1

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION

+ + + + +

DOCKET ID ED-2018-OPE-0076

+ + + + +

PUBLIC HEARING

+ + + + +

THURSDAY,

SEPTEMBER 6, 2018

+ + + + +

The Hearing convened in the Barnard 

Auditorium, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, 

D.C. at 9:00 a.m., Aaron Washington, Facilitator, 

presiding.

PRESENT

AARON WASHINGTON, Office of Postsecondary 

Education

MICHAEL BRICKMAN, Office of the Undersecretary 

VANESSA BURTON, Office of General Counsel

DIANE AUER JONES, Office of the Undersecretary 
2

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

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

2 9:04 a.m.

3 MR. BRICKMAN: Good morning, everyone. 

4 Thank you for being here. My name is Michael 

5 Brickman. I am Senior Advisor in the Office of the 

6 Undersecretary, and on behalf of Secretary Betsy 

7 DeVos, I'm pleased to welcome you to this public 

8 hearing.

9 I'm joined at this table by three other 

10 department officials. We have Aaron Washington 

11 from the Office of Postsecondary Education, 

12 Vanessa Burton from the Office of General Counsel, 

13 and Diane Jones from the Office of the 

14 Undersecretary.

15 This is the first of three public 

16 hearings that we are convening to gather input 

17 regarding regulations that govern programs 

18 authorized under Title IV of the Higher Education 

19 Act of 1965, as amended. Next week, we will hold 

20 similar hearings in Louisiana and Wisconsin.

21 Secretary DeVos has challenged America 

22 to rethink education. Rethink means everyone 
3

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 questioning everything to ensure nothing limits 

2 students from being prepared for what comes next. 

3 In postsecondary education, we focus 

4 largely on breaking down barriers to innovation and 

5 reducing regulatory burden while protecting 

6 students and taxpayers from unreasonable risk. To 

7 this end, we are seeking input regarding a number 

8 of regulatory provisions, including issues 

9 relating to the recognition of accreditors; 

10 distance learning and competency-based education, 

11 including the definition of regular and 

12 substantive interaction; direct assessment and 

13 prior learning assessment; state authorization; 

14 the definition of credit hour; and roles and 

15 responsibilities of institutions and accrediting 

16 agencies in the teach-out process. 

17 More specifically, with respect to 

18 accreditation, the administration is interested in 

19 improving the recognition and oversight processes 

20 to ensure consistent and equal treatment of all 

21 agencies. In this work, we wish to recognize the 

22 autonomy and independence of agencies, support the 
4

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 needs of today's students, and honor the missions 

2 of various institutions. We would like to hear 

3 your thoughts about how to simplify the 

4 Department's process for recognition of 

5 accrediting agencies and how to emphasize criteria 

6 that focus on educational quality rather than 

7 administrative minutia.

8 We're also interested in revising any 

9 accreditation regulations that are ambiguous, 

10 repetitious, or unnecessarily burdensome, as well 

11 as reducing duplication of oversight 

12 responsibilities between the Department of 

13 Education, states, and accrediting agencies, and 

14 ensuring the Department is more accountable and 

15 responsive to those it serves.

16 In addition to the accrediting 

17 regulations, we are exploring some specific 

18 regulatory provisions that are not directly part 

19 of the accreditation regulations but that impact 

20 the work of institutions and the way that work might 

21 be evaluated by accreditors. Those provisions 

22 include the development of a single job placement 
5

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 definition and a single methodology for 

2 calculating job placement rates; the determination 

3 of reasonable program length for clock hour 

4 programs that result in certification or 

5 licensure; the elimination of barriers to 

6 innovation and competition in postsecondary 

7 education or to student completion, graduation, or 

8 employment, including barriers created by 

9 unnecessary credential inflation or practices that 

10 are unfair to students; the ability for an 

11 institution to contract with other entities to 

12 provide a percentage of an educational program, 

13 including to promote innovation and enable more 

14 rapid responses among career technical programs to 

15 meet employer and workforce needs; and the 

16 simplification and clarification of program 

17 requirements to minimize inadvertent 

18 grant-to-loan conversions for TEACH Grant 

19 recipients. 

20 Additionally, in light of the recent 

21 Supreme Court ruling in Trinity Lutheran, the 

22 Department will review provisions in our 
6

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 regulations relating to the eligibility of 

2 faith-based entities to participate in Title IV 

3 programs and the eligibility of students to obtain 

4 certain benefits under those programs. We welcome 

5 your perspectives as we work on updating our 

6 regulations in each of these areas.

7 We anticipate bringing these issues and 

8 any others that might be added, including at the 

9 public's suggestion, before a negotiated 

10 rulemaking committee that will begin its 

11 negotiations in January of 2019. We also plan to 

12 create two subcommittees with one focused on 

13 competency-based education and the other on the 

14 eligibility of faith-based entities to participate 

15 in Title IV programs.

16 Subcommittees would consist of experts 

17 in those areas, would not make decisions, but will 

18 report their recommendations back to the full 

19 committee for deliberation during public 

20 negotiations. In late fall, we will publish a 

21 notice in the Federal Register seeking nominations 

22 for negotiators and subcommittee members. We hope 
7

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 that you and your colleagues will consider serving 

2 in this capacity at that time.

3 In order to best use the time of the 

4 committee, prior to the first meeting we plan to 

5 provide draft proposed regulatory language for 

6 discussion by the negotiating committee and the 

7 subcommittees, rather than issue issue papers as 

8 we have done in the past. This will enable the 

9 committee to consider concrete proposals before 

10 the negotiations and to begin more of the essential 

11 work during the first session.

12 With respect to the logistics for 

13 today's hearing, many of you have already signed 

14 up for times to speak, and Aaron will call you up 

15 to the microphone accordingly. We still have some 

16 time slots available for today, so if you have not 

17 signed up and would like to speak, please see our 

18 Education staff at the front desk to sign up for 

19 a time.

20 Speakers will be asked to limit their 

21 remarks to five minutes. If you get to the end of 

22 your five minutes, Aaron will ask you to wrap up, 
8

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 and we ask that you do so within 20 seconds. 

2 Please note this hearing is being 

3 transcribed and the transcription will be posted 

4 on our website in the next few weeks. Although the 

5 Department is not preparing a video or audio 

6 recording of the hearing, this is a public hearing, 

7 and it's possible that a member of the public may 

8 record your remarks.

9 If you have written comments that you 

10 would like to submit here today, you can give them 

11 to me or any of us at the table or to the Ed staff 

12 at the front desk. We have three scheduled breaks 

13 today, one in the morning from 10:30 to 10:40, one 

14 at lunchtime from 12:00 to 1:00, and one this 

15 afternoon from 2:30 until 2:40. Those breaks may 

16 be extended if we do not have people scheduled to 

17 speak. 

18 In consideration of others, please 

19 silence your cell phones and any other devices that 

20 you have while you're in this room. You are 

21 welcome to make calls out in the lobby.

22 When you're called to speak, please 
9

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 provide your name and affiliation before speaking. 

2 We look forward to your comments. Thank you for 

3 your time and for sharing your expertise with us. 

4 We look forward to an interesting and productive 

5 day. 

6 MR. WASHINGTON: Julie Murray. 

7 MS. MURRAY: Good morning. My name is 

8 Julie Murray, and I'm an attorney with Public 

9 Citizen, a national consumer advocacy organization 

10 that is working on the issue of grant-to-loan 

11 conversions under the TEACH Grant program. 

12 Public Citizen supports the 

13 Department's plan to address in a negotiated 

14 rulemaking TEACH Grant program requirements, 

15 including to minimize what the Department has 

16 termed inadvertent grant-to-loan disclosures -- or 

17 grant-to-loan conversions. The Department's 

18 efforts in this regard are critically important at 

19 this point. The TEACH Grant program offers 

20 aspiring teachers grant aid in exchange for an 

21 agreement to serve for four of eight years after 

22 graduation in low-income schools or districts in 
10

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 high-need fields. If a teacher doesn't fulfill 

2 her service requirement, the grant converts to a 

3 loan. 

4 There's abundant evidence at this 

5 point, however, that many TEACH Grant recipients 

6 are working in covered positions. That is, they 

7 are fulfilling their service requirements and 

8 their grants are, nevertheless, being converted to 

9 loans by Ed and its servicers for what are, at most, 

10 minor mistakes in the recertification process 

11 under that program. We shouldn't decide teachers' 

12 financial futures this way, and there's nothing in 

13 the TEACH Grant statute that requires this. 

14 The Department, in its negotiated 

15 rulemaking, must develop rules that eliminate 

16 unnecessary steps in the certification process 

17 that create hurdles for teachers, and it should 

18 develop a more flexible approach. It should 

19 reassess, for example, its requirement that 

20 teachers annually recertify even in years for which 

21 they are not seeking service credit for their 

22 teaching. 
11

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 It should also ensure that any 

2 consequences for non-compliance are proportionate 

3 to the mistakes that are made. When an individual 

4 pays her student loan bill a couple of days late, 

5 she doesn't expect that she would get a 

6 multi-thousand dollar late fee that would take more 

7 than a decade to pay off, and that is essentially 

8 what is happening to teachers under the TEACH Grant 

9 program.

10 In addition to taking these steps, the 

11 Department should acknowledge as part of the 

12 rulemaking that many thousands of conversions have 

13 occurred due to the errors of the Department and 

14 its own servicers, not teachers. Through a 

15 Freedom of Information Act request that my 

16 organization obtained, we discovered that FedLoan, 

17 the servicer of the TEACH Grant at this point, had 

18 identified more than 15,000 TEACH Grants for more 

19 than 10,000 teachers that it suspected were 

20 converted in error by a previous servicer. It 

21 concluded that at least 38 percent of all TEACH 

22 Grants converted to loans by this earlier servicer 
12

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 may have been converted in error. Think about 

2 that.

3 That means there is evidence suggesting 

4 that this earlier servicer, that teachers who had 

5 their loans converted by this earlier servicer were 

6 nearly as likely to have had them converted in error 

7 than to have had them converted appropriately under 

8 the existing rules. Subsequent reporting by NPR 

9 found that just 15 percent of these teachers ever 

10 had their grants converted back. 

11 In light of these extensive errors, the 

12 Department should immediately make public its 

13 policy that teachers can dispute conversions and 

14 explain what that policy is, which it has never 

15 done. But it should also include a dispute process 

16 as part of the negotiated rulemaking and set forth 

17 that process in its regulations. The process 

18 should offer robust protections to affected 

19 teachers including, among other things, a 

20 mandatory deadline for the Department to respond 

21 to disputes and a commitment to cease all 

22 involuntary collections against teachers whose 
13

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 converted loans are currently subject to dispute.

2 The committee should also consider how to make 

3 previously-injured recipients whole because there 

4 are many thousands of them who still have loans. 

5 I'd also like to comment briefly about 

6 the process. It's imperative that the Department 

7 ensure any negotiated rulemaking committee 

8 addressing this issue have the time and expertise 

9 that the issue so desperately needs. Yet, the 

10 proposed negotiated rulemaking will cover a dozen 

11 topics, all of which are substantively distinct 

12 from the grant-to-loan conversion issue. We urge 

13 the Department to break the TEACH Grant issue off 

14 into a separate but parallel negotiated rulemaking 

15 committee to meet during this school year. That 

16 committee should include negotiators with 

17 expertise in the TEACH Grant program, the options 

18 available to teachers with respect to federal aid 

19 and servicing issues, particularly in the context 

20 of a federal grant program. 

21 MR. WASHINGTON: Twenty seconds left.

22 MS. MURRAY: Most importantly, the 
14

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 committee should include teachers who have been 

2 harmed by previous conversions and those who 

3 currently have grants. Their voices must be at the 

4 table. Thank you. 

5 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. 

6 Christopher J. Madaio. 

7 MR. MADAIO: Good morning. My name is 

8 Chris Madaio. I am an assistant attorney general 

9 in the Office of the Attorney General of Maryland 

10 in the Consumer Protection Division. 

11 State attorneys general are finding and 

12 prosecuting fraud in the higher education space. 

13 We've done it for years, and we are still fighting 

14 these fights today. For instance, relatively 

15 recently, the California attorney general brought 

16 a consumer fraud case against Ashford University, 

17 and various states have ongoing investigations 

18 that are currently non-public. 

19 In many cases, however, all our offices 

20 can do is try to stop the conduct in the future 

21 because we don't have the power to help students 

22 with the federal loans that they incur as a result 
15

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 of the conduct, the past conduct of the schools. 

2 For instance, the student who took out $50,000 in 

3 loans for a distance education nursing program but 

4 was never told that they couldn't get a license in 

5 the state that they lived in, we can't -- we can't 

6 help that student erase their loans. The student 

7 who went to a school whose accreditor did no real 

8 oversight when the school was using high pressure 

9 boiler room sales tactics and inaccurate job 

10 placement rates, we can't erase that student's 

11 loans. All we can do is try to stop conduct in the 

12 future and try to attempt to prosecute the school 

13 individually.

14 In order to help students, we need 

15 stronger oversight, for instance, of distance 

16 education. States which people always say are the 

17 laboratories of democracy and are a clear leg of 

18 the higher education triad should be permitted to 

19 be those laboratories. Some states may want to act 

20 as a more stringent gatekeeper for schools to be 

21 authorized in their state than other states. 

22 Those states that want to regulate schools who 
16

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 enroll their residents, despite those schools not 

2 having a ground presence in their state, should be 

3 able to do so and should not be limited by the rules 

4 of SARA. Instead, SARA should have to change to 

5 allow states to apply the regulations and statutes 

6 that those states deem necessary upon schools that 

7 enroll their residents, even if those schools do 

8 not have a physical presence in their state.

9 So instead of rewriting the distance 

10 education rule at this time that was set to go into 

11 effect in July, I think I would encourage, my office 

12 would encourage the Department to let the rule take 

13 effect, study it, and consider rulemaking in the 

14 future. As the prior commenter mentioned, there 

15 is too much in this rule. That is something that 

16 should be broken out and done individually at a 

17 future date after it's been studied.

18 If the Department really wants to 

19 regulate accreditor standards, the negotiators 

20 should consider whether additional clear 

21 requirements could be added, not just whether 

22 standards for accreditors should be eliminated. 
17

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Accreditors should ensure that schools are not 

2 committing fraud by monitoring the job placement 

3 rates that schools are publishing more deeply than 

4 they're currently doing and monitoring recruitment 

5 methods at all of their accredited schools, not 

6 just some, certainly not just a sliver, instead of 

7 accepting what schools tell them. 

8 Accreditors should consider 

9 governmental actions, like state attorneys 

10 general, in their oversight of schools and be 

11 proactive about finding out about investigations 

12 or cases that are pending and complaints that 

13 states are receiving. But, instead, accreditors 

14 have certainly, in certain sectors, have a history 

15 of not checking what schools promise to students 

16 and essentially functioning as a rubber stamp, 

17 which does not allow students to make an informed 

18 decision on where to obtain their education and 

19 take out a significant amount of loans to do so.

20 The Department should not reduce its 

21 oversight of accreditors but, instead, should 

22 enhance and clarify the standards that accreditors 
18

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 need to live up to. 

2 I served as a negotiator on the Gainful 

3 Employment Negotiating Committee and saw firsthand 

4 how hard it can be to reach consensus, especially 

5 on a contentious issue. Cramming all of these 

6 topics into one negotiating rulemaking session 

7 doesn't even give it a chance. There will be no 

8 real usefulness to a negotiating committee with 

9 this many issues when nothing can really be 

10 discussed in the detail that these issues really 

11 need. Gainful was complicated enough by itself. 

12 I couldn't have imagined doing gainful and borrower 

13 defense, for instance, at the same time.

14 And all it appears is that -- 

15 MR. WASHINGTON: Twenty seconds left.

16 MR. MADAIO: Thank you. The 

17 Department has no intention of actually seeking 

18 consensus and instead is treating the negotiated 

19 rulemaking as something it simply must get through.

20 A lot of schools say they provide access 

21 to an education for students who otherwise wouldn't 

22 get one. Student loan debt that can never be 
19

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 repaid is access to nothing but a more difficult 

2 life for people who already --

3 MR. WASHINGTON: Time.

4 MR. MADAIO: -- did not have the 

5 privilege that many of us in this room were born 

6 with. Please think of those students when 

7 negotiating this rule.

8 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. Clare 

9 McCann. 

10 MS. MCCANN: Good morning. Thank you 

11 for the opportunity to comment on the Department's 

12 rulemaking agenda. I'm Clare McCann. I work at 

13 New America, which is a non-partisan think tank, 

14 and we have also submitted more detailed written 

15 comments, and I urge you to consider those 

16 carefully, as well.

17 The Department's agenda is overly 

18 ambitious. A single rulemaking panel cannot 

19 adequately cover each of these issues in a manner 

20 that each topic deserves and in the manner that the 

21 students and taxpayers the rules are meant to 

22 protect deserve.
20

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Those who would be best suited to 

2 negotiate on the topic of accreditation, for 

3 example, are not the same negotiators with 

4 expertise on the TEACH Grant program. Such a large 

5 and disparate set of issues precludes any 

6 possibility for thoughtful consideration of these 

7 rules, and we urge the Department to reconsider its 

8 regulatory scope. 

9 I'm going to address just a few of our 

10 biggest areas of concerns today. New America has 

11 long championed innovations in higher education, 

12 particularly for promising practices aimed at 

13 serving students whom traditional higher education 

14 has not served well. But we do not believe that 

15 any and every innovation will serve students well, 

16 and we know that opening the federal spigot to 

17 innovations that don't include robust 

18 accountability for outcomes will inevitably harm 

19 the very students who most need the benefits of a 

20 quality higher education. Abdicating the federal 

21 role and deferring to accreditors and the states 

22 to protect students and taxpayers hasn't worked, 
21

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 and it won't work this time either. 

2 The accreditation system has seen 

3 massive failures in recent years, yet many agencies 

4 continue to fail to seriously consider students' 

5 outcomes. Any overhaul of the accreditation 

6 regulation should encourage agencies to take 

7 serious action on poor-performing institutions, 

8 require greater transparency from accreditors, and 

9 hold agencies to high standards in the Department's 

10 own recognition proceedings. 

11 States are another vital but 

12 underutilized part of the program integrity triad. 

13 Baseline expectations for institutions to 

14 demonstrate they have met the requirements of the 

15 states in which they operate and enroll students, 

16 like those in the state authorization rule the 

17 Department delayed earlier this year, are critical 

18 to guarantee that no student falls through the 

19 cracks of these consumer protections.

20 The Department shouldn't waste government 

21 resources reopening these common sense rules. 

22 We're also concerned the Department 
22

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 will step into Congress's jurisdiction to redefine 

2 regular and substantive interaction requirements. 

3 These regulations governing distance education 

4 programs are the sole statutory distinction, 

5 created at the recommendation of the Bush 

6 administration, between distance ed programs and 

7 correspondence programs. They have effectively 

8 helped to prevent many of the abuses spotted in 

9 correspondence education in conjunction with the 

10 credit hour and other rules, and we urge against 

11 weakening these rules for distance education 

12 programs.

13 The federal credit hour rule helps 

14 create a common currency through which the 

15 Department disperses federal student aid dollars. 

16 Following an inspector general review that 

17 identified credit hour abuses by schools and 

18 insufficient oversight by accreditors, the 

19 Department developed a definition of a credit hour 

20 that ensures consideration for both time and 

21 learning-based measures and has allowed innovative 

22 competency-based education programs to flourish in 
23

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 recent years. Eliminating the credit hour rule in 

2 an environment without strong accountability on 

3 outcomes presents a clear and unacceptable risk to 

4 students and taxpayers. 

5 We also strongly oppose the 

6 Department's plans to apparently increase the 

7 amount of an educational program that an 

8 institution can outsource. While students and 

9 taxpayers are assured today that their hard-earned 

10 dollars are paying for a program that has at least 

11 met the requirements of their state accreditor and 

12 the Department, that is not the case if 

13 institutions are permitted to outsource most of 

14 their education to untested and unaccountable 

15 providers. Lifting that cap would open the 

16 floodgates to every bad actor that knows it can't 

17 get or keep accreditation. 

18 And, finally, while we agree that the 

19 TEACH Grant program must be improved to minimize 

20 inadvertent grant-to-loan conversions and improve 

21 outcomes for grant recipients, this issue should 

22 not be considered as simply an add-on to the already 
24

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 overwhelming portfolio of issues that the 

2 Department intends to rewrite. 

3 In short, the Department's proposed 

4 rulemaking agenda hides behind the rhetoric of 

5 innovation without recognizing the importance of 

6 these rules in protecting students and taxpayers. 

7 And, again, we urge the Department to reconsider 

8 its regulatory scope and maintain these important 

9 rules. 

10 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. Michael 

11 Poliakoff. 

12 MR. POLIAKOFF: Good morning. I'm 

13 Michael Poliakoff, the President of the American 

14 Council of Trustees and Alumni. And I first want 

15 to thank you for convening this rulemaking session 

16 on the issue of accreditation. It is, without 

17 question, among the most important challenges to 

18 improving the American higher education system. 

19 The concerns with the current system of 

20 accreditation are numerous and transcend partisan 

21 and ideological lines. In a moment when public 

22 confidence in higher education seems to be 
25

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 slipping, it has rarely been more important that 

2 quality assurance mechanisms function as they 

3 should. 

4 At the same time, it is crucial, and 

5 this is what I will emphasize today, that 

6 institutional autonomy be protected and that 

7 institutions are allowed to perform their missions 

8 as defined by their charters and their boards of 

9 trustees.

10 It has been said that the genius of the 

11 American higher education system is that it is not 

12 a system. The diversity and decentralized nature 

13 of American higher education has historically been 

14 one of its greatest strengths. Though the 

15 regional accreditation system has historically 

16 been the means to balance these considerations, it 

17 has become clear that the current system falls very 

18 short on both counts. On the one hand, several 

19 recent studies have shown that despite the massive 

20 increase in the cost of higher education, many 

21 students are failing actually to learn much from 

22 the college experience, yet the institutions that 
26

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 have ostensibly taught them remain accredited and 

2 in good standing. On the other hand, the 

3 accreditation process often proves onerous and 

4 wildly expensive for institutions while failing to 

5 guarantee quality. 

6 But even of greater concern, which is 

7 my primary topic for today, is the threat that 

8 accreditors often represent to institutional 

9 autonomy and mission. Though the Higher Education 

10 Act specifies ten standards by which institutions 

11 are to be assessed for the purpose of receiving 

12 Title IV funding, a loophole in the law allows 

13 accreditors to impose standards beyond those ten. 

14 A, so to speak, elastic clause, 20 USC 1099b, 

15 subsection (g), allows for overreach way beyond the 

16 statutory mission of guaranteeing an education of 

17 quality.

18 Many institutions have found 

19 themselves on notice from their accreditor because 

20 of internal governance issues, which are not among 

21 the specified standards. Historically, Thomas 

22 Aquinas College, with its fabled, storied Great 
27

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Books Program; Westminster Theological; more 

2 recently Gordon College; and, even as we speak, the 

3 Higher Learning Commission, which accredits higher 

4 education institutions in 19 states, is 

5 considering a proposed change in its standards that 

6 could threaten religious institutions' ability to 

7 carry out their mission.

8 Ideally, this elastic clause, as I'm 

9 calling it, would be fixed legislatively. But 

10 there are measures that can be taken in regulation, 

11 which is the purpose of speaking today. 

12 Specifically, the Department should clarify that 

13 accreditation for the purpose of access to Title 

14 IV funds may only be connected to the ten standards 

15 enumerated in the law. Accreditors, as private 

16 and voluntary membership organizations, are, of 

17 course, free to impose any standards they would 

18 like, but these arbitrary standards should not 

19 threaten the ability of institutions to exist or 

20 function due to a loss of their Title IV funding. 

21 Anything we do must respect institutional autonomy 

22 and mission.
28

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Our storied colleges and universities 

2 need a system of quality control that is focused 

3 on outcomes, not intrusion into the prerogatives, 

4 mission, and, indeed, liberty of America's diverse 

5 institutions. Thank you. 

6 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. Stacey 

7 Borasky. 

8 MS. BORASKY: Good morning. I'm 

9 Stacey Borasky, the Director of Accreditation with 

10 the Council on Social Work Education. Thank you 

11 for the opportunity to speak today. CSWE is a 

12 national association representing social work 

13 education in the United States. CSWE's membership 

14 consists of more than 2500 individual members and 

15 more than 700 accredited masters and baccalaureate 

16 programs of professional social work education.

17 CSWE supports quality social work 

18 education and understands the role that social 

19 workers play in achieving the profession's goal of 

20 social and economic justice. As the sole 

21 accrediting body for social work programs in the 

22 United States and its territories, CSWE's 
29

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Commission on Accreditation establishes 

2 expectations for academic quality through its 

3 educational policy and accreditation standards. 

4 All of the commission's accreditation decisions 

5 are accompanied by reasoned opinions that promote 

6 the preparation of social work graduates who can 

7 practice effectively in an increasingly diverse 

8 and global society.

9 CSWE appreciates this opportunity to 

10 provide comments that will inform the work of the 

11 rulemaking committee. An issue that the 

12 rulemaking committee should consider is the role 

13 of programmatic or specialized accreditors in 

14 ensuring high-quality academic programs. 

15 Programmatic accreditation serves an important 

16 function by ensuring the preparation of competent 

17 professionals in the field or discipline of choice.

18 By drawing upon professional judgments 

19 and implementing a systematic examination of 

20 compliance with established standards, 

21 programmatic accreditors have the unique ability 

22 to set and assess quality measures within diverse 
30

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 institutions and regional environments. 

2 Programmatic accreditors are equipped with the 

3 expertise and knowledge necessary for improving 

4 programs, ensuring quality, and promoting 

5 competence in professional practice.

6 CSWE also supports the relationship 

7 programmatic accreditors have with sponsoring 

8 stakeholder organizations and the exercise of 

9 extreme vigilance in implementation of robust 

10 safeguards that these organizations exert to avoid 

11 undue influence on the vital accreditation 

12 process. 

13 CSWE believes the federal government's 

14 primary responsibility in accreditation is the 

15 enforcement of law or regulations governing the use 

16 of Title IV federal student aid funds, not 

17 determining educational quality. Accreditors 

18 hold the primary responsibility regarding 

19 educational quality and institutional 

20 performance. 

21 CSWE supports the current 

22 accreditation system and the role each of the 
31

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 important players of the triad in the traditional 

2 accreditation process plays, including the U.S. 

3 Department of Education, the state authorizing 

4 agencies, and the regional accreditors. CSWE 

5 supports the elimination of regulations that 

6 undermine the strength and independence of the 

7 accreditation process. We also support the 

8 streamlining of current regulations and oppose the 

9 creation of new regulations that would undermine 

10 the independence of the accreditation process. 

11 CSWE firmly believes that outcomes are 

12 best determined by the academic accrediting 

13 community and that outcome measurements should not 

14 be mandated by the federal government. CSWE 

15 believes that with input from the public and the 

16 professional workforce, specialized accreditors 

17 have the unique ability to set and assess quality 

18 measures within diverse institutions and regional 

19 environments, taking into account market and 

20 resource needs.

21 Ed should support policies that 

22 recognize the important role of professional 
32

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 specialized accreditors, especially in improving 

2 programs, demonstrating outcomes, ensuring 

3 quality, and providing professional expertise.

4 CSWE has concerns about the committee's 

5 interest in addressing regulations regarding the 

6 eligibility of faith-based entities to participate 

7 in Title IV. Institutional diversity is an 

8 important strength of the U.S. higher education 

9 system. Institutional mission, however, should 

10 not interfere with the standards that are required 

11 for professional practice in specific disciplines.

12 The educational policy and 

13 accreditation standards approved by our commission 

14 state the purpose of the social work profession is 

15 to promote human and community well-being. CSWE 

16 is committed to an accreditation practice that 

17 makes possible the development of a social work 

18 profession, which is able to, quote, promote human 

19 and community well-being.

20 Programmatic accreditors recognize the 

21 solemn duty and responsibility they have to 

22 ensuring fairness, quality, objectivity, and rigor 
33

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 in the accreditation process. Thank you. 

2 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. Bob 

3 Shireman. 

4 MR. SHIREMAN: Good morning. Thank 

5 you for the opportunity to testify. My name is 

6 Robert Shireman. I am a senior fellow at The 

7 Century Foundation. 

8 The first thing I think is important to 

9 emphasize is that the Department of Education does 

10 not, as a general matter, oversee higher education. 

11 Instead, the Title IV regulations are like a 

12 purchase order from taxpayers setting guidelines 

13 for whether an education is worth buying with Pell 

14 Grants and student loans. 

15 Weakening rules, like the already weak 

16 regular and substantive interaction requirement, 

17 will absolutely lead to diploma mills financed by 

18 taxpayers. We will have so-called colleges and 

19 universities that are -- sorry, excuse me. We will 

20 have so-called colleges and universities that 

21 essentially put a textbook online with a few 

22 self-administered questions, and they will call it 
34

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 a course. Rather than textbooks outrageously 

2 priced at a couple of hundred dollars, these will 

3 be textbooks that the U.S. government is shelling 

4 out thousands of dollars for with no real gains for 

5 students.

6 That said, it is true that having a 

7 brick and mortar campus does not necessarily 

8 prevent situations where very little is expected 

9 of students, schools where students do not get the 

10 type and amount of academic exercises, the writing, 

11 reading, listening, presenting, producing, and 

12 responding to expert feedback that constitute 

13 quality learning. The problem is that the 

14 quantity measure that we have long used for 

15 accountability purposes in higher education is 

16 scheduled classroom hours. 

17 Eight years ago, when I was at the 

18 Department of Education, I thought that we fixed 

19 that problem. Rather than federal aid purchasing 

20 seat time, we clarified by regulation that for 

21 federal aid purposes a credit hour is, quote, an 

22 amount of work verified by evidence of student 
35

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 achievement.

2 It was not my imagination that we made 

3 this change. The Department's own inspector 

4 general has said very clearly the federal 

5 government regulation defining a credit hour does 

6 not mandate the classroom hours or seat time 

7 required for a course or program, yet we still hear 

8 complaints that the federal government is 

9 requiring seat time.

10 The complaints are valid, but they are 

11 not valid about the federal government. It is 

12 about the practices of accreditors. For example, 

13 the Higher Learning Commission tells its visiting 

14 teams to count the lecture hours in the course 

15 catalog or syllabus as, quote, the easiest approach 

16 to documenting compliance with the credit hour 

17 rule. Middle States also allows the mere use of 

18 course schedules, time scheduled in the classroom, 

19 as the credit hour measure. WASC Senior is the 

20 same. Reviewers are supposed to check that the 

21 number of credit hours matches the classroom hours 

22 and nothing more. 
36

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 There is no need to change the 

2 regulation. Instead, the Department should take 

3 that issue off the agenda and instead notify 

4 accreditors that they will be asked for evidence 

5 that their reviews of schools examine credit hour 

6 allocations on the basis of student work, not seat 

7 time. Enforcing the work-based credit hour could 

8 be one of the most effective accountability tools 

9 available to the Department, perhaps making many 

10 other regulations less important.

11 The other rule, by the way, that I would 

12 put into that category of potentially 

13 game-changing is a 90/10 rule without the 

14 loopholes. There is nothing more powerful than a 

15 discerning customer holding a school accountable. 

16 The University of Phoenix was a quality school for 

17 many years when part of its strategy was catering 

18 to employers who paid for their employees to 

19 attend. The school became predatory when it no 

20 longer had that customer accountability but 

21 instead was just using federal aid as a hook to 

22 expand enrollment rapidly. 
37

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 I don't think there's a way of closing 

2 those loopholes by regulation, but it is useful to 

3 keep in mind how many of the regulations we have 

4 would not be necessary if we had a 90/10 type rule 

5 where the loopholes were closed. 

6 Thank you very much. I will submit 

7 some further information about the credit hour now 

8 and additional written comments by next week. 

9 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. Dr. Merodie 

10 Hancock. Oh, I'm sorry. Alyssa Picard is next. 

11 I apologize. 

12 MS. PICARD: My name is Alyssa Picard. 

13 I'm the Director of the Higher Education Division 

14 of the American Federation of Teachers, a union of 

15 1.7 million members, of whom 230,000 are college 

16 and university faculty and professional staff.

17 As I begin, I would like to emphasize 

18 that each of us here today has five minutes to 

19 address 15 topics. All of them are significant to 

20 the shape of American higher education and the 

21 federal student aid program. Five of them are 

22 related to accreditation, and ten others, numbered 
38

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 in the initial notice, vary from the separation of 

2 church and state to the definition of the credit 

3 hour. I will not be able to address all of these 

4 topics in five minutes, and I don't think a 

5 negotiated rulemaking panel will be able to reach 

6 consensus on all these topics over the estimated 

7 nine days. This will allow the Department to write 

8 these rules any way it chooses, which I suspect is 

9 the intent of this Potemkin process. 

10 If I'm wrong and the Department's 

11 intent here is sincere, we ask that you place on 

12 this panel a meaningful number of higher education 

13 faculty because their experiences should shape 

14 rulemaking in these areas, particularly on 

15 accreditation, regular and substantive 

16 interaction, and credit hour definitions. Most 

17 specifically, I urge you to include faculty members 

18 of various statuses on and off the tenure track who 

19 teach at multiple types of institutions both in 

20 person and online. Having faculty with a variety 

21 of experiences will be especially important when 

22 considering the definition of regular and 
39

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 substantive interaction. 

2 The fact that faculty teach students 

3 and that regular and substantive interaction by 

4 faculty and students is essential to the 

5 educational process is such a cornerstone of higher 

6 education that some may wonder why it even needs 

7 to be mentioned. I will provide some background 

8 for the record.

9 After widespread abuse of the student 

10 aid program by purveyors of correspondence courses 

11 in the 1980s and '90s whose students would receive 

12 a packet of materials by mail and never interact 

13 with an educator in any venue, Congress limited the 

14 amount of aid a student could receive for 

15 correspondence courses in the 1992 HEA.

16 By the early 2000s, when establishing 

17 access to full student aid funding for new and 

18 legitimately educational online classes, Congress 

19 zeroed in on the thing that makes those classes 

20 meaningful, regular and substantive interaction 

21 with the instructor, and that language was included 

22 in the 2008 Higher Education Act. Any revision of 
40

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 this definition that takes faculty out of the 

2 educational process is defying Congress's 

3 instruction, not to mention common sense, and it's 

4 not worthy of taxpayer investment.

5 I would like to use my remaining time 

6 to address accreditation's oversight of 

7 institutions of higher education and its 

8 relationship to educational quality. The

9 American system of independent, peer-driven 

10 accreditation engages a triad of accreditors, 

11 government entities, and the institutions 

12 themselves working to ensure quality higher 

13 education. The point of such a review is a 

14 collaborative dialogue concerning these matters 

15 and cooperative, rather than punitive, assistance. 

16 This system may read as unfamiliar and, 

17 thus, undesirable to free marketeers because 

18 higher education is not a product. But because 

19 higher education is not a product, attempts to 

20 inject market forces or import practices from 

21 profit-driven institutions into accreditation 

22 don't make sense, and they won't improve 
41

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 educational quality. 

2 Most critically, accreditation reforms 

3 that shift the burden to students and families to 

4 discern wisely among competing options that have 

5 received the imprimatur of federal Title IV funding 

6 too freely granted are bound to fail. The 

7 overwhelming majority of students are 

8 geographically limited in their choice of 

9 institutions of higher education. They, 

10 therefore, are not and will never be shopping in 

11 a free market. It is facile, at best, to hatch a 

12 plan to lower barriers to accreditation with the 

13 stated intent that the free market will weed out 

14 bad actors. It won't. Accreditors should not be 

15 placing their seals of approval and the attendant 

16 access to taxpayer funds on every assortment of 

17 badges that can be pushed out a door, whether 

18 physical or electronic. 

19 If the Department sincerely wants to 

20 make accreditors more responsive to stakeholder 

21 concerns, that could happen in a variety of ways 

22 via increased transparency in the accreditation 
42

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 process. For instance, site visit reports and 

2 institutional self-analyses could be made 

3 available to the public and to researchers. This 

4 would go a long way toward preventing such national 

5 embarrassments as continued accreditation of 

6 institutions that hire people to pretend to be 

7 faculty and students when they actually have no 

8 faculty or students and accreditors who cannot 

9 detect this fraud as it is perpetrated.

10 Accreditors could be required to 

11 disclose the paperwork burden of compliance with 

12 their directives, disclose the fees associated 

13 with their services, retain their documentation, 

14 and observe open meeting laws. Anonymous feedback 

15 about accreditation bodies could be solicited, and 

16 whistleblower protection strengthened to give 

17 institutions a voice beyond NACIQI to share 

18 concerns about accreditation processes.

19 Again, this negotiated rulemaking 

20 appears to be taking on more --

21 MR. WASHINGTON: Twenty seconds left.

22 MS. PICKARD: -- than is reasonable for 
43

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 three three-day negotiator meetings, even on the 

2 two subcommittees described. But given the 

3 Department's action on borrower defense and 

4 gainful employment, this is hardly surprising. 

5 Nevertheless, hope springs eternal in the hearts 

6 of Beltway policy wonks. We urge you to 

7 demonstrate seriousness about this process and 

8 include faculty in it. 

9 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. Dr. 

10 Merodie Hancock. 

11 DR. HANCOCK: Good morning. My name 

12 is Merodie Hancock, and I'm the President of Thomas 

13 Edison State University. Thomas Edison was 

14 created by the state of New Jersey in 1972 to 

15 provide flexible, high-quality collegiate 

16 learning opportunities for self-directed adults. 

17 We are among the first institutions to create what 

18 is now known as prior learning assessment. We are 

19 also one of the first regionally accredited 

20 universities to offer complete degree programs 

21 online. We are noted for our innovation in serving 

22 adult learners and proud of the recognition we 
44

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 receive for the quality and integrity of our 

2 academic work.

3 Our success is measured, in part, by low 

4 student default rates, high adult learner 

5 graduation outcomes, and outstanding pass rates on 

6 professional exams. It is a testimony to the 

7 strength of our model.

8 Since its founding, Thomas Edison has 

9 emphasized the direct assessment of student 

10 learning and has disassociated seat time from 

11 academic recognition. As a public university 

12 committed to access, we focus on and measure 

13 outcomes, rather than inputs. We develop our 

14 programs with the needs of non-traditional 

15 students in mind and emphasize fostering success 

16 through learning diagnostics, curricular 

17 flexibility, 24/7 student support, and real-time 

18 professionally-aligned academic programs. 

19 As a national leader in the assessment 

20 of learning, Thomas Edison values whether a student 

21 possesses college-level knowledge, not how they 

22 acquired that knowledge. Perhaps Thomas Edison is 
45

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 the most appropriate name because, as a side note, 

2 Thomas Edison the man certainly had college-level 

3 learning while not college-level credits. 

4 In alignment with our mission, our goal 

5 now is to leverage our expertise to the new CBE 

6 programs that draw upon a student's knowledge and 

7 experience to help them earn meaningful 

8 credentials that employers value. Congress 

9 established the initial framework to implement and 

10 disperse Title IV aid to direct assessment programs 

11 in 2005, but reforms are long overdue. 

12 We continue to support the most 

13 accessible, timely, and affordable pathways to a 

14 college education and encourage the Department to 

15 immediately address ways to provide more 

16 flexibility to reputable institutions that seek to 

17 establish and expand their competency-based 

18 education programs. Specifically, the following 

19 actions are needed: address current definitions 

20 for regular and substantive interaction between 

21 students and instructors; support options for 

22 modification, including broadening the definition 
46

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 of what constitutes instructors to include other 

2 academic staff and allowance of the use of 

3 asynchronous exchange and feedback between 

4 instructors, learning technologies, and students 

5 and, second, improve current restrictive 

6 requirements for mapping competencies to credit 

7 hours to focus more on meaningful and measurable 

8 outcomes, rather than seat time.

9 Further, regarding the Department's 

10 EQUIP program, we recommend stabilizing the roles 

11 and increasing partner consultation. Midstream 

12 changes add time and cost to the project while 

13 jeopardizing integrity. EQUIP was launched two 

14 years ago, yet only one of eight projects has begun. 

15 As examples of distracting changes, a 

16 non-traditional provider was required to convert 

17 from self-paced subscription approach to one bound 

18 by three-month terms. This appears to be in 

19 conflict with an experiment to evaluate the 

20 effectiveness of alternative and self-paced 

21 models. 

22 Excessive regulation restricts the 
47

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 ability of institutions to innovate in ways that 

2 benefit consumers. While there's no implicit seat 

3 time requirement, an institution that is offering 

4 asynchronous online courses, we need to determine 

5 the amount of student work expected in each course 

6 in order to achieve the course objectives and then 

7 assign a credit hour based on the equivalent amount 

8 of work. 

9 Universities should be allowed to 

10 assign credit based on the quality of academic 

11 content and student outcomes. To move in this 

12 direction, a demonstration project that pilots 

13 alternatives to the current definition of the 

14 credit hour would allow controlled innovation 

15 within a group of trusted institutions. Further, 

16 an EQUIP partner advisory council could vet program 

17 changes and evaluate potential consequences on the 

18 spirit of the program prior to implementation.

19 In closing, in a time when over 60 

20 percent of adults have little to no college 

21 education, we must support innovation and create 

22 new Title IV options to fuel our knowledge economy 
48

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 and fulfill academic goals for access, equity, and 

2 transfer of education. Current regulations 

3 restrict academic innovation and drive up 

4 instructional costs and time to degree. 

5 We strongly encourage the Department to 

6 replace these regulations with a regulatory 

7 framework that more appropriately drives 

8 accountability and innovation and recognizes the 

9 efforts of institutions like Thomas Edison to 

10 support non-traditional learners through 

11 progressive, yet objectively measurable, methods. 

12 Thank you. 

13 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. Ashley 

14 Reich. 

15 MS. REICH: Good morning. My name is 

16 Ashley Reich. I'm the Vice President of Student 

17 Financial Services at Liberty University. I've 

18 been working in higher education for a little over 

19 11 years and, most recently, was a primary 

20 non-federal negotiator on the borrower defense to 

21 repayment rulemaking panel representing 

22 not-for-profit institutions.
49

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 I'd like to thank the Department for 

2 another opportunity to voice our desires with this 

3 upcoming regulatory package, and I hope that we are 

4 able to have another seat at the table later this 

5 year or early in the spring.

6 I would like to first acknowledge the 

7 Department for taking on such a substantial 

8 regulatory package through the process of 

9 negotiated rulemaking, and I would have to concur 

10 that this is going to be very difficult to get 

11 through with this many issues, and I'm only able 

12 to comment on a few of them as a result. 

13 There are many crucial issues that will 

14 be discussed between the panels, and selecting the 

15 right individuals to sit at the table will be key. 

16 In addition, it is important to note that the 

17 Department has decided to review several items that 

18 seem to be an overreach that would include the 

19 definition of a credit hour, state authorization, 

20 accreditation issues, and other 

21 academically-related items. We would advise the 

22 Department to utilize established mechanisms to 
50

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 reduce unnecessary interference in educational 

2 standards and definitions that have worked for 

3 decades.

4 The first item that I would like to 

5 focus on today would be state authorization. Our 

6 institution has been impacted by the state 

7 authorization process due to a very large online 

8 population, as well as various arrangements that 

9 trigger a physical presence within certain states. 

10 With our experience, federal oversight of this 

11 process is not needed because we work heavily with 

12 the states throughout the approval process.

13 The approved reciprocity agreement 

14 process largely works for institutions of higher 

15 education, and maintaining the process as-is would 

16 reduce the administrative burden to the 

17 institution and would promote the availability of 

18 affordable and accessible education for students.

19 In addition, as part of the reciprocity 

20 agreement, we are required to provide various 

21 disclosures surrounding the complaint process and 

22 licensure programs, and other states require 
51

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 certain disclosure verbiage to be placed on our 

2 website once an approval has been given. Another 

3 disclosure requirement by the Department is 

4 unnecessary and creates additional man hours that 

5 should be spent counseling students and working 

6 through other unduplicated federal requirements. 

7 We would welcome collaboration with the Department 

8 on the impact of additional requirements for state 

9 authorization. 

10 In regards to accreditation, the 

11 established accreditation process exists for the 

12 dual purpose of evaluating the quality of higher 

13 education for improvement and to determine 

14 institutional eligibility for federal funding from 

15 the Department of Education. Additionally, 

16 recent concern regarding the strength and rigor of 

17 the accreditation process has been voiced. 

18 Important changes must be made in the areas of 

19 enhancing accreditation evaluation teams, 

20 integrating a business process review component, 

21 moving authority over standards from Ed to the 

22 accreditation bodies, standardizing definitions 
52

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 and metrics, encouraging innovation to lower 

2 costs, and eliminating regulatory burden. The 

3 Department has the authority to revoke accreditor 

4 recognition if a particular agency is determined 

5 to be ineffective. We would support a scale back 

6 of regulatory oversight in this area. 

7 For eliminating barriers to innovation 

8 and competition, in the world of higher education 

9 today, eliminating barriers is needed. Many 

10 schools are working on creating programs that 

11 promote a more unique way of approaching 

12 educational options for students. Our 

13 institution has a substantial adult learner 

14 population that are looking to gain another 

15 credential to either add to their already completed 

16 degree program or to complete for the first time 

17 in order to increase their marketability and job 

18 readiness skills in the workforce. Many students 

19 are having to juggle a career and raising a family 

20 while attempting to pursue an education, and 

21 allowing flexibility and self-pace options are 

22 exactly what many students are requesting. 
53

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 It is crucial that institutions 

2 continue to think outside of the box when it comes 

3 to learning opportunities. With trades on the 

4 rise and many jobs left vacant, I would like to 

5 encourage the Department to allow creative 

6 solutions to gaining an education, whether that 

7 means a credential or another degree program.

8 And then, lastly, I'll focus on the 

9 TEACH Grant conversions. When I actually started 

10 at Liberty, I started the TEACH Grant program. And 

11 I believe the initial onset of this program was met 

12 with good intentions by the Department. However, 

13 it's unfortunate to see that the program has had 

14 many issues when it comes to the grant-to-loan 

15 improper conversions. In a recent article by NPR, 

16 it was reported that over 10,000 incorrect 

17 conversions took place by fed loan servicing. 

18 It's apparent that there needs to be a better system 

19 in place to review eligible candidates instead of 

20 unnecessarily strapping these students with 

21 inaccurate student loan debt.

22 MR. WASHINGTON: Twenty seconds left. 
54

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MS. REICH: If left unfixed, students 

2 are going to see capitalized interest, as well as 

3 required payments that, if not made, will damage 

4 their credit.

5 In closing, this has been a short 

6 summary of the issues most important to our 

7 institution. We will also be uploading an 

8 expanded version of these comments.

9 Thank you again for the opportunity to 

10 testify, and we stand ready to assist the 

11 Department in any way throughout these 

12 negotiations. 

13 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. W. Brett 

14 Robertson. 

15 MR. ROBERTSON: Good morning. Thank 

16 you for the opportunity to present this testimony 

17 on behalf of The Institute for College Access and 

18 Success, or TICAS, on the Education Department's 

19 2019 regulatory agenda. 

20 TICAS is an independent non-profit 

21 organization that works to make higher education 

22 more available and affordable for people of all 
55

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 backgrounds. Each year, the federal government 

2 invests over $150 billion in student loans, 

3 scholarships, and tax credits in higher and career 

4 education. The federal government can play a role 

5 in supporting high-quality innovation, but we 

6 recognize that the students most in need of higher 

7 education benefits are often harmed when federal 

8 money flows to innovation with too little 

9 accountability attached.

10 We are concerned that the Department's 

11 regulatory agenda for 2019 will lead to weakening 

12 of rules critical to defining higher education and 

13 guidelines designed to protect students and 

14 taxpayer investments. First, weakening rules 

15 that outline some minimal expectation of 

16 teacher-student interaction could mean that 

17 students and taxpayers would end up paying high 

18 costs for programs that are essentially online 

19 textbooks. The current regular and substantive 

20 requirement was created in response to a long 

21 history of fraud and abuse in correspondence 

22 education. It was enacted with bipartisan 
56

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 agreement in Congress.

2 Second, weakening the definition of 

3 what constitutes a credit hour would undermine the 

4 method of ensuring students are getting the 

5 education they pay for. The Department created 

6 the current credit hour definition in 2010 in 

7 response to findings from its independent 

8 inspector general that institutions were inflating 

9 the value of college courses with little or no 

10 oversight from accreditors. The rule clarified 

11 that the credit hour signified a set amount of 

12 academic work by students while still allowing for 

13 flexible innovative approaches.

14 Third, weakening the limitations on 

15 schools' ability to outsource educational 

16 programming would undermine the oversight system 

17 tasked with ensuring sufficient educational 

18 quality and leave students confused over who was 

19 providing the education they are buying. Fourth, 

20 weakening protection for students and safeguards 

21 for taxpayer dollars through changes to state 

22 authorization or accreditation rules risks opening 
57

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 the floodgates to unscrupulous schools, 

2 undermining the quality of higher education, and 

3 the integrity of federal spending.

4 There is room to improve federal law in 

5 some of these areas. For example, TICAS just last 

6 week released a report outlining how the distance 

7 education state authorization rule must be 

8 strengthened by prohibiting institutions from 

9 enrolling students in programs that do not satisfy 

10 state professional licensing requirements, 

11 requiring states to maintain tuition recovery 

12 funds, providing guidelines for improved student 

13 complaint systems with increased collaboration 

14 among states, and specifying that states must 

15 retain decision-making authority over public 

16 policy within any state authorization reciprocity 

17 agreement.

18 In order to craft thoughtful 

19 improvements in these areas, it is imperative that 

20 the problems be defined carefully and precisely 

21 beyond unsubstantiated claims about stifled 

22 innovation. Furthermore, the Department's recent 
58

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 actions provide little assurance that it will 

2 regulate responsibly. With a basic understanding 

3 of historical abuses and the risks of recreating 

4 them, already under the current administration the 

5 Department has delayed a rule respecting state 

6 sovereignty and oversight of distance education, 

7 undermined state's ability to protect student loan 

8 borrowers, ceased processing loan discharge 

9 applications of borrowers lied to by their 

10 institutions, and proposed weakening rules for 

11 future cheated students, as well as proposed 

12 gutting both disclosures and minimum required 

13 standards to prevent gainful employment programs, 

14 leaving students with debts they cannot afford.

15 We are deeply concerned that the 

16 Department's forthcoming rulemaking will weaken 

17 access to high quality higher education and key 

18 consumer protections for today's students, 

19 undermining the federal aid system through a new 

20 wave of abuses. The Department's proposed 2019 

21 regulatory proposals must not serve to line the 

22 pockets of for-profit institutions, private 
59

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 companies, and unscrupulous providers with 

2 students' and taxpayers' hard-earned dollars. 

3 Thank you. 

4 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. Deborah 

5 Adair. 

6 MS. ADAIR: Good morning. My name is 

7 Deb Adair. I'm the Executive Director of Quality 

8 Matters, which is a non-profit organization with 

9 the mission to improve the quality of online 

10 education by providing and applying 

11 research-centered standards for online courses and 

12 programs. And thank you for the opportunity to 

13 provide my comment to the public record.

14 I'd like to address first the HEA 

15 changes related to arrangements between an 

16 institution and organization to provide a portion 

17 of an educational program, and then, second, I have 

18 some brief comments about the definition of a 

19 distance education program. 

20 The EQUIP Experimental Sites program 

21 has demonstrated to me a significant challenge in 

22 balancing student protection with the potential 
60

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 benefits of innovative approaches to education. 

2 To get this right, and it's worth doing if we can 

3 do it well, we need to better understand where the 

4 risks for students really reside in an alternative 

5 innovative model and appropriately mitigate that 

6 risk. But we also need to understand where and how 

7 our traditional approaches to oversight, 

8 regulation, and compliance in the entire triad 

9 actually co-opt a non-traditional model and rob it 

10 of its potential impact.

11 Under our current system, even with 

12 some policy waivers, higher education institutions 

13 could be required to fit the round peg of the 

14 innovation into the square hole of their compliance 

15 obligations. They may have to reshape the 

16 innovative model to address other elements -- to 

17 meet their oversight requirements and, yet, may not 

18 be prepared to address other elements of different 

19 market-driven laissez-faire models that could 

20 generate risk and inequities for students.

21 If we are serious about this change in 

22 the HEA, we have to do more than make such 
61

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 arrangements possible through work-arounds. We 

2 have to be serious about providing pathways and 

3 providing tailored oversight that can reasonably 

4 encourage the kinds of partnerships that will 

5 actually serve students. 

6 And on the second topic, I'd like to 

7 suggest that quality distance education can be 

8 delivered through regular and substantive 

9 instructional interaction with both proactive and 

10 reactive or just-in-time academic and student 

11 support. It's important to recognize that active, 

12 purposeful, and comprehensive instruction can be 

13 entirely pre-planned by a qualified instructor, a 

14 plan that can be regularly and substantively 

15 enacted through the design and development of the 

16 learning environment.

17 Rigorous instruction does not require 

18 regular interaction with an instructor as long as 

19 that instructor has appropriately planned and 

20 designed an experience that delivers regular and 

21 substantive instruction.

22 A student taking courses at a distance, 
62

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 or in-person for that matter, will also need 

2 appropriate support. This can be proactive based 

3 on data about student success, but a differentiator 

4 between a correspondence course and distance 

5 education would be that such academic and student 

6 support should also be provided reactively or just 

7 in time to support the student as unanticipated 

8 needs arise. 

9 The ability to spot a struggling 

10 student and to offer appropriate support is a 

11 necessary part of a quality learning experience at 

12 a distance in a way that is not achieved in a 

13 correspondence course. An instructor can use 

14 technology to provide this support in more 

15 meaningful and timely ways than is described in the 

16 limited and dated language of regular and 

17 substantive interaction with the instructor. 

18 Thank you. 

19 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. David 

20 Baime. 

21 MR. BAIME: Good morning. My name is 

22 David Baime, and I'm the Senior Vice President for 
63

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Government Relations at the American Association 

2 of Community Colleges. The AACC represents the 

3 nation's more than 1100 community colleges across 

4 the country. My comments this morning will be 

5 somewhat brief, and then we will be submitting 

6 longer comments for the record. 

7 The first thing we'd like to do is

8 commend the Department for undertaking this 

9 review. It's long overdue. The regulatory 

10 structure, along with the statutory basis for that, 

11 is out of pace and behind where higher education 

12 is at present. We recognize the challenge in 

13 undertaking a review of all the issues the 

14 Department has proposed in just three negotiated 

15 rulemaking sessions, but we do think that the 

16 opportunity for dialogue is important, and 

17 certainly community colleges hope and expect to be 

18 represented in that process.

19 I'm going to talk about four issues 

20 today very briefly. First off, accreditation. 

21 Of all the issues that are scheduled for review 

22 under this negotiated rulemaking, accreditation 
64

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 is, without question, the most important topic 

2 because, to a large degree, it is the overarching 

3 guidance that is used and will provide and provides 

4 the structures under which institutions operate. 

5 As higher education innovates more and 

6 as we diverge more from the traditional 

7 classroom-based instruction done in credit hours 

8 over a certain number of weeks, the role of 

9 accreditation becomes ever more important, both 

10 for its traditional quality assurance role which 

11 needs to continue but also even more so for ensuring 

12 that, as we move to new modes of delivery in 

13 assessing students, that students are receiving 

14 value for money, as it were. This applies to the 

15 for-profit sector, the non-for-profit sector, and 

16 across all of higher education because the 

17 traditional metrics and yardsticks that we've used 

18 to evaluate how much higher education we're buying, 

19 in a very real respect that's what's at stake here. 

20 We are in new territory, and, ultimately, 

21 accreditors should be the primary agent 

22 responsible for both, again, assuring quality as 
65

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 well as good value for money for all students in 

2 all sectors of higher education. 

3 To that extent, the emphasis and 

4 requirements placed on accreditors for compliance, 

5 both with Title IV regulations themselves but, more 

6 broadly, with the approval process, needs to get 

7 a thorough scouring in this Neg Reg. There is, we 

8 hear from accreditors and our presidents or members 

9 of those bodies constantly that the -- too much of 

10 the focus of accreditors is on assuring continued 

11 recognition. 

12 More specifically, the whole issue of 

13 substantive change. Of course, there's the 

14 statutory definition, but it also, of course, is 

15 implemented through regulations. That has proved 

16 to be a big bottleneck for many community colleges 

17 wanting to innovate in their programs. The 

18 current guidance in this area is somewhat vague for 

19 institutions, and we urge that that get a close look 

20 in this negotiated rulemaking. 

21 Also, the rule of construction to 

22 safeguard the traditional role between 
66

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 institutions and accreditors from over federal 

2 involvement is important to keep mindful of. And 

3 then, finally, we've heard that the 

4 standardization of terms and definitions that have 

5 been required through the last administration has 

6 required a certain amount of rigidity for 

7 accreditors that they don't think is desirable.

8 A number of the commenters this morning 

9 have talked about distance education and the 

10 regular and substantive interaction statutory 

11 requirement. We do hear that this has created some 

12 problems for institutions in terms of compliance, 

13 and, certainly, we think that better guidance from 

14 the Department of Education is needed in this 

15 regard. 

16 Also, that statutory requirement 

17 should be provided to online education only, not 

18 other types of education and formats as has been 

19 done. 

20 Thirdly, very briefly, 

21 competency-based education, this is an area that 

22 community colleges have gotten deeply involved in 
67

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 very quickly. It's a great form of allowing 

2 non-traditional learners and other learners to 

3 work outside a traditional academic setting at 

4 their own pace with guidance from institutions.

5 MR. WASHINGTON: Twenty seconds left. 

6 MR. BAIME: We do emphasize that there 

7 is a need for accreditors to regulate this very 

8 carefully, and the Department needs to enable 

9 accreditors to do that. 

10 Thanks very much for giving me an 

11 opportunity to present our views this morning.

12 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. 

13 Josephine A. Welsh. 

14 MS. WELSH: Good morning. I'm Josie 

15 Welsh, Director of Institutional Effectiveness at 

16 Missouri Southern State University. I also serve 

17 as a peer reviewer for the Higher Learning 

18 Commission. Thank you for hosting this session.

19 Regardless of the outcome of these 

20 negotiations, a focus on the quality of teaching 

21 and learning at our institutions remains central. 

22 Unfortunately, the current system of quality 
68

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 assurance has created the 800-pound gorilla of 

2 accreditation, assessment of student learning.

3 Passionate site visitors and peer 

4 reviewers from regional accrediting agencies have, 

5 I believe, unintentionally created a cult-like set 

6 of expectations for prescriptive evidence of 

7 student learning. You might recognize phrases 

8 like closing the loop, making data-informed 

9 decisions, and scoring student artifacts with 

10 rubrics. It sounds impressive, doesn't it? Yet, 

11 after 30 years of implementation, this approach to 

12 assessment has failed to produce evidence of 

13 increased student learning. Why? 

14 Current accreditation standards make 

15 no mention of data quality. Data garnered through 

16 informal pedagogical tools, such as curriculum 

17 maps, alignment of student learning outcomes, 

18 rubric scores of small samples of student work, and 

19 focus on verbs used in the articulation of student 

20 learning outcomes are not the same as scientific 

21 research findings that adhere to standard wisdom 

22 of statistics, research design, and psychometrics. 
69

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Obviously, not every degree program can produce 

2 this sort of research.

3 The current accepted focus on the 

4 dogmatic process of mapping, aligning, collecting, 

5 and reporting countless program-level reports has 

6 resulted in an assessment citation rate up to 50 

7 percent by some accreditors for institutions 

8 failing standards related to the assessment of 

9 student learning. If a faculty members tells an 

10 assessment director 50 percent of my students are 

11 failing my course, that person will be directed to 

12 do a better job teaching, yet the accreditors, 

13 instead of changing these expectations by their 

14 peer review teams, cite institutions and require 

15 that they get on board and produce the maps, the 

16 report, and the evidence.

17 Speaking with peer reviewers, I'm often 

18 shocked that they think it's the federal 

19 government, the Department, that's requiring these 

20 reports. If you'll check Section 496 of the Higher 

21 Education Act, it's not at all what it says. The 

22 Department does not prescribe a formula for student 
70

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 learning assessment and, interestingly, neither do 

2 the regional accreditors. The expectations 

3 imposed on institutions appear to have emerged from 

4 site visitors themselves. As a social 

5 psychologist, I would call these expectations a 

6 socially-constructed reality.

7 Unfortunately, the bureaucracy 

8 resulting from this essentially crowd-sourced 

9 expectation for student learning assessment is 

10 creating barriers for institutions to fulfill 

11 their missions and to evaluate teaching and 

12 learning through reasonable means. They are 

13 paying fines, they are having to do monitoring 

14 reports, they are bringing in consultants, paying 

15 for expensive software, all to be able to produce 

16 these maps and reports in alignment of student 

17 learning outcomes. 

18 The current system for ensuring 

19 students are learning is intellectually dishonest 

20 and it's ethically corrosive. If the Department 

21 can, in any way, encourage accrediting agencies to 

22 promote real longitudinal, scientifically-sound 
71

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 evaluation research on student learning, to grant 

2 institutions the time it takes to produce such 

3 findings, to modify their training of peer 

4 reviewers, and to recognize the myriad ways 

5 institutions might be able to demonstrate student 

6 achievement consistent with their missions, many 

7 of us in the world of institutional effectiveness 

8 would be most grateful. 

9 Anecdotally, I'll give you examples 

10 like grades don't count as assessment, counts of 

11 people getting into graduate school don't count as 

12 evidence of student learning. Where did we get 

13 these ideas? If anybody at the Department can help 

14 us undo those urban legends, I would be very 

15 grateful. 

16 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. Sara 

17 Garcia. 

18 MS. GARCIA: Thank you for the 

19 opportunity to comment on the Department's intent 

20 to establish a negotiated rulemaking committee. 

21 My name is Sara Garcia, and today I speak on behalf 

22 of the Center for American Progress's 
72

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 postsecondary education team. We are deeply 

2 concerned that the proposed agenda would severely 

3 weaken at least one leg of the three-legged stool 

4 we call the federal triad intended to protect 

5 students and taxpayers.

6 It is particularly concerning that the 

7 Department would gut needed consumer protections 

8 at a time we should be strengthening them and that 

9 it would allow for the proliferation of poor 

10 quality schools in the name of innovation, 

11 resulting in more dead ends and broken promises for 

12 today's students. 

13 The Department's notice of intent to 

14 establish a negotiated rulemaking committee is 

15 concerning for several reasons. First, many of 

16 these regulations fall under the purview of the 

17 Higher Education Act, the governing legislation 

18 covering all of higher education, legislation that 

19 is long overdue for an update. Getting these rules 

20 right requires careful consideration and the right 

21 balance of consumer protection and innovation, not 

22 a hastily-crafted ill-advised attempt at gutting 
73

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 regulations with just one goal in mind. It is not 

2 clear why the Department would rush through a 

3 rulemaking session that will likely lead to rules 

4 that are outdated and need to be renegotiated at 

5 the passing of a new HEA.

6 Second, the sheer breadth and depth of 

7 the rules being targeted all at once raises deep 

8 concerns that any one of these issues would be 

9 thought through carefully in this process. The 

10 Department's notice lists at least 30 different 

11 regulations or regulatory subparts falling under 

12 12 different topics to be addressed under a single 

13 committee. A majority of these regulations were 

14 written to correct for past abuses by poor-quality 

15 institutions that scammed students. These issues 

16 get at the very heart of what an institution of 

17 higher education is, from how long a program should 

18 be to how much interaction with students and 

19 expertise the professors should have to how 

20 learning should be measured. The Department has 

21 already had trouble producing necessary analyses 

22 from when it was working on just one issue at a 
74

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 time, such as we saw during the borrower defense 

2 and gainful employment negotiated rulemakings, so 

3 how could it be possible to do the necessary due 

4 diligence on all of these items at once? 

5 Third, changing fundamental roles 

6 without experimentation and ignoring evidence, is 

7 quite simply, irresponsible. For example, one 

8 issue on the agenda, addressing arrangements 

9 between institutions to provide a portion of an 

10 education program is a topic currently being 

11 engaged under the EQUIP experiment. EQUIP 

12 partners traditional institutions of higher 

13 education with new innovative program providers 

14 under the oversight of a quality assurance entity. 

15 The experiment is in a very early stage.

16 Among the eight projects approved, four 

17 have since shuttered before ever getting off the 

18 ground and only one applicant was recently approved 

19 to begin enrolling students. In analysis from the 

20 Education Council cautions that EQUIP has raised 

21 more questions and concerns than it has found 

22 answers and urges policymakers not to assume these 
75

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 approaches are anywhere near ready to expand beyond 

2 an experimental stage. Yet, in an interview, a 

3 Department of Education official says that the 

4 negotiators should build on lessons learned under 

5 the EQUIP program, to which there have been none. 

6 These changes should not proceed unless they are 

7 based on robust experimentation and evidence. 

8 Fourth, pursuing so-called innovation 

9 and reducing burden for the sake of itself without 

10 a clear goal in mind and without careful attention 

11 to consumer protection risks opening up the spigot 

12 of the federal aid to unscrupulous providers. 

13 This reasoning is based on a simplistic assessment 

14 that all burden is inherently bad, all innovation 

15 is inherently good, and that eliminating one 

16 automatically leads to an increase in the other. 

17 This is counterproductive and potentially 

18 dangerous.

19 Efforts to address burden and 

20 innovation should take into consideration the 

21 intended purpose of each regulation it hopes to 

22 change and what it seeks to accomplish to ensure 
76

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 the Department is not creating regulatory 

2 loopholes. 

3 For all these reasons and more, we 

4 believe the questions raised in this proposed 

5 rulemaking are a job for Congress under the Higher 

6 Education Act. We urge the Department to rescind 

7 its proposed rulemaking and, instead, work with 

8 Congress to reauthorize the Higher Education Act 

9 through a bipartisan process. Thank you. 

10 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. Tanya 

11 Ang. 

12 MS. ANG: Good morning. My name is 

13 Tanya Ang, and I'm Vice President of Veterans 

14 Education Success. We appreciate the opportunity 

15 to share our thoughts and concerns with you 

16 regarding the Department's proposed regulatory 

17 changes.

18 VES understands the desire to encourage 

19 and improve innovation in higher education but 

20 takes issue with several of the regulatory 

21 rollbacks that consequently undermine critical 

22 protections for students while permitting low 
77

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 quality education providers to waste taxpayer 

2 dollars. These regulations were put in place 

3 after bad actor schools bilked the Department and 

4 cheated taxpayers of hundreds of thousands of 

5 dollars. 

6 Of these numerous proposed changes, 

7 today I want to focus on the following two key 

8 issues: regular and substantive interaction for 

9 online education programs and state authorization.

10 Online education has the potential to 

11 provide education to students who otherwise might 

12 not be able to participate in person. This is the 

13 case for service members serving overseas who want 

14 to continue their education without interruption. 

15 For them to get the quality education they expect, 

16 deserve, and pay for, regular and substantive 

17 interaction between professors and students is of 

18 necessity. Without this interaction, students 

19 and taxpayers end up paying astronomical prices for 

20 something that amounts to a computerized textbook.

21 In 1992, in the wake of the U.S. 

22 Government Accountability Office report that found 
78

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 modern correspondence schools had twice the 

2 student loan default rates of their colleges and 

3 universities, Congress resolved to act. They 

4 decided that the institutions had to show that they 

5 offered students regular and substantive 

6 interaction with faculty members at least half of 

7 the time or for at least half of the students to 

8 receive federal aid. 

9 The regular and substantive 

10 interaction requirement prevents institutions 

11 from handing out worthless diplomas that waste an 

12 immense amount of federal funds. It is imperative 

13 that changes do not condone worthless online 

14 degrees void of any human interaction at the 

15 expense of taxpayers. 

16 States have a long history of 

17 protecting students from predatory and low quality 

18 colleges. They are a crucial member of the program 

19 integrity triad with the accrediting agencies and 

20 the Department, providing vital oversight and 

21 ensuring colleges are complying with both federal 

22 and state law. 
79

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 The current state authorization 

2 regulations require colleges to obtain each 

3 state's authorization to offer their programs to 

4 students in that state and receive federal 

5 financial aid. The Department should ensure that 

6 states maintain their ability to authorize schools 

7 that meet their standards and protect their 

8 citizens from fraud and other abuses. 

9 Narrowing oversight of the states would 

10 not only allow for more predatory schools to enter 

11 the marketplace but would strip individual states 

12 of their long-held ability to protect their 

13 citizens' right to receive quality education. 

14 Curtailing their ability to authorize colleges and 

15 enforce applicable state laws against predatory 

16 institutions infringes upon state autonomy and 

17 moves the responsibility onto federal regulators 

18 and the cost onto federal taxpayers.

19 Additionally, we need robust 

20 disclosure regarding all college programs, 

21 specifically distance education or correspondence 

22 courses, to protect prospective students and make 
80

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 certain they can make fully informed decisions in 

2 the market when considering enrollment. 

3 Eliminating these disclosure requirements would 

4 put students at a disadvantage as it would open the 

5 door for aggressive and deceptive practices by 

6 recruiters and schools.

7 The Department must be a good steward 

8 of taxpayer dollars and, therefore, keep quality 

9 standards that protect both students and 

10 taxpayers. This is evidenced by the recent 

11 fraudulent practices enclosure of institutions, 

12 such as ITT Tech and Corinthian Colleges. These 

13 schools show that there are bad actors attempting 

14 to defraud students and the government. The 

15 weakening of these proposed regulations would pave 

16 the way for similar bad actors to offer low quality 

17 education and hurt those we represent, service 

18 members, veterans, and their families who use their 

19 hard-earned military education benefits to go to 

20 school and are often the targets of predatory 

21 schools looking to capitalize on these benefits. 

22 Many are first generation and other under-served 
81

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 student populations who believe the federal 

2 government's stamp of approval for the school to 

3 offer Title IV funds means the school is a high 

4 quality school. Unfortunately, we know all too 

5 well this is not always the case. Unfortunately, 

6 students find out too late that this is not always 

7 the case.

8 The Education Department's mission is 

9 to promote student achievement and quality 

10 education. Weakening or removing current 

11 protections would directly contradict that 

12 mission. 

13 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. Wesley 

14 Whistle. 

15 MR. WHISTLE: Good morning. My name 

16 is Wesley Whistle, and I'm an education policy 

17 advisor at Third Way. We know college has become 

18 a necessity in our changing economy. A majority 

19 of jobs require some sort of postsecondary 

20 credential, yet the continued actions of this 

21 department to repeal and modify necessary 

22 regulations puts in jeopardy the ability of 
82

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 students and taxpayers to see a return on the 

2 investment they make in higher education each year.

3 While regulations alone would not solve 

4 the challenges we face, I'm here today to strongly 

5 advocate for the need to strengthen, not weaken, 

6 federal oversight of our higher education system. 

7 The Department is obligated to uphold two basic 

8 promises to its constituents. One, ensure 

9 students have a baseline quality of education no 

10 matter what type of program or institution they 

11 attend, what state it's based in, or if it's 

12 delivered online or in person. Two, safeguard 

13 taxpayer dollars so they aren't sent to programs 

14 and institutions offering a low quality education 

15 and wasting federal financial aid dollars.

16 First, let's look at state 

17 authorization. States play a vital role in 

18 institutional oversight and consumer protection 

19 for students. We're concerned delaying this rule 

20 will make it difficult for online students to 

21 obtain licensure in their state but only the state 

22 where their online institution is physically 
83

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 located. Imagine an online nursing student who 

2 played by the rules, worked hard, and graduated, 

3 only to be ineligible for their nursing license 

4 unless they move states. This effectively renders 

5 their degree worthless, leaving them in debt and 

6 unable to get the job they wanted.

7 Rolling back this protection removes 

8 states' ability to oversee programs and protect 

9 their citizens. The Department should allow 

10 states to do their job to protect their 

11 constituents and regulate entities within their 

12 borders by keeping this established rule.

13 There are also grave concerns with 

14 altering the regular and substantive interaction 

15 rule. Online education is meant to provide 

16 flexibility for those that want or need it, but not 

17 at the expense of losing access to the experts who 

18 are supposed to teach them. Yet, loosening this 

19 regulation for online programs to provide regular 

20 and substantive interaction will open the door to 

21 bad actors who won't require instructors to spend 

22 the needed time with students. We know this is 
84

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 true. Before the Department put this rule in 

2 place, institutions outsourced over 50 percent of 

3 instruction to non-experts, some of them call 

4 centers, when students needed assistance. 

5 Imagine that same nursing student needing to 

6 understand an issue but having been directed to a 

7 call center instead. The Department shouldn't 

8 ignore the risks of outsourcing instruction and, 

9 instead, should require a minimum level of teaching 

10 and learning by trained and qualified instructors 

11 at all programs.

12 Next, I want to address the definition 

13 of the credit hour. The credit hour provides a 

14 baseline of the time and learning a student does. 

15 Before this definition was established, some 

16 institutions received more federal aid dollars for 

17 less instruction time than at other institutions, 

18 such as one awarding up to 27 credit hours for a 

19 semester and receiving a comparable amount of Pell 

20 Grants and student loans, yet similar institutions 

21 evaluated that same workload as only 18 credit 

22 hours.
85

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 This also opens the door to problems 

2 with the nearly 10 percent of students who transfer 

3 each year because institutions may be less likely 

4 to accept credits if they have no guarantee a 

5 sufficient amount of learning was completed. The 

6 Department must keep this rule to guarantee a floor 

7 for work and learning and prevent bad actors from 

8 receiving more federal aid dollars for less time 

9 educating students, leaving students up Pell 

10 eligibility, taking out more loans, all the while 

11 getting less in return.

12 Let's turn our attention to the 

13 outsourcing of educational programs. Consumers 

14 need a guarantee that programs they attend are 

15 state approved, accredited, and subject to 

16 requirements from the Department, such as a 

17 financial viability test. Allowing schools to 

18 outsource offerings to untested and unproven 

19 entities makes it hard to understand who actually 

20 teaches students and how well they do so. The 

21 Department should consider the risk in removing 

22 protections that gives students and taxpayers the 
86

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 quality assurances they need. 

2 Lastly, let's talk about 

3 accreditation. After personally working on 

4 accreditation at institutions, I know firsthand 

5 accreditation is ripe for reform. It's supposed 

6 to be a stamp of approval guaranteeing a basic level 

7 of quality for students and taxpayer dollars that 

8 follow them to schools. However, we know it isn't 

9 always the case. Today, over 680 institutions 

10 leave more than half of their students degree-less, 

11 unlikely to earn more than a high school grad, and 

12 unable to pay down their loans. This puts students 

13 at risk and is a raw deal for taxpayers.

14 The Higher Education Act directs 

15 accreditors to look at many metrics but includes 

16 little on how or what they should measure for 

17 student outcomes. The Department has a 

18 responsibility to work with NACIQI to ensure 

19 accreditors don't approve low-performing schools 

20 and require accreditors to account for student 

21 outcomes rather than a compliance-based approach 

22 doing little to improve student outcomes. 
87

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Thank you. 

2 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. We've 

3 reached the time for our first break, so we'll be 

4 taking a ten-minute scheduled break until 10:40.

5 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

6 went off the record at 10:29 a.m. and resumed at 

7 10:40 a.m.)

8 MR. WASHINGTON: Hello, everyone. If 

9 you could please take your seats, we are going to 

10 start back up. Our first speaker is Cheryl Dowd. 

11 MS. DOWD: Good morning. I'm Cheryl 

12 Dowd. I'm the Director for the State 

13 Authorization Network. It's an operational unit 

14 with WCET, which is the WICHE Cooperative for 

15 Educational Technologies. I want to thank the 

16 Department for the opportunity to speak today. 

17 Thank you very much.

18 I'm here in response to the 

19 Department's recent announcement regarding the 

20 negotiated rulemaking topics and subcommittees. 

21 I have three rather brief points as to the process 

22 that will be taken in regard to the proposal that 
88

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 was provided.

2 First, as many have expressed today, we 

3 maintain that the Department's inclusion of so many 

4 topics, more than ten, for a single negotiated 

5 rulemaking committee that are of such a varied and 

6 complicated nature will stand little chance of 

7 single rulemaking committee producing proposed 

8 regulations that can meet consensus. So that the 

9 issues can be accorded the attention and analysis 

10 required, we suggest multiple rulemaking 

11 committees to manage these wide-ranging topics.

12 In support of this point, we wish to 

13 share that the Department previously expressed 

14 that some of these topics are very complex. We 

15 wonder how the Department can find negotiators well 

16 versed on all of these topics within one single 

17 committee. And also we see the previous 

18 experience underscores this concern, as the 2014 

19 negotiated rulemaking committee that included 

20 state authorization did not meet consensus with 

21 only six topic areas.

22 Second, we believe the Department's 
89

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 proposal to create subcommittees to engage content 

2 experts to guide language and process is a good 

3 idea. However, the Department only identified two 

4 topics to be assisted by subcommittees. Given the 

5 breadth of scope and complexity of the issues on 

6 this list, more than two topics named in the 

7 Department's announcement would benefit from a 

8 subcommittee. Several other topics should be 

9 subject to a subcommittee, an example of which a 

10 state authorization subcommittee that would 

11 include state regulators, institutional 

12 compliance personnel, state authorization policy 

13 experts, and representatives from NC-SARA would 

14 provide the best opportunity to reach an 

15 enforceable and effective final regulation. The 

16 previous versions of the regulation have 

17 encountered delays due to process errors and 

18 language that conflicted with state compliance 

19 requirements. A subcommittee for those core 

20 functions for accreditation requires experts to 

21 understand how implementation of a new regulation 

22 would be managed by institutions and overseen by 
90

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 these accreditation agencies. 

2 And, finally, the Department should 

3 continue its historical objective to include 

4 representation of affected parties on a negotiated 

5 rulemaking committee. There are very few people 

6 who understand the complexity of the language and 

7 processes necessary to carry out regulations, 

8 including the intended and unintended consequences 

9 of a developed regulation. For example, the state 

10 authorization complexities can be best viewed 

11 through the lens of a state regulator who enforces 

12 regulations and compliance staff members who must 

13 implement state authorization regulations at the 

14 institution.

15 What I'm indicating here is if the 

16 negotiated rulemaking committee could include at 

17 least two people to represent affected parties, it 

18 would support being able to understand the 

19 different aspects of the possible regulation, but 

20 it stresses the point that affected parties 

21 representing all of the Department's proposed 

22 topics on one committee would be too unwieldy to 
91

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 be efficient and effective.

2 I appreciate your time today. Thank 

3 you very much. 

4 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. Jarrod 

5 Thoma. 

6 MR. THOMA: Good morning. My name is 

7 Jarrod Thoma. I'm a veteran of the United States 

8 Army from Colorado Springs, Colorado. Thank you 

9 for the opportunity to offer my testimony today, 

10 and I'm here to tell you why, from my own 

11 experience, the United States government needs to 

12 regulate bad schools that take federal taxpayer 

13 dollars, like the GI Bill.

14 I earned my education through years of 

15 service and sacrifice during enlistment. After my 

16 discharge from the Army, I was eager to pursue a 

17 lifelong passion for electronics by earning my 

18 engineering degree. I enrolled in DeVry 

19 University, but it didn't take long for me to 

20 realize that this for-profit college was failing 

21 to deliver on many of the promises recruiters had 

22 made to me.
92

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 In particular, after transferring from 

2 DeVry campus to another, it became clear to me that 

3 the school was making cost-saving cuts that 

4 negatively impacted the quality of our education. 

5 I saw that the quality of course materials and 

6 equipment used for instruction were subpar and not 

7 as advertised and that the standards of the same 

8 institution were completely different at the two 

9 different branch locations.

10 When I realized the dramatic reduction 

11 in quality, I alerted my professors and the staff 

12 members. Although DeVry was more than happy to 

13 cash in on all of my GI benefits, my complaints 

14 about the quality of materials and instruction fell 

15 on deaf ears. When I tried to transfer, I was told 

16 by both public universities and community colleges

17 that they would accept only my general education 

18 credits, even though DeVry had stated that their 

19 credits would transfer.

20 As I was starting to accumulate debt, 

21 including $52,000 in additional student loans, I 

22 made the decision to complete my engineering degree 
93

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 at DeVry. However, upon entering the job market, 

2 I quickly found a degree from a for-profit college 

3 was not worth the paper it's printed on, and it 

4 actually hurt my job prospectives. Through hard 

5 work and a little luck, I was finally able to secure

6 an engineering position after over two and a half 

7 years. 

8 Given these challenges, along with many 

9 of the other hurdles that veterans already face, 

10 I cannot stress enough the need for regulatory 

11 protections for not just military-connected 

12 students but all students from predatory practices 

13 by these terrible education corporations posing as 

14 colleges and universities. 

15 Not long after I graduated from DeVry 

16 with what turned out to be a worthless degree and 

17 subpar training, other bad schools went bankrupt 

18 and left other students and veterans in even worse 

19 spots. Education companies, like ITT Technical 

20 Institute and Corinthian were run into the ground, 

21 despite having taken millions of taxpayer dollars 

22 which shows the need for regulations to protect 
94

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 students like myself from lies, fraud, predatory 

2 recruiting, and marketing tactics. 

3 After graduating from DeVry in 2015, I 

4 filed a borrower defense claim on my $52,000 in 

5 debt, and I'm still waiting for resolution from the 

6 Department of Education. While our loans have 

7 been placed in forbearance, they still have become 

8 a financial burden. This is not the position I 

9 envisioned for myself or my family after serving 

10 this country and sacrificing to earn my benefits. 

11 If you want to support the men and women 

12 in uniform, I would say you take a hard look at the 

13 schools like DeVry that take taxpayer money, 

14 including veterans benefits, but don't deliver on 

15 the quality of education that is promised. Thank 

16 you. 

17 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. Melinda 

18 Thoma. 

19 MS. THOMA: Hello and good morning. 

20 My name is Melinda Thoma. I am a mother and proud 

21 wife of U.S. Army veteran Jarrod Thoma, who just 

22 spoke. We have traveled here today with our two 
95

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 young children to testify about how a lack of good 

2 regulations allowed a terrible school to defraud 

3 my husband and take his GI Bill, only to leave him 

4 and our family with mountains of debt that we 

5 shouldn't have to begin with and now cannot afford 

6 to repay. 

7 My husband was proud to enlist in the 

8 U.S. Army and he served his country for years. In 

9 addition to fulfilling his patriotic duties, he was 

10 rewarded for his service with the GI Bill 

11 educational benefit, which should have allowed him 

12 to go to school, earn a degree, and transition into 

13 a successful career without any debt. 

14 Jarrod wanted to be an electronics 

15 engineer so, like many service members leaving the 

16 military, saw a DeVry advertisement and, after 

17 talking to a school recruiter, decided to enroll. 

18 My husband and I met during his senior year at 

19 DeVry, and I can tell you how determined my husband 

20 was and still is to succeed and how disappointed 

21 he felt when he realized DeVry was not investing 

22 in his education the way that they had advertised.
96

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 During those years, it was a struggle 

2 to not only go to school but battle the issues he 

3 faced at DeVry; and, unfortunately, since his 

4 graduation, it hasn't gotten any easier. I have 

5 watched him apply to so many jobs and, even as a 

6 military veteran, employers simply won't hire 

7 someone with a degree from a for-profit school like 

8 DeVry.

9 It took almost three years for Jarrod 

10 to find gainful employment, only then from his own 

11 hard work and determination. Because DeVry lied 

12 to my husband about the quality and education, 

13 post-graduation job assistance, and many other 

14 things, he applied for borrowers defense to have 

15 our loans discharged. Amazingly, it has been 

16 almost three years since he submitted the 

17 application to the Education Department and we have 

18 yet to receive any kind of decision. We hope to 

19 hear something, hopefully positive, soon.

20 I cannot begin to describe the toll this 

21 mountain of unfair and unnecessary debt has caused 

22 our family. My husband and I are raising two 
97

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 children and working our tails off just to afford 

2 the bills and put food on our table. The lingering 

3 impact has negatively impacted our credit rating, 

4 which, in turn, hampered our ability to find a 

5 mortgage for our family home.

6 To add to the burden, to add the burden 

7 of student loan debt from a school that ripped off 

8 my husband after he served his country is 

9 inexcusable, and that's why we brought our family 

10 all the way from Colorado Springs, Colorado to 

11 share our story.

12 I ask that this Education Department do 

13 everything possible to protect students like my 

14 husband from education companies and colleges who 

15 take taxpayer dollars only to turn around and 

16 defraud those students who are supposed to benefit 

17 and leave them in a terrible position. Thank you 

18 for the opportunity to address this body. 

19 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. Karen 

20 McCarthy. 

21 MS. MCCARTHY: Thank you for this 

22 opportunity to contribute considerations for the 
98

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 upcoming negotiations on behalf of the National 

2 Association of Student Financial Aid 

3 Administrators and our nearly 3,000-member 

4 postsecondary institutions. Several of ED's 

5 proposed topics for negotiations are related to 

6 innovative learning models, so I'll begin my 

7 comments there. 

8 Much of the federal financial aid 

9 system was designed years before many of these 

10 learning models were developed. Attempting to 

11 cultivate and implement innovative learning models 

12 within the confines of the existing federal student 

13 aid system has led to regulatory legislative 

14 challenges, not to mention concerns over 

15 opportunities for fraud and abuse.

16 The Higher Education Act and Title IV 

17 regulations look at seat time, students completing 

18 a certain number of courses and hours within a 

19 defined academic period with requirement on 

20 instructional time, rather than evidence of 

21 student learning. Ultimately, the federal 

22 student aid system must be updated to allow for 
99

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 greater access to programs that are not based on 

2 traditional credit or clock hour models. While we 

3 applaud ED's efforts to modify regulations with 

4 this goal in mind, this is fundamentally an issue 

5 that must be tackled by Congress in the pending 

6 reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.

7 While legislative restrictions prevent 

8 ED from making broad-scale changes to regulations 

9 to eliminate barriers to innovation, we encourage 

10 ED to consider regulatory flexibilities in other 

11 areas of Title IV administration that present 

12 challenges for non-traditional program 

13 structures. For example, both the return of Title 

14 IV funds and satisfactory academic progress 

15 requirements have time-based constraints that 

16 could be modified through regulation.

17 NASFAA appreciates ED's efforts to 

18 clarify state authorization rules for distance 

19 education. While it is imperative to ensure that 

20 these distance education programs provide the same 

21 level of quality as brick-and-mortar institutions, 

22 regulations intended to guarantee quality should 
100

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 not be so onerous as to jeopardize the existence 

2 of high-performing programs. 

3 The higher education community has 

4 undertaken its own very successful self-regulating 

5 initiative on this topic with the creation and 

6 rapid expansion of the National Council for State 

7 Authorization Reciprocity Agreements, or SARA. 

8 NAFSAA believes strongly that ED should continue 

9 its recognition of this well-designed project and 

10 should defer wholly to SARA for member states and 

11 participating institutions. 

12 For institutions that do not 

13 participate, ED should use SARA as a model for 

14 reasonable and effective regulation of distance ED 

15 with regard to state authorization.

16 On the general topic of state 

17 authorization, we urge ED to tread lightly in 

18 matters that are related to state purview and to 

19 find reasonable alternatives that do not price a 

20 program out of existence or at unreasonable 

21 administrative burden.

22 A 2015 report from the Government 
101

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Accountability Office found that 63 percent of 

2 TEACH Grant recipients had grants converted to 

3 loans in the year they studied, 86 percent of which 

4 were involuntary conversions. 

5 Conversion-to-loan occurs when the recipient does 

6 not complete the teaching requirement or fails to 

7 provide the required documentation. 

8 Another report found that the time they 

9 first received their grant, 89 percent of 

10 recipients indicated that they were likely or very 

11 likely to fulfill the service requirements, 

12 leading us to believe that failure to complete the 

13 service requirement is not the primary driver of 

14 the shockingly high loan conversion rate. 

15 Instead, we should be looking to improve the 

16 administrative processes involved in 

17 documentation of the service requirements. Our 

18 written comments will outline specific areas for 

19 regulatory change on this topic. 

20 Broadly speaking, we are concerned that 

21 the number and complexity of the topics that the 

22 single negotiating team will be expected to address 
102

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 is unrealistic. ED proposes 11 topics for 

2 negotiation. Several of these, such as 

3 accreditation issues, are expansive enough to 

4 support their own dedicated team of negotiators. 

5 Concentrating many diverse issues into one 

6 negotiating committee renders the consensus 

7 approach near impossible and creates time 

8 management issues.

9 ED appears to acknowledge these 

10 challenges by stating its intentions to provide 

11 draft proposed regulatory language prior to the 

12 first meeting of the committee. This is a 

13 departure from previous Neg Reg procedures where 

14 the first meeting is generally structured as a 

15 brainstorming session where participants finalize 

16 the agenda and discuss the issues in-depth. ED 

17 considered all feedback from the first meeting and 

18 distributed draft language prior to the second 

19 meeting.

20 ED's new approach --

21 MR. WASHINGTON: Twenty seconds left.

22 MS. MCCARTHY: -- deprives all 
103

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 negotiators and ED staff of a thorough, thoughtful 

2 discussion of the issues and undermines the goals 

3 of the negotiated rulemaking process. We strongly 

4 urge ED to establish multiple committees so that 

5 each team may focus on issues in-depth. 

6 Thank you for your time and your 

7 consideration of our comments. We look forward to 

8 participating in the process. 

9 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. Jody 

10 Feder.

11 MS. FEDER: My name is Jody Feder, and 

12 I'm here today to speak on behalf of the National 

13 Association of Independent Colleges and 

14 Universities, NAICU advocates on behalf of the 

15 nation's private non-profit colleges and 

16 universities. 

17 I'd like to begin by offering a few 

18 thoughts on some of the items set forth in the 

19 Department's very ambitious negotiated rulemaking 

20 announcement. In general, NAICU supports the 

21 maintenance of an accreditation process built upon 

22 independent peer review. The existence of an 
104

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 effective non-governmental means for assessing 

2 academic quality makes possible the diversity and 

3 independence of U.S. institutions of higher 

4 education. As such, any changes made to 

5 accreditation must take into account individual 

6 institutions and their missions and must respect 

7 institutional autonomy.

8 We also encourage the Department to 

9 carefully consider the balance of the three actors 

10 in the accountability triad. The Department must 

11 be mindful of the unique nature of higher education 

12 accreditation and resist the temptation to turn 

13 accreditors into surrogate government enforcement 

14 agencies. Not only will that approach run counter 

15 to the spirit of the HEA, but it will also pose a 

16 threat to institutional quality improvement and 

17 diversity.

18 Regarding state authorization of 

19 distance education programs, NAICU urges the 

20 Department to thoroughly consider the challenges 

21 associated with colleges receiving authorization 

22 from every state in which it enrolls students in 
105

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 its programs. We recommend an approach that will 

2 protect students and that recognizes the 

3 significant burden placed on institutions that 

4 enroll transient populations of students. 

5 Similarly, NAICU recommends that the 

6 Department consider revisions to other aspects of 

7 the state authorization regulations. While the 

8 intent to crack down on unscrupulous higher 

9 education providers is a laudable goal, the 

10 regulations have not functioned as intended. 

11 Instead, these provisions have created confusion 

12 about the legal status of many private non-profit 

13 colleges, some of which have been needlessly 

14 threatened with the loss of eligibility for federal 

15 student aid dollars despite the fact that they are 

16 well-known legitimate postsecondary institutions 

17 with all the valid documentation of their 

18 establishment.

19 NAICU also advocates for repeal of the 

20 credit hour definition. Having a federal 

21 definition of credit hour is inappropriate because 

22 it leads to government interference in the academic 
106

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 decision-making process and limits the flexibility 

2 of institutions to develop new models of higher 

3 education to meet the needs of current and future 

4 students. 

5 Likewise, NAICU urges the Department to 

6 rethink the restructuring of convertible 

7 grant-to-loan programs, such as the TEACH Grant 

8 program, to ensure that borrowers are not held to 

9 unrealistic eligibility standards. In addition, 

10 as the Department considers barriers to 

11 innovation, competition, and student success, 

12 including issues related to direct assessment 

13 programs, competency-based education, regular and 

14 substantive interaction, program length, 

15 relationship with other institutions, the 

16 teach-out process, and the definition of foreign 

17 schools which needs to be re-examined, the 

18 Department must be mindful of the balance between 

19 encouraging innovation and preventing fraud and 

20 abuse. One way to do so is to test ideas first to 

21 ensure that they do not provide opportunities for 

22 unscrupulous school operators to take advantage of 
107

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 students and taxpayers. In the past, tools, such 

2 as demonstration programs or experimental sites, 

3 have provided an avenue for controlled 

4 experimentation and innovative approaches before 

5 a full-scale federal investment is made.

6 Additionally, special consideration 

7 should be given to the circumstances under which 

8 partnerships between institutions to deliver high 

9 quality instruction are to be encouraged. For 

10 example, the Department must prevent the excessive 

11 outsourcing of an academic program from a Title IV 

12 eligible institution to a non-Title IV outside 

13 provider. Such institutional behavior could be to 

14 the detriment of students and effectively make the 

15 outside entity eligible for Title IV aid without 

16 meeting Title IV requirements. It is essential 

17 that the Department maintain its role as the 

18 guardian of the integrity of federal student aid 

19 programs by preventing fraud and abuse by bad 

20 actors seeking to take advantage of overly-broad 

21 partnership criteria.

22 Finally, NAICU is encouraged that the 
108

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Department has publicly committed to holding a 

2 negotiated rulemaking committee dedicated to the 

3 financial responsibility standards in its proposed 

4 borrower defense as to repayment regulations. We 

5 urge the Department to maintain consistency with 

6 its recent stance on financial responsibility by 

7 devoting a negotiated rulemaking committee 

8 dedicated to reforming the methodology and 

9 implementation of the financial composite scores. 

10 Thank you for the opportunity to 

11 provide comments on and participate in this 

12 important regulatory process. 

13 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. Alison 

14 Gill. 

15 MS. GILL: Thank you for allowing me to 

16 speak today on the proposed rulemaking. My name 

17 is Alison Gill, and I'm the Legal and Policy 

18 Director for American Atheists. American 

19 Atheists is a national civil rights organization 

20 that works to achieve religious equality for all 

21 Americans by protecting what Thomas Jefferson 

22 called the wall of separation between religion and 
109

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 government created by the First Amendment. As 

2 advocates for religious liberty and equality, 

3 American Atheists opposes laws and policies that 

4 would favor religion over non-religion or provide 

5 special privileges to religious organizations. 

6 The Department proposes to create a 

7 committee for negotiated rulemaking to revise 

8 regulations pertaining to accrediting agencies, as 

9 well as a subcommittee to make recommendations 

10 regarding the eligibility of faith-based entities 

11 to participate in Title IV Higher Education Act 

12 programs. We believe that the current regulations 

13 pertaining to faith-based entities participating 

14 in such programs are sufficient, and we caution 

15 that any changes made to such regulations that are 

16 likely to conflict with constitutional 

17 requirements. We, therefore, urge you to remove 

18 consideration of regulations affecting 

19 faith-based entities from the proposed negotiated 

20 rulemaking. 

21 Our nation has a long history of 

22 fostering diverse educational institutions, 
110

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 including both religious and secular institutions 

2 of higher education. Recognizing that the 

3 separation of religion and government is the 

4 bedrock of religious liberty, the Supreme Court has 

5 stepped in to ensure that states and the federal 

6 government refrain from unconstitutionally 

7 favoring religious educational institutions or 

8 impeding their ability to operate. 

9 Through such decisions, the Court has 

10 established guidelines in how the government may 

11 choose to involve itself in religious education 

12 between what the establishment clause permits and 

13 the free exercise clause compels. We assert that 

14 the existing regulations regarding Title IV 

15 programs push a level of allowable involvement to 

16 its very limit and that any effort made to loosen 

17 regulations to fund religious education or to favor 

18 religious institutions will implicate the 

19 establishment clause.

20 Through this rulemaking, the 

21 Department seeks to revise regulations in light of 

22 the Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer, 
111

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 a 2017 Supreme Court decision which was expressly 

2 limited to discrimination based on the religious 

3 identity with respect to playground resurfacing. 

4 Legally, this case has precisely zero effect on 

5 federal regulations pertaining to the Higher 

6 Education Act. However, the case has been 

7 repeatedly misapplied to justify special 

8 dispensation and regulatory exemptions for 

9 religious organizations.

10 Even if we take this case at its 

11 broadest possible interpretation, which is "the 

12 religious organizations should not be denied 

13 funding simply because they are religious 

14 organizations," the fundamental protections for 

15 religious liberty guaranteed by the establishment 

16 clause and the free exercise clause, as well as 

17 statutory requirements, still apply.

18 Although the current Title IV HEA 

19 regulations interact with religious institutions 

20 in numerous ways, none of them single out religious 

21 people or groups for unfavorable treatment based 

22 on their religious nature, and so Trinity Lutheran 
112

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 is not applicable to these regulations. Instead, 

2 the current regulations service to effectuate 

3 programmatic goals, such as protecting students 

4 and borrowers, within the boundaries established 

5 by the establishment clause. 

6 Existing limitations on funding and 

7 program eligibility may be categorized in three 

8 broad categories: 

9 Limitations on student financial aid. If a 

10 student is a member of a religious order whose 

11 primary purpose is promotion of religion and the 

12 order directs the education or provides funding, 

13 the student will not be eligible for federal 

14 financial aid. To do otherwise would basically 

15 have the federal government funding education and 

16 proselytization efforts for religious orders.

17 Limitations on funding for religious 

18 purposes. Money that is given directly to 

19 educational institutions may not be used for 

20 inherently religious or sectarian purposes and 

21 limitations on subsidies for religious activities. 

22 Students and organizations are ineligible for 
113

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 certain types of subsidies and loan forgiveness 

2 programs if the student would work on inherently 

3 religious activities through the program, such as 

4 support for religious worship or sectarian 

5 instruction. Without this limitation in place, 

6 the government would be directly subsidizing 

7 individuals to engage in religious activities. 

8 Each of these limitations is clearly required by 

9 the establishment clause. 

10 The existing rules pertaining to 

11 accrediting educational institutions already make 

12 various special exceptions for religious 

13 organizations. For example, religious 

14 institutions are given special consideration for 

15 accreditation --

16 MR. WASHINGTON: Twenty seconds left. 

17 MS. GILL: -- purposes in case 

18 accreditation is lost or is a result of religious 

19 beliefs and institutions are considered or 

20 authorized as educational institutions if they are 

21 exempt from state authorization as religious 

22 institutions under state law.
114

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Finally, we will note that the 

2 government may implicate the establishment clause 

3 for going too far to accommodate religious 

4 institutions. Thank you so much for allowing me 

5 to speak. We'll submit more detailed comments for 

6 the record.

7 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. William 

8 Pena. 

9 MR. PENA: Good morning. Thank you 

10 for the opportunity to speak with you today. My 

11 name is William Pena, and I am the Associate Vice 

12 President of Student Financial Services at 

13 Southern New Hampshire University.

14 SNHU is a private non-profit university 

15 founded in 1932 serving over 135,000 students 

16 around the world. At SNHU, we seek to expand 

17 access to education by removing barriers and 

18 creating high quality, affordable, and innovative 

19 pathways to meet the unique needs of each and every 

20 student. I lead the university's financial aid 

21 interests relating to emerging and alternative 

22 learning models, including competency-based 
115

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 education, direct assessment programs, and the 

2 Department's experimental sites initiatives. I 

3 also oversee the student financial services office 

4 serving the students and business partners of 

5 SNHU's College for America Program, which was the 

6 first direct assessment program in the nation to 

7 receive approval for Title IV eligibility.

8 I'm here this morning to discuss 

9 opportunities for advancing the Department's 

10 regulatory reform agenda for flexible and quality 

11 innovation in higher education through 

12 competency-based education. My focus will be on 

13 removing barriers by reinventing the federal 

14 financial aid rules to support the implementation 

15 of such programs.

16 The hallmark of CBE lies within the name 

17 and focus: an individual's competency, a 

18 demonstration and validation of what they know and 

19 can do. In the CBE field, we say that learning is 

20 constant and that time is variable. And in many 

21 CBE models, this is in direct conflict with the 

22 current Title IV rules and regulations which are 
116

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 still entrenched in the notion that the amount of 

2 time spent acquiring learning is more important 

3 than whether a student can apply knowledge, skills, 

4 or abilities.

5 One barrier for innovative programs is 

6 the minimum academic year definition, which 

7 conflicts with an employment program that isn't 

8 offered in the traditional two 15-week semesters 

9 and 15 credits. Flexibility within Title IV 

10 requirements would promote the advancement of 

11 innovative programs, placing the focus, again, on 

12 student outcomes rather than calendar time. 

13 However, to protect students and taxpayers, 

14 safeguards must be employed to prevent abuses from 

15 those who might solely seek to capitalize on a 

16 student's ability to secure multiple loans and Pell 

17 Grants within a single year. 

18 Additionally, current rules define 

19 either term-based or non-term calendars for Title 

20 IV programs. Non-term calendars are better suited 

21 to student-directed pacing but are 

22 administratively problematic with no economies of 
117

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 scale. Bridging the gap between these calendar 

2 types requires flexibility. Schools rely on 

3 defined periods of registration, billing, and 

4 other functions to leverage automation and to 

5 manage operational costs, but students must also 

6 be enabled to begin and end academic work suited 

7 to their needs and abilities.

8 The return to Title IV requirements are 

9 ripe for reform. They effectively only consider 

10 the amount of calendar time for which funds are 

11 dispersed without regard to actual student 

12 progress towards degree completion. A student who 

13 successfully completes all course work prior to a 

14 term's end date is subject to a potential loss of 

15 financial aid simply because they accelerated. 

16 This holds true when a student graduates from the 

17 program before a term ends. In short, R2T4 

18 requirements should be revised so that students who 

19 successfully complete all course work are not 

20 penalized for their achievement.

21 Rules for satisfactory progress, or 

22 SAP, in Title IV eligibility are not always 
118

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 appropriate measures for innovative learning 

2 models. The traditional grade point average is 

3 not relevant when a minimum level of performance 

4 is required to progress through a program. The 

5 quantitative measurement for SAP penalizes 

6 students who elect to enroll in many courses with 

7 the ultimate goal of acceleration. Under current 

8 rules, a student really should only enroll in as 

9 many courses or competencies that they are 

10 guaranteed to complete within a given period, 

11 thereby reducing the potential for acceleration.

12 An alternative approach could be to codify a 

13 minimum completion threshold per specified period 

14 that ultimately leads to timely program 

15 completion. 

16 Finally, a critical issue facing 

17 innovative models is regular and substantive 

18 interaction. The lack of clear and consistent 

19 federal guidance in this area has thwarted 

20 understanding in the field around program design 

21 and practice. However, we urge exercising caution 

22 when establishing definitions for regular or 
119

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 substantive in order to afford flexibility and 

2 efficacy. 

3 Separate but related to this, we also 

4 encourage review of definitions as to what 

5 constitutes educational activity. This directly 

6 determines the number of weeks of instruction in

7 a program. The expansion of the definition could 

8 better align incentives to ensure that activities 

9 that count are adding value to the educational 

10 program. 

11 These changes are necessary because the 

12 needs of our workforce are changing and so are 

13 students. We need--

14 MR. WASHINGTON: Twenty seconds left.

15 MR. PENA:--innovative pathways to degrees 

16 and skills to meet employer needs and to help 

17 students succeed. We are pleased to see the 

18 Department playing a key role in creating a more 

19 effective framework for institutions to strengthen 

20 in this innovative area and SNHU looks forward to 

21 engaging further on these and related matters as 

22 the process moves along.
120

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Thank you for your time today and your 

2 consideration of these comments. 

3 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. Don 

4 Sweeting. 

5 MR. SWEETING: My name is Donald 

6 Sweeting, the President of Colorado Christian 

7 University. CCU is located in Lakewood, Colorado, 

8 just outside of Denver. It enrolls over 8,000 

9 students and employs 350 faculty and staff. Our 

10 mission since 1914 has been to provide a 

11 Christ-centered higher education, transforming 

12 students to impact the world with grace and truth. 

13 We have over 100 bachelors and master's degree 

14 programs and are ranked in the top two percent of 

15 colleges nationwide for our core curriculum by 

16 ACTA.

17 Today I wish to speak about the 

18 importance of accrediting agencies honoring an 

19 institution's specific mission in the 

20 accreditation process. But before speaking to 

21 this issue, I would like to thank the Department 

22 for the opportunity to speak about issues facing 
121

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 colleges and universities, and I want it known that 

2 we do value accreditation and believe it sharpens 

3 schools like ours as we seek to train students. We 

4 are accredited by the Higher Learning Commission. 

5 Their assessment guidelines and information about 

6 best practices have helped us strengthen our 

7 university's effectiveness. The HLC Academy, of 

8 which we are part, has been very supportive and has 

9 given us both a framework for what a healthy 

10 university looks like and an opportunity to network 

11 with other universities.

12 However, I do come today with a deep 

13 concern about a recent HLC alpha document which 

14 proposes changes to HLC standards of 

15 accreditation. The new suggested changes would 

16 remove language that requires the accreditor to 

17 take into account each institution's specific and 

18 diverse mission, religious or otherwise, when 

19 assessing the institution's commitment to 

20 diversity. Previously, the Higher Learning 

21 Commission clearly acknowledged that schools 

22 necessarily differ in their diversity policies and 
122

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 procedures. The original guidelines stated that 

2 each school should act as appropriate within its 

3 mission and for the constituencies that it serves. 

4 But now the crucial provision, this 

5 crucial provision is targeted for deletion. By 

6 striking this language, certain institutions could 

7 face negative repercussions with regard to their 

8 accreditation simply for being true to their 

9 religious mission. 

10 This federally empowered agency's new 

11 draft protocol gives itself the prerogative to 

12 decide whether a school sufficiently ensures 

13 inclusive and equitable treatment of diverse 

14 populations. By law, this agency can cut off 

15 federal student loans and grants at any 

16 non-compliant school by withdrawing 

17 accreditation. We view these proposed changes as 

18 not only a powerful threat to religious liberty but 

19 also a breaking of trust with the Higher Education 

20 Act, which guarantees respect for the religious 

21 mission of schools.

22 What would make this agency believe 
123

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 that it is appropriate to tamper with the religious 

2 principle of Christian institutions that long ago 

3 proved their academic merit? The nature of HLC's 

4 proposed changes threatens not only religious 

5 institutions but also the autonomy of all colleges 

6 and universities within its jurisdiction.

7 One of the strengths of the American 

8 higher education and a big reason it has long been 

9 the envy of the world is that it has not been 

10 shoehorned into a uniform system. American higher 

11 education has grown organically from communities 

12 and visionaries, reflecting our country's 

13 independence of thought. Yet, nowadays, once 

14 again, precisely this independence of thought that 

15 is at risk.

16 We are asking HLC that the original 

17 enabling language in the accreditation standards 

18 be restored before these proposed changes are 

19 adopted. We are encouraged that the Department of 

20 Education is considering making respect for 

21 institutional mission and reducing barriers for 

22 faith-based institutions a priority so that 
124

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 standards don't interfere with the faith base of 

2 institutions. We ask the Department to 

3 communicate the importance of this to all 

4 accrediting agencies. We also ask the Department 

5 to clarify what it means for accrediting agencies 

6 to respect religious mission because there is no 

7 precise definition of religious mission of what it 

8 means to respect to religious mission. This lack 

9 of definition leaves accreditors open to reach a 

10 different understanding of what this means, 

11 interpreting it so narrowly that it threatens 

12 religious schools.

13 So we believe the Department should 

14 provide a definition like that in the PROSPER Act 

15 where the term religious mission includes an 

16 institution of higher education religious tenets, 

17 beliefs, and teachings and any policies or 

18 decisions related to them in housing, employment, 

19 curriculum, self-governance, admissions, 

20 enrollment, and graduation.

21 Furthermore, we ask the Department to 

22 clarify how it will enforce the requirement for 
125

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 accrediting agencies to respect religious mission. 

2 Surely, we do not wish to threaten the 

3 existence of the many colleges and universities in 

4 our country that are convictionally faith based. 

5 Their contribution to our nation is immense. They 

6 have a long record to prove it. They, in fact, laid 

7 the foundation for all higher education in America. 

8 Thank you. 

9 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. Spiros 

10 Protopsaltis. 

11 MR. PROTOPSALTIS: Thank you for the 

12 opportunity to present comments. My name is 

13 Spiros Protopsaltis, and I'm an associate 

14 professor and director of the Center for Education 

15 Policy and Evaluation at George Mason University. 

16 Before joining the university, I worked 

17 for three and a half years in the Department of 

18 Education's Office of Planning, Evaluation, and 

19 Policy Development, first as a senior policy 

20 advisor and then as deputy assistant secretary for 

21 higher education and student financial aid. 

22 Please note that the following comments are my own 
126

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 and do not reflect the views and official positions 

2 of my employer, George Mason University.

3 The scope of this negotiated rulemaking 

4 is quite broad and covers numerous important areas. 

5 But given the limited amount of time available, I 

6 would like to focus on certain key issues that I 

7 believe are very critical for safeguarding the 

8 integrity of our federal student aid programs and 

9 protecting students and taxpayers.

10 First, while the statutory language on 

11 accreditation is rather prescriptive, the 

12 Department has the opportunity to promote quality 

13 improvement and advance student outcomes by 

14 expanding upon and codifying in regulation the 

15 executive actions announced in December 2015 that 

16 promoted transparency in the recognition and 

17 review of accrediting agencies, as well as the 

18 accreditation process overall.

19 Second, it is important not to weaken 

20 but instead strengthen the regulations governing 

21 the requirements that high-risk and low-performing 

22 accrediting agencies must meet to the extent 
127

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 allowed under statute. As has become evident, 

2 current regulations have proven ineffective in 

3 adequately scrutinizing accreditors for 

4 fulfilling their key responsibilities of ensuring 

5 baseline levels of acceptable quality and 

6 performance, as well as engaging in continuous 

7 improvement in quality and practice.

8 Third, it is important to remember that 

9 the statutory prohibition on setting and enforcing 

10 expectations regarding student achievement 

11 standards and accreditor recognition does not mean 

12 that student outcomes and other information 

13 regarding performance and risk should not be an 

14 important component within current accreditor 

15 review processes, as the GAO made clear in its 2015 

16 report. Among its recommendations, GAO urged the 

17 Department to "to ensure that accreditors are 

18 reliable authorities on educational quality, we 

19 recommend that the Secretary of Education consider 

20 further evaluating existing accreditor standards 

21 to determine if they effectively address 

22 educational quality in key areas, such as student 
128

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 achievement." 

2 GAO also suggested that "education 

3 could systematically use available information 

4 related to the frequency of accreditor sanctions 

5 or could do additional analyses, such as compelling 

6 accreditor data with education information on 

7 student outcomes, to inform its recognition 

8 reviews." 

9 Turning to state authorization, it is 

10 important to remember the doom and gloom 

11 predictions in the past. Critics argue that 

12 colleges would be shut down; implementation, 

13 burden, and cost would be too large; states would 

14 be unable to meet the new minimum requirements, 

15 etcetera. In reality, none of that happened and, 

16 as far as I know, there's not a single institution 

17 that has closed as a result of the implementation 

18 of the rule in 2015.

19 Given this move, implementation of the 

20 brick-and-mortar rule in late 2016, the Department 

21 ensured that six million students taking classes 

22 online were also attending institutions that are 
129

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 legally authorized and monitored by states, as 

2 required by law. By doing this and closing the 

3 loophole, the Department leveled the playing 

4 field. 

5 Again, various sky is falling scenarios 

6 have since been circulating, but there is no 

7 evidence whatsoever that I'm aware of to support 

8 these claims. The bottom line is that, especially 

9 given the rapid growth of distance education, we 

10 cannot have a statutory requirement that only 

11 applies to some institutions but not to others, 

12 thus leaving six million students and taxpayers 

13 unprotected. 

14 In regards to the credit hour, we again 

15 have another instance where there's a mismatch 

16 between rhetoric and reality. Clearly, the 

17 government needs a unit of measurement to know what 

18 it is paying for. While imperfect, it is the only 

19 consistently used metric of academic workload that 

20 can be applied readily and universally. 

21 By criticizing the current definition 

22 as a measure of seat time that stifles innovation, 
130

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 it is apparent that either critics have not read 

2 carefully the definition --

3 MR. WASHINGTON: Twenty seconds left.

4 MR. PROTOPSALTIS: I'm sorry?

5 MR. WASHINGTON: Twenty seconds left.

6 MR. PROTOPSALTIS: Got it. Or they're 

7 purposely mischaracterizing in order to discredit 

8 it. Finally, I would like to urge the Department 

9 to be very, very careful. Very small early-stage 

10 policy experiments, especially those with low 

11 participation and no rigorous evaluation, should 

12 not serve as the basis for policy formulation with 

13 far-reaching implications --

14 MR. WASHINGTON: Time.

15 MR. PROTOPSALTIS: -- for federal 

16 student aid programs. Thank you very much for your 

17 time. 

18 MR. WASHINGTON: Emmanual Guillory. 

19 MR. GUILLORY: Hi, my name is Emmanual 

20 Guillory. I'm the Director of Public Policy and 

21 Government Affairs at the United Negro College 

22 Fund. Thank you for the opportunity to provide 
131

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 input to the Department of Education regarding the 

2 efforts to establish a negotiated rulemaking 

3 committee to prepare proposed regulations for the 

4 federal student aid programs authorized under 

5 Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965. 

6 These regulations are of great importance to the 

7 United Negro College Fund, as they impact our 

8 nation's historically black colleges and 

9 universities and the students they serve. 

10 UNCF is America's largest and most 

11 successful minority higher education assistance 

12 organization. Founded in 1944, UNCF represents 37 

13 private HBCUs and invests in better futures not 

14 only for African-American students but for all 

15 low-income first-generation college students.

16 While HBCUs represent three percent of 

17 all institutions of higher education, they have a 

18 large impact by enrolling ten percent of all 

19 African-American students, awarding 17 percent of 

20 African-American bachelor's degrees, awarding 24 

21 percent of African-American STEM bachelor's 

22 degrees, and having a total economic impact of 
132

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 $14.8 billion.

2 UNCF appreciates the Department's 

3 interest in taking a closer look at regulations 

4 that have the potential to improve the quality of 

5 postsecondary education for our students. Of 

6 importance to UNCF is the accreditation process. 

7 There are 101 accredited HBCUs in our country 

8 today, and we strongly believe that the current 

9 program integrity triad system consisting of 

10 accreditation, state authorization, and 

11 certification from the Department is vitally 

12 important and should remain balanced.

13 While we believe in a well-balanced 

14 approach, we also champion policy proposals that 

15 will strengthen the current system. When 

16 examining the decision-making bodies that conduct 

17 the peer review process, we find that better 

18 representation of experts with knowledge and 

19 experience working in and with HBCUs should be 

20 present. Due to the mission and history of HBCUs, 

21 these institutions face unique challenges and 

22 having someone with a deep understanding or our 
133

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 institutions could enhance the quality of both 

2 accrediting agencies and the nation's HBCUs.

3 Furthermore, we strongly believe that 

4 neither accrediting agencies, nor the federal 

5 government, should infringe on the academic 

6 freedom of an institution, and we believe that 

7 accrediting bodies should continue to determine 

8 the success of student achievement in relation to 

9 the institution's mission. 

10 Institutions should be able to provide 

11 a quality education that is tailored to the 

12 students they serve and the unique approach of 

13 HBCUs has proven to be effective. Our 

14 institutions serve a majority of low-income 

15 first-generation college students. In fact, over 

16 70 percent of students at HBCUs receive a Pell 

17 Grant, and tend to borrow at higher loan amounts 

18 to finance their education. 

19 With this said, the ability of HBCUs to 

20 provide innovative models of education is vitally 

21 important. When institutions are able to be 

22 innovative, a positive outcome is that students can 
134

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 experience an enhanced quality of education that 

2 allows them to obtain their desired knowledge, 

3 graduate faster, and have less student loan debt. 

4 The key to this approach is not sacrificing quality 

5 in the name of innovation.

6 Current laws state that distance 

7 education is education that uses certain 

8 technologies to support regular and substantive 

9 interaction between the students and the 

10 instructor. While we agree that this definition 

11 can be a barrier to innovation and support the 

12 Department looking further into ways to better 

13 define distance education and correspondence 

14 education, we stand firm that students should not 

15 be forced into an experience that prevents them 

16 from receiving the needed time and attention from 

17 faculty and staff. Because the majority of our 

18 students are first generation and from lower means, 

19 there is a strong likelihood that these students 

20 will need and greatly benefit from human 

21 interaction.

22 Lastly, while we can appreciate 
135

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 attempts from the prior administration to prevent 

2 abuse and bring greater integrity to the federal 

3 student aid programs, we are supportive of the 

4 Department's deeper analysis of both a state 

5 authorization to address requirements related to 

6 programs offered through distance education and 

7 the definition of credit hour. There are 

8 approximately 47 HBCUs with distance education 

9 programs. While most of these programs are small, 

10 the ability to increase the enrollment of these 

11 programs can be challenging due to the requirement 

12 in regulations that each institution must meet any 

13 and all state requirements to legally offer 

14 postsecondary distance or correspondence 

15 education in that state.

16 Given our aforementioned statements, 

17 the ability of institutions to operate in an 

18 effective manner with as little federal government 

19 intrusion --

20 MR. WASHINGTON: Twenty seconds left. 

21 MR. GUILLORY: -- to the planning, 

22 preparation, and implementation of academic 
136

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 programs remains a priority. However, we do not 

2 support the behaviors of any institution to 

3 intentionally commit fraud in the student aid 

4 programs, especially as it relates to credits given 

5 in academic programs. We believe in the utmost 

6 importance of institutional accountability to 

7 federal dollars and look forward to reviewing 

8 upcoming proposals to alter the Department's 

9 current approach.

10 MR. WASHINGTON: Time. 

11 MR. GUILLORY: --Thank you for your 

12 consideration, and we plan to submit comments, as 

13 well. 

14 MR. WASHINGTON: Dr. J. Bradley Creed. 

15 DR. CREED: Good morning and thank you 

16 for this opportunity to address these important 

17 topics related to accreditation and proposed 

18 negotiated rulemaking. I am J. Bradley Creed, 

19 President of Campbell University in North 

20 Carolina, located 30 miles south of Raleigh, the 

21 state capital in the research triangle. Campbell 

22 University is a faith-based institution with an 
137

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 enrollment of 6500 students and 325 full-time 

2 faculty with several schools, including not only 

3 a college of arts and sciences but a college of 

4 pharmacy and health sciences, divinity law, 

5 education, business, and a new college of 

6 osteopathic medicine. I am only the fifth 

7 president in its 131-year history, and I'm charged 

8 with a special stewardship for its mission. 

9 A strength of American higher education 

10 is its variety. Different kinds of institutions 

11 preparing students for careers and to contribute 

12 to the common good, human flourishing, and a more 

13 perfect union as envisioned by our nation's 

14 founders. Colleges and universities with a 

15 religious mission are an essential component of 

16 this varied tapestry of American higher education. 

17 Like other religious-affiliated 

18 schools, Campbell accepts students from different 

19 backgrounds and religious faiths and no faith at 

20 all. Campbell is informed and inspired by its 

21 Christian mission and pursues a vision of 

22 graduating students with exemplary academic and 
138

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 professional skills and who are prepared for 

2 purposeful lives and meaningful service.

3 Faith-based schools provide the 

4 opportunity for students to make a life, make a 

5 living, and make a difference. Our religious 

6 mission at Campbell, the heart of which is service 

7 to others, animates all aspects of our academic 

8 community.

9 My appeal to the Department of 

10 Education is to ensure that colleges and 

11 universities with a religious mission maintain the 

12 freedom to define and develop their innovative 

13 programs of study and preserve the institutional 

14 autonomy that is essential to their effectiveness. 

15 Institutional autonomy unencumbered by excessive 

16 regulation has been the key to my university's 

17 growth and development throughout its history. 

18 Campbell opened its law school 42 years 

19 ago. It was the first law school in North Carolina 

20 in 30 years. When it opened a school of pharmacy 

21 in the mid-1980s, it was the first time in 40 years 

22 a new school of pharmacy had opened in the nation. 
139

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 And in the last five years at Campbell, we have 

2 graduated our first class of students in the 

3 physician's assistance program, physical therapy, 

4 masters of public health, nursing, and osteopathic 

5 medicine. 

6 Over 30 percent of our students are 

7 first generation college students, 35 percent are 

8 from minority and under-represented groups. 

9 Ninety-three percent of our undergraduates receive 

10 financial aid, much of which is institutional aid 

11 and scholarships provided by the university.

12 Autonomy in our distinctive religious 

13 mission have driven this innovation and enabled the 

14 university to direct its resources to serving 

15 students. This can and should be done without 

16 eroding educational quality and diminishing 

17 academic standards.

18 The process for accreditation with 

19 clear measurements in baseline effectiveness 

20 indicators are essential. I'm a strong supporter 

21 of regional and program accreditation and 

22 currently serve one the board of our regional 
140

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 accrediting agency. In addition to regional 

2 accreditation with SACSCOC, Campbell has 16 other 

3 programs with specific accreditations.

4 So I encourage the Department to put 

5 processes into place that will bring clarity and 

6 certainty to the definition of religious mission. 

7 This will give accrediting agencies the authority 

8 to ensure academic quality is there and faith-based 

9 institutions the freedom and flexibility to offer 

10 innovative programs and, thereby, more effectively 

11 serve their students.

12 One size does not fit all in American 

13 higher education, so a wide range of institutions 

14 is needed, including religious institutions like 

15 Campbell and others, who open their doors and 

16 provide opportunities for students to make a 

17 living, to make a life, and to make a difference 

18 in our world. 

19 Thank you for the time to give these 

20 remarks. 

21 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. Harrison 

22 Wadsworth. 
141

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MR. WADSWORTH: Thank you for the 

2 opportunity to speak. My name is Harrison 

3 Wadsworth. I'm a principal at Bose Washington 

4 Partners and Executive Director of the 

5 International Education Council. I'm speaking on 

6 their behalf today, the IEC who is my client, 

7 regarding issues that impact foreign school 

8 eligibility for Title IV aid, particularly with 

9 regard to distance education and written 

10 arrangements, as well as barriers to innovation and 

11 completion contained in institution eligibility 

12 regulations and student assistance general 

13 provisions.

14 The IEC is an association of foreign 

15 institutions of higher education that participate 

16 in the Higher Education Act's direct loan program 

17 for the benefit of degree-seeking American 

18 students. The members of IEC include public and 

19 non-profit colleges and universities located in 

20 some 14 countries on five continents and represent 

21 some of the world's highest quality, most 

22 prestigious institutions. 
142

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 IEC members are necessarily governed by 

2 the laws and regulations of their home countries. 

3 IEC supports measures that protect the integrity 

4 of the federal student loan programs but seeks 

5 changes to regulations that make compliance 

6 extraordinarily difficult or impossible for 

7 foreign institutions or that cause great expense 

8 for institutions with a small percentage of 

9 enrolled American students. 

10 Some consequences of some of the 

11 current policies include foreign institutions are 

12 turning away qualified American students who want 

13 to study on their campuses if they need U.S. student 

14 loans, which means fewer American students have the 

15 opportunity to study abroad. An option to enroll 

16 at foreign institutions expands the range of study 

17 programs available to American students and often 

18 enables a closer match with the student's academic 

19 interests.

20 Laws meant for U.S. institutions don't 

21 make sense for foreign universities with small 

22 numbers of American students relative to their 
143

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 total enrollment. And IEC will submit detailed 

2 comments to the-- at the appropriate time next 

3 week. 

4 A couple of specific things I want to 

5 comment on. Item five in the list of topics under 

6 consideration for revision that was published in 

7 the Federal Register discusses the arrangements 

8 between an institution and another institution or 

9 organization to provide a portion of an educational 

10 program. In other words, study abroad for 

11 students who are already abroad in the case of the 

12 IEC. 

13 This has become a serious issue because 

14 of the change in the way that students wish to study 

15 today. The Higher Ed Act gives the Department 

16 broad authority to determine by regulations

17 whether a foreign institution is comparable to a 

18 U.S. institution of higher education, but the 

19 authority needs to be clarified. The Department 

20 regulations currently prohibit U.S. students that 

21 received direct loans from taking any courses at 

22 another institution unless that institution is 
144

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 itself an eligible institution. They also prevent 

2 the student from taking any courses in the United 

3 States with a limited exception for doctoral 

4 students.

5 An American student who actually does 

6 take a course, make the mistake of taking a course

7 at an ineligible institution abroad loses their 

8 access to Title IV loans throughout their program 

9 of study. This is tremendously unfair and does not 

10 reflect the way American students or any student 

11 wishes to study today.

12 This policy prohibiting written 

13 arrangements involving any study in the U.S. or the 

14 vast majority of the world's universities with the 

15 exception of about 400 that are eligible 

16 institutions causes tremendous hardship. Such a 

17 policy should be modified to permit such study but 

18 only in cases where no more than 50 percent or a 

19 smaller percentage, such as 25 percent, of the 

20 program of study is at the institution in the United 

21 States or at an ineligible foreign school.

22 In the case of institutions in the 
145

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 United States, it makes no sense for a student 

2 getting direct loans to not have the opportunity 

3 to come to the United States for a small portion 

4 of their program of study since that does provide 

5 the opportunity to network and hopefully prepare 

6 for employment upon graduation so that they can 

7 repay their federal student loans.

8 Another issue I want to highlight is 

9 with regard to barriers to innovation and 

10 competition postsecondary education or student 

11 completion, graduation, and employment, including 

12 institution eligibility regulations --

13 MR. WASHINGTON: Twenty seconds left. 

14 MR. WADSWORTH: -- assistance general 

15 provisions. In particular, there is a requirement 

16 that foreign institutions that have a substantial 

17 amount of U.S. loan dollars file annual financial 

18 statements according to U.S. GAAP requirements. 

19 There's also a tremendous problem with the way the 

20 requirement that foreign medical graduates for a 

21 medical school --

22 MR. WASHINGTON: Time.
146

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MR. WADSWORTH: -- take the U.S. 

2 medical licensing examination. Again, we're 

3 going to comment in more detail on these topics 

4 later, and thank you for the opportunity.

5 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. Our next 

6 speaker, Congressman Mark Takano, is not scheduled 

7 to speak until 11:55. Is the Congressman with us 

8 today and would he like to speak now? --Okay. We 

9 see that he's not here yet, and so we will be waiting 

10 until 11:55 for the Congressman to arrive to 

11 testify. 

12 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

13 went off the record at 11:40 a.m. and resumed at 

14 11:46 a.m.)

15 MR. WASHINGTON: Our next speaker is 

16 Congressman Mark Takano. Please take your seats.

17 CONGRESSMAN TAKANO: Well, good 

18 morning. I guess its still morning. My name is 

19 Mark Takano and I represent California's 41st 

20 congressional district and I'm here because I am 

21 growing increasingly concerned about the 

22 Department's agenda of deregulation in favor of 
147

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 predatory for-profit institutions.

2 Before being elected to Congress I was 

3 a public school teacher for 24 years and a community 

4 college trustee for more than two decades, and 

5 during this time I worked directly with students 

6 as they navigated our country's education system. 

7 My students were eager to pursue higher education, 

8 dreaming of the opportunities a degree could 

9 provide them, of the doors it could open for them. 

10 But as I witnessed the eagerness of my students to 

11 pursue a college education, I also saw the rise of 

12 for-profit institutions and the threat they 

13 presented to my students' futures. 

14 Promising the idea of an accessible and 

15 flexible education experience for-profits 

16 targeted vulnerable students: women of color, 

17 veterans and low-income students working to make 

18 their American dream a reality. While students 

19 saw attainable opportunities in the intentionally 

20 misleading multi-million dollar advertisements by 

21 for-profit institutions these institutions saw an 

22 increased enrollment as a benefit to their bottom 
148

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 line. 

2 Because of the predisposition of 

3 for-profits to put their financial interests above 

4 student success and financial well-being, the 

5 announcement of a negotiated rulemaking process by 

6 the Department that seeks to deregulate 

7 protections of federal student aid programs is a 

8 cause for grave concern. Time and time again we 

9 have heard the stories of students who were 

10 defrauded by for-profit colleges. We've heard 

11 stories of student veterans who wanted to expand 

12 their opportunities as they transitioned back to 

13 civilian life but were instead cheated, cheated out 

14 of their educational benefits by for-profits that 

15 didn't live up to their promises.

16 Through the reauthorization of their 

17 Higher Education Act Congress has taken concrete 

18 steps to protect students and their federal student 

19 aid. For example, after student veterans were 

20 exploited by home study programs with limited 

21 faculty interaction Congress required regular and 

22 substantive interaction between students and 
149

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 instructors in order for online programs to qualify 

2 for federal student aid. This was an important 

3 step in promoting access to quality online programs 

4 for students and helped uphold the integrity of the 

5 student aid system. 

6 However, these types of regulations 

7 such as the one I just mentioned that ensures 

8 student access to proper interactions with their 

9 online instructors are under threat of being rolled 

10 back by the Department. This proposal by the 

11 Department to initiate a new rulemaking process is 

12 a complete abdication of its responsibility to put 

13 the interests of students first and be good 

14 stewards of federal aid and taxpayer dollars. 

15 Furthermore, revising the regulatory 

16 framework of the Higher Education Act is a massive 

17 overstep of the Department's role. These 

18 regulatory rollbacks would present a rewriting of 

19 the law and undermine the intent of Congress to 

20 protect students. 

21 I want to close with this reminder: 

22 The Department of Education is responsible for 
150

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 protecting students. It is not responsible for 

2 helping the bottom line of predatory for-profit 

3 institutions. Since Secretary DeVos has presided 

4 over this department the Department has completely 

5 abandoned that responsibility. Too many student 

6 veterans have been cheated out of their benefits 

7 by for-profits. Too many working women have been 

8 deceived by the false promises of opportunity from 

9 for-profits. Too many low-income workers hoping 

10 to rise up to the middle class are now stuck with 

11 a degree that does not provide them with gainful 

12 employment to repay the massive debt they accrued.

13 The Department of Education must put 

14 students first --

15 MR. WASHINGTON: Twenty seconds left.

16 CONGRESSMAN TAKANO: -- once again and 

17 uphold its responsibility to hold for-profit 

18 colleges accountable. I along with my colleagues 

19 in the House and the Senate will be submitting 

20 comments for the record. Thank you for your time.

21 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you.

22 CONGRESSMAN TAKANO: Thank you.
151

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MR. WASHINGTON: We do have 10 minutes 

2 left. If anyone from the afternoon that is 

3 scheduled to speak would like to speak now, you may 

4 come forward. If anybody who is not scheduled to 

5 speak, you also may come forward.

6 (No audible response.)

7 MR. WASHINGTON: Seeing no one, we will 

8 adjourn now for lunch and we will reconvene at 1:00 

9 p.m. and our first speaker will be Emily Bouck.

10 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

11 went off the record at 11:52 a.m. and resumed at 

12 1:02 p.m.)

13 A-F-T-E-R-N-O-O-N S-E-S-S-I-O-N

14 1:02 p.m.

15 MR. WASHINGTON: Hello, everyone. We 

16 are going to resume with the hearing.

17 Would Emily Bouck come forward to 

18 testify?

19 MS. BOUCK: All right. Thank you for 

20 the opportunity to comment on the Department's 

21 intent to establish negotiated rulemaking. My 

22 name is Emily Bouck and I'm the Policy and Advocacy 
152

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Director at Higher Learning Advocates, a 

2 non-profit advocacy organization working toward 

3 bipartisan federal policies to better serve 

4 today's students.

5 Today's students are more likely to be 

6 returning students, part-time, parents, working 

7 adults or veterans. They access postsecondary 

8 education online and in the classroom. They study 

9 throughout the full calendar year and they weave 

10 together skills and competencies gathered not only 

11 from their educational experience, but also from 

12 their work and life experience. We urge the 

13 Department to keep today's students at the center 

14 of any regulatory conversations. 

15 Higher Learning Advocates is a 

16 proponent of smart regulations that fit together 

17 to improve student outcomes. We believe any 

18 negotiated rulemaking should consider how our 

19 array of federal regulations drive better student 

20 outcomes or don't.

21 The sheer number of topics proposed by 

22 the Department in their notice is far too many 
153

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 topics to be considered by a single negotiated 

2 rulemaking panel. Even with the intent to hold two 

3 subcommittees the diversity and complexity of 

4 these topics could only be earnestly debated 

5 through multiple panels, not one. We urge the 

6 Department to limit the number and breadth of 

7 topics considered at this time to ensure 

8 negotiators have the expertise to debate these 

9 issues and increase the likelihood of consensus 

10 aimed at improving student outcomes.

11 We ask the Department to at a minimum 

12 consider two separate negotiated rulemaking 

13 panels: one for accreditation issues and a second 

14 for issues related to the types of educational 

15 programs that can be eligible for federal student 

16 aid including competency-based education.

17 If the Department moves forward with 

18 the negotiated rulemaking effort on accreditation, 

19 it's important to acknowledge that what existing 

20 federal policy asks of accreditors is too focused 

21 on inputs instead of outcomes. In any regulatory 

22 effort this must be flipped and student outcomes
154

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 must be prioritized. We urge the Department to 

2 select negotiators and offer any changes through 

3 the lens of putting student outcomes first.

4 Further, such a panel must prioritize 

5 transparency and consistency in regulations 

6 governing accreditors and their actions in order 

7 to ensure students receive the same guarantee of 

8 quality no matter where they choose to go to school. 

9 Transparency and consistency do not need to consist 

10 of bright lines that exist regardless of 

11 institutional missions and student profiles;

12 however, these challenges can no longer be barriers 

13 to implementing concrete measures to better convey 

14 how institutions serve their students.

15 In addition, we believe the Department 

16 should establish another separate panel if they 

17 wish to move forward in considering the types of 

18 educational programs that can be eligible for 

19 federal student aid. Related topics such as 

20 competency-based education, direct assessment 

21 programs, regular and substantive interaction and 

22 the credit hour should also be considered in this 
155

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 panel. The goal of such a panel should be to break 

2 down barriers for today's students while ensuring 

3 all programs provide the highest level of quality. 

4 It would be detrimental to simply remove existing 

5 guardrails without replacing them with updated 

6 protections.

7 As we consider innovative delivery 

8 models and providers that meet today's students 

9 where they learn and provide critical skills and 

10 credentials we must also ensure the quality of 

11 programs and demand accountability for students 

12 and taxpayers. The Federal Government spends $120 

13 billion annually in federal student aid and it has 

14 the right and the responsibility to ensure students 

15 use their aid at high-quality programs. We urge 

16 the Department to keep this balance of quality and 

17 outcomes versus deregulation in mind as it moves 

18 forward with its efforts. Thank you for your time 

19 and consideration.

20 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. 

21 Justin Elliott?

22 MR. ELLIOTT: Good afternoon. My name 
156

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 is Justin Elliott and I'm the Vice President of 

2 Government Affairs for the American Physical 

3 Therapy Association, APTA.

4 APTA is a national professional 

5 association representing more than 100,000 member 

6 physical therapists, physical therapist 

7 assistants and students of physical therapy in the 

8 United States. APTA thanks the U.S. Department of 

9 Education for the opportunity to provide public 

10 comment here today regarding the Department's 

11 intention to examine the federal rules related to 

12 accrediting agencies and procedures.

13 I'm here to highlight APTA's concerns 

14 related to potential changes to regulations 

15 governing accreditation agencies and 

16 accreditation procedures that APTA believes will 

17 not promote improvements to educational program 

18 accreditation and instead could actually pose harm 

19 to the public, students and perspective students.

20 Physical therapy education programs 

21 receive accreditation from the Commission on 

22 Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education, also 
157

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 known as CAPTE, an agency that was recognized by 

2 the United States Department of Education in 1977. 

3 It is also recognized by the Council for Higher 

4 Education Accreditation.

5 CAPTE grants specialized accreditation 

6 status to qualified entry-level education programs 

7 for physical therapists and physical therapist 

8 assistants. It is the only recognized 

9 accreditation agency in the country for physical 

10 therapists and physical therapist assistant 

11 education programs. CAPTE accredits only 

12 educational programs. CAPTE does not accredit 

13 institutions nor is it a Title IX gatekeeper.

14 CAPTE accredits programs if they 

15 complete a rigorous peer review process that 

16 focuses on the quality of education that students 

17 receive. Accreditation by CAPTE illustrates to 

18 perspective students as well as their families the 

19 quality of an educational program that prepared for 

20 entry into the physical therapy profession and 

21 there are also benefits to the public, perspective 

22 students, the profession and academic 
158

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 institutions.

2 For the public CAPTE accreditation 

3 promotes the health, safety and welfare of society 

4 by ensuring competent physical therapists and 

5 physical therapist assistants. For perspective 

6 employers it provides assurances that the 

7 curriculum covers essential skills and knowledge 

8 necessary to furnish high-quality care. For the 

9 PT profession it advances the physical therapy 

10 field by promoting standards of practice and 

11 advocating rigorous preparation. And for 

12 academic institution accreditation provides 

13 enhanced credibility.

14 Finally, in order to sit for the 

15 National Physical Therapy Exam, the NPTE, 

16 individuals educated in the United States must have 

17 graduated from a CAPTE-accredited program. And 

18 moreover, to satisfy Medicare enrollment 

19 requirements the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 

20 Services, CMS, requires physical therapists to 

21 have graduated from a CAPTE-accredited program.

22 APTA has concerns that modifications to 
159

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 the regulations governing accreditation agencies 

2 mandating that they be separate and legally 

3 independent from professional associations will 

4 create undue burdens and costs that could have a 

5 negative impact on entities like CAPTE. Increased 

6 costs and burdens could put the accreditation 

7 process in jeopardy and CAPTE satisfies the 

8 Department's education -- the Department's rules 

9 that it have adequate and administrative staff and 

10 financial resources to carry out its accrediting 

11 responsibilities.

12 If CAPTE were to lose its recognition 

13 because of a mandate to be separately incorporated, 

14 that loss of recognition could lead to physical 

15 therapist graduates becoming ineligible to sit for 

16 the state licensure exam causing workforce 

17 shortages and a decline to access to care. 

18 Although APTA and CAPTE have a very 

19 cooperative relationship, CAPTE enjoys full 

20 autonomy in adopting the standards for 

21 accreditation and the application of those 

22 standards. APTA is prohibited from interfering 
160

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 with CAPTE decisions, however, APTA is committed 

2 to supporting CAPTE, including financially, 

3 because we believe it's important for them to meet 

4 their mission. 

5 Therefore, APTA strongly recommends 

6 that the Department of Education not move forward 

7 with amending federal rules related to accrediting 

8 agencies and accreditation procedures.

9 I want to thank the Department of 

10 Education for the opportunity to express the 

11 important role that programmatic accreditors play 

12 in the growing physical therapy field and why 

13 changing the accreditation requirements process or 

14 standards for purely programmatic accreditors 

15 could have unintended negative consequences. 

16 APTA is eager to engage in meaningful dialogue and 

17 work with the Department of Education on this 

18 issue. And thank you very much for your time.

19 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. Dr. Lynne 

20 M. Gangone.

21 DR. GANGONE: Thank you for this 

22 opportunity to speak with you today. My name is 
161

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Dr. Lynne Gangone and I'm the President and CEO of 

2 the American Association of Colleges for Teacher 

3 Education. AACTE is a national alliance of 

4 educator preparation programs dedicated to 

5 high-quality, evidence-based preparation that 

6 assures educators are profession-ready as they 

7 enter the classroom. Our member institutions 

8 include public and private colleges and 

9 universities in every state, the District of 

10 Columbia, the Virgin Islands and Guam. Through 

11 advocacy and capacity building AACTE promotes 

12 innovation and effective practices that strengthen 

13 educator preparation.

14 The educator preparation profession 

15 faces increasing challenges including critical 

16 teacher shortages in high-field areas such as STEM 

17 and special education, the recruitment and 

18 preparation of the next generation of teachers in 

19 the face of declining enrollment in teacher 

20 preparation programs, the retention of teachers 

21 instead of replacing those who depart early in 

22 their careers, and the persistent 
162

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 under-representation of teachers of color in the 

2 education profession.

3 As the Department prepares to enter 

4 into negotiated rulemaking on a number of areas 

5 including the TEACH Grants, I am here to advise 

6 caution with the focused intention of do no harm. 

7 The TEACH Grants are a critical piece for many 

8 institutions to recruit high-achieving candidates 

9 into teaching in high-need subjects and in 

10 high-need schools. 

11 Institutions of higher education must 

12 apply to be eligible to offer TEACH Grants and 

13 candidates studying to teach in high-needs fields 

14 at the institutions of higher education must 

15 maintain a 3.25 GPA in order to remain eligible for

16 this aid. In return the candidate commits to 

17 teaching in his or her high-need field in a 

18 high-need school for four years and they are given 

19 a window of opportunity to do so. 

20 The TEACH Grants do not circumvent 

21 other key federal student financial aid programs 

22 such as Pell Grants, but augments the federal 
163

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 support for these teacher candidates.

2 The Department cites the challenge of, 

3 quote, "inadvertent grant-to-loan conversions," 

4 unquote, as a reason to include the TEACH Grants 

5 in this pending negotiated rulemaking process. A 

6 conversion is brought about if the candidate fails 

7 to meet her or his teaching commitment which is 

8 assessed by the servicer of the program via 

9 paperwork submitted by the candidate.

10 Earlier this year through coverage by 

11 National Public Radio as well as several lawsuits 

12 it has come to light that erroneous conversions 

13 have occurred and the source of these erroneous 

14 conversions are in fact the servicer. Recipients, 

15 teachers in some of our nation's most challenging 

16 classrooms, suffering from such detrimental 

17 conversions, report having no path of recourse from 

18 the servicer and no support from federal student 

19 aid or the Department in dealing with the servicer 

20 and their errors. As with servicers of any similar 

21 debt, the servicer makes more money when a TEACH 

22 Grant converts to a loan. However, since 
164

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 this situation has come to light, there has yet to 

2 be appropriate oversight and accountability of the 

3 servicer fed loan. It should also be noted that 

4 fed loan is contracted to handle the Public Service 

5 Loan Forgiveness Program. 

6 While AACTE applauds the intent of the 

7 Department to support the TEACH Grant program and 

8 its recipients, we advise that before examining the 

9 programmatic regulations the Department and 

10 federal student aid focus first on holding the 

11 servicer accountable. Thank you.

12 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. Coni 

13 Pasch?

14 MS. PASCH: Good afternoon. My name 

15 is Coni Pasch and I'm a recent graduate of Capella 

16 University with a bachelor's degree in leadership 

17 and management and a master's degree in business 

18 administration and a certificate in management. I 

19 pursued my educational career through Capella's 

20 FlexPath Program, a direct assessment program that 

21 measures progression through the demonstration of 

22 competencies instead of the accumulation of credit 
165

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 hours.

2 The direct assessment model provides an 

3 innovative way for busy students to achieve their 

4 educational goals on a timeline that works best for 

5 them. Unfortunately, many schools are unwilling 

6 or unable to provide direct assessment programs 

7 because of existing regulatory challenges. 

8 I applaud the Department for working to 

9 explore changes through the upcoming negotiated 

10 rulemaking that could make direct assessment more 

11 available to students and urge you to consider 

12 changes to the existing regulations that will 

13 remove barriers within the innovative learning 

14 world.

15 When I made the decision to go back to 

16 school and obtain my degree I chose an online 

17 university that only offered a structured program. 

18 It locked me into a rhythm of discussion questions, 

19 group assignments and individual assignments that 

20 took place over the course of five weeks. There 

21 was no opportunity to move faster than the class 

22 was structured and often the class was a mix of age 
166

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 groups and professional backgrounds.

2 I was frustrated about the amount of 

3 work I was doing to progress in the program that 

4 didn't offer me the opportunity to leverage my 

5 30-plus years in the IT industry. Then one day I 

6 randomly caught a commercial about FlexPath. I 

7 called the number immediately and spoke to an 

8 enrollment counselor to determine what I needed to 

9 do to transfer to the FlexPath program. Instantly 

10 I knew FlexPath was the type of educational program 

11 that would work for me. It allowed me to move 

12 quickly through the course work I was more familiar 

13 with and it afforded me the ability to take 

14 additional time when I needed to. 

15 The accomplishment of obtaining these 

16 degrees and completing the assessments and do it 

17 as a full-time professional changed who I was as 

18 a person. It gave me confidence to step outside 

19 my comfort zone, take risks and face challenges 

20 head on. Programs like FlexPath empower today's 

21 students to go where they potentially have never 

22 thought they could go before. 
167

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Because of the flexibility and 

2 affordability of Capella's FlexPath program I 

3 could move at my own pace, save on tuition costs 

4 and obtain both degrees in half the time of a 

5 traditional credit hour program. If more schools 

6 took this approach to education, non-traditional 

7 students like myself, would be able to pursue their 

8 educational goals while juggling personal and 

9 professional priorities. 

10 Unfortunately, there are some 

11 regulatory challenges that make it hard for more 

12 schools to offer direct assessment programs. 

13 Through the negotiated rulemaking process the 

14 Department of Education should propose regulatory 

15 changes that allow programs like FlexPath 

16 utilizing subscription period pricing to operate 

17 under standard term financial aid rules. The 

18 Department should also modify the R2T4 rules for 

19 modular programs to allow for the calculation to 

20 consider the period of actual enrollment versus 

21 requiring the calculation to include courses that 

22 have not yet started. 
168

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 These two changes would remove many of 

2 the operational hurdles schools face when they 

3 consider offering direct assessment programs and 

4 would allow greater access to flexible assessment 

5 high-quality education for students like myself 

6 who are interested in pursuing their degree while 

7 juggling several priorities.

8 Finally, the Department should take 

9 care to encourage innovation while protecting 

10 students and safeguarding their role of the 

11 faculty. Thank you.

12 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you.

13 Bernard Fryshman?

14 MR. FRYSCHMAN: My name is Bernard 

15 Fryshman. I'm the Executive Director of the 

16 Association of Advanced Rabbinical and Talmudic 

17 Schools Accrediting Commission. I've been doing 

18 that since 1973, and so I've been involved in a 

19 whole variety of issues and concerns and matters 

20 that I want to touch upon. I'll have a more 

21 complete presentation in writing. The five 

22 minutes is not enough to touch on everything, but 
169

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 I do want to mention a few issues of concern.

2 My first area of concern is informed 

3 consent. Far too many innovative, quote/unquote, 

4 "experimental, unverified, unreliable programs" 

5 are being offered to students and sometimes 

6 students devote time, money, expense, expense in 

7 the sense of their lives, and come out without a 

8 good degree, without real knowledge. Sometimes 

9 they get a degree and the degree is not worth very 

10 much when they try to apply it, try to get 

11 licensing, try to get onto conventional programs.

12 So that the Department, whenever it 

13 considers innovative, experimental or new kinds of 

14 approaches to education should always attach a 

15 requirement of informed consent. A student should 

16 be asked to sign an informed consent document 

17 saying that he or she recognizes that the outcome 

18 of this program hasn't been verified and hasn't 

19 been tested. It's not the sort of thing that's had 

20 hundreds of years of experience, a path, a 

21 trajectory towards a degree, towards a degree that 

22 means something, and there may be some failure. 
170

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 That informed consent should be an absolute 

2 necessity for -- to protect every student in every 

3 kind of program.

4 There should be a policy of experiment 

5 first. The Secretary, in discussing gainful 

6 employment, sent out a document which is really 

7 quite exceptional where she described the helter8 skelter approach of the Department in its original 

9 approach to gainful employment. The whole thing 

10 didn't work. And the reason it didn't work is 

11 because -- well, it was the same reason that many 

12 other things don't work: there's no 

13 experimentation. There's no proof of principle. 

14 There's no pilot program. Somebody has a good 

15 idea. It's a tantalizing one, and it's tried. At 

16 this point lots and lots of new kinds of approaches 

17 to quality assessment are being proposed. Not one 

18 of them has actually been tried in the real world.

19 Nothing should be allowed to be put into 

20 law without experimentation, rigid 

21 experimentation, scientific experimentation, the 

22 kind of experimentation that takes years to carry 
171

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 out in the medical profession. We don't -- we try 

2 to make sure we don't hurt people's health with new 

3 drugs. We shouldn't hurt students' intellectual 

4 health with new programs without knowing for sure 

5 that there's at least an experimental indication 

6 that this might help.

7 In terms of accreditation the 

8 Department should recognize there are many 

9 different kinds of accrediting agencies: new and 

10 old, large and small, occupational and 

11 scholarship, different kinds of accrediting 

12 bodies, yet one set of regulations. Sometimes 

13 it's very, very difficult for an accrediting body 

14 to fit regulations which really are intended to 

15 describe the role and results of a different kind 

16 of accreditation agency. 

17 The Department and NSICI have been 

18 handling this very wisely, but I wanted to suggest 

19 that there's another approach. The Department 

20 should have provision to put the onus on an 

21 accrediting agency to demonstrate compliance 

22 without using the guidance in the regulations of 
172

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 the Department itself. In other words, the 

2 Department sometimes says there's guidance that 

3 explains how the Department expects compliance to 

4 be demonstrated. Sometimes it doesn't work. 

5 Sometimes it will be much easier, much more 

6 effective and much more accurate to allow an 

7 accrediting agency to demonstrate on its own how 

8 it complies with the Department's regulations. So 

9 that's just a recommendation --

10 MR. WASHINGTON: Twenty seconds left.

11 MR. FRYSCHMAN: -- that I think should 

12 work. 

13 In terms of alternate measures of 

14 quality I've seen all of them. I've read all of 

15 the reports. Every one of them speaks about 

16 student outcomes, yet nobody identifies these 

17 student outcomes. Not one. There isn't one 

18 identifiable student outcome that you can use to 

19 establish the quality of an education. There is 

20 of course peer review --

21 MR. WASHINGTON: Time.

22 MR. FRYSCHMAN: -- which is 
173

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 accreditation, but the glib mention of student 

2 outcomes is if everybody knows what we're talking 

3 about. It's just not there. And so before we go 

4 ahead with any kind of --

5 MR. WASHINGTON: Your time has 

6 expired.

7 MR. FRYSCHMAN: Pardon?

8 MR. WASHINGTON: Each commenter is 

9 given five minutes to testify and your time has 

10 expired.

11 MR. FRYSCHMAN: I'm done.

12 MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. Thank you.

13 MR. FRYSCHMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

14 I'll have lots more to say in writing.

15 MR. WASHINGTON: Yes. 

16 Jesse O'Connell, please?

17 MR. O'CONNELL: Thank you for the 

18 opportunity to deliver public comment today as the 

19 Department prepares to move forward with its 

20 negotiated rulemaking process.

21 I'm Jesse O'Connell, Strategy Director 

22 for Lumina Foundation. Lumina is the nation's 
174

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 largest private foundation focused specifically on 

2 increasing student access and success in 

3 postsecondary education. In fact, we're 

4 committed to making success and opportunity in 

5 postsecondary education available to everyone. 

6 We're especially focused on those who've 

7 historically faced barriers to success including 

8 low-income students, students of color and working 

9 adults.

10 At Lumina we envision a system of higher 

11 education that's easy for these students, for all 

12 students to navigate, a system that delivers fairs 

13 equitable results and meets the nation's need for 

14 talent through a broad range of high-quality 

15 credentials. I think all of us can agree that for 

16 this vision to be realized American higher 

17 education must embrace change. Institutions and 

18 systems must be reoriented so that they're more 

19 inclusive, more flexible and more responsive to the 

20 needs of today's students and those in the nation 

21 as a whole. 

22 Without a doubt the work of this 
175

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Negotiated Rulemaking Committee will have a 

2 meaningful impact on this change effort. And so 

3 if I may, I'd like to suggest some basic steps for 

4 the Committee to consider as it approaches this 

5 work. These suggestions will be shared in greater 

6 detail in our written comments, but today I'd like 

7 to offer three key pieces of feedback:

8 First, aim for quality not mere 

9 simplification. It's wise to streamline 

10 processes and reduce regulation, but only as a 

11 means to an end. Deregulation shouldn't be your 

12 default position. It should be applied not as a 

13 trend, but as a tool and needs to be done wisely, 

14 strategically and toward one overarching purpose, 

15 and that's to ensure quality in programs and 

16 institutions. In fact, as the Committee begins 

17 its work quality assurance should be the guiding 

18 principle, and that comes into play in my second 

19 suggestion as well.

20 When it comes to accreditation focus on

21 outcomes, not inputs. We're pleased to see the 

22 suggested discussion topics for improving 
176

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 accreditation include a specific reference to 

2 emphasizing criteria that focused on educational 

3 quality. We urge you to embrace this idea to 

4 ensure that accreditors measure what matters. In 

5 short, they should pay less attention to 

6 institutional inputs and instead focus on specific 

7 student-level results, things like learning 

8 outcomes, employability outcomes, completion 

9 rates and student loan repayment rates. It's 

10 important to disaggregate data to understand how 

11 will institutions are serving their students of 

12 color and other key student populations.

13 My third and final suggestion is this: 

14 Use this as an opportunity to innovate but with a 

15 lens on outcomes and quality. And I know that 

16 directive might seem overly broad, so let me apply 

17 it to some specific ideas before the Committee.

18 First, members should approach 

19 changing the requirement for regular and 

20 substantive interaction between faculty and 

21 students with the dual mindset of innovation and 

22 quality. This requirement should be updated to 
177

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 reflect the current world we live in, but still 

2 ensure that when a student uses their Pell Grant 

3 or their student loans, they can expect a rigorous 

4 learning experience.

5 To be clear, an argument for modifying 

6 the standard is not an argument against the broader 

7 intent of the standard itself. To abandon this 

8 requirement wholesale would likely harm the 

9 continued emergency of competency-based education 

10 models as a complete lack of guardrails could 

11 permit the sudden flourishing of opportunistic 

12 actors masquerading as competency-based 

13 education, but not built on the best current 

14 research about how people learn.

15 In revisiting the standard perhaps 

16 instead of focusing solely on interaction with 

17 faculty defined in a narrow way we might be better 

18 served to focus on what kind of faculty engagement 

19 produces regular substantive learning.

20 Similarly, the Committee should take a 

21 fresh approach when considering direct assessment 

22 and competency-based learning. Both of these are 
178

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 powerful tools that can help students, 

2 particularly adult students, earn degrees and 

3 other high-quality credentials. Merely 

4 simplifying the process for direct assessment and 

5 competency-based education will fall flat if 

6 quality is not at the forefront of this effort. I 

7 would urge you to ensure that, as with 

8 consideration of quality for the criteria of the 

9 recognition of accrediting agencies, quality and 

10 improved outcomes rather than simplification, be 

11 the primary focus of negotiations on this topic. 

12 I hope you consider these comments as 

13 you develop the Committee and I thank you again for 

14 your time.

15 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you.

16 Michale McComis?

17 MR. McCOMIS: Good afternoon. My name 

18 is Michale McComis. I'm the Executive Director 

19 with the Accrediting Commission of Career Schools 

20 and Colleges. I've been in that position for 24 

21 years and have had the pleasure of putting together 

22 four petitions for recognition with the 
179

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Department. We're very pleased to be here this 

2 afternoon to talk a little bit about the proposed 

3 rulemaking and to give some suggestions as the 

4 Committee thinks about how to move forward.

5 As an initial comment I would echo some 

6 of the sentiments from the previous testifier Jesse 

7 O'Connell around the issue of deregulation, and I 

8 would caution the Department of Education from 

9 looking at a process of deregulation solely for the 

10 sake of deregulation. And so where we can find 

11 ways to improve and to streamline and to strengthen 

12 the process I think that will be exceedingly 

13 important, but as someone that's engaged in the 

14 accreditation process and has engaged in the 

15 regulatory recognition process with the Department 

16 on many occasions as an agency we find many benefits 

17 to going through that third-party assessment 

18 process very much the same way that our 

19 institutions find benefit in going through our 

20 accreditation process.

21 There are some more minute matters that 

22 I would bring to the Committee's attention. The 
180

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 first is regarding the federal definition of a 

2 credit hour. And I won't speak to whether it's 

3 appropriate or not to have in the Federal 

4 Regulations a definition of the credit hour, but 

5 I will speak to the area in 602 that requires 

6 accreditors to enforce the federal definition of 

7 a credit hour. And so that becomes quite 

8 problematic for accreditors that are then used as 

9 a proxy to enforce the Department's own regulation.

10 It's also problematic insofar as our 

11 agency is one that deals primarily with vocational 

12 institutions and has a very different approach in 

13 the use of the credit hour, and so it makes for a 

14 more difficult evaluation process. So we would 

15 view the federal requirement that accreditors 

16 regulate or review in that area to be an example 

17 of federal overreach.

18 I would encourage the Department to 

19 think about ways to allow institutional and 

20 programmatic accreditors to partner so that we can 

21 reduce overlap and duplication in those two 

22 processes and make it more palatable to 
181

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 institutions to engage in both institutional and 

2 programmatic accreditation.

3 I would encourage the Department of 

4 Education to reevaluate the appeals process. In 

5 the 2009 federal negotiated rulemaking, which I was 

6 a member on that committee that reached consensus, 

7 there was an interpretation from the Department 

8 that appeals panel members and appeal panel bodies 

9 should be considered or could be considered as 

10 decision making entities. And again, from a 

11 practical consideration that causes quite a bit of 

12 confusion amongst how appeal decisions are handed 

13 down.

14 I would ask the Department to think 

15 about its requirement that accreditors have only 

16 30 days to produce probation actions. We find that 

17 probation actions tend to be quite complex, tend 

18 to be a very important action that an accreditor 

19 takes and by requiring a 30-day turnaround on that 

20 it can cause an accreditor to potentially make 

21 mistakes in trying to rush that action out the door.

22 I would encourage the Department in its 
182

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 use of the regulations and also to some -- with some 

2 degree the use of the sub-regulatory guidance to 

3 in all instances be looking to apply a level playing 

4 field across all recognized agencies and to fairly 

5 look at the way in which all accreditors are held 

6 accountable to the Federal Regulations and 

7 particularly how they look at the process and 

8 student outcomes.

9 Lastly I would encourage the Department 

10 of Education to model the recognition process on 

11 the accreditation process; that should come as no 

12 great surprise to anyone, that there are elements 

13 in the accreditation process that I think are 

14 applicable here whereby working with the 

15 Department and the staff agencies are able to, as 

16 Bernie said, demonstrate how in their individual 

17 circumstances and given their scope and their 

18 institutions and their standards how they meet and 

19 believe that they meet those Federal Regulations 

20 and not be tied so strictly to just the 

21 sub-regulatory guidance.

22 But at the end of the day have that 
183

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 requirement --

2 MR. WASHINGTON: Twenty seconds left.

3 MR. McCOMIS: -- thank you -- have that 

4 requirement that accreditors in fact show how they 

5 are valid and reliable evaluators of quality. 

6 Thank you.

7 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you.

8 Sekinah Hamlin?

9 REV. HAMLIN: Thank you so much. Good 

10 afternoon. I'm the Reverend Sekinah Hamlin, 

11 Director of the Faith and Credit Roundtable of the 

12 Center for Responsible Lending. The Faith and 

13 Credit Roundtable is comprised of faith traditions 

14 and denominations, ministries and organizations 

15 that represent over 118 million people. 

16 They have colleges, universities and 

17 theological schools that actively engage in 

18 providing quality education and training of 

19 persons starting out in adulthood as well as those 

20 that are going back to be educated in a new field 

21 or discipline based on new job markets in order to 

22 better support their families, those that have been 
184

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 in the job market and coming back for added 

2 certifications to qualify for positions that will 

3 provide better salaries and benefits, and even 

4 those that have retired from or left careers to 

5 pursue their true vocation and calling, that of 

6 ordained ministry or set apart, as we say, 

7 religious and denominational leadership.

8 We are lovers of learning and believe 

9 that the quest to gain knowledge and understanding 

10 is one that will allow us to get the tools needed 

11 to help equip all people to reach their fullest 

12 God-given potential, yet we are very concerned 

13 about the deregulation that the Department of 

14 Education is now here considering, particularly as 

15 it affects students of color and low-income

16 students.

17 Program integrity in our higher 

18 education system relies on the triad consisting of 

19 oversight by the Federal Government, state 

20 governments and accrediting agencies. Each 

21 component of the triad plays an essential part in 

22 assuring that students have access to high-quality 
185

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 higher education opportunities and their 

2 institutions operate with accountability. This 

3 dynamic has been tested over the past few decades 

4 as we have seen the rise of the for-profit college 

5 sector coupled with widespread programmatic abuses 

6 particularly within this rapidly growing sector.

7 Further, as this digital revolution 

8 continues online, and distance education have also 

9 increased simultaneously and as a direct feature 

10 of many of these for-profit programs. Today 

11 millions of students attend school online. The 

12 2016 Distance Education Regulations attempted to 

13 rectify the gap created by inconsistent state 

14 authority and regulation on online providers while 

15 students and taxpayers find themselves 

16 inadequately protected should an issue arise with 

17 online course work or programs. 

18 The need for regulation was clear and 

19 simple. There is no reason why online education 

20 should be exempted from full oversight under the 

21 triad especially when millions of American 

22 students and borrowers attend school online and 
186

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 billions of dollars in federal funds flow through 

2 these programs.

3 In 2014 more than 2,300 institutions 

4 offered over 23,000 distance education programs. 

5 As of fall 2015 more than 4.9 million undergraduate 

6 students; 1 in 4 participated in distance education 

7 including 2.1 million students, 12 percent, who 

8 were enrolled exclusively online Of those 2.1 

9 million entirely online students 1.3 enrolled at 

10 institutions located within their states and 

11 767,000 were enrolled in online institutions 

12 located across state lines.

13 Recent data from the National Council 

14 of the State Authorization Reciprocity Agreements 

15 also gives us some insight into the scope of online 

16 enrollment in the United States. Fourteen 

17 ninety-five institutions are SARA members serving 

18 1,166,560 students of this count. Only 2,171 

19 students fall outside the SARA guidelines and 

20 966,389 fall within them. These numbers indicate 

21 that any delay in implementation of change of these 

22 rules will have a far-reaching effect on our higher 
187

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 education system. Further, the extent of distance 

2 education participation coupled with the fact that 

3 the majority of these programs are for-profit lends 

4 even more urgency to the need for swift un-delayed 

5 implementation of the final rules, not a rewrite.

6 To further highlight our concerns about 

7 failing to regulate the for-profit sector CRL 

8 recently released a new report entitled, "Debt and 

9 Disillusionment" based on focus groups and surveys 

10 of former students. It demonstrates that 

11 for-profit colleges target vulnerable communities 

12 through intense advertising and personal lies 

13 recruiting, enticing them to borrow large 

14 amounts --

15 MR. WASHINGTON: Twenty seconds left.

16 REV. HAMLIN: -- of money to attend. 

17 Very few participants, including those who left 

18 school many years previously, were able to make any 

19 progress in repaying their debts given by these 

20 institutions. The impact of heavy student debt 

21 burdens was both psychologically and material. 

22 Participants had no --
188

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MR. WASHINGTON: Your time has 

2 expired.

3 REV. HAMLIN: -- ability to pursue to 

4 goals such as home ownership and even saving for 

5 their children's education. 

6 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. 

7 While Jamienne Studley is not scheduled 

8 to speak until 2:00, if she's -- okay.

9 MS. STUDLEY: Thank you. I'm Jamienne 

10 Studley, President of the WASC Senior College and 

11 University Commission, the recognized regional 

12 accrediting agency for California, Hawaii and the 

13 Pacific Islands at the bachelor's degree and above. 

14 I am proud to have served in this Department as 

15 Deputy Undersecretary, chair of NSICI, Deputy 

16 General Counsel, Deregulatory Officer, and Acting 

17 as General Counsel, Assistant Secretary for 

18 Post-Secondary Education and Undersecretary. 

19 It's good to be back. And thank you for this 

20 opportunity.

21 WASC appreciates and supports the 

22 Department's interest in considering regulatory 
189

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 improvements, and I have three main points about 

2 scope, innovation and risk: 

3 Accreditors need a wide field of vision 

4 to be able to do our job. Education quality and 

5 student success are indeed our special 

6 responsibility and areas of expertise as 

7 accreditors, but to make judgments expected of us 

8 we also need to have and evaluate governance 

9 responsibility and financial sustainability. The 

10 board's independence, skill and ability to 

11 exercise oversight are critical to an 

12 institution's integrity and capacity to meet our 

13 standards. 

14 We need to understand each 

15 institution's financial health and to assure that 

16 there are resources and reasonable strategies to 

17 sustain it so that our standards can be met and 

18 students can be served into the future. The 

19 complex decisions we make about structural 

20 changes, institutional resilience and student 

21 success require that we evaluate key finance and 

22 governance factors. Every gatekeeping 
190

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 accrediting agency should have the responsibility 

2 and expertise to do that.

3 Second, accrediting agencies have 

4 demonstrated the capacity to lead, change and 

5 support innovation. Accreditors pioneered the 

6 focus on student learning that we now take for 

7 granted moving beyond an input-based approach. 

8 Some of you recall that I spent several years as 

9 a public official urging accreditors, especially 

10 regional accreditors, to use outcomes to identify 

11 potential weaknesses and to target schools for more 

12 intense scrutiny. 

13 Now we agencies are doing an 

14 increasingly good job of taking outcomes 

15 information into account to support both our 

16 quality assurance and improvement functions. No 

17 bright lines, but sharpened questions and clearer 

18 expectations. My own agency has developed new 

19 metrics to expand our understanding of completion 

20 rates and credit recovery. And finally across the 

21 landscape I believe I am observing increased rigor 

22 and willingness to make hard decisions that we have 
191

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 expected of our accreditors all along.

2 There is a rumor afoot in the land that 

3 accreditation and innovation are incompatible. 

4 Presidents in my region tell me that accreditation 

5 doesn't hinder their ability to introduce new 

6 programs and approaches. Some regulatory 

7 improvements could help promote innovation such as 

8 giving accreditors room to decide when a site visit 

9 is necessary to judge a new program. And let's be 

10 honest, we do have speed bumps to slow innovation 

11 where there have been crashes and injuries. And 

12 in those cases we are right to choose caution over 

13 speed.

14 There's additional room to streamline 

15 accreditation: some statutory, some regulatory. 

16 I've described our current overlay of input plus 

17 outcome expectation as a belt-and-suspenders 

18 situation and encourage reducing input elements to 

19 allow accreditation to concentrate on results and 

20 on fundamental education, governance and financial 

21 quality issues. 

22 Third, to reduce risk this process 
192

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 should address rule changes to increase 

2 interchange and collaboration across the triad, 

3 strengthen teach-out and support effective 

4 student-consumer protections. Cooperation and 

5 exchange of information is a boring perennial 

6 recommendation, but it is also important and 

7 overdue. From my vantage point as a federal 

8 regulator and now as an accreditor I've seen the 

9 damage that happens when we cannot or do not share 

10 warnings and concerns across agencies. 

11 We should look at whether there are any 

12 rule changes that could facilitate early exchange 

13 of information or additional authority to help us 

14 protect students. And this rulemaking should 

15 address stronger tools for mandating earlier more 

16 rigorous teach-out plans. Ms. Jones has made good 

17 suggestions that we explore expanded options for 

18 accreditors to manage effective dates for school 

19 closure and teach-outs.

20 Let me close with my hopes for this 

21 rulemaking: Starting in 1993 I helped the 

22 Department implement the new Neg Reg requirement, 
193

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 and long ago I guided the financial responsibility 

2 rulemaking to an unexpected consensus. In short, 

3 I have a rare affection for this strange initially 

4 unwelcome process because at its best it promotes 

5 genuine negotiation and development of smarter 

6 rules. I have seen people listen and learn from 

7 each other --

8 MR. WASHINGTON: Twenty seconds left.

9 MS. STUDLEY: -- problem solve and 

10 compromise. I have watched student groups develop 

11 capacity to participate in complex discussions. 

12 I'm concerned that it would not be feasible to fully 

13 address the range and density of issues that have 

14 initially been suggested be combined into a tightly 

15 time-limited process. I encourage the Department 

16 to narrow the issues, expand the time, or both. I 

17 urge the Department to secure the most skillful 

18 facilitators possible.

19 MR. WASHINGTON: Time.

20 MS. STUDLEY: That factor has made a 

21 significant difference in whether negotiations are 

22 effective, constructive and civil. The need to 
194

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 educate --

2 MR. WASHINGTON: Your time has 

3 expired.

4 MS. STUDLEY: -- all our people is 

5 urgent. Let me -- may I finish one sentence?

6 (No audible response.)

7 MS. STUDLEY: Neg Reg gives us a chance 

8 to understand different perspectives and policy 

9 options and to develop rules that successfully 

10 balance rigorous quality assurance, valuable 

11 innovation and careful burden reduction. 

12 Students and taxpayers deserve nothing less. 

13 Thank you very much.

14 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you.

15 Shirley V. Hoogstra?

16 Yes, she's not scheduled to speak until 

17 3:40. I was calling to see if she was in attendance 

18 and if she would like to speak early.

19 Okay. What we are going to do now --

20 well, I should say is there anyone else who has not 

21 spoken who would like to testify?

22 (No audible response.)
195

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. Seeing none, 

2 we are going to break until 3:00 p.m. and reconvene 

3 allowing us time for any walk-in testimony and also 

4 time for Shirley V. Hoogstra to present at 3:40. 

5 So we will reconvene at 3:00 p.m.

6 And I will say in addition if anybody 

7 exceeded their five-minute time limit, there's 

8 still the option to present written comments online 

9 at regulations.gov. You could just type in 

10 ed-2018-ope-0076 and that will pull up the docket 

11 for this public hearing and you can submit your 

12 written comments to the Department of Education. 

13 Thank you.

14 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

15 went off the record at 1:48 p.m. and resumed at 3:00 

16 p.m.)

17 MR. WASHINGTON: Hello, ladies and 

18 gentlemen, and welcome back. We are reconvening 

19 at 3:00 p.m. If anybody in the audience would like 

20 to make a public statement, please just approach 

21 the podium. We do have a speaker scheduled at 3:40 

22 to make public testimony. Thank you.
196

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

2 went off the record at 3:01 p.m. and resumed at 3:33 

3 p.m.)

4 MR. WASHINGTON: Hello, ladies and 

5 gentlemen. We're going to resume with the public 

6 hearing. We have Shirley V. Hoogstra.

7 MS. HOOGSTRA: Thank you. Thank you 

8 for the opportunity to present today on the 

9 important topic of accreditation. I'm Shirley 

10 Hoogstra and I represent the Council for Christian 

11 Colleges and Universities. We have 157 

12 institutions in North America and 154 in the United 

13 States. We represent 450,000 students, 72,000 

14 faculty and staff, and over 3.1 million alumni. 

15 We seek as our mission to help 

16 institutions transform the lives by faithfully 

17 relating scholarship and service to Biblical truth 

18 and our schools shape students so that they act for 

19 the public good at a cost to themselves out of a 

20 love for Jesus Christ so that they can affect the 

21 world around them.

22 We will be submitting detailed comments 
197

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 in writing next week, but I wanted to highlight a 

2 few specific areas today.

3 First, the Department should clarify 

4 what it means for an accrediting agency to respect 

5 religious mission. Currently accrediting 

6 agencies are required to respect institutions' 

7 religious missions, yet the term is undefined and 

8 that causes a problem. This lack of definition 

9 risks accreditors interpreting inconsistently 

10 across accrediting bodies. 

11 Religious mission permeates our 

12 institution's policies and practices so we believe 

13 that the Department should provide clarity and a 

14 definition like that in the PROSPER Act, which says 

15 the term "religious mission" includes an 

16 institution of higher education's religious 

17 tenets, beliefs, teachings, policies or decisions 

18 related to those tenets and beliefs or teachings 

19 including policies, decisions concerning housing, 

20 employment, curriculum, self-governance or 

21 student admission, continuing education or 

22 graduation. So it just expands so that it's a 
198

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 comprehensive definition and does not get 

2 confusing.

3 Second, the Department should clarify 

4 how it will enforce the requirement for accrediting 

5 agencies to respect religious mission. So 

6 currently should an accreditor not respect an 

7 institution's religious mission, the only remedy 

8 right now for the Secretary is a Draconian option 

9 of de-recognizing the accreditor. This leaves the 

10 institution harmed and harms hundreds of other 

11 institutions at the same time. Institutions 

12 suffer even though it was the accreditor who 

13 violated the law. So we've got four options to 

14 address the deficiency.

15 First, clarity. The process must be 

16 clear and understandable to both the institution 

17 and the accrediting agency. 

18 Second, timeliness. There are real 

19 harms that begin immediately as soon as 

20 accreditation is called into question, much less 

21 revoked so resolution must be timely.

22 Third, certainty. To ensure 
199

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 institutions have recourse the process should 

2 require the Department to act not simply allow it 

3 to act.

4 And then lastly, restitution. 

5 Different types of accreditation are not 

6 necessarily equal or interchangeable, therefore at 

7 the end of the process the institution should be 

8 able to have its original accreditation status 

9 restored if that is determined to be appropriate.

10 The third and final issue I want to 

11 raise today is that the Department should give 

12 accrediting agencies and institutions the 

13 flexibility they need to innovate, reduce costs and 

14 serve students in line with their unique missions.

15 We are pleased that the Department will 

16 propose regulations that promote innovation. In 

17 doing so however we urge the Department retain as 

18 its goal protecting the integrity and efficacy of 

19 the student financial aid programs as well as to 

20 strongly consider the value of institutional 

21 autonomy in those decisions. 

22 Let me conclude. The diversity of 
200

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 higher education institutions has contributed to 

2 the United States being the best in the world. 

3 Christian higher education and faith-based higher 

4 education generally is an important part of this 

5 diversity. Just today in the Wall Street Journal

6 they published an article noting that 11 

7 institutions that rank the highest in student 

8 engagement, 8 of them were faith-based. 

9 Christian higher education produces 

10 committed, compassionate, convicted citizens who 

11 want to engage deeply in the world not in spite of 

12 their faith, but because of their faith. And 

13 therefore, we are grateful to the Department today 

14 for embarking on this process of ensuring that the 

15 mission of faith-based higher education is 

16 protected. 

17 Per the establishment cause the 

18 Government should neither favor nor prevent the 

19 inclusion of religion in higher education, rather 

20 in our marketplace of ideas religious institutions 

21 of higher education should be allowed to compete 

22 on an equal footing with their peers. And we 
201

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 believe the measures outlined above achieve this 

2 by ensuring all institutions, including religious 

3 institutions, can have their missions and autonomy 

4 respected so they can best serve their students. 

5 Thank you for this opportunity to 

6 comment. We look forward to bringing dialogue 

7 about these issues throughout the rulemaking 

8 process. Thank you.

9 MR. WASHINGTON: So that concludes our 

10 registered speakers for today's public hearing. 

11 Again, if anyone in attendance would like to speak, 

12 please come to the podium and we will remain here 

13 until 4:00 p.m. as noted in the Federal Register

14 notice if anybody so chooses to testify. Thank 

15 you.

16 (Pause.)

17 MR. WASHINGTON: This concludes our 

18 public hearing. Thank you all for coming and have 

19 a nice day.

20 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

21 went off the record at 4:00 p.m.)

22
202

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12