djj 1

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION

PUBLIC REGIONAL HEARING ON

NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING

Monday, June 15, 2009 

8:58 a.m. – 3:51 p.m.

Community College of Denver 

St. Catejan's Church 

900 Auraria Parkway 

Denver, Colorado

 
djj 2

1 P R O C E E D I N G S

2 MR. BERGERON: Good morning. By my watch 

3 it may be still a minute or two before 9:00, but 

4 we're going to go ahead and get started. 

5 I'm David Bergeron. I direct policy for 

6 the Office of Postsecondary Education at the U.S. 

7 Department of Education. With me is Zakiya Smith, 

8 from our Office of our Under Secretary; and Sally 

9 Wanner, from our Office of General Counsel. We 

10 will be starting this hearing off this morning, and 

11 others of my colleagues will be joining us or 

12 taking our place from time to time as the day goes 

13 on and it's necessary. So, we'll change name tents 

14 so you know who people are as we do that. 

15 First of all, I'd like to thank our host 

16 here at the Community College of Denver and 

17 Metropolitan State and University of Colorado at 

18 Denver. As you know, this is kind of a unique 

19 campus where there are three institutions that 

20 share the same location. Ever since I got involved 

21 in collecting campus crime statistics, I've always 

22 been fascinated by this campus. It presents a 

23 unique experience for us because it is very 

24 different than your traditional college campus. 
djj 3

1 We do have a sign interpreter here with 

2 us, and if at any point during the morning or 

3 during the day there's somebody who needs that 

4 service, please let us know and we will have her 

5 come and join us through the morning. 

6 On May 26, 2009, we published a Federal 

7 Register Notice announcing our intention to 

8 establish Negotiated Rulemaking Committees and that 

9 we would have hearings at three locations here in 

10 Denver. We will also have a hearing later in the 

11 week at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, 

12 and then next week we'll be having a hearing at the 

13 Community College of Philadelphia. 

14 Those hearings will provide the public and 

15 anyone who's interested the opportunity to tell us 

16 what they think we should be doing in terms of our 

17 regulations for the Federal Student Aid programs. 

18 These hearings are important to us because they 

19 form the basis on which we make decisions about 

20 what to include in our next round of Negotiated 

21 Rulemaking. 

22 Subsequent to these hearings, we will be 

23 beginning to take some time and consider the 

24 comments we receive in forming a final negotiated 
djj 4

1 agenda. We will then do a subsequent Notice in the 

2 Federal Register, announcing our intention to form 

3 specific committees and what those committees will 

4 be dealing with, and inviting members of the public 

5 to nominate people to serve on those Negotiating 

6 Committees. We anticipate that we will begin 

7 negotiations in September, but a lot will depend on 

8 how this process goes and the kind of input we get, 

9 particularly the kinds of issues and the urgency of 

10 those issues that people see. 

11 In addition to these public hearings, we 

12 will be hosting two forums tomorrow, one that will 

13 deal with issues around simplification of the 

14 process of applying for aid and the kinds of 

15 communications that the Department has to help 

16 improve college planning, preparation, and access. 

17 We will also be having a forum on how we can 

18 leverage our postsecondary education programs to 

19 foster student educational persistence and degree 

20 attainment. 

21 With that introduction, I will begin to 

22 hear from folks who have signed up to testify, 

23 unless Sally or Zakiya have anything they would 

24 like to add. 
djj 5

1 With that, then, I will invite Bob Collins 

2 from Apollo Group to come to the podium and say 

3 what he would like to say. 

4 Good morning, Bob. 

5 MR. COLLINS: Good morning, David. 

6 My name is Bob Collins. I'm the Vice 

7 President of Student Financial Aid for the Apollo 

8 Group, which includes the subsidiaries University 

9 of Phoenix and Western International University. 

10 I've been a practicing student financial 

11 aid administrator since 1981 at various colleges 

12 and universities in the public and private for13 profit sector. In fact, my career started here on 

14 this campus. 

15 I'm also fortunate to have served on three 

16 U.S. Department of Education Negotiated Rulemaking 

17 Committees since 2002. Thank you for the 

18 opportunity to provide my experience and thoughts 

19 to this important regulatory process. 

20 Allow me to address the topics identified 

21 in the Federal Register related to program 

22 integrity: 

23 Satisfactory academic progress. I 

24 understand the issue of student academic progress, 
djj 6

1 or SAP, is coming forward as it relates to the 

2 year-round Pell Grants administration. First and 

3 foremost, the current SAP regulation is a template 

4 that allows institutions the flexibility to 

5 structure a program that is in the best interests 

6 of both students and institutions, and it meets the 

7 quantitative and qualitative measurement 

8 requirements of the statute. If that is true, and 

9 given that there does not seem to be a clamor in 

10 the higher education community to tinker with its 

11 provisions, why change it? 

12 The year-round Pell provision in the 

13 Higher Education Act is designed to allow low14 income students the ability to afford continuous 

15 enrollment opportunities and accelerate their 

16 education program completion. We believe that the 

17 existing SAP standards provide adequate safeguards 

18 that are consonant with the objectives of the new 

19 Pell provisions. 

20 As for the definition of "credit hour," I 

21 believe that oversight responsibility belongs with 

22 the accrediting agencies, who can best determine 

23 whether academic outcomes are being achieved. 

24 Providing access to education for the over 70 
djj 7

1 percent of students who must work while going to 

2 school means that colleges need the flexibility to 

3 provide alternatives in scheduling. Scheduling 

4 alternatives may challenge old modes of 

5 measurement, but they are imperative to innovations 

6 that benefit students. 

7 With respect to incentive compensation, to 

8 the Apollo Group the issue boils down to one word: 

9 clarity. Historically, these laws adopted in 1992 

10 were not accompanied by any clear guidance until 

11 2002. Between 1994 and 2002, the regulations did 

12 little more than restate the extraordinarily broad 

13 and vague wording of the statute itself. Without 

14 any clear and official guidance, schools had no 

15 idea what was permitted or prohibited with regard 

16 to recruiter compensation. In light of this 

17 confusion, the 2002 Safe Harbor Regulations brought 

18 about the necessary clarity that the Department and 

19 schools desired. As long as we understand what is 

20 expected, we are more than willing to work with the 

21 Department to implement this provision. 

22 Regarding gainful employment in a 

23 recognized occupation, the gainful employment 

24 provisions in the law are legacies left over from a 
djj 8

1 period in higher education that has long since 

2 ceased to exist. These provisions apply 

3 predominantly to the proprietary sector. However, 

4 it must be noted that in today's higher education 

5 marketplace, for-profit postsecondary institutions 

6 are no longer just trade, technical, or vocational 

7 schools. Many, like the University of Phoenix, are 

8 comprehensive universities providing higher 

9 education, which doesn't fall neatly into narrow 

10 job categories. 

11 To graduate teachers, for example, we must 

12 provide a wide array of liberal arts courses, and 

13 we have graduated thousands of teachers nationwide. 

14 Our newer environmental science programs at the 

15 Bachelor's and Master's level will open doors to 

16 green jobs of the future and should not be limited 

17 by narrow definitions. 

18 The University of Phoenix, like many other 

19 schools of its type, is regionally accredited and 

20 offers teacher’s education and nursing programs, 

21 doctoral programs, and degrees in numerous other 

22 disciplines that are not just trade and technical 

23 in nature. 

24 The federal government's role 
djj 9

1 traditionally has been to support the broadest 

2 student choice of study possible and to avoid 

3 federal intrusion into curricular matters. Any 

4 limitation of study, particularly those derived 

5 from lists of occupations that are based on 

6 yesterday's jobs, not the jobs of the future, 

7 places limitations on educational opportunities for 

8 students. Certainly, students educated in liberal 

9 arts programs are gainfully employed in recognized 

10 occupations, yet for-profit providers have been 

11 historically shut out from offering these degrees. 

12 Any constricted interpretation of the program of 

13 study provisions, based on a narrow definition of 

14 what constitutes "gainful employment" to a 

15 recognized occupation, would run counter to the 

16 President's stated priority of making postsecondary 

17 attainment a national hallmark by 2020. 

18 As policymakers still continue to believe 

19 these provisions are necessary at all, my strong 

20 recommendation is to leave well enough alone and 

21 maintain the current correlation to the Directory 

22 of Occupational Titles maintained by the U.S. 

23 Department of Labor. Any efforts to rein in the 

24 scope of this provision would be contrary to the 
djj 10

1 President's stated education policy goals. 

2 On state authorizations, states have 

3 historically exercised their prerogative to find 

4 their own regulatory environment, and institutions 

5 of all types have learned to accept and operate 

6 within defined state-proscribed boundaries. Some 

7 states have a very active regulatory oversight 

8 structure, and others have little or none. 

9 They do not act in a vacuum, however, as 

10 states are but one step in our regulatory triad. 

11 Regional and national accreditors are actively 

12 engaged in maintaining program integrity in all 50 

13 states; and the Federal Government, of course, 

14 continues its oversight of all institutions. This 

15 system has proven to be relatively successful, and 

16 we see no reason to force change and upheaval in a 

17 system that seems to be working. 

18 In states where authorization requirements 

19 have not been specifically set, changes to those 

20 policies should be addressed by state legislators 

21 and governors, not the federal government. 

22 Imposing a top-down requirement on states could 

23 impede state-level efforts as well as potentially 

24 complicate regulatory compliance. 
djj 11

1 Regarding the definition of "high school 

2 diploma," regulatory guidance is welcome on this 

3 matter to curb fraud and abuse, and a more easily 

4 understood definition of a high school diploma 

5 could be a key tool in our collective efforts to 

6 ensure that fully qualified students attend our 

7 institutions. Perhaps something as simple as a 

8 national registry of known related fraudulent 

9 activities would be a good start. 

10 On other matters that should be addressed, 

11 I wish to bring attention to the potential 

12 unintended consequences of the 90/10 provisions: A 

13 requirement that no more than 90 percent of a 

14 proprietary institution's revenue may be derived 

15 from Title IV funds on a cash basis of accounting. 

16 These provisions only apply to the proprietary 

17 sector, and many quality proprietary institutions 

18 are feeling pressure to raise tuition after the 

19 recent federal loan limits simply so they will not 

20 be forced out of compliance with the 90/10 

21 requirements. 

22 The current economic recession and the 

23 frozen credit markets, as well as the inability of 

24 schools to deny a student federal loan, have 
djj 12

1 combined to put proprietary institutions with 

2 tuition rates below the annual loan limits at great 

3 risk of losing their institutional eligibility. 

4 The recent legislation and negotiated rulemaking 

5 offer very little and only temporary relief. This 

6 is a significant issue and needs to be addressed 

7 sooner rather than later. Since the current laws 

8 are so prescriptive, I understand the Department is 

9 limited in its capacity, and this should be 

10 addressed by Congress in statute. 

11 In the interest of keeping this testimony 

12 brief, I'll defer further comments and supplement 

13 my response and written commentary as instructed in 

14 the Federal Register, as necessary. 

15 Again, thank you for this opportunity, and 

16 I'm happy to answer any questions you have today. 

17 MR. BERGERON: Thank you, Bob.

18 Sally, do you have any questions?

19 Zakiya?

20 As Bob knows--he's been through this before--we 

21 do occasionally ask questions of our witnesses when 

22 we need clarifying information. 

23 I was curious to--you noted that with 

24 regard to credit hours as is principally in your 
djj 13

1 view something that accreditors should consider, I 

2 was wondering if your accreditor provides you with 

3 any standards or definitions or an explanation of 

4 how they evaluate "credit hour" for their purpose. 

5 So, do you have any insight into that? 

6 MR. COLLINS: The accrediting agency is 

7 responsible for the quality of the education 

8 programs. Certainly, we've had numerous 

9 accreditation visits to review our curriculum and 

10 programs and our structure. And it's not just--

11 since the University of Phoenix is nationwide, it's 

12 not just the Higher Learning Commission that is the 

13 regional accrediting agency that reviews our 

14 programs of study. Each of the states in which we 

15 operate in other regions, they also have the 

16 opportunity to review our curriculum and programs. 

17 MR. BERGERON: I was just curious whether 

18 they, the Higher Learning Commission, provide you 

19 any clear guidance or definition that helps you 

20 determine--understand how they will evaluate your 

21 programs against credit hour standards. 

22 MR. COLLINS: I'm not the chief academic 

23 officer.

24 MR. BERGERON: That's fair. That is fair. 
djj 14

1 MR. COLLINS: I'm not certain of that, but 

2 I am aware that, you know, the programs we offer 

3 generally meet all of the other traditional 

4 university components. 

5 MR. BERGERON: Okay. Thank you, Bob. 

6 MS. WANNER: Thank you. 

7 MR. COLLINS: Thank you. 

8 MR. BERGERON: Our next person testifying 

9 is Charles Lenth. 

10 MR. LENTH: Good morning. I'm Charles 

11 Lenth, Vice President of Policy Analysis and 

12 Academic Affairs with the National Association of 

13 State Higher Education Executive Officers, 

14 generally called "SHEEO." We are located in 

15 Boulder, Colorado. 

16 I am pleased to provide written testimony 

17 and speak on behalf of my association and its 

18 leadership. In the interest of time, I will 

19 shorten my written statements just a bit. 

20 The 57 members of SHEEO, the SHEEO 

21 Association, are the executive officers of agencies 

22 and boards who govern, coordinate, and play other 

23 policy roles for higher education at the state 

24 level. Nearly one-third of SHEEOs also serve as a 
djj 15

1 state-level financial aid or loan guarantee agency, 

2 others exercise coordinating or budgeting roles 

3 relative to state financial aid, and all have a 

4 deep concern for both the integrity and the 

5 operations of the Federal Title IV programs.

6 Higher education has become a joint 

7 federal-state responsibility in ways that were not 

8 anticipated when the U.S. Constitution put 

9 education in the category of responsibilities left 

10 to the states. This has benefited and continues to 

11 benefit students, the states, and the nation as a 

12 whole. SHEEO’s vision of this relationship is that 

13 it needs to be a partnership built on mutual 

14 respect, mutual support, and mutual commitment. 

15 Such a partnership is essential to support the 

16 teaching, research, science, scholarship, public 

17 service, and other contributions of higher 

18 education to the prosperity and health of our 

19 nation. 

20 As an organization, we applaud the federal 

21 government's increasing commitment to ensuring and 

22 expanding access to postsecondary education through 

23 Title IV programs. States, like the federal 

24 government, provide and promote access through a 
djj 16

1 variety of programs and mechanisms. States also 

2 recognize and are moving to address the need to 

3 foster student success and improve rates of degree 

4 and certificate completion. 

5 Last summer, 96 current and former SHEEOs 

6 signed an open letter to presidential candidates, 

7 outlining the challenges ahead and calling for a 

8 new national commitment to reverse our nation's 

9 sagging education attainment and ensure global 

10 competitiveness. That statement and a published 

11 version, "Second To None in Higher Education, 

12 Second to None in Attainment, Discovery and 

13 Innovation: The National Agenda for Higher 

14 Education," are available on the SHEEO Web site. 

15 In our view, President Obama's call to be 

16 the first in the world in educational attainment 

17 and his administration's commitment to Title IV 

18 programs herald a new era in the federal-state 

19 partnership. SHEEOs do not shy away from the 

20 boldness of the President's goal. Our association 

21 has joined with others in arguing that states 

22 together need to graduate or credential an 

23 additional one million more students a year in 

24 order to match the now leading nations of the 
djj 17

1 world. 

2 This goal will necessitate a dramatic 

3 increase in completion rates as well as expanded 

4 commitment to reach adults, underprepared and 

5 underserved populations more effectively than in 

6 the past. Such commitments and program 

7 improvements in turn necessitate strong state roles 

8 in developing student data and information systems, 

9 collaborative financing mechanisms, more effective 

10 and lower-cost academic and administrative support. 

11 And through these and other measures, ensure 

12 academic programs of higher quality and affordable 

13 cost. Such challenges, we believe, can only be met 

14 by the federal and state governments working 

15 together more effectively and more consistently 

16 than in the past. 

17 Part of a new, more effective partnership 

18 between the federal government and state 

19 governments is surely to make the many parts of our 

20 complex federal higher education system work more 

21 effectively. Rulemaking is an important tool for 

22 this purpose. SHEEOs have been active participants 

23 in the rulemaking groups that recently focused on 

24 questions raised in the implementation of the HEA 
djj 18

1 authorization under the Higher Education 

2 Opportunity Act of 2008. Similarly, SHEEOs have 

3 participated in early rulemaking sessions and would 

4 welcome roles at the table in any future sessions. 

5 SHEEO’s past participation in rulemaking 

6 also helps us to understand its limitations. By 

7 its nature, the process is constrained by the 

8 limited focus and by the requirement to reach 

9 consensus decisions across a wide range of 

10 interested partners. In many instances, it seems 

11 to us, the process is focused on questions that are 

12 certainly of concern to states, but not necessarily 

13 of a policy level importance. Similarly, the 

14 process is limited by the need to treat all parties 

15 and interests as essentially comparable and then 

16 deferring to the Department for any decision-making 

17 if consensus is not reached. 

18 These limitations notwithstanding, SHEEO 

19 takes a deep interest in the six or seven topics 

20 that the Department listed in the May 26th Federal 

21 Register. All of the topics listed are areas of 

22 direct and continuing state involvement or 

23 interest, or point to new areas where states could 

24 benefit from additional federal policy guidance. 
djj 19

1 While today's hearings are not the 

2 occasion for lengthy substantive discussion, let me 

3 make a few comments on the importance of each of 

4 these areas to states and state policy roles:

5 One, regulations governing foreign 

6 schools, including those in the implementation of 

7 HEOA. The increasing globalization of higher 

8 education brings states face to face with a set of 

9 policy issues that go well beyond the activities of 

10 traditional international programs. Both American 

11 and foreign-born students are increasingly mobile, 

12 raising questions related to immigration or visa 

13 status, financing, liability, consumer protection, 

14 and other areas of state interest. U.S. 

15 institutions, including state-funded public 

16 institutions, are increasingly engaged in programs 

17 and investments abroad, often under unclear 

18 jurisdiction. 

19 Most importantly, globalization demands 

20 that states compete in a much broader, more complex 

21 higher education marketplace, a challenge that some 

22 other nations address through what are, in essence, 

23 national higher education export and import 

24 strategies. These are designed to help 
djj 20

1 institutions compete globally. For example, 

2 Australia, for some years, has had an active effort 

3 to attract students to its institutions; and, on 

4 the other hand, the new government in India is 

5 proposing to continue rather severe restrictions on 

6 the activities of American institutions in that 

7 country. 

8 These are issues--these and other areas 

9 are areas that the states simply cannot and are not 

10 prepared to act on alone, and it's not appropriate 

11 for them to act alone in many ways. States need 

12 federal leadership and assistance in this area. 

13 How far rulemaking can go and what other mechanisms 

14 we need to think about, it seems to me, are 

15 questions to be considered. 

16 Two, satisfactory academic progress. 

17 States and SHEEOs are engaged in a variety of 

18 strategies to improve the preparation of students 

19 for postsecondary education, ensure smooth 

20 transitions, and increase program completion rates. 

21 Satisfactory academic progress criteria for 

22 purposes of Federal Title IV programs relate 

23 directly to these efforts. Moreover, there is a 

24 growing recognition within states that more must be 
djj 21

1 done both to provide students with the academic and 

2 other support services needed, and to hold 

3 institutions and students appropriately accountable 

4 for the results. If rulemaking in this area is 

5 undertaken, SHEEOs and state academic affairs 

6 officers would be appropriate participants. 

7 Three, incentive compensation for 

8 recruiting and admissions activity. States play a 

9 variety of roles in preventing fraud and providing 

10 consumer protection in higher education as in other 

11 areas. Whether through the SHEEO agency or under 

12 the authority of the state Attorney General, these 

13 roles are both a legal obligation and important 

14 components of the regulation of postsecondary 

15 education. The forms of compensation allowable 

16 under program participation in Title IV may appear 

17 to be outside the boundaries of this state 

18 authority, but to the extent that abuses or fraud 

19 or consumer complaints occur, they are likely to 

20 involve state as well as federal laws and 

21 enforcement.

22 Four, gainful employment in recognized 

23 occupations. While I acknowledge and, to a large 

24 extent, agree with the comments of the previous 
djj 22

1 speaker about the need to reconsider many of the 

2 traditional definitions and constraints in this 

3 area, I would like to make several other comments 

4 on this. Documentation of employment by those who 

5 complete federal education and training programs is 

6 done in different ways in different states. SHEEO 

7 offices may or may not be involved in these 

8 efforts. But those efforts aside, a growing number 

9 of states and SHEEO agencies are involved in a more 

10 comprehensive tracking of students from 

11 postsecondary education into the workplace. This 

12 generally requires the involvement of state labor 

13 market information offices, which operate within 

14 differing agency structures. In other words, it's 

15 an area of growing importance to states where there 

16 remains a lot of complexity and competing ways to 

17 go about this. There is a growing need to bring the 

18 various federal agencies together and their 

19 requirements into better alignment, and to 

20 coordinate this with the growing interest of states 

21 in doing--in providing better data in this area. 

22 Five, state authorization as a component 

23 of institutional eligibility. This topic, too, 

24 raises extremely complex issues due to the variety 
djj 23

1 of roles states play relative to institutional 

2 operation and degree-granting authority. Suffice 

3 it to say that SHEEOs and other state authorities 

4 need to be included in any rulemaking on this 

5 topic, along with a balanced representation of 

6 postsecondary providers who enroll students across 

7 state lines. Accrediting agencies, as we mentioned 

8 earlier, also need to be part of this balanced 

9 participation. 

10 Six, definition of "credit hour" for 

11 program eligibility. Again, starting from a 

12 relatively confined framework, the federal 

13 government really plays--and the National Center of 

14 Education Statistics, in particular, really play 

15 very important roles in establishing consistent 

16 definitions for many of the data elements widely 

17 used in higher education. Many of these 

18 definitions, including those around credit hours, 

19 are used directly by states in funding formulas, 

20 allocation mechanisms, program review and approval, 

21 and other functional or administrative areas. 

22 States also defer to accrediting agencies many 

23 times in making their definition or in using the 

24 definitions that are available. 
djj 24

1 Credit hour definitions under Pell and 

2 other Title IV programs are one of the many factors 

3 states typically take into account. Federal and 

4 NCES leadership in this area are needed and 

5 important, particularly as students and programs 

6 use other types of metrics for student eligibility 

7 and progress such as competency assessments as a 

8 substitute for contact hour or seat-time 

9 measurements. Maintaining some consistency between 

10 state and federal definitions as these definitions 

11 change over time is also important. 

12 Let me conclude by saying that SHEEO as an 

13 association and SHEEOs in their respective state 

14 roles welcome opportunities to be full participants 

15 in the Department's rulemaking actions. I suspect 

16 that we all realize, however, that we need to take 

17 steps that go well beyond the purposes and realms 

18 of rulemaking. What we need is a recommitment to 

19 work together more effectively to meet increasingly 

20 urgent national state and local needs. Immense 

21 progress has been achieved when the federal 

22 government marshals the efforts of institutions and 

23 leverages the resources of states to expand 

24 educational opportunity and provide the basis for 
djj 25

1 growth and innovation in the economy. It is time 

2 and it is imperative that we make this partnership 

3 work even better. 

4 Thank you for this opportunity to testify on behalf 

5 of SHEEO, and I would be pleased to respond to any 

6 questions. 

7 MR. BERGERON: Thank you, Charlie. 

8 Sally, do you have any questions? 

9 MS. WANNER: Could you say a little bit 

10 more about the need for state and federal 

11 involvement in the strategies to export or import 

12 our education abroad? 

13 MR. LENTH: Sure. 

14 It seems to me that a beginning point in this area 

15 is to recognize that our educational relationships 

16 with other countries are really part of our foreign 

17 policy in many important respects, and that always 

18 has been a role of the federal government, and 

19 needs to be.

20 Our challenge, relative to the countries 

21 that have more of a ministerial structure for all 

22 levels of education--well, higher education in 

23 particular, is that we struggle to know who is in 

24 the lead, so to speak. And it's not just the 
djj 26

1 federal government and states; it is large 

2 institutions and other types of providers that are 

3 now actively engaged in this area. 

4 There are very large organizations trying 

5 to bring the parts of this together, but my point 

6 of view is that neither the federal government nor 

7 the states have been as active as we need to be to 

8 be really competitive with some of the other 

9 nations in the way they're going about this. I 

10 mentioned two instances of this. 

11 But we struggle, for example, when we try to relate 

12 to the activities of the European Union in higher 

13 education. I just think it's an area that needs 

14 more conversation and discussion, and, again, in 

15 which I suspect we'll have to come up with some way 

16 for the federal government and state governments 

17 and institutions to work together a little more 

18 effectively.

19 MS. SMITH: Thanks. 

20 Relating to those two instances abroad, can you 

21 speak more about what they are? Because I'm not 

22 sure I'm familiar with the India example that you 

23 shared about foreign--

24 MR. LENTH: I literally just took two 
djj 27

1 examples off the top of my head.

2 MS. SMITH: Okay.

3 MR. LENTH: But I'm willing to talk and 

4 share what I know, at least.

5 MS. SMITH: Sure.

6 MR. LENTH: I mean, Australia, along with 

7 other countries, has been actively promoting access 

8 to its institutions by citizens of other nations 

9 and recruiting them in very helpful ways. We, for 

10 a combination of good reasons, have traditionally 

11 been open, but more recently been more restrictive 

12 and not done much to really promote that sort of 

13 activities beyond some programs that have been in 

14 place for many, many years. And, by the way, were15 -have been very, very effective. 

16 But that said, looking at the numbers, 

17 students are going to a variety of other countries 

18 in higher numbers than they used to, and our 

19 numbers tend to go up and down. And we are, in 

20 economic terms, highly dependent upon many of those 

21 students, particularly in many important fields, 

22 both in this country and in their own nations.

23 With respect to the restrictions and other 

24 things, there I would make the point that it seems 
djj 28

1 to me as a nation we need to be engaged with those 

2 countries that are, in essence, opening up the 

3 higher education markets and bringing some, not 

4 uniformity, but ways to articulate the systems more 

5 effectively across national boundaries rather than 

6 following the direction that India appears to be 

7 going in at this time, which is to sort of close 

8 down its borders. But in both instances, we need 

9 to be engaged and we need good federal leadership, 

10 it seems to me.

11 MS. SMITH: Thank you.

12 MR. BERGERON: One last one for me, 

13 Charlie, and that is that you mentioned the need 

14 for better alignment with state needs around I'll 

15 call it "workforce development," you know, gainful 

16 employment kinds of things, and spoke to the issue 

17 of other federal agencies. I suspect--I have my 

18 list of federal agencies. I was wondering if you 

19 had a list that we should be coordinating with.

20 MR. LENTH: I happened, a couple of weeks 

21 ago, to go to the national meeting of the Labor 

22 Market Information Specialists and had--and was 

23 really able to understand their point of view more 

24 fully, I think. And there were a number of federal 
djj 29

1 agencies represented there: the Bureau of Labor 

2 Statistics and Department of Labor and others.

3 I don't know how you face it in the D.C. 

4 area, but sort of out in the states, we don't work

5 together nearly as well as we should in most areas. 

6 But the leading examples of Connecticut and 

7 Kentucky and several other states really illustrate 

8 how much benefit can come from working with those 

9 sources, those data providers, who know the 

10 workforce education data.

11 I believe, and I don't mean to contradict 

12 the previous speaker, but the federal government 

13 did education and the economy, economic 

14 development, a lot of good by putting into place 

15 early, fairly well-defined prescriptions for 

16 looking at employment after education and training. 

17 I think what we face is a challenge to do more of 

18 that, involving more fields and more types of 

19 programs, but not to do it in an onerous way. And 

20 I actually think there are ways to do that.

21 MR. BERGERON: Thank you, Charlie.

22 Anyone else?

23 MS. SMITH: No, thank you.

24 MR. BERGERON: Thank you.
djj 30

1 The next person coming to present to us is 

2 Jim Simpson.

3 MR. SIMPSON: Good morning. I'm Jim 

4 Simpson, Associate Vice President at Florida 

5 Community College at Jacksonville. 

6 Florida Community College is a public 

7 four-year college serving over 82,000 students in 

8 Northwest Florida. We are pleased to offer the 

9 following comments as the Department of Education 

10 begins the process to improve accountability in 

11 Student Financial Aid Programs. Specifically, my 

12 comments are going to revolve around three areas: 

13 standards of academic progress, gainful employment, 

14 and definition of a high school diploma.

15 Americans want access to higher education 

16 for themselves and for their children. The 

17 dissonance between what Americans hope for and the 

18 lack of student success achieved by all sectors of 

19 public education is significant. There is a need 

20 to change the regulatory requirements for standards 

21 of academic progress in order to ensure the ongoing 

22 eligibility of Federal Student Financial Aid. But 

23 there's also a need to structure those regulatory 

24 standards to also increase the likelihood of 
djj 31

1 student success towards achieving their own 

2 educational and personal goals.

3 With these two goals in mind, we recommend 

4 the following two changes in determination of 

5 satisfactory academic progress. Although access to 

6 higher education is virtually universally 

7 available, many students who start in higher 

8 education programs drop out prior to completing 

9 their degree or achieving their individual academic 

10 goals. The educational philosophy of having 

11 standards of academic progress is to ensure that 

12 students are making progress towards academic goals 

13 and to serve as a mechanism to provide information 

14 to an institution that allows that institution to 

15 assist students who are not satisfactorily 

16 progressing.

17 Educational research demonstrates that the 

18 earlier the intervention happens, the more likely 

19 the student is to be successful; and determining 

20 academic progress at least once a year--at a 

21 minimum of at least once a year--does not lend 

22 itself to sound educational practice. FCCJ 

23 recommends that institutions monitor satisfactory 

24 academic progress at the end of each term, and in 
djj 32

1 programs that are less than one year old at the 25 

2 percent, 50 percent, and 75 percent length of 

3 program.

4 In America's community colleges, over 50 

5 percent of all first-time-in-college students 

6 tested are unprepared for the academic demands of 

7 college-level courses and programs. The percentage 

8 of underprepared students in higher education has 

9 not changed significantly across the United States 

10 in the last two decades. A high school diploma is 

11 not, nor has it been by itself, an indicator of a 

12 student's ability to benefit. Without a college 

13 entrance testing, how can we determine if a student 

14 is truly college-ready? Without required 

15 remediation of unprepared students, how can we 

16 expect those students to perform at the 

17 postsecondary level?

18 FCCJ recommends that all postsecondary 

19 institutions have entrance testing requirements 

20 that are consistent with the requirements for 

21 publicly supported postsecondary institutions in 

22 the state in which they're locally located. FCCJ 

23 also recommends that students who do not test into 

24 college-ready status receive remediation per the 
djj 33

1 requirements placed on publicly supported 

2 postsecondary institutions in the state in which 

3 the institution is located.

4 In regard to gainful employment, I'd have 

5 to agree with our previous speaker: We feel that 

6 all prospective students are entitled to accurate, 

7 detailed, and comprehensive information about 

8 recent job placement and earning history in order 

9 to make more informed choices before they invest in 

10 education or training. 

11 In Florida, all public-supported community 

12 and state colleges are held accountable for the 

13 gainful employment of our graduates. This 

14 information is collected by the Florida Education 

15 and Training Placement Information Program, 

16 lovingly known as "FETPIP." 

17 FETPIP is a data collection and consumer 

18 reporting system established by Florida statute to 

19 provide follow-up data on former students. 

20 FETPIP's automatic matching method of data 

21 collection replaces conventional survey-type 

22 techniques and provides third-party verification of 

23 employment status and the earnings of graduates 

24 from Florida's numerous public and independent 
djj 34

1 institutions. 

2 We recommend the use of wage record data 

3 to track postsecondary employment and earnings of 

4 graduates. Linking wage records to student 

5 graduate files will provide all types of rich 

6 information sources for all types of institutions 

7 to gain insights into the effectiveness of their 

8 educational programs. The data made available from 

9 the state's wage record systems, like FETPIP or 

10 California's PEETS, can be used to address a wide 

11 range of needs. These include responding to 

12 federal and state accountability measures; 

13 providing information on postgraduate earnings and 

14 employment rates; and, more importantly, providing 

15 consumers with an accurate third-party information 

16 about employment and earnings of graduates from an 

17 institution.

18 In regard to the definition of a "high 

19 school diploma" as a condition of receiving student 

20 --or Federal Student Financial Aid, Florida public 

21 community colleges and state colleges do not accept 

22 self-reported high school diploma or GEDs. Each 

23 student admitted to a Florida public institution 

24 must provide proof that that student graduated with 
djj 35

1 either a standard high school diploma or GED. 

2 Institutions that accept self-reporting information 

3 run the risk of accepting students ill-prepared for 

4 college-level course work.

5 Basing ability to benefit on self-reported 

6 high school completion without credential 

7 verification is not in the students' nor the 

8 taxpayers' best interests. We believe that 

9 institutions of higher education accepting Federal 

10 Financial Student Aid funds have the responsibility 

11 to ensure that students receiving those funds have 

12 the ability to benefit and are able to successfully 

13 complete college-level work. Colleges can make 

14 this determination by requiring verification of 

15 high school diplomas.

16 In concluding my remarks, I'd like to put 

17 a human face on what happens when schools take 

18 advantage of lax regulations. This is one of the 

19 reasons I flew from Jacksonville to Denver to speak 

20 to you today. At FCCJ, we see many students who 

21 seek admission to our programs and want to transfer 

22 credits at other institutions. It's always 

23 difficult to tell some of these students that they 

24 need to take remedial classes before they can take 
djj 36

1 college credit classes. 

2 We had a student come to us with a special 

3 high--special education high school diploma who had 

4 attended a for-profit university and was seeking 

5 admission to one of our selective access programs. 

6 Although the student and their family told the 

7 university in question that the student had a 

8 special education diploma, they accepted her into a 

9 college credit program. The student and their 

10 family took out large loans to pay for the tuition 

11 and fees, and the student made the academic honor 

12 roll by earning A's and B's, including an A in 

13 College Algebra, this despite later test results 

14 from FCCJ that placed the student at an elementary 

15 school level in mathematics, language, and reading.

16 Since the student tested at the elementary 

17 school level and did not have a standard high 

18 school diploma or GED, they could not be considered 

19 ready for college-level work. After counseling and 

20 more testing, we encouraged the student to work on 

21 their GED, and they were re-administered an easier 

22 assessment according to our state guidelines for 

23 entry into the GED program. A ninth-grade level is 

24 required to take the GED classes, and the student 
djj 37

1 tested overall at the sixth grade, seventh month. 

2 Under state law, none of the student's 

3 scores would have gained them entry into any credit 

4 or non-credit program offered by a public 

5 institution in the state of Florida. This student 

6 and their family took out $16,000 in student loans 

7 to pay for a two-year degree from a for-profit 

8 university that was clearly only interested in 

9 tuition money obtained from federally backed 

10 student loans. This student has been unable to 

11 find employment beyond a minimum wage entry job and 

12 will have great difficulty paying off the student 

13 loans that their family took out. 

14 Verification of a high school diploma with 

15 an accurate assessment of academic preparedness 

16 would have quickly brought to light the challenges 

17 that this student faced. The parents of this 

18 student are to be commended for their desire to 

19 better their daughter's education, but it is a 

20 travesty that they were encouraged to take out huge 

21 student loans when their daughter has almost no 

22 chance of getting a job that would allow the 

23 eventual repayment of those loans.

24 Tighter federal requirements are needed to 
djj 38

1 prevent more aspiring students from facing a 

2 lifetime of financial burden that they have little 

3 or no chance of repaying.

4 Thank you for allowing me the privilege to 

5 speak before you. If you have any questions, I'll 

6 be happy to take them.

7 MR. BERGERON: Let me ask you a couple and 

8 make a comment before I do.

9 One of the things that is in the Higher 

10 Education Opportunity Act that we're just finishing 

11 the process of regulating around--or this phase of 

12 the process because we go public comment period--is 

13 to deal with the last kind of circumstance you 

14 described in the sense that, you know, our higher 

15 education system or postsecondary education system 

16 really doesn't do particularly well for students 

17 with certain kinds of disabilities, particularly 

18 intellectual disabilities, and one of the things in 

19 the Higher Education Opportunity Act is some 

20 provisions to address that and give students 

21 eligibility for Pell Grants and other student aid, 

22 but not student loans, so that they can pursue 

23 programs that are specifically designed to address 

24 the needs of those students.
djj 39

1 And so I think that there are some things 

2 coming down the line that will, you know, provide 

3 an alternative for families, for students and 

4 families, in that circumstance, and I do think that 

5 there's significant promise to that approach. 

6 With regard to your point about monitoring 

7 set more often, particularly for, you know, the 

8 very short intervals for short-term programs, I 

9 would like you to address, if you might, the 

10 response, the likely response, of some others of 

11 your colleagues, which would be that this is 

12 burdensome, this is just too hard to do. And could 

13 you speak to how you think that can be addressed as 

14 we go forward to regulate.

15 MR. SIMPSON: I can speak from the 

16 perspective of our own institution. We currently 

17 assess student academic progress once a term or at 

18 the benchmarks I just described. The reason for 

19 that is that, again, we want the students to be as 

20 successful as possible. We see a linkage of the 

21 student financial aid. But, more importantly, it 

22 was an impetus for us to begin earlier 

23 interventions with our students. 

24 Is it onerous? I would say not, if you 
djj 40

1 look at your overall mission, which is to ensure 

2 that students are going to be successful or as 

3 successful as you can hopefully make them with the 

4 resources that you have. So, in that regard, I 

5 don't think it's an onerous responsibility for an 

6 institution. I think it's in that institution's 

7 best interest and in the client's best interest for 

8 whom they're serving.

9 MR. BERGERON: And so your satisfactory 

10 academic progress approach triggers an 

11 intervention?

12 MR. SIMPSON: Yes.

13 MR. BERGERON: Right. So, it's really 

14 even more than it is used to monitor for purposes 

15 of determining aid eligibility. It's really an 

16 educational approach to trigger--

17 MR. SIMPSON: That's correct. We took the 

18 opportunity to leverage and to use it as an 

19 intrusive intervention strategy.

20 MR. BERGERON: That's very helpful. Thank 

21 you.

22 Thank you. Our next presenter is Pamela 

23 Swanson. 

24 Good morning, Dr. Swanson.
djj 41

1 DR. SWANSON: Good morning. Thank you for 

2 allowing me to speak to you this morning.

3 I'm here really for the purpose of 

4 offering you a perspective from an employer of 

5 students from the University of Phoenix. And I 

6 currently serve as Deputy Superintendent for Adams 

7 County School District 50. It's an urban school 

8 district just to the west of us here. We have 

9 about 10,000 students, primarily Latino students, 

10 but we do have over 44 languages and a high poverty 

11 level, and so we face many of the challenges that 

12 urban school districts face.

13 I have been in partnership with--and our 

14 district has, with the University of Phoenix for at 

15 least the past five years; and, during that time, 

16 we've been very successful in working with students 

17 who have exited the programs, the preparation 

18 programs specifically, for teacher education and 

19 for administration, educational administration. 

20 I'm sure I don't need to echo what you already know 

21 about teacher turnover and supply and demand as a 

22 nation in terms of quality educators for our 

23 students. 

24 I believe the rigor, along with the 
djj 42

1 flexibility, that the university provides to its 

2 adult students to be able to accomplish advanced 

3 degrees specifically, and now with a Teacher Ed 

4 Program to be able to enter the field of education 

5 is superior, and we've had great success. And I 

6 think it also offers more of a seamless transition 

7 because of the practical application aspects of the 

8 programs.

9 For our educators, and also our hope now 

10 with our high school juniors and seniors maybe 

11 wanting to enter the field of education, we're 

12 really hopeful that we can continue to have great 

13 support from the state and federal government to be 

14 able to provide support for our students entering 

15 into the University of Phoenix and other 

16 institutions of higher learning.

17 And I'd be happy to answer any questions 

18 you may have.

19 Oh, one additional thing: 2007, we 

20 started our own district cohort with the University 

21 of Phoenix, and now we have a Grow Your Own 

22 Program, and we're finding great success with that, 

23 as well. And our first graduating class will be 

24 walking this Saturday with Master's degrees.
djj 43

1 MR. BERGERON: Thank you. No questions. 

2 Thank you.

3 DR. SWANSON: Thank you.

4 MR. BERGERON: Randall Swanson.

5 MR. SWANSON: Good morning. My name is 

6 Randy Swanson, and I do appreciate the opportunity 

7 to talk with you today about the University of 

8 Phoenix.

9 I have two roles, actually. One is that I 

10 am a consultant and senior partner in Swanson 

11 Group, LLC, which what happens is we work to 

12 support people achieving their potential through 

13 their most valuable resource, and that's people. 

14 And so, given the opportunity to work with the 

15 University of Phoenix to create the best 

16 opportunity for success for our company and as well 

17 as the companies that people work with, it's been 

18 an honor to work with the University of Phoenix.

19 I also have 33 years in public education. 

20 I have been a teacher, administrator, principal, so 

21 I think I have a little bit of background on what 

22 the University of Phoenix can do for our students 

23 and what the students can do for public education. 

24 I work in the Master's Program and get to teach 
djj 44

1 with all of the adults who come through the program 

2 in educational administration and curriculum 

3 instruction. 

4 So, just a couple of things about the 

5 University's program. It's been an outstanding 

6 program in providing flexibility for students to 

7 become more than they wanted to be. It gives them 

8 opportunities that they wouldn't have in 

9 traditional institutions because of time 

10 commitments. But the working adult gets an 

11 opportunity to grow and develop and become whatever 

12 it is that they choose, especially in the 

13 educational field. It makes a big difference in 

14 their lives. 

15 The University of Phoenix has developed an 

16 academic rigor that is absolutely second to none. 

17 I have been an adjunct professor at two other 

18 institutions and find that the University of 

19 Phoenix rigor is as good as it gets. And students 

20 who use that academic rigor to their best abilities 

21 come out with a quality education that they can 

22 apply in any direction. I'm very proud of what it 

23 has afforded to most of the students that we work 

24 with.
djj 45

1 It also allows them practical application. 

2 You know, in some students--in some institutions, 

3 students get the knowledge base, but they don't get 

4 to apply the program. And because they're not--

5 they don't have the ability to use that application 

6 on a regular basis because they're not working 

7 directly in the programs as they are with the 

8 University of Phoenix, they usually don't get to 

9 make that application until after graduation of 

10 which there's still a learning process that goes 

11 on. And while students who graduate from the 

12 University of Phoenix continue to grow and develop 

13 as they go in through their--the jobs that they 

14 choose, they still have that practical application 

15 that makes a difference for what they need to do as 

16 they come out.

17 I place a lot of those students. The 

18 students that we work with--I work with public 

19 education as well as high school districts, school 

20 districts, all across the State of Colorado and 

21 even some out of state. We place these students in 

22 quality jobs because they're qualified, because the 

23 university has done an outstanding job of training 

24 these individuals to be productive in this society.
djj 46

1 And I have to tell you, I kind of have a 

2 selfish reason why I support the University of 

3 Phoenix. Saturday, my daughter will be graduating 

4 with her Master's degree from the University of 

5 Phoenix, and I'm truly honored to have her been a 

6 part of that university. And the knowledge base 

7 that she's developed will carry her on through the 

8 rest of her life.

9 I'd be happy to answer any questions at 

10 this time.

11 MR. BERGERON: No questions. Thank you.

12 MR. SWANSON: You're welcome.

13 MS. SMITH: Thank you.

14 MR. BERGERON: Michael Goodwin. 

15 Good morning, Michael.

16 MR. GOODWIN: Good morning. First, I'd 

17 like to say thank you for letting me speak.

18 I came up in--to speak on behalf of the 

19 students, and mainly the older students. I, 

20 myself, just received my Bachelor's and am going on 

21 to my Master's. And without the universities and 

22 the ease that they can allow us to get into them, 

23 us older people would not have that chance. 

24 Also, you know, we're trying to balance a job; 
djj 47

1 we're trying to balance our students. And so I'm 

2 not sure what's going on with the changes, but my 

3 recommendation are, unless it's going to become 

4 easier for the student--because we're looking at 

5 higher education and I hear a lot of talk about 

6 younger students, but there's a lot of people that 

7 are a little bit older that would love to get back 

8 into it; and, without this opportunity, we wouldn't 

9 be able to.

10 I, myself, went 15 years before going back 

11 to college because I had no idea how or what to do 

12 or how to do it. So, I'm just trying to speak on 

13 behalf of--whatever changes are involved, I just 

14 want to make sure that the student is take care of 

15 and not just the universities and not just the 

16 colleges, but I want the students to be looked at, 

17 because it's the student that's going to make the 

18 difference. 

19 So--and I think that's it. Just a real 

20 quick speech. 

21 Any questions I can answer?

22 MS. SMITH: Thank you, Michael. 

23 And I just wanted to say a comment about the new 

24 initiative that the President is very committed to 
djj 48

1 helping adult learners come back to school. And 

2 there is "opportunity.gov," which is a Web site, in 

3 a joint collaboration with the Department of Labor 

4 that was recently launched to help especially adult 

5 learners who have been recently laid off. So, 

6 that's a commitment of the Administration, is to 

7 really help adult learners.

8 MR. GOODWIN: It's a very nice thing to 

9 do, so--and I know three people that have gone 

10 through it that would not otherwise have been able 

11 to not knowing this chance, so thank you.

12 MR. BERGERON: Thank you, Michael. We 

13 appreciate your coming. Always good to have a 

14 student perspective.

15 MS. SMITH: Yes.

16 MR. BERGERON: Sharon Parrott, are you 

17 ready to speak? She kind of looked surprised. 

18 When I was handed the note they said that we--that 

19 you were willing to come to be fit in.

20 MS. PARROTT: Well, I was willing to come 

21 before the break if you wanted. 

22 Good morning.

23 MR. BERGERON: Good morning. I'm trying 

24 to get my schedule back in line and I figured you 
djj 49

1 would be ready. 

2 Thank you. Good morning.

3 MS. PARROTT: I'm trying. Okay. 

4 Well, good morning. I'm Sharon Thomas 

5 Parrott. I'm Senior Vice President for Government 

6 Affairs and Chief Compliance Officer at DeVry Inc., 

7 which is the parent company for higher education 

8 institutions, including DeVry University and it's 

9 Keller Graduate School of Management; Ross 

10 University School of Medicine and Veterinary 

11 Medicine; Chamberlain College of Nursing; Apollo 

12 Colleges; Western Career Colleges; Fanor in Brazil; 

13 and as well as Advanced Academics, a regionally 

14 accredited virtual high school; and Becker 

15 Education, providing test preparation for CPA and 

16 CFA post-baccalaureate certification programs.

17 It's my pleasure to have the opportunity 

18 to speak to you today on behalf of our more than 

19 100,000 students enrolled in one of our nursing, 

20 health sciences, business technology, and 

21 management programs. We also plan to provide 

22 detailed written testimony on the specific issues 

23 outlined in the May 26 Federal Notice, and hope as 

24 well to participate in Neg-Reg panels convened as a 
djj 50

1 result of those hearings.

2 The DeVry Education Network of Colleges 

3 and Universities prepare students for meaningful 

4 and fulfilling careers by focusing on academic 

5 rigor and workforce needs. While some institutions 

6 take justifiable pride in educating Nobel Prize 

7 winners, we take pride in educating those who start 

8 and manage businesses, maintain the technologies to 

9 support our country's businesses, implement 

10 designs, provide valuable health care services, 

11 service family practitioners in urban and rural 

12 America, and monitor and troubleshoot operations.

13 Our student body is diverse, with many 

14 being first-time, first-generation, traditional 

15 recent high school graduates seeking a career16 oriented college experience close to home; working 

17 adults looking to advance their careers; adult 

18 learners eager to re-enter higher education; and 

19 aspiring nurses and physicians seeking to close the 

20 gap in health care workers. It's important to note 

21 that our diverse population represents an 

22 opportunity for the nation to incrementally 

23 increase educational attainment and prosperity.

24 These so-called "nontraditional students" 
djj 51

1 include those who are not bound by a traditional 

2 academic calendar, who stop out on more than one 

3 occasion to balance work and family, who migrate 

4 from school to school to find the institution that 

5 best fits their needs, and move from job to job or 

6 career to career. They are fast becoming the 

7 traditional description of America's typical higher 

8 education population.

9 Our current economic challenges make it 

10 imperative that our Federal Financial Aid Programs 

11 support the access that all students require to be 

12 successful. We look forward to once again working 

13 with the Department of Education on the regulatory 

14 issues that have brought us together today.

15 Higher education is in a period of rapid evolution. 

16 Financial considerations are intruding on all 

17 areas. Students are decrying rapidly raising 

18 tuition, faculty are demanding higher pay and 

19 improved benefits, inflation affects occupancy cost 

20 and other expenses, and taxpayers demand smaller 

21 tax increases and more accountability.

22 Earlier warnings, almost 20 years ago, of our 

23 nation's state of unreadiness to deal with a 

24 declining educational attainment and the resulting 
djj 52

1 economic hardships are coming to pass. The lack of 

2 preparedness of our workforce coupled with the 

3 increasingly high skill level demands of the 20th 

4 Century economy is on a dangerous convergence of 

5 trends. 

6 Serving the needs of current and future 

7 students and their employers requires an effective 

8 and efficient allocation of higher education 

9 resources. Private investment represents an 

10 additional source of educational capital, which 

11 together with public and philanthropic sources can 

12 help our society serve its growing educational 

13 needs.

14 Our self-interest, our national security, our 

15 ability to compete in the world marketplace will 

16 require that more of our population receive a 

17 quality education. Many students will require more 

18 financial assistance in the future, not less. Yet, 

19 the return on America's investment if we apply a 

20 student-centric higher education funding approach 

21 can yield significant benefit for our country.

22 In a recent report by CEOs for Cities, researchers 

23 found that "increasing the four-year college 

24 attainment rate in each of the nation's 51 largest 
djj 53

1 metropolitan areas by one percentage point would be 

2 associated with $124 billion increase in aggregate 

3 annual personal income." If we're going to regain 

4 our competitive prominence around the world and 

5 emerge from this economic crisis renewed, prepared, 

6 and resolved, democratizing higher education 

7 through genuine student access and opportunity in 

8 an accountable but nimble environment is a must.

9 In my 37 years in higher education, I've had 

10 the good fortune to be both a professor and 

11 administrator in public, independent, and privately 

12 funded institutions, along with a number of years 

13 at the U.S. Department of Education. In 1982, I 

14 came to DeVry to establish a regulatory compliance 

15 program designed to ensure federal and state 

16 program accountability. Twenty-seven years later, 

17 that regulatory oversight has exponentially grown 

18 to include federal and state education departments, 

19 the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the New 

20 York Stock Exchange.

21 We believe strongly that consistent guidelines 

22 should be established to assist all institutions in 

23 the sound administration of their educational and 

24 student finance programs. We believe just as 
djj 54

1 strongly that performance, not sector, should be 

2 the basis of any unique requirements.

3 Solutions that focus on reducing student access 

4 rather than improving program accountability can 

5 have catastrophic effects on this nation. 

6 Likewise, solutions that do not harshly and swiftly 

7 punish abusers of students and student financial 

8 aid programs regardless of sector will have a 

9 devastating effect on our programs and on America's 

10 students. The following recommendations are made 

11 to preserve access and choice and to ensure 

12 educational opportunity while demanding 

13 accountability.

14 Equal and fair performance-based criteria must 

15 be developed and used to determine which 

16 institutions should participate in Title IV 

17 programs and to determine that level of 

18 participation. It is vital that any plan based on 

19 performance include the development of effective 

20 and equitable criteria and the ability of 

21 institutions and regulatory bodies to manage and 

22 enforce the plan.

23 We support the recent HEA amendments, which 

24 require strong foreign medical school Title IV 
djj 55

1 eligibility requirements, including at least a 75 

2 percent examination pass rate. To be licensed to 

3 practice medicine in the United States, the 

4 Educational Commission for Foreign Medical School 

5 Graduates requires students to pass--to take and 

6 pass the United States Medical Licensing Exam. Our 

7 medical school, Ross University, is proud that our 

8 pass rate for first time test-takers on the U.S. 

9 MLE is over 90 percent. We are looking forward to 

10 the Neg-Reg process and working with you.

11 With respect to the suggested program integrity 

12 and forum topics, we offer the following comments 

13 and welcome the opportunity for dialogue with a new 

14 administration that result in a clearer 

15 understanding of and mutual support for student16 centric rules and regulations.

17 Although some have suggested that recent 

18 changes in the Higher Education Act serve to loosen 

19 incentive compensation safe harbor regulations, we 

20 believe, as was mentioned earlier, that they've 

21 actually clarified the rules and given institutions 

22 and the Department much needed guidelines for 

23 compliance as well as program review and audit.

24 We believe strongly in the triad: the complementary 
djj 56

1 but unique roles of state authorization, 

2 accreditation, and the U.S. Department of 

3 Education. Working together and sharing 

4 information as was mandated in HEA of 1992 --which 

5 I will say I was a part of as well--has 

6 strengthened all three and improved oversight based 

7 on each one's area of expertise.

8 I think we can all agree that simplification of 

9 the higher--of the financial aid application 

10 process, including a verification system that 

11 utilizes information that the federal government 

12 has at its disposal, should be implemented as soon 

13 as practical. The complicated and inefficient 

14 system we now force students to use is a deterrent 

15 to college attendance. It overwhelms and 

16 discourages our most at-risk students and their 

17 families, resulting too often in them giving up.

18 One of the institutions in the DeVry Education 

19 Network is Advanced Academics, a regionally 

20 accredited virtual high school, that serves 

21 students in more than 200 school districts across 

22 the United States by requiring--by providing 

23 everything from credit recovery through advance 

24 placement coursework, as well as full high school 
djj 57

1 diplomas.

2 We agree that the Department should set 

3 standards for the definition of a "high school 

4 diploma" used to determine eligibility for 

5 financial aid. The most direct road to increasing 

6 college completion is increasing valid high school 

7 graduation.

8 Dual enrollment programs such as the DeVry 

9 University Advantage Academy, which operates with 

10 the Chicago Public Schools and the Columbus Public 

11 Schools, provides such a pathway to college 

12 completion. This program allows public school 

13 students to take their junior and senior year 

14 courses from certified high school teachers while 

15 simultaneously taking college courses from DeVry 

16 professors.

17 At the end of two years, including two 

18 summers, students graduate with both a high school 

19 diploma and an associate degree at no cost to them 

20 or their families and without using federal or 

21 state student financial aid, and we do that on the 

22 Carnegie Credit Hour. Our graduation rate is more 

23 than 90 percent with one-third getting started 

24 right in their careers after graduation and two-
djj 58

1 thirds going on for their Bachelor's degrees. 

2 About 40 percent of those go on for their 

3 Bachelor's degrees at DeVry University. Sixty 

4 percent go on to other four-year institutions, many 

5 of them in the State of Illinois or Ohio.

6 In my 27 years at DeVry Inc., I would have to 

7 say that working with the Chicago Public Schools 

8 under Secretary Duncan's leadership to create the 

9 Advantage Academy has been one of my proudest 

10 accomplishments. 

11 Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify 

12 before you today. We look forward to working 

13 closely with the Department and the greater higher 

14 education community during the Negotiated 

15 Rulemaking process. We share President Obama's 

16 vision of meeting the educational needs of our 

17 youngest citizens from cradle to grave--and career. 

18 Not grave. Cradle to career. Scratch that. This 

19 can only be accomplished if all sectors of 

20 education work as critical components of a diverse 

21 system that provide students different paths to 

22 success. 

23 Thank you. And I'll take any questions if you 

24 have them.
djj 59

1 MR. BERGERON: Thank you, Sharon.

2 Anything, Sally?

3 MS. WANNER: Is the high school program, is 

4 that a charter school, a public charter school? Is 

5 that what you said?

6 MS. PARROTT: The Advantage Academy? 

7 MS. WANNER: Yes.

8 MS. PARROTT: Or the Advanced--the Advantage 

9 Academy in Chicago is--has actually been designated 

10 as a Chicago Public School, that portion of it that 

11 is the high school courses. It resides at our 

12 DeVry University campus in Chicago.

13 MR. BERGERON: Sharon, I know from working with 

14 you over the years that you're a very strong 

15 advocate of the triad and would ask you the 

16 question: How do you think that we as a federal 

17 government should respond in circumstances where 

18 states have chosen, for example, to loosen or 

19 eliminate their oversight of institutions because 

20 of budget concerns, or where we identify weakness 

21 with an accreditor, where we--you know, while we 

22 haven't withdrawn their recognition, we would like 

23 to bolster our oversight to address any weaknesses 

24 there? Could you speak a bit about how you see 
djj 60

1 that working in an environment where, candidly, 

2 there are fiscal pressures not just on 

3 institutions, but it falls to states and to

4 accreditors, then. And should there be some 

5 mechanism built into our regulatory structure that 

6 is in place to address that?

7 MS. PARROTT: Well, I think we have a unique 

8 vantage point because we operate nationally--

9 MR. BERGERON: That's why I'm asking you the 

10 question.

11 MS. PARROTT: --and so with lots of different 

12 state bodies, all of whom are slightly different. 

13 The way we have approached it is to find the one 

14 that is most difficult that we operate in and 

15 regulate ourselves to that standard, because if

16 we're at that standard, we've hit the hardest one; 

17 and anything that is perhaps more reasonable, I'll 

18 say, than that, we are able to accommodate.

19 I think this kind of communication will foster 

20 that. I think if you have an accrediting body, be 

21 it regional, national, programmatic that you think 

22 you need to have that conversation with, I think 

23 that is a very valid conversation to have. I think 

24 that for the Department of Education, though, to 
djj 61

1 become the academic quality gatekeeper sounds too 

2 much like a Ministry of Education to me and very 

3 much different from what--how we defined education 

4 in this country.

5 I think that with the states there have been a 

6 variety of things going on. Some of them have 

7 reviewed the recognition criteria of accrediting 

8 bodies and determined that they could use that same 

9 criteria to make decisions with respect to 

10 authorization to operate. None of them, to my 

11 knowledge, have given up their consumer protection 

12 responsibilities, however, which I think that when 

13 you look at what each does, the blending of the 

14 three and the communication between the three, 

15 which could probably be even better than that 

16 mandated in '92, would be useful.

17 I think we can always do better in all three 

18 areas, and the fourth area being the institutions 

19 themselves, but I really do believe that there are 

20 unique advantages to all of the three. And what I 

21 guess I've seen over the years is more a similar 

22 reaction to institutions by the three than I've 

23 seen diverging.

24 So, anything else?
djj 62

1 MR. BERGERON: Thank you, Sharon. 

2 MS. PARROTT: Thank you.

3 MR. BERGERON: Louis Torres.

4 MR. TORRES: Good morning.

5 MR. BERGERON: Good morning. Welcome.

6 MR. TORRES: I'm Louis Torres, and I'm the 

7 Deputy Provost at Metropolitan State College of 

8 Denver. I'm going to talk about the planning and 

9 development financial assistance for emerging 

10 Hispanic-serving institutions. I've submitted this 

11 in writing, by the way, but--

12 MR. BERGERON: Okay.

13 MR. TORRES: --in consideration of time, I've 

14 cut some of that. 

15 Metropolitan State College of Denver recommends 

16 that the U.S. Department of Education consider 

17 providing funding specifically for emerging 

18 Hispanic-serving institutions--or emerging HSIs--to 

19 develop plans by which to sooner become HSIs than 

20 they would without such funding. Currently, Title 

21 V provides funds to those institutions that are 

22 already Hispanic-serving institutions with at least 

23 25 percent Hispanic enrollment, and Title III 

24 provides funding for its strengthening institutions 
djj 63

1 programs. However, we believe that funding for 

2 those institutions seeking HSI status would greatly 

3 accelerate the enrollment of Hispanic students and 

4 their increased retention.

5 The largest and most successful association 

6 advocating for Hispanic higher education is the 

7 Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities, 

8 or HACU. While HACU states that there are no 

9 definitive statistics as to the number of HSI 

10 institutions, it lists 218 HSI member institutions 

11 in 14 states and Puerto Rico. Of these, 32 are in 

12 Puerto Rico; by definition, Hispanic-serving, of 

13 course. That means there are 186 HSIs who are HACU 

14 members in 14 states in the U.S. mainland. 

15 In addition, HACU also indicates that it has 99 

16 associate member institutions and 55 partner 

17 institutions, not HSIs, but HACU members 

18 nonetheless. That means there are at least 154 

19 HACU members in varying degrees of seeking to 

20 become Hispanic-serving institutions, including 

21 Metropolitan State College of Denver. 

22 None of these institutions or similar 

23 institutions not belonging to HACU is eligible to 

24 receive funding from the U.S. Department of 
djj 64

1 Education to develop and implement plans necessary 

2 to accelerate becoming an HSI. To receive HSI 

3 designation, student--Hispanic student enrollment 

4 in a higher education institution must reach 25 

5 percent; and, until recently, at least 50 percent 

6 of the Hispanic students had to be low-income.

7 Funding is set aside in Title V for HSIs by the 

8 U.S. Congress. For this past year, it was expected 

9 that upwards of $175 million was to be so set 

10 aside. Between 1995 and 2005, more than $550 

11 million has been awarded to more than 185 HSIs. 

12 The current number of HSIs getting Federal Title V 

13 funding is 173, according to the U.S. Department of 

14 Education. 

15 According to the Developing Hispanic-Serving 

16 Institution Program, this program helps eligible 

17 institutions enhance and expand their capacity to 

18 serve Hispanic and low-income students by providing 

19 funds to improve and strengthen the academic 

20 quality, institutional stability, management, and 

21 fiscal capabilities of eligible institutions.

22 Also, and very importantly, funds are available to 

23 HSIs through other federal departments. For 

24 example, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has the 
djj 65

1 Hispanic-Serving Institutions National Program, 

2 whose mission is to provide mutually beneficial 

3 partnerships between the U.S. Department of 

4 Agriculture and Hispanic-serving institutions.

5 HSIs are crucial to the education of Hispanics. 

6 The first major statistical study of HSIs was the 

7 report "Hispanic-Serving Institutions: Statistical 

8 Trends From 1990 to 1999." It states Hispanic 

9 Americans' enrollment in all higher education 

10 institutions, from community colleges through 

11 graduate school, increased by 68 percent in just 

12 nine years. As of 1999, HSIs enrolled only 10 

13 percent of all students in the U.S.; however, they 

14 accounted for 45 percent of all Hispanic college 

15 students. So, a high number of Hispanics 

16 concentrate in a small number of HSIs.

17 Even more dramatic is the impact of HSIs on 

18 Hispanic graduation. The total number of degree 

19 recipients at HSIs who are minorities grew by 87 

20 percent between 1991 and 2000. The number of 

21 Hispanic degree recipients in these institutions 

22 grew by 95 percent, more than the increase in the 

23 number of recipients from any other racial or 

24 ethnic group. So, those are comments about current 
djj 66

1 HSIs.

2 However, for those striving to become HSIs, or 

3 emerging HSIs, no such federal funding program 

4 exists. This is a situation in which Metropolitan 

5 State College of Denver finds itself. Beginning 

6 with the development of a Hispanic-Serving 

7 Institution Task Force in April 2007, we have been 

8 engaged in large-scale directed planning to develop 

9 as a Hispanic-serving institution with special 

10 emphasis on what the word "serving" means in this 

11 context.

12 With approximately 13 percent Hispanic, but in 

13 a metropolitan area where the K through 12 student 

14 population is well over 25 percent, we have asked 

15 what will be the place of the Hispanic community at 

16 Metro State as this community becomes an 

17 increasingly large share of the population in our 

18 service area?

19 The mission of the ongoing HSI Task Force is to 

20 engage the Metro State community in creating the 

21 methods and processes by which the college could 

22 plan for and achieve federal designation as a 

23 Hispanic-serving institution with at least 25 

24 percent Hispanic students within as short a time as 
djj 67

1 possible. Further, the mission of the larger HSI 

2 initiative is to equitably educate the students 

3 within the geographical area Metro State is 

4 legislatively intended to serve, including, of 

5 course, Hispanics.

6 So, we see that Metropolitan State College of 

7 Denver is similar to many other institutions in 

8 Colorado and nationally that are in a demographic 

9 area conducive to HSI status, that are striving to 

10 become an HSI, and that have developed a plan to 

11 achieve this goal. 

12 We began the specifics of planning such an 

13 effort in April of 2007. Over 55 Metro State 

14 employees nominated themselves or were nominated by 

15 others to serve on the proposed HSI Task Force. We 

16 arrived at over 50 developed recommendations and a 

17 document nearly 400 pages in length. Sixteen of 

18 these recommendations became our top priorities, 

19 all 16 of which, in one way or another, were added 

20 to the college's budget for this current year, for 

21 the 2008-2009 academic year. This experience is 

22 what leads us to emphasize to the Department of 

23 Education that institutions striving to become HSIs 

24 should be eligible for developmental funding while 
djj 68

1 in the process of reaching that goal.

2 The need for planning and development funds can 

3 be seen in examples of how Metro State has 

4 initiated its efforts to increase the enrollment of 

5 Hispanic students and to further retain them. For 

6 example, within the past year, the Office of 

7 College Communications has devoted at least 

8 $117,000 to promote Metro State as the top choice 

9 for Colorado's Latino students with marketing and 

10 communication efforts aimed specifically at this 

11 demographic.

12 Initiating one of the HSI Task Force 

13 recommendations, this office implemented an 

14 integrated marketing and advertising campaign that 

15 included direct-mail postcards; billboards along 

16 Federal Boulevard; bus boards on Denver Public 

17 Schools' buses; and print, radio, and television 

18 ads targeting the Latino market. While no one 

19 effort can claim credit for an increase in student 

20 enrollment, the effect of this marketing and 

21 communication effort can be seen, at least in part, 

22 by the increase in Hispanic students from Spring 

23 semester 2008 to Spring semester 2009. During this 

24 period, Hispanic student enrollment increased 9.6 
djj 69

1 percent, double the white student enrollment 

2 increase of 4.9 percent. And there are several 

3 other examples that I have given in the written 

4 comments about efforts that we are engaging in to 

5 increase the enrollment and retention of these 

6 students.

7 Our college has a long history of providing 

8 increased access and success for Hispanic students. 

9 Among many other examples, Metro State serves as 

10 the only institution in Colorado offering a teacher 

11 licensure for elementary and secondary education in 

12 the curriculum of Chicana and Chicano Studies. Our 

13 Hispanic students have a second-year retention rate 

14 higher than the college average for the cohort of 

15 full-time, first-time-to-college, degree-seeking 

16 freshmen, which shows great promise for overall 

17 persistence.

18 Also, as one of the Hispanic-Serving 

19 Institution Task Force Reports revealed, our 

20 Hispanic students are majoring across the breadth 

21 of departments with, for example, an 

22 overrepresentation--according to their percentages 

23 in the college--in such fields as accounting, 

24 management, speech communications, political 
djj 70

1 science, and psychology, among others.

2 So, these examples of Metro State's proactive 

3 efforts to become an HSI serve to highlight the 

4 need for planning and development funds from the 

5 U.S. Department of Education, which would allow us 

6 and numerous other colleges and universities to 

7 establish an infrastructure for emerging HSIs to 

8 become successful to recruit and retain Hispanic 

9 students.

10 While some colleges and universities have 

11 allowed shifting demographic trends to create their 

12 future for them, others have successfully set out 

13 on a path to design and create their future for 

14 themselves. By providing funds for such planning 

15 and development, the U.S. Department of Education 

16 could hasten the day when Hispanic attendance, 

17 persistence, and graduation rates truly mirror 

18 their overall population.

19 Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I 

20 would be glad to take any questions.

21 MS. WANNER: If there were a way to increase 

22 funding like you're speaking about, what criteria 

23 would you want the Department to use? Would it be 

24 that the institution wants to serve Hispanics or 
djj 71

1 that it's in a demographic area with lots of 

2 Hispanics? If we didn't use a 25 percent ruler, 

3 what would we use?

4 MR. TORRES: We think that the 25 percent rule 

5 is fine for the HSI institutions, but planning and 

6 development funds for those with a reasonable 

7 number--we have, for example, 13 percent--a 

8 reasonable number of Hispanic students already 

9 enrolled and successes at enrolling and retaining 

10 those students and, of course, the surrounding 

11 demographic area. But, also, we think that funds 

12 are necessary for planning, for developing, for 

13 figuring out how to do this, setting a timeline and 

14 really, really reaching it.

15 There would be criteria, of course, necessary, 

16 but from our experience in our institution and in 

17 this area that we serve, we know that we can do it. 

18 We need assistance. And so many other institutions 

19 are very similar to us that need that assistance, 

20 the financial assistance and other assistance that 

21 the U.S. Department of Education could provide to 

22 help us reach that goal.

23 MR. BERGERON: But the current programs, 

24 whether it's HSI or any of the other programs that 
djj 72

1 we have that have racial/ethnic characteristics of 

2 student enrollment determining institutional 

3 eligibility really are intended to support those 

4 institutions in that state, because otherwise you 

5 have issues of having federal programs that target 

6 specific racial or ethnic groups, which I think are 

7 unconstitutional, although I'll leave that to my 

8 lawyer to tell me I am wrong.

9 So, we have programs that--most of our programs 

10 are without regard to race or ethnicity of the 

11 student recipient. Think about the Federal TRIO 

12 programs or GEAR UP, for example, which are 

13 intended to increase access and persistence in 

14 postsecondary education. And they operate based on 

15 objective criteria: income of family and first16 generation status of the family. Never do we use 

17 racial or ethnic criteria.

18 I don't know that there's a question buried in 

19 there somewhere, but it's a puzzle for me how you 

20 have a program which specifically targets a racial 

21 or ethnic group for services and, at the same time, 

22 fits within the framework of our regulatory and 

23 constitutional--statutory, regulatory, and 

24 constitutional constraints.
djj 73

1 MR. TORRES: Well, Hispanic-serving 

2 institutions, the funding is actually provided for 

3 all students in the institution--all students in 

4 the institution--and our efforts are really 

5 directed not only at the Latino students, but at 

6 improving Metropolitan State College for all 

7 students, also.

8 However, in our demographic--in the area that 

9 we are legislatively mandated to serve, we have in 

10 the K through 12 population over the 25 percent 

11 that is the indication in the federal legislation 

12 that provides funding for HSIs.

13 So, the same is true in many of the state 

14 universities, college and state universities, that 

15 are intended to serve the population in their area. 

16 So, what we're suggesting is a way that we can 

17 reach out and enroll and retain a larger percentage 

18 simply of the surrounding area.

19 MR. BERGERON: So, you would tie it to service 

20 area, population of the service area may be 

21 potentially a way to--because I--

22 MR. TORRES: Yes.

23 MR. BERGERON: --do think there's a--

24 MR. TORRES: The answer is yes, because we are, 
djj 74

1 again, legislatively mandated to serve the seven2 or eight-county metropolitan area.

3 MR. BERGERON: Thank you, that's helpful.

4 Stephen Jordan?

5 MR. TORRES: Thank you.

6 MR. BERGERON: Thank you.

7 Stephen Jordan will be next.

8 MR. JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

9 For the record, I'm Stephen Jordan, President of 

10 Metropolitan State College of Denver. Welcome to 

11 our community.

12 I'm going to pick up on some of the comments of 

13 Dr. Torres because I think they're really crucial 

14 for a state like Colorado, which I think 

15 exemplifies the issues facing many states. And let 

16 me take a moment to sort of give you a brief 

17 demographic. 

18 We know that for the state of Colorado, every 

19 age group from 0 to 44, between now and 2020, the 

20 white population will decline and all the growth 

21 will be in people of color, largely--largely, but 

22 not exclusively--Latino populations.

23 We also know that as we begin to take a 

24 look at the history of Colorado, which has 
djj 75

1 historically been in the top five in educational 

2 attainment and historically been in the bottom five 

3 in those schools that actually educated their own 

4 citizens to that level, but largely imported them, 

5 that as we begin to look at the future projections, 

6 and even assuming that we could maintain our same 

7 level of importation of college-educated graduates, 

8 that with the shifting in the demographics that if 

9 we cannot get to our students of color to enter, 

10 persist, and graduate at the same rates as white 

11 students and even at greater numbers, we will have 

12 an economic catastrophe in our state. We will not 

13 be able to replace the current workforce that we 

14 see. And I suspect that is a view or vision you 

15 would see in Arizona, in California, in Texas, and 

16 many other states who are seeing these same kinds 

17 of issues. So, this question about support for 

18 achieving HSI status is a very important one.

19 We currently are in the top 100 in the 

20 country in serving Hispanic students. Imagine 

21 that. We're in the top 100, but only 13 percent of 

22 our students are of Latino background. And we find 

23 ourselves in this position of needing to increase 

24 the matriculation, persistence, and graduation of 
djj 76

1 these students.

2 So, this question about how we can receive 

3 assistance to implement some of the strategies that 

4 are necessary, which--and what our studies have 

5 found is these strategies are beneficial not just 

6 to Hispanic students, but to all students; that if 

7 you can help us to move that forward, it can make a 

8 big difference for the economic condition and 

9 workforce preparation of states like Colorado, but 

10 I think many of the Sun Belt States would be in the 

11 very same position. And what I'd like to do is 

12 share with you and give you a copy of the report 

13 that was put together so you can see that.

14 We put in--as was mentioned, we have 

15 funded the first 16 strategies that came forward. 

16 That's a half a million dollars in one year of 

17 funds that we have put into this effort, and yet we 

18 know that we have to do so much more.

19 Related to this issue that we think is 

20 important that is something in your court that you 

21 can help us out with is that we know that for many 

22 of our students--and, again, we see this 

23 particularly within the Latino culture--many of our 

24 students choose to live at home and commute. We 
djj 77

1 are a commuter school, like many of the urban 

2 institutions in other Sun Belt States. But what we 

3 see for these students is that there is a terrible 

4 culture conflict between the issue of going to 

5 school or staying to support family, and that many 

6 times we see that this staying to support family 

7 wins out over going to school, even though in the 

8 long run—in the long run--family and community 

9 would be better off if that student persisted and 

10 graduated.

11 So, one of the things that we want to 

12 suggest to you as a possible area of consideration 

13 is to say that within financial aid you begin to 

14 recognize that and say that students who do live at 

15 home can receive a basic stipend within the Federal 

16 Financial Aid Program that can be a contribution to 

17 home so that we don't put them in the conflict of 

18 having to say, "Work is so important that I have to 

19 put in more hours." And as they put in more hours 

20 of work, school becomes less important, and 

21 suddenly they become a casualty of the process. We 

22 would like to encourage you to think about the 

23 incentive that might be created for these students 

24 if Federal Financial Aid could be a contribution to 
djj 78

1 family at home while they lived at home in order to 

2 provide them the incentive to stay in school. One 

3 suggestion for you.

4 The second is--or the third is one where, 

5 again, this partnership between the federal 

6 government and the state government which has 

7 dramatically evolved since the early, I would say, 

8 late sixties and early seventies, when it was very 

9 clear that states took care of the education in a 

10 general budget, the feds took care of financial 

11 aid, and never the twain shall meet, well, now we 

12 have a much different view. And we want to suggest 

13 to you that there are ways in which the feds might 

14 be helpful in this, and let me begin with this 

15 concept:

16 Fundamentally, for all the conversations 

17 that have been going on nationally about 

18 performance budgeting in states, fundamentally they 

19 are at the very, very small margin. And the state 

20 funding methods for higher education have not 

21 changed since the 1960s and are still fundamentally 

22 premised upon the old research university model of 

23 large freshman classes, increasingly smaller as you 

24 go towards the graduate level, and with the concept 
djj 79

1 that we were willing to accept the losses that we 

2 were going to have in the first two years. Except 

3 times have changed, and we now say we're no longer 

4 willing to accept the losses in the first two 

5 years; and, indeed, economic conditions require us 

6 to say we need to do something very different with 

7 low-income, with students of color, with 

8 underrepresented populations, and with older 

9 students in the interest of the national economy.

10 So, if our fundamental practice hasn't 

11 changed, what we know we need to change is that to 

12 be successful with these students, whether they're 

13 older students, first-generation students, low14 income students, we know we need to have smaller 

15 class sizes; they need to be more intrusive; they 

16 need to have a greater array of support services. 

17 And, indeed, it is likely that they will be more 

18 expensive in the first two years and less expensive 

19 in the last two years, a flip of the old model.

20 You can do for higher ed what you're 

21 starting to do for K-12. I saw in the paper today 

22 that the Secretary had announced his initiative to 

23 encourage states to begin moving towards a national 

24 model in terms of standards for graduation by 
djj 80

1 putting out fiscal incentives. In the same way you 

2 can provide states fiscal incentives to encourage 

3 them to begin changing their funding models to put 

4 greater services and emphasis at the first two 

5 years in order to encourage the matriculation, 

6 retention, and graduation of the very populations

7 you are most interested as an administration 

8 serving today. And so by providing grant 

9 opportunities to states that might help support 

10 initially these efforts for states to infuse more 

11 support in the first two years and begin to change 

12 the cycle that we are in, you could make a 

13 considerable contribution in the change effort that 

14 we know you are committed to as an administration.

15 I'll be pleased to respond to any 

16 questions that you might have.

17 MR. BERGERON: Thank you. Thank you for 

18 also being one of our hosts.

19 MR. JORDAN: Oh, it's our pleasure.

20 MR. BERGERON: As I said, if you weren't 

21 here at the beginning, I commented, ever since I 

22 started being involved in the campus crime 

23 statistics, this has been one of these unique 

24 campuses that we have dealt with from that 
djj 81

1 perspective, and so I've always found it an 

2 interesting and dynamic kind of learning 

3 environment where you have community colleges--a 

4 community college, an urban four-year, and then a 

5 broader, more research-oriented institution all 

6 sharing space. It's an important lesson to us all 

7 about--

8 MR. JORDAN: And you might be interested 

9 to know, I mean, along that fact--I mean, it is 

10 fascinating. We will tell you from an 

11 administrative standpoint it's a nightmare; from 

12 the students' standpoint it works great. But we 

13 have about 250 general classroom spaces on this 

14 campus. If you take out the first hour in the 

15 morning, the 8:00 to 9:00 hour, and you take out 

16 the 9:00 to 10:00 at night, we have a 98 percent 

17 utilization against those 250 classrooms the rest 

18 of the day. There is not a more efficiently used 

19 campus in the country, I would probably suspect in 

20 the world, than this campus right here. It is an 

21 interesting model.

22 MR. BERGERON: It is an interesting model 

23 and yes, I can understand that it is very 

24 administratively complicated. But it is one of 
djj 82

1 these things that does help address issues of 

2 costs, particularly.

3 MR. JORDAN: Yeah.

4 MR. BERGERON: By the efficiencies that 

5 you are able to realize.

6 I'm intrigued by your comments around 

7 state funding formulas and how we might leverage 

8 that. I'll have to think about it some more to see 

9 how that might play out, and we may be back in 

10 touch around that issue. I do agree with you 

11 that--you know, I grew up in the seventies and was 

12 at a large state university where I saw firsthand 

13 the willingness or the acceptance of loss of 

14 students.

15 MR. JORDAN: Right.

16 MR. BERGERON: And that was not just 

17 unique to the institution that I attended and 

18 worked for, for a short while. I think that that's 

19 one of the things that we recognized, you know, as 

20 not an appropriate approach. And it really is an 

21 area where there is a need for fundamental change.

22 MR. JORDAN: And, quite frankly, I mean, 

23 we know enough about attendance patterns of these 

24 very populations we're talking about to know that 
djj 83

1 they are much more likely to begin in a community 

2 college, not in a research university. If they 

3 matriculate, they're much more likely to 

4 matriculate on to a regional comprehensive 

5 institution in the long run than in the research 

6 universities. 

7 So, it's not that one model is right or wrong, 

8 but I'm suggesting that perhaps what we need to do 

9 is think about maybe there are different models 

10 depending upon what it is we're trying to 

11 accomplish.

12 MR. BERGERON: Correct. Yes.

13 MS. SMITH: I have a question about at the 

14 very beginning where you were dovetailing from 

15 Louis, who I guess works here as well--

16 MR. JORDAN: Right.

17 MS. SMITH: --about being--and he made a 

18 comment about you're top 100 in the country in 

19 terms of serving Latino students. Is that in that 

20 report that you're going to hand us, or is that a 

21 different statistic from somewhere else?

22 MR. JORDAN: Well, I don't--

23 SPEAKER: Hispanic Outlook.

24 MS. SMITH: Hispanic Outlook.
djj 84

1 MR. JORDAN: Yeah, that came from his 

2 Hispanic Outlook. And, again, I think it's one of 

3 the things about the misnomers or the--one of the 

4 problems you have when you say, okay, you become 

5 Hispanic-serving when you're 25 percent. But, 

6 unfortunately, so many of those institutions are 

7 very small institutions.

8 In Colorado, we're the largest in terms of 

9 numbers, minority-serving, four-year institution in 

10 the State of Colorado. We have more students of 

11 color than the University of Colorado at Boulder 

12 and Colorado State combined, and yet we're only 13 

13 percent of our enrollment when 20 percent of the 

14 population of this region are of Latino heritage. 

15 And you begin to say, "Well, if you can't solve 

16 that problem in your largest institutions, you will 

17 not solve it through a bunch of very small

18 institutions out in rural areas." 

19 MS. SMITH: Right.

20 MR. BERGERON: Right.

21 MR. JORDAN: Because, again, those students are 

22 much more likely to live at home, so you've got to 

23 do it through more urban organized institutions.

24 MR. BERGERON: And I was interested in 
djj 85

1 your thought around this contribution for home. 

2 And we've talked about it at the federal level in 

3 terms of the need analysis changes for, you know, 

4 as long as I've been doing this, and that's years. 

5 I hate to--

6 MR. JORDAN: Don't give away your age now.

7 MR. BERGERON: I know. I hate to admit 

8 it, except there are enough people in this room who 

9 know how long I've been doing this. 

10 And one of the concepts we've talked about--and 

11 maybe you could comment on it--is not just a 

12 recognition in the cost of attendance because, you 

13 know, people can get an allowance to live at home 

14 that's part of their cost of attendance, but some 

15 notion that we could allow the expected family 

16 contribution, or whatever it is called in the 

17 future, to go negative so that, you know, it 

18 recognizes the students who are contributing to the 

19 fiscal support of the family through their wages 

20 and their earnings and not be taxed for that in the 

21 need analysis process.

22 MR. JORDAN: I mean, I think that could be 

23 a very constructive way to approach it, as you're 

24 well aware. I mean, we're really talking about a 
djj 86

1 cultural barrier and how do you break down a 

2 cultural barrier.

3 MR. BERGERON: And it's not just in the 

4 Latino culture. I mean, it's in many of our--in 

5 many low-income communities there is this. You 

6 know, I'm French Canadian by background, so go 

7 figure. You know, there was this concept, even in 

8 my family, which is that you contributed to the 

9 family.

10 MR. JORDAN: Right.

11 MR. BERGERON: And--financially. And, you

12 started working at 14 or 15 and worked full time in 

13 addition to going to high school--

14 MR. JORDAN: Right.

15 MR. BERGERON: --in order to give money 

16 back to the family. And so, it is not just in the 

17 Latino culture. And I do think it is something 

18 that is in need of addressing.

19 MR. JORDAN: I would really hope that it 

20 would be possible to do that. I think--because 

21 really--I mean, I think we could set up some very 

22 interesting analyses to begin to look at it if--you 

23 know, what was the retention rate or the dropout 

24 rate prior to implementation of a policy like that, 
djj 87

1 and we could really test its ability to see if it 

2 made a marked difference on retention in the first 

3 two years.

4 MR. BERGERON: And we're talking about 

5 reinventing our Experimental Sites Initiative.

6 MR. JORDAN: Yeah.

7 MR. BERGERON: And, I mean, there may be a 

8 great experiment here.

9 MR. JORDAN: Volunteer right here.

10 MR. BERGERON: I hear great experiment 

11 come--you know, I'll have to spend--

12 MS. SMITH: To come before our FAFSA thing 

13 tomorrow, our FAFSA forum.

14 MR. BERGERON: It's a FAFSA thing tomorrow 

15 for sure, but also I think that there are some room 

16 for maybe doing some experimentation around that.

17 MR. JORDAN: Yeah.

18 MR. BERGERON: That's a great idea.

19 MR. JORDAN: Right, great.

20 MR. BERGERON: Excellent.

21 MR. JORDAN: Thank you so much for being 

22 here. We really do appreciate it.

23 MR. BERGERON: Thank you.

24 MS. SMITH: Thank you for having us.
djj 88

1 MR. JORDAN: Yeah.

2 MR. BERGERON: We were scheduled to have a 

3 break, but we're not going to do that because I 

4 have a student in the room, Andrea Davis, who we 

5 are--wanted to get to before our break.

6 Hi, Andrea. Thank you for being patient 

7 with us.

8 MS. DAVIS: Oh, thank you so much for 

9 having me. I appreciate it.

10 I go to University of Phoenix, and the 

11 alumni representative, Evelyn Hanson, invited me 

12 here today to basically put a face to financial 

13 aid.

14 I am a 33-year-old mother of five 

15 children, doing the best I can to raise them. And 

16 I had a dream in second grade to become an 

17 elementary school teacher from my second grade 

18 teacher. And it has been an inspiration in me that 

19 has been growing ever since I was eight years old, 

20 knowing that I would one day accomplish it. If it 

21 was not for the financial aid the University of 

22 Phoenix helped me to achieve, I would not be able 

23 to work towards that goal.

24 I am currently starting my second year at 
djj 89

1 University of Phoenix in the Elementary Education 

2 Program. My children attend school at the School 

3 District 50 that a representative spoke not too 

4 long ago about. And, again, I just would impress 

5 upon you the importance of financial aid.

6 I am a full financial aid student. I have 

7 no out-of-pocket expenses at all right now. And if 

8 it wasn't for that, I could not be a student; I 

9 could not be achieving my goals; I could not be an 

10 inspiration to my children or my family, who four 

11 members of my family so far have also participated 

12 in University of Phoenix as well because of this 

13 financial aid program. And it has been a wonderful 

14 opportunity for me and for my children to see me 

15 achieve the goals, and they are now inspired to 

16 achieve their goals as well. And for you to 

17 understand that and to see that through financial 

18 aid I can accomplish these goals is a miraculous 

19 thing.

20 MR. BERGERON: Thank you.

21 MS. DAVIS: Thank you for your time.

22 MR. BERGERON: Any questions?

23 MS. DAVIS: Do you have any questions? 

24 Thank you.
djj 90

1 MS. WANNER: Are you able to go full time?

2 MS. DAVIS: I am able to go full time. 

3 With the schedule the University of Phoenix allows, 

4 I am able to attend once a week for four hours in 

5 the evening so I can maintain my family and school 

6 and career all at the same time, and help my mom 

7 with my grandmother in that, as well.

8 MR. BERGERON: Thank you.

9 MS. DAVIS: Thank you very much for your 

10 time.

11 MR. BERGERON: Okay. We're going to take 

12 a 10-minute break and reconvene at 5 minutes to 

13 11:00. Thank you.

14 [Brief recess.]

15 MR. BERGERON: We are going to go ahead 

16 and reconvene, although I suspect it may not be for 

17 that long. We do have two more individuals who 

18 have signed up to speak to us this morning. The 

19 first is Andrew Parmentier. The second one is 

20 intending to be here just before the noon hour.

21 So, if Andrew could come forward.

22 MS. SMITH: You're not speaking?

23 MR. BERGERON: Not speaking? Okay. Okay, 

24 Andrew's not--they're not speaking. So, the only 
djj 91

1 other person we have signed up for this morning is 

2 Natalie Williams, and she's not signed up until 

3 just--oh, she's here. Oh, excellent, thank you.

4 MS. SMITH: Great.

5 MR. BERGERON: Good morning, Natalie.

6 MS. WILLIAMS: Hi. How are you this 

7 morning?

8 MR. BERGERON: Good. Good to see you.

9 MS. WILLIAMS: Good to see you. 

10 Hi, my name is Natalie Williams. I'm the President 

11 for Westwood College, and I just want to thank you 

12 for the opportunity to testify today.

13 Westwood College serves a very diverse 

14 student population. Many of our students are first 

15 generation students, working adults, and are single 

16 parents. We take great pride in producing life17 long learners, and that's why I'd like to present 

18 today my viewpoint in regards to the challenges I 

19 face or some of my students face.

20 It is the Title IV program that allows 

21 many of these students to advance their careers. 

22 You heard that previously today in testimony.

23 Satisfactory academic progress. I agree 

24 with the previous statements made today. Westwood 
djj 92

1 College assesses satisfactory academic progress 

2 every term. Not only do we want to ensure 

3 compliance with Title IV, we also want to ensure 

4 the success of our students.

5 On the issue of GEDs, Westwood College has 

6 entrance exam and assessment, and we offer college 

7 prep courses for those students that may need 

8 additional assistance. Not only do we offer 

9 college prep courses, but we offer additional 

10 support services, such as a personal inside track 

11 coach, to help them not only with their academic 

12 issues, but also challenges that we face as we go 

13 to school. 

14 I also went to school when I had a family, a 

15 son, and trying to advance my career and obtain the 

16 certificates and degrees needed in the workforce. 

17 And it can be challenging because you're dealing 

18 not only with school issues, but also with family 

19 issues. So, Westwood College would like to provide 

20 additional support, so we want to ensure not only 

21 that our students are prepared academically, but we 

22 also want to ensure that they are prepared with 

23 other outside issues in terms of completing their 

24 education.
djj 93

1 On the issue of incentive compensation, 

2 provide institutions with clear and concise rule 

3 and guidance, and we'll follow them.

4 On the issue of credit hours, as mentioned 

5 previously, accrediting bodies regularly review 

6 credit hours for compliance.

7 In terms of gainful employment, pending 

8 the accrediting body, institutions are held 

9 accountable to employment standards. As stated by 

10 Charles, many institutions are involved in 

11 comprehensive strategies to track students from 

12 graduation and oftentimes prior to graduation into 

13 the workforce.

14 In December, Westwood College--the 

15 students at Westwood College participated in the 

16 Democratic National Convention. This opportunity 

17 allowed our students to gain applicable 

18 opportunities in the field, as you heard 

19 individuals testify today that you need the 

20 applicable side as well as the theory side.

21 We also offer alumni training programs at 

22 no cost to the students, which allows them to stay 

23 current in their workforce. We also participate in 

24 program advisory committees in which employers come 
djj 94

1 in to provide us feedback on the curriculum and the 

2 standard--and the industry standards.

3 In conclusion, I just want to say we need 

4 to make it as easy as possible for our students to 

5 access not only Title IV programs, but programs 

6 that assist them through their education to develop 

7 and to advance their careers.

8 MR. BERGERON: Thank you. 

9 We currently require satisfactory academic progress 

10 to be assessed once a year. You do it once a term. 

11 Do you think that should be the standard practice?

12 MS. WILLIAMS: For Westwood College, once 

13 a term it works good because we have five terms in 

14 a year, so we definitely want to make sure that not 

15 only are we monitoring it for--in terms of the 

16 students academically as well. So, by monitoring 

17 it once a term, we're able to assist those students 

18 that may be at risk of falling behind in their 

19 studies and also helping them get back on track. 

20 So, for us, it is a very good tool and resource to 

21 assist our students in completing the program.

22 MR. BERGERON: So, you would think it 

23 wouldn't--have you developed administrative 

24 practices that make it more feasible for you to do 
djj 95

1 than some other institutions, or do you think even 

2 if it's difficult, it's something you should 

3 pursue?

4 MS. WILLIAMS: I think even if it's 

5 difficult it is something that you could--should 

6 pursue to help those students complete the program.

7 MR. BERGERON: Sally? Zakiya?

8 MS. WANNER: Is the SAP review mainly like 

9 looking at grades on a term-by-term basis, or you 

10 do--

11 MS. WILLIAMS: It's--oh, go ahead, I'm 

12 sorry.

13 MS. WANNER: --you do the whole thing?

14 MS. WILLIAMS: It's actually looking at 

15 grades and completion rates. So, for example, you 

16 don't--students as they go along, if they are 

17 continually dropping out of classes, you know, you 

18 definitely want to assist in that matter as well. 

19 So not only grades, but completion rates as well.

20 MS. WANNER: Thank you.

21 MR. BERGERON: Thank you.

22 MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you.

23 MR. BERGERON: We appreciate you coming. 

24 If there's anyone else who would like to testify, 
djj 96

1 please go see Mary or Kristin out in the foyer. 

2 And otherwise, we will go ahead and take another 

3 break until there's somebody who is available.

4 I would say, I don't have the schedule in 

5 front of me for the afternoon, but we do have at 

6 least two people who have signed up to testify this 

7 afternoon, one right after the break, so just at 

8 1:00, and then one a little bit later on in the 

9 afternoon. So, we do have a couple of people who 

10 are speaking this afternoon.

11 But until somebody else signs up to speak, 

12 we'll take a break. Thank you.

13 [Brief recess.]

14 MR. BERGERON: We have no one else signed 

15 up for the morning, and so it is about quarter to 

16 12:00 right now, so we're going to go ahead and 

17 take--and adjourn until 1:00, when we'll reconvene.

18 So, enjoy lunch, and we'll see you back 

19 here in about an hour and 15 minutes. 

20 Thank you.

21 [Whereupon, at 11:44 a.m., a luncheon 

22 recess was taken.]

23
djj 97

1 AFTERNOON SESSION

2 [1:20 p.m.] 

3 MR. BERGERON: I was wondering if Jennifer 

4 Cook is here.

5 [Pause.]

6 MR. BERGERON: Hi, Jennifer. We'll go ahead 

7 and hear from you.

8 MS. COOK: Okay. Hi, my name is Jennifer 

9 Cook, and I'm here representing the Canadian 

10 Consulate, and we have an office located here in 

11 Denver. And I'm here to highlight the potential 

12 impact that the proposed U.S. student loan reforms 

13 could have on approximately 21,000 U.S. American 

14 students who are enrolled at foreign institutions, 

15 over 9,000 of whom study in Canada.

16 Currently, these foreign institutions are 

17 not eligible for direct lending. Thus, the new 

18 legislation would negatively impact U.S. students 

19 who rely on these loans to attend colleges or 

20 universities abroad. I think I would best 

21 illustrate the issue by a letter that was written 

22 and sent--written by the International Education 

23 Council and sent to Representative George Miller, 

24 Chairman of--sorry, Chairman on the Committee on 
djj 98

1 Education and Labor. It arrives with the support 

2 of many countries and hundreds of institutions:

3 "The International Education Council is an 

4 association of colleges and universities outside 

5 the United States that are eligible institutions 

6 under the Higher Education Act, so their enrolled 

7 students can receive federal student loans. It is 

8 important to note that these students are seeking a 

9 degree as opposed to a study abroad program where 

10 they remain enrolled at a home campus in the United 

11 States. The members of the association comply with 

12 most of the same regulations and application 

13 procedures as U.S. schools so their American 

14 students can pay for higher education.

15 "There are approximately 21,000 American 

16 students enrolled in colleges and universities 

17 abroad--or around the world who receive Federal 

18 Family Education Loans, the only type of federal 

19 aid that they are currently eligible for. Without 

20 these loans, educational plans would have to be 

21 curtailed and students would have to seek more 

22 expensive private loans, which are currently 

23 difficult for them to obtain.

24 "We understand that this new legislation 
djj 99

1 would eliminate the FFEL Program and have all 

2 federal loans made through the Direct Loan Program. 

3 We ask that you make the appropriate changes to 

4 ensure that foreign schools are made eligible for 

5 the Direct Loan Program so that American students 

6 can continue to go to the college of their choice, 

7 including colleges abroad.

8 "We also ask that the appropriate steps be 

9 taken to assist foreign schools with the transition 

10 process to the Direct Loan Program to ensure that 

11 Americans enrolled in foreign colleges and 

12 universities will have similar opportunities for 

13 federal financial aid as those enrolled in the 

14 United States.

15 "In detail, we propose the following: Modify 

16 Section 102(a)(1)(c) of the Higher Education Act to 

17 delete the words 'only for purposes of Part B of 

18 Title IV,' and insert 'only for the purposes of 

19 Part A, Subpart 1, and Parts B and D of Title IV.'" 

20 "On behalf of the Board of Directors and 

21 the members of the IEC and of the thousands of 

22 American students who want to pursue higher 

23 education abroad, we urge you to adopt these 

24 recommendations. The IEC is working with 
djj 100

1 representatives of the embassies of our members' 

2 countries on these proposals, and we'd be pleased 

3 to coordinate answers to any questions you may 

4 have.

5 "Thank you for your consideration. 

6 Sincerely, Harrison M. Wadsworth, Executive 

7 Director of the International Education Council."

8 Thank you.

9 MR. BERGERON: The problem with 

10 participation in Direct Loans is not statutory; it 

11 is administrative.

12 MS. COOK: Okay.

13 MR. BERGERON: The way the Direct Loan 

14 Program and our other grant programs, Pell Grants 

15 included, operate is they're--the institution has a 

16 direct federal--an account with the Federal 

17 Government from which it draws funds. And so that 

18 is the impediment to a foreign school participating 

19 in the Direct Loan Program.

20 We have interpreted the statute in a 

21 manner that would permit a foreign school to 

22 participate, but have this administrative problem. 

23 You know, whatever budget legislation's enacted 

24 will provide some approach or remedy to that 
djj 101

1 specific--

2 MS. COOK: Okay.

3 MR. BERGERON: --problem to avoid that 

4 administrative issue. But it's, you know, never 

5 been anyone's intent that students attending 

6 foreign schools be ineligible.

7 MS. COOK: Okay.

8 MR. BERGERON: And so we're aware of the 

9 problem and think that there is a fairly easy 

10 solution.

11 MS. COOK: Okay.

12 MR. BERGERON: That said, were you 

13 suggesting that foreign students attending foreign 

14 institutions also be eligible for Pell Grants and 

15 Academic Competitiveness and National SMART Grants 

16 and TEACH Grants? Because they're all in--

17 MS. COOK: That's not what's been 

18 discussed so far, so--

19 MR. BERGERON: Well, the reference to Part 

20 A gets you there.

21 MS. COOK: Yes.

22 MR. BERGERON: Okay.

23 MS. COOK: I'm getting a little bit out of 

24 my area of expertise.
djj 102

1 MR. BERGERON: That's okay. I just--

2 MS. COOK: Yeah.

3 MR. BERGERON: Yeah.

4 MS. COOK: Okay. Thank you.

5 MR. BERGERON: Thank you. 

6 If there is anyone else who wishes to speak, go see 

7 Mary and Kristin because we have no one else signed 

8 up this afternoon.

9 So, we'll go off the record until somebody 

10 does either show up newly to speak or one of you 

11 decides you want to. 

12 Thanks.

13 [Off the record from 1:10 p.m. to 3:45 

14 p.m.]

15 MR. BERGERON: Okay. So, it's 10 minutes 

16 to 4:00, and we have no one else who's indicated 

17 that they are interested in testifying this 

18 afternoon, so we're going to go ahead and end this 

19 hearing.

20 We will next have a hearing in Little 

21 Rock, Arkansas, on Thursday. So, you know, we'll 

22 continue to keep the record open and receive public 

23 comments through our e-mail at "Neg-Reg09@ed.gov." 

24 We will be keeping that receipt of those public 
djj 103

1 comments open until the last hearing, which occurs 

2 on June 23rd in Philadelphia.

3 I want to thank everybody who participated 

4 in the hearing and our hosts at the Community 

5 College of Denver, the Metropolitan State, and 

6 University of Colorado at Denver. 

7 Thank you. Have a great afternoon.

8 [Whereupon, at 3:51 p.m., the hearing was 

9 adjourned.]