be, in your view, some\--in
> some fashion, the Department would collect on an annual basis\--either
> the FISAP or some other mechanism, kind of that\--you know, the
> eligible student borrowing population, because I think that\'s the
> main piece in that appeal calculation.
>
> **DR. HURLEY:** Right.
>
> The reason for this is\--I\'ve been doing this a long time. And going
> back to when rates were high, because the formula was treated a little
> bit differently, there were colleges that had very low participation
> rates, like 1 percent of their students borrowed, but because they
> were over the 25 percent default rate, there were articles appearing
> in papers that the schools\--that the community colleges were going
> out of business, that they were going to be closed by the state, and
> that impacted the institutions in a negative way even though none of
> that was true and their student loan borrowers were a very small
> percentage of their aid recipients. So, that\'s the type of thing we
> were trying to address.
>
> **MR. MADZELAN:** Okay. Thank you.
>
> **DR. HURLEY:** Thank you.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** Margie Carrington, please. Good morning.
>
> **MS. CARRINGTON:** Good morning. I\'m Margie Carrington. I\'m the
> Director of Financial Aid Services at Canada College in Redwood City,
> and I\'m also the Vice President of the California Community Colleges
> Student Financial Aid Administrators Association, CCCSFAAA, and I\'m
> here to represent that group. Our association represents financial aid
> professionals at all 110 community colleges in the state, and we have
> more than 2.5 million students, and that comprises one of the largest
> segments in the world of education, and much of what I\'m going to say
> is a similar iteration of what Pat just spoke to from the community
> college perspective. We worked closely with CASFAA, the state\'s
> association, in developing\--bringing forward issues that are
> important to our segment. So, with that, I\'m going to speak again
> about the cohort default rate, and Pat, I think, addressed some of
> those questions.
>
> For CSFAA, we strongly recommend that the Department implement a
> front-end low participation rate exemption from the cohort default
> rate calculation through modifications of data collection fields on
> the FISAP. For community colleges in particular, having the front-end
> exemption would reduce staff time from completing the appeal process
> on the back end, as well as Department time in reviewing and approving
> them. So, it\'s a labor issue and a resource issue in and of itself if
> it\'s going to be approved on the back end, anyway, because they meet
> this low participation rate threshold. It doesn\'t make sense to use
> our staff time for those kinds of things when they could be better
> used doing outreach, assisting students and doing all the different
> things our offices are charged with that really make financial aid a
> very important part of our institution. It\'s anticipated that the
> additional third year will increase our CDRs by up to 50 percent. And
> for schools who are\--participation rates meet the appeal threshold,
> this creates an onerous burden.
>
> Another issue that\'s very important to the community
> colleges\--again, because of our open access nature\--is the ability
> to benefit. The new provisions in HEOA permit schools to
> determine-­that students meet ability to benefit after satisfactorily
> completing six credit hours of applicable units towards their degree
> or certificate offered by that school. We would like to offer our
> assistance to the Department in developing regulatory language since
> this provision is based on the outcomes of experimental sites at
> California community colleges.
>
> Entrance counseling\--and Pat mentioned that on behalf of
> CASFAA\--we\'ve actually received verbal confirmation from Congressman
> Miller\'s staff that the intent was to reinstate both loan entrance
> and exit counseling as allowable services that lenders and guarantee
> agencies may provide with schools so long as the school maintains
> control over those sessions.
>
> We recommend a \"dear colleague\" letter to clarify that this is an
> allowable provision with an effective date so schools can reach out to
> their educational partners for support of this important activity. And
> lastly, again, with the easy FAFSA and simplification, there are
> numerous provisions related to the simplification of the FAFSA in the
> legislation, including cutting the current number of questions by 50
> percent. And as you previously indicated, the Secretary has now
> released some ideas of what that might be, the change in need. We also
> seriously question how this can be done while maintaining the
> integrity of the FAFSA\'s ability to screen students for basic Title
> IV eligibility.
>
> For certain students whose income is solely based on regular earnings
> reported on W2s, and again for those eligible for\--and participating
> in program such as TANF, SSI, and other need-based public service
> programs, the approach may be appropriate. But again, we\'re concerned
> about the loopholes that a simplified form will create for the
> self-employed and those in more complex financial situations and
> circumstances. While we recognize all the inadequacies of the current
> system, we urge the Department to approach FAFSA revisions cautiously
> and with sufficient testing to avoid creating more loopholes and
> unfairness in the system. And again, our segment will be happy to
> assist in any way in reviewing whatever those proposals are.
>
> On behalf of CSFAA, I thank you for the opportunity to share our
> concerns, as well as offer our services as a resource to the
> Department through the negotiated and proposed rulemaking process.
> Thank you.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** I think we may have a question or two.
>
> On the proposal to deal with cohort default rate\--the sanction
> problem on the FISAP, the FISAP is only used by institutions that
> participate in the campus-based programs. There are some community
> colleges that don\'t. So, we don\'t\--that may not be the perfect
> mechanism. More significantly, the institutions may not relate to us
> for campus-based purposes in the same way they do for loans. You know,
> they may combine or split out for campus-based purposes. So, is there
> some alternative mechanism that you can envision that would help us
> not be faced with a system that works for a segment but not\--all the
> institutions?
>
> **MS. CARRINGTON:** At this moment, I can\'t think of something, but
> there\--because the data on the FISAP that we\'re reporting\--I
> actually didn\'t realize that all schools aren\'t reporting, even if
> it\'s zero, because they\'re reporting their enrollment and they\'re
> also reporting their annual Pell and ACG and SMART, which is collected
> elsewhere as well. So, it\'s just matching data. know that there\'s
> been some other suggestions of using some annualized data, TICAS, I
> think, has written a letter to Secretary Spellings on a different
> proposal on determining the low participation rate based on aggregate
> data that\'s collected elsewhere. But their approach is not-­we\'re
> looking for that front-end exemption because of the intensive work and
> negative press and other kinds of things that surround the potentially
> erroneous perception that the school is not doing well because of this
> high default rate.
>
> Our school, for example, in 2000, had a high default rate, and we
> pulled out of the loan program; we\'ve just reentered it. And that\'s
> one of the reasons why a lot of community colleges have decided not to
> offer loans as an option to their students, which is a disservice,
> because that might be the resource that the student really needs to be
> successful, but I know that is a concern in our segment. Because of
> open access, we can\'t control the admissions; we take everybody. We
> have a mission that\'s very diverse, and to be penalized because a
> small percentage of our students borrow and then end up defaulting
> because of their circumstances\--it\'s counterproductive to what we
> do. So\...
>
> **MR. MADZELAN:** I think we\'re asking a couple of these questions
> because we have been thinking about this. I mean, you referenced the
> letter that the Secretary received. She\'s received a couple on this
> topic.
>
> **MS. CARRINGTON:** Yeah.
>
> **MR. MADZELAN:** So, we\'re\--you know, we are interested in it as
> well, and so, this is the reason for some of our probing here, is just
> to help us think about this as well.
>
> **MS. CARRINGTON:** I know our plan is to submit more detailed written
> comment by October 8, so I\'ll bring this back to our association\'s
> leadership and we\'ll discuss and see if we can actually come up with
> some alternative that would meet that same need. But it is important
> for us.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** Thank you.
>
> **MS. CARRINGTON:** Thank you.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** Deb Banker-Garcia \[sic.\].
>
> **MS. BARKER-GARCIA:** Sorry for the bad handwriting.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** Actually, somebody had rewritten it for my list. So,
> it was actually easy to read, except the light.
>
> **MS. BARKER-GARCIA:** Too many last names-­the whole thing.
>
> Good morning.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** Good morning.
>
> **MS. BARKER-GARCIA:** My name is Deb Barker-Garcia, and I am the
> Director of Client Services for the Southern California Region at
> EDFUND.
>
> EDFUND is a not-for-profit public benefit corporation, and one of the
> Nation\'s leading providers of student loan guarantee services under
> the Federal Family Educational Loan Program. EDFUND offers students a
> wide variety of financial aid and debt management information while
> supporting schools with advanced loan processing solutions and default
> prevention techniques. EDFUND was founded in 1997 by the State of
> California through the California Student Aid Commission, and in
> 2006-2007, processed more than \$9.3 billion in student loans. We
> manage a portfolio of outstanding loans valued at more than \$30
> billion.
>
> EDFUND is based in California, and we operate with regional
> representatives such as myself located throughout the Nation. I\'m
> pleased to be with you here today to discuss just a few issues that
> are of particular importance to EDFUND and the schools, students, and
> families that we serve, and particularly important to schools here in
> California. I will keep my comments brief here today, but will let you
> know that we will be submitting additional written testimony covering
> these topics and a few additional issues.
>
> Before I address the specific issues, on behalf of EDFUND, I would
> like to take this opportunity to applaud the U.S. Congress for
> reauthorizing the Higher Education Act through the passage of the
> Higher Education Opportunity Act. I would also like to applaud the
> Department for moving so quickly with the negotiated rulemaking
> process. We at EDFUND believe the law contains many new provisions
> that will continue to open the doors of opportunity for millions of
> American families, and we look forward to working with you in
> conjunction with our trade associations to implement the new laws,
> with the best interests of students and families that we serve at the
> forefront.
>
> The first topic I\'d like to discuss relates to entrance and exit
> counseling, activities performed by lender and guarantee agencies in
> conjunction with school personnel. Language included in Section 493(e)
> of the HEOA explicitly states that entrance and exit counseling
> activities are not considered a gift under the gift ban section.
>
> The law also explicitly allows lenders and guarantors to perform exit
> counseling services in Sections 422(d) and 436(c) under the
> supervision of school personnel. Conversations with congressional
> staff have indicated that they believe the language adopted in the
> HEOA permits lenders and guarantors to provide both entrance and exit
> counseling, based on the legislative citations provided and in the
> express congressional intent, we request that the Department modify
> its regulatory position on guarantors and lenders, performing both
> entrance and exit counseling services on behalf of any institution
> that requests it.
>
> EDFUND believes that allowing lenders and guarantors to assist both
> direct loans and FFEL schools with entrance and exit counseling
> activities is good for schools, good for the loan programs, and most
> importantly, good for the students. As financial aid officers are
> increasingly stretched for resources, lenders and guarantors are best
> equipped to provide the most comprehensive and accurate information to
> student borrowers on the specifics of their loan obligations, and what
> options and programs, federal, state, and institutional, exist to
> ensure a successful repayment experience. Additionally, some of the
> new repayment options and program benefits available to borrowers will
> require more than sound-bite type counseling for borrowers to fully
> understand the options available to them. The new income-based
> repayment option, for example, may require significant explanations
> from knowledgeable staff in order for borrowers to understand how to
> fully take advantage of the new program, a goal I believe we all
> share.
>
> We suggest the Department align its regulations with HEOA and with
> congressional intent with regard to entrance and exit counseling
> performed for any FFEL or direct lending institution that may require
> the assistance. The second I\'d like to address relates to a new
> provision in the law that requires schools with a cohort default rate
> of 30 percent or more to assemble a default prevention taskforce that
> will create a fully\--excuse me\--that will create a default
> prevention plan to be submitted to the Secretary. EDFUND, along with
> our guarantor colleagues, believes we can play a valuable role in this
> process, working directly with schools to develop strategies to lower
> their cohort default rates. Guarantors have consistently demonstrated
> that we play an important role in assisting students to successfully
> manage their student loan debt.
>
> The growing importance of this role has been emphasized by increased
> requirements for guarantee agencies to provide financial literacy
> information and other resources to both schools and students, showing
> our agencies to be knowledgeable and effective trusted agents.
>
> A school with a higher-than-desired default rate likely does not have
> the resources and experience needed to effectively assist its
> particular constituencies avoid default and delinquency. By including
> the guarantee agency and the taskforce designed to help the school
> develop and implement its default prevention plan, the school is able
> to take advantage of existing resources and expertise as well as
> ensuring that these default prevention plans become the effective
> tools as intended. Guarantors can help find the best tools and
> implement solutions based on what we know and learn in the field from
> others. Additionally, we can act as a third party to help facilitate
> the discussion, and we are seen as that trusted advisor, so we can
> guide the direction and keep them focused on their goals.
>
> The financial aid office should not be the only Department on campus
> held accountable for defaults. Until the entire campus community
> understands their role, students will continue to fall through the
> cracks and some will default on their student loans. The financial aid
> office will need support from an outside neutral third party to get
> the discussion going and gain support of other campus officials. A
> guarantor can help with this process. Guarantors can also work with
> the Department globally to help develop some default management plan
> best practices that can be provided to both FFEL and direct lending
> schools nationwide.
>
> The two topics I have addressed here today represent two opportunities
> for the Department to strengthen the students\' loan program by
> utilizing the demonstrated experience of the guarantor community to
> better serve postsecondary institutions and the students we serve.
>
> Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** I think I have one question, and that is\--see,
> I\'ve heard this testimony a couple of times already\--or read it once
> and heard it once\--and I didn\'t ask the question in Rhode Island and
> I probably should have.
>
> **MS. BARKER-GARCIA:** You know, I heard there was going to be no
> questions.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** It\'s pretty easy. I hope it\'s pretty easy.
>
> And on your last point, the role of guarantee agencies in default
> management plans\--
>
> **MS. BARKER-GARCIA:** Default management plans.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** Are you suggesting that require schools to include
> GAs, or are you just saying\--
>
> **MS. BARKER-GARCIA:** I think we\'re suggesting that you allow them
> the opportunity to include them\--that it\'s not\--
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** In other words that we not prohibit it.
>
> **MS. BARKER-GARCIA:** Exactly, that you don\'t prohibit it.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** Okay. That was all I wanted to\--
>
> **MS. BARKER-GARCIA:** That was it?
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** \--clarify. Yeah, I said that I thought it was
> pretty easy. Thank you.
>
> **MS. BARKER-GARCIA:** Thank you.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** Kent Wada. Good morning, Kent.
>
> **MR. WADA:** Good morning. My name is Kent Wada. I am the Director of
> IT Strategic Policy at UCLA. Today, I\'m representing the University
> of California, with an enrollment of over 220,000 students across 10
> campuses. I\'d like to comment on Section 493, Subsection a(29) of the
> HEOA, which establishes a new item within the program participation
> agreement requiring schools to certify that they\'ve developed plans
> to effectively combat the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted
> material and, to the extent practicable, to offer alternatives to
> illegal downloading or peer-to-peer distribution of intellectual
> property. The University of California recognizes illegal peer-to-peer
> file sharing of copyrighted material is a global issue that is
> significantly impacting important economies and industries.
>
> As creators of intellectual property ourselves, we are taking illegal
> file sharing very seriously and do not condone copyright infringement.
>
> As you consider whether negotiated rulemaking is appropriate to
> implement this new program participation requirement, there are a
> couple of important points we would like to emphasize. First and
> fundamentally, we believe that this problem can only be effectively
> addressed through partnerships. Within the university, illegal file
> sharing is addressed foremost as a student life issue, wherein the
> goal is not only to change behavior, but also to help prepare our
> students for life beyond our walls as ethical and informed citizens.
> Behind the scenes, however, it is also a joint effort between student
> affairs and information technology that makes the approach effective.
> Similarly, we see great value in higher education working
> collaboratively with the entertainment industry and other sectors to
> develop new technical, educational, delivery, and assessment methods
> that will favorably impact the level of and behavior of individuals
> involved in illegal file sharing.
>
> These partnerships provide us with the insight, expertise, and
> experience to successfully consider and deploy new and effective ways
> to mitigate the problem. This leads me to the second point: It is
> essential that higher education continue to have wide latitude for
> experimentation in determining how best to address this problem, as is
> clearly expressed in the accompanying conference report under Section
> 488, rather than being prescribed a specific set of steps,
> technologies, or requirements.
>
> This is especially true as we also believe that peer-to-peer
> technologies are powerful tools for inquiry and interaction, offering
> opportunity for significant scholarly contribution-­collaboration, I\'m
> sorry. In moving forward with the implementation of these provisions,
> we hope that the Department will carry out the wishes of the conferees
> in ensuring this flexibility and assuring that each institution retain
> the authority to determine its particular plans for compliance. The
> University of California is ready to assist the Department in any way
> helpful. Thank you.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** Somewhere along the line I had a question that has
> flown out of my brain.
>
> **MR. WADA:** Don\'t look at me, I'm not peer­to-peer.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** I know that some institutions have attempted to
> develop alternatives. One of the\--there are two provisions there, one
> that deals with policies and plans to deal with this issue, the other
> is to explore to the extent feasible alternatives. I was wondering if
> you could speak to any success or examples or concerns you have about
> those alternatives.
>
> **MR. WADA:** Okay. So, with respect to the looking into legal
> alternatives for digital entertainment, I think\--you know, when you
> consider when the language of this legislation was being put together,
> even as short as a year ago, the digital entertainment space was a
> very different place then it is today. If you look around what\'s
> available on the Net right now\--the example I use all the time is all
> 13 seasons of South Park are now available online, free, legally in
> streaming format. And there\'s just an incredible amount of premium
> content that\'s being put out there. And so, I guess the caution would
> be, simply given that the space is moving so quickly and the
> entertainment industry is evolving and experimenting and trying so
> many different things at this time to just move a little bit carefully
> in making any requirements. It\'s actually a very exciting time.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** Okay. Thank you, Kent.
>
> **MR. WADA:** Thanks.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** This is why I normally write down my questions in
> the margin, so I remember what they are.
>
> Steve Mital, please.
>
> Good morning, Steve.
>
> **MR. MITAL:** Good morning, and thanks for holding this regional
> hearing.
>
> My name is Steve Mital, and I am the Sustainability Director at the
> University of Oregon.
>
> I\'m here today to ask the U.S. Department of Education to include
> full funding for the University Sustainability Grants Program in the
> Administration\'s 2010 budget request. As one of the Title VIII
> programs, the University Sustainability Grant Program was endorsed by
> over 220 colleges and universities, higher education associations,
> NGOs, and corporations. Hundreds of universities across the Nation,
> including the University of Oregon, have recently focused significant
> resources on \"greening\" campus operations, updating curriculum to
> reflect the principals of sustainability, and reaching out to educate
> and serve our communities. To manage these and other related
> activities, these institutions, hundreds of them across the country,
> have created sustainability offices, and I\'m the Director of one of
> those.
>
> Indeed, our national campus sustainability LISTSERV advertises
> newly-created sustainability positions at a rate of about three per
> week these days. So, it is\--there are lots of opportunities for those
> interested in the field, and it is really incredible how fast
> universities are picking these things up. These offices carry out some
> of the following functions: We develop indicators of sustainability
> performance and appropriate monitoring and reporting protocols for our
> institutions. We developed climate action plans to chart a course for
> significant reduction of greenhouse gas emissions on campuses We
> identify opportunities to reduce the campus environmental footprint
> through smarter building design, increased reliance on renewable
> energy, recycling programs, alternative transportation initiatives,
> purchasing policies that take into consideration lifecycle costs, and
> support for local food production systems.
>
> We also support a wide range of student-led initiatives to green
> campus operations. This gives students, of course, some on-the-ground
> real-life experience in putting their values and principles and things
> that they\'re learning in classrooms in action. And finally, we
> support education and outreach to the campus community and surrounding
> community as well. So, taken as a whole, institutions of higher
> education have created a very significant demand for wind energy,
> which has helped finance their construction around this country.
>
> Higher education has also built a large percentage of all LEED
> certified buildings. LEED is the program under which\--that certifies
> buildings for smart energy and environmental design. It is
> largely\--widely recognized as a national standard. Higher
> education\--excuse me, 17 million students are enrolled in
> institutions of higher education, and many of them have their first
> encounter with a recycling bin, a public bus, and a reusable coffee
> mug as a freshman on one of our campuses. They develop, therefore,
> good recycling habits on our campuses. As an example, the University
> of Oregon-­our recycling rate\--that is, if you take the percentage of
> all of the trash that we generate on our campus\--50 percent of it
> gets recycled.
>
> Students learn that the bus and the bike are viable forms of
> transportation. And again, at the University of Oregon, 69 percent of
> all students living off-campus\--not the ones on-campus, but the ones
> living off-campus\--use some form of alternative transportation to get
> to campus each day, and about 30 percent of our faculty do as well.
>
> More than 500 presidents of colleges and universities have signed the
> President\'s Climate Commitment. This initiative obligates those
> institutions to achieve carbon neutrality by the year 2050. So, it\'s
> a very aggressive commitment that we\'ve signed. The initiative is an
> example of large-scale, voluntary carbon emissions reduction programs.
>
> Along with our sister institutions in the university\--in the Oregon
> University system, and with support from our Governor and State
> Legislature, we have a goal to power our campuses with 100 percent
> renewable energy as part of our strategy to reduce our emissions in
> line with that Presidents Climate Commitment that I just mentioned.
> So, we are working very hard to transform our campuses into 21st
> century models of sustainability, and hundreds of other campuses
> across the Nation are embarking down similar paths. The authorization
> of the University Sustainability Grants Program at the Department of
> Education will provide the catalyst for schools and higher education
> associations to develop and implement more initiatives and best
> practices based on the principals of sustainability. One small example
> of a creative approach to sustainability, outreach, and service that
> this program could support is at the University of Oregon\'s
> award-winning what we call \"Climate Masters Program,\" which is being
> now replicated elsewhere across the country.
>
> So, folks at the University of Oregon did a \"train the trainer\"
> program and offered 30 hours of free training to anybody in the
> community\--not the university\--not the campus community, but the
> surrounding community in Eugene, training to\--how they could
> implement ways of reducing carbon in their daily life and at a
> residential scale. Those trainers then have to dedicate an additional
> 30 hours in their neighborhoods. And the results of the first year
> program show that every person participating in that effort reduced
> his or her emissions by two tons over the course of a year. Like I
> said, this program is being replicated across the country now.
>
> We shouldn\'t forget the significant potential for cost savings
> embedded in sustainability. Simple efficiency upgrades, conservation
> practices, smarter purchasing policies have been proven to save
> millions of dollars from operating budgets, and this in turn can have
> an impact on student tuition and fees. So, as we begin to connect the
> dots among our Nation\'s many challenges in energy, national security,
> sustainable economic development, environmental protection, and social
> justice, it is imperative that our schools incorporate this
> fundamental perspective in their teaching, their practice, and their
> service. So, in closing, higher education is embarking upon an
> ambitious and highly-visible transition to become models of
> sustainability, and I applaud Congress for recognizing the need to
> help, and I\'d like to urge you to fund the University Sustainability
> Program at \$30 million, which is a level sufficient to make a
> meaningful difference on hundreds of campuses and the communities we
> serve, and indeed sustain the momentum we have already built.
>
> Thank you.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** I have a couple of comments\--or a comment and a
> question. The Higher Education Opportunities Act authorizes 69 new
> programs.
>
> **MR. MITAL:** Yeah, I\'ve heard.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** The Congress in its action funded three of those
> programs through savings in the student aid area\--student loan
> area\--and funded three within the Bill: A post-baccalaureate program
> for Hispanics-serving institutions, a master\'s program at
> historically Black colleges, and a master\'s program at predominantly
> Black institutions. It seems to me that, you know, Congress could have
> chosen to fund this program with savings\--with those savings,
> instead. So, I just\--that\'s a caution about this that the\--you
> know, this is competing against other priorities for existing programs
> and new programs. And so, a follow-up question, having made that
> comment or observation\--that is, what\'s the compelling federal
> need\--you described actions that institutions are already taking with
> their own resources. And so, could you speak to why this is a
> compelling federal issue that requires federal funding.
>
> **MR. MITAL:** Sure. And that\'s a very good question.
>
> Like I said, we have embarked down this path already, and lots of
> funding has been committed. The thing that\'s on the horizon that I
> don't believe universities and colleges around the country have really
> found the resources for is to implement their climate action plans
> that, like I said, more than 500 of our colleges and universities are
> currently developing. As one example, the University of Oregon has
> just a year left now to get its climate action plan submitted to
> the\--to the Presidents Climate Commitment Group that oversees all of
> these. And after we turn in that plan and have it\--we will then have
> a period of time under which to implement it.
>
> That is something that, across the Nation­-at universities and colleges
> across the Nation, there really has not been significant funding
> internally or externally identified to support that. So, the potential
> to save those emissions is tremendous. The funding to carry it out is
> not really there yet.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** Thank you.
>
> **MR. MITAL:** Thank you.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** Kate Harold.
>
> Good morning, Kate.
>
> **MS. HAROLD:** Good morning.
>
> My name is Kate Harold, and I'm Director of West Coast Operations for
> the RIAA, which is the Recording Industry Association of America.
>
> The RIAA\'s several hundred-member companies are responsible for
> creating, manufacturing, and/or distributing 90 percent of all sound
> recording sold in the United States. Music has never been as
> accessible to fans as it is right now, and our studies show that more
> music is being acquired than ever, but less and less of it is being
> paid for, and therein lies one of the great challenges: It\'s just way
> too easy to get for free without compensating the creators. U.S.
> copyright industries account for 6 percent of the Gross Domestic
> Product, and one of the very healthiest balances of trade of any
> American industry.
>
> Copyright industries are not only leaders in creativity but in the
> economy as well. While there have been bright spots in sales of
> digital tracks over the past few years, even including digital track
> sales, the sale of recorded music has been down for the last seven of
> eight years, amounting to an aggregate fall from 1999 through 2007 of
> roughly 25 percent, and more than a \$3 billion decline in sales.
>
> According to a recent report on music piracy by the Institute for
> Policy Innovation, this translates into 70,000 lost jobs and almost
> \$2.7 billion in wages for U.S. workers. These numbers give a clear
> understanding of why we are so concerned with the problem of illegal
> file trafficking and why the problem extends beyond our industry,
> affecting not only this state but the economy of the entire country.
> They also show why we are so pleased with the provisions outlined in
> the HEA. The fact is that illegal file trafficking remains a
> disproportionate problem on college campuses. According to market
> research firm, MPD, college students alone account for more than 1.3
> billion illegal music downloads in 2006. College students surveyed by
> MPD reported that more than two-thirds of all the music they acquired
> was obtained illegally.
>
> Some universities, including some in California, have offered legal
> music services to their students as an alternative to engaging in
> theft over their networks. We appreciate the HEA\'s recognition of
> these programs and the advantage provided to schools that choose to
> adopt them. We also appreciate the HEA\'s recognition of the
> importance of using blocking or filtering technologies. Certainly, the
> schools that have had the greatest success in stemming the massive
> infringement occurring on their networks have implemented effective
> technological measures to either block peer-to-peer entirely or filter
> to prevent illegal activity. The reports of savings to institutions
> due to the use of technological solutions are compelling. For example,
> the University of Florida saved \$1.5 million by deferring a network
> upgrade for two years.
>
> Likewise, the University of Utah has reporting saving \$1.2 million in
> bandwidth cost and about \$70,000 in personnel costs. These
> technologies have proven to be affordable.
>
> When schools such as Vanderbilt report spending more than \$500,000 on
> educating students and dealing with infringement on the network, the
> relatively small outlay in effective technology is an obvious and
> smart investment. We hope schools will acknowledge the HEA\'s
> inclusion of technology-based deterrents in their reporting
> requirement, and take advantage of these effective measures. Higher
> education institutions have a major part to play in addressing the
> problem of illegal file trafficking online. This activity has caused
> extensive damage not only to our industry in this state, but to the
> country as a whole, and we are very grateful to the attention brought
> to it by the HEA.
>
> We thank the Department for holding these hearings and for your
> anticipated involvement. Thank you.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** Thank you. Thank you.
>
> We\'re going to take a break, because we\'re to the point where we
> should be at 10:30. So, we\'re going to go ahead and take a break
> until-­ 10:30-10:40?
>
> **MR. MADZELAN:** Let\'s say 10:30.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** Let\'s say 10:30. Okay. So, we\'ll take a break
> until 10:30.
>
> Thank you.
>
> **\[Brief recess.\]**
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** We\'re going to go ahead and reconvene. I think
> we\'re going to go ahead and reconvene. Our next witness is Phyllis
> Jacobson. Good morning, Phyllis. And could you remind us where you\'re
> from and\--for the record. Thank you.
>
> **MS. JACOBSON:** Certainly. Good morning, gentlemen.
>
> I\'m Dr. Phyllis Jacobson. I\'m the Administrator for Educator
> Examinations for the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing,
> which is California\'s state teacher licensing agency, and I am here
> representing the Commission today. The Commission is the oldest
> independent teacher standards and licensing board in the Nation, and
> is one of 20 such independent teacher licensing boards across the
> United States.
>
> We would like to express our appreciation for holding a Title II
> public input session here in California. I would like to address three
> areas within the reauthorizing legislation: eligibility to apply for
> federal grants, accountability provisions for programs that prepare
> teachers, and candidate privacy issues relating to score reporting.
>
> The first area concerns eligibility to apply for federal grants under
> the Act, including the partnership grants. Section 200 contains the
> definitions of eligible educational service agencies that can apply
> for discretionary funding under federal teacher quality and related
> grant initiatives. This list includes only three types of state
> educational agencies: the state educational agency, which is typically
> the state department of education, the state board of education, and
> the state agency for higher education. The list does not include the
> fourth type of state education agency operated by 20 states including
> California, which is the independent teacher licensing agency. We are
> typically independent from and not part of any of the three state
> educational agencies referenced in the current version of the
> definitions. Unless these definitions are modified, all of us 20
> independent state educational service agencies that are teacher
> licensing boards will be systematically disenfranchised from being
> eligible to submit applications for grant funding. However, we are the
> very state educational service agencies responsible for the
> preparation and certification of teachers, and we also are the
> agencies that work with teacher preparation institutions to prepare
> the required Title II report. We should be eligible to apply for
> federal funding under the Act.
>
> California respectfully requests that the definitions under Section
> 200 be expanded to include state teacher licensing boards or agencies
> as a fourth type of educational service agency, and that we be listed
> as eligible applicants to apply for federal funding under the Title II
> Teacher Quality Enhancement Initiatives and Related Federal
> Initiatives. The second area we would like to comment on concerns
> Section 205, accountability for programs that prepare teachers. The
> legislation now requires states to report average scaled scores for
> all students who take required teacher licensing assessments.
>
> As guidance and regulations for crafting-­are crafted for implementing
> this Section of the Act, California wishes to raise the following
> questions and concerns. Our first concern is the purpose and intended
> use of reporting scaled scores on teacher licensure assessments. State
> teacher licensing agencies, including the California Commission on
> Teacher Credentialing, establish a passing-score standard, or a cut
> score, for each standardized teacher licensure assessment. That score
> represents the point at which a candidate is deemed to be competent in
> the subject of the examination.
>
> As long as a candidate meets the passing score standard established by
> the state, and is deemed to be competent in the subject of the
> examination, the individual candidate\'s actual scaled score, as well
> as candidate aggregated-scale scores are not relevant to a state
> credentialing purpose or to a licensing decision. If the state\'s cut
> score is reported to the Department of Education for each assessment
> required in the credentialing process, and the numbers of candidates
> who meet the cut scores are also reported, then we do not see what
> purpose would be served by reporting individual candidate and
> aggregate candidate scaled scores, in addition to the number and
> percent of candidates passing these assessments.
>
> We suggest that the implementation regulations allow for reporting
> state-established, scaled, cut scores, and the number and percent
> candidates meeting that standard rather than requiring all programs to
> report individual candidate\'s scaled score data. Supporting our
> implementation recommendation is the fact that licensure assessments
> are criterion referenced and not norm referenced. Score comparisons
> across examinees, such as aggregate scaled scores required under the
> Act, are not appropriate for a criterion-referenced examination.
>
> In the context of a criterion-referenced examination, a standard is
> established, and each candidate is assessed against that standard. The
> performance of other examinees on the same assessment is not relevant,
> as each individual examinee must independently meet the standard on
> his or her own, and the examinee\'s score is neither dependent on nor
> tied to the performance of any other examinee. In a norm-referenced
> assessment context, the performance of a given examinee is assessed in
> comparison to the performance of other examinees. But standardized
> tests for teacher licensure are not used in a norm-referenced manner,
> and aggregating the scores across examinees is inappropriate for this
> type of assessment. Using scores in this manner is not consistent with
> the standards for educational and psychological testing established by
> the American Educational Research Association.
>
> We would also like to raise some concerns and issues about potential
> difficulties relating to the requirement for how the standardized
> assessment outcomes are to be reported. For example, enrolled
> candidates may take only some subtests of a given examination and not
> complete the entire examination within the Title II reporting period.
> Each of California\'s standardized licensure assessments has several
> subtests. Would programs be reported to require-­would be required,
> excuse me, to report candidate\'s scores based on the individual
> subtests, or would scores by subtest, as well as the total across all
> subtests be required? Which score would be reported, the time the
> candidate initially tried the assessment or the final score? What
> about candidates who may not have completed all of the subtests of a
> required licensing examination, but who may have scores in only one or
> more parts at the time of the required Title II report?
>
> Another potential difficulty is the fact that not all candidates
> indicate their institution when they register for these assessments,
> nor are they required to do so. Candidates may actually request that
> their scores not be provided to any institution until such time as
> they are ready to use these scores for licensure purposes. Since
> institutions may not receive complete reports about their students,
> what would happen to them if they reported incomplete results?
>
> In addition, licensure assessments are not static entities, but are
> constantly changing, even during a given academic year. Not all
> candidates in a given teacher preparation program may have taken the
> same teacher licensure assessments. All candidates\' scores would not
> be reflective, therefore, of a single examination, but could represent
> several examinations. How would such varying and different examination
> data be reported and viewed by Title II, since each examination could
> apply to a different number of candidates, and not all candidates, and
> each examination might have its own different cut score? Another key
> issue that California is concerned about is the fact that many states,
> including us, are now using a variety of required teaching performance
> assessments. These are mandated assessments required of all
> candidates, but they do not provide scaled scores. They are
> rubric-based, and they may vary from institution to institution, and
> cut scores may vary from institution to institution. Even though each
> of these assessments must be state-approved, the fact that they vary
> so widely causes us to wonder how these would be treated within a
> Title II report, and whether they need to be reported, given that they
> do not meet the scaled-score requirement. Given this situation, we
> recommend that implementation regulations need to consider whether
> performance assessments such as these would be reported, and if so,
> how scores would be reported since there are no scaled scores,
> different institutions are using different models of the assessment,
> and the passing score standard can vary both within model and across
> models.
>
> How would such widely variant data be useful to the Department, and
> what purpose would be served in reporting these types of performance
> data?
>
> The final area on which we would like to comment is candidate privacy
> issues. The requirement to report individual candidate\'s scores may
> conflict with FERPA provisions, and may put individual teacher
> preparation programs, as well as the state, at risk of a lawsuit.
> Requiring teacher preparation institutions to report individual
> candidate\'s scaled scores when the candidates themselves do receive
> these scores, the programs do not receive these scores, and candidates
> are not even required to report these scores to their programs until
> they are ready to be used for credentialing purposes could potentially
> be a violation of candidate privacy rights. We believe that we should
> not be responsible for requiring candidates to provide private
> information about themselves for release to the federal government
> without the candidate\'s permission, and that to do so would
> potentially put institutions at risk of a lawsuit. In addition,
> programs that have a small number of candidates, such as more than ten
> but fewer than 50, for example, would be reporting data that could
> allow for individual identification of candidates and their private
> information, which would also be a potential violation of candidate
> privacy. We request that the regulations clearly address these issues
> of candidate privacy, and how the inherent conflict between federal
> reporting requirements under the Act, and federal and state privacy
> rights for candidates can be resolved. This concludes our comments,
> and we thank you very much for this opportunity to provide input.
>
> **MR. JENKINS:** I\'ll just make one comment.
>
> The Department, of course, administers FERPA, and I could not imagine
> that the Department would have programmatic requirements which would
> bring an institution or any other entity into violation of FERPA.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** The only other comment I\'d make is that the first
> issue you raised concerning the eligibility of state teacher licensing
> boards for grants is one where it wouldn\'t be\--as Harold described
> it earlier\--filling in the blanks where Congress hasn\'t written
> things into the law. It would be adding a new category which would be
> changing the statute, I think, if I heard you right, or were you
> suggesting that we, in interpreting one of the categories that are
> listed­-interpret it to include state\'s teacher licensing boards?
>
> **MS. HAROLD:** We would appreciate such interpretation. We understand
> that you may not be able to change the law, but we believe that
> the-­there was no intent on the part of Congress to disenfranchise
> state teacher licensing boards, which are the very entities
> responsible for assuring initial teacher quality.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** Okay. Thank you. Ralph Wolff. Good morning, Ralph.
>
> **MR. WOLFF:** Good morning. My name is Ralph Wolff, and I am the
> President and Executive Director of the Accrediting Commission for
> Senior Colleges of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges,
> WASC. We accredit 157 colleges and universities here in California,
> Hawaii, the Pacific Islands, serving well over 800,000 students.
>
> I\'m also representing our sister accrediting association, the
> Community College Commission, which accredits more than 140 two-year
> and community colleges, and they serve well over a million students.
>
> We also participate in C-RAC, and you\'ll be hearing\--if you\'ve
> already heard from one, then you\'ll be hearing from others of my
> colleagues. So\--and as you know, regional accrediting bodies are one
> of many accreditors, and we accredit all the major public and private
> universities, over 3,000, that serve 17 million-plus students. We take
> our responsibility seriously, and both the Community College
> Commission and we have had to take actions in the past several years
> to terminate accreditation of institutions when problems we found were
> not corrected. We can be, and are, tough when needed, and as I\'ll
> discuss later, we want to make sure we have the ability to take
> appropriate action when needed, especially when breaches of integrity
> are found.
>
> At the same time, we work with primary-­with major research
> universities, Stanford, University of Southern
> California\--Pepperdine, here, we accredit\--and the entire University
> of California system, so we need to have flexibility to work with a
> wide range of institutions.
>
> Obviously, as you know, we\'ve changed our focus in accreditation, the
> focus on student learning, a great deal, and my own commission
> completely revamped our entire process to be learning-centered. We
> have worked well with the staff of the Department as we\'ve gone
> through our own reviews and really have been found to meet all of the
> requirements. But I also want to say we really need to support the
> peer review character of accreditation in working through with
> regulations. In 2007, I also had the opportunity to serve on the
> negotiated rulemaking panel, which was really a real learning
> opportunity for me, and I wanted to offer a few observations as we go
> through the next neg-reg process, and then make a couple of comments
> about specific provisions in the bill.
>
> If I may, I would like to say that, one, I\'d encourage keeping the
> focus narrow. This is a very long bill with many provisions, and a
> number of the accreditation provisions in the law are important. And
> as you know, any new rules are going to have an impact, not only on
> us, but all 3,000 institutions, and therefore, they can add a great
> deal of cost and burden to our institutions. So, we\'d encourage that
> the rulemaking process be focused on those areas that really need new
> regulations. Some provisions of the law are really quite clear, and in
> fact, we would just urge be restated in any regulatory process rather
> than add additional interpretation. Second point would be to keep the
> regulations straightforward, and make sure they\'re feasible to be
> implemented.
>
> In the last rulemaking process, one of the big debates was whether or
> not we could even implement some of the proposed changes, even if they
> were good ideas, given the wide range of our institutions and the
> limited data capacity in a number of cases. One of the new provisions
> in the law calls for authentication of distance learning students. I
> think it\'s an important provision, but all of us are trying to figure
> out what\'s the best way to address this, and what is the appropriate
> technology? And so, in this area, we\'d encourage that there be
> flexibility in allowing the technology to catch up with the provisions
> here of how we would do that, and not to prescribe a particular
> approach.
>
> Third point would be to have the right people at the table. We\'re not
> quite sure how you\'re going to incorporate the accreditation
> provisions. There are not a large number of them-­and so, that they\'d
> be grouped together in an appropriate context for rulemaking\--where
> people who are knowledgeable about accreditation issues can be
> involved and, if possible, I\'d certainly have\--be\--welcome the
> privilege to participate again. But I want to ask that the right
> people be at the table\--that there be fair and representative
> participation of regional, national, and specialized accreditors
> proportionate to our representation of students and institutions. We
> can speak best to what we actually do, and what the impact will be,
> and we\'d ask the same­-that institutional representatives be, in fact,
> truly representative of the major institutional types of higher
> education, proportionate to their enrollment of students.
>
> Fourth is to create regulations that permit multiple approaches rather
> than one-size fits all. We debated a lot about that in last neg­reg
> process. As you know, one of the great strengths of American higher
> education and of accreditation is our diversity. And on any given
> issue, there are so many different ways to approach or address a
> provision in the law\--we\'d like to request flexibility as
> regulations are drafted. We certainly want to address the spirit of
> the law, and even the letter, but to make sure there is flexibility to
> do so. With that, I want to just talk about a few specific principals.
>
> There are changes in the law dealing with accreditation on due
> process, and all of the regional accrediting bodies have gone through
> the current regulatory process and we have extensive due process
> procedures that all of us have been accepted through departmental
> review. They do work well, and the new law adds a provision in an
> appeal process to allow for new financial information to be
> reviewed\--to be received and reviewed, even after a final decision,
> and even during an appeal. And the appeal looks backward at the
> evidence that was available at the decision; this allows for new
> information.
>
> The law itself is quite clear, and all of us are actually working
> together to develop a process that will respond. One of our
> commissions already does permit this, the New England Commission.
> We\'d urge that any new regulations regarding due process be
> straightforward, allow for different approaches, and not go beyond
> what is already stated, we think, quite clearly in the law. For
> example, the law mentions that legal counsel is to be permitted in
> appeals proceedings. We already do that, but how they\'re to be
> involved or engaged should be left to each accrediting agency rather
> than defining what the standards would be.
>
> We also want to say that there must be a balance for our ability to
> act quickly. We are currently dealing with several institutions where
> we think there may be major issues, and we need to be able to act
> quickly while respecting the right of institutions to appeal.
>
> Transfer of credit to secondary\--which, as you know, is the first
> time it\'s actually identified in the law. So, a contentious issue in
> the last negotiated rulemaking\--here, again, we\'d say that the
> provisions in the law are quite clear. Institutions must have and
> publish their policies on transfer of credit and their criteria that
> they will apply in making decisions on transfer.
>
> Given the directness of the language and the plain meaning of it, we
> would urge that no further interpretation is needed beyond restating
> the law, and we will look at the publication of this in our
> accrediting reviews. With distance education, I\'ve already mentioned
> the authentication provision. I just wanted to state the conferee
> provision did state, \"As new identification systems are developed and
> become more sophisticated, less expensive, and more mainstream, the
> conferees anticipate that accrediting agencies and associations and
> institutions will consider their use in the future.\" And again, I
> just would like to urge that we all work together to develop an
> appropriate response, but not to settle on the precise way in which it
> will be adopted, because we\'ve got to figure this one out. And
> already, we\'re starting to talk with our institutions, how they\'re
> doing that. Finally, as monitoring institutional growth, there is new
> language in the law requiring accrediting agencies to \"monitor the
> growth of programs that are experiencing significant enrollment
> growth.\" We already have that practice. In fact, it was a part of our
> last staff review. We had to develop protocols for that. But the
> idea\--the question of what is significant, how do you define
> enrollment, is very dependent on the institution\'s context. In a
> small institution, it could be one thing, in a very large,
> comprehensive institution\--could mean something quite different. So,
> again, we would urge a flexible response that allows us to work with
> each institutional size and context.
>
> Finally, and to conclude, I just want to reaffirm my personal
> commitment on behalf of WASC, both Commissions of WASC, and speaking
> for all the regional accrediting executives\--that we would be glad to
> work with you. We\'ve worked well with the Department in the past and
> feel we can get all these issues resolved and hopefully with a
> successful neg-reg process next time.
>
> Thank you very much.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** Thank you, Ralph. I\'ve got a couple of things that
> come to mind. First of all, really? You really want to do it again?
>
> **MR. WOLFF:** Not really, but we have to.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** No, I appreciate your role the last time and enjoyed
> working with you in that process, even though we didn't come to
> consensus on that regulatory package.
>
> As you\'ve been thinking about and looking at the issues around
> distance learning and authentication, you know, I hear you say that we
> should have flexibility and I think that\'s likely-­necessary, given
> the development. Is there\--are there some strategies that you are
> hearing from institutions that have particular strength in your view,
> or is it just way too early to know what might be going on that you
> think is workable? And you can just say you think it\'s too early. I
> don\'t want to\...
>
> **MR. WOLFF:** Well, I do think it\'s too early, but let me
> just\--let\'s put it this way: think we all need to talk about how to
> approach it. But I\'ll give you an example. A number of our
> institutions have said\--as we\'ve talked about this issue even before
> the law was adopted\--rely on multiple interactions in the course of a
> week even, or the course of a term, that a student needs to log on and
> engage in both threaded and non-threaded conversations, synchronous
> and asynchronous.
>
> And so, some institutions say that the very multiplicity of
> interactions\--that, a, you couldn\'t pay somebody to do all of that,
> and secondly, that there is a way of really discerning that somebody
> would do it. So, there\'s no technological solution for that. Others
> have proctored exams, where they\'ll exams on a particular site, but
> not all courses have an exam. Some will require papers and the like.
> Some are exploring technological solutions, fingerprint credentialing
> or iris in the eyes, and the like. And that\'s why we just say
> that\--I think all of us are trying to figure out with a wide range of
> programs that one approach may not work given the different range of
> pedagogical approaches to distance learning.
>
> So, we\'re trying to ask our institutions-­and part of the \"too
> early,\" is how are you thinking of going about doing this? How have
> you been doing it? And it is something that we would see part of our
> review process, and we ourselves need to write protocols of how we
> would expect institutions to come into compliance.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** Okay. When you speak about proportionality on
> negotiating committees, we struggle between size of committee and
> getting the right kinds of representation, and you\'ve been through
> the process. Could you say something about size of committee and how
> you get proportionality in keeping the committee small.
>
> **MR. WOLFF:** Well, without trying to be personal about it, there
> were a couple of people in the last neg-reg committee who were there
> because of a very special interest, and not representative of a
> category of either schools or interests. And therefore, in my personal
> opinion, were not able to contribute a great deal to what was really a
> wide range of really important issues that we all\--then, and in the
> future, are going to need to talk about. So, my sense is that, number
> one, that there are\--over 50 percent of these students today are in
> two-year institutions and public institutions\--that there really does
> need to be representation that is effective. I\'d also like to say
> that national associations do represent their constituencies.
>
> There was no one at the table from any of the national associations.
> We didn't feel we were. We were representing accrediting associations
> and, as you know, Judith Eaton, perhaps.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** Yeah.
>
> **MR. WOLFF:** So, it would be the sense of vocational and career
> schools, traditional, regionally accredited schools, some
> proportionality of both institutional representatives as well as
> accrediting agencies.
>
> It was certainly important to have a range of accreditors at the
> table, because, as you know, the non-regionals have taken some very
> strong steps, and we can all learn from one another.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** Thank you, Ralph.
>
> **MR. WOLFF:** Thank you very much.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** Dana Pomerantz \[sic.\].
>
> Good morning, Dana. Thank you for coming.
>
> **MS. POMERANTZ:** Good morning. My name is Donna Pomerantz.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** Oh, I\'m sorry.
>
> **MS. POMERANTZ:** That\'s fine. Let me get situated, here. Just one
> moment, please.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** Take your time.
>
> **MS. POMERANTZ:** My name is Donna Pomerantz, and I am here on behalf
> of the American Council of the Blind. And the American Council of the
> Blind is eager to lend its many years of experience concerning
> accessible, instructional materials by sitting on the Advisory
> Commission on Accessible, Instructional Materials in Postsecondary
> Education for Students with Disabilities, as constructed under the
> Higher Education Opportunity Act. ACB was a leading participant in
> efforts to develop the legislative provisions regarding access to
> textbooks for K through 12 students. We worked tirelessly for over two
> years with blindness organizations and textbook publishers that
> resulted in the instruction\--excuse me, in the introduction of the
> Instructional Materials Accessibility Act, which called for a national
> file format and a textbook repository. This legislation was eventually
> incorporated into IDEA in 2004. Since then, staff, has actively worked
> with congressional staff to identify solutions to be included in the
> Higher Education Opportunity Act. This includes\--the lighting is very
> interesting for me up here, too. So, bear with me, please.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** I fully understand, because this is very bright
> light that shines in my eyes, making it hard to read the paper in
> front of me. So, I understand exactly what you\'re going through.
>
> **MS. POMERANTZ:** It is.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** Thank you.
>
> **MS. POMERANTZ:** And I read probably a font size of approximately 28
> to 36. So, bear with me, as I\'m a little bit slower here in the
> reading. will continue. This includes the insertion of language in
> Section 772 that calls for more than one organization representing the
> interests of the blind and visually impaired community on this
> advisory commission. We have access to individuals with both public
> policy and technological expertise who could provide valuable insight
> to this commission. These individuals are well versed in best
> practices for meeting the needs of both blind and visually impaired
> students.
>
> ACB has a long history of working together with our student affiliate,
> the National Alliance of Blind Students, to improve both the
> accessibility and quality of education for all students who are blind
> or visually impaired. Because our affiliate is primarily comprised of
> college students, higher education issues are a major part of this
> effort. It is ACB\'s sincere hope and expectation that we be appointed
> to sit on this advisory commission. We have the expertise and the know
> how to provide leadership regarding this critical issue on behalf of
> college students who are blind or visually impaired.
>
> Thank you very much for allowing me to comment before you today.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** Questions? I don\'t think we have any. Thank you,
> Donna.
>
> **MS. POMERANTZ:** Thank you.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** David Burns is our next witness.
>
> **MR. BURNS:** Good morning.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** Good morning.
>
> **MR. BURNS:** My name is David Burns. I am the Director of Emergency
> Management for UCLA. I\'m also affiliated with the International
> Association of Emergency Managers as the first Vice Chair of the
> University and Colleges Committee, and President of the California
> Campus and University Emergency Managers Association. I\'m speaking
> mainly today about UCLA\'s issues just as\--represent emergency
> management issues. I also have some concerns about fire safety
> standards, but it\'s not my area of expertise. I\'d like to thank you
> for the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed negotiated
> rulemaking process to implement the Higher Education Act of 2008.
>
> I respectfully request that the Department develop regulations for the
> following public safety emergency provisions contained within Title
> IV, Part G, Section 488 of the HEOA through the negotiated rulemaking
> process\--that a separate negotiating committee be established for
> these complex and vital issues surrounding the campus environment, and
> that members of the International Association of Emergency Managers,
> the Universities and Colleges Committee, IAEM UCC, be appointed to the
> negotiated rulemaking process. And part of the reason for that is, I
> think, if you look at campus safety emerging after Virginia Tech and
> national\--or Northern Illinois University, and many other instances
> occurring today\--just\--they had a pipe bomb explosion at Florida
> this morning. There are multiple disciplines involved in how public
> safety and emergency management across campuses nationally are
> comprised. You have law enforcement emergency managers, environmental
> health and safety specialists, fire departments, general services,
> facilities, and a whole other myriad of disciplines and institutions
> on a college campus providing public safety or managing or
> coordinating public safety. In fact, some poor soul gets tapped on the
> shoulder who has no credentialing, no experience, but works there and
> is told, \"You are the emergency manager. You now write the plan.\"
> That\'s a rare instance, but it\'s realistic. So, I have concerns
> about the rules, process, and policies associated with rulemaking in
> the following areas:
>
> Specifically, emergency notification. This is an area of the law where
> the terms used will need to be carefully defined. As an emergency
> management practitioner for 25 years working at the largest populated
> campus in California, it\'s important to understand there is no
> nationally approved standard for the term \"emergency.\" The U.S.
> Department of Homeland Security, DHS, Federal Emergency Management
> Agency, and the major public safety associations, the International
> Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators, IACLEA, the
> International Association of Emergency Mangers, the National Emergency
> Managers Association, NEMA, which is the state directors, the
> International Association of Fire Chiefs, the International
> Association of Chiefs of Police, University and College Section, and
> the National Association of Police Organizations, have yet to agree or
> establish any consensus on the word or term \"emergency.\" Even
> federal law does not address this, except under the Stafford Act for
> Presidential Declarations. So, there is no\--and when you throw in
> \"significant emergency\" or \"dangerous situations,\" which has been
> used in previous legislative attempts at the bills and modifying HEA,
> you run into some real issues. In fact, five new bills have been
> passed in the last two weeks through the House and Senate and may end
> up in the Higher Education Act as addendum bills.
>
> So, using the events of the past few years as examples, notification
> of an incident needs clear definition for the reporting of an event
> after confirmation of that event and allowance for personal evaluation
> of that event prior to a campus-wide alert. For example, does the
> federal government intend to prescribe a reporting protocol for a
> single student with a transmissible infectious disease such as
> meningitis, or in some instances what Michigan has been dealing with
> E. coli and food poisoning, because public health emergencies don\'t
> fall under campus and DOE legislative jurisdiction, they fall under
> public health, which is regulated state and federal law. Or for that
> matter, would notification take place for a hurricane that\'s still
> days away from making landfall? Is notification required for a
> credible terrorist or bomb threat? We deal with these every month,
> especially during finals. There are a myriad of issues that campus
> emergency officials contend with every day in determining appropriate
> emergency notification. The overuse of notification systems can
> significantly disrupt the entire campus community. If the guidelines
> issued are too broad, we can see the emergency notification process
> will create substantial false alarms, which disrupts classes and
> limits the confidence in those systems.
>
> At worse, it lessens the credibility in campus warning systems and
> procedures. We could actually have people start to ignore them because
> they don\'t trust them, because they\'re issued so frequently.
>
> In all cases, the definitions, the terms, for compliance and, more
> importantly, the exercise of notification procedures need to protect
> those on campus. Judgments or further events off campus that may
> spread to the campus need to be clearly defined. In all instances, the
> professional judgment of first responders, emergency managers, and
> other campus health and safety personnel must be balanced with a
> notification requirement to ensure that emergency situations are
> communicated to those on campus in ways that are timely, accurate, and
> useful. And I haven\'t even really got into this, but the cost impact
> of an emergency notification is substantial. UCLA has spent \$600,000
> in the past 18 months implementing emergency notification systems.
> When you talk about emergency notification, you\'re talking about
> indoor systems, outdoor systems, and e-technologies. And since
> Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois, SMS and text messaging have
> become the popular choice, but that could change and those systems
> aren\'t effective. These systems have to be robust, they have to be
> redundant, it requires multiple systems, it\'s very expensive.
>
> The IAM did a research\--looking at universities nationwide. It would
> cost each university approximately \$1 million to implement indoor,
> outdoor, and e-tech systems that are robust and redundant. Nationally,
> that could cost \$4 billion, with a \"b.\"
>
> The other area of concern is regarding emergency response and
> evacuation procedures. Higher education institutions must provide the
> campus community with a statement of policies and procedures related
> to emergency response and evacuation, in essence, requiring the
> establishment of emergency operations or management plan. This will be
> the most complex issue for negotiated rulemaking. The many different
> missions, resources, programs, structures, and make-up of the
> country\'s colleges and universities will necessitate a level of
> flexibility, understanding, and care to implement this provision. Even
> a summary discussion of this topic would require a multi-page
> submission. As a campus emergency management practitioner, I\'m keenly
> aware of the need to plan for emergencies. I understand that this
> subject must be given special and focused consideration to ensure
> proper and appropriate application across different institutions, and
> be applicable to all hazards, and I strongly encourage the Department
> to do the same.
>
> UCLA is an institution comprised of 30 divisions with 340 separate
> departments, working at 175 facilities on 419 acres. Do the new
> regulations require annual evacuation exercises at each facility, just
> housing, or both on- and off-campus housing? Only the facilities
> associated with those housing\--or various other issues? The
> Department needs to issue clear guidance so the effected public safety
> disciplines can meet the compliance issues under the HEOA. So, given
> the complexity of the issues subject to the new regulations, it\'s
> imperative that college and university professionals with practical
> experience of credentialing in these areas be included in the
> substantive rulemaking process and discussion. So, again, I formally
> request the appointment of members of the International Association of
> Emergency Managers, the University and Colleges Committee, UCC, to the
> negotiated rulemaking panels involved with these decisions. The IAEM
> UCC represents the emergency management issues surrounding college and
> university campuses at over 400 institutions nationally, and is
> dedicated to promoting the goals and saving lives and protecting
> property during emergencies and disasters.
>
> Thank you.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** Any questions? Thank you, David.
>
> **MR. BURNS:** Thank you.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** Catherine Graham. Good morning, Catherine.
>
> **MS. GRAHAM:** Good morning, David. Thank you.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** Thank you.
>
> **MS. GRAHAM:** I\'m very excited to be here representing my
> colleagues, Darlene and Crystal, who are practitioners like me,
> working in a financial aid office here in California. My name is
> Catherine Graham. I represent Loyola Marymount University as the
> Director of Financial Aid. Several of my colleagues for which I work
> with are also here. Pat has given some very good testimony today for
> which we would like you to consider to the fullest. I\'ve been in
> financial aid for 19 years. I\'ve worked at four schools, and I\'ve
> been a Director at three. I\'d like to speak today as practitioner
> about the impact of the TEACH Grant as well as the Part B student loan
> program.
>
> As it pertains to the TEACH Grant, the last I checked, there were 19
> schools in California that have implemented this program. We are
> pleased that, on behalf of our students, we have in fact implemented
> this program, for which we expect 450 students to take advantage.
>
> The implementation program has been tremendous, and we are further
> bogged down by the notion of the entrance counseling requirement. So,
> although I know it\'s not exactly on the table today, I\'m hoping that
> perhaps that could be addressed. More importantly, though, we would
> like to be able to guide and advise our students at LMU, and any
> student that takes advantage of the TEACH Grant Program on what their
> expectations could be, should there be reasonable circumstances for
> which they cannot seek or obtain the employment for which the
> continuation of the program as a grant be sustained. So, at this
> point, I would like to request that the Department establish
> regulations that are broad enough to include a variety of reasonable
> circumstances and a process by which the recipient may appeal a
> negative decision. As it pertains to the Part B student loan program,
> I\'m pleased to report that a recent release of our cohort default
> rate was less\--was exactly 1 percent, and we attribute our successful
> default rate, as many of my colleagues would do, to the\--due to the
> efficient and effective work of their contributions to our in-person
> exit and entrance counseling. I\'m speaking of our guarantor and our
> lending partners. We believe that our lending partners and our
> guarantor partners have a very good and precise handle on what is
> happening in the student loan marketplace, and are best equipped to
> guide and advise on both entrance and exit counseling.
>
> Thus, my point is that we request that the Department reaffirm that
> the role of the lenders and guarantee agencies in both entrance and
> exit counseling are critical. I\'d like to thank you for your time
> today, and Loyola Marymount University will be submitting written
> testimony on other issues for which I did not address today. Thank
> you.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** Thank you, Catherine. Would you like to say anything
> more about the kinds of things that your students\--you think your
> students need to hear, particularly when they sign up for a TEACH
> Grant. Is there some central message you would like us to try to find
> to communicate through our whatever-we-do in terms of counseling?
>
> **MS. GRAHAM:** The counseling requirement is one of the things that
> we\'ve had to incur a tremendous amount of both fiscal and time
> burdens. We\'ve had to put together the entrance counseling tool. If
> you could hurry along on the entrance counseling tool for TEACH Grant,
> that would be most appreciative. I don\'t know what message you could
> give, but we\--we\'re struggling with this component.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** Okay. I just was curious if there was something in
> particular as you\'ve been working with students that you think is
> important to get across.
>
> So, if\--as you work on your written comments, if you could give us
> some suggestions on the kinds of messages we need to emphasize in
> developing that tool, that would be great.
>
> **MS. GRAHAM:** Thank you very much, David.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** Thank you, Catherine. Sharon Iverson. Good morning,
> Sharon.
>
> **MS. IVERSON:** Good morning. I\'m here representing the American
> Speech Language and Hearing Association. In doing this, I\'m
> representing speech language pathologists throughout the fifty states
> of our Union. The Higher Education Opportunity Act signed into law on
> August 15, 2008 reauthorizes the Higher Education Act of 1965. HEOA
> includes several provisions to make postsecondary education more
> affordable and accessible, including changes in HEA\'s student loan
> programs. HEOA creates a new loan forgiveness program for
> professionals identified as having a shortage. School-based speech
> language pathologists and audiologists are among other professionals
> eligible to apply for this program: up to \$2,000 in a year for no
> more than five years, and \$10,000 in the aggregate of outstanding
> loans would be forgiven. It is my understanding that there are no
> current appropriations to fund this program. Loan forgiveness is one
> tool that states and school districts can use to help recruit and
> retrain qualified school-based speech language pathologists and
> audiologists. However, federal education statutes and regulations on
> student loan forgiveness are incongruent and need to be harmonized.
> There is a growing need for school-based speech language pathologists
> and audiologists. The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that
> between 2004 and 2015, more than 14,000 additional speech language
> pathologists will be needed to fill vacancies, a 15 percent increase
> in job openings.
>
> Similarly, according to the BLS, more than 3,000 additional
> audiologists will be needed to fill demand between 2002 and 2012, a 29
> percent increase in job openings. Many Title I schools fight a
> constant battle to recruit and retrain qualified personnel, including
> qualified speech language pathologists and audiologists. The U.S.
> Department of Education\'s 24th annual report to Congress on the
> implementation of IDEA, states that almost half of all school-based
> SLPs will be eligible for retirement by 2017. The study concludes
> that, unless the number of newly prepared SLPs increases
> substantially, a severe shortage will be unavoidable. The new loan
> forgiveness program under HEA would encourage SLP and audiology
> graduates to accept positions in school-based settings. In my
> district, we have tried sign-on bonuses, we\'ve tried stipends onto
> the teachers\' pay scale, and we still\--we\'re the third largest
> school district in the State of California\--we still end up hiring
> some years\--as high as 15 private sector speech language pathologists
> at a cost of \$120,000 per person, whereas our district-based speech
> pathologists start at \$49,000.
>
> In addition, the shortage of educational audiologists has emerged as
> one of the most serious challenges in implementing school-based
> hearing and screening programs to ensure that identification, auditory
> management, and the education, communication, and psychosocial needs
> of children with hearing loss and/or auditory processing disorders are
> not neglected, adequate numbers of audiologists must be available to
> provide services to children. In some locations, there is 1
> audiologist for every 10,000 children, age birth through 21 years old,
> to provide screening and basic diagnostic audiological services. I
> want to make mention that ASHA supports the current statutory
> regulations related to accreditation and requests that the Department
> of Education not consider accreditation as part of the negotiated
> rulemaking.
>
> ASHA also supports, as an accrediting body, the Council on Academic
> Accreditation as the recognized specialized accreditor for the
> professions of speech language pathology and audiology. Judgments
> about student achievement should remain in the hands of institutions,
> and should not be shifted to the federal government through the
> Department of Education\'s role in recognizing accredited
> organizations. The core of accreditors\' activities should be on
> standards to support the student acquisition of knowledge and skills
> on protocols for how programs can demonstrate that students are
> achieving the necessary outcomes. Accreditation is a highly successful
> and well-tested system of quality assurance and quality improvement.
> ASHA requests that the Department of Education include speech language
> pathologists and audiologists among the providers eligible for funds
> under professional preparation programs in Title II. Induction into
> teacher training and recruitment efforts should be extended to speech
> language pathologists and audiologists as they are an integral part of
> the special education team. In response to identified shortages of
> school-based speech language pathologists and audiologists, Congress
> identified them as professions eligible for loan forgiveness in areas
> of national need under Title IV, allowing speech language pathologists
> and audiologists access to professional preparation funds under Title
> II is another means by which to retain and recruit these
> professionals.
>
> Speech language pathologists and audiologists should be provided with
> the same access to training and education opportunities since they are
> part of a student\'s education team. I\'ve often been asked by our
> beginning speech language pathologists why, when they work side-by­side
> in small offices that are\--often have bathroom tile on the
> walls\--that they are not given the same consideration as their
> special educators that they work side-by-side with for loan
> forgiveness. States should be given flexibility to utilize funds to
> provide training opportunities to all professionals who provide
> services to children in schools. Thank you very much for this
> opportunity to address you.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** Thank you.
>
> **MR. MADZELAN:** I do have a question for you. You correctly note
> that this particular provision to which you spoke, this student loan
> forgiveness, is not like our existing teacher loan forgiveness in that
> it is not mandatorily funded. It does require appropriations which
> the\--Congress has not done yet\--of course, no expectation that they
> would have at this time. But given that, with, you know, a
> discretionary approach to the funding, which means that the Congress
> would appropriate a specific amount of money for this activity, to
> provide loan forgiveness to these persons\--is there anything in the
> statute regarding eligibility of persons to receive this loan
> forgiveness benefit that needs to be adjusted, either expanded or
> perhaps constricted?
>
> Again, the notion is, if the Congress provides a fixed amount of
> money, and that amount is less than the demand that is out there, then
> you kind of turn this into a first-come first-serve benefit. And I\'m
> wondering if you think that perhaps a way to address that or perhaps
> mitigate this first-come, first-serve approach is maybe some
> modifications to the eligibility requirements that are specified in
> the statute. I\'m wondering if you\'ve given any thought to that, or
> you think the statute is dead-on with respect to the eligible
> population.
>
> **MS. IVERSON:** Well, what I\'d like to do in addressing that is get
> back with Catherine Clark, who is ASHA\'s educational person, and pass
> that along to her, and maybe she could contact you.
>
> **MR. MADZELAN:** Yeah, we\'re still\--
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** We\'re receiving public comment until\--in general,
> until October 8th, and we\'ll have our last hearing in Cleveland
> on\--I think it\'s October 15th. So, we have a little more time in the
> public comment hearing during which we can hear.
>
> **MR. MADZELAN:** Yeah, this is the kind of thing we\'re interested
> in, because these discretionarily funded loan forgiveness programs are
> a special challenge for us to administer.
>
> **MS. IVERSON:** Right, I understand. We have a lot of budget issues
> right now. Thank you.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** Can I\--I have a question, also, and that is, you
> noted that your school district has used signing bonuses and other
> financial tools to try to encourage people to come and work for your
> district, and you\'ve procured outside services where necessary to
> fill gaps. Have you tried or do you know any other school district
> that has tried to use loan forgiveness as a recruitment tool, and
> whether\--and if you do know of any, do you know of any success
> related to that?
>
> **MS. IVERSON:** I do not. The way I understand what I\'ve been told
> from my district is that isn\'t in the purview of the school
> districts, but maybe it could be. Maybe I just\--
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** Yeah, I mean-school districts and other employers I
> know have used loan forgiveness or loan repayment programs where they
> actually make the payments on behalf of the employee while they\'re
> employed at that institution or that agency to\--and for me, I\'m
> trying to understand how a school district would use a national
> benefit to recruit students, and I\'m having a hard time\--I\'m
> struggling with understanding how that works. And so, that\'s why I
> was asking the question if you knew of any\...
>
> **MS. IVERSON:** No, I do not.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** Could you pass that question along to your national
> association, also.
>
> **MS. IVERSON:** I will. Thank you.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** That would be great. Thank you, we appreciate it.
>
> **MS. IVERSON:** Thank you.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** Lauren Asher is our next speaker. Actually, Lauren
> is the last person to sign up before lunch. So, if anyone is in the
> room that has not signed up and wishes to testify before we break for
> lunch, that would be very helpful, and if you saw Don or Jessica, that
> would be great. Lauren, nice to see you again.
>
> **MS. ASHER:** Nice to see you, too. Can you hear okay through this
> mike?
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** Yes.
>
> **MS. ASHER:** So, I\'m Lauren Asher. I\'m the Vice President for the
> Institute for College Access and Success, which is a nonprofit,
> nonpartisan policy research organization. We work to make higher
> education more affordable and available to people of all backgrounds.
> I think you know enough about the HEOA. I won\'t go into our
> description of it in our written comments. But I want to start with
> the fact that higher education is more important than ever for
> today\'s students and families and for our economy as a whole. It\'s
> also gotten more complicated than ever for families to figure out how
> to pay for college. My comments are going to focus primarily­-or solely
> on the Title IV provisions, and somewhat narrowly on areas where we
> have some expertise and think the stakes are significantly high for
> students and families. This regulatory process is an important
> opportunity to consider not only the specific provisions in the HEOA,
> but also how well the amended HEA as a whole fulfills the overarching
> purpose of our financial aid system, and that purpose is to give all
> Americans a fair shot at a college education regardless of their
> income or family background.
>
> The way our financial aid programs are administered makes a tremendous
> difference in whether they actually achieve the intended goals of
> educational opportunity that Congress intended.
>
> The timing, quality, and accessibility of information about aid\--who
> is eligible, what is available, what it can pay for, and how to get
> it, these affect critical decisions about whether to go to college at
> all, what kind of college to go to, and how to pay for it. These
> decisions, including whether to borrow, how much, and from whom can
> make the difference between getting ahead and falling behind for a
> lifetime. We ask the Department to approach this rulemaking process
> from the perspective of the students and families who will be affected
> by their recommendations. These include not only today\'s high school
> juniors and seniors and their parents, but also fifth graders who have
> yet to start even thinking about college, students who are already in
> college and struggling to pay their bills, and millions of borrowers
> who are trying to pay off their student loans without knowing if
> they\'ll be able to put their own kids through college. We have
> suggestions for several issues, and we recognize that many other
> important issues will be raised by others here today. I also just want
> to clarify whether you\'ll be accepting additional comments through
> the 8th or the 15th.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** We are receiving them through the 8th through our
> e-mail address, and then\--but we will have one additional hearing on
> the 15th.
>
> **MS. ASHER:** But you\'d have to be there in person to submit them.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** Yes, please.
>
> **MS. ASHER:** Okay. The first area I want to address is the need to
> improve rules for financial aid information that colleges are required
> to provide to prospective and current students. The Department already
> requires departments to provide a wide range of information about
> financial aid. It should review these requirements with an eye to what
> students and families really need to make informed decisions.
>
> For example\--and these are not exhaustive examples, for everyone\'s
> sake\--the current regulations require colleges to provide information
> about the \"general categories\" of financial aid that are available
> to their students. This should be amended to require colleges to list
> gift aid separate from loans, distinguish federal from non-federal
> loans, and if non-federal loans are listed, to make clear that they do
> not come with the same borrower protections as federal loans.
>
> Another example: Colleges are required to publish and \"make readily
> available upon request to enrolled and prospective students the
> institutions total cost of attendance,\" among other things. Students
> should not have to request the total cost of attendance figure;
> however, our examination of financial aid award letters from a wide
> variety of colleges around the country indicates that many students
> would have to do just that when they\'re dealing with the decision
> about whether they can afford that particular college based on the
> actual offer they\'ve received. The total cost of attendance should be
> provided as a matter of course in all financial aid award letters in a
> way that students can see how grant and federal loan aid, separately
> and together, affect their net cost. We also recommend drawing a
> distinction between grant aid that is only available for covering
> tuition at a particular institution and state or federal grants that
> are portable and can be used to cover the full range of college costs.
> As I know you know, there\'s a lot of misperceptions among students
> and families about what aid can be used for. Often, the assumption is
> it can only be used for tuition and fees, and that can really
> constrain decisions.
>
> We also want to encourage you to integrate information about
> income-based repayment and public service loan forgiveness into
> existing regulations wherever relevant. The proposed rules for the
> CCRAA don\'t actually address all those instances. They cover some
> important ones, but there are a lot of other ones throughout the
> regulations. For instance, rules governing entrance and exit
> counseling for federal loans, as well as disclosure requirements for
> lenders must be reviewed in light of the availability of these two new
> programs, which expand repayment and forgiveness options. There\'s a
> requirement, for example, that entrance counseling include \"sample
> monthly repayment amounts,\" based on several potential factors. These
> do not currently include income. So, income really needs to be
> factored in, as well as indebtedness in providing people with general
> estimates of what repayment might look like, to help them understand
> whether income-based repayment would be useful for them and what it
> would mean.
>
> Entrance counseling is also an opportunity to warn students about the
> hazards of private student loans and the availability of Parent PLUS
> Loans, which leads me to a broader point about the need to protect
> students from direct-to-consumer marketing and private loans when
> possible. The Department really should maximize all opportunities to
> distinguish private from federal loans and required information from
> both colleges and lenders.
>
> The Department should also aggressively monitor the
> \"self-certification process,\" established by the HEOA, in which
> students download a form or do something else that they then report to
> the lender with their full cost of attendance and other amounts that
> could lead to excessive borrowing and enable fraud by both lenders and
> borrowers, because those numbers aren\'t verified by the school.
>
> There\'s also a need to reduce the potential for gaming by private
> proprietary schools. The Department should carefully review in
> consultation with experts in consumer protection the changes to the
> 90-10 rule for proprietary institutions. For example, the provisions
> allowing some additional revenue to be counted within the 10 percent
> are open to wide interpretation and create the potential for dangerous
> loopholes and gaming. In particular, college could inflate its
> published tuition, let\'s say, by \$5,000, and give all students a
> \$5,000 grant or tuition discount, and claim that discount as
> qualifying for non-Title IV revenue. The rules should define
> qualifying discounts in a way that prevents this particular form of
> gaming. It\'s also important to limit conflict of interest between
> lenders and colleges. I know that the HEOA in some ways provides more
> room for conflict of interest than the Department\'s own proposed
> regulations. The HEOA does go a long way towards limiting conflicts of
> interest, but it does not eliminate the potential for abuse. Students
> and their families turn to campus financial aid offices for help in
> making wise borrowing decisions, and they expect to get full and fair
> information about their financial aid options. The Department needs to
> set clear parameters about appropriate levels of involvement by
> lenders and guarantors in the loan counseling process, and we believe
> narrow them as much as possible to prevent sales tactics that can be
> hidden in other types of informational activities. One way to deal
> with that is for the Department to develop and disseminate tools and
> information that give colleges good, unbiased alternatives to
> information provided by entities that have a more vested and
> conflicted interest in the students\' ultimate decision.
>
> Finally, we ask the Department to more clearly indicate the
> significance of cohort default rates. Agency review and public
> scrutiny of cohort default rates should focus on institutions where
> the rate is the most likely to represent a real problem with
> institutional quality and compliance. This is not the case at colleges
> where a low proportion of students have federal loans, and that
> includes most community colleges. We recommend the Department clearly
> distinguish between institutions that are subject to sanctions, and
> those that would likely be exempt due to low participation rates;
> however, we don\'t necessarily recommend not publishing those rates
> for schools that might meet those criteria, and we have provided some
> suggestions in the past, and we\'d be happy to continue those
> discussions.
>
> So, thank you very much for this opportunity. We may provide some
> additional or more specific notes before the end of the 8th, and are
> available for any questions.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** Thank you, Lauren.
>
> **MS. ASHER:** Thank you.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** I think that concludes the list of people who have
> signed up to testify this morning. So, unless there are others who
> wish to testify before we take a break for lunch, we\'ll adjourn until
> 1:00.
>
> Thanks, everybody.
>
> **\[Recess.\]**
>
> **AFTERNOON SESSION**
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** Good afternoon. We\'re going to go back and reopen
> the hearing. We have, at this moment, two people who have signed up to
> testify, and so we\'ll hear from those two people. If others have an
> interest in testifying, see Don or Jessica and they will sign you up.
> Our first witness of the afternoon is Ronald Johnson. Ronald, welcome.
>
> **MR. JOHNSON:** Good afternoon.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** Good afternoon.
>
> **MR. JOHNSON:** My name is Ronald Johnson and I am the Director of
> Financial Aid at UCLA, and I wish to concur, first of all, with my two
> colleagues who spoke earlier, Pat Hurley and the President of the
> California Community College Student Association, as we are partners
> in the pipeline of helping students attain their undergraduate
> degrees.
>
> I am very concerned about the provision in the Higher Education
> amendments which allows families to refuse to contribute to their
> children\'s education. I believe this encourages a breach in the
> longstanding partnership of the student, parent, federal government,
> and institution. And if this particular provision or option is allowed
> to be implemented without very detailed oversight, I believe it will
> create and encourage students and mostly parents to ignore their
> responsibility to contribute to their child\'s undergraduate
> education.
>
> More than a third of parents today have either decreased the amount of
> money that they save for the children\'s college cost or stop saving
> completely, and this was based on a survey that was recently done by
> Fidelity. I am concerned that if this provision is allowed to be
> implemented without, as I said, detailed oversight, it will erode the
> necessity the parents to feel that they must maintain their role in
> the partnership which has been longstanding and has been a tenet of
> financial aid. So, I\'m hoping that there will be some very serious
> discussion and review and guidelines that will provide good guidance
> to schools. If families are unable to contribute to their education
> because of reasons of not having the resources, we will certainly
> address that through many of our processes, professional judgment, et
> cetera. The other concern that I have has to do with the FAFSA. As I
> agree with the fact that there should be every effort to achieve the
> goal of simplicity, I am also concerned that we don\'t go to the
> extreme and not give us the tools to assure that students who have
> legitimate financial need are not addressed. So, I want to make sure
> that we do not set up a situation of major loopholes that will allow
> people to drive literally trucks through.
>
> Thank you very much.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** Thank you, Ronald. Dan, you got any questions?
>
> **MR. MADZELAN:** No.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** Elaine Mozena. Did I get that anywhere near right?
>
> **MS. MOZENA:** That\'s close-as close\--
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** Mozena. Thank you.
>
> **MS. MOZENA:** Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I am Elaine
> Mozena from California State University, Northridge, and I am the
> University Collection Officer. And I was just seeking some
> clarification that perhaps you can do during this process on Section
> 430 under loan forgiveness for service in areas of national need. They
> have one of the qualifications for forgiveness being a\--highly
> qualified teachers, and I think it would be very helpful if there was
> a deeper definition of highly qualified teachers.
>
> Also, national service, I think, needs to be clarified, as well as
> public sector employees, because I know when we get into discussions
> with our former students on cancelations, there will be those that
> could be just a clerk, could be a janitor\--it could be any segment.
> And without a real defined definition, they may think they may qualify
> under this guidance here.
>
> That\'s all I have. Thank you.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** Okay. I think we have a fairly extensive definition
> of \"highly qualified teacher\" that we use in the teacher loan
> forgiveness program that we currently have in FFEL and Direct Loans,
> and that\'s derived largely from No Child Left Behind\--so I think
> that, in that area, there\'s actually quite a bit of guidance that
> we\'ve already provided. Could you speak a little bit more about your
> concern about public sector employee.
>
> **MS. MOZENA:** Well, a lot of times, as I said, there will be people
> that\--we had cases where someone\'s just a clerk in the IRS, as an
> example, and they think that they can qualify for a forgiveness. So,
> sometimes just working in a department, they think that they qualify,
> and I don\'t know how you can narrow it down, but it might be helpful
> if we had a little bit more specification on exactly who would qualify
> under that public sector.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** So, your concern is that we attempt to narrow it or
> define it in such a way that it\'s easy to identify who those
> individuals are.
>
> **MS. MOZENA:** Right, especially when they get their form and it\'s
> like they think that they can qualify, and they can\'t.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** Thank you.
>
> **MS. MOZENA:** Thank you.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** I do not know that we have anyone else who has
> signed up to speak at this point. So, what we\'re going to do is
> adjourn to reconvene at 1:45. Thank you\--recess until 1:45. We\'ll
> recess.
>
> **\[Brief recess.\]**
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** Good afternoon. We\'re going to go ahead and resume
> the hearing. Catherine Jackson is the next person to come and speak to
> us. Good afternoon.
>
> **DR. JACKSON:** I\'m going to adjust a little bit upward.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** Yes, the last person was a little shorter than\...
>
> **DR. JACKSON:** Yes, I wasn\'t thinking I was that tall, so\--well,
> it\'s nice to be here. As you just heard, my name is Catherine
> Jackson, Dr. Catherine Jackson. I\'ve been a speech language
> pathologist for over 30 years. I\'m currently an Associate Professor
> at California State University, Northridge in the Department of
> Communication Disorders, and Sciences, and that\'s the academic field
> for speech language pathology and audiology. I\'d like to speak to you
> on behalf of the national organization which governs and supports
> speech language pathologists and audiologists, and that organization
> is called ASHA, the American Speech Language Hearing Association. And
> you\'re nodding yes, I see. You\'ve heard of it. Even more importantly
> than speaking on behalf of ASHA and my university, I\'d also like to
> speak to you on behalf of my graduate students. So, in our field of
> speech language pathology and audiology, universities prepare our
> students to work in a variety of settings: private practice, medical
> settings, and also educational settings. Here in California, in the
> San Fernando Valley, which is where CSUN, Cal State University of
> Northridge, is, I see enormous potential in our students to address a
> big issue in education, which is the chronic shortage of trained
> professionals in communication disorders and sciences. I\'m going to
> take a moment to tell you about some of the characteristics of our
> undergraduate and graduate students since the terminal degree for us
> is a graduate degree. At CSUN, our students are typically
> multilingual, they\'re from a variety of cultures. Many of them are
> starting out as post-baccalaureate students, so they come from a
> variety of other fields with a desire to do\--work in a field of
> service. They\'re uniformly, unbelievably excited about speech
> language pathology and audiology, and most of our students want to
> work either partly or entirely with students\--with children, even
> though they also might want to work with some adults. When I watch
> these students progress throughout their program, I notice that it\'s
> not an easy path for them. Their path appears to others contemplating
> this field difficult and at times unattractive for a variety of
> reasons. One is that they take out extensive loans to fund their
> graduate education. Another is that they also at the same time work
> throughout graduate school. And those two factors combined serve to
> protract the course of their education, so that it takes them longer
> to achieve their degree. And then, as they start their career,
> they\'re faced with the burden of loans, and it is not as if they are
> training in a field where they will be rewarded with extensive
> financial results. Now, despite these negative factors, our students
> persevere. We graduate 72-75 master students each year, a pretty
> substantial number for one university in addressing the shortage. Many
> of our best students state that they are not considering employment in
> the schools upon their graduation. Well, what makes this public school
> position unattractive to them? Primarily, they cite the enormous and
> overwhelming caseloads caused by the shortage of speech language
> pathologists in the state, but also everywhere else. They understand,
> because of the shortage, they will not be able to\--they will be
> shortchanging their students. They\'ve also spoken to those of us who
> are already out in the field in the public school setting and who are
> burned out and have gone into private practice or into a medical
> setting of some sort, anywhere where they feel they can actually do
> their job and have some kind of impact.
>
> I\'m going to tell you about an incident yesterday, when I spoke to a
> group of graduate students. This was a group of ten graduate students
> in a very intimate clinical class, and we spent a lot of time
> together. I took an informal poll. First, I asked how many of them
> were hoping to work with children. Out of the\--actually it was eleven
> graduate students\--ten out of the eleven said that they wanted to
> work some or all of their practice\--have that be with children.
>
> So, then I talked with them and familiarized them with the Higher
> Education Opportunity Act, and I outlined the work of the amendment
> committee in including speech language pathology and audiology
> students in the loan forgiveness program. Two additional students
> indicated that, if this was funded, that that might change their focus
> to public school practice. So, now we\'re to\--out of the eleven, we
> have three that are considering public schools. All of them were
> disappointed\--and our students don\'t fail to express themselves when
> they\'re disappointed\--that there was, currently, no funding
> mechanism set aside. I elaborated further. I told them, if speech
> language pathologists and audiologists were included in Title II
> funding, they would have access to funds to continue their education
> and their training to maintain their skills and their national
> certification.
>
> At this point, I had their full attention. They were beginning to
> realize the full benefits of the Higher Education Opportunity Act, the
> possibility of taking out more loans, completing their education in a
> more timely fashion, because they would be able to work less and take
> more courses every semester, knowing that their employment in the
> schools would allow them to participate in loan forgiveness, the
> financial incentive of the continuing education benefit under Title II
> once they were out in the community, and, finally, the potential
> increase in the total number of specialists, then, who would be
> attracted to the public schools, making their caseload and their work
> more manageable. All these things together, I think, would make public
> school employment much more attractive: smaller caseloads, fewer
> lawsuits by families who had been underserved by the SLP shortage, and
> children who got the appropriate services. At this point, eight of the
> eleven said, under those conditions, they would consider working in
> the public schools. It is clear to me, at least, that the Higher
> Education Opportunity Act can make a difference in the availability of
> the SLPs in the school, it could decrease time to graduation and
> encourage more students to enter the profession and to enter the
> public school educational team. Ultimately, it seems it could address
> the current crisis of the unavailability of speech language
> pathologists in California and elsewhere, and because of that, I think
> we need to do everything possible to provide speech language and
> audiology services for\--to provide the opportunities inherent in the
> Higher Education Opportunity Act. I want to thank you for allowing me
> to state some of the current concerns that faculty members at a
> university level and also that students have. This is a field that
> attracts people that are very passionate about our work, and I have
> had a passion for this field and for the work that we do for more than
> three decades, kind of a long time. I support any effort to continue
> to supply the Nation with specialists who can carry on our work, and
> it seems clear to me that the tripartite effects of the Higher
> Education Opportunity Act would allow us to do so. It would allow\--it
> would, to summarize, allow inclusion of our field in Title II funding,
> it would allow loan forgiveness, and it\--if we continued with the
> current statutory requirements required for accreditation, just be an
> enormous step towards ensuring the availability of speech language
> pathology and audiology services in our public schools.
>
> Thank you.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** Thank you. Janice Woolsey.
>
> **MS. WOOLSEY:** I\'m short.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** Good afternoon.
>
> **MS. WOOLSEY:** Hello. My name is Janice Woolsey. I\'m the Clinic
> Coordinator and an instructor in the Department of Communication
> Disorders and Sciences at Cal State Northridge. I want to thank you
> for giving me this opportunity to address the Committee. I\'ve also
> submitted my comments in writing at the front for you.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** Thank you.
>
> **MS. WOOLSEY:** And I\'d like to convey to you the feedback from
> those I represent, so let me tell you who I represent: the speech
> pathology training programs and the students in fourteen public and
> private universities in the State of California. I sit on the board of
> the governing body for all of our universities, and also the members
> of the American Speech Language and Hearing Association. I also speak
> to you today as the Commissioner of Publications and Research for the
> California Speech Language Hearing Association. I wear many hats. I
> reviewed the Higher Education Opportunity Act as it was signed into
> law this past August. I want to extend to you my great appreciation
> and that of our students to the amendments committee for including
> speech pathology students in loan forgiveness.
>
> Here in California, we have been experiencing a shortage of speech
> pathologists in the schools for several years. There are school
> districts in our state who have been assigned court monitors now to
> assist with implementing IEPs for children in need of speech
> pathology. One such district here in Southern California reported that
> more than 2,000 school children missed speech pathology services,
> IEP-mandated speech pathology services, this past year due to a
> shortage of qualified practitioners; that\'s a tremendous number of
> children not served. We\'re also experiencing retirement in large
> numbers. When I read the statistic that almost half of all
> school-based speech pathologists will be eligible for retirement in
> 2017, I\'m both shocked and saddened. This represents a huge
> brain-drain.
>
> The experienced personnel from whom our graduates could learn are
> leaving at a huge rate. But since we can\'t slow down the clock, I
> know that, since this fact is inevitable, we need to plan ahead. Our
> task now is to plan to fill every position before it becomes vacant. I
> see no way to do this without such enticements as loan forgiveness.
> The cost of higher education increases every year. I\'m putting two
> daughters through college, so I\'m also aware of the tuition cost, and
> the length of our programs continues to grow as new knowledge and
> skill areas are added to our basic curriculum requirements. In our
> clinical training programs, we prepare students to work in the
> schools, offering them the required coursework, and the onsite public
> school-based training that they need to become credentialed in this
> state. I believe this extra enticement of loan forgiveness would be
> all that many of our students would need to choose school-based speech
> pathology or audiology careers over private or medical settings, as
> Catherine has mentioned. It\'s my understanding that the authorization
> to include speech pathology and audiology students is only step one,
> now the authorization has to be funded. I respectfully request that
> funds be appropriated for the benefit of speech pathology and
> audiology students who wish to commit to working in the schools, and I
> invite you to call upon me and my university colleagues here in
> California to help or advise you in any capacity needed.
>
> Secondly, I would like to speak to you briefly about the accreditation
> process. Our national organization, ASHA, has requested that the
> accreditation statute be left alone. ASHA and its members support the
> current statutory requirements related to accreditation, and
> respectfully request that the Department of Education not include
> changes to the speech pathology and audiology accreditation process in
> this round of negotiated rulemaking. The fields of speech pathology
> and audiology are complicated. ASHA has standards that they\'ve set
> for minimum competencies for any university program across this
> country. So, there are approximately 240 minimum competencies
> for-­each\--for speech pathology and audiology. This carefully
> thought-through process for universities to certify the minimum
> competency of every student coming through the program is designed to
> ensure that the students demonstrate entry-level academic knowledge
> and clinical skills in all general areas of the field. This prepares
> them for their clinical fellowships in a variety of settings:
> school-based, hospital-based, medical-based, and private practice. A
> new speech pathology master\'s graduate entering the schools from an
> ASHA-accredited university program would be prepared to see school
> children with disorders ranging from articulation and phonological
> process disorders, fluency or stuttering disorders, vocal pathology
> and resonance disorders associated with cleft lip and pallet, language
> delays, language disorders\--including those associated with
> autism\--pragmatic and social aspects of communication, cognitive
> linguistic deficits, those in need of augmentative or alternative
> communication devices, and those who exhibit swallowing disorders.
> These are all listed in the minimal competencies in our ASHA
> accreditation already.
>
> Our field is also designed so that the new graduates continue their
> training for the first nine months of full-time work in our field;
> it\'s a formalized mentor-mentee relationship with an experienced
> speech pathologist or audiologist. This ensures the quality of our
> providers, and with this formal system in place, ASHA feels and I
> agree that accreditation should not be considered in negotiated
> rulemaking at this time. We like it the way it is. Ensuring the
> quality of our providers brings me to my third and final point. I
> would like to request that school-based speech pathologists and
> audiologists be included in Title II, thus affording them access to
> professional preparation funds. Continuing education and training are
> the hallmarks of great professionals. Some fields like ours mandate a
> minimum number of hours of training each year to update knowledge and
> skills. I would also like to submit for consideration that this is an
> excellent recruitment and retention tool to entice graduate students
> into school-based speech pathology and audiology careers at a time
> when hospitals and other medical sites are cutting back or eliminating
> funds for continuing education while ASHA and many individual state
> license boards have mandated them. Inclusion in Title II and
> appropriation of funds for continuing education would bring more
> speech pathologists and audiologists into school-based practice, and
> it would keep them there as well.
>
> Attendance is increasing each year at our national and state
> conventions, as well as the ASHA speech pathologists in the schools
> convention. All of these conventions provide continuing education
> opportunities, which is usually the only reason people attend. I\'m
> also a continuing education administrator for ASHA, so I am involved
> in many of these educational opportunities. I often hear our new grads
> say that they cannot afford to go to continuing education, but they
> are precisely the ones that we should be reaching and who should be
> taking advantage of this. Why can\'t they go? Many of them are still
> paying off their loans. So, this would also benefit\--the students
> would also benefit from networking and knowledge sharing that goes on
> at such convention events. But let\'s not forget the more seasoned
> speech pathologists and audiologists in the schools. Retention of our
> experienced professionals may hinge on inclusion of Title II funding
> as well. Private practices can lure them away, and sometimes they lure
> the best and the brightest away with promises of continuing education
> funding. More important, for the benefit of the children served, these
> experienced professionals should be funded so they can learn the
> newest, the latest, and the best practices that, combined with their
> experience and working knowledge of school-based issues is what will
> make them great mentors. Financial assistance. Inclusion of speech
> pathologists and audiologists in Title II funding for attendance as
> such educational opportunities could only increase the pool of
> better-trained, more up-to-date speech pathologists and audiologists
> providing services to children. And I want to thank you for this
> opportunity to speak for you on a topic for which I too have a lot of
> passion. And again, if there\'s anything I can do to help you with
> this process, I\'m happy to help. I wish you a good afternoon, and
> have a safe trip.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** Thank you, Janice. I think we may be at another
> break. If anyone is in the room and wishes to speak and hasn\'t signed
> up yet with Donald or Jessica in the back, please do that. Otherwise,
> we will wait and see if anyone else is available\--wants to come
> forward and testify. Thank you.
>
> **\[Recess.\]**
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** We\'ll go ahead and reconvene. Our next person
> coming to speak to us is Jesse Melgar. Hi, Jesse.
>
> **MR. MELGAR:** How\'s it going?
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** Great.
>
> **MR. MELGAR:** First of all, I\'d like to thank you all for coming
> out to the LA area; it\'s very convenient for me. My name is Jesse
> Melgar. I\'m a fourth-year political science and Chicano Studies
> student at UCLA, and I\'m also the Undergraduate Student Association
> Council External Vice President. What that means is my office does a
> lot of work with advocacy, specifically in regards to higher education
> within the UC and beyond. This year, I currently serve as the Chairman
> of the University of California Student Association Board of
> Directors. I know this is a lot. I\'m trying to slow it down for you
> all\--and UCSA is a coalition of student governments. Every UC belongs
> to the coalition, both grad, undergrad, and professional students, and
> we\'re here today to talk a little bit about\--well, I\'m here today
> to represent the over 200,000 students that we represent within UCSA
> and talk a little bit about the Higher Education Act. So, thank you
> all for having me.
>
> I\'ll begin with a little bit more about myself, and kind of why this
> bill is relevant to me. I am\--like I said, I\'m going into my fourth
> year at UCLA. I\'m a first generation college student. I receive a
> Pell Grant. I am under work study. So, I\'m also largely affected by a
> lot of the issues being presented today. UCSA is in coalition with the
> United States Students Association, so I know there are about five
> hearings or so, if I\'m correct, going on throughout the country, and
> we have students, you know, hopefully attending each of those
> meetings. And then, USSA, just so you all know\--have a little more
> background\--is a coalition of state student associations\--so,
> whether it be student government or different student organizations
>
> So, with that, I just wanted to talk to you all about some questions I
> had, and I\'ll address the Board and let you all know the questions
> that I have coming forward\--but I do want to start with saying we\'re
> really excited about the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.
> Obviously, in representing students\--a lot of the students we do
> represent come from low-income communities and are, you know,
> receiving financial aid in the form of, at the state level, Cal
> Grants, and then, at the national level, Pell Grants and work study,
> as I mentioned\--not to mention Perkins Loans. So, a few things I just
> wanted to bring up, first of which was the\--in reading over the\--in
> reading over the language of the Higher Education and Reauthorization
> Act\--and please correct me if I\'m wrong in my interpretation\--but I
> read a portion that mentioned that students are eligible to receive up
> to two Pell Grants in a single academic year, and I was just a little
> unclear as to whether or not that means that they are eligible for a
> Pell Grant when they enter their fall quarter or semester depending on
> the school\'s academic calendar, or if that means that they would be
> receiving it fall\--per semester, and if we\'re on quarter systems,
> how that would work\--and then, also, if they would be eligible to
> receive an award during the summer semester or session.
>
> **MR. MADZELAN:** Here\'s the easy way to think about that. You are an
> undergraduate. You go to school for four years, you get four Pell
> Grants. Under previous law, say you accelerated your program so that
> you finished in three years. So, you did four years\' of work in three
> years, you would get three years\' worth of Pell Grants, even though
> you\'ve essentially incurred four years\' worth of cost\--right?\--but
> you\'ve just accelerated­-
>
> **MR. MELGAR:** Correct.
>
> **MR. MADZELAN:** The notion here is that, if you finish your\--you
> accelerate and you finish your program in three years, you get four
> Pell Grants. So, again, just that\--the notion is, if you accelerate
> your program, we\'ll help you with the same funding level that you
> would have gotten had you not accelerated your program.
>
> **MR. MELGAR:** Okay.
>
> **MR. MADZELAN:** That\'s the basic idea.
>
> **MR. MELGAR:** So, now, if the students aren\'t aware that they\'re
> going to be graduating in three years and they graduate their third
> year, how will they receive that compensation for funding in the
> fourth year they will not be attending?
>
> **MR. MADZELAN:** Well, because they would have gotten, you know, the
> grant money previously. I know you\'re on a quarter system, but it\'s
> perhaps a little bit easier to think about it in a semester. So, right
> now, if you went fall and spring, two semesters, you get a Pell Grant.
> You come back in the summer for a full summer term, maybe you could
> get a Pell Grant, but it would count against next year. Again, the
> notion here is that you\'d get your one-half of Pell Grant for the
> fall, one half-year Pell Grant for the spring, and another half for
> the summer.
>
> So, actually, you get one-and-a-half Pell Grants within one year. So,
> again, if you do that three times, essentially you\'ve gotten the same
> amount of Pell Grant money that you would have gotten over four years.
> So, it doesn\'t require you to go around to attend year-round for your
> whole college career, but if you do that, for example, in one or two
> years, you\'ll get the extra Pell Grant money.
>
> **MR. MELGAR:** Okay. Thank you for clarifying that.
>
> **MR. MADZELAN:** That\'s the concept.
>
> **MR. MELGAR:** Thank you. Thank you for clarifying that. Just a few
> other questions. I know that there\'s a potential to expand the work
> study options. I just wanted to know if you all had any idea about
> what that means for students as far as-­and again, please correct if
> I\'m reading this wrong; I saw your facial expression\--expand to jobs
> that are under different criteria. What exactly is meant by expanding
> work study options? Does that mean beyond just the campus level into,
> like, community organizations, because I believe, currently, at least
> at UCLA, work study is only operational at the university?
>
> **MR. MADZELAN:** Yeah, it\'s the\--the notion there is\--and the new
> language is not an absolute requirement, and you know, that\'s partly
> because the existing language is not an absolute requirement. The
> notion is that, to the extent practicable, colleges and universities
> should place their work study students in jobs that have some
> connection to or relevance for their academic or career aspirations.
> You know, that\'s a laudable goal, but there\'s only so many jobs out
> there in particular areas. So, what the Congress has said in this
> Reauthorization is that, in addition to what we the Congress have
> always said, colleges and universities should make an effort to find
> work study employment in positions that enhance or expand a student\'s
> understanding of civic involvement\--that kind of thing. So, again,
> it\'s\--as we say, it\'s not a hard requirement, but rather a program
> purpose or objective that colleges and universities ought to ascribe
> to.
>
> **MR. MELGAR:** Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. And this is the
> last question: I know that there\'s a mention of public service loan
> forgiveness programs and expanding that, and I\'m just curious as to
> how that will be implemented and which fields of public service will
> be affected by the loan forgiveness program that\'s being proposed.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** Well, it\'s not a program that\'s been proposed;
> it\'s a program that\'s been enacted, but it is subject to
> appropriations. So, Congress has to appropriate money for these loan
> forgiveness programs.
>
> There is an existing public service loan forgiveness program within
> the Higher Education Act that was added, I think, under the College
> Cost Reduction and Access Act, for Direct Loans only, where the loans
> can be forgiven after ten years of repayment under income-based or
> income-contingent repayment or under the ten-year standard plan. So,
> that last one gets a little tricky, because it\'s unclear to me
> what\'s left after ten years of paying on a ten-year plan. But in the
> new law\--and I don\'t remember all the categories off the top of my
> head\--I think there were 20 or so.
>
> **MR. MADZELAN:** Sixteen.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** Sixteen new categories. They range from the speech
> pathologists and audiologists that work in schools\--I had this open
> before.
>
> **MR. MELGAR:** I\'m sorry. These sixteen new categories being added
> after\--
>
> **MR. MADZELAN:** New explicit categories.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** New explicit categories. So, they are early
> childhood educators, foreign language specialists, librarians, highly
> qualified teachers serving students who are limited
> English-proficient, low-income communities, under­represented
> populations, child welfare workers, speech language pathologists and
> audiologists, school counselors, public service employees, nutrition
> professionals, STEM employees, physical therapists, superintendents,
> principals, and other administrators in schools, and occupational
> therapists.
>
> **MR. MADZELAN:** The important thing to keep in mind here is that
> everything that David just mentioned\--these are new forgiveness
> programs, but they require Congress to provide an appropriation. That
> is different from the existing forgiveness programs we have chiefly
> for teachers, which\--you know, back in Washington, we call these
> mandatory programs, meaning that, if you, Jesse, meet the statutory
> eligibility requirements, you get the benefit, as opposed to under
> these new programs-­you know, you, Jesse, may meet the requirement, but
> if Congress hasn\'t appropriated the money\--you know, you\'ve met the
> requirement. I mean\--so, that\'s a very important distinction.
>
> And so, if Congress does appropriate the money, that would be a fixed
> pot. And so, yes, you, Jesse\--you meet the qualifications, the
> eligibility requirements for this loan forgiveness, but you better be
> a little bit closer to the front of the line\--
>
> **MR. MELGAR:** Right.
>
> **MR. MADZELAN:** \--than the rear, because the money will run out.
>
> **MR. MELGAR:** How often does Congress appropriate? Is it on an
> annual basis?
>
> **MR. MADZELAN:** Annual basis, yes.
>
> **MR. MELGAR:** Okay.
>
> **MR. MADZELAN:** And so, these are\--as we said, these are super
> brand-new programs, unlikely to be funded in the \'09
> appropriation\--our fiscal \'09 year just started. We have
> some\--yeah, today-­yesterday.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** Yesterday.
>
> **MR. MADZELAN:** Yesterday. Today\'s the second.
>
> And so, we\'re under some special rule at the moment, again, back in
> Washington. So, conceivably and realistically, the earliest that
> funding could occur would be for Fiscal \'10, which is the year that
> starts October 1, 2009.
>
> **MR. MELGAR:** Okay. That was, actually-­those are the three questions
> that I wanted to bring up. Again, I do thank you all for coming out
> here. As I said, I\'m a Bruin down the street, so it\'s really
> convenient. If I want to find\--because I know the language is really
> complex and I\'m sure you all are familiar with it, but for people
> like me and students who want to learn more about the issues, where
> can you direct us, or do there exist fact sheets that we can just have
> that, like, outline the changes the from the previous reauthorization
> to this year.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** Excellent that you asked, because at some point
> before I closed the hearing, I had to get the plug for the Web site
> in.
>
> **MR. MELGAR:** Okay.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** We\'re posting all of our information on the
> provisions of the Higher Education Opportunity Act at a Web site,
> which is really easy to find. The Department\'s general Web site is
> WWW.ED.GOV, and if you add a slash after our normal customary Web site
> address, URL you type in HEOA, and that\'s where it will take you to
> all of the materials to the Higher Education Opportunity Act. We
> intend to post the\--a \"dear colleague\" letter on that site as soon
> as it\'s available. I know the actual text of the public law probably
> will be posted\--maybe today, maybe tomorrow.
>
> **MR. MADZELAN:** But the\--your question has given us an opportunity
> to do a little show and tell, which is\--you\'ve been reading,
> basically, this, the conference report\--
>
> **MR. MELGAR:** Right.
>
> **MR. MADZELAN:** \--which is amendatory language, which is useful
> when the Congress writes a brand-new provision, but when they are
> amending existing language, it\'s hard to follow. That\'s why you need
> the compilation of the Higher Education Act, and the last time the
> Congress actually printed this, you can gather by my well-worn copy\--
>
> **MR. MELGAR:** I take it I can\'t go to Barnes & Noble and pick one
> up.
>
> **MR. MADZELAN:** Exactly. It was 1999; is that right?
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** Yes.
>
> **MR. MADZELAN:** 1999. We anticipate the Congress will authorize
> publication of another compilation that would include the 2008
> amendments.
>
> **MR. MELGAR:** Okay.
>
> **MR. MADZELAN:** We are\--because we deal with this stuff everyday
> over here\--that we can\'t wait for that to happen, just to have, you
> know, the full amended language in one sort of\--I won\'t say easy to
> read\--
>
> **MR. MELGAR:** Right.
>
> **MR. MADZELAN:** \--but certainly convenient package.
>
> **MR. MELGAR:** So, on the Web site you gave me, then, is there a\--I
> guess what I\'m looking for is for someone who doesn\'t have the time
> to read through everything in that novel of a bill. Is there something
> that outlines, really, like, things that have changed? And if not,
> like\--if I were to recommend to you all on the Web site\--you could
> just outline\--the previous bill includes this. This is what\'s being
> proposed that\'s changing\--just because it\'s a lot easier to follow,
> at least for students who I\'ve spoken to.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** What we will be releasing is a \"dear colleague\"
> letter that summarizes in plain language\--
>
> **MR. MELGAR:** Okay.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** \--as close to plain language as we can, the
> change\--what has changed in the bill.
>
> **MR. MELGAR:** Okay. Okay. All right, well, thank you gentlemen for
> your time. I really appreciate it.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** Thank you.
>
> **MR. MADZELAN:** Thank you.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** Jesse, Harold has reminded us of another resource,
> the Congressional Research Service, which is a body in Congress\--has
> posted on their Web site, not ours, on September 8th, a summary of the
> bill\--Congressional Research Service.
>
> **MR. MELGAR:** Thank you.
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** Thank you, Harold.
>
> Thank you, Jesse.
>
> **\[Recess.\]**
>
> **MR. BERGERON:** It is now 4:00 and we will be adjourning this
> hearing. Our next hearing will be in Washington, D.C. on October 8th.
> Thank you all for coming.
>
> **\[Whereupon, at 4:00 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.\]**