Department of Education, 

Office of Postsecondary Education

June 24th Public Hearing

DISCLAIMER:

Note: The following is the output of transcribing from a recording. Although the

transcription is largely accurate; in some cases, it is incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible

passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the

meeting, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.

Greg Martin: Morning and thank you for your attendance at our virtual public hearing today. My name 

is Greg Martin and I am the Director of Policy Development in the Office of Postsecondary Education. 

I'm pleased to welcome you to this portion of today's hearing. This is one of three public hearings that 

we are conducting this week. Our purpose is to gather input regarding regulations that govern the 

programs authorized under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965. I am joined on camera today 

by two other Department officials, Alexandra Sweeney from the Office of the General Counsel and 

Claire McCann from the Office of the Under Secretary. I'm happy to say that we've been able to add an 

additional half an hour to both our morning and afternoon sessions to accommodate the large number 

of people who wanted to get the opportunity to speak. For those who were originally scheduled to 

speak for the two-hour sessions that we had, they will have 5 minutes to present, but because they 

want to get in as many people as possible during the additional half an hour that we were able to add 

to both the morning and afternoon, those individuals will be limited to three minutes, and I'll make 

that clear with them when that delineation occurs. 

With respect to the logistics for today's hearing, I will call your name to present when it is time for you 

to speak. We ask all speakers to limit their remarks to five minutes. As I said earlier, that's five 

minutes for the those who were originally scheduled to speak and then three minutes for those who 

were added. I'll make that clarification when it’s their time. If you get to the end of your 5 minutes or 

your 3 minutes, I will ask you to wrap up and ask that you do so within 15 seconds. If you exceed your 

time, you may be muted. Speakers have the option to turn on their cameras while presenting, but it is 

not required and is the consideration of others. We ask speakers to please silence their cell phones

and be in an area free from background noise while presenting as much as you can. Perhaps most 

importantly, we ask speakers to remain on mute before being called on to present. We ask that 

speakers leave the Microsoft Teams meeting and join the public Microsoft Teams meeting. If you are a 

speaker and did not mute yourself when not presenting or speak when it is not your turn, we will 

administratively mute you from the Microsoft Team meeting and may remove you from the speaker 

line. You can always dial in the Microsoft Teams line meeting as an attendee where you can listen to 

the hearing. When you are called to speak, please provide your name and your affiliation. This hearing 

is being transcribed and the transcription will be posted to our website in the next few weeks. The 

Department will also post a recording of the hearings with audio and video. 

This is a public hearing and it is possible that a member of the public may record your remarks and post 

edited clips of them before or after the Department post the full unedited hearing. Closed captioning is

also available in real time during the hearing. To use live captions, go to your meeting controls and 

select more options then turn on live captions. If you are submitting written comments, we encourage 

you to do so through the regulations.gov website. You may also submit comments through portal mail 
ED OPE Public Hearing June 24, 2021

2

commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, if you wish to hand deliver 

comments, please email Vanessa.Gomez@ed.gov and she will coordinate with the front desk staff in

the lobby of the Department of Education Building at 400 Maryland Ave., SW, in Washington, DC so 

that you can leave your comments there. We will not accept comments by fax to ensure that we don't 

duplicate copies or receive duplicate copies. Rather, please submit your comments only once. In 

addition, please indicate the Docket ID, ED-2021-OPE-0077, at the top of your comments. You can also 

use that number to quickly access the place to submit your comments, just use the regulations.gov 

website. 

OK, now we are going to move on to our first speaker for the day and that will be Karla Coleman 

Garcia. Miss Garcia, whenever you are ready. 

Karla Garcia: Good morning, thank you to the Department for convening these hearings and for the 

time to speak to you today. I'm Karla Coleman Garcia, the Director of Policy for the Tennessee Higher 

Education in Prison Initiative or THE. I am based in Nashville, TN. I'm commenting today on behalf of 

THE on the topic of Pell Grant eligibility for prison education programs.

THE is a nonprofit organization whose mission is to disrupt systems of harm and create opportunities 

for autonomy and success by providing college access to people inside Tennessee prisons, preparing 

students for skillful reentry and reducing barriers to continued education and achievement. THE works 

in partnership with the Tennessee Department of Correction, and Higher Education agencies to 

provide college in person programming across our state. Through our partnerships we offer associate 

degrees and as of this month we also offer two bachelor’s degree programs. THE also provides in 

depth reentry programming for our students prior to and through the reentry process to support them 

in overcoming the numerous collateral consequences of incarceration. 

Over the last 10 years we have supported 346 students through college programming, celebrated 53 

graduates inside, and provided robust reentry support to 59 of our students that have returned home. 

We echo prior comments encouraging the Department to act swiftly and implement Pell restoration 

for incarcerated students prior to July 2023. We believe this can be done while also ensuring 

safeguards of program quality and student-centered programming. As such, we offer the following six 

recommendations which include directly impacted people in the decision-making process. 

(1) We urge the Department to create multiple opportunities for directly impacted people, including 

currently incarcerated students to provide feedback throughout the process of restoring Pell grants. 

This includes ensuring that those directly impacted are represented in the forthcoming negotiated 

rulemaking committees to include higher education in prison or HEP practitioners in the decisionmaking process; 

(2) We urge the Department to create opportunities for HEP program providers and to provide 

feedback on the Pell restoration process. Those who have coordinated health programs prior to Pell 

restoration have significant insight into the challenges to be anticipated and can offer mitigating 

solutions. This may be done via the negotiated rulemaking committees or a separate stakeholder 

committee created to provide guidance from the field to the Department;

(3) provide guidance to state DOC’s to ensure quality and integrity for programs inside prisons. This can 

come in the form of program quality indicators developed with help of stakeholders to ensure high 

quality post-secondary education inside prisons. It should also include guidance regarding how to limit 
ED OPE Public Hearing June 24, 2021

3

or remove access to Pell Grant fund institutions of higher education providing low quality programming 

to incarcerated students and ensuring clarity and alignment relative to how higher education 

institutions will be selected and evaluated;

(4) provide guidance to state DOC’s systems of higher education on the evaluation of head programs.

We encourage the Department to include in these evaluations program quality and rigor, equitable 

access to counseling student support services and technology, and an emphasis on racial equity and 

justice;

(5) Provide guidance to state systems of higher education on ensuring adequate and accessible 

communication with incarcerated students. This includes schools accommodating their existing

processes of communication, to consider the limitations of internet or phone access for incarcerated 

students and ensuring students can contact their school. 

(6) We thank the Department for the guidance on recent changes of fast simplification around 

selective service requirements and the drug conviction question. These changes reaffirm federal 

financial aid as an access point for opportunity as opposed to being used as a tool for punishment. We 

encourage similar guidance on rehabilitating student loans for incarcerated people. There is a key 

partner in Tennessee's work currently underway to develop program quality indicators and evaluation 

tool for the DOC and our systems of higher education to utilize how our efforts would be bolstered by 

guidance from the Department. 

We urge you to take all this into account along with the knowledge that incarcerated students are 

college students who are also often first-generation college attendees, parents, military veterans, and

above all human beings deserving of dignity, respect, and the benefits and protection of the US 

Department of Education. On behalf of our team and our students and alumni, we thank you for your 

time and consideration of these items. We will supplement these oral comments with additional 

written comments. We welcome the opportunity to connect further with the Department to ensure 

justice for impacted students and have practitioners involved in this process to talk about our work 

currently underway in Tennessee. Thank you.

Greg Martin: Thank you for your comments, Miss Garcia. Our next speaker is, and I apologize in 

advance if I don't get the name correct, Cathy Koluch.

Cathy Koluch: Yes, Cathy Koluch. Thank you so much. I'm the President and Founder of the Studio 

Academy of Beauty in Phoenix, AZ. My husband and I own and operate three campuses since 2006, 

and I have been in postsecondary education for 32 years. We've probably had about 2500 graduates 

during that time-period. I currently also sit on the American Association of Cosmetology Board (AACS), 

and I was appointed by former Arizona Governor Jan Brewer to the Arizona Postsecondary Education

Mission where I served for five years. 

Our schools are accredited by NACCAS. We are approved and licensed by the state and we’re also

approved by the Veterans Administration. We offer three programs: cosmetology, hair styling, and 

esthetician. Arizona is a destination state not just for vacation with our wonderful resorts, but we are 

also one of the fastest growing states in the country, especially with Phoenix in the metro area. Our 

economy is very strong and the careers in beauty and the beauty professions are very strong due to 

the workforce demand. But today I want to stress to you that beauty schools are different. We are 

small businesses, as demonstrated by the many, many schools across the country that are husband and 
ED OPE Public Hearing June 24, 2021

4

wife teams, such as me, brothers and sisters, parents, and children, where it's passed on through the 

generations. With our small schools of populations being as small as 50 to 70 or maybe at the most to 

200 to 250, our students can get that one-on-one education and ensure that they progress through our 

system. Our student services, and our career placement staff are committed to helping the students 

overcome their challenges while they're in school and get them placed into a position that works for 

them.

Community colleges cannot replicate what we do. We have a lot of community college students that 

transfer to our school simply because it doesn't offer what we do: wrap around services, flexible 

schedules, and quite honestly, people that are passionate about the industry and keep our finger in the

pulse of the industry. As we come out of COVID and 2020, one of the small nuggets that came out of 

this difficult time is that we can all agree we miss getting our hair cut and colored and our nails done

and all those personal grooming’s and our profession was elevated in the eyes of the community 

because it was a lot harder to cut your hair then you thought but our licensed professionals make it 

look easy because the hours of training that they get and hands on training. Once again, beauty schools 

are different. Our outcomes are higher than average of other school groups out there. Our AACS 

member schools have an average 70% placement rate and summer hire, 90% licensure rate 9.45 

default rate and our average debt is only $970. One of the major flaws I see in the discussion of gainful 

employment is it doesn't take in account how income is earned or reported; we are a tipping career

field or cash field. 

I'm sure in the halls of Congress there is a barbershop. Do people pay or tip in cash? Do you pay or tip 

in cash? Maybe you do, but you don't know how that's reported and so as beauty school owners we 

have no control over how our graduates report their income or file their taxes. As it stands today, we 

are held accountable for that. Listen, we're okay with common sense regulations, but transparency and 

equal treatment is necessary if you truly want to protect the taxpayer and the student. It's incumbent

upon us as a group to find that middle ground to make community colleges, for profit schools, public 

and private universities have standard treatment for everybody, same outcomes if the student is really 

going to be our focus. We serve minorities and predominantly females that are single parents. They're

looking for a flexible profession and this is the industry that does that. 

The American Dream is to own your own business, to control your own schedule, to be able to create 

your own destiny, and find that work balance that we're all looking for, and this is the profession that 

does it. If you haven't visited a beauty school in your area, I suggest you do 'cause I think it's probably 

going to be different than what you have in your head. So my two asks of you is that you embrace that 

beauty schools are different and that you include us in the discussions because if you don't, the 

unintended consequence is going to be on the student and this is a growing profession. I thank you for 

your time and I thank you for allowing me to speak to you today about how different beauty schools 

are. 

Greg Martin: Thank you, Ms. Koluch, we really appreciate your comments. Our next speaker is Betsy 

Mayotte. Ms. Mayotte, whenever you're ready, thank you. 

Betsy Mayotte: Good morning, my name is Betsy Mayotte, and I'm the president and founder of The 

Institute of Student Loan Advisors or TISLA. This is a 51C3 nonprofit whose mission is to provide fair, 

free expert student loan advice and dispute resolution to all consumers. I've been working in the 

student loan industry and in a compliance or advocacy role for over 25 years and have worked with
ED OPE Public Hearing June 24, 2021

5

thousands of borrowers who struggle with their education debt. My testimony today stems from both 

my experience in a compliance role and from working directly with these borrowers. 

I commend the Secretary for tackling such a robust, consumer focused agenda in this upcoming

negotiated rulemaking session. While I could comment on most of the items on this agenda, due to the

limited time allotted I will focus on the issues that will have the most positive impact for student loan

borrowers. My first topic and comment are regarding expanding the availability of the income driven 

repayment plans. While the income driven repayment plans or IDR have proven to be invaluable to 

borrowers with high student loan debt in relation to their income, these plans are not available to all 

borrowers. A large group of federal student loan borrowers – parents - continue to be awarded 

unaffordable amounts of student loans yet are not given access to the tools needed to make that debt 

manageable. To receive a Federal Parent Plus loan, borrowers are not required to pass any type of 

ability to pay test, such as an evaluation of their debt-to-income ratio. Consequently, I frequently work 

with Parent PLUS borrowers who have been awarded student debt amounts that far exceed their 

household income.

While some of these borrowers may stumble upon the requirement of consolidating their loans to

access income contingent repayment, as this plan is the only plan that takes 20% of the borrower’s

discretionary income, it is also often unaffordable to those families, especially those living paycheck to

paycheck. In any other forum outside of the federal scheme, the practice of awarding loans in large

amounts without regard to the borrower’s ability to pay and that are almost impossible to discharge in

bankruptcy, while not providing tools for relief, would be considered predatory and unconscionable. In

fact, such practices sound very much like what we saw during the mortgage crisis in 2008. Yet without

these loans, access and choice of higher education would not be available to lower- and middle-class

families. Parent PLUS borrowers’ inability to access this lower cost income driven plans also prevents 

them from making retirement contributions, thus further financially destabilizing the middle class 

whose success the Biden administration strongly supports. Allowing parent borrower access to IDR 

would balance these sometimes competing parental (and societal) financial goals — helping 

dependents secure higher education and ensuring parents can also achieve a stable, independent 

retirement.

To ameliorate this inequality, TISLA is proposing that the Secretary allow consolidated Direct Parent 

PLUS loans access to the lower cost PAYE and REPAYE plans, which were created under the same 

statutory authority as the income contingent repayment plan. While such an action would not solve 

the conundrum of the size of Parent Plus loans, which would require thoughtful, statutory change, it 

would allow these loans to become more affordable, especially to those parent borrowers who have 

retired and are on limited, fixed, incomes.

On a related note, as the Secretary considers other topics during this negotiated rulemaking session, I

urge him to consider ways to ensure that institutions be held accountable for not only student debt, 

but Parent Plus loan debt as well. It is important that we find a way to discourage schools that may be

circumventing the consequences of high default rates by steering families away from the lower cost

Stafford loans, into the more expensive Parent Plus loans, often to these family’s detriment. 

My next comment is regarding the borrower defense to repayment discharge. I was one of the 

negotiators in the 2016 negotiated rulemaking session that drafted the initial rules for

the borrower defense to repayment discharge. As a participant in that session, and an observer in the

session facilitated by the last administration; I understand better than most what a complicated issue
ED OPE Public Hearing June 24, 2021

6

the borrower defense to repayment discharge is. And, as someone who has been working directly with 

struggling student loan borrowers for decades, I have seen the real harm the current process and rules 

are causing already victimized borrowers. The primary goal, at least of the first negotiated rulemaking 

session, was to create an even playing field between a consumer, especially the more vulnerable 

consumers, and an institution that has greater legal resources at their disposal. We were also 

attempting to ensure that institutions that were found to have defrauded students reimbursed US 

taxpayers for the cost of the relief provided victimized borrowers. Finally, like most forgiveness and 

discharge programs, we wanted to ensure there were mechanisms in place to identify and prevent 

frivolous claims. Even putting the actions, or inactions, of the prior administration aside. I'm going to 

skip down to the ASK we are asking that the borrower defense to repayment discharge be put under a 

rebuttable presumption standard to equalize the playing field and our final asked is to ensure that loan 

rehabilitation payments be no higher than the lowest payment the borrower could get post rehab. 

Thank you for your time and sorry I took so long. 

Greg Martin: No problem, thank you very much for your comments. Our next speaker is, again I 

apologize if I do not get the first name correct, Persis please speak whenever you are ready. 

Persis Yu: Thank you, good morning and thank you for this opportunity to speak today. My name is 

Persis Yu, I'm the Director of the Student Loan Borrower Systems Project at the National Consumer 

Law Center. I am here today to speak on behalf of our low-income clients. In addition to providing help 

to student loan borrowers in the Boston area, we support a network of hundreds of legal aid and 

private attorneys. We also manage a website that borrowers across the country rely on for accurate 

and up-to-date information. Through this work we have seen time and time again this devastation that 

student loans cause low income borrowers because of their student loan debt. Our clients have lost 

their housing, our clients have struggled to afford diapers, medication, and other necessities because 

of garnishments and our borrowers from across the country have told us that they don't know how 

they're going to retire because of their crushing student loan debt. 

We appreciate the steps the Department has taken to provide relief to a subset of borrowers, but far 

too many borrowers are still desperately waiting for relief. While the negotiated rulemaking may 

improve programs sorely needing regulatory fixes, those perspective fixes are not a replacement for 

widespread debt cancellation. The student loan system has failed student loan borrowers for too long. 

While they have waited, their debt has ballooned, and their financial futures have grown bleaker. Over 

4,000,000 borrowers have been in repayment for over 20 years, and we know that few will ever repay 

their debt and only 32 have ever had their loans cancelled under IDR. Millions more have been 

suffering under the weight of their debt despite being eligible for cancellation under existing law, 

widespread debt cancellation is needed to remedy the failures of our student loan system. These 

changes are desperately needed, and you can make those changes.

The Department should also clear the books of borrowers who have been in repayment for more than 

15 years and automatically provide relief to all the borrowers who are already entitled to cancellation 

under existing law. Once the Department has cleared its books and freed the hardest disturbed 

student loan borrowers from their debt, we encourage you to prioritize 1) ensuring that students have 

access to truly affordable repayment options 2) fixing cancellation programs so that they actually work

and 3) protecting students from institutions that use predatory practices to lure students into 

programs that provide little or no value, those institutions must be made to answer for harming 

students. 
ED OPE Public Hearing June 24, 2021

7

Before I discuss those topics in more detail, I must say that we were disappointed that the Department

failed to include any topics intended to provide relief to defaulted borrowers. The statistics are dire, 

roughly 9 million borrowers are in default on their loans. Defaulted borrowers experience 

extraordinarily punitive and expensive collection tactics, and as we know these harsh realities are more 

likely to be felt by families of color because of decades of structural inequities and discrimination. 

Student loans have burdened African Americans and Latinx borrowers more than any other groups and 

as a result these borrowers’ default at twice the rate of their white peers. Moreover, as the pandemic 

has revealed, the Department cannot stop these tactics even when required by law.

The Department has the authority under the Higher Education Act to eliminate some of the most 

harmful collection practices and to provide more options for defaulted borrowers and we urge you to 

take this opportunity to do so. Returning to the other topics, the Department must create an income 

repayment plan that is affordable and accessible to all borrowers. Although current IDR plans are 

more affordable for our clients than standard repayment, many of our clients still struggle to repay. 

For many of our clients, IDR plans feel like an eternity of bureaucracy, paperwork, and overwhelming 

debt that often grows over time, risking crashing down on them just because they miss paperwork. Our 

clients desperately need an affordable IDR plan that is easier to navigate and requires less time before 

cancellation. 

Critically, the Department must ensure that all borrowers are able to access new and improved IDR 

plans, including Pell borrowers, Parent PLUS borrowers and borrowers in default. The HEA allows 

broader access to IDR than the current regulations allow, and the Department must remedy this 

problem through this rulemaking. As the Department works to improve, IDR must also bear in mind 

that implementation matters and any changes to IDR will not benefit borrowers unless it is also 

accompanied with quality loan servicing and implementation of the FUTURE Act. The Department

must also fix existing cancellation programs, including Borrower Defense, closed school, false 

certification, and disability discharge programs so that they reach the borrowers they intended to help. 

Data released from the Department demonstrates that these programs have systematically failed to 

reach borrowers because they have overly restrictive eligibility, improve requirements, and play a 

serious series of unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles between borrowers and relief should be expanded 

and automated as much as possible while fixing it. 

The cancellation roles are critical. The Department should not and does not need to wait for 

rulemaking to automatically provide relief to the 500 and 17,000 borrowers that have been identified 

as eligible for a disability discharge, nor the hundreds of thousands of borrowers with pending or 

wrongfully denied borrower defense applications. 

Finally, I would like to address who is sitting at the negotiating table. For far too long the Department

has crowded the table with a few schools and given few spots to students and borrower advocates. 

The Department must ensure that representative of all impacted types of student loan borrowers are

at the table. We joined with disability advocates and are calling to ensure that a disability advocate 

seat is that any negotiating committee where the display discharge regulations are discussed. Thank 

you for this opportunity to provide this testimony and for your work to protect our low-income student 

loan borrowers. 

Greg Martin: Thank you, Miss Yu, we appreciate your comments. Our next speaker is Erin Clouser. 

Ms. Clouser whenever you're ready. You appear to be on mute, Ms. Clouser. No problem, you're good 

to go. 
ED OPE Public Hearing June 24, 2021

8

Erin Clouser: Good morning, my name is Erin Clouser and I serve as a Financial Aid Officer at Reading 

Area Community College. I oversaw gainful employment, reporting and disclosures at our institution 

from 2008 to 2018. Thank you for allowing me to present what I feel are very important

considerations in relation to gainful employment, reporting and regulation. Reading Area Community

College, like most colleges in the public sector is accredited by a regional accrediting agency. Regional 

accrediting agencies are among the oldest and most prestigious in the nation and classes from 

regionally accredited schools have high transferability. Our institution is regularly subjected to a 

rigorous third-party review to ensure that our faculty student learning, and professional outcomes are 

nothing short of excellent. In addition to the rigorous accreditation standards, any programs that do 

not terminate in a degree must conform to very specific criteria to be financial aid eligible and thus fall 

under gainful employment regulation. Any program between 300 and 600 hours in total is required to 

have a 70 completion and placement rate to qualify for the aid. Any program with more than 600 

hours and less than an associate degree must be able to be used as a steppingstone into the next level 

of education, generally an associate's or bachelor's degree. And therefore, must meet the same 

standards of quality as the courses in an associate or bachelor’s degree program with all these quality 

checks already in place, we feel that the addition of individual reporting and disclosures for gainful 

employment programs is excessive and duplicative. Only requiring student level reporting and 

disclosures by the sectors that have historically struggled with failing programs would minimize the 

reporting and processing burden for the Department of Education and the financial burden on 

taxpayers who are funding a portion of the operating costs of public sector schools through their tax 

dollars. We found a look at past statistics to be quite informative. In 2011 projections, 13,765 total 

programs were on the gainful employment debt to earnings ratio report, 5300 of the programs were in 

the public sector, and out of those only 36 were in the zone and none were failing. The first reporting 

year of 2000 appears to have similar statistics, although the detailed pass zone, and fail information is 

not the 2015 gate. 

Full employment debt to earnings ratio report shows a total of 8637 programs with 2493 in the public 

sector. Out of those, 2493 programs only were in the zone and none were failing looking at 2015 alone 

in straight percentages. In the public sector, 99% of programs passed less than 1% were in the zone 

and none failed. In the private sector, 83% were passing, 14% were in the zone, and 3% were failing, 

and in the proprietary sector 70-67% were passing, 20% were in the zone, and 13% were failing. The 

annual burden hours that our school underpass regulations were significant. We tracked a total of 29 

programs and only twenty of which had students in them in the last reporting year and only three of 

which had enough students to be tracked for debt to earnings ratios. We spent over 100 hours for 

more than 200 students in approximately 20 active programs, but only are LPN medical coding and 

billing and phlebotomy programs had students in them to be tracked as passing or failing programs. 

After over 100 hours of work costing over $5000 to collect, report and disclose data at the student 

level less than 1% of our population had potential impact and they had always been succeeding. We 

proposed that the Department only regulate historically failing sectors and consider the level of 

scrutiny already applied to the public sector by regional accreditation agencies and the financial aid 

requirements for short term programs to be enough. This would save tax dollars and allow public 

colleges to direct more of their attention to student’s needs. Thank you. 

Greg Martin: Thank you, Ms. Clouser, we appreciate your comments. Our next speaker will be Jantz

Hoffman, whenever you're ready to begin. 
ED OPE Public Hearing June 24, 2021

9

Jantz Hoffman: I echo with many of the thoughts that some of the previous commentors made. My 

name is Jantz Hoffman, I am the Executive Director of the Certified Student Loan Advisors Board of

Standards. We are a nonprofit organization that provides education and training material to financial

professionals and accountants to aid with incorporating student loan repayment into comprehensive 

tax and accounting planning. Since many of the comments that I've made have already been brought 

up, I'll kind of focus on a few points here. 

First, I want to encourage Department of Education to continue to look at this rule negotiation process 

through the eyes of the student loan borrower. For too long the statutes in regular regulations that 

have been put in place have been burdensome and it had been interpreted in a way that are not 

favorable to the borrowers. For example, the treatment of paid ahead status for public service loan 

forgiveness qualifying payments that the Department of Education has recently corrected in October 

as a first step at looking at some of the regulatory and administration processes that can be altered 

and looked at in a way that are more favorable to the borrowers and allowing them to have the relief 

as designed. Some specific further ideas as mentioned previously, could be looking at ways in which 

the programs are administered and additional benefits that can be provided to borrowers through the 

effective loan servicing put on them by the federal loan services that are out there. 

Secondly, I would like the administration to look at the management of the direct loan’s portfolio. One 

of the criticisms of the direct loan’s portfolio and of income driven repayments has been the increased 

subsidization of the portfolio by the federal government, and a big portion of this is due to the 

mismanagement of that portfolio. So when you look at any portfolio that is provided of loan

obligations, they were going to be performing and nonperforming assets and many of the assets and 

income driven repayment plans are subject to forgiveness are going to be non-performing assets that 

are going to require subsidization on the part of the Department of Education. However, the most 

performing assets of the loans that are made to individuals that have small debt amounts or have large 

incomes and have the potential to repay those loans in full, including the interest are being siphoned 

off to the private sector. Those good loans, the Department of Education should be making and having 

as revenue sources to subsidize the forgiveness debt to those low-income borrowers that need it. The 

consumer protections we're losing that interest by allowing those borrowers that have high incomes 

and low debts to transfer those debts to private interests in the form of private lenders, who then reap 

the benefits of the good loans that are made. 

I encourage the Department of Education to look at ways to maintain the portfolio of loans that they 

make it so that the performing assets in which they generate are used and kept internally to help 

subsidized those underperforming assets that they have. I'd also encourage the Department of 

Education to continue to work with all of the borrowers and all those who represent borrowers 

including ourselves and other financial advisors who want to be part of the solution and help educate 

and inform borrowers about how student loan repayment affects and fits into other aspects of their

personal finances. Thank you again for your time and we want to encourage you guys to continue 

through this process to reform any rules that we can that can make this more beneficial to student 

loan borrowers. Thank you. 

Greg Martin: Thank you, Mr. Hoffman, we appreciate your comments. Our next speaker is, Tarah

Gramza. So, whenever you're ready. 

Tarah Gramza: Hi everyone, my name is Terra Gramza. Can you hear me? Awesome. I am one of over 

120k other borrower defense students who have been waiting for a fair decision- in my case since 
ED OPE Public Hearing June 24, 2021

10

2014- and are part the class action case Sweet vs Devos, which is now Cardona. I attended American 

Intercontinental University (AIU) a Career Education Corporation school (CEC) between 2003-2008. My 

case along with 95% of the class action participants received unethical, invalid, unfair, and 

unreasonable mass denials in late 2019 after years of stalling by the department. I quote Judge Alsup 

when describing the borrower defense process as “Kafkaesque” which means oppressive and 

nightmarish. In my case- my denial didn’t even address all of my complaints and the response by the 

department was different depending on who was asked, not limited to but including, my application 

being lost in a computer change by the department. Not to mention the steps of what to do next were 

unclear and confusing. It was clear that these decisions were rushed and possibly not even looked at 

all. It was later discovered during the lawsuit discovery that the department was paying people for 

cases to be denied as fast as possible. This sounds a lot like using fraud to cover up fraud and the 

department should be ashamed.

The length of time that it has taken to receive a fair decision has shown the cover up for these 

executives at the expense of the taxpayers. We have yet to get answers as to why the department has 

fought students and taxpayers on holding these schools and executives responsible. Today I have 100k 

in debt for a worthless degree. I was a victim of high-pressure enrollment, promises of huge salary, 

promises of an amazing education, and many more, of which, none was true. It took many years of job 

searching before I was finally told by a potential employer that my degree was worthless because I 

went to a degree mill school. My school was sued by 49 state Attorney generals and even was placed 

on probation by the department of education in 2006 for the exact same things as my complaints. The 

fact that there were settlements at all should be enough for students like myself who attended during 

the covered time frame get full forgiveness. Instead I’m paying the price for their illegal behavior. As 

part of the Attorney General state litigation settlements with Career Education Corporation, all private 

loan holders were given forgiveness and government loan holders like me were told to address with 

Borrower Defense. If you read the settlement agreements it becomes clear that these schools have 

gotten away with stealing the tax payer money by not stating responsibility or admitting fault for their 

own actions and making the department of education battle the outstanding cases on their behalf. 

How is asking students to have additional proof beyond public settlements for fraud putting us first? 

You can’t reasonably expect students after over 10 years to have physical proof beyond our own 

experiences and public lawsuits. How is this protecting taxpayers? How is this even fair to other 

schools who do provide rigorous and job creating degrees? I am like many here; we the students didn’t 

have the resources or the knowledge of what was happening to us until many years later.

Why is the department not fighting for us? Like most students I trusted the government, I trusted the 

schools. I was a young, single mom who was hoping for a way to change my life and circumstances, 

instead, I was failed by our leadership and I hope that we can change this for so many who have been 

victimized and prevent future crimes.

We absolutely need student loan reform and better oversight but we need to start with borrower 

defense and give students like myself a chance to breath and the department needs to go after the 

leaders and executives who caused this to happen in the first place rather than the students and the 

tax payers.

They have gotten rich on the backs of us all. Please stand up for us and help us! I leave you with a final 

thought; close your eyes and recall when you were 20 years old and how gullible you were? If someone 

had promised you the world and it was backed by the most powerful government in the world, would 

you have believed them? Would you have felt the need to hold evidence of flyers or record phone 
ED OPE Public Hearing June 24, 2021

11

calls? How can students be asked for such unrealistic expectations? Give students a fair chance, hold 

these schools accountable, and the same should be true for those responsible and students should be 

given forgiveness like the law demands! Thank you for your time. 

Greg Martin: Thank you, Ms. Gramza, we appreciate your comments. Our next speaker will be Bryan 

Black. Mr. Black, whenever you are ready. 

Bryan Black: Yes, thank you. Can you see me OK? 

Greg Martin: Yeah, now we can, your head in the frame. Thank you. 

Bryan Black: Thank you very much for taking this time, your deliberations are certainly important. I 

want to tell you that I served as an alternative negotiator in the 2017-2018 borrower defense to 

repayment and while those deliberations were long days, I certainly learned a lot and what I really 

learned is that we have to protect the students and at the same time since the schools and institutions 

play a vital part in our economy that we have to try and eliminate unmeritorious claims. My 

background is in law; I was an attorney in Michigan for 30 years. I'm retired now, but in 1997 I began to 

invest with my wife and daughter into the vocational schools and the Paul Mitchell schools. We now 

have four schools in Michigan and in Florida. We have salons we offer ownership to our graduates, so 

we take very seriously the regulations of NACCAS, our accreditor and of our state’s cosmetology board.

Of course, we want to put out an excellent product for students so I'm proud to say we never had a 

borrower defense claim. To my knowledge, the Paul Mitchell network hasn’t had one and there's a 

little over 100 Paul Mitchell schools. We're proud of our record, and we believe that we do the very, 

very best at striving to protect not just the student, but the taxpayers, and keep our product as strong 

as possible. What I did learn is protecting the students and exercising some degree of due process for 

the schools and institution. There's certainly a balance there so our job placement has been excellent. 

As I said, we actually take some more students who become owners of our actual salons and we've 

gone from a school in 1997, even before the very first borrower defense to repayment rule, which was 

established back in 1994 and there was very few claims back then, but our school got started in 1997 in 

heavily dependent social economic area where 50% of the population live below poverty and that has 

expanded. We started with two employees and now we have nearly 100 employees in our school 

system and our salon system. 

So, what I'm here really to communicate today is that I believe the existing borrower defense to 

repayment is fair compared to 2016, the definition or the misrepresentation standard that we dealt 

with would sometimes allow for de minimis errors to be a claimed for borrower defense, even if you 

mistakenly put in a wrong digit under replacement or graduate or licensor outcome. So, I believe there 

is a fair balance today. It seems to have increased a little bit in terms of the standard that is looked at

to be in that have substantial misrepresentation, but it's also been lowered. The burden of proof or 

burden of persuasion that we call it, they have a preponderance of the evidence standard. I think that's 

been a fair of movement, same for the statute of limitations. I think that is a fair balance of three years 

compared to before it used to be wide open under financial harm.

Financial harm was always such a legal concept like the accounts of the mitigation, like in a contract 

setting. Today we have one where the student can be a little bit better off, and any education is good. 

I think of some of our graduates who are mothers and went on to have children and they really can't 
ED OPE Public Hearing June 24, 2021

12

afford to get into a slum, but they get into a suite or they get into working out of their garage. Under 

the definition of misrepresentation, it was previously advocated to be a tendency for any kind of 

mislead, misleading, or any kind of error, and I think that's a balance where now it has to be of a 

material fact and reasonably relied upon. I think that standard misrepresentation, the definition is fair. 

The same for claims processes. I believe the application that existed is very easily filled out and 

implemented and sent it to the Department. And where it was previously assigned to a Department of 

Education representative, I now believe that the schools that were a right to respond, and I think that's 

part of the due process balance that I was talking about. 

Finally, on triggers to schools. For example, we had a couple of personal entry slips and fall incidents in 

our school, and it was okay we reported it. In conclusion, I really do feel that there's a very good 

balance between what we previously had and what we have today. I believe our beauty industry is 

clearly distinguishable from some of the other predatory bad actors and I think it's a fair compromisethe old and the new system. Thank you very much for your time.

Greg Martin: Thank you, Mr. Black. We appreciate your comments. Our next speaker is Chris Walters. 

Mr. Walters, whenever you are ready. 

Chris Walters: Hi there, this is Chris Walters, I’m the CEO of GradFin, we work with a lot of educators, 

school districts, physicians, and nurses at hospital systems to help them navigate public service loan 

forgiveness. We help them if they have any payments that hadn’t been counted correctly for public 

service loan forgiveness, we help them get them retroactively counted and often call FedLoan with

them and get a lot of past payment history from some of the other services like MOHELA, Great Lakes, 

Nelnet or Navient so that they can document that at FedLoan to make sure that all their payments are 

kind of correctly so they know that it's accurate and they know exactly when their forgiveness status is. 

So, I just have a couple comments today, one on the public service loan forgiveness help tool which is 

on studentaid.gov. We love it! The Department did an awesome job over the last six months adding 

this especially during a transition with the new president. It’s a really great feature. Kudos to everyone 

at the Department for working hard and getting that released. So, the public service loan forgiveness

help tool what it does is it allows each of the borrowers that is applying for public service loan 

forgiveness to add their employer to studentaid.gov it pre-fills the form with the codes and then allows 

them to print that out, get their employer to get their signature on it, it's been really effective. On page 

2, which is the employer page, it has a code that automatically gets approved at FedLoan for that 

employment period. 

There are a couple of comments that I have, one right now after the borrower gets their PSLF or adds 

their employer on the help tool, for every borrower even if they have 60 or 80 qualifying payments 

already, the help tool tells them that they're not in compliance and that they have 0 qualifying

payments, that's a quick fix that you all can focus on, but for the most part we love this new tool. It's 

doing great stuff and we appreciate all the work. 

The number two thing I wanted to bring up is the temporary expanded PSLF program. As you're 

aware, this was passed by Congress a few years ago. It allows for borrowers that have been in the 

wrong repayment plan like the extended or graduated repayment plan to get qualifying payments 

counted just like as if they were in regular qualifying repayment plan like an income driven plan. The 

challenge has been that these borrowers may or may not have been at FedLoan the whole time. Some 

of them were at Nelnet or Navient when they were making those payments. The extended or 

graduated payment, so it's a lot of schoolteachers, a ton of borrowers. At this point, they are 10, 11 
ED OPE Public Hearing June 24, 2021

13

and/or 12 years, most of their payments were in the wrong repayment plan so TEPSLF provides relief 

for them when they get to the finish line. 

We have a couple dozen borrowers that were appealing at FedLoan. There's some student loan 

services like direct loan servicing that doesn't even exist anymore and so when these borrowers are 

making these payments in like 2009, 2010, 2011 at this direct loan servicing the FedLoan is just taking 

so much time reviewing that payment history because DLS does not exist. Also, MOHELA, it's been a 

challenge getting repayment plans and payment histories from them. We would ask if possible if the 

Department can require that FedLoan coast all those payment histories that they've obtained from 

other loan servicers so that these borrowers when they're going into their myFedLoan accounts that 

will have access to those past payment histories, otherwise we have to go back to Nelnet or some of 

these other services and ask for that.

The other thing we would ask is if the Department of Education can ask Congress for more 

appropriations to help FedLoan because they're quite short staffed right now in reviewing all these 

past payment histories for temporary expanded PSLF. That would be huge if we can get more people 

on the Ombudsman office and caseworkers to review a lot of these past payment histories. We’ve had 

several borrowers where it's just taking months and months and months, and they've applied for 

forgiveness and they just can't. We appreciate, thanks for the time today and for opening the public 

hearing. 

Greg Martin: Thank you, Mr. Black. We appreciate your comments. I'm sorry that was Mr. Waters, my

apologies, I miss a line there and I apologize for that. Our next speaker is going to be Christen 

Szymanski, Christen will be using will be signing and we were going to use the servicers of our 

American Sign Language interpreter to translate so give us a moment while we prepare for that. 

Christen, whenever you are ready. We’ll give Christen a moment here to come on. Christen be certain 

to put your video on so that we can see you and our sign language interpreter can do the translation 

for us. Christen? I think at this point will move on to our next speaker and then go back to gather 

Christen. Our next speaker is Donna Telling-Gurnett. So, Ms. Gurnett, whenever you are ready. 

Donna Gurnett: Hey good morning everyone, how are you? Can you hear me? Thank you. OK, good 

morning and thank you for this opportunity to present this testimony on behalf of the Association of 

Proprietary Colleges. My name is Donna Telling-Garnet and I'm the president of the Association of 

Proprietary Colleges (APC). APC represents 12 degree granting proprietary colleges in New York state 

that are committed to educational excellence access and affordability. We look forward to working 

with Secretary Cardona and the Department staff. APC shares this philosophy that there are significant

inequities for students of color, low income, and generation students that needs to be addressed. APC 

has a long history of working closely with state and federal legislators and regulatory agencies to craft 

policy that protects and lifts the diverse student body that we serve.

With that in mind, APC respectfully offers the following insights and suggestions for the proposed 

rulemaking process. First, create universal policies. As we move through the negotiated rulemaking 

process, we would suggest that proposed regulations apply universally and treat all institutions 

equally. Opponents of the proprietary sector say that the profit-making mission of these institutions 

warrants additional scrutiny. However, the success of the New York model of oversight would suggest 

that it is not the case. New York has a long-standing history of working together with institutions of 

higher education and all four sectors: the SUNY system, CUNY system, independent, nonprofit, and 

proprietary sectors to benefit all New Yorkers. This committed commitment to equality and parity 
ED OPE Public Hearing June 24, 2021

14

across all sectors has created a robust and diverse education system that should be an example for the 

Department. What makes this regulatory structure unique is that all degree granting colleges and 

universities are held to the same standards and all institutions fall under the oversight of the state 

Education Department Office of College, and University Evaluation. 

This equity is an oversight across all sectors of higher education, has resulted in two things. First, there 

are no publicly traded colleges with physical campuses in New York. Instead, what you find is a 

relatively small number of privately held mostly family owned institutions. APC member colleges have 

on average been in existence for over 90 years, handed down from generation to generation. Second, 

the proprietary sector in New York has very strong student outcomes. We educate an incredibly 

diverse student body. The typical student we serve is female, Black, or Latino, receives a Pell grant, and 

is likely to be the first in their family to attend college. Our colleges serve these students well with high 

graduation rates and in many instances the on-time graduation rates for the proprietary sector are 

higher than the other sectors in New York. As well the sector has low cohort default rates and low 

student loan debt. Our second recommendation would be to consider the data. APC Member 

institutions are committed to date of transparency and accountability as we move through the 

negotiated rulemaking process appropriate data should be available to committee members as they 

consider proposed regulations. To that end, APC will soon launch a new website highlighting data 

called Higher Ed Outcomes. Using data compiled from IPEDS and the college scorecard, this website 

will provide detailed information about graduation rates, especially for Black, Hispanic, and Pell 

students, debt to earnings rates and student loan repayment rates. 

Unfortunately, poor student outcomes are endemic and can be found universally across higher 

education as the database is in this website will show. The website is intended to help address the data 

invisibility problem by making information available regarding institutions were at risk and underrepresented students are struggling. It's our hope that this information highlighted on the website will 

foster a more constructive dialogue among policy makers and negotiators. 

Finally, APC will be submitting written comments with more detailed suggestions, and I thank you for 

your continued support of our students. On behalf of APC member colleges, thank you for your time 

and consideration of my testimony. 

Greg Martin: Thank you, Ms. Gurnett, we appreciate your comments. Our next speaker is Sylvia 

Cabral. I’m sorry I made a mistake; our next speaker will be Will Hubbard. I’m informed it will be Mr. 

Hubbard, so Mr. Hubbard when you are ready. You need to unmute yourself Mr. Hubbard.

Will Hubbard: It's only been a year. Thanks so much. Good morning, my name is Will Hubbard and on 

behalf of Veteran's Education Success, a nonprofit focused on serving veterans seeking the 

transformative power of higher education. I'm here to highlight real examples of why these issues 

matter. I am a proud Marine corps veteran and today I have the privilege of elevating the voices of my 

sisters and brothers in arms and their families. 

First, on borrower defense. We've helped countless veterans who were lied to about every aspect of a 

school, including accreditation, tuition, and job prospects. One veteran, Chris Wolf, shared “these 

schools target and exploit military veterans for their GI Bill benefits, deliver a subpar education then 

leave us with a worthless degree or no degree at all, it's their business model.” He continues, “I proudly 

served my country and earned my GI bill, and this is how I ended up. I remain $23,000 in debt with no 
ED OPE Public Hearing June 24, 2021

15

degree to show for it. If you want to support the troops, please scrutinize these schools, and defund 

them when they do us wrong.”

Second, gainful employment. The big question we must ask of higher education is, what the point? For 

many veterans and their families, the vast majority of whom are first generation students. The point is 

mobility and improving their circumstances in life, but higher education fails many veterans. As Juan

Harris from Fresno, TX shares, “I went to University of Phoenix to get a better job and can't even get a 

promotion at my current job. I have a degree and an MBA from the school, I applied to over 200 jobs

and no one would hire me, got only one interview. I received more job offers when I removed the 

University of Phoenix from my resume”, he said. At Veteran’s Education Success, we wonder why does

the Department continue to put its stamp of approval on schools with little to no return on 

investment?

Third, looking at false certification. There are numerous examples of schools signing up veterans for 

loans despite them explicitly stating “I do not want any loans. I have my GI bill.” One veteran Travis

Crag shared, “the admissions process was very rushed. We signed everything on electrical notepads so 

us as students, we didn't know what we were signing for. The admissions person would be seeing the 

screen and we would just be signing our name on the notepad”, he said. Worse yet, some for profit 

schools electronically signed for loans and create an email account in the veteran’s name. When FSA 

sends confirmation about the loan, the school officer receives the email and the veteran has no idea. 

One whistleblower told us, “we just think of it as an electronic signature, not really forgery.” Another 

whistleblower explained that students were often pulled out of class to take on extra loans. He had 

one student veteran who had all costs covered with VA education benefits, but each semester was still 

pulled out during exams and forced to take out an extra $6,000 plus. The whistleblower wonders 

where all that money went because it must have doubled the actual tuition, and a student didn't see a 

dime.

Fourth, moving on to ability to benefit. As a long-time recruiter for an entirely online college told us,

he was required to enroll homeless veteran with no access to a computer or smartphone. This 

individual had no ability to benefit from an online education, yet the college still got his Title IV funds.

Fifth, public service loan forgiveness. Nearly 200,000 active-duty service members hold close to $3 

billion in federal student loan debt and less than 0.06% have received this forgiveness they're entitled 

to; this must be looked at. Sixth, with two decades of our nation being at war the volume of veterans 

with total and permanent disabilities is a harsh reality we must face. We are grateful to the 

Department for collaborating with VA to automate relief for disabled veterans, but the process needs 

attention and non-veterans still lack any kind of automated relief. 

Finally, I met with one veteran this past week, whose school closed suddenly in 2019. He thought he 

was doing the right thing by enrolling in Argosy University after serving four years in the army. What 

he didn't know is that Argosy would close months before he could complete his degree and he’ll never 

get the time he invested in this program back, the least we can expect for this is for the financial 

damage he has suffered to be mitigated with his loans discharged and his GI Bill restored. As you listen 

to the personal experiences of these veterans, we ask you to consider the burdens they face. We 

thank the dedicated staff and officials of the Department for your efforts on behalf of all students and 

look forward to working with you to protect and advance service members, veterans, and their families 

in higher education. Thank you. 
ED OPE Public Hearing June 24, 2021

16

Greg Martin: Thank you, Mr. Hubbard, we appreciate your comments. We will now be returning to 

Christen Szymanski. Just as a reminder, Christen will be using the services of our interpreter, our ASL 

interpreters, so Kristen whenever you are ready. 

Christen Szymanski: Thank you, can you see me now? 

Greg Martin: I can. 

Christen Szymanski: Great, great, great, thank you. Thank you, got to love technology. OK, so good 

morning and thank you for inviting us here this morning. I'm a student with a student loan and now I 

have already graduated, I have my Ph.D. and that's great, but I have a large student debt. I got my 

Ph.D. in clinical psychology and private practice. I’m currently working in a school that services the 

Washington D.C. area, a deaf school. Now with my students. I take care of my students. With my 

student loan and living in Washington D.C., it has become impossible to follow the perimeters of the 

IDR because the cost of living in Washington D.C. with the IDR, it’s at an impasse, it’s not possible.

Now, based on the current salary and my IDR, that means I would have to move back home. It's not 

possible to do that with my current job. Now I understand it's possible I get the loan forgiveness, I 

understand that. And part of the problem is as a person you cannot live in a city with a high cost of 

living and service individuals that need the service if you must follow the IDR Regulations. 

Now I'm stuck with wanting to work in public service. However, I'm penalized for working in public 

service because I do not qualify for the 10-year loan forgiveness. Now I understand that forgiveness, 

that the waiver is possible, but I also know that several people who have successfully gotten that 

waiver is little to none. I would like the Department of Education to consider people that really have to 

live in big cities and must service the community and see how that IDR is not working for us. Thank 

you for your time. 

Greg Martin: Thank you Christen, we really appreciate your comments. I also want to thank Mr.

Dubois, the interpreter, for his services. I know during that with the feedback being the way it is, that

could not have been easy so thank you very much. Moving on to our next speaker, Arielle Atherley, 

whenever you are ready. 

Arielle Atherley: Can you all see me and hear me? Thank you. Good morning and thanks so much for 

having me. My name is Arielle Atherley, I'm a policy analyst at The Leadership Conference on Civil and 

Human Rights in Washington DC. We are a coalition charge by our diverse membership of more than 

200 national organizations to promote and protect the civil and human rights of all persons in the 

United States through advocacy and outreach to targeted constituencies. We work toward the goal of 

a more open and just society in America as good as it’s ideals. The civil rights community has long 

recognized equal educational opportunity as central to our struggle to achieve equality for all 

Americans. The Higher Education Act of 1965 provides the framework for the college access and 

success vital to social, political, and economic opportunity for all people. Originally passed on the heels 

of significant civil rights legislation, including the Civil Rights Act of 1960. VHA is a civil rights law and 

regulations governing the implementation of the laws most recently and authorization should preserve 

that legacy despite some of our nation's most fundamental flaws that remove some of the barriers to

access for students. 

Students from marginalized communities continue to be excluded from quality postsecondary

education based on their race, their statuses adjusted impacted person, their disability status, or 
ED OPE Public Hearing June 24, 2021

17

several other aspects of their identities. Institutions of higher education must ensure the right to an 

equal educational opportunity for all students in America and federal civil rights laws must be enforced 

so that campus communities are inclusive of the full diversity of students in America. Without these 

protections, exclusionary policies and practices will result in a lack of equal opportunity for some of our 

most marginalized students. As such, we urge the Department to consider changes in several areas, 

including but not limited to what's outlined below to ensure that all students have access to high 

quality higher education free from discrimination and barriers. 

First on student loan debt cancellation, the rising cost of education has kept postsecondary education 

out of reach for many low-income students unless they rely heavily on student loans. A choice that 

Black and Latino students are disproportionately faced with. The $1.7 trillion student loan crisis is 

crushing individuals and families in our economy and the weight of this burden is disproportionately

borne by women and Black and Latino borrowers. This has happened as policy makers intentionally 

shifted away from publicly funding our higher education system to primarily debt finance system just 

as students of color and women gain access disregarding the rising cost of college for students and 

families. Persistent racial wealth and income disparities ongoing discrimination in the labor and credit 

markets, and many other societal and policy failures. These decisions have left a generation of color on 

the brink of financial devastation simply because they saw economic security through higher 

education. 

A debt finance higher education system in a society defined by dramatic racial gender disability and

wealth disparities will always be inherently flawed and inequitable though there are established 

programs intended to make student loan repayment manageable, the impediments to accessing relief 

through these programs are very well documented. In fact, very few borrowers have been successful in 

obtaining relief through repayment programs and default and delinquency rates remain high despite 

their availability. The only solution that addresses harms of the past and clears the landscape to create 

a better system going forward is to cancel at least $50,000 of student debt per borrower. We call on 

the Department to issue guidance that would result in immediate cancellation, which would provide

relief to millions of borrowers facing the burden of their student loans every day. Second on gainful 

employment, in a 2018 brief on the topic of gainful employment, the civil rights community calls for a 

strong gainful employment regulation that protected students and curtailed abusive practices by for

profit institutions. We urge the Department to robustly enforce the laws and the regulations,

protections on behalf of marginalized students. Despite spurious claims to the contrary, for profit 

colleges do not serve Black and Latino communities. These companies profit from deep cultural 

commitments to education, student’s belief that the Department of Education would only make 

financial aid available for worthwhile programs, and the determination of students to make a better 

life for themselves and their families. In the name of these students and their families, the Department

must preserve this regulation and protect students.

Third on borrower’s offense, to repayment. In addition to the gainful employment regulation, we urge 

the Department in the strongest terms, to preserve the borrowers defense repayment regulation. This 

regulation similarly provides needed protection for borrowers who are most likely to be misled and 

taking advantage. Denying wrong students access to the courts as forced arbitration would do as a 

fundamental denial of their access to the basic structures of our democracy, similarly creating leniency 

for fraudulent institutions serves only to undermine the fundamental purpose of the underlying 

statute and betrayed the Department's obligation to students. 
ED OPE Public Hearing June 24, 2021

18

The issues mentioned above are just a few of the areas which the civil rights community would like to 

see reform and enforcement to ensure that the Department is serving the needs of all students in 

America. The Civil Rights principle for higher education developed by the Leadership Conference on

Civil Rights Coalition also include a number of recommendations around ensuring access for our most 

marginalized students robust data collection and the need to ensure that data is disaggregated and 

creating safe and inclusive campus environments where all students feel welcome. The test and

regulations guidance and technical assistance and other implementation and enforcement activities by 

the US Department of Education must always be whether they advanced educational equity and serve 

the interests of all students. Low income students, students of color, students with disabilities, 

immigrants, and women deserve no less than robust and thorough regulation enforcement by this

Department to ensure equal opportunity in education. Thanks so much for the time.

Greg Martin: Thank you, Ms. Atherley we appreciate your comments. Our next speaker is Ms. Laura 

Bradshaw, whenever you are ready. 

Laura Bradshaw: Thank you, can you hear me? Great, thank you so much for having this meeting 

today. I really hope that this means that the U.S. Department of Education accepts that we truly have a 

student loan debt crisis here in the United States. I fully support loan debt reduction or discharge, but 

today I want to talk to you about the public service loan forgiveness program. My name is Laura 

Bradshaw, I'm a 41-year old wife, mother, public school educator, and taxpayer. I voted in York 

County, South Carolina. I received my bachelor’s degree in 2002 and a master’s degree in 2009 from a 

state university. I've consistently paid on that debt since that date. I'm a speech language pathologist 

who serve students with special needs and their families. I've done so faithfully for the past 19 years. 

I'm still seven years away from receiving public service loan forgiveness. I'm a proud daughter of a 

Pennsylvania coal miner who was one of six children and the first female in my family to graduate 

college and have student loans for my only option to receive a higher education. 

My original loan balance that I took out with $78,000 after paying on that set for 19 years. I now owe

$94,000 after working in public service for 9 years, I learned about the PSLF program from a flyer in the 

faculty lounge. I contacted the company and was shocked to find out that I could have my loans

forgiven after one more year public service. I paid this company $1000 to transfer my loans to

FedLoan and enroll in an income-based repayment plan. Little did I know that the transfer included

consolidating my loans and therefore restarting my tenure clock to achieve forgiveness. That company 

continued to charge me $250 per year to stay enrolled in the program and they helped by completing a 

yearly income verification. When I educated myself fully on this program, I understood that I was able 

to do all those things myself and thankfully I was able to advocate for myself and stop payment to this 

private company. This private company took advantage of borrowers, advantage of Americans who 

are working hard to pay their student loan debt. I continue to get phone calls from this company and 

several others like it, encouraging me to go with their service for a fee. I want you to understand that 

this story is not unique to me. Social media has a support group for people just like me titled “Public

Service Loan Forgiveness Support Group.” We need a support group to help us pay for our student 

loans. Amy writes, “has anyone divorced their spouse, but stayed together purely for the purpose of 

achieving public service loan forgiveness”? Kim writes “my income-based payment just got reapproved 

and my payment doubled, but I never changed jobs.” Amy writes “when I check my eligible in

qualifying payments the ineligible payments include all of 2008 and require a manual review.”

What I'm trying to say by telling you all these people’s stories is this is not unique to one or two 

borrowers. This is thousands and thousands of borrowers who have been misled by their loan service 
ED OPE Public Hearing June 24, 2021

19

providers. When we call FedLoan, we get one answer. We email them and get a second answer. There

is no consistency in this program that truly allows for public service loan forgiveness which I believe to 

be the intention of the program. Now that I'm enrolled in what I think is the right repayment plan I am 

working a qualifying job as I have been for the last 19 years and I believe I have the right type of loans. 

I'm still nowhere close to receiving public service loan forgiveness. Even with this program in place, I 

will be fortunate if I'm able to pay off these loans before my daughter enters college. I hope that our 

government sees that this is an issue and start supporting the American student and families. 

I request on behalf of myself and thousands of other Americans who are crippled under the student

loan debt that you consider the following changes to the public service loan forgiveness program: (1) 

eliminate the spousal income in our income verification process; 2) discharge the consolidation 

penalty. As I said, I've been in public service for 19 years and I am nowhere close; and 3) simplify the 

program, complete an employment verification that demonstrates 10 years of service to the public and 

then simply discharge the loans. Thank you so much for your time. 

Greg Martin: Thank you Ms. Bradshaw, we appreciate your comments. Our next speaker will be Erin

Corbett. Ms. Corbett, whenever you are ready. 

Erin Corbett: Good morning to everyone. My name is Erin Corbet, Administrator of two higher 

education in prison programs here in Connecticut. The Second Chance, Educational Alliance, and the 

Quinnipiac University Prison Project. I am here today to give public testimony on behalf of my 

students, other students incarcerated across the country, and practitioners on the frontline ensuring 

quality educational opportunities for confined learners. 

Second Chance and Quinnipiac are broadly supportive of the Department's plans to invite comment on

and examine in federal higher education regulations. We would especially encourage action to protect 

students and student loan borrowers by restoring and strengthening the gainful employment and 

borrower defense to repayment rules. But today I want to focus on the Department’s implementation 

of Pell Grant eligibility for students in prison education programs. While the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act was passed, the Pell Ban has yet to be fully lifted. The Department has until July 1st, 

2023 to do so, but it does not need to wait and should not wait to make students in prison eligible for 

Pell Grants. Until Pell grants are restored, more than 400,000 eligible students in prison will remain 

locked out of higher education opportunities. 

We urge you to act with deliberate haste to implement Pell grants for students who are incarcerated

this year in 2020, while establishing safeguards to ensure that higher education and prison pays off for 

students and for taxpayers. Without Pell grants, higher education in prison remains inaccessible to 

overwhelming number of students. After the 1994 ban was put in place, the number of education 

programs in prisons plummeted from more than three 1990 to only a dozen in 2005. Fewer 

incarcerated education programs mean fewer justice impacted individuals have access to essential 

educational opportunities that many of them were denied throughout the course of their lives. It 

means fewer justice impacted individuals have the means to pursue opportunities for themselves and 

their families. It also means delaying progress on addressing racial disparities in college attainment 

overall which is an ongoing goal of the Department of Education. 

Reinstating educational opportunity for these students cannot happen soon enough and Congress has 

provided a way to expedite this policy. Given the Department’s existing experimental sites, effective 

models are already in place to facilitate quick and efficient implementation. Existing frameworks for 
ED OPE Public Hearing June 24, 2021

20

approval and reporting established by the Department can be repurposed in guidance to ensure that 

existing programs can expand responsibly, and new programs can begin operating with fidelity and 

integrity. The time for you to act is now. And now a word about safeguards, through guidance outside 

of the negotiated rulemaking process, the Department can and should address several important 

issues related to program integrity and quality to ensure that students and taxpayers are protected

when Pell Grant eligibility for students who are incarcerated is fully restored, and prison education 

programs are implemented. Prison education programs should only be eligible to administer Pell 

grants if they offer students who are incarcerated the same opportunities for academic and career 

advising and counseling as free world students, If they ensured that the cost of the program does not 

exceed the value of the Pell Grant or other funding that the institution may have received to support 

the program, if they facilitate student’s future career and educational goals and partner with local 

community-based organizations to work together on comprehensive full-service reentry programs, if 

they identify ways to absorb the cost of transcript fees and other administrative fees that provide 

barriers to students, if they understand the challenges of operating effective distance, education or 

correspondence programs for students who are incarcerated and prioritize access to established faceto face programs, if they build it enough time for students who are incarcerated to gather the 

necessary documentation for filing a FAFSA and prohibit enrollment practices that give priority to 

students based on years to reentry or their probability of obtaining the documentation needed to fill 

out a FAFSA and if they assist students who have defaulted on federal student loans to rehabilitate 

those loans and help ensure that students who are incarcerated are included in any student debt

cancellation policy implemented by the administration or Congress. 

Some of our partners, some of our friends, some of our colleagues will share their own comments and 

testimony about why it's so important to expedite and require safeguards for the implementation of 

Pell grants for students who are incarcerated. We hope you will take their perspectives into account as 

you decide how to proceed on this issue. I welcome the opportunity to connect further with the 

Department to ensure that the voices of directly impacted individuals, practitioners, policy experts and

advocates are at the forefront of this effort to efficiently and effectively implement Pell Grant eligibility 

for students in prison education programs. Thank you and this message also was written by Sacha 

Taylor, who's at the Educational Trust. 

Greg Martin: Thank you, Ms. Corbett. We appreciate your comments today. Our next speaker will be 

Ella. I apologize if I've mispronounced the last name, Ms. Azoulay, whenever you are ready. 

Ella Azoulay: Hello, can you hear me? Great, thank you so much for the opportunity to comment 

during this hearing. My name is Ella Azoulay and today I speak on behalf of Generation Progress. 

Higher education is supposed to be one of the best ways to achieve long term economic stability, yet 

many students and family, in fact, one in three young people become burdened with student debt to

reach the steppingstone toward the American dream. The flaws in the system most harm low income 

borrowers, Black borrowers and borrowers with low balances who did not complete a degree. My 

comments today will focus on fixing their payment system canceling student debt, strengthening, 

cohort default, rates, helping defaulted borrowers, and providing better student loan data broken 

down by race. 

First, there are too many confusing and badly designed student loan repayment options, and it is too 

difficult for students to access the best income driven or payment plans that is affordable to them. 

Even in IDR, some students still cannot afford the payments or struggle with the annual income 

recertification process. The Department should prioritize the implementation of the FUTURE act to 
ED OPE Public Hearing June 24, 2021

21

make annual recertification of income automatic. It should also change regulations to allow defaulted 

borrowers to enroll an income-based repayment and income contingent repayment as permitted 

under statute. Even with these and other regulatory tweaks, too many borrowers will continue to 

struggle with repayment. We think now is an opportune time to cancel as much data as possible for all

borrowers through your administrative authority, and you should prioritize discharging the debt of 

students who qualify for total and permanent disability and who have been deceived by predatory 

institutions. 

Second, the Department should strengthen the cohort default rate measure. While CDR is intended to 

hold colleges accountable for their poor default rates, some colleges routinely game the system to 

avoid consequences and often strand their students in a poor repayment scenario. The Department

should issue regulations that treat extended forbearance like default, strengthen the usage of 

forbearance for the benefit of the student borrower only, require colleges to disclose their default 

management contracts when third party servicers, target program reviews or institutions that 

consistently engage in forbearance abuse, and fix the OPE ID issue that allows brand campuses to mask 

their high default rates by reporting under the main campus. 

Third, the Department can do more to prevent struggling borrowers from defaulting. One such 

borrower told us her story. Alisa is a multiracial multi-racial first-generation college student who 

attended college and graduate school with the dream of helping improve the education and mental 

health systems. Despite going to public colleges, she now holds over 130,000 in student loans and 

doesn't see any end to paying off her debt. Her monthly payments are over $1,000 and she currently 

cannot afford them with her salary. Right now, her loans are in default which is troubling knowing 

that the current system of garnishing wages and tax benefits is highly punitive. ED should prioritize 

replacing this system with more humane one that helps borrowers get into good financial standing. 

This means removing administrative wage garnishment with the terms of income-based repayment,

ending the use of the Treasury offset program for force collections and collection charges, and creating 

a statute of limitations on collections. 

Finally, it is important for the Department to keep in mind that Black borrowers struggle more than 

others to pay off their student loans. Research from the Center for American Progress in Brookings 

Institute show that Black borrowers are more likely to borrow for school in student loans and are twice 

as likely to default then as white borrowers. The Department can do more to address the Black student 

loan crisis by providing better data on student loan outcomes, broken out by race and wealth. We also 

need data like student loan status categories and cohort default rates that are collected and made

public over longer time periods to better understand borrower outcomes. 

Expanding data collection would help the Department and researchers learn more about how 

America’s 1.6 trillion dollars in student loan debt affects various student groups. Unless something is 

done to address the gaps in the system that harms students like Alisa, many student borrowers will 

remain in precarious financial situations that prevent them from making ends meet or achieving the 

American dream. Thank you for your time and for ensuring that young people and student loan 

borrowers we work with, like Alisa, are given a platform in this process. 

Greg Martin: Thank you Ms. Azoulay, we appreciate your comments today. Our next speaker will be 

Scott Buchanan. Mr. Buchanan, whenever you are ready. 

Scott Buchanan: Hey good morning, hope you can hear me.
ED OPE Public Hearing June 24, 2021

22

Greg Martin: We can. 

Scott Buchanan: Great, good morning, I'm Scott Buchanan. I serve as the Executive Director of the 

Student Loan Servicing Alliance. Our membership includes nearly every servicer of student loans in the 

country, including private and Pell loans, but also including all the companies, state agencies, and 

nonprofits who currently perform servicing functions as partners with FSA. Some facts about our 

performance are clear. The CFB complaint data has definitively shown that beyond the rate, the fact 

that rates and concerns or complaints on student loans have declined by 60% in the last four years. 

The complaint rate about issues that might even be about loan servicers instead of federal policy is 

0.0008% or less. 

We're happy to stack that up against performance from any other federal program, but we must 

continue to improve federal policies. One of our primary concerns is always getting complete and 

timely guidance from the Department and FSA on how it would like us to handle the portfolio of loans 

it controls, whether that relates to changes decided upon negotiated rulemaking or those that need to 

be made in the day-to-day running of the program. FSA is ultimately responsible for clarity and 

direction for us, but also American taxpayers and borrowers. While I will address several topics that 

are under considerations for neg reg, we want to be helpful to allow the Department to prioritize their 

bandwidth and focus on the matters that are most pressing. Borrowers expect FSA to be focused on 

developing and laying out a clear and actionable plan to implement payment resumption for more 

than 30 million federal student loan borrowers. For months we have asked for open discussion 

decisions. While I understand some of those key decisions and are now in active development in the 

last couple of weeks at FSA, I want to echo the sense of urgency shared by many FSA staff and 

Congress further servicer or should be given permission to communicate openly and in diverse

channels with borrowers. As soon as the Department can make those decisions, we have faced this 

issue before through multiple resumption date shifts, but borrowers now expect payment resumption 

on October 1st, and they need to plan. Yes, there are long-term improvements and we look forward to 

working together to develop through neg reg, but we cannot lose focus on issues facing borrowers

today. 

We have previously offered multiple options we want to coordinate together with that could be 

accomplished in regulation, sub-regulatory guidance or in legislation that would smooth the transition.

Options we have already including allowing for verbal recertification for IDR plans, offering extension 

of grace for those who graduated into the pandemic, providing an opt in forbearance for those who 

face ongoing financial impact from the pandemic, accelerating the process for us to add additional staff 

and ED choosing to provide the resources that would even make that possible. Once we address those 

time sensitive issues, we look forward to an opening constructive neg reg process to address some of 

the key long-term issues that the Department has rightly highlighted that we too have advocated for

some time. income driven plans through IDR in the multiple other flavors offered today need to be 

simplified and consolidated into a single option that reduces the paperwork and complicated process 

that Department and federal law requires servicers to administer. Implementation now of the FUTURE

Act provisions can go a long way, but we also must reduce a cumbersome and outdated workflow that

servicers are required to ask for ours to use. Discharge of federal loans due to total and permanent 

disability, or borrower defense to repayment or decisions that have always been made by FSA itself, 

but we support getting the clarity and consistency on these matters.
ED OPE Public Hearing June 24, 2021

23

PSLF is also an area that needs to be addressed. Congress set the rules and requirements for the 

program and so those who are today ineligible or ineligible by congressional design. Recent data 

published in the last few weeks by ED clearly shows that the rate of loan forgiveness to date is a 

function of borrowers failing to meet the requirements mandated by law. We look forward to 

continuing to work with ED to find ways to better communicate the process to borrowers regarding 

requirements that Congress has chosen to place on the program. 

To summarize, as contractors for FSA who implement your guidance, we look forward to some 

immediate decisions, but we're also looking forward to an open and frank neg reg process where we 

can each share our deep operational expertise on what works, what can improve, and drive changes 

that will make the Department's federal student loan program work better for the next generation of 

borrowers and students. Thank you. 

Greg Martin: Thank you, Mr. Buchanan. We appreciate your comments today. Our next speaker will 

be Eric Wolf, Mr. Wolff, whenever you are ready. 

Eric Wolff: Thank you for allowing me to speak. I work for an investment firm. I normally would have 

no reason to be in a call like this, I have no financial incentive in anything we discuss other than that I 

am a citizen that votes and pays taxes and is outraged by the stories that have been discussed today 

and many others that will probably never be aired. I researched publicly traded companies, as 

everyone knows, a lot of for-profit education companies compose, very frankly, a lot of the debt crisis 

that we face are publicly traded. As part of that, I found occasion to kind of get involved researching 

this. I probably spent two months researching this and I was just disgusted by what I saw and what I 

learned. Obviously, it's a complicated problem. It's great to see the government trying to adjust and I

don't know how to solve that high-level issue, but I do know one specific instance that the government 

could do something today to help people out that are struggling and to prevent another call like this in 

four to six years when the issues that have created the student debt crisis persists because more 

complicated issues aren’t addressed. Namely, in my view, the predatory nature of for profit 

institutions and the economic incentive they have to get money from the Department of ED to make 

profits for their shareholders at the expense of people on this call today and others affected that then 

spend the rest of their lives paying off their debt. I want to talk about the company Walden University. 

You may have heard of. If you don't, you should. As of 2014, Walden students had $10 billion of debt 

outstanding as people probably also know if you look at the largest schools that have debt outstanding

in many cases, they are for profits. I think the University of Phoenix is number 1 so I don't see how we 

can have any conversation about borrower defense without discussing those responsible for getting 

students in debt. Let's just talk about Walden specifically. If you think about Walden’s 10 billion 

student loan outstanding, they were I think the 2nd largest recipient of Title IV funding. At roughly $400 

million last year taxpayers and students have a graduation rate of about 15 to 20% and very poor 

student outcomes. I want to focus very specifically on one particularly egregious thing that they're 

doing which is representative I think on a lot of the issues we faced that are being discussed today 

several years after the fact, and that is their MSN, their nurse practitioner program. So, Walden’s 

entirely graduate, about 80% graduate education, there’s very little graduate information available to

the public on graduate programs. There's very good information available on undergrad programs, but 

graduate programs there's basically nothing. They have 10,000 students enrolled in their MSN, their 

practitioner program, these are working nurses that in many cases are employed trying to improve

their career prospects in their building and their ability to help patients by get more schooling. 
ED OPE Public Hearing June 24, 2021

24

They are two to three-year programs and it's about $40,000 a year. I want to say 80% or so of the 

students, probably more than that frankly, at Walden are getting Title IV funding for the Masters in 

Nurse Practitioner Program. What you need to know as part of their Nurse Practitioner program 

someone needs to complete roughly 4 clinicals practices. That is basically for lack of a better word, 

people from med school, the concept of kind of interning or doing clinicals at the hospital is basically 

what's required as part of the graduation process. However, at Walden and other Master’s in nurse

practitioner programs are basically getting away. After about 2 years of study where those students 

now $80,000 in debt and they let know that you're responsible for finding their own clinicals, which 

basically means that the students must call a bunch of people and try and get three or four different

practices to allow you to work those clinicals shifts for free. As you can imagine, that's not particularly 

effective, and so what ends up happening is you have tens of thousands of students, working nurses,

that are working during COVID and other things like that are stuck with $80,000 of student loan debt 

and no ability graduate, and the only reason that exists is that the schools are unwilling to spend the 

resources to support students in finding clinicals so they can graduate. The cost of this is massive. It's 

over $100 million a year just for Walden University. A couple of things about Walden specifically, 

Walden is owned by a company called Laureate Education. Laureate Education has over $900 million 

of cash. I have no idea how we're talking about forgiving student loans while at the same time public 

companies like Laureate which have benefited from their fraud on students. I had no idea why we're 

paying for that and they're not paying for that. Any other topic for another day.

In this case, one thing that's very interesting about the Department of ED’s ability to do something 

about it is they're in process of being bought by another for profit education company called Adtalem. 

As part of that, there's a Department of ED review into the program and whether they should change. 

I strongly urge Department of ED if they have any questions Eric Wolff Capital. ED should take into this 

and not allow the transaction to occur and as part of that should pull Title IV funding for this and other 

organizations facing these issues. Thank you. 

Greg Martin: Thank you, Mr. Wolff, we appreciate your comments today. Our next speaker is Maya

Weinstein. Ms. Weinstein, whenever you are ready. 

Maya Weinstein: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Department's rulemaking agenda. 

I’m Maya Weinstein from Student Defense, a nonprofit that works to ensure that higher education 

provides a launching point for economic mobility. In alignment with this goal, we urge the Department

to add key topics to the rulemaking agenda that address current inequities in the federal student loan 

system. This includes revisiting standards for undue hardship claims in bankruptcy to remove 

unnecessary barriers to student’s abilities to discharge their educational debts. 

Each year, a quarter of a million-student loan debtor’s file for bankruptcy. Single women, older people,

and Black households disproportionately file. In fact, Black borrowers with a college degree are just as 

likely to file as black borrowers without. Of those debtors only 300 exit bankruptcy having discharge 

their educational loans, a success rate of just 0.1%. The other 99.9% are denied the fresh start that our 

nation’s consumer bankruptcy system promises to provide to honest, but unfortunate debtors.

Borrower Jamie Mud was a bankruptcy discharge success story, be at under the easier totality of the 

circumstances test. Even so, the Department took extreme measures to prevent discharge. 

Miss Mud work three jobs, seven days per week making less than $30,000 per year as the primary 

caretaker for her 17-year old grandson with autism. Despite her testimony that she purchased Netflix 

and other streaming services to keep her grandson occupied, the Department insinuated that our 
ED OPE Public Hearing June 24, 2021

25

monthly expenses did not reflect sufficient belt tightening and argue that providing support for her 

grandchild was unreasonable. Meanwhile, the Department has failed to aggressively pursue more 

than 1300 higher education institutions including Miss Mugs’ that together billions of dollars in 

outstanding liabilities. The Department now has an opportunity to address these unpaid liabilities by 

strengthening at administrative capability and financial responsibility of regulations. 

While there are steps that the Department can take and its discretion to ease the burden of 

discharging student loans in bankruptcy, negotiated rulemaking as appropriate to ensure long lasting

change. We recommend three revisions. First the Department should alter the presumption about 

when to contest undue hardship claims. Currently, the Department in its guarantee agencies 

presumptively contest these claims. The Department should either flip this presumption to one where 

it will not contest or create categories of student loan debtors whose claims will not be contested. The 

Department should also re-examine its cost assessment formula. The current formula disadvantages 

student loan debtors by excluding the cost of appeals using the current loan balance plus interest and 

fees and set up the original disbursement amount and failing to consider the likelihood of repayment if 

discharge is denied. 

Second, the Department should promulgate factors consistent with the case law before contesting 

undue hardship claims. The Department's 2015 guidelines rely on an overly rigid application of case 

law regarding education loan discharge ability. ED should rescind that guidance through new 

regulations that require analysis of the borrower’s present ability to pay their student loans after 

covering basic necessities. With respect to feature ability to pay, ED should consider the original 10-

year repayment window and standard repayment amount only, not possible eligibility for income 

driven repayment plans. The Department should collect data on student loan debtors who pursue 

undue hardship discharges and bankruptcy and publish that data in aggregate form. Of course, keep 

front end accountability reforms like reinstating the gainful employment rule. This can help prevent 

thousands of students from ever reaching the point of bankruptcy before rulemaking begins. The 

Department should immediately ask the Social Security Administration to reinstate the memorandum

of understanding to share data to calculate the debt to earnings rates, engage in a dual agency 

rulemaking with the SSA to ensure this data sharing process becomes binding on both agencies and 

analyze and publish data at already has a debt to earnings rates, program level cohort default rates, 

and the repayment rates from the last five years. Thank you for your time. We will also submit a 

written comment further detailing these issues. 

Greg Martin: Thank you, Ms. Weinstein, we extremely appreciate your comments today. As I indicated 

at the beginning of this public hearing, we were able to add an additional half hour today that will 

allow additional people to share their comments. So, we're moving into that phase now and the next 

speakers will be limited to 3 minutes so this is not indicative of the Department prioritizing of any 

other comments, or to say that their comments are not every bit as important as the ones that were 

shared previously, it's just that we wanted to give as many people the opportunity to speak as possible, 

so that is why in this next phase the subsequent speakers will be limited to 3 minutes for their 

comments. Our first speaker in this additional time-period will be Theresa Sweet. Ms. Sweet,

whenever you are ready. OK, I'm going to move on to Leslie Brathwaite. Ms. Brathwaite, whenever 

you are ready. I'm told Ms. Sweet is available but on mute, so Ms. Sweet would you please unmute 

yourself and see if we can hear you. OK, it appears that we are unable to connect Ms. Sweet. 

At this time, I'm told that John Patrick Hunt will be next so Mr. Hunt if you would like to begin your 

comments please. 
ED OPE Public Hearing June 24, 2021

26

John Hunt: Hi can you hear me? Thank you. I tried to comment yesterday but was unable to connect

so thank you for the second chance. My name is John Hunt and I'm a professor of law at the University 

of California Davis, also known as King Hall after Martin Luther King Jr. I have written several articles

on student loans, particularly on bankruptcy discharge ability and I have two brief related points today:

one big picture and one more specific. The overarching point is that student loan programs are not 

just loan programs, they’re educational programs. Congress’s purposes in creating them were to

provide equal educational opportunity, educate the population, promote freedom of career choice, 

and importantly to help student borrowers that apparently is legally obligated to regulate the student 

loan programs to promote their purposes. Overly harsh collection policies can frustrate the purposes 

of the programs. Such policies can deter students from pursuing higher education, warp career 

decisions, and harm student borrowers. So, in deciding how stringent to be about collections the 

Department must weigh the interesting collection against the educational purpose of the loan 

programs. 

This brings me to my specific point, which is that the Department must act on consent to student loan

bankruptcy discharge, point that was just raised by Ms. Weinstein. The Department raised this issue 

in 2018 with request for information and received very robust public feedback, but it doesn't seem 

that the issue is on the Department's agenda anymore, judging from the notice for this hearing. The

existing rules on consent to bankruptcy discharge have their origins with Secretary Bennett. In the 

1980s, they were badly in need of systematic updating for technical reasons such as being incomplete, 

non-uniform, and ambiguous, but more importantly, the existing rules seem to be based on a collect, 

collect mindset. Just one example, the July 7, 2015 Dear Colleague Letter on the subject speaks of the 

duty to protect the integrity of taxpayer dollars and the obligation to collect debts without mentioning 

any of the countervailing educational goals of the programs. The Department should take account of 

the educational purposes of the programs and consent to bankruptcy discharge more readily. A recent 

Colorado Law Review article contains an important proposal along these lines, not written by me, 

written by other professors. 

The proposal is that the Department grant consent to discharge through an administrative process in 

certain defined situations. For example, if the debtors been living in poverty for the last four years, 

such an administrative system would reduce the procedural barriers that are probably the main reason 

that only about one in 500 bankrupt debtors with student loans even try to get them discharged. 

Probably 200,000 people with student loans in our bankruptcy each year declaring in the starkest 

possible way that they need help. The Department should take heed and liberalize its rules on consent 

to student loan bankruptcy discharge. In doing so, it would go beyond acting as a bank and further it's

critical educational mission. Thank you. 

Greg Martin: Thank you, Mr. Hunt, we appreciate your comments today. Our next speaker will be 

Darryl Crutchfield. Mr. Crutchfield, whenever you are ready. Want to remind all our speakers they 

need to turn on their video feed and unmute themselves. 

Darryl Crutchfield: Hello Sir. I like to thank you for having me on today. I know you're very busy and I 

appreciate you having this meeting as well. My name is Darryl Crutchfield, I am the CEO and Chairman 

of High-level Hollywood. I am also an alumnus from Los Angeles Film School, so I would just like to 

speak about my time there and how I benefitted at the school. As the topic has been going on, I would 

like to say first, I could not complain one time about the price I paid for going to that school. At the 

time when I started this school, I was not a wealthy person at all. I grew up in South Central Los 

Angeles, so poverty was all over the place, but I knew I had to get to that school and go to that school. 
ED OPE Public Hearing June 24, 2021

27

If I had to do it again, I'll do it all over again at LA film school. LA film school gave me the power and 

knowledge and the feeling that I can make it. The education system with there, the teachers were

surprisingly helping you out no matter what. They were Academy Award winning and Emmy Award 

winning teachers and they didn't just talk about their life. They taught you what they learn in the field, 

which was very valuable. So, they went above and beyond the academic. They also gave you the tricks

of the trade that they learned while they were in the business so that was a great thing. Also, now with 

my hard work and determination and what I learned at LA film school from those instructors now I 

own my own independent entertainment company and now I can hire people, hundreds and hundreds 

of people through my company because I went to that school and they taught me everything I needed 

to do so it’s a great school, I wouldn't trade it for anything. Just want to say that about LA Film School. 

I get a little flustered when I think about this school because I love the school that much. The 

instructors were great, the education was there, the connections, they help you with jobs. They bring 

the employer to you, they had job fairs at the school, I've never seen a school that brings the employer 

to you and let you hand in your resume, I never seen that. I also did all kinds of different volunteer 

work like that like the Writers Guild, the Producers Guild, all through LA Film School. 

I ended up on a TV project as a co-producer all because of LA film school and the connection that they

had. I cannot complain about LA film school at all, not the price, not the grant, nothing. I just want to 

go on record as to say that and I thank you again for having me so yeah, thank you very much. 

Greg Martin: Thank you, Mr. Crutchfield, we appreciate your comments today. We are going back to 

Ms. Sweet, if you’re available.

Theresa Sweet: Hi, my name is Theresa Sweet. I am the named plaintiff in Sweet v. DeVos, now

Secretary Cardona. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. In the mid-2000s I graduated from a 

for profit trade school that left me with a student loan debt that now totals over 500,000 and my 

degree is worthless. The specifics of my story are by this point easily available through various news 

sites as well as the Harbor Project on predatory student lending. When I attended the Brooks Institute

it was owned by a company that was then called Career Education Corporation. Over the years, that 

company has become known as one of the worst bad actors in the for-profit education arena. Their 

enrollment salespersons lied to prospective students all the way through the recruitment process. 

They turned thousands of students through that diploma mill. Of just 505 of those students shows a 

combined federal and private loan debt of over $70 million. Yes, you heard that correctly, 505

students, over $70 million. 

One of the biggest reasons this continued to go on is that for profits didn't abide by the same 

regulations and reporting as state schools. In particular, the gainful employment rule which should be 

put in place for all schools. For profits tend to have much higher student loan debt, lower graduation 

rates, higher loan defaults, and poorer student outcomes overall, and I believe a big part of that is 

because they've been allowed to exist in an unregulated free for all compared to state and community 

colleges. Worst still, Betsy DeVos stacked her inner circle at DOE with the shark suited lackeys and 

lobbyists of the for-profit education industry. They rewrote the rules of borrower’s defense to make it 

nearly impossible for scammed students to get justice or relief. Having for profit education anywhere

near the rulemaking table at DOE is a conflict of interest so vulgar I can scarcely find the words to 

describe it politely. 

The new DOE needs to restore good faith reviews of borrower’s defense applications and expedite the 

process for those of us who have been waiting for years for our applications to be properly reviewed, 
ED OPE Public Hearing June 24, 2021

28

especially when it has now become blindingly apparent who the bad actors in this industry are. There 

were already good rules, fair and just rules in place, please restore them without haste. Students and 

parents are out there right now, hoping to improve their lives with education, but they are on the 

verge of being scammed and this cannot be allowed to happen. These companies are sucking up 

billions of federal dollars, and that should enrage taxpayers across the political spectrum. Those 

seeking higher education should not be condemned to a lifetime of inescapable debt from attending

schools that probably should not be allowed to operate in the first place. I'm always available to speak 

more or be involved in this process and I would be very much honored to do so. 

Greg Martin: Thank you Ms. Sweet, we appreciate your comments today. Our next speaker is 

Sebastian Krys. Mr. Krys, whenever you are ready. 

Sebastian Krys: Hi, can you hear me?

Greg Martin: We can.

Sebastian Chris: OK great. Thank you for allowing me to do this. My name is Sebastian Chris, I am an 

18-time Grammy Award winning music producer and small business owner and I am a 1991 Full Sail 

University graduate from the Recording Arts program. I'm here today to speak about the concept of 

gainful employment and the potential consequences an institution like Full Sail University. I'd like to 

say that I don't think we can put all nonprofit schools in the same category and that's why I want to 

speak about Full Sail.

I came to this country as an undocumented immigrant fleeing military dictatorship at the age of nine. 

My father was a travel agent, my mother a schoolteacher. I attended public school and unfortunately 

was not a great student. After high school I found Full Sail, which was the only school that accepted

me to pursue my dream of being in the music business. There are very few universities around the 

country or the world for that matter which provide programs for people wanting to get in front of

payment, and almost none of them are public universities. My career path started at the very bottom, 

I didn't know anyone in the music industry and Full Sail and their career development department

provided tools to get my foot in the door, through them I secured an internship, I did menial tasks like 

serve coffee, hot food, and cleaned the studio. Generally, I ran around and did whatever needed to 

happen. The studio was owned by Gloria and Emilio Estefan, and I was honestly just happy to have my

foot in the door in the industry, even if it was serving coffee and cleaning bathrooms. 

After years of hard work, I started engineering and eventually became a producer and a very successful 

one. This was a 10-year long journey as it is for most people in our industry, you don't graduate school 

and pick up a Grammy at the door. Throughout my career, I have met Full Sail grads that have worked

on everything from Game of Thrones, Pixar films, and have won Oscars. I've personally hired students

to be my interns who are currently VPs of major record companies and award-winning producers. Off

the top of my head I can think of at least two dozen examples in my immediate circle of working at a 

very high-level in our industry. From my actual lab group at school, which consisted of six students 

four are working in entertainment and have been for over two decades. I think that we would all 

consider ourselves gainfully employed. Equating student success to their income level is incredibly 

important, but it is important that these metrics be applied across the board, to all students attending 

all institutions, we can't afford to take a machete to a problem that requires a scalpel. 
ED OPE Public Hearing June 24, 2021

29

There is no other institution like Full Sail in the world and we should learn from them and not punished 

them for what they have built. Without them, I would not have had a career in the music business, 

period. When you think about all the music, movies, TV shows, games, and technology that kept many 

of us sane and connected during the pandemic, I will guarantee that thousands of Full Sail grads made 

that possible. Thank you. 

Greg Martin: Thank you, Mr. Krys, we appreciate your comments today. Our next speaker is Laura Diaz 

de Acre. Mrs. Acre, whenever you are ready. 

Laura Diaz de Acre: Hi, my name is Laura, today I would like to talk to you about student loans. I'm 

sure anyone attending this is familiar with the statistics behind student loans, the 1.8 trillion in debt, 

the levels in default etc. In cases like mine where I borrowed $27,000 in federal student loans, I have 

paid back over $22,000 and still owe $33,000. These figures are daunting but do little to fully express

the entire human cost of the situation. 

My story is not that unique. I'm a first-generation American, first-generation college student from a 

blue-collar family. I graduated 6 in my class with a 5.09 GPA, 10 passed AP exams and over 1000 

service hours. I worked my entire scholastic life for the opportunity to attend college. I went to a state 

school. The loans I took out with the understandings that these were my only option to fund my 

education after scholarships had been exhausted were done so under the duress of having no other 

financial options, loans with exceedingly high interest, and predatory lenders that took advantage not 

only in my naivete, but my desperate desire for education. I then graduated into recessed economy 

that made it impossible to find full-time well-paying work. Even though I was paying, my total balances 

went from $45,000 to $90,000 in a few short years. There are so many of us suffering from the 

perpetual tax on social mobility that is paralyzed our ability to do things just that we're just a 

generation ago were commonplace, it’s made it impossible for us to try new careers or start a 

business, it has made it impossible for many to get married, to have children or buy a house. While 

forgiveness programs became the touted solution, and it's clear that these programs are massive 

failures; the qualifications are over complex and administered by student loan servicers that have a 

vested interest in ensuring that people do not qualify for forgiveness and whatever solution is 

implemented, it needs to be done swiftly without complication and before the moratorium on student 

loans ends and needs to be widespread and simple or US taxpayers will spend millions on what could 

be several years long audit to try and correct the perpetual drag on our economy. The toxicity of the 

existing structure means we may be pouring resources into a collapsing system. That blanket 

forgiveness will be the most expedient and equitable solution. The fruit has rotted, you need to throw 

it out. 

My years since graduation have molded me into a member of this hopeless and bittered and battered

generation. The situation is that you can take a 30-year mortgage on a four-year degree, an item that 

depreciates over time that you cannot live in. It's taught me that the institutional and societal 

disadvantages do not disappear after your diploma. Most of all its taught me that we punish the poor 

and middle class for daring to seek an education above their station with student loans. I should have 

realized I was too poor to deserve an education. Thank you for your time. 

Greg Martin: Thank you, Mrs. Acre, we appreciate your comments today. We're going to go back to 

pick up with Leslie Brathwaite. 

Leslie Brathwaite: Hello, can you hear me? 
ED OPE Public Hearing June 24, 2021

30

Greg Martin: Yes, I can hear you and can also see you. 

Leslie Brathwaite: Okay, wonderful. I'm just here to briefly talk about gainful employment and the 

good actors in the space. For me, I am a 1992 graduate of Full Sail University, I’m a mix engineer, I live 

in Atlanta, I've mixed records for Beyonce, Cardi B, Michael Jackson, Cher, I’m a 20-time Grammy 

winner. For me and many like me, our education was valuable. Much like Sebastian Krys who spoke 

earlier, we graduated from Full Sail and we get out in these industries and we must intern. Sometimes 

it can take a year, maybe a year and a half before we are seeing profits and gains from our

employment. So, a lot of times I do recognize that there are bad actors in that space. There are schools 

that predatory that take advantage of students and their dreams and XYZ. But I'm here just to state 

clearly on the record of Full Sail. One thing that stands out is their commitment to making sure that 

those of us who graduate from Full Sail can audit courses for free reprogram. So, I was saying that I 

just feel like the fact that it's a relationship with Full Sail University and I'm allowed to audit courses in 

my field for the rest of my life for free. In our field, things changed. The way we recorded records in 

1992, was very different from the way we record records now and we can continue our education and

continue this relationship with this university. So, again just a small example in my opinion of why Full 

Sail University is a good actor in this space. Thank you for your time. 

Greg Martin: Thank you, Mr. Braithwaite, we appreciate your comments today. Our next speaker will 

be John Mullane, Mr. Mullane, whenever you are ready. 

John Mullane: Thank you. Can you hear me?

Greg Martin: We can. 

John Mullane: OK, great, thank you. My name is John Mullane and I'm the president and founder of 

College Transfer Solutions (CTS). CTS provides research policy, advocacy, and consulting to help 

colleges and universities better serve transfer students. Over the past 15 years working with 

community college students have seen the obstacles they face when it comes to completing their 

degrees and transferring their credits. I put out several studies on this issue and this research and 

advocacy shined a light on the issue of students losing transfer credits. I'd like to discuss regulations

that the Department can implement, it can address gaps in postsecondary outcomes such as retention 

and completion, particularly for low income, minority, and first-generation college students. The

Department must address the problems with student transfer between community colleges and fouryear schools. The average transfer student loses over 40% of their credits. My previous research, as 

well as data from the National Center for Education Statistics in the GAO would suggest the average 

community college student who transfers to lose over 20% of their credits. This loss of credit would be

equivalent to almost an entire semester of credits and would delay the students time to graduate. 

Fixing the broken transfer critic system would save students, states, and the federal government 

billions of dollars each year and make higher education more affordable and accessible for all students, 

especially the low income, minority, and first-generation college students they are more likely to begin 

their undergraduate studies at community colleges. With the cost of higher education soaring and 

states facing huge budget deficits, community colleges are the last affordable route to a bachelor’s

degree for many middle-and lower-income students. 
ED OPE Public Hearing June 24, 2021

31

The national conversation about college access, affordability, graduation rates and the 1.7 trillion in 

student loan debt seems to miss the transfer credit issue. For many students the most affordable and

successful route to a bachelor’s degree is a community college. This is especially true for low income 

minority and first-generation college students who are more likely to begin their undergraduate 

studies at a community college. That conversation also misses the fact that fixing the broken transfer 

credit system is the best way to help these students graduate on time with less debt and save the 

student, states, and the federal government billions of dollars each year. When students take classes at 

their state community colleges, those college level courses and credits should transfer and apply to 

their bachelor's degree at their state university. This is a bipartisan issue. Students should not be 

losing credits when transferring within their own state public higher education system. We need to 

put a system in place to prevent this from happening. According to the National Student 

Clearinghouse Research Center, 38% of all college students will transfer at least once before 

completing a bachelor’s degree. Most students will transfer either into or out of a community college.

In community college, transfer students represent 49%, nearly half of all students who complete 

bachelor’s degrees in the United States each year.

While proposals for free community college dominate the headlines, the fact is that for many students, 

community colleges are already free, the main problem is that students do not have a clear path 

through these institutions that will allow them to fully transfer their credits and apply them to a

bachelor’s degree at a public four-year institution. Around 80% of community college students who 

transfer do not complete their degree before transferring. The solution to this problem would be for 

the federal government and states to enact legislation mandating statewide transfer pathways 

between community colleges and four-year schools and many states have laws that govern transfer 

credits and very few states fully enforce those credits to ensure students can get through their

institutions and graduate on time. I appreciate your time and attention to this matter. 

Greg Martin: Thank you, Mr. Mullane, we appreciate your comments. Our next speaker will be David 

Nichols. Mr. Nichols, whenever you are ready. You are still on mute. Can you hear me Mr. Nichols? OK, 

unfortunately we can't hear you. I'll tell you what we will go on to our next speaker and come back to 

you. 

David Nichols: Can you hear me now?

Greg Martin: Yes, I can.

David Nichols: Alright great thank you and thanks for the opportunity to comment again. My name is 

David Nichols. I'm the vice president of Regulatory Affairs at Adtalem Global Education. I'm here today 

on behalf of the Title IV participating institutions and the nearly 41,000 health profession students we 

serve. Our purpose is to empower students to achieve their goals, find success, and make inspiring 

contributions to our global community. One way we do this is by investing in and providing quality 

academic programs that leads to successful outcomes that we agree with the Department that 

heighten institutional accountability is a critical factor for student success and job opportunity. So, we 

support the underlying premise of gainful employment and agree that aspects of the former GE rules 

were beneficial. However, there is the possibility of unintended consequences. Within our family of 

institutions, we have a clear example of an exceptional program, our DVM offered by y Ross University 

School of Veterinary Medicine, that may have been negatively impacted based on the 2015 GE rules as 

they were written. Ross Vet’s outcomes provide clear, quantified evidence of a professional education 

program that graduate students who are contributing significantly to the U.S. workforce. These are 
ED OPE Public Hearing June 24, 2021

32

students that are passing their licensing examinations and repaying their Title IV loans yet would fall 

into the “zone” under former GE rules. Looking forward, we would like to provide a few solutions that 

apply to all high-quality graduate programs. We respectfully ask the committee to consider during 

negotiating rulemaking. First, evaluate other performance measures that provide more flexibility 

throughout such as those licensor pass rates and local cohort default rate for that talked about. Next 

consider the value of the disclosures required under GE. We find these disclosures very useful and 

believe that they would be informative for all students regardless of your program or institution type. 

For instance, we could consider eliminating the zone as a pathway to ineligibility, but rather use it as a 

high-debt warning disclosure. Finally, given that the original intent of GE was to focus on lower 

credential programs possibly not providing enough return compared to other student and taxpayer 

investment perhaps we should consider graduate and professional degree programs from the punitive 

aspect of GE while still collecting and reporting on those data outcomes. Thank you again for allowing 

me to comment and for considering our concerns and propose solutions. 

Greg Martin: Thank you, Mr. Nichols, we appreciate your comments. Our final. speaker for this 

morning will be Margaret DiZenga. Ms. DiZenga, whenever you are ready. 

Margaret DiZenga: Hi, thanks for allowing me to join you. I'm Margaret DiZenga, director of the Center 

on Sentencing and Corrections at the Vera Institute of Justice (Vera). Vera is a 60-year-old organization 

that brings data evidence in solutions to end mass incarceration. We currently provide technical 

assistance to the network of 100 colleges and correction agencies in 42 states in DC that participate in 

the Department and Second Chance Pell experimental sites initiative. Based on the lessons learned 

through Second Chance Pell, I would like to address two topics specific to incarcerated students. 

First, the process for individuals who are seeking to rehabilitate their loans must be updated. As the 

Department's report on the first two years of Second Chance Pell states “if students took any kind of 

postsecondary coursework prior to incarceration, they're most often in default loan status.” The 

report details various challenges that financial aid directors and correctional staff face as they try to 

help students set up payments to rehabilitate their loans and how that process was only successful if 

students had someone outside of prison who could help them, which was often not the case. 

The reality detailed in ED’s report correlate with the current process for an individual seeking to 

rehabilitate their loan. These require that students must agree in writing to make nine voluntary 

reasonable and affordable monthly payments within 20 days of the due date and make all nine 

payments during a period of 10 consecutive months. Currently, many individuals seeking to 

rehabilitate their loans so they can access their Pell eligibility have to make for example nine payments 

of $5 a month at a minimum, totaling $45.00. The problem we've seen across most of the Second 

Chance Pell sites in addition to the amount of money required for people who often have none is the 

nine monthly payments. Many people who are incarcerated have great difficulty establishing a bank 

account so they can’t make direct deposits so they must go through a process of organizing money 

orders to be sent monthly. The logistics of doing this while incarcerated are exceptionally difficult and 

the financial burdens are significant. What may seem like a simple $5 payment could quickly turn into 

double or triple that amount. For example, money orders can cost up to $5 each and if an individual 

wishes to send the payment through the mail, there is the additional expense of an envelope and 

stamp. One-time mail delivery can also be a major concern if someone opts for third-party payment 

service. Sending the $5 payment could cost an additional $8.99. We ask that ED please support a onetime lump sum payment option for people to rehabilitate their loans. 
ED OPE Public Hearing June 24, 2021

33

Second, loan cancellation programs must include people who are incarcerated. As the Biden 

administration considers loan forgiveness for low-income Americans, we would ask that people who 

are incarcerated not be excluded in any broad reaching efforts, or if there's a more targeted approach 

to reach specific populations that they are included as a target population. Through Second Chance 

Pell, we're seeing prospective students with debts less than $5000 with some students owing just a

few $100. By including these students in any loan forgiveness measures, ED can ensure that students 

make the most of post-secondary education opportunities so that when they return home to our 

communities, they are in a better position to take care of themselves and their families. Additionally, 

supporting these students access to opportunity will be a positive step forward in addressing the racial 

inequities that result in the over incarceration of people of color. We look forward to continuing to 

work with ED to ultimately expand access to high quality post-secondary education for people in 

prison. Thank you all so much for your time today. 

Greg Martin: Thank you, Ms. DiZenga, we appreciate your comments this morning. I want to thank 

everybody who joined us this morning for sharing their comments with us. That concludes our 

morning session. We will reconvene at 2:00 PM Eastern Daylight Savings time today. Thank you very 

much and goodbye. 

Greg Martin: Good afternoon and thank you for your attendance at our virtual hearing today. This is 

the afternoon portion of the third and final public hearing that we are conducting this week, my name 

is Greg Martin. I am the director of the Policy Development Group in the Office of Postsecondary 

Education. I'm joined today by Nicholas Lee, who is the Deputy Assistant Secretary with the Office of 

Planning, Education, Policy and Development and Todd Davis who is our attorney with the Office of

General Counsel. With respect to today's hearing, I will call your name to present. When it's time for 

you to speak, we ask that speakers limit their comments to five minutes. We have a bit of a different 

format today because we have been able to add an additional half hour to the end of today's session. 

We were scheduled to end it for 4:00 o'clock eastern Daylight Savings Time, we will now go till 4:30, 

However, to add as many people as we could to this additional half hour and give everybody an 

opportunity to speak. Those who are speaking between 4:00 and 4:30 will be limited to 3 minutes, and 

I will make that announcement when we make that switch over, but those who had signed up 

previously will still have the five minutes that they were given. At that time when you've reached your

maximum time, if you're still speaking, I'll give you a warning that you have an additional 15 seconds. If 

you exceed that time, you may be muted. As a speaker, you have the option to have your camera on 

or off. That's at your discretion, however, we do need to have your microphone unmuted so that we 

can hear you. Make sure you do that before you begin to speak. In consideration of others, we ask 

that you do silence your cell phones, and perhaps most importantly, we ask speakers to remain on 

mute before being called and after presenting we ask speakers leave the Microsoft Teams meeting and 

join the public Microsoft Teams meeting. If you are a speaker and you do not mute yourself when not 

presenting or speak when it is not your turn, we will administratively mute you from the Microsoft 

Teams meeting and may remove you from the speaker line. You can always join the Microsoft Teams 

Live meeting as an attendee where you can listen to the hearing. This hearing is being transcribed and 

the transcription will be posted on our website within the next few weeks. The Department also plans 

to post a recording of these hearings with audio and video. This is a public hearing and it is possible 

that a member of the public may record your remarks and post edited clips of them before or after the 

Department posts the full, unedited version of the hearing. 
ED OPE Public Hearing June 24, 2021

34

Closed captioning is also available in real time during the hearing. To use live captions in a meeting go 

to your meeting controls and select “more options,” then turn on the live captions. If you are 

submitting written comments, we encourage you to do so through the regulations.gov website. You 

may also submit comments through postal mail, commercial delivery or by hand delivery. Due to the 

COVID-19 pandemic, if you wish to hand deliver comments, please email Vanessa.Gomez@ed.gov. She 

will coordinate with front desk staff in the lobby of the Department of Education's building at 400 

Maryland Ave. Southwest Washington DC so that you can leave your comments there. We will not 

accept comments by fax. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, please submit your 

comments only once. In addition, indicate the docket ID that is ED-2021-OPE-0077 at the top of your 

comments. You will also use that number to quickly access the place to submit your comments using 

the regulations.gov website. We will now begin our afternoon hearing by calling on our first speaker. 

And our first speaker today is Shannon Martin Dilly, whenever you are ready. 

Shannon Dilley: Thank you, good afternoon. My name is Shannon Dilley. I want to thank you for this 

opportunity to speak on the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program. I'm a 41-year-old environmental 

attorney in California. I grew up very poor and like most folks who do not have means, the only 

opportunity for me to go to college and law school was to take out loans. I've been in practice for 

about 10 years and I've worked as a government attorney for about half that time. I make about 1/3 of 

what I would make in private practice. I live paycheck to paycheck. My student loan debt is $270,000 

in public loans and $84,000 in private loans. $354,000 is a hefty amount and surpasses what I owe on 

my home. Every month I pay 2 mortgages, one for my home and one for my student loans. My

discharge date is supposedly 2026. Until then, my life is on hold. My student loan debt has had 

significant impacts on my life. One, I cannot get married because I cannot combine income, otherwise 

my student loan payment will go up even more and could put my discharge in peril. Two, I cannot 

have children because I cannot afford children with my hefty student loan payment. Three, my 

student loan debt has impacted my purchasing of a house. The loans disqualified me for the first-time

homebuyer opportunities, or I do not contribute to the economy because I really cannot afford to. 

Five, I cannot take promotion opportunities because I can't make more money. Six, I cannot teach on 

the side, which I really want to do because I cannot make more money. Seven, I contribute minimum 

to my retirement because I cannot afford to contribute more. Eight, every month I have anxiety about 

my student loan payment. What if a glitch occurs in my payment and did not go through? Am I kicked 

out of the program? Nine, I must log everything and keep very detailed records for ten years. This is a 

very long time. And ten, most important, I can't help my mother, who has a rare type of leukemia pay 

for her treatment, so she's not getting treatment because she can't afford it either. She will die and 

there's nothing I can do about it because like her, I too don't have the means in part because of my 

student loans. 

And here the program has a 99% application disapproval. Not only is the program overly complicated, 

it hides the ball and people do not know the issues until it's too late. I made real life decisions with 

very real impacts based on the availability of this program. People ask me how I drag myself out of 

poverty and I tell them I have not, I'm still in poverty. My student loans are my perpetual purgatory 

reminding me every day that I have and will continue to have the chains of poverty grips tightly around 

my ankles. I hope to one day be free. I ask you 1) do not dissolve this program. People like myself have 

made real decisions based on the availability of the program and detrimentally relied on the program 

2) streamline the program and make it easier means that your program does not work as intended 3) 

The Department of Education is now issuing denial letters when folks submit their annual certification, 

treating it as an application for discharge. No one is just is requesting discharge before their time, so 

stop doing sketchy stuff that makes no sense. This confuses people. 4) reduce the interest rate on all 
ED OPE Public Hearing June 24, 2021

35

loans a 4-7% interest rate is too high. My loans have doubled. My house loan is 2.6%. Considering

many folks who take out the loans are not of means, this harm impoverished people, I ask you to think 

about equity. 5) include private loans, so even if my loans are discharged, I'm still going to have 

$84,000 in private loans. 6) most important, I would recommend that you discharge a percent of the 

loans each year that folks are in the program, so people get the benefit of their effort and more 

certainty. 

To be clear, this is not to look a gift horse in the mouth. I am very thankful for the availability of 

student loans; without them I would not be a lawyer. I am thankful for the Public Service Student Loan 

Forgiveness program, but there are very real consequences from significant student loan debt in and 

inequities that result especially for those who go into public service. I want to thank you for this 

opportunity to speak and look forward to improvements to the program. 

Greg Martin: Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Dilley, we appreciate your comments. Our next speaker is 

Daniel Elkins. Whenever you are ready. 

Daniel Elkins: Thank you everyone for having us here today and for the opportunity to speak on behalf 

of veterans nationwide in relation to these very important issues. We firmly believe that everyone 

wants to ensure that all students are successful in their pursuit of higher education. And we know that 

education provides a pivotal opportunity to change the lives of all student veterans. We’ve seen

countless veterans actualize their dreams for their pursuit of this endeavor and bearing that in mind 

we offer the following recommendations to the Department. First, the Veterans Education Project has 

always believed that good policy should be driven by rigorous research and transparent data. Our 

study on the 90/10 rule that was published in February, “Collateral Damage” uncovered very important 

issues with the 90/10 rule exposing the false narrative that the 90/10 rule is correlated to academic 

quality. Our research highlighted that over 80 institutions would fail a modified 90/10 rule as it was 

passed 

in the American Rescue Plan with an estimated 88,000 veterans and service members currently 

attending these institutions, unfortunately, and this is why we titled our research “Collateral Damage,” 

the institutions with the most veterans and military students enrolled had comparable or even better 

student outcomes than their public institution peers. Our rigorous research showed that this wellintentioned policy could negatively impact student veterans and drive students to institutions with 

lower student outcomes. 

Currently, there are policy discussions underway that aimed to correlate instructional spending 

outcome metrics. Our concerns with these input tests are that such policies invariably limit student 

veterans’ choice and not always for the betterment of the student veteran. We firmly believe that 

veterans have been trained to the highest standard. They have been equipped to make the toughest 

decisions on the battlefield and America trusts these men and women with significant amounts of 

authority. Therefore, we highly question the utility of additional regulations that aim to further limit 

student veterans in the name of protection. Veterans’ choice should be trusted and honored. 

Additionally, we have concerns and reservations on this proposed negotiated rulemaking session that 

would impose additional input in output metrics on institutions. We are questioning the validity and 

utility of applying more and more regulations to institutions, and we would ask the Department what is 

preventing current students from using outcome metrics available on College Navigator and College 

Scorecard to make inform decisions on their institution of choice? What is lacking under the current 

outcome data that prohibits the Department from holding institutions accountable? 
ED OPE Public Hearing June 24, 2021

36

If current student outcome metrics are not stringent enough, the Department and the Administration 

should work with Congress to adjust these outcome metrics for all students at all institutions. These 

concerns are based on the research that VEP has conducted, and we firmly stand behind researchdriven policy as we have looked into additional input tests such as 90/10 or output tests like gainful 

employment which only serve as a proxy to the actual data we already have access to. We found these 

metrics to be, at best, redundant to ensure quality and, at worst, detrimental to institutions and the 

veteran students they serve. So again, we question what is lacking within our already established 

regulatory framework that tracks earnings, graduation rates, repayment rates, and default rates: all 

easily identifiable markers of student success and institutional quality. Such data gives students the 

ability to make informed decisions on what institution to attend, and if the Department believes more 

data is necessary we encourage the Department to work with the administration and Congress to pass 

the College Transparency Act, which would give even more granular data to students to make 

informed decisions. 

Last, and not least, having been a representative for student veterans on two previous negotiated 

rulemaking sessions. First, the gainful employment and second, the accreditation and innovation, we 

strongly encourage Department to at least reconsider this virtual method of the upcoming negotiated 

rule making and at most question whether this is the right time for such a negotiation. In my 

experience, much of the common ground found in these negotiated rulemaking sessions is found with 

the ability to caucus with fellow negotiators and stakeholders and substantial amounts of time spent 

building rapport and coming to consensus happens outside the table. With such high stakes, we firmly 

believe these negotiated sessions deserve in person representative for fair and equitable discussion 

and, as others have already mentioned, as a country, we're still reeling from the pandemic caused by 

COVID-19 therefore we asked the Department to consider postponing these negotiations until waiting 

to see how these negotiations will go until it's safe to return to in person discussions and the state of 

our higher education has returned to an equilibrium. Thank you. 

Greg Martin: Thank you, Mr. Elkins, we appreciate your comments today. Our next speaker is Joseph 

Holt. Mr. Holt, whenever you are ready. 

Joseph Holt: Hello, thanks very much for the opportunity to provide comments in advance of the 

planned negotiated rulemaking process and my name is Joseph Holt, the Chief Operating Officer for 

Ember Education. We’re a system of proprietary higher education institutions that includes San 

Joaquin Valley College and Carrington College. We’re a second generation, family-owned and operated 

enterprise established in 1977. Our colleges currently served more than 11,000 students on 34 

campuses in eight western states. San Joaquin Valley College and Carrington College are both 

accredited in the Western Association of Schools and Colleges by the senior and junior commissions, 

respectively. We offer career focused educational programs and more than 20 specialized medical and 

technical fields at the certificate and bachelor’s degree credential level. 

San Joaquin Valley College is the single largest provider of respiratory therapy AAS degree graduates in 

the state of California. In 2019, one and four graduates in the state was from SJVC and 94% of those 

graduates passed all required licensure exams to earn their registered respiratory therapist credential. 

From 2017 to 2019, the 2 colleges combined provided the Western region of our country with more 

than 1,200 licensure prepared registered nursing graduates. Proprietary career colleges like ours are 

relatively small, but critically important component of our nation's higher education landscape. The 

strengths and core competence of our sector are regular and meaningful engagement with local 

employers, being agile and creative in response to workforce demands, and the customer service 
ED OPE Public Hearing June 24, 2021

37

mindset throughout the student lifecycle, maintaining a clear focus on the professional goals of the 

students we serve. We're deeply committed to the success of every student and we strongly support 

meaningful and effective accountability metrics for institutional participation in federal student aid 

programs. 

Higher education regulation intended for student protections and return on investment for taxpayers 

should not be narrowly targeted to one sector or school type and certainly not based on tax status. 

Applying specific outcome measures to colleges and universities is reasonable and appropriate only 

when carefully considered and applied evenly across institutions and programs that serve similar 

students with a similar purpose. Gainful employment measures, for example, should apply to all 

institutions based on the CIP and credential level. Most of the academic research on the economic 

value of higher education considers very long-time frames. Even lifetime earnings for graduates’ 

income measures should not be based on the first few years after completion when they graduate is

generally working in an entry level position and building experience for a long-term career path. 

Gainful employment standards must also reasonably consider the demographic and socioeconomic 

attributes of the student population served. Most of our graduates are first generation college 

students. Many come from disadvantaged backgrounds and are working diligently to create 

generational change in their families. Any new standards should compare and consider like-groups of 

students across all types of institutions. Similarly, economic measures of program value must consider 

the diversity of regional characteristics, and our nation’s graduates from rural or otherwise 

disadvantaged communities will earn less than similarly situated peers in urban areas. Does that mean 

that programs offered to those rural students are less valuable? Carefully consider relative rather than 

absolute measures, including possibly the economic lift provided to graduates from their 

circumstances prior to education. 

Regarding borrower defense to repayment, the Title IV student loan programs are fundamental to 

providing affordable access to higher education programs, especially the students with limited access 

to financial resources and support. Student loan debt has appropriately received a lot of attention and 

testimony through these public hearings. Revisiting the borrower defense to repayment regulations 

should be approached with a clear purpose and a narrow focus and not become reactionary with the 

mistaken frame that student debt is somehow intrinsically flawed. Changes to these rules must 

respect fundamental due process for institutions and reasonably protect taxpayer investment to 

support and subsidize students who use these loan programs to advance their education. The 

application process should provide ready access for students to present claims. 

Those claims must be considered in a timely manner by the Department based on objective evidence 

and standards. The process should be clear and transparent. Department staff should not be 

empowered to apply subjective or arbitrary standards in secret based on factors outside the scope of 

the student claim. Thank you again for considering these remarks and thanks in advance for your 

meaningful engagement with stakeholders across the range of higher education institutions through 

the rulemaking process. 

Greg Martin: Thank you, Mr. Holt, we appreciate your comments this afternoon. Our next speaker is 

Shane Phillips, Mr. Phillips. Whenever you are ready. Mr. Phillips appear to be on mute. We cannot 

hear you speak. Perhaps you have some technical difficulties there. We can come back to you., Let's 

move onto Erin Steinberger. Ms. Steinberger, if you are ready. 
ED OPE Public Hearing June 24, 2021

38

Erin Steinberger: Hi. There are over 750,000 community college students in the Los Angeles area, and 

70% of them never complete or transfer out of our system. We are failing. When community college 

students were asked the question, “how does the current education model work for you?” They 

responded with the following: I hate lectures. I never make it to class on time. Online education has 

worked out so much better for me. Straight lecture is difficult to absorb, but if the teacher includes 

other learning styles, my ability to learn increases. My biggest concern is never using anything that I 

learned while in school from my internship and job that I had over the summer, I absorb very little of 

what we learned in class is incorporated into the actual work I was doing.

Good afternoon everyone. My name is Erin Steinberger, and I'm a newly tenured California community 

college faculty member, a CPA and MBA with expertise in driving growth through innovation and 

customer experience. I'm here today to address retention and completion in post-secondary 

education. What I'm proposing as a solution is a centralized innovation team to support learning

design, and creation of instructional content for college courses. I'm not naive enough to believe that 

this issue and all the nuances can be addressed in a five-minute virtual session, so my ask for all of you 

is a follow up to find out more. When we conducted market research to find out why students leave, 

one of the things students said, if you want to drive retention, you need to design a better learning 

experience. When asked if you could redesign education, what would that look like? Students 

responded with the following: I would use more technology in the classroom and make classes more 

interactive. Include short instructional videos-you can choose which one you want to help you learn 

specific topics out. Include a lot more visual aids such as videos, pictures, and interactive tools to spur 

more engaged learning. Less information, more application. 

What students want and what they described are elements of blended learning, active learning, and 

adaptive learning. These learning models incorporate a blend of instructional materials and faculty 

instruction, audio visual aids, interactive simulations, augmented reality, the list goes on, but it boils 

down to content and technology designed and delivered in a way to optimize student outcomes. 

These learning models have been proven to drive retention and completion. The evidence is out there. 

Smart Sparrow, ASU's project Beyond Course, which was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates 

Foundation, or Rocket Ship Education Charter Schools. All outperforming traditional education. So why 

aren't we changing? Changing the design means producing more content and incorporating technology 

into the classroom. To do that requires a team. A centralized innovation team dedicated to change, 

dedicated to creating content. Our competitors know this and that's why University of Phoenix, 

Southern New Hampshire University, General Assembly, Udacity, DeVry, Western Governors all have 

centralized innovation teams. If this team is a key component to the success of education. Where's our 

team? A centralized team is also the only way to produce curriculum that incorporates technology or 

software-driven competences required in emerging areas such as data science, artificial intelligence, 

cloud computing- the list goes on. Faculty cannot create this curriculum alone. This type of curriculum 

requires a team of faculty working with engineers, animators, video producers- the list goes on. How 

can we compete if we have no way to produce the curriculum and course content for nearly every job 

now and going forward? We, your change agent faculty, are stuck. Stuck in a system that lacks the 

structure and support for innovation and change. If you want to know how to protect borrowers, ask 

why students choose to go to a for-profit instead of public education. It wasn't just great marketing. 

For many, it was a choice. They chose flexibility blended in adaptive learning and workforce aligned 

content or is DeVry’s slogan says tech empowered learning students are choosing something that 

public education is incapable of delivering today but you could change that. The colleges will not 

change unless they're forced to, and you have something they all respond to funding and regulation. 

You can change the design unless some drastic changes are made public education will continue to fail 
ED OPE Public Hearing June 24, 2021

39

and for-profits will be the only option as the pathway to jobs of the future. You may be thinking this is 

a state or local issue, I assure you it's not. The colleges all compete for enrollment and one way they do 

that is because controlling access to curriculum you can change that equitize access to curriculum by 

creating a centralized team whose only incentive is to democratize access to the best education for all 

students, regardless of district or state. If you think things will get better, let me remind you that 70% 

already told you it's not working when they left and never came back. If the system is designed to do 

what it's doing, don't you think it's time to change the design? If you won't take action, then who will? 

Thank you for your time.

 

Greg Martin: Thank you, Ms. Steinberger, we appreciate your comments this afternoon. Our next 

speaker is US Representative Mikie Sherrill. Congresswoman Sherrill, whenever you are ready. 

Mikie Sherrill: Great, thank you so much. Good afternoon, I'm Congresswoman Mikie Sherrill, member 

of the House Education and Labor Committee, and I'm here today to focus on the Department's 

implementation of Pell Grant eligibility for students in prison education programs. Last session. 

Congress reinstalled Pell Grant eligibility for incarcerated individuals and set parameters for Pell 

eligible prison education programs, including and...

Greg Martin: Congresswoman Sherrill, we appear to have lost your feed.

Mikie Sherrill: My bad. Can you hear me? 

Greg Martin: Yes, we can now. Your feed was a little bit mixed, but we think we have you now. Try 

again.

Mikie Sherrill: OK. I'm not sure where you lost me, but I'll start with the fact that I am thrilled that 

Congress stepped up and made this a reality. I'm looking forward to the important work that needs to 

be done to make sure these programs serve students well, and I'm thankful that the law passed by 

Congress includes early implementation provisions that allow the Department to implement Pell 

restoration quickly and efficiently but while the law was passed last year, the ban has yet to be fully 

lifted. I'm here today to urge you to prioritize Pell Grant restoration and to lift the ban as quickly as 

possible. Until Pell grants are restored, more than 400,000 eligible students in prison will remain 

locked out of higher education opportunities. In my career, in addition to being an assistant US 

Attorney, I worked as an outreach and reentry coordinator in the US Attorney’s Office for the District 

of New Jersey, where I worked to help us establish the state’s first federal prisoner reentry program for 

individuals leaving our federal prisons. I've seen the best these programs have to offer, and 

unfortunately, the detrimental result when they're not offered and I am here today to urge you as a 

mother, a former member of the US Attorney's Office, and as a member of Congress who voted to lift 

the ban, to act swiftly and deliberately to implement Pell grants for students who are incarcerated this 

year, I further urge you to ensure that as you work to implement this policy of established safeguards 

to protect the quality and integrity of these programs. Currently a vast majority of incarcerated adults 

don't have access to postsecondary opportunities. Most people who are incarcerated don't complete 

an education program while in prison, but low rates of participation do not reflect load demand for 

higher education. 

A 2014 survey found that 70% of incarcerated adults wanted to enroll in an educational program. 

Among those who wanted to pursue further education, 69% expressed a desire to earn a 

postsecondary certificate or degree. We must do better to ensure these individuals have access to the 
ED OPE Public Hearing June 24, 2021

40

educational opportunities they seek. Further, Pell eligibility for incarcerated students can improve 

reentry and post-release outcomes resulting in significant return on investment and contributing to 

safer communities. Higher education is proven to reduce recidivism and improve the employment of 

justice-involved individuals. Researchers estimate that climate rates among all formerly incarcerated 

individuals would rise by 2.1% of just half of the eligible population participated in a prison education 

program. Incarcerated students who participate in correctional education programs were found to be 

28% less likely to recidivate than non-participants. Repealing the Pell ban would save states an 

estimated total of $365.8 million per year as a reduction of recidivism rates and reincarceration 

spending. 

Finally, I'd like to talk about safeguards. Thoughtful policy approaches are needed to address the 

barriers and nuances inherent in the correctional environment. First incarcerated students are not able 

to choose from a range of post-secondary options in an open marketplace. If a subpar, predator 

predatory provider is the only option available incarcerated students will be put at a significant risk of 

exploitation. Further, incarcerated students should be given the same opportunities to presume 

rigorous academic programs, learn from qualified faculty and earn college credits in degrees as 

students who attend classes on the outside. 

Lastly, completing the FAFSA can be particularly challenging for incarcerated students for a range of 

factors including lack of access to tax records, inability to register for the Selective Service, and 

difficulty rehabilitating defaulted federal loans. The Department has to address these issues related to 

program integrity, quality, and access in order to ensure that both students and taxpayers are 

protected when Pell Grant eligibility for students who are incarcerated is fully restored and prison 

education programs are expanded. I welcome the opportunity to continue this conversation with the 

Department. 

Greg Martin: You might want to repeat your last two or three sentences. 

Mikie Sherrill: I was really at the end just thanking you for allowing me to appear for this testimony 

and I'm happy to continue the conversation. Thanks again. 

Greg Martin: Thank you Congresswoman Sherrill, we appreciate your comments this afternoon. Thank 

you. Our next speaker is Mary Kelly. Ms. Kelly, whenever you are ready. 

Mary Kelly: Hello, my name is Mary Kelly and I'm the CEO of StrataTech Education Group. Our brands 

are Tulsa Welding School and the Refrigeration School, Inc. We focus strictly on skilled trades; we've 

put out 40,000 graduates out in the community in needed fields. We have about an 86% placement 

rate. I was originally going to come on and give you a bunch of stats, but I think you seen a lot of that, 

so I thought I'd take a different tack. We're talking a lot about equity and access and I want to thank 

you for focusing on that. Anyway, that's a big issue today and we applaud those efforts. We agree

with the number of the things that you have proposed. We think that ability to benefit should be 

increased. Looking at student loan forgiveness we are in favor of all those things but my tack is 

actually to bring in someone who benefited from our system as we talk about equity access, so I would 

like to introduce my colleague. My colleague is Brandon Milligan. He's my chief operating officer here 

at StrataTech and I just wanted to take a couple minutes for Brandon to tell you his experience with 

our sector. 

Thank you, Mary. Yes, so I am a product of the for-profit school industry. I was a high school dropout 

and after dropping out of high school, I really had no direction in my life and one day I figured I need to 
ED OPE Public Hearing June 24, 2021

41

do something with myself so, I actually took a correspondence course to get my high school diploma 

and went and visited school that was an IT school. At the time I didn't know it was a for-profit school, 

but what drew me to it was the fact that there were small class sizes. I knew that I would have one-onone attention from my instructor, and being from a very disenfranchised home, the fact that I could 

have hands-on learning with an actual computer every day that I went to school, was life changing for 

me. 

I went to that school and graduated once again all the time not knowing I was in a for-profit institution. 

I received a very quality education and after graduating and going on to get gainful employment, I 

decided to give back and started teaching part time in the evening, so that I could help other people 

like myself who didn't grow up in a traditional home, who was shy and they weren't ready for the big, 

four-year experience or even the community college experience. And that truly became my life, my 

life’s work. That's when I woke up and said that education is what I should be doing with my life. I left 

the industry and went into teaching full time and have countless students who have gone through the 

for-profit experience and have now moved on and done great things in their lives, so this is truly my 

life's work. It made an indelible mark on me and, keep in mind, I went on to pursue my bachelor’s 

degree, which I received and my MBA as well. So, I'm a product of this industry. I'm very proud of this 

industry. Proud of what we do and the legacy that we have left behind and countless students whose 

lives have been changed by what we do. So, I thank you for your time. Thank you for this conversation

to be able to exchange, but I'm a die-hard for-profit fan to my very bone. 

Thank you, Brandon. I have a few minutes, so I’ll jump in. I'm also a former high school teacher. I got 

into education because I believe education is the key. If you're born on the one side of the tracks in this 

country, that's the key to get out of it. So, I found my way to this sector. I love it. It's a very nimble 

sector and we often serve people that traditional academia has kind of left in the lurch. So, those were 

the people that we wanted to service and offer something too. So, we just wanted to share a little bit 

of our story and I did want to echo as well, we support a lot of what you're doing, but what we would 

say is we think the standard should be applied equally to every sector regardless of tax status. That 

will be our ask, so and I think the country would be better off for gainful employment is a good thing

and I think if you hold everyone to that standard, that's a great thing. So, we really appreciate your 

time. Thank you for giving us the opportunity and thank you for your service for what you're doing. 

Greg Martin: Thank you, Ms. Kelly, and your colleague Brandon as well. We really appreciate hearing 

from you today. Our next speaker is Eileen Connor. Ms. Connor, whenever you are ready.

Eileen Connor: Hello, good afternoon can you hear and see me?

Greg Martin: We can. 

Eileen Connor: My name is Eileen Connor and I'm the director of the Project on Predatory Student 

Lending. My comments today are informed by the experiences of the over 1 million borrowers 

represented by the project and these borrowers, those who have been targeted in scam by predatory 

schools, are predominantly women, veterans, people of color and the first in their families to go to 

college. They’re also the very people, this administration, and the Department of Education pledges to 

protect and support. Unfortunately, it's not all stories like the last speaker. It's not an exaggeration to 

say that lives have been permanently harmed in the pursuit of post-secondary education. Institutions 

have oversold and under delivered. People are worse off than before. They have debts that they have 

no hope of ever repaying, which adds to their already precarious financial condition. And on top of 
ED OPE Public Hearing June 24, 2021

42

that, they feel ashamed even though they are not the ones who have failed. This proposed rulemaking 

is a tremendous opportunity. You have the power to prevent this from happening to anyone else. You, 

the Department of Education, are the most significant point of contact with the federal government. 

That many, if not most Americans will ever have. You have a charge to provide access to higher 

education you also must be careful to do no harm. People like my clients take a leap of faith and they 

put their trust in the system and the message and then are told over and over that education will bring 

only good things and they believe that borrowing must be safe if the government gives you a loan. 

Please don't make people hanging out to dry. 

I want to emphasize the need for a redesigned borrower defense regulation. The current regulation is 

extreme and unfair. It was reviewed on a bipartisan, bicameral basis and it's the subject of multiple 

legal challenges. We need a new regulation, as soon as possible, I ask and the Department to consider 

whether there exists good cause to forgo rulemaking on this and other issues, whether negotiated 

rulemaking is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, especially in light of the 

COVID-19 pandemic and national emergency. Further, the Department should consider what tools 

that has at its disposal to fix what's broken today, even without a new regulation. Many of our clients 

have been held hostage by the current borrower defense process waiting for years across three 

administrations now for their applications to be processed and their fraudulent loans cancelled, their 

legal rights are not being honored. Looking forward to rulemaking, borrower defense is not only about 

loan repayment, it is an accountability tool. With a functioning an efficient borrower defense 

mechanism, the Department can take swift action against schools that cannot be trusted to do right by 

students. The bolder the borrower defense rule, the fairer it will be to students, and the more useful it 

will be in holding schools, accreditors and the Department itself, accountable, and we need to move 

quickly on borrower defense and other critical accountability regulation such as gainful employment. I 

urge the Department to come to the table with draft regulations. The Higher Education Act says that 

before submitting a regulation to notice and comment, the Secretary shall prepare draft regulations 

and shall submit such regulations to negotiated rulemaking process you have been through making on 

these very topics 2, 3, 4 times. You know these issues; you have the benefit of experience and I think 

coming to the table would propose language would speed things along.

Two additional points I want to make on the proposed agenda. First, I applaud the inclusion of the 

Administrative Capability Regulation in that agenda. This regulation is an important and perhaps 

underutilized tool for eliminating predatory actors from the Title IV programs. An expanded 

administrative capability means institutional design that favors the best interests of students. It means 

that loan proceeds are spent on educating students. Second thing, pre-dispute binding arbitration has 

no place in the relationship between institution and student. Full stop. Finally, I urge the Department 

to commit to a rulemaking process that fosters public access and participation. If there's one good 

thing to come from this pandemic, it has been accessing for everyday people to the operations of 

government. I've seen this in our own litigation. There's simply no substitute for the input that you can 

receive from those who are directly experiencing Department policy and regulation and action. So, I 

ask you don't just tolerate input from current borrowers-embrace it, make even more space for it than 

you ever have before. Thank you very much for your undertaking in this opportunity to adjust the 

Department. 

Greg Martin: Thank you Ms. Connor, we appreciate your comments. We are now going to get back to 

Shane Phillips. Mr. Phillips, whenever you are ready. Mr. Phillips, please be certain to unmute your 

microphone and turn on your video feed. We can see you, but we can’t hear you. Unfortunately, we 

still have no audio feed for Mr. Phillips. I'm not sure what the problem is. It doesn't show you as being 
ED OPE Public Hearing June 24, 2021

43

muted here, but I can't troubleshoot that now. We’ll proceed in and then they try to come back to Mr. 

Phillips. OK, it looks like we have Laurel Taylor. Ms. Taylor, whenever you are ready. 

Laurel Taylor: Good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity to participate today. My name is 

Laurel Taylor, I am the founder and CEO of FutureFuel.io, a mission driven financial technology 

company that exists to solve the student debt crisis, one borrower at a time, at scale. I am here to 

serve today, one as an advocate for all borrowers, in particular those at risk, two, as an innovator, 

proposing solutions around the use of data to enroll borrowers into income-driven repayment plans 

and Public Service Loan Forgiveness, minimizing borrower default, and three as a technology operator 

eager to engage in future rulemaking sessions. 

My testimony is personal. I have had $150,000 of student loans that have given me socioeconomic

mobility, the opportunity to attend the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the opportunity to 

lead global business unit at Google, but the incredibly stressful experience of attempting to manage 

and move beyond student debt inspired me to find FutureFuel and build what my mom and I wish we 

would have had: access to a comprehensive digital platform enabling borrowers to receive tax free 

contributions from their employers, to find, choose, and enroll in income-driven repayment programs 

and PSLF programs, to accelerate student debt paydown through extra payments and just learn the 

basics. Employers and financial institutions offer FutureFuel.io as a benefit. We have never charged 

borrowers a single cent for IDR enrollment, and we have also never stored user credentials- FSA, 

Federal or otherwise. We offer bank-level security achieving stock two PCI in FISMA certifications and 

we're trusted by commercial giants in the financial services and technology space, such as UBS, Fiserv,

and Salesforce. 

The focus of my public comment today centers around data. Data rights, the power of data to radically 

improve borrower outcomes, and new data blockers poised to hurt borrowers and stifle innovation. S. 

1153-a necessary bill designed to stop bad actors from defrauding borrowers swiftly became law late 

last year, but in the course of attempting to protect borrowers from fly by night scam artists, again a 

crucial safeguarding, borrower data got all tangled up in the issue. And as a result, third parties are no 

longer able to access data, even with permission from the borrower to do so. This oversight within the 

bill further isolates already vulnerable borrowers from accessing products and services that could 

prevent the financially insecure from falling into default. The alternative, according to a Twitter post 

this morning from FSA, was to contact servicers via phone or fax machine. Fax. Further, S. 1153 

threatens to impede the ability to operationalize breakthrough legislation within the workplace like the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, and the Secure Act, 2.0 both of which, materially advance or would 

advance the financial wellness of workers paying down debt. So today I have three solutions to submit 

for your consideration. Number one, please provide guidance supporting a technical fix to S. 1153, 

providing express exception for highly qualified actors who meet the rigorous principles for responsible 

financial data aggregation, set forth in 2017 by Richard Cordray former CFPB director and now COO of 

FSA. Two, provide guidance also enabling qualified actors to access student loan servicer data as a 

technical fix may prove a lengthy process to resolve. And finally, enable borrowers to approve data 

sharing between government agencies such as the IRS and DOE to auto enroll borrowers in IDR and 

PSLF plans which yes, should include the new IDR plan proposed by President Biden and yes, should 

embrace this proposed policy of annual forgiveness measures for those on PSLF plans. I would urge 

the DOE to lean into liberating that responsible use of data so that we may employ an ecosystem-wide 

approach to addressing the biggest upheaval of consumer debt in the history of the United States. 
ED OPE Public Hearing June 24, 2021

44

Greg Martin: Thank you Ms. Taylor, we appreciate your comments. We're going to try Mr. Phillips 

again. Mr. Phillips, if you're available please attempt one more time.

Shane Phillips: Can you hear me now? 

Greg Martin: We can hear and see you, excellent. 

Shane Phillips: OK, good computer. My name is Shane Phillips. I was.... sorry, a student at the 

University of Phoenix in 1997...very sorry for the emotion. OK, my school used pressuring tactics and 

lies to unidentified students like me in to get in the door. I was told over 60% of the students 

graduated and I was shown logos and companies who couldn't wait to hire graduates of the University 

of Phoenix. To solidify their point, the recruiter showed photos of people in business attire who 

appeared to be gainfully employed and financially successful as well. The school guaranteed job 

placements and the recruiter encouraged me to sign up for a Bachelor of Science and management 

degree even though I did not have an associate degree. I was called several times by the recruiter to 

sign up and this pressure to hurry because the classes were almost filling up. I was later encouraged by 

the academic advisor to add the Bachelor of Science and Business administration to my program. That 

was only one way to get more students to borrow more money and the gainful employment rule did 

not apply in 1997, which made it easier to dupe the students and the federal government and to 

ensure that we didn't receive a quality of education. My school also was also reprimanded in 2001 for 

not having enough students in class hours, years later their credentials were under watched for about 

two years prior. Prospective employers will not recognize my degree. I have financial hardship, 

including bankruptcy of over $90,000 in student loans that I cannot afford to pay. I wish I had not 

signed up this institution, I didn’t know about the fraudulent and lies that were going on during that 

time. Apparently, it took Ms. DeVos’s team less than 12 minutes to deny my borrower’s defense 

application, and their own Department found my school negligent in August 2003 and they had proof 

of enrollment tactics used and interviewed by many recruiters who admitted to pressuring students to 

enroll. That is your proof, Mrs. DeVos, as well as years and years’ worth of FTC violations, lawsuits, and 

fines. The school has been fraudulent and deceiving students since the beginning and held accountable 

for it. That there should be the grounds for my application to be approved. There are over 120,000 

borrower defense students with similar situations to mine who are also waiting for a fair decision. Even 

though I have been waiting for several years now and as the judge previously stated, DeVos has made 

a big this process a nightmare. Under the President Obama cases like mine or approved to be 

dismissed because of the fraudulent or fraud and under DeVos 95% of those were denied under 12 

minutes for no reason, but the person denying those claims were encouraged to do so and paid for it. 

The system is broken. Those of us waiting for this process are in the middle. Please help. Thank you 

for your time. 

Greg Martin: Thank you, Mr. Phillips, we appreciate your comments this afternoon. Our next speaker 

is Tanya Ang. Ms. Ang, whenever you are ready. 

Tanya Ang: Good afternoon, my name is Tanya Ang and I'm the senior advocacy director at Higher 

Learning Advocates, a nonprofit advocacy organization working toward bipartisan federal policies to 

better serve today's students. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Department's intent 

to establish negotiated rulemaking. We appreciate the Department's communicated commitment to 

serve students and borrowers by making sure the Department's regulations are not creating 

unnecessary barriers to students. This process could not come at a more opportune time as America is 

beginning to emerge from a pandemic that shut our country down for almost a year and a half. As the 
ED OPE Public Hearing June 24, 2021

45

workforce begins to rebuild, higher education will play a key role in helping to provide the necessary 

skills and training. Many are going to need to re-enter the workforce. Prior to the pandemic, today 

students already look much different than traditional undergraduate students looked even 25 years 

ago. Many are returning students who work and have children. In fact, 64% of today's students work 

either full or part time, 1/4 of students are parents and 49% are financially independent. There are also 

31 million adults with some college but no degree. 

All these statistics are facts you most likely already know. I still mentioned them today because they 

are the very things that need to remain at the forefront of conversations surrounding topics such as 

strengthening gainful employment, Public Service Loan Forgiveness, ability to benefit, and any other 

discussion discussed by those participating in the rulemaking process. For example, strengthening

gainful employment is critical to ensuring today's students returning to school are enrolled in programs 

that will provide a strong return on investment. In addition to using the 2016 regulations as a baseline 

for a new regulation, we recommend the Department explore widening the set of outcome metrics to 

include requiring programs to meet specific employment outcomes for program completers, a required 

pass rate for related licensing exams, and an examination of the earnings gained from pre enrollment 

to six months post completion. 

Higher education is an opportunity for low income individuals to increase their socioeconomic 

mobility. It can change their lives in ways they never thought possible. Unfortunately, the current cost 

of education is also a significant barrier to accessing higher education for these same students. We are 

thankful for the Department's plan to address issues related to affordability during the negotiated rule 

making process. We also encourage the Department to consider resetting student academic progress 

requirements SAP and provide this new SAP regulatory authority to institutions. Many students who 

initially attempt postsecondary education and violate SAP requirements face significant affordability 

barriers to accessing education without federal student aid. A two year wait out period would allow 

the student time to better ready themselves for post-secondary education at a time when 

postsecondary education is a vital avenue to gaining employment that provides for a living wage. 

Allowing institutions to provide this waiver to students meeting these criteria is vital. 

We agree with the many who have testified before me, that one area that needs substantial 

strengthening is Public Service Loan Forgiveness. We encourage the Department to remove any 

unreasonable regulatory barriers to achieving forgiveness for public service employment. PSLF is a 

motivating factor for today's students who want to serve in the public sector in jobs that require 

postsecondary credentials but are hesitant to do so due to cost. Higher Learning Advocates is a 

proponent of smart regulations that fit together to improve student outcomes. We believe negotiated 

rulemaking should consider how our entire array of federal regulations do or don't drive better 

outcomes for today's students. For these conversations to be effective in achieve the goals laid out by 

the Department, it is imperative that statistics and information such as those I have laid out in this 

testimony are made part of the conversation. We therefore urge the Department to keep today 

students at the center of any regulatory conversations moving forward. And I thank you again for the 

opportunity to convey Higher Learning Advocates’ thoughts and recommendations. 

Greg Martin: Thank you Ms. Ang, we appreciate your comments this afternoon. Hello Marc, how are 

you? 

Marc Jerome: Good afternoon, my name is Marc Jerome and I'm the President of Monroe College in 

the Bronx. We are in the poorest congressional district in the country and I've taught for 27 years. We 
ED OPE Public Hearing June 24, 2021

46

educate close to 90% low income black and Latino students every year and we consistently rank among 

the top institutions in New York state and the country in for graduating the most full-time black 

students. If you walk into any government office, hospital, or large employer in the Bronx you will no 

doubt find a Monroe College graduate working there. Dr. Michelle Cooper spoke about the systemic 

equity gap in higher ed. I think we must start by acknowledging the data invisibility that contributes to 

this problem, especially for black and Hispanic students. It is much too difficult, if not impossible, for 

black and Hispanic students to find the information necessary to make an informed decision about 

whether an institution will serve them. For example, on-time graduation rates for black and Hispanic 

students at 2-year institutions are not available. This should change. Similarly, disaggregated earnings 

are not available. This should change. Key student loan indicators such as average borrowing, default, 

and repayment are not available. This should change. And despite all the discussion about protecting 

veterans, there's virtually no information about which institutions serve veterans well and which don't. 

There's just not enough information on graduation rates, earnings, or borrowing for veterans. I am 

formally asking the Department to address this data invisibility issue so we can better address the very 

real systemic equity gap. Dr. Cooper also articulated the Department's goals of protecting students and 

borrowers from harmful programs. As a matter of social equity, I would urge the Department to first 

convene a negotiated rulemaking on the completion crisis. Too few students graduate. There are over 

800 colleges with on-time graduation rates below 10%. The data for black, Hispanic, and other 

underrepresented students is even more alarming. This is a problem across all sectors. 

Second, I would urge the Department to look at the lessons learned from the two sector specific 

metrics, debt to earnings, and the repayment rate warning. My organization has compiled data 

identifying institutions with the weakest outcomes in both debt to earnings ratios and loan repayment 

efforts, and the data made clear there are programs with very weak outcomes across all higher ed. that 

really deserve attention. With debt to earnings, the metric that the Department used for gainful 

employment, 8% was the benchmark that defines quality. It's now a few years later and its clear high 

debt and low earnings can be found across all higher ed. In fact, among the 200 institutions with the 

highest debt to earnings, 70% are public and nonprofit, 30% are for-profit. Close to 700 colleges have 

debt to earnings rates above the 8% threshold including almost all the HBCU’s. Clearly the 8% metric 

was not an accurate measure of quality. The loan repayment metric should also serve as a lesson. In 

2016 the Department implemented a sector specific 50% repayment rate warning, which was then 

considered a benchmark for quality. Shockingly, only 90% of all degree granting institutions would not 

pass this metric today, and in fact, among the 200 degree granting institutions with the weakest for 

payment rates, 77% are public and nonprofit 23% are for-profit. Clearly the 50% repayment rate was 

not an accurate measure of institutional quality. 

ATB is an issue of equity too. Too many students drop out of high school; they are disproportionately 

black and Hispanic. This is especially true in the Bronx where I work. The Department should be 

supporting the career pathways program and it should focus on institutions which have advanced 

equity in this area. Monroe has had this program for over 40 years. Thousands of students have 

earned their GED and college degrees. We respectfully ask the Department to support institutions that 

have served these institutions well. Thank you so much for your work, I appreciate it. 

Greg Martin: Thank you, Mr. Jerome, we appreciate your comments this afternoon. Our next speaker 

is Marisela Jimenez. Ms. Jimenez. Whenever you are ready. 

Marisela Jimenez: Thank you, my name is Marisela Jimenez and I will start with a quote, “And with 

courage and with your compassion and your desire, we will build a great society. It is a society where 
ED OPE Public Hearing June 24, 2021

47

no child will go unfed and no youngster will go unschooled.” President Lyndon B. Johnson said this 

May 7, 1964. And it was in 1965, when he signed the Higher Education Act. This is the beginning. This 

is the history of why we are here 57 years later. 

For the record, June 24, 2021, more than 44.7 million Americans are in financial bondage with a 

combined debt of $1.71 trillion U.S. dollars. How do we get there? You see, the Bible says in Proverbs 

22.7 that rich rules over the poor and the borrower is slave to the lender. Our lender is the Department 

of Education. I think we can all agree that President Lyndon Johnson would declare the student loan 

debt crisis an immoral and irresponsible outcome and take legislative action to hold private and public 

college administrators accountable including the accreditation organizations, servicers, and the 

Department of Education for abusing, neglecting, and exploiting the most vulnerable population of 

students who, many of them like myself, we came from active poverty and we are first generation 

college-educated in our families. But the paradox of investing in a college degree to get out of poverty 

is not working for more than 44.7 million Americans. This includes Americans of every generation, 

gender, race and ethnicity, veterans, doctors, teachers, attorneys, and public servants. 

So, it is time to rewrite the whole curriculum and the academic funding models because they have not 

been working for a few decades. Colleges and universities are harming our economy by failing to 

prepare students with the skills employers want. Additionally, these colleges and universities enrolled 

students in programs in which 41% of recent grads work in jobs not requiring degrees according to 

Inside Higher Education of 2020. Furthermore, the public debt of the United States is currently more 

than 28.9 trillion U.S. dollars. But how can more than 44.7 million Americans help our nation pay its 

debt when many of these Americans have been unemployed or under employed prior to COVID-19? 

Without gainful employment, we cannot pay our own debt and we cannot help the United States pay 

its trillions in debt. You see, our American dream was killed by the false narrative that higher education 

is the great equalizer. It has not been that great equalizer for many decades. Instead of getting out of 

poverty, we are stuck in poverty and psychologically and emotionally damaged while nationwide 

colleges accumulate their profits. Every day is a reminder that our American dream could not be 

achieved with a college degree and this is an insult to us who were told that through hard work, 

determination, and initiative we can do anything we feel rage by institutional systems and political 

power structures that are guided by their own personal interests instead of what is best for students 

and graduates. As you consider the most impactful solutions, I ask you to consider ethical 

accountability for every institution responsible for the outcome of students. I ask you to complete a 

comprehensive labor market analysis to identify the work of the future so its students are trained and 

prepared for gainful employment and not just walk away with a piece of paper and a stamp that says 

that they completed a college degree. Lastly, I ask you to restore our dignity, our hope, and our 

American dream that has been stolen and killed by the profit driven institutions. And I call President 

Biden, Congress, and senators, and every public servant to not get carried away with who is right or 

who is wrong, but look at making things right for all current and future students, and especially for 

more than 44.7 million Americans who cannot pay this debt. Not because we don't want, but because 

we are not able to do so because of the systemic structural barriers that have kept us financially stuck. 

Thank you for your time. 

Greg Martin: Thank you, Ms. Jimenez, we appreciate your comments this afternoon. Our next speaker 

is Karen McCarthy. Ms. McCarthy, whenever you’re ready. Ms. McCarthy if you're speaking, we can't 

hear you. You could be on mute. 

Karen McCarthy: OK, here I am. 
ED OPE Public Hearing June 24, 2021

48

Greg Martin: We can hear you now. 

Karen McCarthy: Thank you for this opportunity to contribute considerations for the upcoming

negotiations on behalf of the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, and our 

nearly 3,000-member postsecondary institutions, on the topic of gainful employment. NASFAA 

believes that Congress should define what it means for a program to lead to gainful employment, 

however, given that Congress has forfeited multiple opportunities to do so, we acknowledge generally 

that administrations have a right to regulate. In renegotiating GE, we implore the Department to 

develop regulations that lend to a smooth, efficient implementation to avoid the botched 

implementation from the 2014 rules. The last implementation process was unrealistic, unreasonable,

and left schools in an untenable position. Using history as our guide, establishing policies that require 

brand new data, and reporting structures will lead to implementation hardship as was the case with 

the 2014 rules. 

Income contingent repayment plans: through the regulatory process over the past several years, ED 

has used its ability to define income contingent repayment to create new plans with only minor 

differences layered upon one another. This has added to borrower confusion about repayment and

makes it difficult for those counseling them. In this negotiation we urge the Department to stop 

tinkering with ICR and instead revisit ICR terms and conditions with an eye toward streamlining the 

number of ICR plans. While the entire Public Service Loan Forgiveness program could benefit from a 

legislative overhaul, there are improvements that can be made through the regulatory process. For 

example, the statute requires that borrowers make 120 qualifying payments while completing public 

service to receive forgiveness. However, current rules force borrowers to make more than 120 

payments by requiring that they continue to be employed in public service both when they apply and 

at the time forgiveness is granted. Requiring just 120 payments consistent with the law will ensure 

that more borrowers who have dedicated a decade of their lives to public service receive the 

forgiveness that they have earned. Broadly, we urge Congress and the administration to revisit PSLF

program designed with an eye toward ensuring the program is equitable and fair in achieving its 

desired goals. 

On prison education programs: completing the FAFSA and navigating the aid application process can be 

particularly challenging for incarcerated students who often lacked access to personal files and records 

that they need. This negotiated rulemaking should examine the totality of the student aid lifecycle with 

an ultimate goal of providing as much flexibility as possible to ensure that the process of applying for 

and determining eligibility for Title IV aid is as smooth as possible for incarcerated students. 

As to the Department's request for input on student loan default by race, ethnicity, gender, and other 

key student characteristics, we suggest that the adverse credit criteria for Parent Plus loans be 

reexamined. A lack of proper Parent Plus loan underwriting standards has led to unintended 

consequences for some of our nation's most vulnerable populations, saddling low income and 

especially minority families with unsustainable levels of debt. Past payment history alone is insufficient 

to judge a borrower's ability to repay. It is time we realized that saddling borrowers with debt that 

they cannot hope to repay is a regressive policy and it serves to impoverish the very families we hope 

to help. Adding a simple debt to income ratio to the Plus loan credit criteria will ensure that parents 

are not burdened into retirement age with debts they cannot pay. 

Institutions should also be permitted to create additional loan counseling requirements for their entire 

student population or for individual students or groups of students provided whatever criteria they use 
ED OPE Public Hearing June 24, 2021

49

to identify populations are not discriminatory. We agree with the Department's decision to convene 

multiple negotiating committees given the large number and scope of the topics to be negotiated, and 

we recommend separate consensus votes for each committee. This will ensure that the Department 

can select negotiators who are experts in certain topic areas, assuring that any consensus language 

agreed to by negotiators considers the history and nuance of the topic. We urge the Department not to 

develop draft language prior to the convening of the first session, as it did in 2018. Allowing 

negotiators to brainstorm and discuss the issues in agenda in depth during the first session are a vital 

part of the process. Whereas drafting regulatory language in advance, deprives negotiators, and ED 

staff of a thorough and thoughtful discussion undermining the goals of negotiated rulemaking. Thank 

you for your time and consideration of our comments, and we look forward to participating in the 

process. 

Greg Martin: Thank you, Ms. McCarthy, we appreciate your comments today. Our next speaker is Lori 

Kepner, Ms. Kepner, whenever you are ready. 

Lori Kepner: Thank you. My name is Lori Kepner and I'm an in-house attorney speaking on behalf of 

Cru, a religious nonprofit with thousands of employees serving across the nation. Cru employees work 

in many aspects of charity work, serving college students, inner city youth, families, athletes, and 

participating in international relief work. My comment today is focused on making sure there's equal 

access to the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program for those working for nonprofits that are doing 

good public service, including religious nonprofits. This can be insured by keeping the recent changes 

to the regulations of 34 CFR 685.219 that are going into effect next week on July 1st, after the 

rulemaking process last year, that finalized regulation included necessary changes that removed 

vaguely defined language that effectively resulted in the categorical exclusion of loan forgiveness for 

employees of large numbers of religious nonprofits. The PSLF program is more simple, clear, and 

straightforward with those changes making it more consistent with the plain meaning of the statute. 

The changes also prevent the government from tangling itself in the internal matters of religious 

organizations. Equal access means students from all socioeconomic backgrounds can pursue their 

passion to serve their communities through their chosen, nonprofit organizations. 

Under the previous regulations, employees of religious nonprofits have had to fear disqualification 

from loan forgiveness even if their employer met that defined definition of qualified employer if their 

job involved participation and vaguely defined religiously related activities with terms like religious 

instruction and proselytizing. They cannot be confident that their full-time hours would count. Many 

people have been driven away from public service opportunities due to this fear and a ten-year gamble 

is not an option for most. The changes to the regulation are consistent with Supreme Court precedent. 

Religious organizations have religious character, which means that their faith and religious beliefs 

affect and infuse how they do public service. For this reason, the exclusion was effectively categorical, 

based on the religious character of the nonprofits, which is a violation of free speech, free exercise, 

and the establishment clause under the First Amendment. It meant that many borrowers working for 

nonprofits were excluded from the loan repayment even though they met every qualification in the 

statute. 

There is an inherent problem in trying to create an absolute separation between religious work and 

non-religious work. To try to create a bright line there results in favoring secularism, and intertwining 

the government in religious affairs much more than would be true if the government benefits are just 

offered equally to all individuals without trying to exclude those who are involved in work or speech 

with religious components. It also results in viewpoint discrimination under the Supreme Court case 

Rosenberger. Religious organizations like ours often see social solutions as tied into faith practices in a 
ED OPE Public Hearing June 24, 2021

50

variety of ways, meaning that our expression and practices include those religious elements. For 

example, if two loan forgiveness applicants are both working for nonprofits and providing mentorship 

and life coaching to underserved community members, one may be denied simply because, as a 

function of its religious character, an organization incorporates religious teaching into the mentorship 

its employees perform. 

The Supreme Court case of Trinity Lutheran indicated that religious observers should be protected 

against unequal treatment based on their religious status. The Trinity Lutheran court stated that its 

principle was not about an entitlement but about a right to participate in a government benefit 

program without having to disavow its religious character. The Court further explained these principles 

in a recent... the recent case of Espinoza vs. Montana Department of Revenue where the court noted 

that a stated goal to prevent a government benefit from being used for religious purposes can still, in 

effect, be discrimination based on religious status. It's deeply problematic under the free exercise 

clause and merits strict scrutiny when otherwise eligible recipients are disqualified solely because of 

their religious character. 

So, the final version of 34 CFR 685.19 is going into effect next week, and that's a necessary solution, 

also appropriate under the Establishment Clause. It's consistent with the other goals of the Public 

Service Loan Forgiveness Program to ensure that this equal access continues as well. It encourages 

faithful repayment during the time preceding loan forgiveness, it combats inequality in educational 

and career opportunities by broadening public service opportunities available to students from lower 

socioeconomic backgrounds and minority communities, including many first-generation college 

students who are often most interested in pursuing opportunities to transform communities through 

public service and yet remain under represented at many levels of leadership in the nonprofit sector. 

Do we really want to undercut their opportunities by saying you can do that, but you can only integrate 

your beliefs into what you teach and do if they’re secular beliefs not religious beliefs? We respectfully 

ask that as the Department revisits necessarily many aspects of the regulations in this area please 

ensure that this logical, neutral, and fair standard for non-profit sector work remains. Thank you. 

Greg Martin: Thank you Ms. Kepner, we appreciate your comments this afternoon. Our next speaker 

is Katie Spiker.

Katie Spiker: Thank you, my name is Katie Spiker and I'm the managing director of government affairs 

at National Skills Coalition. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments today for the 

Department of Education's announcement for this hearing. I would like to provide three 

recommendations on expanding access to ability to benefit under the Higher Education Act. 

Recommendations that focus on specific ways that Department can address through its Title IV 

regulations, gaps in postsecondary outcomes by race and other key student characteristics. 

Jobs that require skills training are the backbone of our economy. National Skills Coalition is a 

nonprofit organization that fights for a national commitment to inclusive high-quality skills training so 

that more people have access to a better life and more local businesses see sustained growth. We 

build networks representing businesses, workers, colleges, nonprofit adult education providers, and 

other advocates who are about high-quality education and workforce development. Today as our 

country begins its recovery from the most devastating economic crisis since the Great Depression, 

working people without high school education or education past high school, workers of color and local 

businesses have been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic's economic impact. National Skills 

Coalition's more than 2,000 members want to support this administration’s efforts with Congress to 
ED OPE Public Hearing June 24, 2021

51

build an inclusive economic recovery that addresses the disproportionate impact of the crisis on 

workers of color, immigrants, and workers with a high school diploma or less. Our vision of an 

economic recovery is one in which all workers and businesses, especially those were most impacted by 

this recession, are empowered to equitably participate in and benefit from the economy’s expansion 

and restructuring. 

Words that end our recommendations today focus on the ability to benefit provision under the Higher 

Education Act. This provision is vitally important for the millions of US workers who do not yet have a 

high school diploma or equivalent but are eager to acquire in demand skills that can enable them to 

support their families. These workers were disproportionately likely to suffer from layoffs and 

unemployment due to the COVID pandemic and are also more likely to be people of color. Ability to 

benefit allows these adult learners to progress along career pathways by obtaining equitable access to 

the same financial aid that their high school graduate peers already enjoy. States and institutions are 

leading the way in ability to benefit and have figured out how to use this mechanism to fund a proven 

model such as integrated education and training that provide an accelerated pathway for adults to 

earn in-demand credentials and move quickly into better jobs. Regulatory updates of this provision 

will address one barrier students of colors face to accessing postsecondary education and compliment 

state efforts to expand access to postsecondary attainment for students of color. Right now, thirty 

states have set postsecondary attainment goals that are specifically focused on closing racial equity

gaps, improving outcomes for students of color and guidance and leadership from the Department can 

ensure more workers of color access post-secondary education by helping institutions understand the 

role and necessary process of ability to benefit. 

Now, our three key recommendations. First, we urge the Department to connect adult education 

pathways in public workforce programs to those in career and technical adult education and the entire 

higher education. Section 668.156 of the approved state process regulation should be updated to 

clearly connect the adult career pathways as defined in the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, 

Perkins V and HEA ability benefit. Congress is already acted by linking these definitions through shared 

language. Having the Department affirm the connection between these major pieces of education 

legislation will be immensely valuable in sparking awareness and understanding of ability to benefit 

among career and technical education and adult education workforce development partners. 

Next, we urge the Department to make the ability to benefit program more predictable and 

transparent. We hear from our partners that some financial aid advisors and higher education 

administrators are hesitant to pursue ability to benefit due to confusion about federal requirements. 

The Department should update regulations to provide clarity on what is permitted under statutory 

authority enabling educational institutions to quickly understand how high quality career pathways can 

qualify for a better ability to benefit and encouraging institutions to fund is necessary to support adult 

learners. Finally, we are just Department to collaborate with the Department of Agriculture, and 

Health and Human Services to work across agencies to issue joint guidance to states on expanding 

postsecondary education for TANF and SNAP employment and training participants. There is significant 

overlap between the population of people who receive public assistance and the population of adult 

learners who would qualify for the ability to benefit. The Department can play a powerful role in 

sparking state innovation by more clearly spelling out how ability to benefit can work in concert with 

TANF and SNAP funding to support individuals in public assistance as they pursue their educational 

career goals. 

Taken together, the above recommendations will noticeably expand the pool of people who can gain 

access to the education and training necessary to obtain good jobs. To ensure that these policy 
ED OPE Public Hearing June 24, 2021

52

changes. work as intended to narrow racial another equity gaps, the Department should monitor 

implementation of these changes in established benchmarks to assess progress. Thank you for your 

time today and for consideration of our comments and we look forward to working with you and 

engaging throughout the process. 

Greg Martin: Thank you, Ms. Spiker, we appreciate your comments this afternoon. Our next speaker 

will be Samantha Seng, whenever you are ready. 

Samantha Seng: Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Samantha Seng, the 

legislative manager and policy advisor at NextGen Policy, a nonprofit organization based in California. 

We fight for progressive policy change to address environmental, social, racial, and economic 

inequalities in California through justice-centered legislative advocacy, grassroots partnerships, and 

democratic civic engagement. Millions of Americans are bearing the weight of a student debt crisis and 

disproportionately women and borrowers of color bear the burden of this debt. So, here are the facts. 

Women owe 2/3 of all outstanding student debt. That's nearly one trillion in total. African American 

borrowers owe nearly 45% more student debt than their white peers, and older Americans over the 

age of 50 are the fastest growing group with student debt. 

Last year, more than 1,000,000 borrowers defaulted on a student loan, adding to the millions more 

who are currently unable to afford their payments. That means many of us are struggling to save for 

retirement, unable to purchase a home, harassed by debt collectors, or have our entire livelihoods 

denied by wage garnishments and social security offsets. The Biden administration now has a chance 

to repair the damage caused by decades of government mismanagement and industry abuses. The 

president ran on the promise that his administration would reform the student loan system to ensure 

that student debt would not be a lifelong burden and that student loan payments would be affordable 

for those in repayment. The president also promised to cancel a significant amount of student debt.

Including broad-based cancellation for all borrowers, erasing debt owed by borrowers defrauded by 

for-profit schools, borrowers who are totally and permanently disabled, and borrowers who have 

worked in public service for a decade or more. We thank the work the administration had done so far 

and urge further action to ensure no student borrowers are left behind and so we recommend three 

areas of much needed reforms. 

First, the administration needs to deliver on promises for student loan borrowers before being thrown 

back into the badly broken student loan system. The administration should use existing authority to 

provide as much relief as possible by canceling student debt for millions of Americans. When 

borrowers’ student debt is cancelled, their ability to pay down other debt increases, their geographic 

mobility and ability to stay in rural communities improves, as do their opportunities to pursue better 

jobs. But especially, student debt cancellation has the potential to increase the net wealth of black 

households and could help reduce the racial wealth gap. 

Secondly, there is broad consensus among borrower advocates, industry regulators, and lawmakers 

that the current system is fundamentally broken. And now with payment set to resume on October 

1st, buyers are facing a reality in which they will be thrown back into a system in which programs that 

are meant to help are failing. The Department's neg reg agenda must be informed by and fill in the 

gaps remaining after robust, comprehensive effort is undertaken to deliver immediate debt relief to 

borrowers. On the regulatory front, the education department must deliver on the President’s promise 

to make sure student loan payments are affordable for all student loan borrowers, particularly lower 

income borrowers by creating an income driven repayment plan that does not suffer from its 
ED OPE Public Hearing June 24, 2021

53

predecessors’ deep flaws and grapples with the fact that more than 4,000,000 people continued to 

repay student debt that is more than two decades old. Income-driven repayment must present 

borrowers with a single option that addresses each short shortcomings of the current crop of options. 

A clear alternative with no tricks, traps, or tradeoffs will allow borrowers to step away from legacy 

options and dramatically reduce complexity in the student loan system. Beyond IDR, it is critically 

important that the Department address the serious flaws in the Total and Permanent Disability 

discharge program, creating a functioning pipeline to grant debt cancellation for borrowers defrauded 

by schools in the future, and fix the administrative flaws in the Public Service Loan Forgiveness 

program. The Department must also create strong rules of the road to police the for-profit college 

sector protecting students and taxpayers from programs that do not deliver results. Finally, industry 

oversight and servicer accountability are the most basic reforms expected to improve results for 

borrowers and the Department should explore all possible avenues here. The CFPB previously found 

that more than 8,000,000 borrowers are in default on more than $130 billion in student loans. A 

problem that may be driven by breakdowns in student loan servicing. The lawsuits against student loan 

servicer, Navient, the largest in the nation, the CFPB found that federal loan servicer systematically and 

illegally failed borrowers at payment and created obstacles to repayment by providing bad 

information, cheating struggling students out of their rights to lower payments, and blocking them 

from loan forgiveness programs. Thank you. 

Greg Martin: Thank you, Ms. Seng, we appreciate your comments this afternoon. Our next speaker will 

be Danielle Eagan. Ms. Eagan, whenever you are ready. 

Danielle Eagan: Good afternoon, my name is Danielle Eagan and I am a physician in the Central Valley 

in California. Thank you for allowing me to speak today. I want to address two points. First, the interest 

rate of the government education loans and second, the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program 

(PSLF) and the fact that contractors do not qualify for the program and why you should consider 

changing this. 

Firstly, I wanted to address the insane interest rate of government education loans. Regardless of 

gender or race, the journey necessary becoming a doctor to serve others is expensive, a huge time 

commitment, and a sacrifice. I owed over $300,000 after graduating my four-year medical school in 

2015, despite living as cheaply as possible, and then went on to complete another five years of 

required training. Where I worked as many as 100 plus hours a week, in life and death situations and 

made basically minimum wage as residents and fellows do, which is a whole other conversation. By 

the time I finished training in 2020 I owed over $400,000 due to the interest on my loans, some as high 

as 7% or 8%. This is ridiculous. Some may say you were a doctor, so you are rich. My income has 

increased, however, taxes do not account for education debt so I pay a huge part of my salary back to 

the government in taxes which makes it almost impossible to pay back your loans because of the 

amount of interest that accumulates yearly and the amount you pay out to taxes. My education was 

longer, so my debt is high, but even for others such as teachers, counselors, etc. the interest rate to 

debt to income ratio is hard for everyone as I have seen on the Facebook support group online where 

people are trying their best to get by and many have been paying for years and not made a dent in 

their debts due to the interest rate. If you truly get through the required ten-year PSLF requirement, 

the interest rate is somewhat irrelevant, but in all honesty, why increase people's depression and why 

sink people in this added debt when payments are being made? People are being encouraged to not 

even attempt to pay back their loans. The last several months with no interest and no payments has 

allowed many to stay afloat and even build an emergency fund which otherwise we would not have 

had. As a nation we are encouraging people to not get educated with this cost of becoming educated, 

which could result in fewer trained doctors and this will affect everyone, including this current 

audience. 
ED OPE Public Hearing June 24, 2021

54

Secondly, I see patients for a not-for-profit hospital, but I'm hired by an outside company due to laws 

that prohibit me from being hired by the hospital. Currently being an independent contractor serving 

underserved populations does not qualify to count towards PSLF. Most or many probably do not 

realize that for positions in certain states, including California, Texas, Ohio, Iowa, and Colorado it is 

against the law for a hospital to hire physicians in the majority of situations, exceptions would be at the 

VA or public university. I learned this when I moved to the Central Valley about a year ago and in 

California this is due to a law, business, and professionals code section 2400. Probably over 70% of the 

patients I see have no insurance or have Medi-Cal which is Medicaid for patients in this state. Both my 

residency and fellowship qualified for the program but the population I am seeing now is of the 

poorest, least educated out in the country with poor air quality, overall poor access to quality health 

care, and has limited resources. And it does not qualify as serving the underserved public since I am a 

contractor. I honestly cannot imagine a job that could qualify more than the one that I'm doing, and it 

is mind boggling that it does not qualify, but working at a university hospital with the latest technology 

and endless supply of medical specialties qualifies. Senators Feinstein of California and Cornyn of 

Texas notice this also and had proposed a bill, Stopping Doctor Shortages Act, earlier this year that has 

not really gone anywhere. This bill would allow a loophole for those living somewhere where law 

prohibits a normal, qualifying hospital to qualify. I am speaking with a personal example, but I know 

many others are in a similar situation. I ask again that you consider changing something with the 

interest rate and allow contractors to qualify for PSLF in certain situations, thank you. 

Greg Martin: Thank you, Dr. Eagan, we appreciate your comments this afternoon. Our next speaker is 

Jason Altmire. Mr. Altmire, whenever you are ready. 

Jason Altmire: I'm Jason Altmire, President and CEO of Career Education Colleges and Universities, a 

national trade association representing proprietary higher education institutions. I want to begin by 

thanking the Department for its openness to us in these early stages of the process. We appreciate the 

many opportunities we've had to make our case and speak for our schools and students. I want to be 

clear that we join you in support of accountability for schools and protections for students. We look 

forward to working with you to accomplish these goals in a fair and equitable way. We strongly 

oppose creative interpretations of the words “gainful employment” to facilitate elaborate regulatory 

schemes based upon debt to earnings ratios that were never contemplated by Congress over five 

decades and eight reauthorizations of the Higher Education Act, the most recent of which I served on 

the conference committee that finalized the language. We encourage the Department to consider 

alternative accountability measures that will apply to all sectors of higher education and protect all 

students equally. The Department has the authority to do this. The former gainful employment rule 

that failed to protect most students who attend public and nonprofit institutions representing nearly 

70% of defaulted student loan borrowers. If the Department chooses to pursue regulations like those 

of the Obama administration, we believe any income-based accountability measures should be based 

upon graduate earnings, should account for regional differences in labor markets and should be 

tailored to institutions based on student populations they serve. This includes special rules for 

programs where graduates are substantially compensated with tips and gratuities often leading to 

underreporting of income. New regulations should also consider factors that are beyond an institutions 

control. For example, changes to the amortization terms and interest rates in the previous formula 

would have resulted in significant variation in debt to earnings ratio from year to year, despite no 

change in program cost or quality. On borrower defense, we support a fair process that enables 

students that have been defrauded by an institution and financially harmed to have their loans 

discharged. Within this process, it's critical that both institutions and students be afforded their basic 

due process rights. There's a moral hazard risk associated with any process that enables students to 
ED OPE Public Hearing June 24, 2021

55

have their loans discharged simply by filing a claim. Any new process must closely examine the facts of 

each case to carefully distinguish between legitimate and frivolous claims. Accordingly, we support an 

individualized adjudication process that examines, in a timely manner the metrics of every application

submitted. 

On another issue, the Department has a responsibility to monitor certain actions and events that signal 

potential financial concern. However, the Department should not create, contribute to, or exacerbate 

an institution's financial challenges. Letter of credit demand should not be issued based upon 

potential liabilities; they should only be used when there is actual, material, and quantifiable risk to the 

government and students. Doing otherwise enables private parties to alter an institution's financial 

health with frivolous lawsuits or borrower defense claims. We’re also concerned by recent actions by 

the Department to require individuals who own 25% or more of an institution to sign certification 

forms to be eligible to draw down HEERF III funds. We are therefore concerned the Department may 

seek such guarantees from owners at proprietary institutions. In other circumstances, such 

unsubstantiated data collections would be the very definition of arbitrary and capricious. Congress has 

limited the Department’s authority to impose such protective guarantees only when it is necessary to 

protect the financial interests of the United States, and when the institution has failed to meet the 

financial standards that are specifically spelled out in the law. To exercise this extraordinary power the 

Department must show specific findings as to why it believes an institution poses a financial risk. Those 

affected must likewise be permitted the opportunity to respond before a final determination is made. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify and we will submit written comments for the record. 

Greg Martin: Thank you, Mr. Altmire. We appreciate your comments this afternoon. Our next speaker 

is Abigail Beaudette. Ms. Beaudette, whenever you are ready. 

Abigail Beaudette: Hello, my name is Abigail Beaudette and I currently have approximately $30,000 in 

student loans held by FedLoan servicing, and I'm here to talk to you all today about my experience with 

the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program or PSLF. It is important to me that my career is one that is 

based on service to others. In undergraduate studies, I studied public health and then went on to get 

my master’s in public health and since then has been working in nonprofit organizations. I felt 

confident in these decisions specifically because even though I was accruing debt and working for 

significantly lower wages than if I worked in the private sector and unable to save as much money as I 

should or would like to for emergencies, I was told that the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program 

would forgive my student loans after 120 payments, but given my experience so far, and the news that 

99% of people who have applied for forgiveness have been denied I am no longer confident that this 

was the right choice. 

The PSLF program is riddled with arbitrary and harmful red tape and regulations, which I've 

experienced firsthand while trying to use my Segal Award money, which I was given for completing the 

AmeriCorp Fellowship to repay my student loans. Even though I was told multiple times by multiple 

people at FedLoan servicing that I could use the award to make payments that would qualify for Public 

Service Loan Forgiveness, to date, none of those payments are listed as qualifying. After speaking to 

many different representatives at FedLoan I was able to determine that the issue was that I made a 

single, bulk payment and in order for them to count as qualifying, they needed to go through a special 

review process, so they could be split up into multiple monthly payments. I have been in that review 

process for over 2 years now and it has been incredibly frustrating. Each time a review is submitted, 

I'm told that there is no timeline for when the review will be completed. There is no case number 

available and that FedLoan will reach out to me with the results, but I've been on a review merry-go-
ED OPE Public Hearing June 24, 2021

56

round because I never hear back from FedLoan, and when I call back to find out the status there isn't a 

record of the review and I have to ask for another review to be submitted. Finally, when I called back a 

few months ago, I was told the payments were approved as qualifying, but that might take some time 

for the payments to be listed as qualifying on the website. It has now been several months, and the 

website still does not reflect the correct number of qualifying payments. So, after calling FedLoan 

again I was told that everyone I had previously spoken to over the course of the convening two years 

was incorrect. The issue was not the bulk nature of the payments, but rather that they used the Segal 

Award money to make payments outside of the time I was an AmeriCorps fellow. Apparently, for

those payments to qualify I should've put my loans into a special type of forbearance and then use the 

award money to make those payments retroactively. But for this month I had never been told this 

information. As a result, I currently have no recourse. For the past two years I have received 

inconsistent and contradictory guidance from FedLoan, and while there is no effect or consequences 

on FedLoan or anyone, I spoke to for giving me incorrect items, the effect on me is that I will have to 

essentially make more than 120 payments for my student loans to be forgiven. As things stand now, 

those of us who have been counting on the PSLF program have taken what seems to be a very risky 

bet. I strongly urge this group to hold the government accountable to its promise that people who 

work in public service will have their student debt forgiven, and to do so as quickly as possible. My 

recommendations for changes that should be made to the PSLF program, as well as to income-driven 

payment plans in general are to simplify what it takes to get to qualify for Public Service Loan 

Forgiveness. Lower the interest rate for people on income-driven repayment plans, as well as lower 

the percentage of discretionary income from monthly payments, allowing the Segal Award money to 

be used to make as many Public Service Loan Forgiveness qualifying payments as the award can cover 

rather than just 12 months and build more visibility into the review process with FedLoan and other 

servicers. Thank you for your time and consideration this afternoon. I look forward to seeing the 

results of these hearings in the next couple of months. 

Greg Martin: Thank you, Ms. Beaudette. We appreciate your comments this afternoon. Our next 

speaker is Evelyn Cervantes. Ms. Cervantes, whenever you are ready. 

Evelyn Cervantes: My name is Evelyn Cervantes. I'm a mother, a wife, a first generation, queer Latinx 

woman, and a borrower defense applicant. In 2010, I was 18 and I was attempting to flee a violent 

relationship in Mexico. A quick internet search popped up Brooks Institute in Santa Barbara, CA. When 

I arrived in California after fleeing, I had no income, no car, no social support and nowhere to go. I was 

homeless and I was broke. The admissions representative told me that none of this mattered. That I'd 

make $45,000 a year after I graduated, and that professors would help me find jobs as I went through 

the program. None of that was true.

In 2013, I graduated with $63,000 in debt and joined the Peace Corps because they allowed me to 

defer my loans during my service. Upon my return from service, I joined the workforce outside of my 

studies. I've held two to three jobs since and rented my brothers’ basement with my family for the last 

five years. The intersections of my identity as a Latina woman never failed to remind me how much 

harder I must work. We already make $0.55 to the dollar, but as a first-generation daughter of 

Mexican immigrants, I’ve been dismayed with the borrowers’ defense lag. I got married and had our 

first daughter Freda. We instantly decided she'd be our last with my student loans looming and you 

just couldn't afford it. In 2016, I applied for borrower defense. Justice seemed attainable at the time, 

and then the months pass, the years kept going. In 2018, I reached out to a mortgage company to try 

and buy a home for my family but was denied due to my debt to income ratio. In 2019, I jumped at an 

unbelievable opportunity to build a habitat for humanity home in the community that I worked in. 
ED OPE Public Hearing June 24, 2021

57

Everything looks great, they said except for your debt to income ratio. My application was denied. In 

2020 and again in 2021 I was denied financial assistance while attempting to enroll in college classes 

due to tapping out on federal student aid Pell Grants and other loan options. In 2021 I received one of 

the DOE’s blanket denials for borrower defense and just a few weeks ago, I was denied the ability to 

help refinance my mother's home who currently has an interest rate of 5% and can't afford her 

mortgage. Again, the denial was based on my debt to income ratio. I've been denied employment due 

to Brooks’ loss of accreditation, and in the fall, I'm starting college again as a freshman at 30 years old. 

None of my Brooks’ credits transferred over. I urge you to fight the narrative that forgiving student 

loans is just about me, an individual. Most of us have no one left to hold accountable. For many of us, 

this is our last opportunity at justice. We, the Brooks borrowers were not included in the recent 

announcement for student loan cancellation for ITT Tech even though our school was owned by the 

same corporation. We have zero options for civil remedies. No way to hit restart, but Career Education 

Corporation has rebranded and started over with a different name. They continue to enroll students 

and run schools that harm. A few years ago, a group of borrowers like me got together to gather data 

and 505 broke students filled out a survey in which we were able to show that of those 505, we owed

$75 million. The weight of our debt from attending Brooks Institute is unfathomable, to say the least. 

And yet we know this number is limited because not everyone had the option to apply. The emotional 

rollercoaster of being in this process has been exhausting. We, the victims, continue to face the 

consequences of CEC’s actions and our government’s inactions, and yet we get no break. We have no 

ending. I often wonder where would we be now? How much more could we have contributed to our 

families, our community, for generations to come? Who is fighting for us? Where do we find our 

justice? Reflecting on Amanda Gorman's inaugural poem, I think back on the following lines. “The hill 

we climb if only we dare. It's because being American is more than a pride we inherit. It is the past we 

step into and how we repair it. The new dawn blooms as we free it, for there is always light, if only 

were brave enough to see it. If only we're brave enough to be it.” So here we the borrowers are brave 

enough to see it. Will the Biden administration be brave enough to be it?

Greg Martin: Thank you, Ms. Cervantes. We appreciate your comments this afternoon. Our next 

speaker is Robert Muth. Mr. Muth, whenever you are ready. 

Robert Muth: Hi, good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to provide this public comment on 

potential issues for future negotiated rulemaking. My name is Bob Muth, and I am professor of law at 

the University of San Diego. I am also the managing attorney of USD's Veterans Legal Clinic. The 

Veterans Legal Clinic provides pro bono legal representation for veterans, active duty service member, 

reservists, guardsmen, and their families. Since 2012 significant percentage of our case work has been 

comprised of assisting veterans who were scammed of their Post 9/11 GI Bill benefits almost 

exclusively by for-profit schools. While not every for-profit school is bad, virtually all our veterans who 

have sought our assistance attended for-profit schools. Our clients are veterans who have served their 

country honorably and are trying to use their GI Bill benefits to assist them in making a successful 

transition back to civilian life. It is unconscionable that so many for-profit schools have sought to make 

a quick buck off the backs of these veterans at the expense of the American taxpayer. Often our client 

stories are heartbreaking. Veterans struggling with service-connected disabilities trying to obtain 

higher education, so they can find a solid career path to support their families after their service to our 

country only to find out later that the school they invested their hard earned GI Bill benefits has 

deceived them. 

Our clients have been lied to about nearly everything a school could lie to a perspective student about: 

false representations with respect to accreditation status, job placement assistance, expected starting 

salaries, ability to transfer credits earned at that school, the quality of the school and the total 
ED OPE Public Hearing June 24, 2021

58

expected cost of the program for the veteran and often our clients have also taken out student loans 

on top of expending all of their GI Bill funds at these schools. I respectfully urge you to keep these 

student veterans in mind as you select which constituencies are represented during the negotiated 

rule making process. The focus should be on ensuring that the rules work for the intended 

beneficiaries: the students, the borrowers, and the student veterans rather than for-profit school 

representatives. The Department is providing excellent list of topics for regulation in the hearing 

notice, but I urge you to prioritize the following issues. First, the borrower defense repayment 

regulation is vital to protect student borrowers from having to repay crushing debt that should not 

have been incurred in the first place and deter schools from engaging in fraudulent behavior in the 

future. The Veterans Legal Clinic has assisted numerous veterans seeking to submit a defense for 

payment claim. The changes adopted by the Department in 2019 to the borrower defense rule made it 

nearly impossible for students to successfully have their loans discharged. Accordingly, the 2019 rule 

served the interest of bad actor schools and not student borrowers, and the rules should be changed. 

One concern that arose even under prior versions of the rule was the difficulty students had in 

understanding what was required of them to submit a borrower defense repayment claim. In creating 

a new rule, I urge you to consider the end user consumer and make sure that the process is accessible 

and easy to understand. It is critical to streamline the process as much as possible so that claims are 

adjudicated expeditiously, and the rules should allow for advocates to file defense claims on behalf of 

similarly situated borrowers. 

Second, gainful employment rules are a critical tool to ensure the programs designed and marketed as 

career education programs actually support students finding good jobs in their chosen career field and 

not incur massive student debt that they will lack the means to be able to repay. Student veterans are 

often particularly interested in career education programs, and the rules should be reinstated. A strong 

gainful employment rule helps to ensure career education programs are held accountable and so that 

students are provided the skills, the training and education they need to thrive in their career path 

while not unduly burdened by student debt. 

Third, the Department should reinstate the ban on pre-dispute arbitration clauses in class action 

waivers. Arbitration is a form of alternative, speed resolution that seeks to resolve legal disputes 

outside of courts. Forced arbitration stacks the deck in favor of schools that engaged in predatory 

behaviors. Legal clauses requiring students to arbitrate disputes rather than to file complaints in court 

are usually slipped into lengthy enrollment agreements and the students have no idea what arbitration 

is, what rights to arbitration process forces them to give up, or how having their case resolved by 

arbitration might not be in their interest. Arbitration hides the bad acts of certain schools from 

regulators, prosecutors, consumer protection advocates and the media. Similarly, class action waivers 

included in enrollment contracts serve the interests of the worst schools and harm students. A student 

who's been harmed by a for-profit school, even if that harm might result in tens of thousands of dollars 

in damages, will find it extremely difficult to engage an attorney to handle their individual matter. 

Accordingly, I respectfully urge you to reinstate the ban on previous speed arbitration clauses in class 

action waivers. 

Finally, Congress acted this year to close the 90/10 loophole that heavily incentivize for-profit schools 

to target student veterans with predatory sales tactics to maximize the number of nonveteran that the

school can enroll. I understand the Department cannot begin rulemaking on this issue until October 

1st, 2021, but I respectfully urge to do so as soon as possible after that date. Thank you once again for 

the opportunity to provide this public comment today and thank you to the dedicated staff of the 

Department for your work on these important issues facing students. 
ED OPE Public Hearing June 24, 2021

59

Greg Martin: Thank you, Mr. Muth. We appreciate your comments this afternoon. Before moving on I 

want to acknowledge that Clare McCann, from the office of the Undersecretary, has joined us again for 

the remainder of the afternoon. And our next speaker will be Christen Bennett. Ms. Bennett, 

whenever you are ready. 

Christen Bennett: Hi, it's Ms. Bennett. 

Greg Martin: I'm sorry, I've struck out twice today. 

Christen Bennett: No worries, thank you for having me. I'm here with you today to share my 

experience with the for-profit school called Brooks Institute of Photography which is also a CEC school 

that has since relabeled the name of their company because they have been in legal situations and 

then questions on their accreditation at schools since 2005. I was told that this was a prestigious 

private school. The Harvard of Film Schools and never told that it had been sold to CEC or a

corporation. I was told that they help each student get a high paying job. They distributed our student 

loan checks every eight weeks, which had fees for them for each distribution which just added up. I 

would say that I graduated at the top of my class in high school and while I was in high school, I also 

took college classes, which I graduated at the top of, so I wouldn't say that I went into this naively, and 

when I went into financial student loans and the financial aid to ask for help and ask questions, I would 

say that I asked all the right questions and was lied to and given misinformation. I am one of the more 

fortunate ones from my school where my parents were able to help me pay for some of my school. 

However, I did still have to take out student loans because of the high rate and price of classes at the 

school. What I got at the end was a job list, not help looking for jobs. They gave me a job list that I 

would have been able to find online and that's what they sent to me after graduation and the student 

loans that I couldn't pay. I worked two jobs for 13 years to be able to pay my loans for a roof over my 

head and for necessities. I basically spent my entire life for 13 years working and did not have a life 

outside of that. Like Evelyn who spoke before, I was consistently denied to buy a house, even though 

the mortgage rate that I would have had at the time is the same that I'm paying in rent because my 

debt to what I was my income ratio was so bad. In 2005, the year I graduated, the California Bureau of 

Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education found that my school and CEC, career education corp.,

was willfully misleading and falsifying and omitting critical info yet they were allow to continue until 

2016 when they shut down because they were about to lose accreditation. I was raised to pay for my 

debt and so that's what I did. I spent those years paying for my debt and not trying to get into a civil 

lawsuit or file for anything else until 2016 cemented that my school did take advantage of me. I filed 

for student loan forgiveness which was denied in the large sweep of denials in 2020, even after I sent 

them all the court documents from 2005 and from the civil lawsuit where CEC lost. I support student 

loan forgiveness and ask that you fix the flaws in the current system and the admin, I asked for you to 

regulate these schools and change the policies so that no student experiences what I have. Thank you 

for your time. 

Greg Martin: Thank you, Ms. Bennett. We appreciate your comments this afternoon. Our next speaker 

will be Michael Halmon. 

Michael Halmon: Good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I am Michael 

Halmon, the President of American Institute of Beauty with two campus locations in the Sunshine State 

of Florida. My mother immigrated to this country and in 1961 graduated from cosmetology school in 

Brooklyn, New York, eight months pregnant with me. She pursued a career at that time and provided 
ED OPE Public Hearing June 24, 2021

60

for me as a single parent, very much as is still according today with many single parent graduates from 

mine and similar schools. I implore the Department of Education to recognize the impact graduates of 

beauty schools have on society and afford us the opportunity to continue to provide the high level of 

education to our students for decades to come. 

I opened the school with my business partner 20 years ago, our objective was to provide in a field that 

offers excellent employment opportunities in salons, spas, and the medical sector. Many of our 

graduate skin care students are offered employment by plastic surgeons and dermatologists. Our 

schools are nationally accredited and licensed by the state of Florida. We offer six programs in the 

field of cosmetology, barbering, nail care, and esthetics. We educate a diverse population with over 

80% of our students being female and 59% minority. A large majority of the women students are 

single parents who will use the education we provide to secure a career which will afford them a good 

income to provide for their children. I am the immediate past chair of the American Association of 

Cosmetology Schools, referred to as AACS which is an industry association representing 500 plus 

cosmetology schools nationally. The vast majority of ACS member schools have one and two school 

locations like mine with enrollment ranging from 30 to 200 students. The programs our schoolteacher

generally not offered by the community colleges. The schools align with AACS are equipped to offer 

the best in beauty and wellness education, preparing our graduates to take and pass the state 

licensure exam. It should be noted that the completion rate of our student’s in private cosmetology 

schools that is, far exceed that of community colleges. Our students simply do not desire a traditional 

college education track and are better suited for private education in a smaller environment. AACS 

has been an important voice during the neg reg process. AACS has and will continue to be in favor of 

common-sense regulation and institutional accountability provided those rules do not unfairly impact 

students of our member schools. We are concerned of any potential regulation by the Department of 

Education that may unintentionally restrict access to our students. It is imperative that schools like 

mine and those aligned with AACS where we focus on providing the education which leads to our 

graduates being licensed and getting into work immediately have a separate seat at the table in 

negotiated rulemaking. We should be treated as an equal partner and stakeholder in the negotiations. 

It is equally important that any gainful employment rule negotiated takes into account the unique 

aspects of the tip-based industries that our graduates work in and impact that will have on earnings 

data used to calculate any GE or other accountability metrics. Further, it is imperative that all proposed 

regulations be applied equally to all institutions of higher learning and not limit student choice. I 

implore the Department of Education to recognize not only the impact graduates of beauty schools 

have on society but also the impact our schools have on their careers and families. Please afford us the 

opportunity to continue to provide the high level of education to our students for decades to come. 

Thank you for this opportunity to speak this afternoon. Have a good day. 

Greg Martin: Thank you, Mr. Halmon, we appreciate your comments this afternoon. We're now going 

to move on to the waitlist portion of our list today, and as I indicated earlier, these individuals will have 

three minutes to present their comments. I would ask each of them to make certain that they have 

unmuted their microphones and turned on their video feed. Our first presenter for this portion of the 

afternoon will be Joe DePaulo. Mr. DePaulo, whenever you are ready. OK, we're going to move down 

to Stephen Beres. 

Stephen Beres: Hello there, my name is Stephen Beres. I'm the senior vice president of production 

operations at HBO and a 2004 Full Sail University film graduate. And as, of two months ago, I am a 

proud American citizen. I've had the privilege of working on an amazing array of culturally significant 

projects from Sesame Street to most recently Meridies Town and perhaps most notably ten years of 
ED OPE Public Hearing June 24, 2021

61

Game of Thrones, but I'm not here today to talk about the stuff that I've made, instead I would like to 

talk about the people who helped me to get to where I am today. Television production, like other 

facets of the entertainment industry, has evolved over the nearly two decades that I have been part of 

it, because of that, education needs to evolve along with it. The program that Full Sail offers is unique 

and addresses the ever-changing need of science and technology to complement traditional fine arts 

programs. I know this because I teach at Full Sail University and at UCLA, here in Los Angeles. The two 

programs are very different. They had very different goals. They serve very different types of students. 

But what is key is that they are both vital. We need the full, nuanced diversity of all types of schools to 

feed the next generation of the film and television workforce. The investment that Full Sail continually 

makes in technology and facilities allows the curriculum to keep pace with the current state of the 

industry. This is in large part due to the fact that Full Sail actively seeks the input of working 

professionals like myself, to ensure that what's being taught is up to date and that graduates will 

merge with the technical fluency they need to begin their careers. Anyone that tells you and 

entertainment industry is an easy place to work, is quite frankly, wrong. It takes investments and grit 

and tenacity, and success doesn't always come quickly but when it does, it is so rewarding financially, 

yes, but also the opportunity to apply your craft- something that can influence and inspire and 

something that can make it impact on our culture. I am a divergent thinker. I don't learn in a 

traditional way and without a place like Full Sail I would not be where I am today and that's why I'm so 

passionate about supporting the work that they do and the way they do it. I want everyone like me, 

people whose brains work a little differently, to have the same opportunity that I did. If I could do it all 

over again first, I would buy bitcoin at $2.00, and without question I would attend Full Sail again. We 

need great schools that believe in a person's ability to do the thing that they set their mind to, I know 

you all believe that, or I imagine you wouldn't be here. I’m asking you today to believe in Full Sail, a 

school that supported the dream of a strange kid from Canada who wanted to make movies or maybe 

a TV show about Dragons. Thank you for your time. 

Greg Martin: Thank you, Mr. Beres. We appreciate your comments this afternoon. Our next speaker is 

Molly Guest. Ms. Guest, whenever you are ready. 

Molly Guest: Can you see me? Can you hear me? 

Greg Martin: Yes.

Molly Guest: I'm Molly Guest. By preventing borrowers like me from starting families, owning 

businesses, and buying houses the current system is increasing inequality for it is crushing the social 

mobility of and it's lowering the quality of life for borrowers. I'm here representing the 2/3 of 

borrowers that are women, borrowers from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds. Those of 

us with intellectual and invisible disabilities and those of us that have been taken advantage of by 

servicers used by the Department of Ed to insulate themselves from the hardships faced by borrowers

for far too long. My servicer’s website says our representatives are trained to understand all your 

options. Remember, we're here to serve you. Our trained experts work on your behalf. These 

predatory debt collectors lack the knowledge and desire incentives to do what's in the best interest 

for borrowers, like providers of payday loans. Why don't borrowers educate themselves? Many 

borrowers enter repayment without a college degree and without financial literacy- the financial 

literacy required to compile the information they would need to know what's in their best interest and 

how to advocate for it. The consequences are forbearances, deferments, default, and capitalization 

events. The information is scattered throughout websites like student.gov and the servicers websites 

and it's contradicted by what they servicers say when you call, and the Department of Ed. has 
ED OPE Public Hearing June 24, 2021

62

supported their right to do this. By holding servicers accountable, you can ensure they provide 

borrowers with their best option, not every option, the one that's best for them. In six years of 

repayment I have been placed in four forbearance and a deferment, all of which I have fought against 

of those. Five events, four were done automatically by the servicer without my consent. Borrowers 

will not be repaying these ballooning principal balances. Give them the opportunity to pay you 

something, and the hope that someday they will be allowed to provide for the basic needs of 

themselves, their families invest in retirement, own property, anything that helps literally, anyone but 

these creditors. What we want is for you to create regulations and standards that hold servicers 

accountable for deceiving borrowers. Simplify public student loan forgiveness: ten years of service and 

120 payments equals forgiveness regardless of loan or payment. Stop capitalization, it's unnecessary. 

Reset interest rates at the prime rate. Automatically enroll borrowers in IDR plans. I would be 2 years 

close to repayment and it would have saved me tens of thousands of dollars at no cost. Simplify and 

automate re-certification for IDR automated, create incentives for servicers to get students into 

repayment and get their loans paid off. Despite the reason’s borrowers pursue higher ed in the first 

place, inequality for them is growing. Their social mobility is diminished, and marginalized groups are 

being affected at disproportionate rates, especially for women, especially in male dominated fields like 

STEM where discrimination, wage and wealth gaps are exacerbating this. So, thank you for the 

opportunity to advocate for this group. I appreciate it. 

Greg Martin: Thank you, Ms. Guest. We appreciate your comments this afternoon. We’re going to go 

back to Joe DePaulo. Mr. DePaulo if you're ready. Mr. DePaulo. OK, we will now move on to James 

Cotton. Mr. Cotton. Whenever you are ready. Mr. Cotton, you might be on mute. 

James Cotton: Hi everyone, my name is James Cotton and I'm an alumnus of the Los Angeles film 

School. I hope that through my story you will find that the Los Angeles Film School does not belong in 

this conversation and reconsider your position on this school in particular. I have directed five feature 

films and produce twelve. I'm a member of the Producers Guild. I have over one hundred visual effects 

credits including Captain Fantastic and Pitch Perfect. I've acted with Ashley Judd; I've directed Andy 

Garcia and Ray Liotta. I've won awards around the world. My film Molina was a top five rental in 

America. I'm not a household name, but I consider my 20-year career a success story. I could not have 

done this without the Los Angeles Film School. 

I'm from very humble beginnings in rural America. I've always loved movies. By luck in 1994 I had my 

first opportunity to work on a feature film called Tuskegee Airmen. I finally knew what I wanted to do 

with my life, but how is the kid from South Oklahoma with no money, no resources, no context ever 

going to get a chance in Hollywood? I investigated the university programs and was very disappointed 

in those programs, films and job positions are picked by committee, no guarantee of following your 

dream and still a hefty price tag. All I wanted was a chance to prove what I believed in myself. In 2001,

I found the Los Angeles Film School. The school allows you to choose the career that you want. 

Students get an excellent education in business from concept to distribution. They learn every job 

onset, and behind the scenes they have the best equipment to work with and an immense network of 

working professionals. It was perfect for me. So perfect that I got a chance of a lifetime when Roger 

Corman spoke at my graduation. Roger is a movie legend. He started the careers of James Cameron, 

Ron Howard, Sylvester Stallone, to name a few. He made a deal with the school to co-produce a 

feature film called Demon Slayer. I was selected to direct. It was made by students and alumni of the 

Los Angeles Film School and I can't tell you how many careers started with that movie, but the school is 

also a community of proud alumni working throughout the industry and we all give back. I have hired 

students and alumni on almost every project I've produced. I produce one along first two films I 
ED OPE Public Hearing June 24, 2021

63

brought in alumni sound mixer onto his first union job. This year he won an Oscar, and I'm proud of 

that. The school’s job placement program with its over 30 employees maintains its required 70% 

success rate, which is outstanding. This school is my legacy. As much as its legacy, I'm proud of its 

growth. The faculty, the owners, and all alumni that have followed me. This is personal to me. I do not 

want my legacy closed. I did not want my investment or the investment of 20 years’ worth of alumni, 

community, family, and friends to be discarded. Most importantly, I do not want to see kids from 

backgrounds like mine and losing out on the opportunity of their dreams by going to the Los Angeles 

Film School and being part of our filmmaking family. I really appreciate your time. Thank you very 

much. 

Greg Martin: Thank you, Mr. Cotton. We appreciate your comments this afternoon. Our next 

presenter and I apologize that we don't have a full name, Arti, from the Association for Young 

Americans. Please join us, Arti. 

Arti: Hi, can you hear me? 

Greg Martin: I can, yes. 

Arti: OK awesome. I'm going to be talking fast because I only have 3 minutes. Thank you so much for 

this opportunity. As a BIPOC student loan borrower who is mired in debt after eight plus years in the 

public service industry I'm here to advocate for the PSLF program, but to also bring some vital context 

that is severely lacking in the PSLF program for it to be successful, relevant context to be incorporated 

to benefit stakeholders, and to serve as a bridge to opportunity for BIPOC who sacrificed to work in 

humanitarian services. Despite the great disadvantages they consistently faced by virtue of being 

BIPOC in our society and in the public service industry. My snapshot context is that I come from a 

family of working-class immigrants who do not have generational wealth or connections in these 

professional spaces from which others may benefit. Education was supposed to level the playing field 

in granting access to these opportunities, but apparently does not for BIPOC. For instance, getting into 

professional workspaces, even in non-profit has many glass ceilings. Knowing about the opportunities 

themselves can be an impediment. There is a lack of exposure and access for BIPOC. This also means 

there's just a lack of diversity in general, and it needs to be addressed. Society would benefit from this. 

PSLF can work to help equalize the lack of diversity and the sacrifices BIPOC make to get to an be in 

these professions where their presence is greatly needed, but where it is a greater sacrifice because 

often times the pay is not commensurate to a true livelihood- for example, $35,000 a year. And where 

this group lacks the bandwidth to have a future on this, truly I tell you our nation benefits from having 

BIPOC in many spaces, but especially in the public service sector doing humanitarian work. We bring 

hard work ethic, diversity of thought and perspective, emotional intelligence, innovation, creativity,

and heart that benefits all stakeholders and that is desperately needed in these spaces. But it is a 

sacrifice for us being in these spaces is a mind and emotional marathon for BIPOC. This is because the 

environments are not conducive to allow us to be fully us or to thrive. These spaces are operating 

without true diversity in mind until they embody the DEI education that they check off on their HR todo boxes, it is going to be an uphill battle for BIPOC to stay in these spaces. I had to walk away and 

break the cycle of the immigrant mentality where we give all of ourselves just to feel value in the space 

that's afforded to people like me. Because of this reality is not feasible for BIPOC to do good work and 

stay in this sector for ten years to benefit from the PSLF. Even worse, some of us didn't realize we had 

to opt into the program. There was a lack of education on this component so until the program is fixed,

I will have missed out on the program in its entirety. Regardless, ten years is too long for BIPOCs 

because interest compounds every single day. For example, I've been paying off loans with interest 
ED OPE Public Hearing June 24, 2021

64

that compound mounts the original loan. That means I paid a loan twice essentially. I do not have 

generational wealth to come back from this. Also, this becomes a deterrent for securing mortgages. 

Despite what we were told, student loan debt turns out to be bad debt. If you are BIPOC the cycle of 

barriers continues, and our value as BIPOC seems to be discounted. I ask that you revamp this program 

and consider the perspective where every day we as BIPOC have to be 10 times more, ready to face 10 

times more scenarios that others do not have to do to just do good work. While I feel shame about my 

loans, I must speak up about the unintentional barriers that the PSLF program has created. And we all 

hopefully now realize that minorities are the ones who are more disproportionately impacted by any 

disadvantage. I ask you to correct this program so that it is one less barrier to minorities. Allow us to 

benefit from the program based on merit and not technicality or unattainable conditions. Help us help 

our nation by making good on the idea of a promise and now allowing us to be free of the shackles of 

debt that society benefits from; that those who likely exploited us benefit from. I’m here to help 

consulting advice based on experience as a stakeholder and as an unfortunate casualty and lack of 

context for the betterment of humanity. Thank you so much. 

Greg Martin: Thank you for your comments this afternoon. We appreciate it. next speaker will be 

Mario Novoa. Mr. Novoa whenever you're ready. 

Mario Novoa: Hello, thank you for having me today. My name is Mario Novoa. I'm a graduate of the 

Los Angeles Film Schools in Los Angeles, California and I also earned my bachelor’s degree in marketing 

at Full Sail University in Florida. Every subject I studied in film school led to my professional career in 

the film industry. The moment I walked into the Los Angeles Film School on January 5th, 2000 I knew 

that I had made the right choice for my creative and professional endeavors. Little did I realize that my 

filmmaking journey would begin the day after film school ended by the skills and experience and 

contacts that I had made at the Los Angeles Film School. 

It was my dream to become a filmmaker and it was important for me to pursue my higher education 

road map at film schools like USC, UCLA, or CAL Arts, but the entry in the tuition were beyond my 

reach. As a first generation American, a child of Salvadoran immigrants, I struggled through the 

educational barriers as well as financial limitations. My goal was to transfer from Santa Monica College 

into a traditional university but supporting myself through school I could not devote the time needed 

to focus on my studies which delayed application deadlines and was complicated by academic courses I 

was not prepared to take. The road to film school seemed impossible. In 1998 when I applied to film 

schools, I was told that did not have a strong academic background or creative portfolio to further my 

application. An opportunity presented itself where I could apply to a new film school so, I was 

accepted to the Los Angeles Film School shortly after applying. The Los Angeles Film School was a 

unique school at the time because it provided coursework with hands-on filmmaking opportunities. It 

was an immersive program that I thrived in. We studied industry relevant practices like seeking or 

developing intellectual property and structuring literary material to formulate it to scripts. We studied 

investments and financial practices to start a film business that led to the formation of film and 

filmmaking. We studied the production process for casting, camera operation, sound recording, 

building sets, and shooting on locations. We implemented postproduction techniques to finish our film 

products and reading our properties for distribution. Everything that I apply in my career now as the 

documentarian I learned that the Los Angeles Film School. I've launched a film company called Filmless 

Studios and through that company I developed documentary work that showcases the LGBT and Latinx 

experience in the US. As an educator, as well as an administrator at two nonprofit colleges: California 

Institute of the Arts, and Columbia College, Hollywood I didn't witness an emphasis on finding 

opportunities for employment for their graduates. What I do see is the effort put forth by the Los 
ED OPE Public Hearing June 24, 2021

65

Angeles Film School and Full Sail University's career development office to assist graduates in finding 

gainful employment, and continuously reaching out to alumni on a regular basis. As the co-founder 

and current president of the Los Angeles Film School Alumni Association I’m involved in hosting mixers, 

conferences, and screening alumni-produced work. The Los Angeles Film School is invested in the 

success of its students and graduates and as an association we hope that we will continue to work with 

recent graduates and our professional cohort of alumni to promote their work and continue finding 

opportunities for our community of creative professionals. Thank you for your time. 

Greg Martin: Thank you, Mr. Novoa. We appreciate your comments this afternoon. I'm going to go 

back to Joe DePaulo if he's available. 

Joe DePaulo: Thank you, I apologize for some false starts. I was not working my technology correctly. 

So, first, I want to thank you for inviting me to speak, and second I’m the CEO and co-founder of

College Ave Student Loans and while we're a private student lender, we see a lot of insights into the 

broader challenges of funding for higher education and I just want to highlight two opportunities that 

we see in the system that we think could be incredibly helpful. 

The first one is very near and dear to our hearts and it is transparency in the loan delivery system itself. 

So, think about half of the undergrads are dependent students, so the parent fills out the FAFSA, the 

kid gets the loan. Nothing wrong with that from the standpoint of need-based financing in the way our 

ecosystem works, but if you think about someone else filling out a form and you getting the loan 

obligation. So, what we do in our company is we make sure the student understands the monthly 

payment when they get the loan and what that monthly payment will be when they graduate so, and 

then we reinforce it with monthly statements every single month. So, in the federal program, which I 

think is a great program, well-intentioned, but the student only signs off every time they draw, they 

have no idea what their monthly payment is going to be, and they have no idea what their mounting 

obligation is and so even though we give them education like we give them that like an education 

session at the beginning of the end before they leave and exit session. They have no idea what's 

accumulating and I would compare it to the credit card industry where in 2009 we wrote the Card Act 

and every single statement must tell you how many months it will take you to pay off your loan your 

credit card if you make a minimum payment. So, imagine a student had that and good news is lots of 

legislation out, there was a bill that we worked with congresswoman Bella, in the last session it's now 

been ahead with bipartisan support is now picked up by Herrera Butler, and Spanberger, and it has 

broad bipartisan support and there are similar bills out there by Manchin, Scott, and Ernst and 

Grassley. The second piece of good news on this is I think you could do it with regulatory action. I don't 

think you need legislation. This is just telling a kid what he owes so that they understand. Hey, when I 

get out it's going to be a $300 payment that’s $3600 a year, I got to subtract that from my annual pay. 

So that's the first one. 

Second one and we see this second one is just...I think it just needs a lot of attention. It's graduation 

rates, right? Traditional schools 60% graduation rates over six years. If we at this country could get 

that thing up to 80, imagine how much more productive our society would be and think of it this way,

what we see in our pools of loans and customers is most people fall out as a freshman so it could be 

economics. It could be academic preparation, could be social factors, could be health, physical, mental, 

but if they're falling out freshman year, it’s probably too late for the colleges to remediate it so the 

intention is to be put in K through 12. Well listen if we can get some attention on both of those and be 

great. You lift all the boats in the water. Nice talking to you. You’ve got your work cut out for you. 

Thanks for letting me participate.
ED OPE Public Hearing June 24, 2021

66

Greg Martin: Thank you for your comments this afternoon. Our last presenter is Kimberly Klapak. 

Kimberly Klapak, whenever you are ready. 

Kimberly Klapak: Hi, my name is Kimberly Klapak. I am a graduate of Saint Paul School of Nursing. I am 

currently working as a registered medical assistant at Go Health Urgent Care, a division of Northwell. 

this would not have been impossible if it were not for the education, I received at Saint Paul School of 

Nursing. I understand you have a lot of information to digest and decisions to make, but I ask you to

treat all schools the same. Saint Paul School of Nursing was the very best choice for me and here's 

why. I was a 45-year-old United States Army veteran working an underpaying job as a retail front end 

manager. I began my journey at Saint Paul's to become a medical assistant and to become a certified 

and registered in at field I wanted to work in the hospital. I wanted 1199 union benefits. I wanted to be 

the first college graduate of my family. A lot for a single mom of five, including two special needs 

young children. The small group size would be beneficial to me having graduated from high school 

nearly 30 years prior. 

During my education I was diagnosed with invasive ductal carcinoma, breast cancer. Saint Paul School 

of Nursing and its distinguished faculty of that visors stood beside me to assist me in reaching my 

goals. Even during my five operations, fifteen months of chemo and eight weeks of radiation I wasn't 

going to let something deadly as cancer stop me from achieving my dreams. I did not want a job. I 

wanted a career. This school was small enough for me to conquer my challenges. I was sick, very, very 

sick during my treatments. All this medication was running through my veins. The president of the 

school, Mr. Smith, and the faculty, along with the many friends I met along the way, they were all there 

for me. I graduated in July 2019 with a 3.95 GPA and I now am comfortably working as a registered 

medical assistant with certifications in phlebotomy and EKG as well as certifications in basic life 

support. I’m proud to say that my last chemotherapy treatment was in January on the 16th of 2020. 

The very next day I walked across the stage in cap and gown to receive my college degree in front of 

my proud family. I am exactly the type of person you are trying to help. I thank you for your time and 

ask you to please not make it in a meaningful career education more difficult. This opportunity 

changed my life. Thank you. 

Greg Martin: Thank you, Ms. Klapak. That concludes our hearings for this week. I want to thank 

everybody who shared their time with us and their comments. We heard from a lot of people in what I 

thought was a very successful virtual hearing this week. We also want to thank all of those at the 

Department of Education who worked behind the scenes on this project, thank you very much and 

goodbye.