Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and Institutional Quality - 2/8/24 

1

 

 

 

 

 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

 OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION

 NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING PROGRAM INTEGRITY 

AND INSTITUTIONAL QUALITY 

 SESSION 2, DAY 4, AFTERNOON

FEBRUARY 8, 2024

On the 8th day of February, 2024, the

following meeting was held virtually, from 1:00 p.m.

to 4:00 p.m. 
2

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

P R O C E E D I N G S

MS. JEFFRIES: Welcome back, everyone, 

from lunch. I am Cindy Jeffries. I'll be your facilitator 

this afternoon. Just a few things before we get started. 

The robust discussion was excellent and very welcomed by 

the Department. And we know these topics are full of 

questions and discussion. But in order to get through the 

entire rest of the document, which is a lot, yet this 

afternoon, we are going to try to limit topic discussion 

or section discussions to about 15 minutes. We do 

encourage you, if things aren't clear, even after 

explanation, we encourage you to submit some language 

that would make it clear for you, okay? Or clearer for 

you. And that can be addressed in the third session 

coming up next month. We also want to talk about- a 

little bit about protocols that, you know, please use 

your three minutes to state new ideas, new conceptual 

language, and not to reiterate things that have already 

been stated. We ask that you raise your hand and wait to 

be called on to respond because at any given time, we do 

have a number of people in queue, and we want to make 

sure that everyone gets a chance to speak. So with that 

being said, Herman, you want to pick up where we left off 

before a break? I'm sorry. It would not be Herman. It 

would be Carolyn because she had her hand up. So, 
3

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

Carolyn, let's go ahead and start with you, and then 

we'll go back to Herman.

MS. FAST: Oh, thank you so much. I 

just wanted to remind everyone the provision that we were 

talking about before the lunch break was on page 25. It 

was under the substantive change requirements (n)(b) was 

the section we were looking at, I believe. So yes, it's 

now shown on the screen very helpfully. I just wanted to 

quickly respond to a comment before the break about the 

inclusion of provisionally certified institution as part 

of this provision. I think that it is appropriate to 

include a provisionally certified institution and include 

the language that the Department has here in this 

provision because, a provisionally certified institution 

has some sort of problem that the Department has 

identified that keeps it from certifying that the school 

is meeting all of its Title IV requirements. That might 

be a significant compliance problem. It might be a- an 

issue related to the fact that, you know, it's still 

under review from a change in ownership. But all of these 

things are things that are demonstrably risks to 

consumers because it's a situation where the Department 

doesn't have the information or hasn't had a chance to 

review the information, or there is a serious compliance 

problem to indicate that there might not be full 
4

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

compliance with all of the Title IV protections for 

students and taxpayers. So that makes sense to me. And 

then also, just very also very quickly, the consequences 

that are set out in this provision are just that the 

accreditor would have to report the change and explain 

why they approved the change. And nothing actually very 

dramatic or drastic that would influence the institution 

in a very, you know, negative way. So, I think that it's 

appropriate and I'll leave it at that.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you. Seeing 

no additional hands, I'm going to go back to Herman to 

take us into the next section to discuss.

MR. BOUNDS: Alright. If we will scan 

down to the bottom of page 26. I think that is the next 

major change. And if we could hold right there, I don't 

think there's much after 26. So if you want to include in 

your discussions, anything in- [inaudible] anything in 

26, anything in this section. So if you want to include 

in your discussion (c) all the way through to the end, 

please do so that way we can start into, 602.23 next.

MS. JEFFRIES: Scott, I see your hand 

is up.

MR. DOLAN: Yeah, I guess first a 

point of clarification that the Department truly means 

visits here. Because Herman, a couple times as we were 
5

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

talking through this a little earlier, you had mentioned 

reviews and also giving the agency discretion to conduct 

those reviews that- in ways that they think are best. But 

there is a difference between how visits and reviews are 

handled on the accreditation side.

MR. BOUNDS: Got it. Understood. Myand my mistake and I apologize for that. Yeah, we're 

talking about visits. So site visits to all additional 

locations. It says- yeah, annual visits. Yeah, to all.

MR. DOLAN: Okay, I guess, I would 

reference the proposal that was shared between last 

session and this session, you know, you know, the 

Department says that they're really interested in 

ensuring consistency and quality across institutions and 

see visits as an important guardrail to protect students 

from significant changes that may impact the 

institution's resources and capacity. And the Department 

has also mentioned the real need to focus review on the 

greatest areas of risk. So it would be helpful to hear a 

bit more about intent and rationale about the shift from 

representative sample to all locations. From our 

perspective, this does create an undue logistical burden 

and cost on institutions. Our proceedings now are being 

held virtually. You know, in some ways, they're good 

enough for Federal regulation-making. And we've had 
6

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

virtual visits on the accreditation side. The focus of 

these reviews are on academic control, adequate faculty 

facilities, resources, financial stability, and longrange planning. And it would be helpful to hear a bit 

more about how a visit to a physical location would 

really get at all of those issues in a way that would 

justify the costs associated with this. And, you know, 

bearing in mind that there are some institutions out 

there that do have up to 100 of additional locations 

based on the definitions that are provided. Some of those 

are abroad. Some of those might not be easy to access or 

safe to access. So I just think it's about balancing the 

intent, with the feasibility, and the costs associated 

with conducting these visits. So, we made recommendations 

around, you know, being a little bit clearer about 

guardrails that we might put in on the representative 

sample side. We think would be helpful to hear the 

Department's rationale for not hearing those proposed 

changes, too. So, there was, I know- and I know there was 

a lot there to react to. But I do think, you know, a 

thoughtful response to those various issues might help us 

all here.

MR. BOUNDS: And I'm not sure when all 

those recommendations came in. I mean, we will certainly, 

take a look at those. But again, I just spoke about this 
7

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

a little earlier. And I don't want to draw that 

discussion out too much other than we would take some 

additional suggestions, but we just don't want it to be a 

case where during a ten-year accreditation cycle, nobody 

gets no- none of these additional locations gets a site 

visit conducted. That was the main reason for removing a 

representative sample to putting in all. We just didn't 

think it was unreasonable, especially again, if you're 

granting a ten-year accreditation cycle to ensure that 

all those [inaudible] that we're talking about. Again, I 

understand there's some disagreement here, but we would 

[inaudible]- 

MR. DOLAN: Suggestions were submitted 

within the week of following the last session. So, and I 

understand the perspective, it might be helpful to hear a 

little bit more about what being on site adds to the 

conversation, rather than maybe a potential for a review 

of- across those areas. So yeah, I think just- and what 

expectations you'd be putting on some institutions. And, 

you know, there's the example of the military bases that 

we were trying to create a carve-out for. But there are 

also, additional locations that are sometimes within a 

couple of blocks of an institution that are downtown 

versus uptown. I just, you know, thinking through the 

concrete reality of the expectations here and the- and I 
8

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

know institutional burden always isn't the reason we 

should be using here but, part of it is about really 

focusing on the areas of greatest risk to the 

institution's capacity [30 seconds] and resources, which 

was the Department's original intent. And it just doesn't 

seem like those things are aligned. Right? If we really 

want to focus our resources, let's focus on the areas of 

greatest risk. And in this instance, I don't think we're 

hitting the mark here.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you. Jamie.

MS. STUDLEY: I'll quickly underscore 

what Scott has said. The agency will be held to a 

reasonable- intervals and a reasonable plan for 

reviewing. And the Department has the ability to set 

guidelines, oversee how we do that. But if an institution 

has strong results for student outcomes, no triggers, no 

concerns, and strong performance, it really is not a good 

use of resources. And those resources include site 

reviewers. As the world gets busier, that's also a scarce 

resource to think about. It doesn't make sense to haveto go all the way to all. You know, Herman said the 

Department doesn't want to see none. There's a lot of 

space between none and all that can be generated by 

thinking about risk or concerns and considerations. 

Another detail. My agency has accreditation periods of 
9

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

six, eight, and ten years, scaled to our perception of 

confidence in the institution's ability to return for 

another reaffirmation. Doing every location in a six-year 

period may not be the best way to manage that 

organization. And just finally, to underscore that we 

found that remote visits were effective. While the 

Department has had to require that we go back because 

it's a statutory requirement, we felt that we were able 

to do reviews effectively on a remote basis, but we 

really urge a reasonable standard, if this isn't the 

right language, then to find it. But to require us to go 

to every location where there is no sense of value, and 

the institution is performing well, is just not the best 

way for us to accomplish our shared purpose, which is to 

attend to the places where there are issues and concerns.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Jamie. I 

encourage everyone to put- to submit some alternative 

language for the Department to consider, either in the 

chat or in your upcoming proposal period time. Alright, I 

don't see any more hands, Herman.

MR. BOUNDS: Okay, I think that takes 

us to, 602.23.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Do you- in terms 

of temperature check, what are you doing withMR. BOUNDS: Yeah, I think we need to 
10

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

take- yeah, thanks. Thanks for the reminder. I think we 

probably need to take a temperature check on the overall 

of 602.22.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Alright, having 

said that, let's go ahead and show our thumbs on 600.22 

or 602. I'm sorry. 602.22. Alright, I have Scott Dolan. 

Jamie. Jillian. JoEllen Price. Carolyn Fast. Michael 

Cioce. Jason Lorgan. Laura Rasar-King. Those are the 

thumbs down that I see. Did I miss anyone? Okay. 

Wonderful. Okay, now let's move on to 602.23 and I'll 

turn it back to Herman.

MR. BOUNDS: Thank you. Most of the 

changes here in 602.23 we have discussed, but we'll- I'll 

start with- if we can scroll down to make sure I don't 

miss anything, we can scroll down to page 28. And this is 

a change we put here. I think this may have been some 

suggestion from, let me look at my notes here. Some 

suggestions from some committee members about the 

agency's posting the information in their petition for 

recognition on their website. I think we have a 60-day 

requirement here but would welcome discussion there. The 

next area of significant change also had- this has to do 

with changing of accrediting agencies and requiringwell, not requiring but having an opportunity for thirdparty comments. And we list some entities, What's the 
11

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

mission of those comments and, of course, how they may be 

received. Oh, minor changes in (d) starts. The new 

procedures we put in because of our complaint guidance. 

So that goes down through (d)(1) through (4). I know we 

talked a lot about these previously, but if there's any 

other discussion here, we try to pull in some of the 

information from our new complaint guidance. Be it known 

that we did change some things and some things we did not 

pull over, but that was our intent here was to 

incorporate some of our complaint guidance. And I think 

that wraps up- there are minor changes on, looks like 

page 30. A couple of word changes there. Additions, not 

changes. And I think that wraps up, 602.23 and our next 

section will be 24. But again, I'll open up if there's 

any additional discussion on 602.23.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you, 

Herman. Any questions? Comments? Barmak.

MR. NASSIRIAN: You know, in general, 

obviously we- the more transparency there is, the better. 

The more public notice there is, the better. The more 

input is collected, the better. But I just want to point 

out that- and you know, I think I understand what the 

Department is attempting to do in (c)(2) with regard to 

consideration of an institution that's considering 

changing accreditors as a result of state legislation. 
12

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

One, why should that- to the extent that we now have the 

distinct possibility of a creditor shopping by regulated 

entities, it seems to me that any change of accrediting 

agency should be subject to broad public input. It need 

not be motivated solely, by the change having been 

mandated because of state legislation. What we have set 

up in allowing regulated entities to now have basically a 

la carte choices of who regulates them. You know, some 

people may believe that people will look for Attila the 

Hun to regulate them. But, you know, if history is any 

guide, regulated entities will gravitate to the most 

lenient, least demanding regulator. And to whatever 

extent that is going to happen, it makes sense to at 

least solicit public input, regardless of what motivates 

the change. It may be a reasonable change, in which case, 

you know, public input will presumably comport with that 

reasonableness. That's just one concern. The other 

concern I have is what happens to the comments? You're 

submitting it to the entity receiving the comments, 

potentially the agency potentially considering the 

approval of an institution. It would be good to ensure 

that the comments are somehow recorded and made available 

broadly. Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Barmak. 

Jamie.
13

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

MS. STUDLEY: I wonder if this is 

duplicative. The agencies already have third-party 

comment opportunities at designated stages and I believe 

have the discretion to take comment in whatever format 

seems best likely to promote the input that the public 

wants to give and the agency is able to manage. So, I 

have- third-party comment can be helpful. I just wonder 

whether all of this language is repetitious. I also add 

we didn't do item (b), and I thought we were going to go 

through these, chunk by chunk. Not Barmak's fault. Cindy, 

I thought that that's how you were going to manage them, 

but I just- I think this is, unnecessary repetition of 

things that are already the case.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you, Jamie. 

Thanks, Jamie. Any other questions? Comments? Laura.

DR. KING: Thanks. So we did skip over

(b). I don't know if anyone has any more comments on (c) 

before I skip to a different topic if that makes sense.

MS. JEFFRIES: Please go ahead, Laura. 

DR. KING: Okay so, on item (b), 

there's a new requirement about the agency posting its 

petition and all materials included with an application 

on our websites within 60 days. Where did where did this 

come from? What is the need for this? I think our 

petitions are available. I think they can be [inaudible] 
14

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

for sure. I think the Department- does the Department now 

post them? I'm just curious where this came from.

MR. BOUNDS: I think some of this was 

proposed by some committee members. But to answer your 

other question, Laura, so we post the final- there's two 

postings. There's one posting that occurs when we send 

the final analysis to NACIQI. There's a posting on our 

website at that time, but that's only of the Department's 

discussion. Now, later, what we do is we try to post the 

final analysis, which then discusses- has the 

Department's narrative and it also has the agency's 

narrative, but we don't publish the supporting 

documentation at this time.

DR. KING: So you don't publish the 

petition at this time?

MR. BOUNDS: We don't publish. We 

don't we don't publish the exhibits, you know, the 

additional supporting documentation. What we publish now 

are the narratives.

DR. KING: Okay. So why- so I mean, 

that seems a little bit more reasonable. This is a 

tremendous administrative burden on accreditors. It's a 

new requirement. It's a tremendous administrative burden. 

And I'm not sure that I see the need for it. I don't have 

any problem with transparency. I don't care who reads my 
15

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

petition. It's a lot of- it is a whole lot of redaction. 

It's- we put- we input our petition into a kind of an 

unwieldy accreditation or recognition management system. 

So it's reformatting all of that. It's hundreds and 

hundreds and hundreds of attachments. I just don't- I'mI don't see the need for this. This is something kind of 

out of the blue from my perspective. And it's a 

tremendous administrative burden and I'm very opposed to 

it.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Laura. 

Robyn.

MS. R. SMITH: I have a comment on a 

separate subsection (d), so if Jamie wants to go ahead. 

If you want to stick on (b) for now, that's fine with me.

MS. JEFFRIES: Jamie, is your comment 

on (b)?

MS. STUDLEY: Yes, it is. Laura put it 

very well. My- the first natural thing would be, could we 

post an explanation of the process of what a petition 

means and a link to the Department's site, but the 

Department isn't posting it all. One of the reasons, I 

think, is the Department's technology for doing this is 

so cumbersome that the way we have had to organize what 

we do is excruciatingly painfully adapted to the way that 

the Department system can take it. So the idea of 
16

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

regrouping the literally hundreds of exhibits back into a 

normal format that would be comprehensible to and 

possible for us to do for the public is made much harder. 

It is not even just us doing it and posting it. It's we 

have to do in a way that works for this really difficult 

system. Then we would all have to do it. So I really 

think that it might- that the focus might be on the 

Department finding a way to have that which is useful 

done in a consistent way, so you don't have multiple 

agencies doing their best to meet this requirement if it 

went into effect, in a way that was then potentially 

inconsistent. So we'd be happy to help the Department do 

in a way that could be useful. I don't think there'd be a 

problem in saying here's where those materials are, and 

that's what's contained there, and that's where they fit 

in the process. I think that would be much more helpful 

for people than every accreditor laboring to meet this, 

translating from what we had to give to the Department 

and then a user in good faith trying to do something with 

in you tell me how many accrediting agencies, different 

structures, in order to do it. I think it is not the 

right way to achieve the openness that you want. I may 

have a different view than Laura. I think we already have 

to redact so that the Department can meet its [inaudible] 

obligations if they have to provide this information. So 
17

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

I don't think that's where the extra effort lies. But I 

could be mistaken. The real problem is, doing this 

separately when the Department already has problems 

supporting its own needs and NACIQI's and the people who 

want to comment through the NACIQI process. I think 

that's where the fix ought to be. And [30 seconds] we 

would be happy to help find ways to do that that achieve 

the purpose of transparency.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thanks, Jamie. Robyn, 

if you don't mind, there's a note here in the chat that 

Carolyn's comment is also on (b), so if you don't mind, 

we'll go ahead and take her. Carolyn.

MS. FAST: Thanks. I just wanted to 

reiterate that we see this as very critically important 

to the process so that it is meaningful that the public 

can participate in the recognition process. Right now, 

there's a problem with public participation because of 

the fact that it's very difficult or impossible for 

people who would like to make public comments during the 

NACIQI recognition process to get access to these 

documents. If you ask the Department, the Department has 

to go through its [inaudible] processes, which delay how 

quickly they can release the materials ahead of a NACIQI 

meeting so that it's generally not possible to get the 

information before it would be necessary to comment on 
18

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

the NACIQI commenting schedule. So in order to make sure 

that the public can actually make a meaningful comment, 

there needs to be a change to make it possible for access 

to the material. And this is why this is important that 

agencies be responsible for posting their own documents.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thanks, Carolyn. Okay, 

Robyn, thank you for being patient.

MS. R. SMITH: No problem. I'm happy 

to. So I just want to say we appreciate the Department's 

substantial improvements to the regulations governing the 

complaint processes and subsequent new subsection (d). I 

wanted to point out to the Department that we've made a 

few proposals to strengthen what we think are important 

ways to strengthen the complaint processes. We propose 

adding language that would ensure complaints are 

accepted, at least for monitoring whether or not the 

complaint was first submitted to the institution. And 

secondly, we submit proposals that would ensure 

accrediting agencies document not only their resolution 

of complaints, but also the process for monitoring the 

complaints, to identify any potential patterns of quality 

concerns or misconduct, and also to require the agency to 

make publicly available complaints data on at least an 

annual basis, as the Department proposed to require of 

organizations that lead state authorization reciprocity 
19

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

agreements. So we did submit those and, I can post the 

language in the chat.

MR. BOUNDS: Yeah, thanks.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thanks, Robyn. 

Appreciate it. Jamie, is your hand up again, or was it-? 

MS. STUDLEY: Yeah.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, I couldn't tell. 

Thanks. 

MS. STUDLEY: I thought we were going 

to do these in order, so I'm trying to comment and jump 

around. So Robyn's comments were about the complaint 

issues, are we talking-? 

MS. JEFFRIES: Yes, there were no more 

hands on (b). So we are- we are moving on.

MS. STUDLEY: But (c)- 

MS. JEFFRIES: That's fine if you want 

to talk about (c), yep. [Inaudible] comment was on (c). 

MS. STUDLEY: Okay. Okay. I guess I 

made that (c) seems redundant complaints. The- we're all 

working toward effective complaint processes. Five years 

seems like a long time. Many- one way to solve the 

problem of people who don't become aware of a basis for a 

complaint could be to have a different, period of time, 

say, three years. Some have suggested two years. But pick 

a number that is more manageable and does move people 
20

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

toward bringing their complaints. And then, could 

certainly have a- if it was not discoverable or if the 

person had new information. But the difficulty of having 

clarity and being able to actually explore the basis for 

a complaint and encouraging people to bring them forward 

so that the school and the accreditor can do something 

about them means that five years could be just way too 

long. The otherwise observed element, agencies deal with 

information we receive from other sources whenever there 

is a suggestion of a failure to meet standards. But that 

kind of general information should not be subject to the 

specific complaints process. If I read something in the 

newspaper or somebody, you know, get a note in a bottle, 

that suggests that there's a concern at an institution, I 

do something about it, but I don't necessarily do in the 

same way or with the same structures as if it is a 

complaint from somebody who is waiting for a specific 

answer in a specific format. So we have an obligation to 

take things into account that might suggest a failure to 

measure up to standards. But lumping those into the 

complaint process could be disorganizing and unhelpful to 

actually jumping on them quickly and efficiently.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thanks, Jamie. Barmak.

MR. NASSIRIAN: Yeah, on the issue of 

the timeline, I'm not unsympathetic to Jamie's point, but 
21

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

don't know how to deal with the fundamental problem that 

I think this committee has heard multiple public 

commenters about how they found out only years after the 

decision to enroll, that they were ripped off. You know, 

if there are misrepresentations made during the 

recruitment process and the person persists and ends up 

graduating and only upon graduation and a year-long 

search for a job [inaudible]- 

MS. STUDLEY: Or non-graduation.

MR. NASSIRIAN: Or non-graduation for 

that matter. But the point is, the five year may strike 

people as too long but higher. You know, today average 

graduation rates for bachelor's degrees extends beyond 

five years. So I don't know that five years is 

unreasonable.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Barmak. 

Robyn.

MS. R. SMITH: Yeah, I agree, you 

know, we have a lot of clients that have been ripped off 

by for-profit schools that come to us many years after 

the fact just because A) they don't know the legal 

standards. They don't know that something happened thatthey know something happened that shouldn't have, but 

they don't realize that they can even complain anywhere. 

And they often wait until their loans are in default 
22

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

before they realize how- you know that they take action. 

And so I think one of the reasons you want a longer 

period is so that they can complain and mostly make the 

accrediting agencies aware of what's happened so that it 

can take a look at what's going on. So I think it's in 

the agency's interest as well to have a longer look back 

period, so that they can see if there were problems and 

see if they're ongoing and continue to address them. So 

it's really not unreasonable from a student's 

perspective.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you. Jamie.

MS. STUDLEY: I think that a different 

number and a later discovered standard might serve the 

same purpose that Robyn and Barmak are talking about 

because five is an arbitrary number. For this purpose, 

there may- you know, your student may come to understand 

that and have a complaint they want to bring forward in 6 

or 7. So it would help to get- encourage those which can, 

to come in a reasonable time period so that we- so that 

those don't languish and then deal with the ones that are 

late discovered. The law has ways to adjust that so that 

is not barred by five years. So I think there's a 

reasonable ground that could serve both purposes.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you. We 

have one last hand up, and that's Carolyn. And then, we 
23

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

will look to take a temperature check on this section, 

and okay, Laura popped her hand up so she will be the 

last one because we do need to move through these. Go 

ahead, Carolyn.

MS. FAST: I just want to quickly 

uplift a suggestion that perhaps the lookback period 

would appropriately be tied to the length of the 

institution's accreditation cycle. So if they're up for 

accreditation every ten years, that would be an 

appropriate number to peg the lookback period to. So that 

would be a- might depend on the accreditation cycle for 

the institution, but might be another way to look at what 

an appropriate complaint would be.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thanks, Carolyn. Laura.

DR. KING: Yeah. I had a question 

about under complaints all the way down at the bottom, 

number four published data annually on the volume and 

type of complaints received. I think I know what that 

means, what is and otherwise observed. How do I otherwise 

observe a complaint? Besides getting a complaint.

MR. NASSIRIAN: Read the papers.

DR. KING: That's not what that says 

to me. So we do that, Barmak, just for clarity.

MS. JEFFRIES: Let'sDR. KING: Regular part of the 
24

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

process.

MS. JEFFRIES: Let's let the 

Department respond if they have a response.

MR. BOUNDS: Yeah. I mean, we would 

just say the complaints that you have- that you have 

received and when we say otherwise observed or things 

that you- yeah, again, things that you may be aware of or 

that- let me- that you may have observed and then you 

may- and you may have started the complaint yourself 

based on an observation.

DR. KING: So it's still about 

complaints. So it might be something that comes up that 

we then initiate our own process about.

MR. BOUNDS: Right. Yeah, that's what 

we're trying to get- that's what we're trying to get to 

here, is that either complaints that you have received 

directly or something that you saw and then you started 

your complaint process.

DR. KING: Okay.

MR. BOUNDS: But it's still- it couldyeah, I get your point, Laura.

DR. KING: Thanks. 

MS. JEFFRIES: Thanks. Barmak, Laura 

was indicated as the last speaker. Do you have something 

very quick? 
25

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

MR. NASSIRIAN: Yeah, very briefly, I 

just want to remind people that most awareness of student 

discontent and student complaints typically arrives via

media coverage. If you remember the cycle that began in 

2010, 2011 was motivated by individual student stories on 

Frontline and elsewhere about how they had been abused 

and manipulated by certain institutions. So I don't know 

the extent to which the accreditors might have been 

independently aware of it, but if they were, they 

certainly kept the secret well, because it was Frontline 

that exposed it before we ever heard from the particular 

accreditor in those cases.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you. Alright. 

Herman, are you ready for a temperature check on 602.23?

MR. BOUNDS: I am.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, let's see your 

thumbs, please. So, Jamie Studley has a thumbs down. 

Jason Lorgan is a thumbs down. Laura Rasar-King is a 

thumbs down. Those are the only thumbs down that I see. 

Did I miss anyone? Okay. Alright. Thank you all. Okay, 

Herman, you want to take us to the next, 602.24?

MR. BOUNDS: Yeah, 602.24 is next, and 

additional procedures certain institutional credit 

agencies must have. And I know there's going to be a lot 

of discussions here. But basically, you know, our changes 
26

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

here, we know that there are issues with- as we get to 

them with, you know, teach out plans, teach out 

agreements. You know, some being not good and just trying 

to come up with ways to ensure that they are complete. 

And again, also protect students. But we can start with 

(b). I just want to say that in general about teach out 

plans. And I'm just going to breeze through the- you 

know, our edits and changes there and then open it up to 

the floor. But the first section under (b) basically 

talks about the site visits to an additional location and 

what the composition of that, of that site visit team 

should be and depending on the branch campus, the agency 

can kind of determine what that- what the composition of 

the evaluation body should be when they go. We do have 

some other suggestions, though, but must include 

educating educators and, if appropriate, practitioners. 

So the next one is (c), basically with some additional 

language here we have for teach out plans. And then from 

(c)(1) group it talks about the triggers for the teach 

out plans. An agency must- you know, if any of these 

occurrences happen that requires a teach out plan by the 

institution, and then that plan must be approved by the 

accrediting agency. Again, there are several changes from 

(c)(1) through- if you go to the next page, I think page, 

yeah, 32. There are changes through there, (5) is talking 
27

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

more about failure to secure teach out agreements. And I 

want to make sure I didn't miss anything. Oh, hold where 

you are with the slides. If you could go back up toyeah, to page 31. I didn't want to go so fast that I 

[inaudible]. So if you look at under 31, it looks like 

(3) on that page. We're talking about- where it talks 

about the agency may require an institution that 

accredits or preaccredits to enter into a teach out 

agreement as part of its plan. That was added. And so I 

want to look at (4) on page 31. Sorry. Again I got- and 

this is where we talk about the agency must require an 

institution that accredits or preaccredits to submit a 

teach out agreement as defined in 600.2 to the agency for 

approval on the occurrence of any of the following 

events. So now we're saying we want to require teach out 

agreements, and then it lists those things that would 

trigger those agreements. But then we can move to page 

32. And then (5) we talk about if the institution is 

unable to secure teach out agreements with other 

institutions as required under (c)(4) of this section. 

Those are things that must occur. Some other minor 

changes under 32. And then if we go to the next page 

under 33- on page 33. Again, some minor changes there. 

Under (d), closed institutions. I think we enhanced the 

language here about working with institutions to assure 
28

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

teach out agreements that meet the requirements of 602.24 

(c)(9) and we're talking there in an instance where you 

have a closed institution, it closes without a teach out 

plan or teach out agreement. Okay. Again, if we move down 

further to changes under (e) transfer of credit policies. 

We have added (3), (4), and (5). And those would be the 

last changes under 602.24. And I know I went very fast 

there, but I want to make sure we- that we kind of get 

through those. I will then go back and open it up for 

discussion, you know, discussions on them in order of the 

changes that we have presented here. Again, the main 

changes. Some of the main- one of the main changes here, 

we're requiring the teach out agreements, based on those 

certain- based on certain triggers. And then we have also 

some changes under the triggers for teach out plans. So I 

will stop there and open it up for discussion to the 

group.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Herman.

MR. BOUNDS: And sorry. Sorry for 

going through that really fast. I hope I didn't miss 

anything, but I'm sure you'll bring it up. I'm sure the 

committee will bring it up if they have questions.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thanks, Herman. Let's 

open it up for discussion on 24(b). That is the first 

change. So those who have comments on that, now is time 
29

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

to put your hand up. Barmak.

MR. NASSIRIAN: I'm glad I could 

comply with the militant orderliness of going through the 

text. Yes, I have a comment on the new language in (b), 

the agency may determine the appropriate composition of 

the evaluation body for these site visits, except that 

the evaluation body must include educators and, if 

appropriate, practitioners. A couple of observations. I 

will once again re-up my earlier suggestion that 

executives, owners, and fiduciaries of regulated entities 

may play a role not dissimilar to Inspector Renault in 

Casablanca, where they can be standing physically amid a 

setting that should alarm them but choose not to observe 

anything of consequence. But more importantly, leaving 

that issue aside, which I do think again is very 

consequential and does belong in this section as well, I 

want to understand why the Department is writing it in 

such an attenuated way. Shouldn't- other than the public 

member, shouldn't everybody else on that- on those site 

committees be an expert of some kind? I mean, it's not 

enough to have a whole bunch of unqualified people and 

then a couple of educators, right? So it should be 

exclusively other than the public member, which, by the 

way, our accreditor friends tell us, are also experts. 

But assuming we prevail on definition of public, other 
30

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

than the public member, the rest of the committee 

presumably should have to have some expertise, and it 

should be pegged to the statutory requirements with 

regard to standards that accreditors are supposed to 

enforce. Correct? So I want to make sure we get some 

clarity on that, whether there can be non-experts, noneducators as long as there's some educators, are we 

satisfying this language? And more importantly, I worry 

about the term educator without ensuring that they really 

have expertise that relates to the statutory standards 

that accreditors have to enforce. It may be someone with 

financial expertise. It may be a facilities person, may 

not even be in the education business, but may know 

something about laboratory design that the institution 

has to honor. So this- I think this needs a little bit of 

tightening up beyond the point of excluding people who 

may have an evasion of purpose as part of their reason to 

be engaged in the process. Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thanks, Barmak. I'm 

sure the Department would appreciate any written 

proposals on that. Herman, did you have something?

MR. BOUNDS: Yeah. I just want to make 

a couple of quick clarifications. So for the composition 

of site teams in general, which is covered under 602.15, 

no one could argue about our use of educators here, and 
31

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

you'll understand when I- when I'm- when I discuss what's 

under 602- under 602.15 when we say that, you know, you 

have to have- if you're an institutional accrediting 

agency, what we say at minimum, you have to have academic 

and administrative personnel on its evaluation policy and 

decision-making bodies if the agency accredits 

institutions. Educators, practitioners, and/or employers 

on its evaluation bodies and decision-making bodies if 

the AG accredits programs or single-purpose institutions. 

So again, the definition of educator. Yeah, there could 

be some fudge there. So based on our requirements for the 

composition of site teams, what we have here are what we 

minimally would require. The reason we say as appropriate 

and let the agency decide, I think you may have brought 

it up, the agency may- they may think they may need a 

financial expert on the team. They may think they need 

some of these additional folks in addition to the minimum 

folks that we require. And then the public members, 

they're only required on the decision-making body. They 

don't have to be on the- they're not in the composition 

of the site team. So I just wanted to make those 

clarifications for everybody.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Herman. 

Seeing no additional hands on (b) unless I'm missing 

someone. Let's move on to section (c), which is teach out 
32

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

plans and agreement. And I believe there are- the numbers 

go 1 through 12. Yes. Okay. Robyn.

MS. R. SMITH: Thank you. So while 

it's important and I think it's great that Department is 

trying to encourage teach out agreements here, I want to 

reiterate, it's really super important that those teach 

outs are high quality programs. We don't want to see 

students who are already devastated from a school closure 

sort of encouraged and pushed into a program that is 

substandard and low quality. And I've been doing this for 

25 years. I've seen a lot of school closures, and I've 

seen a few teach out agreements. They don't happen often. 

And every one I've seen, quite frankly, has been pretty 

bad. And the most recent one that I've seen and helped a 

client with, the school had never taught that program 

before, it didn't have the equipment it needed for the 

program. It didn't have the licensure to teach the

software program that the students needed to get 

certified to work in the field. But it had been 

accreditor-approved, and I don't even know how that 

happened. And so we've suggested in- in January, we put 

in a proposal with pretty minimal and common-sense

language to at least prevent some abuses. And I'm just 

going to read it here. We added to subsection (c) a new 

section (b)(i) that states there should be an assurance 
33

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

that the institution that would offer the program of 

study under the agreement has operated the student's 

current program of study for at least two years and is 

not under a negative action by an institutional 

accrediting agency, state authorizing agency, or the 

Department. I just want to know, did the Department 

review this and has it rejected this proposal, or is- and 

if so, why? And if not, you know, will it be reviewing 

that? Thanks.

MR. BOUNDS: Yeah, I would say we 

would take a look at it. I don't- I can't honestly recall 

if we- I can definitely tell you we probably didn't 

discount it, but we'll definitely take a look at it again 

to see if we can include it.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thanks, Herman. 

Just want to make a note here that Magin Sanchez is 

coming to the table for civil rights organizations and 

consumer advocates. Next up is Jillian.

MS. KLEIN: Thanks. So first a 

question. So on (c)(1), am I reading this right, that 

every institution will need to submit a teach out plan to 

their accreditor at the point where they go through 

accreditation renewal? Is that what- is that what thisI'm sorry. You guys are laughing. I see everybody 

laughing, so I must be reading this wrong. Somebody help 
34

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

me.

MR. BOUNDS: No, you're right.

MS. KLEIN: Okay. So that's what we 

mean, that we want every institution to submit a teach 

out plan to their accreditor? I don't know why Barmak isI mean, this is a legit question, and I- so I feel- I 

mean, so yes, you answered my question. I don't 

understand this because when I scroll down to see what 

exactly a teach out plan is supposed to entail, it talks 

about a list of currently enrolled students, other 

institutions that, you know, are willing to enter into a 

teach out agreement. And I guess I'm confused about what 

it is we're trying to solve here by having 5,500 

institutions submit a teach out plan to their accreditor, 

when many of them may be at no risk of closing. So I 

don't know if you can provide more information on that. 

And then I have another comment.

MR. BOUNDS: Yeah. So we- you know, 

we've- I guess over time we have found that- of course, 

that when- you know, sometimes when the teach out plan is 

needed in certain instances, they haven't been, again, 

they just haven't been very good and that, you know, the 

agency, you know, has to go out and then they have to 

scramble to get these teach out plans, you know, 

initiated. The institution has to initiate them and then 
35

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

the agency has to review them. We're just saying in item 

one, if preliminary, once they get- you know, once they 

receive initial accreditation, they have some form of 

that plan in place. And we think that will make the other 

steps easier to complete at a time when one of those 

other actions occur updating that plan.

MS. KLEIN: So what benefit does itI'm just asking a question. What benefit does it serve 

for the institution to provide a list of currently 

enrolled students to their creditor at the point they're 

going through a renewal of accreditation if maybe the 

school is not going to close for four years and those 

students aren't there anymore? And I guess a follow-up 

question is- I'll let you answer that first. Sorry.

MR. BOUNDS: Yeah, I think the firstagain, the first step here is again, to have, you know, 

to have the teach out plan available there in some form 

and then once- if you look at (2) being separate from 

(1), then it says the agency must require the institution 

to update its teach out plan. So again, it's if there is 

a base level of information and then we get an immediate 

closure, what we we're looking at is to help facilitate 

those other steps in the process. I guess that's the 

easiest way that I can explain it.

MS. KLEIN: So what are the elements 
36

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

that you would expect in a teach out plan, just so 

institutions can be aware of what it is that we need to 

provide? What is your expectation? Or where would a 

school find that expectation?

MR. BOUNDS: I'm not understanding 

your question.

MS. KLEIN: What do I, as an 

institution, need to provide in a teach out plan in the 

regular cycle of accreditation based on this requirement? 

Because my school has not ever been at risk of closing. 

So I've never put together a teach out plan. Is there a 

specific place where it says, besides just that other 

section that I referenced where it says [inaudible]. 

MR. BOUNDS: I think- right- I think 

you would follow the requirements that we have in this 

section in the, you know, in the initial creation of that 

plan. And then when those, you know, when those 

situations occur, then you would make any updates to the 

information that we are requiring under (c).

MS. KLEIN: Okay. I don't know. I 

think this is not great. I think it's super burdensome 

for institutions and accreditors. And I am also confused 

about exactly what I would provide that would be useful 

in this area. And I would say, and Barmak knows I'm going 

to say this like I'm fighty about the provisional 
37

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

certification trigger that's further down on the page, 

and I think it shouldn't be there, and I'm happy to 

engage more on that. But honestly, I'd rather have 

succinct triggers that make sense for requiring an 

institution to submit a teach out plan [30 seconds] than 

a requirement that every literally 5,500 institutions, 

many- most of which may not be at risk of closing, are 

submitting- required to submit a teach out plan to their 

accreditor just in the regular course of going through 

re-accreditation.

MS. JEFFRIES: We have four more hands 

up. We still have two subsections in this to cover. So, 

are there any additional new comments about section (c)? 

Okay, Magin.

MR. SANCHEZ: Thank you. Just wanted 

to comment support generally in terms of the [inaudible] 

teach out plans, particularly from a racial equity 

standpoint. There's a really good report from SHEEO and I 

have- Rob Anderson was involved on that one. But in terms 

of when you look at the post closure attainment gap, when 

these events transpire, right, there's an attainment gap 

at 1.6 times larger for students of color, the minority 

students. I think that goes really to the essence of why 

it's important not only that you have these plans, but we 

have strong plans itself. I- this is a little bit of a 
38

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

side comment, but, I had forwarded a memo in terms of 

racial equity and advancing racial equity that I hope the 

Department looked at. And I think this is one of the 

areas where that's so important when protecting these 

students. Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you. Magin. 

Another note, David Cohen is coming to the table for 

proprietary schools. Barmak, you got something new for 

me?

MR. NASSIRIAN: Yeah, I just wanted to 

suggest that- this goes back to Jillian's point. I kind 

of understand the Department's approach here. You know, 

the time to require people to buy fire insurance is not 

when the house is on fire. You want to make sure people 

have it in case the house catches fire. But in this 

instance, I tend to agree with her that this is a little 

bit of an overreach to require institutions that are 

older than the republic that are sitting on 50 plus 

billion dollars of endowment money to have a teach out 

plan. It's sort of a meaningless exercise. So I would 

suggest to the Department to create robust triggers for 

mandatory teach out plans. And they shouldn't just be 

plans in somebody's head on a piece- or on a piece of 

paper. They should be backed up with contractual 

arrangements that are satisfactory to the- if it were me, 
39

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

I would have put in state authorization, but it should be 

because we don't have that much authority on state 

authorization or in state. I would mandate that the 

accreditors be the mechanism of enforcement, but it 

should be limited to institutions that trip a wire. It 

shouldn't be everybody, because there are many 

institutions that are at no risk of closure anytime soon. 

Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thanks, Barmak. And I'm 

sure the Department would welcome any assistance in 

identifying triggers that would be important for the 

negotiators' perspective. Jamie.

MS. STUDLEY: Anytime Jillian, Barmak, 

and Scott agree, I think I've saved time. And all is not 

a very good basis here. There are some triggers. People 

should be aware that when an institution is on probation, 

a teach out plan is required. That when an institution is 

on warning, we are required to determine whether a teach 

out is required. And at any time where there's a risk of 

closure, we can do it. And in the example of my 

organization, my staff can order it. So that you don't 

even have to wait for the permission to be available. 

Two, there are successful teach outs. I'm going to take a 

chance and say that there are schools and there's at 

least one school in LA, or two in the LA area that Robyn 
40

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

hasn't seen people from because there was a completely 

successful teach out and 100% of the students were placed 

into programs appropriate to their very complicated 

family and marriage and art counseling degree programs. 

She did mention one specific about the two years, because 

I'm trying to see where the different proposals can be 

helpful. The two-year restriction, I think, would stand 

in the way of something that happens that is very 

student-centered. When there is a quality program in a 

school that cannot sustain the entire institution, 

sometimes the program, the faculty, the curriculum, 

everything that the student wanted, transfers in toto to 

a new institution. And I believe those are- in addition 

to subchanges for the new institution- they are part of 

the teach out arrangement that allows students to 

continue the program that they were looking for under 

another umbrella, and I'd hate to have those stand in the 

way. But the final point for another day is that we need 

a better approach to teach out and closure overall. And 

because accreditors lose the attention of places that 

know they are cratering and they don't have- they don't 

care very much about what we have to say and they may 

feel the same about the Department, we need some kind of 

solution that takes the resources in the system and 

protects students when closure is going to happen, and 
41

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

that we- that has the expertise to do that, maybe the 

authority to provide insurance or [inaudible] 

arrangements. Happy to discuss that offline. But I think 

there are some better. The house on fire arrangement 

doesn't make sense because any of our houses could [30 

seconds] for any of a number of different reasons. I 

think, you know, Barmak got to the same place, but it is 

extremely unlikely that every institution is in random 

danger of closure. Thank you very much. This is a hard 

one, and I think we can- we may be able to make progress 

offline in additional ways because it's one of the most 

important places to protect students.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Jamie. I 

have two hands up on section (c) and then we are going to 

move to (d) and wrap up with (e) so we can move on. 

You're approximately halfway through the issue paper and 

you have just about an hour and a half to cover 

everything. Erika.

MS. LINDEN: I will be succinct. This 

is not my area of expertise in terms of creating teach

out plans, so I may be asking a stupid question, but the 

way it's written, it says the agency will require an 

institution it accredits to submit a teach out plan. Our 

institution has nine different programs. There is 

probably not another institution to which all of those 
42

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

could be farmed out if the institution closed. So is this 

actually also a question about a teach out plan at the 

programmatic level? I hope not. And I think all is, in 

fact, overreach as well. I'll stop there. Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Erika. David 

Cohen.

MR. COHEN: Yeah, I'll be succinct 

too. I applaud the Department for taking this, and it is 

important. And I also agree with Barmak that, you know, I 

think the tripwire is set way, way too high here. Again, 

and I want to echo what Erika was saying, you know, there 

are a lot of programs that are very, very specialized. 

And there aren't programs necessarily, you know, within a 

local commuting distance for students that are similar 

and particularly in areas of the country that are spread 

out in rural. So when the Department says that, you know, 

it has to be programs that the student can travel to 

easily, has the Department- I'm wondering if the 

Department has really mapped out where the various 

disparate programs are across the country, and whether 

there are schools that are all within easy commute 

distance that can serve as a teach out. I think that 

would be quite problematic.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you, David. 

Michael Cioce, is your comment on (c) or (d)?
43

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

MR. CIOCE: It is on- sorry, it's on 

the teach out plans. I feel like the majority of the 

language thus far has been sort of reactionary teach outs 

that have been necessitated. So, as opposed to voluntary. 

Right? So there have been programs that institutions have 

decided to close. So, I just I just want to throw that 

into the mix. These are all ones that where there's, to 

my eye, are sort of- at the programmatic level, not at 

the institutional level. So I think I'm sort of- I would 

be confused if an institution that opts to sunset a 

program isn't- is being included or is not being included 

the same way as a program that is being forced to teach 

out/close. So just food for thought.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Michael, 

appreciate it. So let's move on to section (d), closed 

institutions and open it up for any comments there. 

[Inaudible] Okay. Any comments on closed institutions?

MS. STUDLEY: Yeah. Something happened 

with sound. The- could you go to the- next to page 34? 

The- this language is complicated in that while 

accreditors tried to do some of these things, we are not 

staffed or scheduled to do it, and I think it falls into 

the category I described of how we can think about 

effective ways of providing the guidance to students, 

that increases the skill set for doing that. And the 
44

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

capacity, and that this is not the best way to accomplish 

that. We were- I mean, we do post information. We try to 

and I believe we have, a responsibility to students to 

help them know what to do, what the rules are, what the 

Federal opportunities are when they think about their 

options under the circumstance. But in terms of sort of 

counseling and coaching the institution or, even getting 

into a more direct role, that could be challenging and 

not the best solution for student efficiency. Certainly 

providing information and coordinating with state 

agencies is.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thanks, Jamie. Alright, 

seeing no other hands for section (d), we move on to the 

final section in 602.24(e), transfer credit policies. 

Michael Cioce.

MR. CIOCE: So the- as far as two-year 

institutions go that are sort of built for transfer or at 

least while we clearly also accept transfer students, our 

primary orientation is towards the four-year institution. 

So I guess I'm questioning on (4) like, how that, 

including information on the share of transfer students 

enrolled at the institution, is going to be monitored, 

operationalized, tracked, checked, verified. And then on 

(5) credit transfer acceptance rates given that, you 

know, many, many community colleges are open access. So, 
45

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

I just feel that that's a broad brush for both of those, 

for both (4) and (5) given how the majority of the twoyear sector operates.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Michael. 

Jillian.

MS. KLEIN: Thanks. I'll try and be 

brief. So on the new language under (e), I am not super 

concerned about the share of transfer students, about (4) 

or (5), really, but I think (3) is challenging. And also, 

I don't think it's in the best interest of students, 

especially when we talk about students who are bringing 

in transfer credits. They, as you all know, some of them 

bring in two transfer credits. Some of them bring in 45 

transfer credits or more. And the amount of time it will 

take for those students to complete their program will 

vary widely, depending not only on the number of transfer 

credits they bring in, but then all the other sort of 

life situations, especially as you're talking about adult 

students, as they're having other demands on their time 

to move through their program. And I feel like it's 

actually a disservice to students to put a number out 

there about the average time to complete a program. 

Really, for anybody, but especially for transfer 

students, because I think it can be really misleading, as 

a student as assessing what their experience might be at 
46

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

the institution and how long it may take them. They may 

be discouraged if they see a number that's slower than 

they think it will take them, or they may be falsely 

encouraged if they see a number that's faster than it 

will realistically take them. And certainly, we're all 

interested in providing good information to students and 

good disclosed information to students, but I feel like 

this particular item actually does a disservice to 

students as they're considering their options across 

different institutions, especially since institutions all 

take different approaches towards which transfer credits 

they do or don't apply to a student's program. So I'm 

largely fine with (4) and (5). And if there's other 

information that you would like to have institutions 

include for transfer students, definitely open to that 

conversation too, but want to make sure that it's 

information that's going to be in the best interest of 

the student.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thanks, Jillian. I just 

want to make a note that Scott Dolan has come back to the 

table for private non-profits. Jessi Morales, you are up 

next.

MS. MORALES: So, also on the point of 

(e), I won't go through kind of how arranged everything 

is because I think everybody would want to kill me at 
47

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

that point. So we'll just talk about the topics and then 

can submit the language to see the formatting. But on, 

Jillian's point, I think it is really important to be 

able to see, not only the transfer rates, but how long it 

takes to complete that at that school because it pertains 

to how expensive or not expensive it's going to be, but 

largely how expensive it's going to be. But in terms of 

adding the language, I think one of the other things that 

we were looking at adding was under the accrediting 

agency must instead of having, what we currently have is 

(4)- adding the (4) to include information on the share 

of transfer students enrolled at the institution. I think 

that needs to be up there and then on the following for 

ensuring institutions transfer credit policies that are 

effective, making sure that it's as- like as part of it, 

the average time to completion for transfer students as 

well as credit transfer acceptance rates towards general 

education credits and towards requirements for the 

program of study, that data and information should be 

included as well. And then adding in the line, assess the 

institution's credit transfer acceptance rates from 

institutions also approved by the institution's 

accrediting agency, and require the institution to 

provide an explanation for why any such institutions from 

which it does not accept any credits. This is something 
48

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

that has come up a lot, I think, in the advocacy space, 

in terms of if you're not willing to accept the credits 

from a school from the same accrediting agency, obviously 

something's not going right. And so just that should be 

important information to be added as well.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Jessi. Scott 

Dolan.

MR. DOLAN: I understand the point 

from a student and a consumer perspective. I work at an 

institution that accepts transfer credit from a variety 

of different sources in ways that are trying to help 

students complete their degrees, where they weren't able 

to do so previously. 100% of our students are transfer 

students. I have, and David kind of beat me to this in 

the chat, I think we need to be really clear about what 

we mean by credit transfer acceptance rate. So I get the 

need for us to not want to make students duplicate 

credits that they've taken elsewhere. But, credits that 

can transfer and can come from a variety of different 

sources, institutional sources, it could come from credit 

for prior learning, it could come from ACE-evaluated 

credit, it can come- and institutions have widely varying 

policies on this for good reason. Not just to prevent 

students from- or to make students take courses at theirbut because they're protecting the integrity of their 
49

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

programs and the outcomes that they're looking to ensure 

students meet. So, I understand the general intent. I get 

somewhat concerned that it doesn't lack a full contextual 

understanding for how this works in a concrete reality. 

So I just think we need to think through are there other 

mechanisms by which we can get this information and

improve on how we collect this information and present 

this information to students so that they can make more 

informed decisions on their pathway. I just don't think 

including information on credit transfer acceptance rates 

would require us to define that much better than it is 

here. So that's all.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you. We'll take 

Barmak, and then we'll do a temperature check and move on 

to the next section with changes. So, Barmak.

MR. NASSIRIAN: Yeah, I agree with 

Scott. You can quote-unquote accept credits and not 

expedite time to degree because the credits don't really 

satisfy requirements. So you could technically satisfy 

the acceptance metric without really doing much by way of 

benefit to the student. I think the point Jessi made is 

really the germane one. Remember that in the- as you 

know, I'm a big fan of various trinities and the holy 

trinity of credit evaluation is quality, comparability, 

applicability. Those are the three tiers of analysis that 
50

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

credit evaluation is supposed to satisfy before receiving 

institution grants, academic credit for incoming credit 

transfer requests from other schools. Of the three, 

quality is supposed to be addressed by accreditation and 

therefore the- probably the most telling component of 

anything having to do with transfer credit here would be 

to ask institutions what percentage of credit transfer 

requests they deny, not on the basis of comparability or 

applicability, right. Art history student trying to 

become a physicist has a lot of courses they don't countthey don't satisfy the physics program. That doesn't 

count if the courses are not comparable. That is 

understandable. But if you have the same calculus course 

and you don't take it and the- both institutions are 

accredited by the same agency, the fact of that 

disparity, that one entity doesn't accept the other- the 

other entity's credits tells you a lot about the 

consistency and the rigor of the accreditor’s enforcement 

practices. So that would be, I think, Jessi's comment, I 

think, would be the most telling metric that would 

reflect on the accreditors' practices on what's going on 

in terms of transfer credit. I want to remind people, 

accreditors were founded to facilitate transfer of credit 

among peer institutions. When we tied billions of Federal 

dollars to quote-unquote, voluntary accreditation, guess 
51

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

what? We blew up. We blew up seamless transfer of credit 

precisely because purpose of evasion crept in and people 

began to seek accreditation, not for the purpose of 

identifying their peers, but for the purpose of getting 

their ticket punched to access Federal money. Thanks.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thanks, Barmak, 

appreciate it. Alright. So that concludes discussion on 

602.24. Can we go ahead and take a temperature check on 

this section? Can I see your thumbs? Jason Lorgan is a 

thumbs down. Joe, I can't see your thumb. There you go. 

Thanks. Is he the only thumbs down? Okay. Yep. It's the 

only one thumbs down, and that's Jason. Okay. Thank you 

very much. So, Herman, I'm looking at 602.25, and unless 

I'm missing something, I'm not seeing any changes in 

there.

MR. BOUNDS: Yeah. Nothing there.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Alright, so let's 

move to. How about- Jamie?

MS. STUDLEY: 26.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay.

MR. BOUNDS: Yeah.

MS. JEFFRIES: About 602.26. Okay?

MR. BOUNDS: Okay. We'll start at 602- 

MS. JEFFRIES: Can you give us a brief 

overview?
52

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

MS. STUDLEY: I'm waiting for- is 

Herman going to summarize, or do you want us to jump in?

MR. BOUNDS: Yeah, I'll summarize 

quickly. There's not a lot there, though.

MS. JEFFRIES: Yeah. Go ahead please, 

Herman. Brief overview.

MR. BOUNDS: Yeah, real lickety split. 

We added the language instead of written notice under 

602.26(b), of course, we added the decision letters. And 

I think we added decision letters under (e) instead of 

the brief summary. I would say too, some agencies already 

submitting us decision letters in those cases. And then 

looks like the last one is (g) is where we're asking for 

a notification if the agency grants and extension for 

good cause. And it looks like that's just a notification. 

It's not a- doesn't seem to be a- yeah. And also a brief 

description of the reason for the extension. So I'll stop 

there and open it up.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thanks. Jamie, do 

you want to lead us off here?

MS. STUDLEY: Yes. I- back up to the 

first reference on decision letter. Some agencies publish 

the decision letter, my agency does, but some agencies 

provide written notice with the reasoning and do not 

structure their decision letters in exactly the same way. 
53

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

So we think that it would be better for the Department to 

do the language in what it's looking for rather than the 

document that it is asking for, which would require some 

agencies to change practice that the Department has 

already found acceptable. So if they want written notice 

with some kind of- you know, and the basis for the 

decision, we think that would be appropriate flexibility.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Jamie. Any 

other comments on (b), on the decision letter? Alright. 

How about (e), any comments on (e)? Same change about 

agency's decision versus brief statement.

MS. STUDLEY: Yeah, exactly.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay seeing none. How 

about section (g)? Laura.

DR. KING: I wondered if Herman can 

talk about the reason for this. I, you know, I guess I 

don't have a problem with notifying, you know, these 

bodies about good cause extensions if we have them. But, 

I mean, I've never gotten ever once with any notification 

that I've ever given any sort of even acknowledgment that 

it's gotten there. So I wondered if you could talk about

what the Department does with these notifications. Is it 

reviewed? Is there- what purpose is it serving?

MR. BOUNDS: I think it's more of 

information. I think we talked a lot about it. I don't 
54

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

want to continue on about the criticalness of extensions 

for good cause, the reasons that they're giving. Again, I 

think for us, it's just getting information on the reason 

that an agency might have awarded extension for good 

cause, especially when it's an institution that may be, 

you know, that may be in public life. That kind of keeps 

us abreast of what's going on and the agency's decisions. 

And again, we're not questioning your decision. We're 

just wanting to look at your rationale. The other thing I 

would say, Laura, that agencies normally nowadays submit 

information via DAPIP. So it may take a time- some time 

for an analyst to go into DAPIP and see if that 

information is in there. But, you know, I don't know 

about your agency, but if any e-mails come into me about 

certain actions, you know, we try to at least say, yeah, 

we have them. But if you have not been getting those, we 

would be happy to make sure that we look at that closely. 

But that's the reason for (g) without dragging discussion 

out.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you. 

Alright. Seeing no additional hands on 602.26. Let's go 

ahead and take a temperature check on that section, if I 

could see your thumbs. I'm not seeing any thumbs down. 

Okay. It is- how about section 602.27? Looks like outside 

of a numerical change or is one change in there?
55

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

MR. BOUNDS: Yeah, there is one change 

in 27.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Briefly highlight 

that for us, Herman?

MR. BOUNDS: Yeah, we can actually 

just go straight into discussion. It's pretty selfexplanatory. You know, if- you know, we're asking for a 

list updated semiannually for institutions that are 

eligible for participation in Title IV that have applied 

for initial accreditation.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you, 

Herman. Jamie.

MS. STUDLEY: The words are 

comprehensible words. But the purpose of this provision 

is unclear. So rather than my trying to speculate, 

Herman, what, why?

MR. BOUNDS: Yeah. So this gets back 

to a couple of things with the large number of 

institutions that are now changing accrediting agencies. 

Now, we also have another process for that in our 

reasonable cause determinations. But then this kind of 

helps to help us kind of match what those two processes 

are doing with a reasonable cause, because we, you know, 

an institution may submit an application to change that 

goes through the FSA process, but then we don't really 
56

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

have information on when that situation actually occurs. 

And then this also helps us to kind of track and be able 

to follow a situation where we may able- where we may 

want to make some inquiries to the agency about their 

fiscal and administrative capacity to handle the 

expansion. So meaning if we see a large number of gains 

of institutions, then that just puts this- puts that on 

our radar to say, okay, we may want to have some 

conversations with the agency about their ability to take 

on these new institutions.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Herman. 

Jamie.

MS. STUDLEY: Yes. Well, I guess some 

of that, but hoped it wasn't the answer. The Department 

has pre-approval requirements that institutions have to 

go to before they are allowed to discuss with us the 

possibility of accreditation. I think your answer partly 

boils down to you want us to do a list because it's 

easier than FSA telling you who's in FSA's queue. I hope 

that's not the logic. 

MR. BOUNDS: No, that's not- that's 

not the case. If that's- if that's how my explanation 

came across, that's not the case.

MS. STUDLEY: Okay. That's what I 

thought I heard. Good. Glad to hear that.
57

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

MR. BOUNDS: Yeah.

MS. STUDLEY: So, institutions who 

want to make a change, and I know we're getting to other 

more complicated change issues shortly, but institutions 

that want to make a change must go to the Department for 

pre-approval. So the Department should know about those. 

Second, and you know to whom they are seeking to move, 

because that's part of the application that they have to 

make. Let's think about the other piece. Institutions 

that are not accredited. This would put us in the 

position of determining what institution is eligible for 

Title IV, if they are not yet participating. That's not 

our job. I believe education wants to make that 

determination. So it's an odd thing to ask us to do. You 

know, we're- there's the danger of focusing on one 

regulatory issue and forgetting that I have new startup 

teacher education programs. I don't know whether they 

will qualify, and I wouldn't know when they might qualify 

for Title IV. But we'd be expected to create this report. 

And finally, I don't know the answer, but is there an 

interest that a new institution at the early stages of 

applying for initial accreditation has some, I won't go 

as far as privacy right, but whether- given that they're 

just in discussion with us and they're not doing anything 

with education yet, whether that is part of your- whether 
58

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

that's something the Department needs, would it just be a 

burden for both of us? And do they- do we have to tell 

you on their behalf? If you've got questions about 

capacity or what the wait list is for us or how many 

schools we're processing, there other ways to get numbers 

without a list. There's nothing I'm trying to hide from 

you. I don't think there's anything that you couldn't 

know, but one more list updated semiannually of [30 

seconds] or that don't matter to the Department seems 

worth reconsidering.

MR. BOUNDS: Yeah. Just real quickly, 

Jamie, we try to address some of those things you just 

discussed by the point at which you actually accept the 

application, and then you're actually starting the 

accreditation process, not all of your pre-conversations 

with an institution. When you're- you have institution A, 

you're ready to go. You know we schedule the site, now 

you're in our process. That's what we meant. That's what 

we meant to capture, not all the early discussions.

MS. STUDLEY: Well consider for 

example, whether the numbers at the points that we report 

to you is the name of the institution appropriate or is 

there some downside for institutions? But it's just an 

odd requirement.

MR. BOUNDS: And we'll definitely take 
59

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

your comments under consideration.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, thanks. Alright, 

I appreciate it. Seeing no other hands, can we take a 

temperature check on 602.27? Thumbs, please. Okay. I'm 

not seeing any thumbs down. Alright. Question to pose to 

you. We normally take a break in the afternoon. You have 

probably about 25 pages yet to go through. Do you feel 

like you need like a quick ten-minute break or five 

minute-break or? No? Okay, let's keep plugging through, 

though. Are you okay, Herman?

MR. BOUNDS: Yeah, I'm fine.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Alright. It 

doesn't look like- let's see, where were we? Should be at 

602.28. Yes, 602.28. Do we get a brief summary?

MR. BOUNDS: Yeah. Let's see. Let me 

let me close- let me close my screen here. Alright. So we 

are at 602.28. And I think the first change is under (d). 

And I actually think the major change or compared to- I 

think the major change here is we added state agency to 

the equation because that was not there previously. And 

I'm going to- and I'll open it up for discussion. But I 

want to double-check that. But I think that was the only 

issue there.

MS. JEFFRIES: [Inaudible] Herman, and 

I'm done. Any comments on 602.28 on the change there in, 
60

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

looks like (d)? I'm not seeing any hands. Temperature 

check? Can I see a show of thumbs?

MR. MARTIN: I have a lot of trouble 

hearing you, Cindy.

MS. JEFFRIES: Oh, [inaudible]. How 

about that?

MR. MARTIN: That's still a little 

muffled.

MS. JEFFRIES: Let me see if my thing 

is charged up now.

MR. MARTIN: That's better. That's 

much better.

MS. JEFFRIES: [Inaudible]

MS. MORALES: Did you call for a thumb 

check? Sorry, I didn't hear anything, but I see thumbs.

MS. JEFFRIES: Yes, I did.

MR. MARTIN: It was kind of muffled at 

first.

MS. JEFFRIES: Yeah, that's- I don't 

know, my headset was dead and I was using the computer. I 

think that speaker is tired. But my headsets working, so, 

yeah. Can I just see the thumbs, please? Not seeing any 

thumbs down. We're good to move on. Thanks for bearing 

with me while I made that technical switch. Alright. It 

doesn't look like there's any change in 29, 30.
61

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

MR. BOUNDS: Yeah, 30, there are some 

minor changes here in (a), but then we- I think we can go 

down to where some of the- where the major change is. The 

change on page 41 is just to add the advisory committees. 

That's not much there. But we can go down to I think it's 

page 43. And I think that's where the bulk of the change 

is.

MS. JEFFRIES: 602.31?

MR. BOUNDS: 602.31 and then we have 

(a) and we'll go through (a)(1). You notice that (a) was 

scratched. And basically here's where we incorporated 

agency categories, for our risk-based review. So I think 

at this point I'll just open up discussion. I think folks 

can- have read that and can see some of the changes here 

that we have proposed but we brought back for agencies in 

a specific category, based on a number of factors. One, 

you know, Title IV volume. And then we can also consider, 

you know, complaints and other things when we're talking 

about applying the risk-based review process and those 

requirements are lower here, but I'll just stop here and 

just open up this whole section, for, you know, for, for 

discussion. I would just remind everybody too that before 

the new regulations became effective, we kind of had a 

form of a focused review, which we were only looking at a 

subset of criteria. So the concept here is not new. So 
62

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

I'll just leave it at that.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you. 

Thanks, Herman. Jamie.

MS. STUDLEY: There are some, you 

know, well, the concept of, paying attention to the 

situations that warrant close attention makes sense. 

Wondering if the Department has any- anything they can 

tell us about what participate extensively means? And 

then a second, just to be efficient, the- anything where 

a number of, for example, legal actions or complaints are 

received could mean a lot of different things. And people 

have pointed out here that legal actions against an 

accreditor could be because they are rigorous and 

institutions are not happy with those results. Complaints 

can come from a variety of reasons. I would suggest that 

the sheer number is not informative, but the- since that 

could be gamed. But that complaints that were resolved in 

a certain way or led to determinations of compliance 

issues or, in other ways of saying, was there substance 

to these that should suggest that the Department should 

take a further look. The agency must submit a 

comprehensive application suggests a level of certainty. 

I think it would be- you know, if it's really saying that 

the Department will look at this information and make a 

reasoned decision about what level of scrutiny the agency 
63

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

should have, I think that's already the case. But if 

lesser problems suggest that the agency may be able to do 

a more simplified review, that would be certainly- you 

know, move in a positive direction. But what is extensive 

and how do you keep these from doing exactly the opposite 

of what you want, which is, forcing greater review of the 

agency, the very agencies that are being most rigorous?

MR. BOUNDS: Yeah. So let me answer 

the- I think the last maybe part of your question first 

here. So you're correct. We currently look at outside 

information, legal actions, complaints in those things. 

And like you just said, Jamie, we evaluate the- you know, 

the information or the extent of those situations, for 

lack of a better word. Meaning we would not, you know, 

change categories just based on, you know, you had 200 

complaints. We want to see the content of those 

complaints and what they consisted of. So it's all akind of like a qualitative review of this information. 

And then if we saw a pattern, oh, wow, there are things 

where there are complaints against, you know, 

institutions that maybe the agency had taken no action 

against. But we evaluate- we would evaluate all those 

things. Same thing with, you know, same thing with 

lawsuits or legal action. So it would be an evaluation of 

those things to determine whether we needed to take some 
64

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

additional action. And then I think the thing that I left 

out before, we're talking about one of the separations 

between the types of reviews is we're talking about 

agencies who participate exclusively in Title IV and of 

course, that's a- those are statutory requirements 

anyway, is that we are supposed to prioritize our reviews 

based on the amount of Title IV volume that an agency is 

responsible for and so that is a current statutory 

requirement.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Herman. 

Jessi.

MS. MORALES: Can you all hear me?

MS. JEFFRIES: Yes.

MS. MORALES: Sorry. I just- I have 

the screen open and then it closed. Okay. So, in some of 

the language that we submitted proposals for, we just 

wanted to flag that we want to add in (a)(2) and (a)(4), 

that in addition to the other areas, the Department 

requires all the agencies, even the lower risking 

agencies, that it's not requiring to respond to other 

criteria to answer to additional areas, which is 

602.27(a)(6) and then which is the requirement that 

agencies submit to the Department the name of any 

institution or program that accredits that the agency has 

reason to believe is failing to meet its Title IV 
65

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

obligations or is engaged in fraud or abuse, and then 

also adding 602.28, which requires agencies to respond to 

negative actions or decisions by other accreditors. And 

as we've been discussing and proposing here, by state and 

Federal agencies, we just think these are important 

things that we make sure we keep an eye out on because 

it's super important to students as well as taxpayers in 

general. So, wanted to have those as something that is 

looked at across theMS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Jessi. 

Jamie.

MS. STUDLEY: Yeah. I'm just 

encouraging the Department to look at the very specific 

language. And I'll try and do the same. The type of 

application that must be submitted is determined by the 

Department if an agency has been the subject of a 

significant number, the agency of actions complaints, the 

agency must submit a comprehensive application. I think 

this is a place where it's appropriate for the agency, 

for the Department, the US Department to make a reasoned 

determination about which level is appropriate and 

significant number is just too blunt an instrument. But I 

do appreciate the return to risk levels. I'm picturing 

Kay Gilcher, who implemented something like this years 

ago, and it is sensible to think about different tiers.
66

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

MR. BOUNDS: Yeah. And we'll take your 

language suggestions too, Jamie, and go back and take a 

look where we can make that clear that it's also the 

substance. It's what I was looking for. It's the 

substance of the complaint. Yeah.

MS. STUDLEY: Do you- does the 

Department have any current thinking about what 

participate extensively in Title IV means? Some idea of 

where it stands might be helpful to accreditors of 

different sizes.

MR. BOUNDS: Yeah. You know, right off 

the bat. And we're still discussing where that break 

might be. But we know right now that, you know, most of 

the accreditors whose sole purpose is Title IV are 

probably going to- could fall into that first category, 

meaning the, you know, the former Regionals and Nationals 

might fall into that category. It's been the- you know, 

under the- you know, the second category of the ones that 

accredit the freestanding institution. And if there's 

going to be a break between. You know, some of the former 

regionals and nationals. So we're you know- this is a 

work in process. Yeah, yeah.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, Jillian.

MS. KLEIN: Yeah. Sorry for this 

question. I again, I'm not an expert on this, but is 
67

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

this- am I understanding this section to suggest. So I 

see in five it says agencies described in the section 

must submit a comprehensive application at least once 

every third cycle. So does that mean- because I remember 

in another section in here talking about sort of a fiveyear rerecognition process. So does that mean this 

complete application is only required for accreditors 

once every 15 years? Is that what this is saying?

MR. BOUNDS: That would be right. And 

remember the agencies that we have, for lack of a better 

word, I'm gonna put in category one. They're always 

getting a full review. So you know, they're always going 

through the full review. It's the agencies based on their 

Title IV volume, which are, I think in category two here, 

where they are already on the sort of focus review, you 

know, based on our risk factors. And then the 

programmatic agencies, which are not Title IV 

gatekeepers. So of those agencies, we're saying that, 

yeah, every third cycle, they would still have to come in 

and do a full review, even though currently they're under 

this focused review.

MS. KLEIN: I see. So institutional 

accreditors like the former Regionals and Nationals are 

going through this sort of full cycle every five years. 

Is that what you're saying?
68

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

MR. BOUNDS: Yeah. And again, as I 

just spoke with Jamie about we- you know, there could be 

some variance in volumes of Title IV dollars that we have 

to consider. But if you're in one, one is pretty clear. 

You have to submit a comprehensive evaluation.

MS. KLEIN: Yeah, okay. Thanks for the 

clarification. Barmak and I were about to agree again 

because I was about to lose my mind that accreditors were 

only being evaluated every 15 years. But I feel better 

now. Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Jillian. 

Alright. Any other comments on so 602.31? We're looking 

at (a) and I think that's the only change. Correct?

MR. BOUNDS: Let's see. Yeah, I think 

that's it.

MS. JEFFRIES: The only thing I see in 

yellow, yeah. Okay. So, are you ready for a temperature 

check? Can I see your thumbs?

MR. BOUNDS: I think so.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, great. Can I see 

thumbs, please? Jamie, you look like you're deep in 

thought. Alright. I'm not seeing any thumbs down. 

Alright, let's move to the next section with change. I 

see a little bit of yellow in 602.32. It's a 

strikethrough. 
69

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

MR. BOUNDS: Yeah. Let me get down to 

32. Yeah. These were- I think some of these we had 

discussed earlier. So I won't go through them again. But 

we do have some. Yeah, we do have some strikethroughs in 

32. But if anyone has any comments or discussions in the 

text that's here, I'm happy to entertain those. But yeah, 

there's no yellow there other than the strikers.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. So nothing other 

than what was presented in the first one except that one 

strike through. Any discussion on that, do you feel you 

need a temperature check or can we just move on? Hello.

MR. BOUNDS: No.

MS. JEFFRIES: Oh, okay. Do younegotiators, do you want a temperature check on that or 

just move on? I think we'll just move on.

MR. BOUNDS: Okay. Alright.

MS. JEFFRIES: So, 602.33, I'm not 

seeing any yellow changes in there.

MR. BOUNDS: No. No yellow.

MS. JEFFRIES: 602.34. Again, I'm not 

seeing any yellow. Any discussion anybody wants to have 

on that? Okay. 602.35 again, no yellow responding to the 

advisory committee's recommendations. Not seeing any 

hands. So 602.36. Looks like we have some changes there.

MR. BOUNDS: Yeah.
70

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

MS. JEFFRIES: This section is on 

senior Department officials' decisions, right? Okay. 

Okay, Herman, you want to give us a brief overview?

MR. BOUNDS: Yeah. And this is just 

providing some additional options for- I think we're in 

the- for the Senior Department official. And this is 

basically related to the grant of initial period- the 

initial period of recognition. Happy to take any comments 

here.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. We'll open it up 

for comments on that section. It looks like the changes 

in (e) romanette 2. Barmak. 

MR. NASSIRIAN: Yeah, I would replace 

the may with shall. It just strikes me as imprudent to 

give a blank check to somebody who has never done this 

within the purview of your recognition. So I think there 

should always be a period of- there should be a- an 

explicit limit for new entrants. It could be a longer 

limit depending on, you know, the judgment of the Senior 

Department official, but it should never- it should be 

mandatory that scope is specified.

MR. BOUNDS: Yeah, I'll wait and 

respond at the end. I just want to remind this- these 

changes were- you know, this was put in based on some 

comment or submission. So whoever submitted those please, 
71

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

you know, make your comments too. But I'll make one final 

comment once everybody's done.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Carolyn.

MS. FAST: I agree with Barmak that it 

makes sense to have limitations in this in this way. And

one proposal that I just wanted to lift up was that, 

limiting the number of schools that an accreditor, a new 

accreditor, could accredit based on how many schools that 

they accredited prior to getting recognition. So, if a 

school only, accredited one school prior to recognition, 

they should be limited to- they shouldn't be able to go 

to, you know, a thousand schools, initially until they're 

more established. So the proposal was that they would be 

limited to double the number of schools that they had 

prior to getting recognition.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thanks. Carolyn. 

Any other comments? Jamie. You're on mute, Jamie.

MS. STUDLEY: Sorry, I was going for 

the chat, I apologize.

MS. JEFFRIES: Oh no worries, no 

worries. The buttons get ahead of me every day too, so 

don't worry, okay? Alright. Anything you wanted to add, 

Herman, before we do a temperature check on 602.36?

MR. BOUNDS: Yeah, just for 

information purposes, I don't want to slow the process 
72

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

down. I just want to remind everybody that an agency 

that's coming in for initial recognition, you know, they 

aren't- they don't go before NACIQI and they don't get a 

staff recommendation until the staff is sure that they 

have met all of the recognition criteria. So when they 

show up from the NACIQI, there are no- you know, they are 

there are no remaining issues. So, it's not like the case 

where somebody would go forth that's, you know, that's 

kind of on shaky ground. But I understand that, you know, 

folks may want to- may think the limitations should 

automatically occur. But in my opinion that may not- it 

may not be the case, but again, we'll definitely consider 

all of your comments.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thanks, Herman. 

Alright. Seeing no additional hands, let's go ahead and 

take a temperature check on 602.36. Let me see your 

thumbs. Okay, I'm not seeing any thumbs down. Alright, 

Herman. I'm sorry. Oh, I thought maybe I missed someone. 

Okay, Herman, take me- take us where we need to go next. 

602.37, I'm not seeing anything unless I'm missing 

something.

MR. BOUNDS: No. There's nothing in 

the preset, except for some minor, you know, regulatory 

provision changes, but it's based on other changes there. 

37. There's nothing in 37. 38. I think we would be down 
73

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

to the subpart (d) and maybe down to part 604. Does that 

look- Yeah.

MS. JEFFRIES: That's what I'm- yeah I 

think so. Yeah.

MR. BOUNDS: Okay. And so for 604, I 

would just like to say to the representative for the 

state boards of nursing, you know, we got some of those 

recommendations and suggestions in a little later in the 

process. So that's why, you know, maybe some of those 

weren't, you know, they weren't all incorporated. I do 

think, that under- let's see, I think it was under 

student achievement. Yeah, under student achievement. If 

you scan down to page 58. That we did take the suggestion 

for their student achievement marker. The National 

Council licensure examination. So we did put that in, and 

we'll- we will consider the other changes that you 

suggested. The other thing that I would say here is that, 

you know, waiting for some additional explanation of the 

changes that you had recommended. Again, that was the 

reason for not making the changes now. And we have some 

of those. The other thing I would also say, too, is that, 

you know, some of the changes that were recommended were 

changes from the additional 1969 Federal Register that 

the state Boards of Nursing had been having to respond to 

since that, you know, since that time, again, so we 
74

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

wanted a little more information on why we thought- why 

you thought those changes would need to be made. And 

then, Cindy, I just have one question for you so that I'm 

not breaking protocol, but is there a point where we can 

ask the committee a question, the committee person a 

question, or is that not allowed?

MS. JEFFRIES: No, the purpose here is 

to have some back-and-forth dialog, soMR. BOUNDS: Okay. Well, okay.

MS. JEFFRIES: That's fine.

MR. BOUNDS: Hi, Amy. So we were 

trying to- we were trying to understand and we- you know, 

you had struck here, you know, providing the financial 

audit or audited fiscal reports, you know, I think as

part of the annual reporting process, I believe.

MS. ACKERSON: Yeah. The course 

catalog and the fiscal report, right?

MR. BOUNDS: Yeah. Course catalog. So 

the question that we had about the fiscal report is that, 

is there at any point where, say, a state board of 

nursing, could accredit like a freestanding school of 

nursing that may be not attached to an institution, and 

it only [inaudible] nursing approval to allow the 

students to apply for grants under, you know, Health and 

Human Services or something like that? That's what we 
75

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

were trying to understand if that could occur. 

MS. ACKERSON: Okay, right. Good 

question. Yeah. Good question. So, the problem with the 

audited fiscal report is that sometimes inside of an 

institutional audited fiscal report, you can't get to the 

nursing program. So we- on regular review, we do audit 

the nursing program budget. Now keeping in mind that 

nursing program approval is not accreditation.

MR. BOUNDS: Right. We understand. 

Yes.

MS. ACKERSON: So there is some 

language that I believe probably was a copy and paste 

issue into this section that still talks about accredited 

or pre-accredited programs and that wording needs to be 

changed to approval. But, you know, the truth of the 

matter is, an approved nursing program could also have a 

nursing program accreditation along with a sponsoring 

institution accreditation that's going to allow for all 

those double and triple checks on the audited fiscal 

report of the institution. So if there is, by chance, a 

standalone nursing program, that standalone nursing 

program still has to be accredited by an agency that 

would make it eligible for Title IV funding. So, you 

know, like I said, we're still talking about a very small 

number of nursing regulatory boards here. There's only 
76

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

five of us left. And so all of those still require 

accreditation by the sponsoring institution. Your 

question on if it would restrict their funding from a 

HRSA grant. That's something we're still trying to figure 

out. It was a conversation that we had with HRSA that 

nobody could really answer. But, you know, the collection 

of the actual audited fiscal report every single year 

just, like I said, it becomes an arbitrary piece of paper 

in our eyes. And same for the course catalog. I mean, 

those resources are all available online. If for some 

reason that- something that we trigger on annual report 

should trigger an approval, you know, a regulatory visit, 

we can pull all that information. But that annual report 

piece, you know, that's all in coordination with National 

Council for State Boards of Nursing, you know, for data 

collection purposes and some and some compliance issues. 

So those two pieces of information, just, like I said, 

become arbitrary pieces of paper because the nursing 

program information is embedded in such a large document 

sometimes.

MR. BOUNDS: Okay. So yeah that 

helpful. We were just- and we just didn't know if there 

was a possibility of a state that may have, say, a school 

of nursing who may not have accreditation by- they may 

not be Title IV eligible, but they only use the state 
77

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

Board of Nursing's approval that gain access to those 

other grant funds. And that was something that we were 

trying to consider.

MS. ACKERSON: I can't think of a case 

in modern age that that is the case, but I will certainly 

do my due diligence and find out.

MR. BOUNDS: Yeah, that was the only 

question that we had when we were trying to figure out 

the applicability of the, you know, of the audited fiscal 

reports. But we will- we are going to take a look at all 

your suggestions and, you know, take those into 

consideration, you know, when we review this for the next 

session and the only other thing I would, I would just 

like to say to for us, and this is applicable to agencies 

that are recognized under 602- under 602 and 19- under 

602.19, it talks about accrediting agencies have to have 

some sort of monitoring practices and they collect 

information annually. Now, the State Board of Nursing 

criteria is the only one that kind of lists what that 

should be. For accrediting agencies, it's only financial 

information and student achievement at minimum. So I 

would also just remind you that, you know, when we look 

at annual reports, we consider that maybe a monitoring 

process where an agency would catch things early. And I 

think that's why that was prescribed there. I wasn't 
78

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

alive- well, I was alive in 69, but I wasn't doing this. 

I wasn't doing this particular job. [Inaudible] ten years 

before that, but I wasn't doing this job ten years before 

that, so I just [inaudible].

MS. STUDLEY: It just feels like you 

were, Herman.

MR. BOUNDS: Absolutely. 

MS. ACKERSON: And I don't mean to 

begrudge the committee. I mean, understanding that not 

lot of folks on this committee have a dog in this hunt 

besides nursing program approvers on this particular 

section. But I just think since it is language that is so 

old, it's just- I would ask the Department, use the 

opportunity to maybe update it. Like I said, it doesn't 

really offer a lot of concordance with what some state 

Board of Nursing regulations offer. So, and I apologize 

for the late submission of the rationale, I'm going to 

play the new kid card on that. Didn't realize when all of 

it came into play. SoMR. BOUNDS: Alright. Thank you. So 

we'll- and again, you did give us- yeah, I'm glad you

corrected me. You did give us the written rationale. So 

we will definitely go back and take a look at that. But 

you definitely answered my question, so I'll be quiet 

now. And if any other committee members- [inaudible]- 
79

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

yes, go ahead.

MS. ACKERSON: If I could just take my 

opportunity just for one more comment, just the last 

subpart (c) and the recognition process, the whole- I 

don't understand the Department's rationale for wanting 

to review nursing program approval agencies every four 

years instead of the normal every five. So if that could 

just be considered as well.

MR. BOUNDS: Yeah, it is. We- you 

know, we also recognize another group of state folks that 

are state vocational agencies. And they are also four 

years. I think our original rationale here was, is that 

the state boards, whether it's the state Board of Nursing 

or the state vocational agencies, they have much less and 

much complex criteria that they have to comply with. And 

we also- we're looking at the state agencies, you know, 

the personnel, financial, and administration, you know, 

can be changed by the state authority, we think maybe 

more rapidly than, say, in accrediting agencies, which 

may- which, you know, influenced us as having the 

recognition period every four years. But again, that's 

still under debate and we'll take any of your comments 

under consideration too.

MS. ACKERSON: Well, it's a two-year 

review process, so it's just with the shortened timeline 
80

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

of doing it every four, it becomes a- it comes- becomes 

almost a continuous process.

MR. BOUNDS: Yeah, I understand, I 

understand, and we are working on the- if you look- if 

you- if you recall under, you know, our [inaudible] under 

the new 602.31, you know, we're looking to shrink that 

process too. But again, your rationale and comments are

well taken, so. That's it for me, Cindy, on that.

MS. JEFFRIES: Alright. Thank you. I 

want to point out, Herman, in the chat, there is a 

message from Legal Aid that said they proposed several 

conforming changes to section 604. So they asked the 

Department to take a look at those.

MR. BOUNDS: Okay. Alright.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. And Scott Dolan 

is returning to the table for nonprofits. Okay. So, in 

terms of discussion over this subsection subpart (d) with 

the- or I'm sorry, not (d), the subpart (a) with the 

nursing education piece, are there comments? Other 

comments here that other negotiators would like to make 

or questions they would like to ask of Amy? Not to throw 

you under the bus, Amy, or anything like that, butMS. ACKERSON: It's fine, I waited all 

week.

MS. JEFFRIES: You always get to be 
81

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

the last. Last but not least. Barmak.

MR. NASSIRIAN: You know, I believe 

the committee heard from a couple of witnesses who 

described the practice by some programs of attempting to 

manipulate their NCLEX pass rates by administering highstakes tests right before graduation to weed out students 

who would be less likely to pass. Would it be possible- I 

don't know that that's a huge issue for state agency 

oversight purposes, but to the extent that we flag NCLEX 

pass rates in this language, it would be nice to also add 

some additional language to require agencies to also 

monitor attempts, institutional attempts, programmatic 

attempts to manipulate their pass rates through 

administration of outside high stakes tests for what it's 

worth. Because we heard- we've had a bunch of complaints. 

I think one of the public commenters was a former Army 

medic who had enrolled in a program. So it would be good 

to echo that sort of protective language here as well. 

Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Barmak. 

Scott Dolan.

MR. DOLAN: I agree with what you're 

saying, Barmak, in terms of the intent, right, just to 

ensure. But on the flip side, right, institutions might 

use that as a way to evaluate the preparedness and what 
82

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

support a student might need in order to pass a highstakes exam, which, yeah, it's just a different kind of 

environment. So, I agree with you. Like, we should try to 

have some protocols in place that, you know, make sure 

that this is being done appropriately, reasonably, 

correctly, in the best interests of the students. But, to 

take and fail the NCLEX and then have to retake it comes 

with the cost, comes with time. Like there's a whole host 

of things here around some of this work. And some of 

those pieces are built into the design of the program. 

So, I just- you know, just think to round out the 

perspective and to take a balanced approach is an 

important one. But the only reason why I wanted to jump 

into that conversation.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Scott. Amy.

MS. ACKERSON: Just to reiterate, 

there are only five nursing regulatory boards still 

approved by the Department, so there’s only five states 

left. So I would encourage you, if you have concerns 

about those kinds of things, you take them to individual 

nursing programs or to the State Board of Nursing that 

actually sets the regulations for nursing programs in 

that state, because if you're talking about Missouri and 

Kansas, I'm with you. But we're just talking about five 

regulatory boards left in the US still recognized by the 
83

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

Department, unfortunately.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Amy. I'm not 

seeing any further hands on this Nurse Education, theI'm sorry, the Secretary's recognition of state agencies 

for their approval in nurse education. I'm not seeing any 

additional hands on that. Do we need a temperature check?

MR. BOUNDS: No, I think- because I 

think we're probably going to go back and take some 

suggestions fromMS. JEFFRIES: Okay. From Amy? Okay. 

So I think that brings us up toMR. BOUNDS: It looks like we're under 

611, I guess?

MS. JEFFRIES: Yeah, 611.

MR. BOUNDS: And I think the first 

yellow is on page 64.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay.

MR. BOUNDS: And I'll ask my 

colleague, Donna, to jump in anytime, Donna, that you 

want to since some of this is under- since this is under 

602.11 if you have any comments too. 

MS. MANGOLD: Okay.

MS. JEFFRIES: Alright. Any- did you 

just want to open it up for discussion on that piece?

MR. BOUNDS: I think- yeah, I think 
84

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

so, yeah.

MS. JEFFRIES: Alright, alright. 

Jessi.

MS. MORALES: So I just wanted to flag 

for the Department that I'll be submitting some 

additional language, but in general, very supportive of 

the Department's efforts to prevent accreditor switching 

when it serves- essentially when the only reason for the 

accreditor switching is for- to evade accountability or 

avoid sanctions. And it's leading to a race to the 

bottom, when it is that case. And I think that it is core 

to making sure that accreditation works well for 

students. There's nothing wrong, obviously, with changing 

agencies, provided that it's a decision made for the 

reasons of the mission and not slowly- solely to evade 

accountability or to find an agency with an easier-tomeet standards. But to require that movement to agencies 

that outside parties believe are less rigorous is a major 

problem. And once that happens, the accreditor catching 

the institution has a clear incentive to avoid pressing 

the same buttons as the first one, even if those are the 

right buttons to press. So again, I'll be sharing somesubmitting some language, just to keep an eye out for 

that and urge the Department to keep thinking about this 

section.
85

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, thank you, Jessi. 

Jamie.

MS. STUDLEY: The first principle at 

stake here is that all policy in this area has to hinge 

on the fact that we have confidence that federally 

recognized accreditors would enforce core statutory 

requirements and their own standards. You're not going to 

get a different result on core issues. Jessi put it in 

terms of pressing the same buttons. I think we're aligned 

on the idea that you should not be able to forum shop or 

avoid the fundamental Federal requirements for an 

accredited institution. Second, institution. It's 

reasonable for institutions to be able to change 

accreditors. The Department has processes to approve 

reasonable cause for that, and voluntariness, and that's 

an appropriate break on- to achieve what she just spoke 

about, which is not to avoid penalties or sanction 

conditions by the institution. And has requirements, or 

is looking at ways to prohibit forced switching. And we 

agree that is poor practice. It would undercut the 

improvement focus on- that is a fundamental piece along 

with accountability of accreditation as it's practiced. 

It makes it- would make it hard for agencies to plan for 

capacity on a practical level, and it would unnecessarily 

drive institutions to spend resources on a not good 
86

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

practice that would take away from what they could better 

direct to students. So the idea of the provisions related 

to force switching are worth looking at. But that said, 

forced staying also poses dangers. Requiring an 

institution to stay with one accreditor for two full 

cycles is an unreasonable requirement if you look more 

broadly. So we understand that this conversation is 

prompted and driven. We've got in our minds recent state 

laws, but we have to also think about how the rules could 

affect different situations and have unintended 

consequences. So we appreciate the value of staying and 

improving under an accreditor, but I'll just give you a 

kind of neutral example. If a DEAC-accredited institution 

moved to WASC, spent six years in their first cycle of 

accreditation, were in good standing, and then decided 

that DEAC, in fact, had served them better, why prohibit 

them from returning to DEAC? Or what if it were the other 

way around? They moved from my agency to DEAC and said, I 

thought, you know, it was worth a try, but I actually 

think the system is more sympathetic to me and my 

students elsewhere. So I think we should cut off things 

that are unacceptable, but let's not go overboard. We 

need to think about other conversations. But at heart, 

what requirements should be put into effect everywhere? 

And forced switching is a very dangerous practice.
87

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Jamie. Other 

comments? Barmak.

MR. NASSIRIAN: I think Jamie is 

making a good point, but part of the challenge, I think, 

has to do again with the duality of his accreditation, a 

mechanism for quality assurance, mandatory Federal 

quality assurance, or is it a quality- voluntary quality 

improvement activity? And, you know, candidly, it's very 

hard for me to understand why you would have this many 

options as your choice of regulator and the thought 

process that goes into it at the institutional level. You 

know, it's possible that for purposes of truly voluntary 

support services and quality improvement, one accreditor 

may be better than the other, but it's much more likely, 

it seems to me, given the criticality of institutional 

accreditation for purposes of access to Federal funds, 

that institutional behavior will be primarily dictated by 

institutional convenience, and state behavior may well, 

as we've seen, be dictated by political preference. And 

it's very hard to contemplate the regional accreditation 

scheme we had prior to 2019. Was that all involuntary 

then? Because institutions really had only a choice of 

one regional accreditor or a national accreditor that was 

historically completely ill-fitted for their purpose? 

This opening up of regional accreditations reach to the 
88

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

entire nation, I think, will in fact create nothing but 

accreditor shopping and nothing but a race to the bottom, 

for what it's worth.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Barmak. 

Scott Dolan.

MR. DOLAN: I mean, I'm probably not 

following protocol here because it's a rehash of what 

Jamie said. I think the argument was to have some 

standard core requirements that we all agree to that set 

a minimum threshold that all creditors are expected to 

meet. And then there is obviously variation based on the 

kinds of institutions that accreditors work with. So, and 

to your point, Barmak, I think the idea that it can'taccreditation can't be both a minimal standard and 

setting loftier standards for ourselves around continuous 

and quality improvement, I just- accreditation to me is a 

hygiene check, and I love the idea that we have as a 

component of that, setting higher standards for ourselves 

and continuously improving, according to the work that we 

do in addition to the essays that we put together, which 

are reflections by institutions, universities as a whole, 

across three years of a process where we evaluate data 

and evidence consistently. And we also report to our 

accreditors on an annual basis, data and evidence, and 

have potential follow-up actions based on that, too. 
89

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

Right? So I just think- I go back to just making sure 

that we're all clear about what the process of 

accreditation is. I think it's both. I think it's there's 

a minimum compliance component of it based on data and 

evidence. There's a serious self-reflection around 

continuous improvement involved, as well. Doesn't mean 

there aren't opportunities for us to have important 

conversations about where we need to get better across 

the board. Federal, state, accreditor, institution 

looking in the mirror on that. But I think let's start 

from the same premises so that we can have informed 

conversations about where those improvements should be.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Scott. Any 

other comments on the 600.11? I'm not seeing any. Did you 

want a temperature check, Herman?

MR. BOUNDS: Yes.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Do a temperature 

check. If I can see your thumbs, please on 600.11.

MS. STUDLEY: Can you put the language 

back up? I- I'm just structuring between what's there and 

what's been discussed.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Because it's 

difficult for me to see thumbs. 

MS. STUDLEY: Yeah, I'm asking you to 

take- to just make sure we're- 
90

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay.

MS. STUDLEY: -looking at the rightMS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Okay, can we take 

the language down so I can see the screen? Okay. Alright, 

there we go. So, show me thumbs. SorryMS. STUDLEY: I'm sort ofMS. JEFFRIES: Jamie. Well, I'm coming 

to you last, Jamie, so. Alright, I see just the one 

thumbs down with Jamie. I know you were waffling there, 

soMS. STUDLEY: Yeah, it's a- you know, 

I think it's as to part of it. Not opposed to the effort 

to do this, but that particular section is- just want to 

convey that it- that requiring the two-year stay just 

seems- is not currently accepted.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Alright. So where 

does that take us, Herman?

MR. BOUNDS: Well, looks like we are 

down to (2), page 64. And that- those changes there will 

take us into loss of accredit- yeah, nothing there. So 

yeah, looks like paragraph two there. And this is all 

related to reasonable cause.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay.

MR. BOUNDS: Multiple accreditations 

to be reasonable. So, happy to open discussions there. 
91

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

And, again, this is 611 and Donna. If you want to chime 

in, go ahead.

MS. JEFFRIES: This is 611, number 

(2).

MR. BOUNDS: Yeah. 

MS. MANGOLD: I think that these are 

just- things that moved around. I don't think that 

they're substantively different. I think we've just 

reordered things within section two. Within each, within 

multiple.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Do you want to 

open it up for any questions if there are any? Any 

questions? If, in fact, it is a reorder, do you need a 

temperature check on that section?

MR. BOUNDS: Donna, what do you think? 

I think we could. I don't think it's necessary, but if 

folks think so, I mean, we could.

MS. JEFFRIES: Let's just do it just 

to move things along. Okay. Can I have a show of thumbs, 

please? I'm not seeing any thumbs down. Alright. So I 

think that then brings us- did you all just look at two 

or did you look at three as well? Because I think the 

last- outside of section three, the last thing we have is 

668.14, which doesn't look like a whole lot there. And 

then you might get a five-minute break.
92

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

MR. BOUNDS: I think Donna mentioned 

about the reorganization of everything. So I don't know 

if everybodyMS. JEFFRIES: Yeah, I think it was 

covered with the temperature check. Can we move to 

668.14, program participation? Anything else?

MR. BOUNDS: Looks like you just have 

stricken language here.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Any comments on 

this language that has been struck? Alright, let's do a 

temperature check. Okay. Can I see your thumbs? I don't 

see any thumbs- oops. One thumb down. Jillian. Okay, 

babe. Gotcha.

MS. KLEIN: I mean, I have anger 

spilling over from the teach out plan conversation 

earlier, so assuming the Department does something with 

this unprecedented moment when Barmak and I agreed on 

something, then I can obviously get to a thumbs up. But 

that's my [inaudible]. 

MS. JEFFRIES: Alright. Well, you made 

it. You made it through the- oh, Scott, you have a 

comment?

MR. DOLAN: I apologize because there 

was a break promised, and, I guess I have a protocol 

question.
93

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

MS. JEFFRIES: I didn't promise it, 

but I mentioned it.

MR. DOLAN: I just have a protocol 

question. There was a lot of language that was introduced 

between sessions one and two, right? And certainly some 

of the language was not incorporated at all, and others 

was taken sort of at face value verbatim. And in some 

instances, it feels like the language that was taken, 

doesn't always align fully with the original intent and 

preambles that were shared with us during session one. So 

when, you know, I'm not asking for why, you know, my 

proposals weren't incorporated. But I thought maybe- is 

it reasonable to request the Department to at least 

provide a justification, a rationale for the language 

that it does incorporate and how that fits into its 

overall intent, right? And it's aligned with where we 

started. These sessions move very, very fast. People are 

working tirelessly, sometimes on very tight deadlines. 

You know, we had a Thursday due date last time and we're 

trying to do our best to represent our constituencies. 

And I think it would be helpful to understand when 

language is incorporated where it's coming from. So it's 

just a question.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. It isn't, you 

know, necessarily- I don't know how it ties into 
94

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

protocol, but, you know, I know that in some cases, a lot 

of cases, they do explain why they put in and how it 

fits. In other cases, they may not. So if you have 

particular question on that as we move through it, then, 

you know, you can ask that question, how does this fit 

into your original intent? Okay?

MR. DOLAN: Yeah, I guess I've asked 

that question, as have others. I just don't know the 

assurance of when or if we will get an answer to those 

questions. So it's just a- it's just to put it out there 

to see if there's a response.

MS. JEFFRIES: Sure. Happy to talk 

with you some more offline if you want on that, Scott, 

because we do need to move to- where did you go? Where 

did my meeting go?

MR. BOUNDS: Greg has his hand up.

MS. JEFFRIES: Greg, go ahead.

MR. MARTIN: I- just very briefly, I 

just- I mean, well, we can address that again in more 

detail maybe when we come back. But I do want to say, and 

I understand the frustration that comes with all this 

material, you know, in the compressed period of time. 

It's something that obviously affects everybody. But, as 

far as like going- we have hundreds of pages of 

submissions to us. We make every effort, we review 
95

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

everything. Obviously, we can't include everything, I 

think to go through a line item of everything that came 

in and why we took something or why we didn't take 

something would take an inordinate amount of time and 

limit- and take away from discussion at the table. 

Certainly where there are questions we're always able to 

respond to those and we'll make an effort in the next 

round to maybe be, you know, clearer about what we took 

and didn't take and why. But again, I don't want to 

promise a line-by-line accounting for that because there 

just simply isn't enough time for it. But anytime the 

question comes up about something specific, we're willing 

to entertain that. So, with that, I'll say, thank you, 

everybody, for the final week.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Alright. It is 

3:30. So let's go ahead and start with our public 

comment. If you have not- if you have a scheduled time or 

you're on the waiting list and you have not logged in to 

the meeting, please log into the meeting at least 15 

minutes prior to your scheduled time or the wait list so 

that if we can get to you- alright, so, Krystil or not 

sure who's admitting today.

MS. K. SMITH: I am. So, Cindy, just 

add to when you log in as a commenter, please make sure 

you're logging in with the name that you use to sign up 
96

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

with. Thank you. So Cindy, our first speaker is Mia 

Ferguson, and Mia is in the room.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Hi, Mia. Can you 

hear me?

MS. FERGUSON: Yes, can you hear me?

MS. JEFFRIES: Yes. Welcome. And you 

have three minutes to address the committee today with 

your comments. You will receive a 30-second notice of 

when your time is about to expire. So with that, you may 

begin now.

MS. FERGUSON: Good afternoon. My name 

is Mia Ferguson, and I'm a junior at the University of 

Kentucky. Thank you for allowing me to speak today. At 

the University of Kentucky, they offer a program called 

First Day that provides me the option to get access to 

all of the materials I need for participating courses by 

the first day of class. This program is so convenient, 

and it saves me a significant amount of time and money 

for the classes that it's available for. Before attending 

UK, I started my career at Georgetown College where they 

did not offer any programs like this. I was on a 

scholarship, so I had to purchase as many of my course 

materials as I could at the campus bookstore. The 

bookstore would often run out of books, so I got in the 

habit of returning to school early after break to ensure 
97

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

that I would be among the first to be there to get the 

materials that I needed before they ran out. I hated 

having to cut my break short and leave my family sooner 

than I wanted to, just so I could get back on campus in 

time to get my course materials. If I wasn't able to get 

my materials at the bookstore, then I had to stop, shop 

online to make sure that I would get them in time so that 

I wouldn't fall behind in my classes. Without first-day 

materials, I had to spend a lot of time shopping around 

and trying to find the best price for my course 

materials. A few times when purchasing online, I 

accidentally bought the wrong books or the wrong edition 

of the book, and it ended up costing me a lot more of 

time and money. I'm grateful to know that the University 

of Kentucky offers First Day for most of my courses, and 

I have a- I have an easy and cost-effective way to ensure 

I have the right materials that I need by the first day 

of classes, without all of the hassle that I used to 

experience at Georgetown College. Plus, they're so easy 

to access and use because they are all automatically 

right inside of my UK learning. Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Mia. 

Krystil, who's next, please?

MS. K. SMITH: Next, we have Heidi 

Smith, who is from Front Range Community College, and 
98

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

Heidi is in the room and connected to audio.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Good afternoon, 

Heidi. If you can unmute. There you go. Welcome. You will 

have three minutes to address the committee with your 

comments, and you will receive a 30-second notice of when 

your time is about to expire. So with that, you may 

begin.

MS. SMITH: Okay. Good afternoon. My 

name is Heidi Smith, and I've been teaching microbiology 

at the community college level for 20 years. As I was 

preparing for today, I struggled to truly convey my 

advocacy for inclusive access or similar programs. So 

instead, I decided to turn to the words of those that 

really matter in this decision, the ones we should all 

put first and foremost in every policy we consider for 

education. The students. Here are the powerful words of 

two of my students as a representation of students from 

all over the country. Student A. I'm a first-generation 

college student in my second semester, excited but still 

scared to death that the obstacles of college will keep 

me from my dreams. The obstacles are real. Last semester, 

I did the only thing I knew to do to get materials for my 

class. I went to the college bookstore and I looked at my 

classes. For one class, the materials were out of stock 

and I was set back two weeks. For the other class, I 
99

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

spent $158 on a required book. I got to class and found 

out some of my classmates were able to buy used books or 

rent from an online store, spending less than $30. Not 

only did I feel stupid, but although it may seem like a 

small amount of money, every dollar counts in my path 

towards finishing my degree. This semester, I was 

relieved when my micro professor explained that all of 

our materials were included in our course fees at a 

really low cost compared to any books I saw at the 

bookstore. Even though this class is going to be really 

challenging, at least it isn't because I don't have the 

tools I need. Student B. Waiting on financial aid is 

always stressful. Luckily, our college has pushed back 

their tuition payment date to several weeks after the 

start of the semester, but that doesn't help with getting 

books and other materials we need for classes. Several 

times my financial aid has been late and I've gotten 

significantly behind. Even when it's on time, I have to 

pay full price for all of my books. This is maddening 

when my classmates are able to go on search for the best 

price. I was so pumped when two of my science teachers 

this semester told the class about inclusive access. We 

all pay the same price and is rolled into our tuition and 

fees, so there's no issue with late financial aid 

payments. And crazy, the cost for not only the book, but 
100

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

also the required online homework system was only $80. 

You have now heard the testimony of two students. Their 

stories represent only a few of the many challenges faced 

by today's college students navigating college for the 

first time, managing incredibly busy lives, dealing with 

the sometimes convoluted financial aid system. With time, 

I could have lined up hundreds of students to share their 

stories today. But just from these two alone, you have 

heard how First Day acquisition programs have led to 

their confidence, their academic success, low-cost 

materials, and hugely important equity for all students. 

Truthfully, out of dozens of surveyed students, there was 

not one, and I mean not one negative review of inclusive 

access. I implore you to consider that these programs 

have moved higher ed a giant step forward towards equity 

and academic success. [30 seconds] all students on the 

same playing field, giving them all equal accessibility 

to course materials, no matter what their personal 

situation is. And the truth is, they help most those 

students who need a little extra support to be successful 

in college. To disallow these programs would be to take 

two large steps back in the progress that we've made. 

Thank you so much.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Heidi. 

Krystil, who do we have next?
101

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

MS. K. SMITH: Next, we have Peyton 

Weber, who is representing herself. Peyton is in the 

room.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Good afternoon. 

Peyton.

MS. WEBER: Hello. Good afternoon. I'm 

Peyton Weber.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Yeah, hang on one 

second here, Peyton. You have three minutes to address 

the committee, okay? And you'll get a 30-second notice 

when your time is about up. So with that, please go 

ahead, Peyton.

MS. WEBER: Good afternoon, everyone. 

My name is Peyton Weber, and I am a sophomore at the 

University of Iowa in the Tippie School of Business. At 

my school, a program called Icon Direct enables me to 

directly access the course materials I need for my 

classes. This program saves me a lot of time and 

significantly reduces my stress level at the beginning of 

the semester. When I start a class that offers Icon 

Direct, I get a wave of relief knowing that I don't have 

to go to the bookstore or shop around online trying to 

find the lowest price, and then hope they arrive in time 

for my class start. A few weeks ago when the semester 

started, I was able to immediately get access to most of 
102

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

my course materials online because they were delivered 

through Icon Direct. Unfortunately though, one of my 

classes did not offer the option to purchase my book 

through Icon Direct. I had to spend a ton of time 

tracking down the book I needed for the class. It was 

sold out at the on-campus bookstore, so I had to go to 

the other bookstore across town, and it was also sold out 

at that bookstore. Then I had to wait- then I had to wait 

a couple of weeks for the book to come back in stock. I 

was so stressed out waiting for this book to arrive and 

not having what I needed to study with until a few weeks 

into class. When classes start, I don't want to be 

stressing about when and where I will get my materials. I 

want to be focused on completing my assignments, 

preparing for exams, and setting myself up to be 

successful in the course. I don't want to have to worry 

about how I will get my materials in time for the first 

assignment. At the top of every syllabus, it explains how 

to opt out of Icon Direct if I don't want to purchase

these materials that way, and it provides a link if I 

choose to opt out. But I would never consider this option 

because college is stressful enough without adding stress 

figuring out how to get the materials I need for class. 

This program makes my life so much easier. It's a lot 

more convenient for me to just know I will have the 
103

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

materials I need to be successful in the class right 

away. I hope you will consider keeping these programs in 

place. Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Peyton.

MS. WEBER: Thank you. 

MS. JEFFRIES: Krystil, who's next?

MS. K. SMITH: Our next speaker is 

Cathy Wiskes from the University of South Carolina.

MS. JEFFRIES: Hi, Cathy. You will 

have three minutes to address the committee this 

afternoon. You'll receive- you will receive a 30-second 

notice when your time is about to expire. So having said 

that, you are free to begin.

MS. WISKES: Thank you. My name is 

Catherine Wiskes, and I am a professor at the University 

of South Carolina. And I'm also the coordinator for all 

of our beginning Spanish 2 classes. I've been teaching at 

the university for 26 years, and a constant concern of 

mine over the years has been the cost of materials for 

our students. So while shifting to a digital platform 

with an e-book and making the physical textbook an 

optional purchase, that has reduced our cost for- reduced 

cost for our students, that some of them still cannot 

afford to buy their materials by the first day of class. 

And those students start the semester off struggling and 
104

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

fall behind their classmates. A rocky start to the 

semester affects their confidence and consequently, their 

ability to succeed in the course. My campus currently 

does not offer inclusive access, but I wish we did. When 

my son started college last year, his school had 

inclusive access and it was wonderful. There were no 

additional bills to pay, no confusion over which addition 

to purchase, no trips to the campus bookstore for 

purchases, and then return trips for returns. No shipping 

delays while waiting on materials to arrive from 

retailers like Amazon or rental services like Chegg. My 

son had everything he needed from day one. So speaking as 

both a parent and an educator, I am a supporter of 

inclusive access. I don't see a downside to it. If 

someone doesn't like it, they have the ability to opt 

out, and I'm confident that if it were an option on my 

campus, we'd have a higher success rate in our classes 

and a higher retention rate among our students.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you.

MS. WISKES: Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Krystil, who's next?

MS. K. SMITH: Our next speaker is 

Dalia Hernandez, who is representing herself. And Dalia 

is in the room.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Good afternoon, 
105

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

Dalia.

MS. HERNANDEZ: Good afternoon.

MS. JEFFRIES: You will have three 

minutes to address the committee with the 30-second 

notice that your time is about to expire. So with that, 

please begin.

MS. HERNANDEZ: Thank you for the 

opportunity to speak with you today. My name is Dalia 

Hernandez and I'm here with the Office of Pre-College 

Programs at California State University, San Bernardino, 

where I serve as the director of the Upward Bound and 

Upward Bound Math Science programs. At Cal State San 

Bernardino, we host five TRIO programs: Educational 

Talent Search, Educational Opportunity Center, Student 

Support Services, Upward Bound, and Upward Bound Math 

Science. The Office of Pre-College programs at Cal State 

San Bernardino supports the Department's proposal to 

expand the language and eligibility for Federal TRIO 

programs to continue to serve disadvantaged students, 

including undocumented students. The proposed regulation 

will enable- will enable Federal TRIO programs to 

continue to serve disadvantaged students for which they 

were created and enable Federal TRIO programs to serve 

eligible undocumented students enrolling in high school 

every year and pursuing postsecondary education. The 
106

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

Office of Pre-College program serves more than 30,000 

students and their families, and of which a large portion 

are undocumented or from mixed-status families. Through 

the Performance Partnership Pilot, also known as P3 for 

disconnected youth, the Department waived immigration 

status requirements that are barriers to achieving 

improved outcomes for TRIO programs in California, 

including the Talent Search Classic Student Support 

Services and Classic Upward Bound programs. The 

California P3 agreement became effective in November 2022 

and is in effect until September 2026. As a result, 

eligible TRIO programs under the Office of Pre-College 

programs at CSUSB have been able to serve undocumented 

students and have contributed to and benefited from the 

high level of effectiveness of these programs. The Office 

of Pre-College programs' E3 participants have exceeded 

expected outcomes in maintaining their grade point 

average, academic good standing, persistence in their 

high school graduation or diploma, and progress towards 

postsecondary enrollment. I would like to close with the 

family- following impact statements from students whose 

lives have been changed as a result of the P3 waiver and 

their names and all of the disadvantaged students that 

the Office of Pre-College programs works with, including 

undocumented students. We urge you to reach a favorable 
107

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

consensus on the proposed changes for a Federal- Federal 

TRIO program eligibility. Over the last year, Upward 

Bound has beenMR. WEATHERS: 30 seconds remains.

MS. HERNANDEZ: -and that of my 

parents. Navigating through the college access journey is 

difficult, but it's even more difficult for those of us 

that have additional challenge- challenges, such as being 

undocumented. Please consider approving the language on 

the Federal TRIO programs extended eligibility. Thank 

you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Dalia. 

Krystil, next?

MS. K. SMITH: Next, we have Joshua 

Ashby, who is representing himself. Joshua, if you can 

unmute your phone and turn on your camera. Here we go.

MS. JEFFRIES: Joshua? You have threegood morning or afternoon. You have three minutes to 

address the committee, and you will receive a 30-second 

warning before your time is about to expire. So, please 

begin now.

MR. ASHBY: Thank you. Hello. Thank 

you for the opportunity to speak. My name, as you already 

know, is Joshua Ashby. I'm commenting in support of the 

proposal to eliminate automatic billing of textbook costs 
108

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

without a student's authorization. I'm a fourth-year 

undergraduate student at the University of Central 

Florida or UCF, and I'm studying to receive my bachelor's 

in science in physics with minors in computer science and 

math. I'm also the president of Wiki Knights, a studentbased organization dedicated to advocating for the 

adoption of open educational resources throughout UCF. As 

a recipient of the Pell Grants, I'm very passionate about 

this issue because I want to make sure that my Federal 

Student Aid is being used on necessities and in the most 

effective way possible, but automatic textbook billing 

programs do not allow students to have agency or 

knowledge that textbooks and other materials may be able 

to be found at more affordable rates. I know many 

students who are in a similar situation, and after 

speaking to many of them throughout my years at UCF, I 

have not met one who is in favor of being automatically 

billed. At UCF I'm thankful that we're one of the only 

campuses to have an opt in model. Approximately 60 to 70% 

of UCF students typically opt in. Personally, I can 

usually find my textbook cheaper online so I don't opt in 

unless I have to. I've also seen several- been in several 

courses where the option to opt in to a textbook was 

given. However, I was told by other students and peers 

that the textbook wasn't necessary, which certainly saved 
109

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

on my expenses, and I appreciate that. But I know 

students who like the convenience of opting in, and

that's their choice. And I want to emphasize choice, 

because it's incredibly important to me that students are 

not billed without their explicit consent. With all the 

things going on at the beginning of the semester, I know 

I'd forget to opt out and get charged twice. Also, it's 

not always obvious how much inclusive access is going to 

cost, and it would be really stressful to get billed for 

textbooks when I didn't ask to buy them. A few years ago, 

Barnes and Noble actually tried to get UCF to switch from 

an opt in to an opt out system, but thankfully the 

student body pushed back. In particular, Wiki Knights led 

the charge among students to push back against this 

policy, and because it was clearly not in the best 

interest of students, I was so moved, I decided to join 

Wiki Knights myself, and I continue to do similar work. I 

understand why textbook companies oppose the opt-in 

model, since they probably make less money when students 

are given a real choice. But making profits for the 

textbook industry is not what the higher education is 

for. I believe that if UCF can implement an opt-in 

program, every other college should be able to too. 

Frankly, I'm proud and thankful.

MR. WEATHERS: Joshua, you have 30 
110

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

seconds.

MR. ASHBY: Oh, sorry. Thank you. 

Thankful for the choices that my institution has made in 

order to provide material access. So I want to thank the 

Department for looking out for students in making 

automatic textbook billing opt in. I yield my time. Thank 

you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Joshua. 

Krystil, who's next?

MS. K. SMITH: Yes, our next speaker 

is Madison Lewis, who is representing herself. Madison is 

in the room.

MS. JEFFRIES: Madison?

MS. LEWIS: Hi.

MS. JEFFRIES: You will have three 

minutes to address the committee with a 30-second notice 

of your time about to expire. So with that, you may begin 

now.

MS. LEWIS: Okay. Thank you so much. 

Good afternoon. My name is Madison Lewis and I am a 

sophomore at Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa. At Iowa 

State, we have a program called Immediate Access that 

gives me really easy access to all of my course materials 

required by my instructors. What's great about this 

program is that I get all of my materials by the first 
111

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

day of class, at a lower price. My experience with this 

program has been great. I have no complaints at all about 

it and it saves me a lot of time. It helps me get 

prepared for my classes so I don't have to worry and 

waste a lot of time searching for my materials. I can 

also access my textbook right inside the canvas platform, 

which helps me stay better engaged throughout my course 

because I can refer to the course materials right where I 

need them alongside my other assignments. This semester, 

I had a very nerve-wracking experience with a class 

related to getting my course materials. I'm in a 

psychology course that did not offer immediate access, 

and I was trying to order the required textbook for my 

course. The book was on backorder at the bookstore, so I 

tried the library. Unfortunately, the library only had 

ten copies, and there were about 80 other students in the 

class who also needed it. I also tried to find the book 

online, but I could not find the specific edition that I 

needed. Everyone in the class was so frustrated and was 

complaining to the instructor, so she finally decided to 

switch gears two weeks into the semester and offer a 

digital copy of the book through immediate access. That 

way, everyone in the class would have access to the same 

edition of the book and can use it whenever they need it 

to do their readings. Immediate access is very convenient 
112

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

for me. After what I've gone through this semester with 

my psychology course, I don't want to have to get my 

course materials any other way. Thank you for your time.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Madison. 

Krystil, who's next?

MS. K. SMITH: Our next speaker is 

D'Arcy Harrison from the Cosmetologists of Washington, 

United. D'Arcy is in the room. 

MS. JEFFRIES: There she is. Her audio 

is connecting. There you are. Welcome D'Arcy.

MR. HARRISON: Hi. 

MS. JEFFRIES: Hi. You will have three 

minutes to address the committee today and a 30-second 

notice before that time is about to expire. So with that, 

please begin.

MR. HARRISON: Hello. Good afternoon. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is D'Arcy 

Harrison, and I became a licensed cosmetologist in

Seattle, Washington, in 2003, graduating cum laude with a 

BFA from Emerson College prior to that in Massachusetts 

in 1999. I am here on behalf of Cosmetologists of 

Washington United, a nonpartisan 501C6 trade association 

representing and advocating for small businesses and 

professionals and personal services in Washington State 

since 2019. We continue to excel with grassroots action 
113

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

and advocacy of small business and against potentially 

harmful regulations. We represent over 60,000 licensed 

operators working with hair, skin, and nails in 

cosmetology, as well as massage, permanent makeup, and 

tattoo. In Washington State, we require 1,600 school 

hours for a cosmetology license. According to the US 

Department of Labor Statistics, over 298,000 people 

nationwide are employed as workers in the general field 

of cosmetology. According to Data USA, 91% of all 

cosmetologists identify as women. Since 2020, cosmetology 

trade schools have successfully implemented and graduated 

students using distance education. More students 

currently have the ability to get licensed and learn due 

to the increased flexibility and access to asynchronous 

delivery. Not all learning is hands-on and no trade 

school can be 100% online. Students can currently learn 

science, color theory, safety, and sanitation when not 

physically present in school. If I was a college student 

today, I would have access to distance learning. It's 

frankly discriminatory to eliminate distance education 

for cosmetology, a field dominated by women, the 

Department unfairly thinks seat time should be the main 

priority rather than a comprehensive learning 

environment. Asynchronous distance education and personal 

services trade schools makes the career more accessible 
114

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

because students can learn at home and school, not just 

at school. It also creates more equity for parents, 

single parents, people changing careers, and people going 

to school part-time due to work commitments. Removing 

access to distance learning also denies equity for 

diverse learning styles, the differently abled, those who 

use English as a second language, as well as marginalized 

communities and varied income levels. Since the 

introduction of distance learning in 2020, the interest 

of [30 seconds]. Thank you. Has noticed an increase in 

students entering the field of flexibility has supported 

students in making a career change in Washington State. 

Currently, we are experiencing a shortage of 

cosmetologists. It's way overdue that we approach 

education as a broad spectrum available to all, and not a 

privilege for the well-positioned and privileged. The 

nature of providing personal care is not only important 

to those receiving haircuts and manicures, but also those 

seeking to improve their circumstances by becoming a 

licensee in personal services. Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, D'Arcy. 

Krystil, who's next?

MS. K. SMITH: Next, we have Chandra 

Crosby from Evergreen Beauty College. Chandra is in the 

room.
115

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

MS. CROSBY: Good afternoon.

MS. JEFFRIES: Good afternoon, 

Chandra. You have three minutes to address the committee 

this afternoon with the 30-second notice of when that 

time is about to expire. So with that, you may begin now.

MS. CROSBY: Thank you so much. And 

continuing on the topic, I wanted to speak that was 

discussed on Tuesday, I am Chandra Crosby again, and I'm 

the director of Evergreen Beauty College. I have been a 

licensed instructor for almost 20 years, and it was super 

important to me that the asynchronous clock-hour delivery 

would enhance the quality of education and not take away 

from it. I appreciate the thoughtfulness of the 

Department's definition and guidance in 2021, as it was 

thorough yet still open to educational innovation. And 

since the new definition went into effect in 2021, our 

organization has worked closely with our state regulator 

and our accreditor to develop comprehensive policies 

ensuring all students remain regular and not- sorry, not 

substantive interaction when participating. Clock hours 

are not awarded to our students until they demonstrate 

active participation in the learning activities online. 

Passive consumption of knowledge, or merely just logging 

in to an online system is not acceptable. Asynchronous 

delivery has allowed our teachers so much flexibility. 
116

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

They now can flip the classroom, where our time in the 

physical classroom is focused on applying the lessons and 

bringing them to life, versus learning the material for 

the first time. This has really helped our students to 

retain the information being taught and put it into 

practice so much faster. Our accreditor measures our 

successes on outcomes, and I wanted to share with you 

that since 2021, our students are succeeding even more 

every day. Asynchronous delivery has made our education 

more accessible for our students. It has allowed many of 

our nontraditional students, such as parents or single 

moms, working individuals, etc. the flexibility they need 

to learn to successfully and still be able to care for 

their families and financially and emotionally. It just 

allows them so much more time to be able to learn and 

succeed. In addition, our pass rates on licensing exams 

have increased because the students are now learning on 

the same medium which they are being tested on, which is 

the computer. They are forced to engage in the material, 

and the engagement helps our students to graduate to get 

licensed and work. I ask that you do not strike the 

definition of asynchronous delivery from clock-hour 

programs. It is and it can continue to be done well. 

Students are learning, they're thriving, and they're 

having fun while doing so. If you're able to leave it- if 
117

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

you're unable to leave it as is, please consider the 

middle ground where you can- it gives you the insurance 

that you need, but still allows the students flexibility 

to learn outside the walls of our class.

MR. WEATHERS: 30 seconds remains.

MS. CROSBY: Thank you- and on their 

own time. Please continue to allow our students to 

participate in the blended program with asynchronous 

education. Thank you for taking this into consideration. 

Being a beauty school graduate myself with a career that 

I love and enjoy, I thank you for allowing me to speak on 

behalf of our students, our educators, and our industry 

professionals.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Chandra. 

Okay, Krystil, who is next? We have time for one more.

MS. K. SMITH: Yes. So my last one is 

Jo Kragbe, who's representing themselves, and they are in 

the room. If you can either start speaking or turn on 

your camera, Jo?

MS. KRAGBE: I'm here.

MS. K. SMITH: Okay. 

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Jo, welcome. You 

have three minutes to address the committee this 

afternoon, and you will receive a 30-second notice prior 

to the expiration of the time. So, that having been said, 
118

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

please go ahead.

MS. KRAGBE: Okay. My name is Jo 

Krage, or Jennifer Kragbe. I work at Lockheed Martin 

Space. I am a media specialist. I am a graduate of Full 

Sail University. I graduated with my bachelor's in 

entertainment business and a master's in public 

relations. I graduated valedictorian both times and also 

advanced achiever both times. And I'm speaking on behalf 

of the school, in regards to, I guess, really funding and 

kind of- kind of clearing the name of Full Sail 

University being, considering that it is a for-profit 

school. I guess I know that for-profit schools typically 

get a bad rap for, I guess, being quote-unquote scam 

schools. But this is- from my experience, I've been at a 

community college and I've been at a for-profit school, 

and I feel as though I got more education and more from 

my education going to Full Sail University than I did 

from going to my community college. So that's pretty much 

what I have to say today. I was under the impression that 

there were going to be questions. Is there? Do you have 

any questions or?

MS. JEFFRIES: No, there- there'll be 

no questions. But we appreciate your time and your 

comments. Thank you.

MS. KRAGBE: Okay. Thank you.
119

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

MS. JEFFRIES: Krystil, I think we 

could probably squeeze one more in.

MS. K. SMITH: Okay.

MS. JEFFRIES: We still have a couple 

minutes, soMS. K. SMITH: In that case, we will 

admit William Hoover, who is from Bunker Hill Community 

College. Will, if you can turn on your camera and/or 

unmute yourself. [background talking]

MS. JEFFRIES: Thanks, Will, for 

joining us. You have three minutes to address the 

committee today, and you will receive a 30-second notice 

prior to expiration of that time. With that, please 

begin.

MR. HOOVER: Okay. Thank you very 

much. Ladies and gentlemen, esteemed colleagues, and 

students, today, I stand before you to advocate for an 

initiative that enhances academic access and champions 

the principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion. I 

speak of the value of inclusive access for the purchase 

of college course materials. These materials stand far 

beyond the traditional textbook. They most often include 

subscriptions to ADA- compliant digital tools that 

provide real-time engagement, active learning, and 

remediation. You cannot purchase a used subscription and 
120

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

sell it back to the bookstore. Inclusive access also 

provides a significant discount for these materials, so 

inclusive access is indeed a very unique apple that 

cannot be compared to most oranges of the past. Inclusive 

access symbolizes higher education's commitment to 

leveling the playing field for all students, regardless

of their socioeconomic backgrounds. It permits the cost 

of their subscriptions to learning platforms to be 

applied to their school bill without upfront payment, 

thereby dismantling a significant barrier to education 

that disproportionately affects those in lower 

socioeconomic groups. Imagine a student entering college 

eager to embark on their educational journey, only to 

find themselves burdened to choose between paying for 

their course materials and/or feeding their family and 

paying their rent. For many, this presents a daunting 

obstacle, delaying or preventing them from engaging in 

and completing their studies. The repercussions are 

profound. Being forced to prioritize financial concerns 

over their academic pursuits further perpetuates cycles 

of inequality. With inclusive access, students need not 

fret how they will afford their necessary materials to 

succeed. Instead, they can focus on immersing themselves 

in the learning process, seizing every opportunity to 

thrive and succeed academically. Inclusive access ensures 
121

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

all students have equal access to essential course 

materials, fostering an environment that celebrates 

diversity and promotes equity. It sends a powerful 

message to our community. Every individual, regardless of 

their socioeconomic status, has an equal opportunity to 

succeed. Lastly, in supporting inclusive access, we 

affirm a commitment to build an inclusive educational 

landscape, one where every student feels valued, 

empowered, and supported. True progress lies not in 

exclusivity, but inclusivity, not in barriers, but in 

bridges. I implore you to continue championing the cause 

of [30 seconds] Thank you. I implore you to continue 

championing the cause of diversity, equity, and inclusion 

through inclusive access. Let us stand together in 

solidarity, ensuring that every student, regardless of 

their background, has the resources they need to thrive. 

Thank you very much.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, William. 

Okay, with that, it concludes our public comment today. 

We thank everyone who participated in that. So just 

closing remarks and, I know this might not be the most 

well-received, but nonetheless, I want to go over some 

discussion about the proposal submission. Okay? So 

proposal submission deadline is Wednesday, February 14th. 

Now, the reason for that is that there is a holiday that 
122

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

falls in between the sessions here and the Department 

feels they need every single moment they can squeeze to 

be able to review in a timely manner these proposals, 

alright, and draft some language because the protocols 

say they, you know, they will strive to have their 

proposals to you seven days in advance of the meeting. If 

you're cutting out a day for a holiday and we stick to a 

Thursday- that Thursday, or we move it back even further, 

that is all the less time that they have to review your 

proposals. If proposals are sent after that, we're not 

saying they would not necessarily be looked at, but there 

is a risk that they would not have time to look at them 

and incorporate them into the language, okay, in the 

areas that they could agree on. We also want to convey 

that in this go around, to every extent possible, we're 

going to ask that you make your proposals comprehensive, 

as opposed to individual submissions on individual 

sections of the issues. To the extent that you can please 

try to make them comprehensive. There’re a couple reasons 

for that. We did hear concerns from negotiators about the 

multitude of documents that they received and the, you 

know, the burden that it puts on people to try to review 

all of those. The Department has that same concern. We as 

FMCS facilitators, we want to make sure that we can get 

things out as timely as possible to you and when we open 
123

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

our emails and we have, you know, numerous different 

ones, we want to make sure that we don't miss anything. 

So if you can make them comprehensive, that would be 

greatly appreciated. And lastly, please remember to 

include your rationale or context in your proposals in a 

Word format. Okay, I know that's not probably- I know 

it's not the news you wanted to hear about the date, but, 

in order to meet all the other criteria and deadlines and 

give the Department time that they need, unfortunately, 

it is a necessity. DC, you have your hand up.

DR. PRINCE: Yeah. So, the question I 

have is, is instead of having to, in essence, you know, 

with these deadlines, which I understand deadlines, 

believe me, I get it, and the timeframe which we're going 

to meet, does it make sense for us in the Department to 

have a discussion about having another session after the 

March session?

MS. JEFFRIES: You know, I'll let Greg 

respond to that because there are so many nuances to 

doing that. So, Greg, do you want to address that or 

maybe one of the general counsel?

MR. MARTIN: Sure. I'll be glad to 

address that. When we plan these negotiating sessions, we 

have a couple of things we have to do. The first thing 

being, give enough time for people to discuss these 
124

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

topics and for us to try to reach consensus. After that, 

we have a very tight schedule of writing that has to go 

on in order to meet our master calendar for promulgation 

of the regulations. So the planning for this starts very 

early. And once it's done, it's- the logistics of it are 

fairly determined. So, we believe that these sessions 

have been- are- the time we've allotted, though we 

understand that there's a lot of material in a relatively 

short period of time, is adequate for the task, and the 

Department's disinclined to consider any additional 

sessions.

DR. PRINCE: Help me understand, how 

is that applied, when just recently- not trying to be 

combative- just recently the Department added an 

additional negotiation sessions on student borrowing? How 

is that no different than-? 

MR. MARTIN: We did add a topic. We 

did add that session, but that was- that was toostensibly to discuss something which had not been 

covered in the previous- would've been covered in the 

previous negotiation sessions. So, you know, when we 

schedule these, we, as I said, we allot of certain amount 

of time for them. It's difficult logistically and from 

the standpoint of our planning to add another session. 

And there is and there is- you know, I think that there 
125

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

is also- what has to be acknowledged is that it's 

difficult to determine the point at which a topic has 

been discussed enough. You know, I mean, it's alwaysthere could always be more time for discussion of any 

topic. I mean, especially with the breadth of experience 

and knowledge that we have around this table. I think 

discussions of a lot of these topics could go on 

indefinitely, but there does, unfortunately, have to be a 

limit to the amount of time that we can devote to that. 

And we believe that what we have scheduled is adequate 

for that purpose.

DR. PRINCE: Well, I would just ask 

the Department- go ahead. Sorry.

MR. MARTIN: No, I said I would invite 

my counsel to add anything if she wants to.

DR. PRINCE: I would just add that I 

think the Department would- it would serve the Department 

if we only had an extra day, maybe not a full four-day 

session, but an extra day on a- in a specific topic that 

might be a- that might be more important. And I would say 

it sounds more like state authorization and accreditation 

based on the discussion that we have this week and what 

the Department has come back with, assuming, that by the 

next session in March, there will be some more 

consistent- there will be more consensus built. Excuse 
126

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

me, I'm getting tongue-tied, consensus built on other 

topics, but it seems as though that state authorization 

and accreditation to the Department seems to have, you 

know, very strong views about as well to negotiators to 

at least include a day or a day and a half on those two 

particular topics and not having to rehash anything else 

out that wasn't that distinct or in essence, that much 

negotiation necessarily needed on the wording. So that 

was just my only recommendation. But thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you. Scott Dolan, 

really quick because we are over time.

MR. DOLAN: Understood. I guess just 

related but unrelated to DC's point there. Is there a 

further update on the subcommittee work around TRIO and 

where that fits this week coming up in the next round and 

not to, you know, not to raise a [inaudible]- 

MR. MARTIN: It's pretty much just as 

Cindy described it earlier, I believe yesterday. The 

subcommittee will meet again tomorrow, the TRIO 

subcommittee. And we will have a report out from them 

during our third session. Just to reiterate that theanything that is put together by the subcommittee or 

recommended by the subcommittee will have to be voted on 

by the main committee. So you will hear the report out 

and whether or not- whatever ultimately is proposed is 
127

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

accepted or whether there's consensus will be up to the 

main committee. I do also want to point out that, you 

know, when we come back, in the final session, hopefully, 

some of the items we've discussed, obviously, I think 

everybody knows this as from the tenor of what happened 

this week that we'll be closer on some things than 

others. So if we- you know, hopefully we can resolve some 

issues relatively quickly, yielding us more time to 

discuss those areas where we might be further apart, such 

as state authorization and accreditation. Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you all. I 

want to thank you especially for all your hard work, your 

diligence, and working with us as facilitators to be able 

to get through your whole entire documents. We do 

appreciate your willingness to work with us on that. So 

with that, have a great rest of the time until we see you 

in March. And, Jamie, I loved your comment. Happy 

Valentine's Day. So, thanks again.

 
128

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

Zoom Chat Transcript 

Program Integrity and Institutional Quality- Session 2, Day 4, Afternoon, February 8, 2024 

*Chat was copied as presented, as a result minor typos or grammatical errors may be present. 

From A, Scott Dolan, Private Nonprofit IHEs to Everyone:

brady, we aren't broadcasting

From P, Jillian Klein, Proprietary Instit to Everyone:

Reacted to "brady, we aren't bro..." with �������

From Krystil Smith | FMCS Facilitator to Everyone:

FMCS National Labor Management Conference is June 26-30 in New York City 

From Krystil Smith | FMCS Facilitator to Everyone:

Please remember your Naming Conventions

From P, Jillian Klein, Proprietary Instit to Everyone:

Carolyn, I don't disagree that based on the language in the provisional certification section, 

those risk items should be included. My concern is that ED has historically used provisional 

certification as a lever when they are behind on processing institutional applications, which is my 

concern. I am working on language that I will submit to ensure that the issues you are concerned 

about are covered but also does not permit this as a trigger when ED is simply short staffed.

From P, Jillian Klein, Proprietary Instit to Everyone:

Comment for ED on this section (602.22(c)) - this as written also needs an update to the 

"additional physical location" language

From P. JoEllen Price, Financial Aid Administrators to Everyone:

I share the same concern as Jillian. I have experienced delays in reviews without knowing 

the reasons for the delays. Non-compliance issues were resolved months before program review 

was closed.

From A - Zack Goodwin (he/him), Financial Aid Administrators to Everyone:

Reacted to "I share the same con..." with ��

From A-Alyssa Dobson, 4Yr. Public Institutions to Everyone:

Reacted to "I share the same con..." with ���

From A, Scott Dolan, Private Nonprofit IHEs to Everyone:

came in immediately after session 1

From (P) Barmak Nassirian, Veterans & Mil. Students to Everyone:

I'm not sure what the harm is in cases that Jillian is concerned about. If the reason for an 

institution's provisional status are innocuous, the accreditor can approve the change, report it to ED 

and explain that the provisional status did not cause concern because it was due to reasons beyond 

the school's control.
129

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

From (P) Barmak Nassirian, Veterans & Mil. Students to Everyone:

If a physical location is so remote, so dangerous, or so far beyond the reach of the 

accreditor, how can the accreditor be sure what might be going on there? 

From P, Jillian Klein, Proprietary Instit to Everyone:

Replying to "I'm not sure what th..."

 

But, accreditors do not have visibility into why a school is provisional, so they wouldn't have 

this context. And, the larger concern in this section is that it sends a flag to states/other 

agencies/etc that provisional always equals risky, which given Donna's answer to my question is not 

always the case.

From P - Erika Linden, Private Nonprofit IHEs to Everyone:

Plus 1 to Jamie

From P. JoEllen Price, Financial Aid Administrators to Everyone:

Replying to "I'm not sure what th..."

 

Thank you for articulating my concern.

From (P) Barmak Nassirian, Veterans & Mil. Students to Everyone:

Replying to "I'm not sure what th..."

 

The school can tell them

From P, Jillian Klein, Proprietary Instit to Everyone:

Replying to "I'm not sure what th..."

 

But, in these cases, to JoEllen's point, the school does not even know why they are 

provisional. To my comment earlier, we will put together some language to try to codify all the 

reasons you all agreed to in the last neg reg for which institutions can be provisional, 

notwithstanding "paperwork"

From A, Scott Dolan, Private Nonprofit IHEs to Everyone:

also agree with Jami on outcomes focused reviews. some of the language we proposed last 

round might allow for a focus on areas and/or organizations where there may be reason for 

concern.

From P - Erika Linden, Private Nonprofit IHEs to Everyone:

Erika back in for Private Nonprofits

From (P) Barmak Nassirian, Veterans & Mil. Students to Everyone:

Replying to "I'm not sure what th..."

 

I thought you are concerned about cases where administrative delays, late audits, etc. are 

the reason for being on provisional status
130

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

From P - Carolyn Fast, Civil Rights/Consumer to Everyone:

My comment is also on (b)

From P, Jillian Klein, Proprietary Instit to Everyone:

Replying to "I'm not sure what th..."

 

Yes, that is what I'm saying. I'm concerned about cases where ED is behind on paperwork 

and puts institutions into provisional due to Department understaffing.

From (P) Barmak Nassirian, Veterans & Mil. Students to Everyone:

If redaction is not an issue, formatting does not strike me as a good reason to not share 

important information, without which, the rationale for accreditor's decisions would be entirely 

opaque

From P, Jamie Studley, Institutional Accreditors to Everyone:

1. we may be able to post petitions but it's the exhibits that are a serious problem.

From A - Michale McComis, Inst. Accreditor to Everyone:

Reacted to "1. we may be able to..." with ���

From P, Jamie Studley, Institutional Accreditors to Everyone:

2. If ED posted them they would not have to go through a FOIA process so that oculd be a 

more efficient process for the public and ED and agencies

From P - Laura Rasar King, Specialized Accreditation to Everyone:

Agreed. I have no issue with posting the petition. The exhibits are the problem.

From P - Laura Rasar King, Specialized Accreditation to Everyone:

Complaints - A 5-year lookback is far too long to be able to investigate appropriately. I 

would support 2 or 3 years at the most.

From Robyn Smith, Legal Aid orgs. to Everyone:

Sorry folks, too hard to post the language we propose here because I can’t format it here. 

Take a look at pages 14-15 of our proposals.

From Robyn Smith, Legal Aid orgs. to Everyone:

Re complaint processes.

From P - Carolyn Fast, Civil Rights/Consumer to Everyone:

I would suggest a look back period for complaints tied to the length of the instution's 

accreditation cycle. So if only renewed for accreditation every 10 years, should be a 10 year look 

back for complaints.

From Robyn Smith, Legal Aid orgs. to Everyone:

+1 to Carolyn’s suggestion.

From A - Zack Goodwin (he/him), Financial Aid Administrators to Everyone:

Reacted to "+1 to Carolyn’s sugg..." with ���
131

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

From P, Jessi Morales, Students/Borrowers to Everyone:

Reacted to "+1 to Carolyn’s sugg..." with ���

From P, Jessi Morales, Students/Borrowers to Everyone:

Reacted to "I would suggest a lo..." with ���

From A, Emmett Blaney, Students/Borrowers to Everyone:

+1 to Carolyn’s suggestion that the look-back number be directly connected to 

accreditation cycle.

From P. JoEllen Price, Financial Aid Administrators to Everyone:

Reacted to "+1 to Carolyn’s sugg..." with ���

From P, Jamie Studley, Institutional Accreditors to Everyone:

To Carolyn: but if their accred is coming up for review in two years from now would you 

make the timeto complain two years? I don't think that works? To Carolyn: And the longer the 

cycle the longer people have to compain? that's a reverse on the level of risk or concern. Please 

note this is DIFFERENT from comments on accreditation

From P - Carolyn Fast, Civil Rights/Consumer to Everyone:

Replying to "To Carolyn: but if t..."

 

No, I wouldn't peg it to where the institution is in the accreditation cycle, but to the length 

of the accreditation cycle.

From P., Diana Hooley, State Attorneys General to Everyone:

We are supportive of the Department's efforts for a more robust complaint procedure 

here. With respect to the lookback period, we would note there is value in a longer lookback period 

to determine how long a practice has been ongoing.

From A - Michale McComis, Inst. Accreditor to Everyone:

In order to help ensure consistency in the process, due process, and to helpful for 

complainants, please consider the following change:

 

(iv) A requirement that agency staff will provide assistance to a complainant who does not 

submit a complaint correctly under the agency’s prescribed method(s) in an attempt to have the 

complaint submitted in accordance with those methods.

From P, Jamie Studley, Institutional Accreditors to Everyone:

those reqts are elsewhere. This sentence is redundant/obvious. Yes, we do populate teams 

with the expertise relevant to the schools program, mission, and history of concerns, complaints or 

areas for attention. Don't know what this adds

From A, Scott Dolan, Private Nonprofit IHEs to Everyone:

Reacted to "those reqts are else..." with ���
132

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

From A - Zack Goodwin (he/him), Financial Aid Administrators to Everyone:

Reacted to "those reqts are else..." with ���

From A - Michale McComis, Inst. Accreditor to Everyone:

Reacted to "those reqts are else..." with ���

From P, Jamie Studley, Institutional Accreditors to Everyone:

shd be "school's" program in my note

From P - Laura Rasar King, Specialized Accreditation to Everyone:

Reacted to "those reqts are else..." with ���

From P - Erika Linden, Private Nonprofit IHEs to Everyone:

Reacted to "those reqts are else..." with ���

From P, Jamie Studley, Institutional Accreditors to Everyone:

To ED: what does this add/achieve?

From A, Scott Dolan, Private Nonprofit IHEs to Everyone:

Replying to "those reqts are else..."

 

for our accreditor, the requirements: The teams on this visit are selected based on key 

attributes: their qualifications, experience, expertise, and extensive training that they receive to not 

only understand the requirements of affiliation and standards, but also to evaluate institutions 

against these standards

From P - Carolyn Fast, Civil Rights/Consumer to Everyone:

Magin Sanchez is joining the table to comment.

From A - Michale McComis, Inst. Accreditor to Everyone:

Requiring Every institution to submit a teach out plan is an incredible over-reach. 

Better/different triggers is far more appripriate

From A-Alyssa Dobson, 4Yr. Public Institutions to Everyone:

Reacted to "Requiring Every inst..." with ���

From A - Michale McComis, Inst. Accreditor to Everyone:

Failure to meet the federal financial composite score is an example of an earlier trigger

From P, Jillian Klein, Proprietary Instit to Everyone:

David Cohen is coming to the table for proprietary schools

From A, Scott Dolan, Private Nonprofit IHEs to Everyone:

agreed on the need for sensible guidelines here. And are we suggesting that private 

nonprofits with endowments greater than 45 billion. barmak beat me to it
133

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

From P - Erika Linden, Private Nonprofit IHEs to Everyone:

Serious concern about ALL institutions. Create reasonable triggers that are meaningful.

From A, Scott Dolan, Private Nonprofit IHEs to Everyone:

Reacted to "Serious concern abou..." with ���

From P, Jillian Klein, Proprietary Instit to Everyone:

Take a note, Barmak just agreed with me!! We must all be exhausted!

From P - Carolyn Fast, Civil Rights/Consumer to Everyone:

Replying to "To Carolyn: but if t..."

 

It seems logical to me that an accreditor would want to consider complaints for the whole 

period of review between accreditation cycles. So if a school comes up for accreditation every 6 

years, let's say, and there is evidence of misconduct via a complaint from the first year of the six 

years, shouldn't the accreditor review that complaint at the time of review? Otherwise, the 

accreditor would not be considering relevant information from the full review period.

From A, Scott Dolan, Private Nonprofit IHEs to Everyone:

�����

From A-Alyssa Dobson, 4Yr. Public Institutions to Everyone:

I would like to point out that teach out plans are not always easy to create within the public 

sector. We have CBA's and other legislation within our states that would make the requirement 

very burdensome at best. 

From A, Scott Dolan, Private Nonprofit IHEs to Everyone:

agreed jami. and it's imperative that we focus our efforts on what successful teach outs 

look like given the increases in closure we are seeing. so important for us to think deeply about 

this, but to do so reasonably.

From (P) Barmak Nassirian, Veterans & Mil. Students to Everyone:

I think we need to set the tripwire much earlier than when there is imminent risk of 

closure. AT that point, the proverbial house is already on fire and the teach-out option is almost 

certain to be even worse than the program that is collapsing

From Robyn Smith, Legal Aid orgs. to Everyone:

Jamie, I understand your issue with the 2 year requirement we propose, we are just trying 

to ensure that the situation I described does not happen. Perhaps we can come up with some 

other way of doing that.

From A, Scott Dolan, Private Nonprofit IHEs to Everyone:

Replying to "I think we need to s..."

 

some important conversations needed about how to evaluate institution's fiscal capacity to 

operate. 
134

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

From A, Magin Sanchez, Civil Rights/Consumer to Everyone:

Reacted to "Take a note, Barmak ..." with �������

From (P) Barmak Nassirian, Veterans & Mil. Students to Everyone:

The insurance analogy makes sense when you factor in the option of self-insurance by 

those that have the means to cover the loss (i.e., cash buyers).

From P, Jamie Studley, Institutional Accreditors to Everyone:

Robin, happy to talk with you about that. I understand a concern about lack of expertise by 

the school; let's see if we can avoid cutting off some of the best potential solutions.

From P - Erika Linden, Private Nonprofit IHEs to Everyone:

To David's point, we have a doctor of podiatric medicine program - one of ONLY 10 in the 

US!

From A, Scott Dolan, Private Nonprofit IHEs to Everyone:

Reacted to "Robin, happy to talk..." with ���

From A, Scott Dolan, Private Nonprofit IHEs to Everyone:

Reacted to "Jamie, I understand ..." with ���

From A, Magin Sanchez, Civil Rights/Consumer to Everyone:

Reacted to "+1 to Carolyn’s sugg..." with ���

From P - Erika Linden, Private Nonprofit IHEs to Everyone:

Scott Dolan back to the table for this segment for Private Nonprofits

From P, Jamie Studley, Institutional Accreditors to Everyone:

While agreeing that transfer is an area for improved info and practice, I would be 

concerned about the potential for widely varying definitions so that resulting info would not be 

meaningful to prospective and other students. Jillian is making a point i agree with about the wide 

variety of transfer situations.

From A, Scott Dolan, Private Nonprofit IHEs to Everyone:

Reacted to "While agreeing that ..." with ���

From A, Michael Cioce, 2 Year Colleges to Everyone:

To Jamie/Jillian- see FTFT and the usefulness of that in all things federal!

From A-David Cohen, Proprietary Institutions to Everyone:

Can the Department define "credit transfer acceptance rate"?

From A-Alyssa Dobson, 4Yr. Public Institutions to Everyone:
135

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

+1 to David Cohen's question; I'll add that at many schools a class will transfer into one 

program and not another. Example: our pre-PA biology program won't take any transfer credit for 

their required sciences, yet all of our other programs will take sciences easily.

From A, Scott Dolan, Private Nonprofit IHEs to Everyone:

Rates don't necessarily evaluate quality. Seems more a quantity measure here.

From A, Scott Dolan, Private Nonprofit IHEs to Everyone:

Erika will step back in

From A - Michale McComis, Inst. Accreditor to Everyone:

Please consider the following change to the transfer language: e) Transfer of credit policies. 

The accrediting agency must confirm, as part of its review for initial accreditation or 

preaccreditation, or renewal of accreditation, that the institution has transfer of credit policies 

that— 

(1) Are publicly disclosed in accordance with § 668.43(a)(11); 

(2) Include a statement of the criteria established by the institution regarding the transfer 

of credit earned at another institution; (3) Are consistently and fairly applied and do not 

discriminate solely on the source of accreditation;

(4) Include an assessment of the equivalency of the credits being requested for transfer;

(5) Include information on the average time to completion for transfer students; 

(6) Include information on the share of transfer students enrolled at the institution; and 

(7) Include information on credit transfer acceptance rates;

From Robyn Smith, Legal Aid orgs. to Everyone:

We suggested several additional changes to 602.26 and ask the Dept. to consider those, 

including disclosures of negative actions and the reasons for such actions (in subparagraph (e)) and 

related changes in § 602.26(c)(3), (d), and a new subparagraph (f) that would require disclosure to 

the Department and the public of negative actions, not just adverse actions.

From P, Jessi Morales, Students/Borrowers to Everyone:

Reacted to "We suggested several..." with ���

From P - Carolyn Fast, Civil Rights/Consumer to Everyone:

Reacted to "We suggested several..." with ���

From P - Carolyn Fast, Civil Rights/Consumer to Everyone:

We encourage the Department to look at our proposal on limitation actions in 602.32.

From P, Jillian Klein, Proprietary Instit to Everyone:

David Cohen is coming to the table for proprietary schools

From Robyn Smith, Legal Aid orgs. to Everyone:

+1 to Barmak and Carolyn.

From A, Emmett Blaney, Students/Borrowers to Everyone:

+1 to Barmak and Carolyn.
136

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

From P, Jamie Studley, Institutional Accreditors to Everyone:

The option or requirement to limit seem ok but I believe Carolyn's formula is too narrow to 

write into regs, the SDO should have more room for determination

From P - Laura Rasar King, Specialized Accreditation to Everyone:

Amy Ackerson (Nursing Education Boards) will come in for 604.

From A - Michale McComis, Inst. Accreditor to Everyone:

There are times when an agency does not "approve" a teach-out agreement because it is 

not in the best interest of students. Thus, please consider this addition to the language: (6) In 

prioritizing an agency for review, the Department may consider factors that include, but are not 

limited to— 

(i) Whether any of its accredited institutions closed without an approved teach-out 

agreement in place, when such an agreement was required in accordance with §34 CFR 602.24(c) 

and it was reasonable for the agency to have approved the agreement in advance of the closure;

From Robyn Smith, Legal Aid orgs. to Everyone:

We proposed several conforming changes to section 604, so ask the Dept. to take a look at 

those.

From P - Erika Linden, Private Nonprofit IHEs to Everyone:

Scott Dolan returning to the table for Private Nonprofits

From A, Scott Dolan, Private Nonprofit IHEs to Everyone:

i think it's an important perspective.

From A, Amy Ackerson, Nursing Program Approvers to Everyone:

Laura will rejoin the table for programmatic accreditors

From P - Laura Rasar King, Specialized Accreditation to Everyone:

Laura Rasar King back in for specialized accrediting agencies.

From A, Scott Dolan, Private Nonprofit IHEs to Everyone:

i think this is a very reasonable point.

From A, Scott Dolan, Private Nonprofit IHEs to Everyone:

are those mutually exclusive?

From P, Jamie Studley, Institutional Accreditors to Everyone:

Scott's point is very well taken

From P - Erika Linden, Private Nonprofit IHEs to Everyone:

Reacted to "Scott's point is ver..." with ���

From P - Laura Rasar King, Specialized Accreditation to Everyone:

+1 to Scott's point
137

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

From A, Scott Dolan, Private Nonprofit IHEs to Everyone:

that would be great

From Cindy Jeffries - FMCS Facilitator to Everyone:

After public comment I will be providing information on proposal submission information 

and next steps. Shouldn't take more than 5 minutes or so please do not log off immediately after 

public comment.

From A, Scott Dolan, Private Nonprofit IHEs to Everyone:

Reacted to "After public comment..." with ���

From P. JoEllen Price, Financial Aid Administrators to Everyone:

Reacted to "After public comment..." with ���

From A - Zack Goodwin (he/him), Financial Aid Administrators to Everyone:

Reacted to "After public comment..." with ���

From P, Jamie Studley, Institutional Accreditors to Everyone:

Happy Valentine's Day, everyone

From P. JoEllen Price, Financial Aid Administrators to Everyone:

Reacted to "Happy Valentine's Da..." with ���

From P, DC, HBCUs, MSIs, TCUs to Everyone:

Reacted to "Happy Valentine's Da..." with ���

From A, Scott Dolan, Private Nonprofit IHEs to Everyone:

Reacted to "Happy Valentine's Da..." with ���

From A - Zack Goodwin (he/him), Financial Aid Administrators to Everyone: 

Reacted to "Happy Valentine's Da..." with ���

From Cindy Jeffries - FMCS Facilitator to Everyone:

Reacted to "Happy Valentine's Da..." with �������

From P - Erika Linden, Private Nonprofit IHEs to Everyone:

Then perhaps we start with the more contentious items next month.

From A - Michale McComis, Inst. Accreditor to Everyone:

Reacted to "Then perhaps we star..." with ���

From A, Magin Sanchez, Civil Rights/Consumer to Everyone:

Reacted to "Happy Valentine's Da..." with ���

From A, Scott Dolan, Private Nonprofit IHEs to Everyone:
138

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/8/2024

thanks to you all at FMCS too, Cindy