U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION 

PUBLIC REGIONAL HEARING ON 

NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING 

Wednesday, October 8, 2008 

9:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m. 

1990 K Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C.
P R O C E E D I N G S

MR. BERGERON: Good morning. I'm hoping this microphone's working. I'll 

just bring it closer--as though anybody has trouble hearing me. Good morning. 

I'm David Bergeron, I'm Director of Policy and Budget Development here in the 

Office of Postsecondary Education. 

With me this morning, we have a number of people from the Department 

staff who will be sitting at this table throughout the day, but right now I 

have Dan Madzelan, who is the Director of Forecasting and Policy Analysis 

here in the Office of Postsecondary Education, and Ron Sann, who is an 

attorney in our Office of General Counsel. Also sitting here up at the front 

is Vince Sampson, who is the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Planning, 

and Innovation. And before we go any further, I'm going to turn the 

microphone over to Vince and let him say a few words. 

MR. SAMPSON: I'll say very few words. 

First of all, thank you, everyone, for coming today. It's nice to see a 

packed house. There's still some seats up front, for those hanging around in 

the back. As you all well know, it's important that we have a robust record 

as we go through this process. You know, we're looking at a reauthorization 

for the first time in a number of years, with a lot of new issues and items 

for the Department to consider and implement in the years ahead. 

So, we've done a number of field hearings, as it were, and we have a 

couple more to go, but this one is obviously important because we get to hear 

from a lot of representatives that we might not be able to hear from out in 

the field. So, we're looking forward to taking your comments, and then we'll 

look forward to the next step of interacting with you guys as we move 

forward. 

MR. BERGERON: Thank you, Vince. Let me give you a little bit of 

background. This is our fourth--actually--fifth hearing that we're 

conducting. We have been in--around the country, as Vince said. We've been to 

California and Charlotte. We've been in Rhode Island and one in--and had a 

hearing in Texas. So, we've been hearing from folks. They've been wellattended, although not nearly as well-attended as this hearing is. 

We appreciated the testimony that we've received when we've been out in 

the field. As Vince said, this is an important start to our process, taking 

and hearing what people's concerns are as they look at the Higher Education 

Opportunity Act of 2008, in thinking about the issues that we'll need to be 

regulating around. To help people find information, we've created a Web site 

2
that is easier to find than most of ours at the Department, because it's at 

www.ed.gov/heoa. For people who know our Web site, it's pretty unusual for 

us to get a site that's easy to find. So, we would encourage you to check 

that Web site often. We have posted the record from the hearing in Texas, and 

we'll be posting the transcripts for each of these hearings as they are 

completed and reviewed by the Department staff. And so, look for those on our 

Web site. Once we complete this hearing process, we'll be publishing a Notice 

that will identify the committees and areas of interest that those committees 

will be addressing, and soliciting participation in negotiating committees. 

That's a little different than the way we have done this in the past, 

in the sense that, when we've done this before, we've done a Notice that 

covered all of this, you know, initial activity. But we thought, given the 

range of issues, it's probably a good idea for us to wait and see what the 

public comment was before we developed the committee structure. So, look for 

that Notice in coming weeks. With that, I'll see if Danny or Ron have 

anything they'd like to add before we get going. 

MR. MADZELAN: I just want to welcome you as well this morning, and 

thanks for coming out and helping us figure out what we're going to need to 

do over the next year or two in our regulatory process. 

As David mentioned, we will be providing further information in a few 

weeks around a negotiating agenda and timelines and those kinds of things. 

When we last had one of our mega rulemaking activities coming out of the '98 

amendments, you'll probably recall we kind of divided our work up into some 

things that needed to be done immediately, which we did in 1999, and then 

some other items that could wait a year or so for regulating. And so, we 

followed up with subsequent activity. You know, that's, again, a part of what 

we're hoping to accomplish with these series of hearings, is to hear from you 

folks out in the field to help us figure out how we stage the work that we 

need to get done to implement this reauthorization. Thanks. 

MR. BERGERON: And before we get started, I guess just a couple 

logistical things. If you need to use the restroom, just go out through the 

doors--the door to your right, and then it's just around the corner, and 

there are signs that lead you to where the restrooms are, and then come back 

through the glass doors that are on your left. And the other thing is, if you 

do leave the building and need to come back in, the guard--now that you're 

all here, the guard should be able to let you up after lunch. We will make 

sure that there are people downstairs to help you get back up here again. 

They changed our security arrangements at the last minute on us. And so, it 

3
has complicated our lives a little bit today. But--so, bear with us. If you 

encounter any issues, just grab one of the staffs. There are a bunch of them 

in the room right now, and most of them are standing up. So, if you have 

questions, just grab them. Ron, you got anything? 

MR. SANN: Only hello and welcome. Thank you. 

MR. BERGERON: With that, we'll hear from our first witness. If you 

could come to the microphone. The first person coming up and speaking to us 

is Heather Jarvis. Hi. Yes, please state your name and the organization you 

are with. Thank you. 

MS. JARVIS: Good morning. My name is Heather Jarvis. I'm with Equal 

Justice Works. I'm an attorney representing Equal Justice Works on staff 

there. Can you hear me now? 

Equal Justice Works has dedicated 20 years to promoting public interest 

law, and to assisting law graduates who choose to do public interest work. We 

have joined with other public interest law leaders to support the enactment 

of Section 431, the loan repayment for civil legal assistance attorneys, and 

we have collaborated with law schools throughout the country to establish 

loan repayment assistance programs. We have assisted statewide programs, 

employer-based programs, and we really are national experts in the design and 

implementation of loan repayment assistance programs. And we have analyzed 

Section 431, and have a couple of suggestions to make in that regard. We've 

identified five specific areas that we find appropriate for regulation. The 

first is loan priority, the second are terms of repayment, the third, 

application priority, the fourth, double benefits, and the fifth, definition 

of statutory terms. So, we ask that the Department of Education designate 

these subjects for negotiated rulemaking. Specifically loan priority in 

Section 428(l) states that the Secretary shall carry out a program of 

assuming the obligation to repay a student loan by direct payments on behalf 

of a borrower to the holder of such loans, but the statute does not provide 

rules establishing a loan priority, and eligible civil legal assistance 

attorneys are likely to have many eligible student loans. 

So, rules establishing an order of priority for repayment of those 

loans should be included on the agenda of a negotiated rulemaking committee. 

The committee can consider whether to prioritize Direct Loans, FFEL Loans, 

Grad PLUS Loans, higher interest rate loans, or the like. We also ask that a 

committee consider repayment terms. In Section 428(l), as well, the statute 

indicates that if an attorney quits or is fired for misconduct before they 

complete their service obligation, that borrower will repay the amount of 

4
benefits that they have received. Rules establishing the terms of that 

repayment will need to be determined. 

Thirdly, application priority. The statute itself sets out priority 

rules for selecting borrowers to receive benefits, but regulations 

implementing those borrower priority rules are needed. Negotiated rulemakers 

could determine additional priority rules as well for applications in the 

event that appropriations remain after initial distribution of benefits to 

priority borrowers. We also ask that a committee consider the double benefits 

provision of Section 428(l) which establishes an ineligibility for double 

benefits provision, stating that no borrower may, for the same service, 

receive a reduction of loan obligations under this Section and Section 428(k) 

or 455(m), being the new loan forgiveness program for servicing areas of 

national need and the College Cost Reduction and Access Act, public service 

loan forgiveness. 

Now, rules establishing the appropriate application of this Section 

will be needed, and the committee can consider how to apply this provision in 

light of the loan and borrower priority rules, and the interaction between 

this provision and the College Cost Reduction and Access Act. And finally, 

there are some definitions that I believe will be needed. There are several 

statutory terms, including full-time, continually-licensed, involuntarilyseparated, and contrary to the public interest that we believe ought to be 

the subject of rulemaking and definition. Equal Justice Works and I are happy 

to offer advice, propose draft regulations, and to support the Department's 

effort to address these issues. And so, I thank you and I'd be happy to 

answer questions if you have any of those. 

MR. BERGERON: Thank you. 

MS. JARVIS: Thank you. 

MR. BERGERON: I appreciate it, Heather. Susan Saxton is next. Again, if 

you could tell us for the record who--state your name and the organization 

you represent. Thank you, Susan. 

DR. SAXTON: Good morning. Is everything okay? Hi, my name is Dr. Susan 

Saxton. I'm the Chief Academic Officer for Laureate Higher Education Group. 

Laureate Education has several accredited institutions in the United 

States, including Weldon University, Kendall College in Chicago, and the New 

School of Architecture and Design in San Diego. Weldon offers graduate 

degrees at the master's and doctoral levels in a variety of academic 

disciplines with the non-tradition adult learner who is working full-time or 

otherwise has not had the opportunity to pursue higher education in the 

5
campus-based traditional setting. Kendall College offers degrees in business, 

hospitality, the culinary arts, and early childhood education. The New School 

of Architecture and Design offers bachelor's and master's degrees in 

architecture. 

With a portfolio of diverse institutions, Laureate has experience with 

regional, national, and specialized accreditation. I appreciate the 

opportunity to share our thoughts with you on a number of issues, which we 

believe the Department should consider during the negotiated rulemaking 

process. As an overarching issue for consideration, my comments are focused 

on the need to better incorporate the interests of the non-traditional adult 

learner into the federal education policy. 

Thus I speak today on specific concepts of innovation and teaching and 

learning, simplification of the Title IV administration, institutional 

disclosure, and accreditation with the broad recommendation, with changes in 

these policies--must take into consideration the needs of the non-traditional 

adult student. Laureate supports the Higher Education Opportunity Act's 

efforts to combat diploma mills. We consider these efforts critical for 

preventing fraud against students, and essential for maintaining the quality 

of distance education. We must prevent bad actors and illegitimate 

institutions from impacting success in this area, and we welcome the 

opportunity to work with the Department to accomplish this goal. 

Laureate is proud of Weldon University's reputation and accomplishments 

in providing access to quality education for non-traditional students 

exclusively for distance learning. Distance learning is a proven way in which 

to provide access to quality education for many learners who otherwise would 

not be able to enroll in a campus-based program. Laureate, through Weldon, 

has been at the forefront of distance education, and has extensive experience 

in encouraging innovation while ensuring continued quality and a positive 

student experience. We also support the HEOA's provisions requiring 

Accreditors to maintain standards and train their site evaluators that have 

distance education. These changes recognize that distance education has 

become an accepted format for delivering educational programs, and that the 

accrediting agencies play an important role in ensuring quality in distance 

education as they do with all institutions and programs. 

To review institutions that offer distance education consistently, it 

is important that all recognized accrediting agencies be knowledgeable about 

how distance education programs operate and how they differ from programs 

offered by other formats. In addition, we applaud the Department for working 

6
with Congress to revise the definition of distance education to distinguish 

correspondence programs and other forms of distance education delivery. 

Our institutions also take very seriously the responsibility to ensure 

that students enrolled in our programs are students participating in and 

completing our programs. For example, Weldon has a number of methods it uses 

to ensure continual contact between its students and professors, and we'd be 

happy to share these experiences in detail with the Department. The 

conference report does not mandate that institutions use or Accreditors 

require a specific type of process. Rather, it indicates that mechanisms such 

as passwords or identification numbers are currently sufficient for student 

verification. We consider it important that the Act's language regarding 

verification processes continues to provide institutions the flexibility to 

determine what type of process should be adopted. 

Adjusting Title IV programs to better meet the needs of all learners, 

including the non-traditional adult learner, is of great importance to 

Laureate. We applaud the increases to the Pell Program's funding levels, and 

the expansion to a year-round Pell, because it recognizes the important role 

year-long funding plays in allowing particularly non-traditional FFEL 

students to continue and complete their educational programs. 

We also appreciate the other changes to the Title IV programs that 

allow institutions to increase access to higher education for non-traditional 

learners. Finally, we applaud all efforts, including the Secretary's recently 

announced plan to streamline the FAFSA application and the associated 

approval process so that students may more quickly understand the funding for 

which they are eligible. Such understanding often has a direct bearing on 

their educational choices. In this area, we would welcome the opportunity to 

assist the Department in improving its processes and systems. 

Laureate supports the general concept that institutions have a 

responsibility to disclose more information on student achievement to 

students, perspective students, and the public in order to improve 

institutional accountability and to help students make more informed 

decisions about their education. Such disclosures are particularly important 

for students who enter or return to higher education later in life to improve 

their career prospects. For this reason, we generally support the Act's 

requirement, for example, the data related to graduation, completion, and 

retention rates be disclosed. We believe it is important, however, that such 

information be disclosed in a manner that is useful to the public. Thus, it 

is critical that the Department carefully consider the definition of the 

7
terms "retention rate," "graduation rate," and "placement rate," recognizing 

that varying types of institutions might define such terms differently. 

Laureate believes accreditation should continue to play an important 

role in ensuring exceptional quality of educational programs, both those 

offered on the ground and those offered through distance education. In 

general, we support the new accreditation provisions of the Act. We believe 

those provisions generally respect the important independent relationship 

between an accreditor and an institution, for recognizing the need of federal 

policy agencies to ensure some consistency regarding processes and operations 

in accreditation. We commend the Act's recognition that different types of 

institutions measure student achievement in different ways unique to the 

distinct roles of that institution. As a general principal, we believe that 

measures must be linked to specific learning outcomes, and that each academic 

program should embody a set of student learning outcomes specific to defined 

and appropriate program goals. 

Laureate supports the concept that each accreditor will look at each 

institution and its unique program goals in assessing the institution against 

its standards on student achievement. Laureate supports continuous 

interaction and frequent communication with Accreditors which enhances the 

relationship between our institutions and the quality assurance agencies. 

The amendments to Section 102 regarding the expansion of the definition 

of proprietary institution of higher education to include liberal arts 

programs are complex. For example, they do not define what it means to have 

provided a liberal arts program by January 1, 2009. Further, the conference 

report indicates that, "The conferees understand that some programs offered 

by an institution make the definition of a program that leads to gainful 

employment in a recognized occupation and a liberal arts program." The 

conferees do not intend the terms "gainful employment in a recognized 

occupation," and "liberal arts" to be mutually exclusive. Given that this 

provision takes effect on January 1, 2009, we believe it is important for the 

Department to act quickly to provide institutions guidance on the 

implementation of this statutory definition. 

In conclusion, Laureate asks the Department to consider when making any 

changes to its regulations how the federal government and the higher 

education community might do a better job serving the needs of a growing 

cohort of non-traditional adult learners who are purposefully seeking 

professional growth and lifelong learning opportunities. We believe that the 

public at large will benefit from the disclosure of data related to student 

8
outcomes, continued support of the development of innovative methods of 

teaching and learning, policy reforms and streamlining of procedures relating 

to the financial aid system. Laureate looks forward to working with the 

Department on these issues as it proceeds with the negotiated rulemaking 

process. Thank you. 

MR. BERGERON: Thank you, Susan. As you can see, we're trying to make a 

few adjustments so that it's a little easier for people to hear. Our next 

speaker is Mary Dorrell. 

MS. DORRELL: Good morning. First of all, I want to thank you for the 

opportunity to be here today and share my thoughts and recommendations. The 

work of these public hearings is the first important step in identifying 

issues and address--soliciting our input. My name is Mary Dorrell. I've Vice 

President of Student Finance for Career Education Corporation. 

I've been in student finance for 28 years at a community college, a 

public university, and proprietary institutions. Career Education Corporation 

is the largest on-ground provider of private, for-profit, postsecondary 

education. The colleges, schools, and universities that are a part of Career 

Education Corporation offer higher education to more than 90,000 students in 

a variety of career-oriented disciplines. The 75 ground campuses offer 

doctoral, masters, bachelors, associate degrees, as well as diploma and 

certificate programs. Today, I would like to address some of our 90-10 

concerns. 

I'd like to start with additional unsubsidized Stafford. The law 

provides that, for loans disbursed from July 1, 2008 to June 30 of 2011 an 

institution can treat as non-Title IV revenue the amount of Federal Stafford 

disbursed that exceeds the limits that existed prior to the enactment of 

ECASLA, Public Law 110-227. Our concern is that, because these loans are 

divided into multiple disbursements, it is unclear how the institution will 

attribute the additional loan amounts, particularly when some disbursements 

will cross over into the next award year. We suggest that the most 

appropriate method for determining the amount to attribute to the additional 

loan amount would be to relate the disbursements of subsidized Stafford, 

unsubsidized Stafford, and additional unsubsidized Stafford to each payment 

period in proportion to the total amount of the Stafford that was awarded for 

the loan period. 

Schools should not be required to go back after the close of a year and 

reattribute the loan back to the regular Stafford if the student subsequently 

drops out and does not receive the remaining disbursements. Similarly, when a 

9
student drops out and the funds are subject to R2TIV, the amount of the 

Stafford repaid should be proportionately attributed to the additional and 

the regular Stafford loans for the purposes of 90-10 calculations. 

MR. BERGERON: Can you move the microphone a little closer. 

MS. DORRELL: A little closer? Okay. 

MR. BERGERON: Thank you. 

MS. DORRELL: I want to also talk about institutional loans. 

The HEOA provides addition flexibility to institutions to allow them to 

count net present value of institutional loans on an accrual basis toward the 

90-10 compliance. As a result of the tighter credit markets, many students 

who previously were able to obtain private loans are unable to obtain them 

now. Institutions are working with lenders to originate loans to their 

students despite the current markets. Schools then purchase these loans from 

the lender at a principal plus interest, and assume all responsibility for 

the debt at the point of purchase. 

Although the loans are not made by a proprietary institution of higher 

education, the proprietary institution assumes all responsibility for the 

loan, including collections and default risk. If the institution did not 

purchase the loans, these third-party loans would clearly be included as cash 

received for the 90-10 purposes. However, with the purchase of these loans, 

it's not clear that these loans can be counted as cash received. With the 

purchase of these loans, they are similar to loans made by the institution. 

Therefore, to ensure that these loans are clearly defined in 90-10 purposes, 

we request that loans originated by a third party lender for the students at 

an institution but purchased in full by the institution be treated the same 

as institutional loans made by the institution as they relate to the 90-10 

calculation. In addition, as part of paying institutional charges, many 

institutions allow students to use installment payment plans or retail 

installment contracts. While such payment plans do not include the issuance 

of funds at intervals related to the institution's enrollment periods, they 

include contracts that are legally enforceable, and subject to regular loan 

repayments and collections. For that reason, we believe such installment 

payment plans meet the standard of an institutional loan. Therefore, we 

request that such institutional payment plans be clearly defined as 

institutional loans as they relate to the 90-10 calculations. And finally, 

the law also requires that loans subject to regular repayment and 

collections--our institutions allow students to defer payment on certain 

loans while they're enrolled. We wish to ensure that a definition of 

10
institutional loans includes loans that incorporate a deferment of payment 

while the students are in school and during a reasonable grace period after 

they leave, as we believe that these are also in the best interests of the 

students. And thank you. 

MR. MADZELAN: Well, I think I can assure that David is not fed up with 

the-- 

[Laughter.] 

MR. MADZELAN: --not frustrated at all, but we are joined, now, up here 

by Kay Gilcher of our staff. Kay, say hello. 

MS. GILCHER: Hello. 

MR. MADZELAN: Our next speaker is Ken Salomon. Welcome, Ken. 

MR. SALOMON: Thank you. Good morning. I'm Ken Salomon, and I'm here on 

behalf of ACUTA, the Association for Information Communications Technology 

Professionals in Higher Education. 

ACUTA asks that the Department develop through the negotiated 

rulemaking process the regulations to implement the HEOA's technology 

provisions, specifically the Emergency Notification System, or ENS, 

requirements and the Student Safety and Campus Emergency Management Grant 

Program regulations, the peer-to-peer, or P2P, file sharing requirements, and 

the distance learner verification requirement. ACUTA also requests that the 

Department select one of its members as a higher ed negotiator on the 

negotiated rulemaking panel dealing with the ENS and Emergency Notification 

Grant Program and include ACUTA members as technical experts and advisors to 

the P2P and verification negotiated rulemaking panel or panels. ACUTA 

believes that the face-to-face, give-and-take of negotiated rulemaking is the 

best way to develop effective ENS, P2P, and verification rules, because the 

difficult regulatory, legal, and policy challenges in developing these 

regulations are exacerbated by the fact that there is complex and rapidly 

evolving and changing technologies that underlie each of these issues. 

Because ACUTA represents nearly 2,000 professionals at 800 colleges and 

universities in all 50 states, ranging from the smallest to the Nation's 

largest higher ed institutions, it is superbly qualified to participate in 

developing these technology rules through negotiated rulemaking. ACUTA 

restricts institutional membership to the full-time employee of an accredited 

institution, having primary responsibility for the control or direction of 

campus communication technologies services and budgets, and for campus voice, 

video, and data communications networks. ACUTA members have a deep expertise 

in all the key issues and technologies associated with the three HEOA 

11
technology provisions. They're responsible for designing, managing, and 

operating telecommunications and data infrastructure on campuses that will be 

an essential component of the three technology provisions, and they fully 

understand the capabilities and the limitations of infrastructure and the 

upgrades that will be necessary to affect the technological solutions. 

They are responsible for evaluating, selecting, implementing, testing 

and managing ENS on campuses of all sizes. They have experience and knowledge 

both in how these systems work and their limitations, knowledge which will be 

invaluable to the Department in developing practical and effective ENS rules. 

As the only campus managers that work with many telecommunications 

carriers on a daily basis, ACUTA members understand the limitations of the 

public switch network, the impact of the capabilities of telecommunications 

infrastructure in their community, and the importance of redundant systems to 

minimize the risk of failure. ACUTA members know from real world campus 

experience in testing and using ENS for alerts that multiple notification 

methods are essential, something mentioned by the conference committee. 

They also know that the best ENS system is only as effective as the 

telecommunications infrastructure that it runs on, an important consideration 

for the Emergency Notification Grant Program, and that the text, voice, and 

e-mail systems currently available depend heavily on factors such as opt-in 

rates, available bandwidth, and wireless coverage across the campus, all of 

which are affected by community-wide emergencies and by natural disasters. 

ACUTA members can bring to the Department the real-world experience 

necessary to the development of truly effective ENS rules, policies, and 

procedures, one of the charges that you are given under this Section of the 

HEOA. They also understand development and management of network and data 

security policies and technologies, and their expertise in authentication and 

other aspects of security qualify them to advise the Department on the P2P 

and verification panels. ACUTA members are familiar with the technological 

authentication measures through their provision of the network on which 

campus learning management systems operate and through the operation of 

campus-wide network security and authentication systems and procedures. They 

can provide the panel with essential input about what technological options 

are now available to colleges, what is feasible within those systems, and 

what may be on the horizon. 

In conclusion, ACUTA appreciates this opportunity to state our 

recommendations that the Department employ negotiated rulemaking to develop 

the regulations implementing the HEOA's complex and important technology 

12
provisions, that an ACUTA representative be selected as a higher education 

negotiator on the ENS panel, and that ACUTA members be included as technical 

experts and advisors on the P2P and distance learner verification reasons-

-panel. For the reasons I've stated above, ACUTA believes that it is 

particularly well-qualified to be an important and valuable ENS negotiator, 

but should the Department determine otherwise, it requests inclusion as a 

technical expert or advisor to that panel. Thank you. 

MR. MADZELAN: Thank you, Ken. Marie Bennett. 

MS. BENNETT: Good morning. 

MR. MADZELAN: Marie, make sure the microphone is close. 

MS. BENNETT: Are we close enough? We're good? 

MR. MADZELAN: Thank you. 

MS. BENNETT: Okay. Good morning. I'm Marie Bennett. I'm submitting 

testimony on behalf of Marilyn Cargill, President of the National Association 

of State Student Grant and Aid Programs, NASSGAP, and its members. I will 

read portions of the testimony and provide a complete written copy. 

NASSGAP represents agencies in the 50 states that operate state aid 

programs, including the Federal LEAP and SLEAP programs. In 2006-2007, our 

member states provided $9.3 billion in state student financial aid. On behalf 

of NASSGAP, I thank you for this opportunity to provide this input. The first 

topic I want to discuss--regarding financial aid application simplification. 

A few years ago, my colleague, Dennis Obergell, identified five 

principle points to consider in such deliberations. States use the FAFSA as 

the primary application for state need-based grants. State financial 

resources are finite, but the population of needy students is growing. And 

with regard to that, that growth requires increased diligence on the part of 

states to make sure that the most needy students do not lose financial aid at 

the expense of simplifying a form. There is a delicate balance between 

reducing complexity and sacrificing good stewardship of public funding. And 

five, if questions important to state grant agencies are eliminated from the 

FAFSA, then states will have no choice but to create additional forms for 

students to complete in order to capture the missing data. States have been 

agents for change and have contributed significantly to the simplification 

milestones that have occurred over the years. NASSGAP conducted the research 

which led to the identification of common state questions that could be 

retained in the FAFSA, and that number of questions today is ten. We believe 

the Act provides abundant opportunity to achieve a more accessible and 

successful application system. Some of the opportunities that we've 

13
identified include the design of the form and all of its versions should be a 

matter that engages all the partners who use the FAFSA form. 

Agreement about which questions are state questions that are protected 

under the language of the HEOA must be achieved in an open and accountable 

fashion. The development of the process which will allow individuals to file 

an application prior to January 1, the use of prior prior-year data from the 

IRS as the base data for calculating the EFC, use of other income and asset 

data that cannot be derived from the IRS data, any studies, pilots, 

demonstration projects, and the assessment of their impact on the ability of 

states and institutions to award aid, the inclusion of state and 

institutional aid on the federal model financial aid form. A second matter of 

great importance to our members, of course, is the language in the law that 

authorizes the Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership Act, and 

replaces the SLEAP with a new Grants for Access and Persistence Program. 

Because GAP contains so many new requirements, the law allows up to a twoyear transition period, during which time states can continue to apply for 

SLEAP funding. It is unclear how the state allotments will be determined for 

GAP, especially during the two-year transition period from the special LEAP 

Program. 

There is a provision in GAP that a state receiving an award cannot 

receive an allotment less than a previous year; however, if a state continues 

to use special SLEAP during the transition period, will the same initial 

allocation formula as used in Special LEAP apply to GAP? Beyond the 

transition period, the basis for the Department to make initial GAP state 

allotments is unspecified. Further the continuation and transition language 

timeline needs clarification as it provides for a two-year period that begins 

on the date of the enactment of the HEOA, during which the Secretary will 

continue to award SLEAP, given that the '08-'09 LEAP and SLEAP award years 

were made--those awards to the states were made in June 2008 and the bill was 

signed October--August--I'm sorry--August 14, 2008. The statutory language 

appears to result in Special LEAP awards continuing through 2010-2011 at the 

states' option. 

We also request that the Department permit the use of the Fed 

Forecaster as an acceptable method of providing an early estimate of federal 

aid as required in GAP. The student eligibility determinants in GAP include 

measures not now reflected in the FAFSA. For example, has the student 

participated in an early information or mentoring program? It appears, then, 

that an additional question will be needed on the FAFSA to capture this data. 

14
Per the Act, states are to provide notification to eligible students 

who receive LEAP Program grants--that they are receiving Leveraging 

Educational Assistance Partnership Grants funded by the federal government, 

the state, and, where applicable, other contributing partners. To implement 

the literal provision will require most states to develop and administer two 

separate student grant award systems to accommodate separate notifications: 

one for students with LEAP GAP that includes federal funding, and one for 

students with only state funds in their awards. This could, in effect, impair 

access. NASSGAP recommends that in regulation the Department allow states to 

provide notification to eligible students that such grants "may be funded by 

the Federal Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership Program, matching 

state funds, and other funds." 

Third, regarding the Gear Up Program, there is a provision for the 

Secretary to increase the grant duration from six years to seven years in the 

case of an eligible entity that applies for a grant for seven years. 

Our question for you to consider is, will Ed allow a seventh year of 

grant payment for current grant awardees if their grant application and 

subsequent annual performance reports indicate that they plan to continue to 

monitor Gear Up students and provide services in the students' college 

freshman year, and perhaps beyond. NASSGAP is also concerned by provisions 

that require the state and partnership grant recipients to provide a 

personalized 21st century scholar certificate to all students served by the 

program. NASSGAP urges the Department to find ways to streamline these 

requirements. 

Finally, in Title II, as we understand Sections 205 and 207, some or 

all state funding received under the HEOA could be lost if certain state 

teacher assessment and state report card provisions are not met. We request 

that the Department's regulations reflect what we believe is the intent of 

those Sections, that only funding awarded to states under Title would be in 

jeopardy should a state be unable to comply with the reporting requirement. 

I thank you for the opportunity to provide our statement, and NASSGAP 

looks forward to working with the Department on the implementation of the 

HEOA. 

MR. MADZELAN: Thank you, Marie. 

MS. BENNETT: Thank you. 

MR. MADZELAN: Next is Tony Birda [sic.]. Good morning. 

MR. BIEDA: Good morning, members of the Panel. I appreciate the 

opportunity to come and talk to you today. My name is Anthony Bieda, and I am 

15
Director of Regulatory Affairs for ACICS, which is the Accrediting Council 

for Independent Colleges and Schools. We're one of the largest national 

accrediting agencies, based here in Washington, D.C. We represent and 

accredit about 700 institutions in 46 states and 9 foreign countries, 

representing a combined aggregate enrollment in excess of 550,000 students 

that are pursuing academic programs in professional, occupational, and 

technical fields, up through and including the master's degree program. 

I have presented you a copy of a letter from our board, weighing in on 

some of the issues surrounding the Higher Education Opportunity Act. I will 

not spend any time reading it, but I do want to highlight with my verbal 

comments the thrust of that letter. One of the key issues that our 

institutions face, and more importantly the students they endeavor to serve 

continue to face, is the ability to transfer academic credit--if they so 

choose to transfer their studies--from one of our credited institutions to 

another institution that is also eligible for Title IV federal student 

financial aid. And in the Higher Education Act, that is recognized--it is 

acknowledged. I think the Congress has done a good job in once again giving 

some profile to that issue and recognizing that it is persistent and has not 

gone away. We encountered the same dimensions in our dealings with our 

students and running interference on their behalf with institutions and with 

state regulators, in particular. 

So, the three elements that are mentioned in the letter as it pertains 

to this reauthorization of the Higher Ed Act is, number one, a laudatory 

comment dealing with the need to gather more information, more study, more 

research. There is an abundance of information out there, an abundance of 

studies that have been done about access to transfer of credit, but yet the 

ability of that information to really guide effective policy both at a 

federal and state level is still a little suspect, and we believe there is 

good intent and therefore good need for implementing the Higher Education Act 

to seek more information on a more objective basis that gets at best 

practices, what is working, what isn't, and how that can be replicated across 

a broader spectrum. 

Secondly, I think in terms of the requirements of the Accreditors that 

is contained in the language of the Higher Education Act, we believe Congress 

did a good job in providing the sideboards and the parameters for the 

participation by Accreditors in making sure that schools have, in fact, 

transparency and disclosure of information about transfer of credit, and that 

that is verified through the regulation of the Accreditors. We believe that 

16
the language in the Act provides good parameters, and would recommend that 

the--in promulgating rules, the Department doesn't need to go above and 

beyond that. 

And then, third, the gist of the letter focuses on the ongoing 

inability for students who initiate their studies at nationally-accredited 

schools if and when they choose to transfer that credit, the first and, in 

some cases, the most persistent barrier they will encounter when they go to 

that regionally accredited school and ask for transfer is, in fact, the 

notion that, on the basis of institutional accreditation, the discussion 

cannot even occur, let alone an effective evaluation of which of those 

credits should be eligible for transfer and which ones should not. Now, you 

all know, and certainly Congress knows that on more than one occasion, and 

not just from the Department but from other key institutions that play in 

this issue, that it has been stated that source of accreditation is not to be 

the sole basis for denying transfer of credit, let alone to be denying a 

thoughtful review of the potential for some academic credit to transfer, and 

yet that issue persists. So, that's only a tiny portion of the overall issue 

for transfer of credit, but it is the portion of the issue that, as a 

national accreditor and as representing those students, we continue to 

encounter on a recurring basis. 

So, with that, I'll conclude my remarks and entertain if you have any 

questions. 

MR. MADZELAN: Thank you, Tony, and I apologize for butchering your last 

name. I have trouble reading. 

MR. BIEDA: That's okay. 

MR. MADZELAN: So, if we mispronounce anyone's name, please correct us, 

for the record. Thank you. Mark Luker. 

MR. LUKER: Good morning. I'm Mark Luker, Vice President of EDUCAUSE. 

EDUCAUSE is the leading nonprofit association representing higher education 

technology leaders and professionals. Our membership includes over 2,200 

campuses, ranging from community colleges to large research universities to 

supercomputer centers and to statewide systems. On behalf of our members, we 

urge the Department of Education to direct special care to rules written for 

the enforcement of Section 493 of the Higher Education Opportunity Act. In 

particular, we refer to the requirement for all institutions to, (a), develop 

plans, including the use of technology-based deterrents for combating 

copyright infringement on campus networks and, (b), to offer alternatives to 

unauthorized content distribution. 

17
The details of these rules can have a significant impact on the ability 

of our members to continue operating campus networks with cost effectiveness, 

efficiency, openness, security, stability, and innovation that are essential 

to research and instruction. They can also have significant negative impact 

on the cost of higher education. With respect to (a), we ask the Department 

to follow the guidance of the conference report accompanying the legislation, 

which correctly observes that the technologies move quickly from the drawing 

board to obsolescence, and concludes, "The conferees intend for each 

institution to retain the authority to determine what its particular plans 

for compliance with this Section will be." Provision of appropriate network 

technology is one of the great challenges on today's college and university 

campuses, and only the most flexible interpretation of Section 493 will 

enable our campuses to maintain the level of excellence needed in this 

increasingly competitive world. Regarding (b), offering alternatives to 

unauthorized content distribution, the Department should be aware that many 

campuses have provided alternatives, and the market is currently thriving 

with several established models for the legitimate distribution of digital 

entertainment, with new ones constantly emerging. 

This market growth and development is appropriately occurring without 

the direct participation by higher education institutions. We're committed to 

supporting the expansion of this active commercial market without using 

tuition dollars for subsidy, and without interference and compliance with the 

relevant provision of Section 493. For many years, EDUCAUSE community members 

and staff have been directly and intensively engaged with the entertainment 

industry with technology vendors with a wide range of on- and off-campus 

experts in an attempt to find mutually acceptable approaches to the problem 

of Internet-based copyright infringement. 

As the Department works to develop the rules required in enforcing 

Section 493 of HEOA, EDUCAUSE asks to be included in your deliberations, and 

to nominate or participate on any related negotiated rulemaking panel. 

Thank you. 

MR. MADZELAN: Thank you, Mark. Gwen Dunsy [sic.]. 

MS. DUNGY: Good morning. And I want to correct my name: It's Dungy. 

Okay. I am Executive Director of NASPA, the Professional Association for 

Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education. The focus of our work is 

the overall wellbeing of students on a safe and secure environment for 

learning. Student affairs administrators have followed the education--Higher 

Education Reauthorization process, and we are pleased with the many 

18
components that serve students in higher education well. We appreciate the 

opportunity to make comment today to call attention to three areas of 

concern. 

One area of concern is the interpretation of the immediate notification 

of critical incidents in Title IV, Section 485. We believe that it is vital 

that campuses have flexibility to critically analyze and respond to campus 

emergencies using their best professional judgment in regard to timeliness 

and notifying the campus community. Any additional definitions or unnecessary 

regulatory controls could seriously compromise the campus' ability to contain 

an emergency. A timely response for one circumstance on one campus is unique 

to that campus, and each incident must be judged on its unique circumstances. 

Secondly, the Higher Education Opportunity Act requires colleges and 

universities to develop policies related to missing students. This provision 

is problematic as it is truly impossible to track which students are away 

from campus more than 24 hours. The law would put expectations on colleges 

that could not be met, and it raises expectations of parents and campus 

personnel--that campus personnel can actually monitor the comings and goings 

of students. Colleges already collect emergency contact information, and they 

already have in place policies and procedures for handling Missing Person 

Reports through campus or community law enforcement. As negotiators begin to 

consider possible rules and regulations as they relate to missing persons, 

NASPA recommends that negotiators keep in mind that campuses are diverse in 

type and number of students enrolled, and that policies should be allowed to 

vary based on individual institutional characteristics. Also within Section 

485 are the new campus fire safety reporting requirements. In 1998, campuses 

across the country began to meet the challenge of complying with the Clery 

Act reporting requirements. It was not until several years later that 

intensive training and publication of the Handbook for Campus Crime Reporting 

was completed. As negotiators begin to develop regulations, it is important 

that rules are drafted in such a way that campus administrators are able to 

comply within a reasonable timeframe, and that any training and publications 

are distributed as soon as possible. 

And as I close, I'd like to bring your attention to student affairs 

administrators and educators as a valuable resource--from financial aid and 

textbooks to peer-to-peer file sharing, from financial literacy to alcohol 

and drug violations. All of these have an impact on the education environment 

and students' ability to succeed. As partners in educating students, student 

affairs professionals take a large share of the responsibility for students' 

19
complete college experience. As such, they have knowledge pertinent to future 

discussions by the rulemaking panels. Therefore, I believe it is in the best 

interest of students and the Department of Education to include student 

affairs professionals on any negotiated rulemaking panels under 

consideration. Student affairs professionals understand the challenges ahead 

of us as a Nation in regard to access, affordability, and accountability, 

because our work allows us the view of the personal lives of students in ways 

others on campus may not have. We bring less known but critical information 

to the deliberations. Our education and support roles with students have no 

boundaries. We are educators who work with the whole student: their learning 

and their welfare. 

Thank you for the opportunity to make a comment. 

MR. MADZELAN: Thank you, Gwen. Our next speaker is Jonathan Kassa. 

MR. KASSA: Good morning. Thank you for this opportunity. As the 

Nation's leading non-profit advocacy organization for safer colleges and 

universities, Security on Campus is pleased to have this opportunity to offer 

comment on behalf of students and their families, specifically, as it relates 

to negotiated rulemaking process to implement the provisions of the Higher 

Education Opportunity Act. Several important campus safety-related measures 

were enacted as part HEOA that warrant consideration and attention by a 

separate negotiated rulemaking committee, specifically Section 488 of HEOA, 

amended the campus security disclosure provisions of the Jean Clery Act to, 

among other things, add a statement of emergency response and warning policy 

to annual security reports produced by institutions of higher education. 

Section 488(g) established new disclosure requirements in the Higher Ed 

Act of 1965 for campus fire safety, missing residential students, and about 

the loss and restoration of eligibility for student aid in the event of a 

conviction for a drug violation. Additionally, Section 493 added a new 

element to the program participation agreements entered into by institutions 

requiring disclosure of the outcome of disciplinary results in cases of 

alleged violent crimes to the victims of those crimes. 

And paneling a separate negotiated rulemaking committee to address 

these five campus security-related disclosure provisions will help ensure 

that the expertise of those most familiar with these issues can be brought to 

bear on these issues in a tightly focused setting. 

We would recommend that the panel include representatives of campus 

public safety professionals, fire safety experts, emergency response experts, 

and campus safety advocates. In enacting these provisions, the Congress as 

20
well as the President who signed them into law recognized that a safe 

learning environment is essential and must be a top priority. Without it, the 

taxpayer investment in higher education is significantly undermined and the 

Nation is robbed of the eventual productivity of those students whose lives 

are either needlessly lost or adversely impacted by crime, fires, or other 

emergencies on campus. Making implementation of these provisions ought to be 

a priority as well. Thank you again for the opportunity to offer this 

comment, in advance, for the U.S. Department of Education's thoughtful 

consideration of our recommendations. Please don't hesitate to call on 

Security on Campus if we can be of any assistance to you in this process. 

Thank you. 

MR. MADZELAN: Thank you. 

MS. GILCHER: Okay, we're going to do a little switch, here. Mike 

McComis. 

MR. McCOMIS: Good morning. My name is Michale McComis and I'm the 

Associate Executive Director with the Accrediting Commission of Career 

Schools and Colleges of Technology, and I welcome the opportunity to speak to 

you today on issues related to accreditation in the proposed negotiated 

rulemaking. 

ACCSCT is a national accrediting agency that's been recognized by the 

Department of Education since 1967, and most recently re-recognized in 2005. 

We accredit close to 800 institutions that serve about 220,000 students 

annually, both degree-granting and nondegree-granting institutions that are 

predominately organized to educate students for occupational trade and 

technical careers. We believe that it is important that the Department follow 

Congress' intent to improve access, accountability, and transparency in 

higher education, while preserving the unique relationship that accrediting 

agencies have with the institution they accredit, to include the peer review 

process, which is a critical component to that relationship. Today, I'd like 

to provide some thoughts on areas that the Department may wish to explore 

during its negotiated rulemaking process, including making accreditation more 

transparent and encouraging quality and innovation, supporting the mobility 

of our students, student achievement, and ensuring institutions receive due 

process. 

First, with respect to transparency and accreditation, we believe that 

increasing the public's understanding on the accreditation process is an 

important component to the effectiveness of that process. We publish notices 

of our accreditation decisions on our Web site, and notify interested parties 

21
such as the Department of Education in accordance with the previous statutory 

and regulatory requirements. Thus, we support the provisions in the HEOA that 

require disclosure of increased information about accreditation including 

public disclosure of certain accreditation actions. With respect to 

innovation, ACCSCT is committed to innovation in education. We have separate 

and highly articulated standards on distance education, and we were the first 

agency to have distance education explicitly included within our scope of 

recognition. We therefore are pleased to see that the Act included definition 

of distance education, and support the Act's acknowledgment that agencies 

need to have separate standards applicable to distance education, and that 

site evaluators are knowledgeable about distance education. 

Congress included a provision requiring Accreditors to ensure that 

institutions have processes in place to establish that the students taking 

their courses are the ones who enrolled and will receive the credit. ACCSCT 

encourages the Department to rely on legislative intent to guide its 

regulatory interpretation. The conference report defers to Accreditors and 

institutions to determine what technologies and processes are appropriate, 

and we note that passwords and identification numbers are currently 

sufficient. With respect to transfer of credit and the mobility of students, 

as the Department knows, ACCSCT has regularly argued in support of a federal 

policy that supports more flexible and less arbitrary transfer of credit 

policies. 

In fairness to students, many of whom are Title IV recipients, transfer 

of credit decisions should be based on course equivalency and competency of 

students attending legitimate accredited institutions, rather than based 

solely on the source of accreditation of the sending institution. This 

concept is supported by the Council on Higher Education Accreditation, CHEA, 

the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, or 

AACRAO, and the Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions, or C-RAC. 

Although that particular policy was not included in the HEOA, we do 

applaud the Act's inclusion of Title IV provisions that will increase the 

disclosure and student knowledge of institutional transfer of credit 

policies; we support that. 

ACCSCT believes that this transparency is a very important step 

forward, and we've already promulgated such standards for our accredited 

institutions. We encourage the Department to continue to urge institutions to 

more actively consider course equivalency and student competency in their 

transfer of credit evaluations and decisions. With respect to due process, 

22
ACCSCT has comprehensive decision making and appeals processes. Institutions 

subject to adverse actions are provided numerous opportunities to address the 

agency's concerns in writing and in face-to-face settings. 

Under HEOA, an institution will be afforded an additional opportunity 

at appeal to provide new information related to its financial condition, if 

the financial condition was a reason or a condition for the agency's adverse 

action. This new requirement, however, still provides Accreditors with 

flexibility to determine their own processes, and the Department should 

continue to be deferential to Accreditors' processes as long as the standards 

and practice comply with the Act's requirements. Of paramount importance, of 

course, is that any regulation should preserve the Accreditors' ability to 

take swift action when necessary to protect students attending a distressed 

institution. 

Although outside the scope of the negotiated rulemaking process, I'd 

like to take a moment briefly to address the issue of student achievement. 

ACCSCT believes that the HEOA preserves the ability of agencies to set 

standards of student achievement with which their accredited institutions 

must comply. We have had quantitative standards in place for over a decade 

that require our institutions to demonstrate acceptable rates of graduation 

and employment on an annual basis. In addition, ACCSCT has in place standards 

requiring institutions to focus on continual improvement in these areas. We 

believe that this type of review of our institutions--student achievement 

outcomes is essential to ensuring quality, and we are heartened that nothing 

in the HEO changes an accreditor's ability to maintain these standards or to 

require compliance with them as a condition of accreditation. 

In conclusion, I would just like to emphasize that accreditation plays 

an important role in ensuring institutional quality, and I hope that the 

Department will continue to rely on accreditation as a method by which to 

increase transparency, enhance innovation, ensure student access and 

achievement, and maintain due process for institutions. Given the critical 

role that accreditation plays in the number of amendments to the 

accreditation provisions in the Higher Education Act, I would urge the 

Department to establish a separate negotiated rulemaking committee on 

accreditation, and to populate that committee with experienced, knowledgeable 

people on the issues relevant to accreditation. I look forward to the 

opportunity to work with the Department in this regard, and--as negotiated 

rulemaking discussions on accreditation move forward. Thank you. 

23
MS. GILCHER: Thank you, Mike. And I'd like to have my colleague 

introduce himself. 

MR. KERRIGAN: Brian Kerrigan. Thank you. 

MS. GILCHER: I just want to ensure that you have enough federal ears to 

hear you well. Okay. Next is Emily Singer. 

MS. SINGER: Good morning. I apologize. I got pushed up on the schedule 

a little bit and wasn't prepared right away. So, I apologize for taking a 

minute to get up here. My name is Emily Singer. I am the Director of 

Disability Support Services at the Catholic University of America. I am also 

a Board member of the Association of Higher Education and Disability, and 

here representing that organization. Thank you for allowing me the 

opportunity to speak with you today. First, let me say that AHEAD fully 

supports the Higher Education Opportunity Reauthorization Act, which we 

believe will support the efforts of institutions of higher education and our 

core constituency to improve transition support and instructional services-

-services and instruction for all students with disabilities. 

While 77 percent of students with disabilities hope to go to college, 

only 31 percent of students with disabilities actually attend. We are hopeful 

that these new regulations will increase the opportunity for all students 

with disabilities and thereby make higher education a reality for all. AHEAD 

is a professional membership organization of individuals involved in the 

development of policy and in the provision of quality services to meet the 

needs of persons with disabilities involved in all areas of higher education. 

At this time, we boast more than 2,500 members throughout the United 

States and other countries. AHEAD is fortunate to have formal partnerships 

with 30 regional affiliates and numerous other professional organizations 

working to advance equality in higher education for people with disabilities. 

AHEAD dynamically addresses current and emerging issues with respect to 

disability education and accessibility to achieve universal access. As such, 

it is actively involved in all facets of promoting full and equal 

participation by individuals with disabilities in higher education, and 

supporting the systems, institutions, professions, and professionals who 

attend to the fulfillment of this important mission. There are five key 

provisions that we want to emphasize today which impact higher education and 

disability. The first is preparing general education teachers to more 

effectively educate students with disabilities, Title II, Part B, Subpart 3, 

Section 251. AHEAD supports a structured multi-sensory approach as outlined 

by the national regional panel, which highlights the five pillars of literacy 

24
that are critical to essential reading skills. As a part of this, AHEAD 

supports the use of research-based methodologies in determining the best 

approaches to instruction in reading and mathematics. 

The education of teachers takes place within higher education. Our 

approach towards disability and accommodation form the foundation for the 

expertise of the future teachers and employers of "your peers." Because of 

the influence of climate and the importance of modeling best practices, AHEAD 

supports model demonstration projects, Title VIII, Part D, Section 760 to 

765, to provide technical assistance or professional development for faculty, 

staff, and administrators in institutions of higher education in order to 

provide students with disabilities a quality education at all levels. 

We also encourage the investigation of models whereby teacher 

preparation programs can more effectively model and assist in the accelerated 

training of those teachers who are recruited from model national service 

programs, such as Teach for America, who often come to teaching without any 

academic teacher preparation foundation. And our second provision is advisory 

commission on accessibility and instruction materials in postsecondary 

education for students with disabilities, Title VII, Part D, Subpart 3, 

Sections 771-772. AHEAD fully supports all efforts to make instruction 

materials in a timely and usable format accessible to all students with 

disabilities. This is particularly important to those students with print 

disabilities, as was outlined in the Wall Street Journal article from 

September 17, 2008, which chronicled the increasing number of students with 

learning disabilities entering postsecondary education and their needs for 

varying levels of alternatives to print. 

AHEAD and its members have been important leaders in the creation, 

development, and expansion of services to fill a void in alternatives to 

print, such as Bookshare.org, and has encouraged recordings for the blind and 

dyslexic--efforts to provide their materials in a digital format. 

AHEAD member institutions have an obligation to ensure nondiscrimination of all persons with disabilities in accordance with the 

language of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 

1973. Therefore, we feel that the current definition as listed within the 

Higher Education Textbook Act of 2007 referring to print disability would 

exclude or not sufficiently encompass all people with disabilities who would 

participate in or benefit from the use of books in electronic format. The 

definition needs to be revised to be based not on an outdated NLS definition, 

but on a definition that reflects today's scientific realities. As our 

25
campuses are beginning to deal with issues confronting returning servicemen 

and women, the need to be broader in our ability to understand and address 

disability-related impacts to reading and other academic tasks is essential. 

AHEAD believes that an advisory commission will be able to examine a 

broad spectrum of materials, and needs to encourage the common approaches and 

flexibility in format that will allow students to move between and within our 

educational systems. AHEAD looks forward to participating, consulting, and 

assisting in all such efforts. Third, the e-text clearinghouse model 

demonstration programs to support improved access to postsecondary 

instructional materials for students with print disabilities, Title VII, Part 

D, Subpart 3, Sections 773 to 775. 

Through its e-text initiative, a collaborative project involving its 

members, the students and institutions they serve, publishers and numerous 

organizations, AHEAD has developed an understanding of stakeholder positions 

and current capacities. AHEAD supports the idea of a national clearinghouse 

for accessibility texts, seeing it as a necessary and efficient first step in 

the seamless provision of accessible digital text directly to students with 

print impairments. 

AHEAD fully supports the goal and intention of this legislation to 

improve timely, usable access to printed instructional materials for people 

with disabilities. AHEAD absolutely realizes that, while this current Section 

is not the final answer to issues of text accessibility, it clearly provides 

for our critical first step in attacking a significant barrier to equality 

for people with disabilities in higher education, including many with 

learning disabilities, physical mobility, related disabilities, and blindness 

and visual impairments. As higher education seeks to most fully include 

persons with disabilities, legislation supporting that movement is 

tremendously important and we applaud the committee's efforts in assisting to 

build systems that can lead to systemic change that will ultimately benefit 

the hundreds of thousands of people with a varying array of disabilities 

seeking to have full and equal access to the benefit of higher education. 

Data collection, Title IX, Part C, Section 1116. Colleges will be asked 

to report "percentage of undergraduate students enrolled at the institution 

who are formally registered with the office of disability services of the 

institution or the equivalent office as students with disabilities." The 

collection of data on students with disabilities has been inconsistent over 

time and across institutions. The lack of consistent data has hindered the 

evaluation of our progress toward inclusion or our identification of best 

26
practices, and our ability to predict future resource needs. AHEAD sees this 

simple headcount of students with disabilities seeking services or 

accommodations as an opportunity to develop an infrastructure for the 

collection of more meaningful data and the development of reliable models for 

service delivery and resource planning. 

We are pleased to see the addition of this provision, because students 

with disabilities, like all other minority populations on campuses, deserve 

to be included and counted. Currently, there is no defined system or 

methodology in place to count college students with disabilities. Determining 

how this task will be accomplished is critical. Some of the questions that 

need to be considered when looking at this provision are: Are we going to 

count students with disabilities like we do other minorities, or only those 

students who request accommodations with the institution's disability office? 

If so, how do we ensure that we include students with disabilities who do not 

register for disability services, for example, the student who uses a 

wheelchair but is completely independent because the campus is accessible? 

Question number two: How do we ensure that students who receive 

financial assistance through agencies such as vocational rehabilitation and 

use services with disabilities offices are not counted more than once? 

Third, considering that not every disability fits neatly into a 

specific category, what will the tracking methodology be? 

Fourth, in the end, what will the purpose of this data for the 

individual institutions as well as the government--are those schools with 

small enrollments of students with disabilities going to find themselves at 

greater risk of discrimination complaints? Are they going to get more funding 

to serve students? We are pleased to see the addition of this provision, 

because students with disabilities, like all other minority populations on 

campus, deserve to be included and counted. However, as indicated above, 

AHEAD feels that further clarification is necessary in order for the data 

collection to be effective and meaningful. 

AHEAD would be happy to participate, consult, and assist in this 

discussion. We also would like to encourage all considerations in all 

provisions of the Act to consider the impact to students with disabilities. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to speak with you today and to 

share the views of the Association of Higher Education Disability. We will be 

submitting written comments, as well, prior to the submission deadline today. 

MS. GILCHER: Thank you, Emily. Next is Russell Kitchner. 

27
MR. KITCHNER: Good morning. I'm Russell Kitchner. I work with the 

American Public University System in Charleston, West Virginia, and I 

appreciate the opportunity to speak this morning if only to take my mind off 

the woeful state of my 401k. 

I'd like to speak specifically to Title IV, Part H, Section 495, which 

is associated with the recognition of accrediting agencies or associations, 

and specifically Section 496, which states the agency or association requires 

an institution that offers distance education or correspondence education to 

have processes through which the institution establishes that the student who 

registers in a distance education or correspondence education course or 

program is the same student who participates in and completes the program and 

receives the academic credit. At its core, this legislative provision 

appropriately addresses the issues of academic quality, accountability, and 

consumer protection. However, it goes beyond those values, appropriately so, 

in the sense that it represents an important mandate for ethical conduct and 

program integrity on the part of both learners and those who serve them. 

Unfortunately, the scope of this legislation is restricted to but one 

segment of the education industry, and traditional classroom-based 

instruction is no longer immune to those same concerns of identity 

verification and academic integrity on which this rule is based. Furthermore, 

the number of traditional land-based institutions that are now offering 

coursework via distance education is increasingly exponentially, but the 

technology necessary to accommodate their responsibilities consistent with 

this rule has not kept pace with that growth. Consequently, I would ask that 

the agenda of any negotiating committee that is established to address HEOA 

provisions related to recognition of accrediting agencies and associations 

include consideration of appropriate regulations to implement the above 

referenced HEOA provision that reflect the complex and far-reaching scope of 

the underlying questions surrounding the integrity of learning in the face of 

current and emerging technologies. 

Furthermore, I would ask that input be sought from various 

institutions, including colleges and universities that are land-based, those 

that combine traditional educational modes of learning, and those that offer 

strictly distance education or correspondence forms of learning. 

Given the complexity of the issues inherent to these regulations, it is 

imperative that colleges and universities and the professionals who serve 

them that have the practical experience in these areas be included in the 

substantive rulemaking discussions. Representation on the negotiated 

28
rulemaking committees from this diverse pool of educational professionals 

would certainly enhance the prospects for fulfilling the intended purposes 

for which this legislative provision was enacted. 

I sincerely appreciate your willingness to consider the perspectives of 

a broad spectrum of the higher education community. The great of majority of 

those with experience in and a commitment to advancing educational 

opportunities utilizing emerging technologies are equally committed to 

maintaining standards of academic integrity in the course of advancing that 

objective. Please note that my professional colleagues and I welcome the 

prospect of assisting the Department in that regard. Thank you very much. 

MS. GILCHER: Thank you, Russell. We're going to take a ten-minute break 

now. I would like--because we're moving a little bit faster than anticipated, 

if you are scheduled to testify early in the afternoon, would you talk with 

people at the table if you're able to do it at the end of this morning rather 

than early afternoon, so we can accommodate additional people on the schedule 

in the afternoon. Thank you. Yes, we'll begin with Elaine Neely when we 

return. 

[Recess.] 

MS. GILCHER: Okay. Elaine--Elaine Neely, that is. 

MS. NEELY: Good morning. I am Elaine Neely, the Senior Vice President 

of Regulatory Affairs for Kaplan Higher Education. Kaplan Higher Education is 

the largest division of Kaplan, Inc., a subsidiary of the Washington Post 

Company. 

The Higher Education division serves 85,000 students at more than 70 

on-ground campuses and online through Kaplan University, which includes the 

Nation's only completely online law school. Our students range from 

individuals enrolled in diploma allied health programs, to classroom teachers 

pursuing master's degrees, and business professionals seeking MBAs and law 

degrees. Most of our students are women, and many are single working parents. 

What they all have in common is a need for education and training that will 

help them advance economically and that is provided with the scheduling 

flexibility and personal attention they require. We commend the U.S. 

Department of Education for moving swiftly to implement the HEOA. We are 

encouraged that you are soliciting public input regarding implementation 

issues, and that you will have the framework ready for the incoming 

administration, including plans for negotiated rulemaking beginning early 

next year. Kaplan Higher Education would like to raise three specific areas 

29
which we believe need expedited attention so that our schools may serve 

students better. 

The first area we would like to highlight is the provision in Title I 

of the Act which allows regionally-accredited for-profit institutions to 

offer programs that lead to a baccalaureate degree in liberal arts, provided 

those programs are in place by January 1, 2009. There is also a related 

provision that has the effect of delaying Title IV eligibility for students 

enrolled in such programs until July 1, 2010. We would, of course, have 

preferred a provision that would have allowed more time for relevant programs 

to be phased in, and that would have made Title IV eligibility simultaneously 

with the program's effective date. We also realize that you have to implement 

the law as written, and would appreciate any additional guidance you could 

provide in advance of the January program deadline. The second area we'd like 

to raise for expedited attention deals with the changes in 90- 

10. We are pleased that the law now provides some additional 

flexibility, and would like to thank the department for its support for those 

changes. Temporary 90-10 provisions dealing with institutional loans and loan 

limit increases for unsubsidized Stafford loans became effective July 1st. 

Kaplan, like other companies in the sector, has moved to implement these 

changes into our operations, but the provisions are subject to negotiated 

rulemaking. We would urge that, if at all possible, expedited attention be 

paid to these provisions so that we do not learn a year from now that the 

provisions we have put into place need to be changed. 

The third area we would believe needs expedited attention is private 

loans. In particular, the changes to the Truth in Lending Act on which the 

Federal Reserve Board of Governors is to regulate. We anticipate that the 

Department will be consulted in that process, since you have the expertise in 

dealing with postsecondary institutions. 

Again, we would urge regulations sooner rather than later, and broad 

consultation in that process. We appreciate the opportunity to submit 

comments today, and look forward to additional opportunities to provide input 

as you implement the Higher Education Opportunity Act. Thank you. 

MS. GILCHER: Thank you, Elaine. Next is Mark Pelesh. 

MR. PELESH: Good morning. My name is Mark Pelesh. I am Executive Vice 

President of Corinthian Colleges. We have 93 campuses and 70,000 students in 

the United States, with our Everest and WyoTech divisions. There are two 

issues that I would like to highlight this morning in regards to the 

30
forthcoming negotiated rulemaking: the first is 90-10, and the second is 

cohort default rates. 

Let me begin with 90-10. First, I'd like to talk about some 

propositions that we think ought to guide the development of regulations in 

regard to 90-10. Congress expressly wanted to provide for-profit institutions 

flexibility to comply with 90-10 because of problems in the credit markets 

and substantial increases in federal aid. It retained the 90-10 rule so that 

institutions would have "skin in the game," as some members of Congress put 

it, but its aim was not to maximize the adverse impact of the rule. On the 

contrary, it recognized that the rule's impact should be ameliorated because 

of the disappearance in GAP financing for many low-income students, 

significant increases in loan limits and Pell Grants which would make 90-10 

compliance difficult if not impossible, and undue restrictions in the 

application of the rule that are unrelated to the purpose of identifying 

legitimate institutions. 

Secondly--second proposition in addition flexibility in regard to 90-

10--is that, in contrast to previous versions of the HEA, Congress has 

addressed implementation of the 90-10 rule in detail. A number of statutory 

provisions plainly represent policy conclusions different from those in the 

Department's regulations. So, what are the implications, then, of those 

propositions for the development of regulations? Well, first, the Department 

should follow the statute closely and eliminate or modify those regulations 

in conflict with the statute. This would include the treatment of 

institutional loans through July of 2012, counting non-Title IV revenue as 

part of the 90-10 ratio, and also revenue from Section 529 accounts. 

In regard to institutional loans, the statute specifies the use of 

accrual accounting in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting 

Principles, or GAAP. We believe that the Department should leave the 

accounting treatment of institutional loans to independent CPAs with 

expertise in these concepts who will audit institutions' financial 

statements. One subject, though, that we do believe requires regulatory 

elaboration is the treatment of tuition discounts. Congress explicitly 

provided that they can be treated as institutional revenue in the same way as 

scholarships, but by their very nature, discounts cannot come from an outside 

source or be disbursed from a restricted account. Bona fide discounts based 

on scholarship-type criteria should be counted as institutional aid and nonTitle IV revenue, in our view. The reasons for that: Tuition discounts do 

represent institutions having "skin in the game," the concept that I 

31
mentioned at the outset. And throughout reauthorization, members of Congress 

called for increased institutional aid by for-profit institutions. Genuine 

tuition discounts represent the most feasible and direct way to accomplish 

this goal. 

Let me turn to cohort default rates. The HEOA contains a package of 

statutory changes to the cohort default rate regime that will require changes 

to the Department's regulations. The statute changes how cohort default rates 

are to be calculated by extending the period of measurement, and it couples 

this change with a transitional regime so that institutions will have an 

adequate opportunity to accommodate the new method of calculation. 

Overall, we believe the statutory changes shift the emphasis away from 

the use of cohort default rates as immediate indicators of institutional 

quality and integrity, and as the basis for punitive measures if default rate 

thresholds are exceeded. Going forward, we believe the HEOA places more 

emphasis on longer-term measurement of default rates, which necessarily will 

reflect less on an institution's responsibility for those rates and on 

default prevention. So, we would urge the Department to focus especially on 

the provisions in the statute requiring default prevention taskforces, 

reports to and technical assistance from the Department, and the earlier twoyear appeal that the statute now provides. These provisions call for more of 

a partnership between institutions and the Department. We think it's 

important that the interaction between the institution's default prevention 

taskforces and the Department not simply be a paper-shuffling exercise, but a 

way to establish whether an institution is truly responsible for default 

rates exceeding the thresholds, or whether its default rates are actually a 

reflection of the economic circumstances of the student population it serves. 

This would provide a more rigorous way to establish other exceptional 

mitigating circumstances that would make ineligibility based on default rates 

inequitable, as the statute continues to provide. 

I appreciate very much the chance to present these remarks to you, and 

I have copies of my remarks that I'd be happy to supply you with. 

MS. GILCHER: Okay. Thank you, Mark. You can leave those copies either 

here or with the people at the desk in the entryway. Next is Harris Miller. 

MR. MILLER: Good morning. I'm Harris Miller, President of the Career 

Colleges Association. I am pleased to address this Department of Education 

regional field hearing. 

We commend the Department and Secretary Spellings for her leadership 

and vision in ensuring that the Higher Education Opportunity Act 

32
Reauthorization yields meaningful and workable reforms to higher education in 

this country. We've waited a long time, and we're very excited about the 

improvements we expect. The Career College Association that I represent is a 

voluntary membership organization of accredited, private, postsecondary 

schools, institutes, colleges, and universities that provide career-specific 

educational programs. We have more than 1,450 members that educate and 

support over 1 million students each year in employment in over 200 

occupational fields. Our schools provide the full range of higher education 

programs: masters and doctoral programs, baccalaureate degree programs, 

associate degree programs, and short-term certificate and diploma programs. 

As you know, our sector now represents almost 10 percent of students in 

higher education, and last year, when the national baccalaureate degree 

numbers increased by about 3 percent according to Department of Education 

officials, our numbers increased by 20 percent showing the rapid growth in 

student attraction to the career college sector. All CCA member schools must 

be licensed by the state in which they are located, accredited by a regional 

or national accrediting body recognized by the Department of Education, and 

of course approved by the Department. Many also participate in many other 

federal, state, and local education and workforce training programs. 

I'd like to focus on two issues of paramount importance in the new 

legislation that are paramount to our career education sector, some of which 

I'm sure you've already heard about in your other hearings: the 90-10 rules 

and revisions to the cohort default rate calculation. This is not to downplay 

the significance of the other provisions in this over 1,000-page bill, which 

we believe will bring much-needed improvements in areas such as borrower 

notifications, preferred lenders lists, college cost transparency, and 

student outcomes, and we will be submitting with our testimony a list of 

other issues we look forward to working with the Department on as this 

negotiated rulemaking process proceeds. At a time of, to state the obvious, 

great anxiety about the current and future status of credit markets, it is 

absolutely critical to the 2.8 million students in career higher education 

that reforms to the 90-10 rule be undertaken with surgical precision and 

exceptional care. For the many students who attend our schools coming from 

working class and lower-income backgrounds, often independent, working 

adults--the first in their families to attend higher education--access to 

private loans these days to pay for college has been hampered, even blocked, 

by the new stringent lending criteria. 

33
The simple fact is there's been a sea change, as you know, in 

availability of private student loans to students of lower incomes and lower 

credit scores over the past year. The loss of these private loan sources has 

placed great pressure on the ability of many institutions to serve both lessaffluent populations and, at the same time, to meet the 90-10 funding 

threshold that Congress has established. Congress wisely realized the impact 

of this credit crisis on America's working students, and lawmakers crafted 

important changes to 90-10 in this legislation that serve as a temporary 

relief valve to relieve some of the pressure on the lending system. Now, we 

need to make sure that we get the lending implementation right through the 

regulations. For instance, in the past, career colleges have been limited in 

their non-Title IV program revenue, the so-called 10 percent. The HEA reform 

allows revenue from non-Title IV programs that have been approved by a state 

or by an accrediting agency. As a practical matter, however, the state or 

accrediting agency may not perform a program-by-program review. 

Therefore, we recommend, in developing the implementing regulations, 

the Department adopt the rule that allows program revenues to be included in 

the 10 percent so long as such programs are considered part of the overall 

institutional accreditation, or the programs do not otherwise require a 

specific state approval. The reforms of the legislation also allow non-Title 

IV program funds to be included in the 10 percent calculation for programs 

that provide an industry-recognized credential--"industry recognized" is 

actually in the language. But of course, the interpretation provided by the 

Department through the regulatory process is apt to vary among competing 

professional and certification testing bodies. We suggest, therefore, that 

the Department allow the marketplace to be the arbiter, and allow any 

credential recognized by some segment of the given industry. 

The Department will also be addressing difficult, and if developed 

without sufficient care, potentially damaging accounting rules for 

institutional loans. I've had to learn more about accounting in my year-anda-half at CCA then I ever hoped to know, but it is critical to your oversight 

and to the operations of our schools to make sure they're in compliance. 

To help relieve the situation brought about by the credit crunch, the 

new legislation allows institutions to include the net present value of loans 

they themselves make to students between July 1, 2008, and June 30, 2012, in 

the 10 percent calculation. In other words, many schools, because their 

students have been unable to get private loans in the marketplace anymore 

because of the credit crunch, are now themselves becoming the lenders to the 

34
students. And what the legislation says is, the net present value of those 

loans can be included in the 10 percent calculations. However, as you go 

about writing these regulations, the Department must focus on the fact that 

career colleges initiate multiple class starts throughout the year. I think, 

as you well know, we are not schools that believe in the magic words "June, 

July, and August." They mean nothing to our schools. Schools don't always 

start in September; they start in January, February, March, April--they start 

whenever the students are available and the schools have the faculty and 

training to provide it. So, with those multiple class starts, how these 

calculations are made is going to be very tricky. Requiring schools to 

disburse funds on a class-start by class-start basis will be, frankly, an 

accounting nightmare, causing confusions and delays for students and 

unwarranted costs for institutions and probably will, frankly, be confusing 

to you and others involved in the oversight. 

A far better course will allow institutions to provide a single loan at 

the beginning of the student's academic year, with the loan itself spread 

over the institution's fiscal year. While the new law states that loans must 

be subject to regular repayment and collections, payment deferments until 

after graduation, if in keeping with existing institution practice, should be 

allowed to give the student every chance of completing his or her academic 

program. Many schools currently, though--even before the passage of this law-

-have been following the existing regulations. While we welcome the changes 

in the new law, we believe that the schools who've been operating under the 

old accounting rules should be allowed to continue to maintain those in order 

to, again, have simplicity for their operations and simplicity for you in 

your oversight role of these institutions. 

The new Higher Education Act also allows the recently enacted increase 

of $2,000 in the unsubsidized Stafford Loan limit to be included in the 10 

percent. Again, to achieve what we believe is the added flexibility lawmakers 

intended, the Department must be very careful in crafting your regulations. 

Federal financial aid, as you know, is divided into multiple disbursements, 

and this extra amount--this extra $2,000--will overlap fiscal years. We 

suggest that the accounting rules you establish in the rulemaking process 

allow the extra amount to be attributed to each payment period in proportion 

to the total loan as originally packaged. Should the student drop out before 

the funds are disbursed, the full extra amount should not simply be 

reattributed back to the original loan and therefore excluded from the 10 

percent. As a final point on 90-10, we ask the Department include in its 

35
negotiated rulemaking process on this critical issue for our sector, only 

those stakeholders directly affected by 90-10 restrictions. And in terms of 

higher education, that means only career colleges. Allowing others without a 

direct connection to this issue participate is like allowing non-pilots to 

help fly the plane. They may have a point of view, they may find the 

proceedings interesting, but giving them a seat at the controls would simply 

be wrong for the millions of students depending on career education as their 

flight path to a better life. 

Career colleges serve a population that is largely underserved by 

traditional higher education. As I mentioned before, they tend to be the 

first in their families to pursue higher education, much more likely than socalled traditional students to be economically independent, older, and more 

likely to be juggling the conflicting realities of a job, of a family, and of 

school. Little surprise, then, that they are also more likely to default on 

their student loans. While I've been pleased to see the overall trend over 

the last ten years towards--dropping in these--default rate in our sectors--

with other sectors--until the recent uptake in the most recent numbers, we 

have the reality that, because our students are from tougher backgrounds, it 

is not astonishing that their default rates are somewhat higher than 

traditional higher education institutions. So, any change to the cohort 

default rate calculation hits our students and our institutions particularly 

hard. 

Empirical data tell us that increases to the CDR are the product of 

student behavior, not necessarily the failure of institutions to deliver 

quality education. Earlier this year, a study commissioned by our association 

and conducted by Professor Dawn Hostetler at the Indiana University School of 

Education found no linkage between the type or quality of educational 

institutions and the rate at which borrowers default. Let me repeat that: no 

linkage between the type or quality of educational institutions and the rate 

at which borrowers default on their student loans, according to Professor 

Hostetler's study. 

They looked at 41 studies of student loan default that have been done 

in higher education between 1978 and 2007. So, they looked at all the 

literature that was out there and could find no linkage. 

Even so, many critics of career education continue to view the CDR as 

indicative of the institutional quality, and they have pressed to have the 

scope of the calculation expanded. The new law adjusts the time horizons for 

calculating the CDR, extend the period from one to two years, beginning in FY 

36
2009. They also increase the threshold for imposing sanctions from 25 to 30 

percent. 

The career education sector understands the need to minimize cohort 

default rates, and we are committed to working on that. We have been working 

for several years in conjunction with the Department on a taskforce that we 

have on a default prevention initiative. At the same time, however, as you 

develop your regulations on the CDR, we ask that you understand the root 

cause of student loan defaults, and how a less-affluent student population 

with fewer resources to repay student loans at the outset, is likely to be 

buffeted by a weak economy going forward. We urge the Department to adopt a 

policy of wide latitude and reasonable forbearance in imposing sanctions on 

schools that exceed the CDR threshold. Any other policy is apt to foreclose 

access to higher education for those most dependent on career education for 

upward mobility. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to provide these remarks. We 

will be submitting them for the record. We look forward to working with the 

Department and all your officials in the negotiated rulemaking process going 

forward, in developing regulations to implement this new law that best serve 

the interests of students, institutions, and a globally competitive 21st 

century workforce in the United States. Thank you. 

MS. GILCHER: Thank you very much. Next is Richard Thema [sic.]--oh, 

sorry, Them. 

MR. THEM: Good morning. My name is Richard Them. I am Senior Vice 

President of Education Management Corporation. I work in the student 

financial services area, which includes financial aid, whether institutional 

or federal or state. We operate 88 locations in 28 states and two Canadian 

Provinces. We have approximately 96,000 students in school as of fall of 

2007, that was last year, and we have about 13,000 students who are enrolled 

in online courses only. We have a mix of schools, of--South University, 

Augusta University, Brown Mackie Colleges, and the Art Institutes. We offer 

everything from certificate programs all the way up to doctorals in pharmacy 

and some other programs--psychology. 

We have our--our schools range in default rates from 1 percent up to 

11, with about a weight average 5.6. Our 90-10 rates run from 50 to 84 

percent, with a weight average of 64 percent. So, we're pretty diverse in our 

student--offering of programs and our students. 

In the last year, we approximated $370 million of alternative loans 

that our students received while going to school. The market, of course, has 

37
been terrible in that, and we've lost some of those--access to those 

programs. We wanted to talk about two items: one is 90-10, and then preferred 

lender list and private loan requirements. We think that preferred lender 

lists, especially in the private sector, private loans, are still a very 

important tool for students to understand their rights and responsibilities 

as they go to school. We do monitor the lenders that are on the list, and we 

make sure that the loans are appropriate for the students. We obviously are 

doing the same with the federal loans also. 

We are hoping to make sure the students just don't get the predatory 

loans that are out there, that are marketed, as you know, on the Web and in 

other means. The HEOA did not ban use of opportunity loans to students. It 

basically clarified some of the requirements of it that we could not, in 

exchange for the institution providing concessions or promises to the lender 

on volume of loans, include any lender on the preferred lender list. 

Obviously, we don't do that. We wanted to make it clear that the HEA 

conference report states that private party recourse loans are not considered 

opportunity loans, and that the "conferees intend that the institution may 

request and accept an offer of recourse loans that only if such request and 

acceptance is not conditioned on the institution providing a lender with a 

specific number of loans or loan volume, or a preferred lender arrangement 

for Title IV loans." 

In implementing those provisions, we ask the Department of Ed keep in 

mind the credit crisis--enough said on that, I guess--that is going on right 

now. FFELP lenders, and especially private lenders have left the market very 

suddenly, and sometimes they--well, many of them have actually increased the 

requirements for students to get loans--it's become much more difficult for 

the students. Therefore, we have to go out and we work with the lenders to 

see if we can help our students get more private loans. We, of course, only 

use the private loans when Title IV aid and state aid and institutional aid 

is gone or exhausted to help fund our students. We do ask the Department of 

Ed to codify the statements in the Higher Education Act conference report 

that recourse loans are not precluded by the Higher Education Opportunity 

Act, that a clarification is required because current regulations of 682-704 

arguably create a rebuttable presumption that, if a lender is making recourse 

or other types of alternative loans to school students and that lender is on 

a school's preferred lender list, the placement on that lender list was in 

return for the alternative loans. We ask that that be placed into the 

regulations. I want to talk about 90-10 for a few minutes. Obviously, you've 

38
heard some other comments about it. We were all appreciative of the extra 

$2,000 of unsubsidized loan. Obviously, it's an accounting issue as we go 

forward calculating 90-10. The Higher Education Act contains temporary relief 

for loans disbursed from July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2012, by permitting the 

institution to treat as cash, non-Title IV, the revenue that's received from 

those extra $2,000. We believe the best way of doing that is to use the 

proration of the loan. If you're on payment periods--everybody is on payment 

periods, so that--by disbursement periods, that you compare what the student 

could have received under the Act before the increased $2,000 to what they 

currently can receive, and that increase--loans, if they're accepting it, 

would be used for cash purposes and 90-10 for that particular term. There 

would be no retroactive going back and changing or reassigning that portion 

of the loan. 

An example would be if a student--a first year freshman was getting 

$7,500 in Stafford Loans as an independent student, now they would be getting 

$9,500. If you were getting it in equal quarterly disbursements, a third each 

time, but prior to the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loan Act, a 

student would have been receiving $2,500. If they were receiving $3,166, 

which is a third of the $9,500 during the term, obviously the $666 difference 

is the new money or the extra unsubsidized loan. We believe that that can be 

put into the regulations so that it would be clear to schools how to 

calculate the rate. 

We also believe that when a student ceases attendance and if there's a 

return to Title IV, the return money should be prorated as it's returned back 

in the same fashion that it was received. We--in summary, we are asking that 

the Department of Ed codify the statements in the Higher Education 

Opportunity Act conference report that recourse loans are not precluded by 

the Higher Education Opportunity Act. 

We ask that the Department clarify that a private lender, if it's also 

on the FFELP lender, does not create an automatic presumption that the lender 

made private loans available in return for being placed on a preferred lender 

list. We ask that, for 90-10 purposes, that the most appropriate method of 

handling the new Stafford loans is to attribute the extra unsubsidized loan, 

as we--before--on a prorated basis based on disbursement periods or payment 

periods, so that it is clear how to calculate the rate. That concludes my 

testimony. On behalf of EDMC and my colleagues, I look forward to continuing 

dialogue on this. Any questions? 

MS. GILCHER: No. Thank you, Richard. Jane West. 

39
MS. WEST: Good morning. My name is Jane West. I'm Senior Vice President 

for Policy Programs and Professional Issues at the American Association of 

Colleges for Teacher Education, AACTE. Thanks to the Department for this 

opportunity to speak with you and to submit written comments. I've provided 

them there for you. AACTE is a national alliance of educator preparation 

programs dedicated to the highest quality professional development of 

teachers and school leaders in order to enhance K-12 student learning. 

The 800 institutions holding AACTE membership represent public and 

private colleges and universities in every state, the District of Columbia, 

the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and Guam. AACTE's reach and influence fuel 

its mission of serving learners by providing all school personnel with 

superior training and continuing education. As the regulation process begins 

to get under way, we hope that this is a strong beginning to the partnership 

between the Department and the many stakeholders who will be impacted by the 

provisions in HEOA. 

My comments that follow will be focused on the provisions in HEOA that 

impact educator preparation programs. I'll structure my recommendations 

around five key areas: first, the accountability provisions for educator 

preparation programs in Section 205, second, the amendments to the TEACH 

Grants in Section 412, third, the teacher quality partnership grants in 

Section 202, fourth, the authorization of Teach for America in Section 806, 

and fifth, a new data provision. Our first recommendation to the Department, 

and probably the most important one, is for the Department to develop working 

groups to advise it on how to implement the accountability provisions in 

Section 205. This is the Section that requires institutions, states, and the 

Secretary to report on the quality of teacher preparation programs. There are 

numerous changes to the reports that institutions of higher education and 

states must submit to the Department. There are significant differences 

across institutions of higher education and among the states regarding the 

types of data on teacher preparation programs that they collect. 

When the accountability provisions were first enacted in 1998, the 

Department formed working groups and consulted closely with stakeholders 

about how to operationalize these accountability provisions. The regulations 

that resulted from these consultations reflected the abilities and 

limitations of both IHEs and states to collect the data required by the 

Higher Education Act. A similar process for information gathering should be 

followed for implementation of the provisions in Section 205 so that the 

Department has a good understanding of how information is collected and 

40
reported in the states, and what kind of data is reasonable to expect 

institutions and states to collect. Our second recommendation is that the 

Department should require that non-higher education-based teacher preparation 

programs should be held to the same reporting requirements of higher 

education-based preparation programs. In Section 205(b)1(E), states must now 

report on non-higher education-based teacher preparation programs. The 

regulations should require states to name each of these programs and to 

report on the pass rates and scaled scores of the teacher candidates who go 

through these programs. 

Additionally, as required of higher education-based educator 

preparation programs, these non-higher education-based programs should report 

on how they ensure that their candidates are prepared to teach children with 

disabilities and English language learners, and how the programs infuse 

technology and universal design into their curriculum and clinical 

experiences. Our third recommendation is that the regulation should define 

several terms in Section 205 of HEOA. There are several definitions that need 

to be clarified or developed related to the accountability provisions in this 

Section. The first recommendation is to clarify what is meant by "program" in 

the statute. Is it the entire teacher education program at the institution of 

higher education, or does it refer to a specific program area, such as 

special education or math education? 

Secondly, "student" should be defined as the teacher-candidate. 

Third, regulations should allow the institution of higher education to 

define those candidates who have completed all of their non-clinical 

coursework. HEOA wants institutions to report on the pass rates on this 

category of candidates. As preparation programs are so differently 

structured--some offer a clinical internship after all the coursework is 

completed, and some offer simultaneous coursework and clinical internships. 

They should be able to determine which of their candidates fall into the 

category of completing all non-clinical coursework. 

Fourth, the regulations should use the same definition or determination 

for urban K-12 schools and rural K-12 schools that is used in the No Child 

Left Behind Act. 

Fifth, the regulations need to define "alternate route." 

Our next recommendation has to do with the TEACH Grant amendments. HEOA 

amends the TEACH Grant program so that a recipient can teach in a statelisted shortage field, regardless of whether that field remains on the 

shortage list. AACTE is very pleased with this amendment and recommends that 

41
the agreement to serve that every TEACH Grant recipient must sign include a 

place where the applicant can indicate in what field she or he intends to 

teach, if that field is on the state-listed shortage list so that the 

recipient can adequately satisfy the service obligation. This will provide 

some documentation for that applicant should the field fall off the shortage 

list. The following recommendation addresses the Teach for America 

authorization in HEOA. Regulations should require Teach for America to report 

on the same data required of institutions of higher education in Section 205. 

Section 806 authorizes the Teach for America Program in terms of the 

data that Teach for America is required to report to the Secretary. AACTE 

believes the required data should mirror the data that higher-education based 

educator preparation programs must report. Thus, AACTE recommends that the 

Department collect data on the average scaled scores and pass rates on the 

certification or licensure exams taken by Teach for America candidates, or 

report that the Teach for America members did not take such tests. Teach for 

America should set goals towards preparing teachers in shortage areas, just 

as the higher education programs are required to do. Teach for America should 

provide assurances to the Secretary that its candidates are prepared to teach 

children with disabilities and English language learners. Additionally, Teach 

for America should report not only the number of teachers it has provided to 

LEAs, but also the fields in which those teachers are teaching. 

Another recommendation addresses the Teacher Residency Program 

authorized in the Teacher Quality Partnership Grant Program in Section 

202(e). Regulations need to address how institutions should define the living 

stipend that the partnerships are required to provide. AACTE is very pleased 

with the restructured Teacher Quality Partnership Grant Program in HEOA. 

Grants can either be used to strengthen pre-baccalaureate preparation 

programs or to create teacher residency programs at the graduate level. 

The Teacher Residency Program is a new component to the grant program 

that holds significant promise for preparing highly effective teachers. As 

the Department develops regulations to address this component, we ask the 

Department think carefully about how it defines the living stipend 

requirement, as this is new to Title II, and it may be one of the more 

expensive parts of the program. 

Finally, I'd like to mention Section 208(c), which is release of 

information to teacher preparation programs. This is a very important new 

provision in the law that our members were very eager to have included. It 

requires that all states that receive funds under the Act release any data 

42
requested to allow the Teacher Preparation Program to evaluate its 

effectiveness, including information about its graduates who have become 

teachers. These data are essential for teacher prep programs so that they can 

track their graduates and assess their effectiveness in the classroom. And 

I'd like to point out specifically that it requires all states funded under 

the Act, not just states funded under Title II. 

My final comment to you is to request to include AACTE members in the 

negotiated rulemaking committee that will be developed to address the 

provisions in Title IV and Title II. AACTE was pleased to be at the table 

during the TEACH Grant Program, and we were--we're very impressed with that 

process and the outcome of that process. Our expertise in the area of 

educator preparation informed the committee's development of regulations and 

the resulting regulations reflect a good understanding of the structure of 

higher education-based educator programs. Given the expertise that AACTE 

brought to the development of regulations for the TEACH Grants, AACTE would 

like to be at the table again as new regulations are developed for the TEACH 

Grant amendments, the loan forgiveness program impacting teachers, and other 

school personnel, and for the new Title II provision requiring institutions 

to provide transitional assistance to students in teacher preparation 

programs whose state approval has been rescinded. These provisions impact our 

members significantly, and our perspectives would contribute to the process. 

I want to conclude my remarks by noting that AACTE is very pleased with 

the many amendments and the new provisions in the Higher Education Act. We 

are eager to roll up our sleeves and work with you in helping to ensure a 

successful implementation. Thank you. 

MS. GILCHER: Thank you, Jane. Next is Matt Gerson. 

MR. GERSON: Good morning. My name is Matt Gerson, and I'm Executive 

Vice President of the Universal Music Group. Universal is the world's largest 

music company, with recording and publishing operations all over the globe. 

I want to thank the Department for allowing me to speak to the HEA 

provisions that address the use of university computer networks to steal 

copyrighted materials. It's clear that technology is essential to higher 

education, and that technology will define how students live and earn their 

livelihoods. Technology in the form of innovative, online, and mobile music 

services will also ensure our industry's future. And technology, thoughtfully 

applied, is no less essential to stemming online piracy. The theft of 

copyrighted music is not just an industry problem. While it has taken 

billions of dollars away from record labels, songwriters, aspiring artists, 

43
retailers, graphic designers, sound engineers, and everyone else who brings a 

song to the marketplace, it's also taken its toll on the U.S. economy. This 

illegal activity is by no means victimless. 

The piracy epidemic on college campuses is untenable. A recent report 

from Carnegie Mellon University based on studies at Illinois State University 

found that in just one month at a moderate-sized campus, at least 42 percent 

of the students were using peer-to-peer networks to commit at least 119,000 

copyright infringements. It stands to reason that other schools look the same 

way. That's why we urge the Department to ensure that the HEA provisions 

enacted to address this problem are enforced. Now, many schools have already 

implemented some of the HEA requirements. Indeed, most have updated their 

computer use policies to condemn illegal file sharing, and schools are doing 

a better job of informing students about the policies and the penalties for 

violating them. But how many schools are actively enforcing their policies? 

The HEA should encourage schools to create acceptable use policies, 

communicate them frequently, and enforce them to let students know that the 

consequences are real. Many schools have also implemented legitimate online 

music services that gives students an alternative to theft. One such service, 

Ruckus, is offered for free to the universities through an advertisementbased model. Students can also access other legitimate services, from online 

downloads to subscriptions through a cell phone, to options on MySpace and 

Facebook that are free to the user. The bottom line is that, today, it's very 

easy to lawfully acquire all the music one could every want. 

I want to highlight what we see as the critical component of the new 

HEA: that which requires schools to develop plans to effectively combat the 

unauthorized distribution of copyrighted materials, including through the use 

of a variety of technology-based deterrents. 

Enforced computer use policies, and legitimate services help to reduce 

illegal files haring, but they're truly effectively only when used with 

technological deterrents that filter or block. Schools like Howard 

University, the University of Maryland, Ohio University have chosen to block 

or filter illegal file haring. Others credit new technologies with saving 

significant taxpayer and tuition dollars. I know that you've heard concern 

about the costs of these technologies, but the University of Florida reported 

that it saved $1.5 million by implementing a filtering system. The University 

of Utah has reported that implementing filtering and blocking technology 

saved $1.2 million in bandwidth costs, and about $70,000 in personnel costs. 

44
Anti-piracy technology such as Audible Magic's CopySense, in use at 

over 80 universities, and Red Lambda cGRID, a product developed at a Florida 

university, has proven not only effective, but economical. Since a 

substantial number of schools have successfully implemented piracy blocking 

or filtering technology, there's a track record to reassure doubters that 

such technologies will not pose a risk to privacy, squash the First 

Amendment, limit academic--or impose crippling costs. 

Unfortunately, the vast majority of schools have not yet tried 

technological solutions, or have addressed the problem only by using a 

bandwidth shaping tool. Given the relative small size of music files, even 

limiting bandwidth still enables hundreds and thousands of copyrighted songs 

to be illegally distributed. In addition, schools that, during the daytime, 

decrease the bandwidth that can be used for files haring often drop these 

restrictions at night. This approach sends the unfortunate message that 

illegal file sharing is acceptable as long as it's done during permitted 

windows of infringement, teaching precisely the wrong lesson to our citizens 

of tomorrow. 

The HEA is an opportunity for the education and entertainment 

communities come together on an issue of economic, ethical, and cultural 

consequence to our Nation. I don't think it's old-fashioned or corny to 

emphasize that young adults have to understand that stealing is stealing, and 

it's wrong. We look forward to working with the higher education community, 

and with the Department, to make sure that the regulations fulfill Congress' 

intent that universities address piracy aggressively with the many tools at 

their disposal. Thank you very much for your time. 

MS. GILCHER: Thank you, Matt. Is Tammie Plickusimler [sic.] here? 

You're going to have to correct the pronunciation of that, I'm certain. 

MS. PICKELSIMER: It's Pickelsimer. I'm a high school teacher, so the 

kids had a lot of fun with that. A lot of tunes to go with that. 

Good morning. My name is Tammie Pickelsimer, and I am the Disability 

Policy Fellow for the Association of University Centers on Disabilities, and 

a doctoral student in disability policies at the University of Hawaii. Before 

coming to Washington, I was a high school special education teacher and a 

researcher at a center for postsecondary education, focusing on access and 

opportunities for students with disabilities. 

AUCD is a national organization representing 126 university centers 

that conduct research, provide interdisciplinary training, and services to 

individuals with developmental and other disabilities. Across the country, 

45
many of our centers have begun to develop model postsecondary programs for 

students with intellectual disabilities within their state. AUCD strongly 

supports the provisions within the Higher Education Opportunity Act that will 

expand opportunities for students with intellectual disabilities and access 

to financial aid. 

On a personal note, as a high school special education teacher, I am 

thrilled about these programs that are offered, knowing that the school bus 

does not stop when they graduate. This is very exciting for me. AUCD strongly 

recommends the following: that the Higher Education Opportunity Act 

negotiated rulemaking team should include individuals with expertise in 

higher education programs for students with intellectual disabilities, 

including families and students with intellectual disabilities. In developing 

the regulations, it would be necessary for the Secretary to waive a number of 

financial aid requirements to ensure that the institution of higher education 

enrolling students with intellectual disabilities may receive such 

assistance. 

AUCD also recommends utilizing the following principals when writing 

the regulations: 

The application process for financial aid should be as similar as 

possible to non-disabled peers. The process for identifying whether an 

individual meets the definition of a student with intellectual disability 

should be determined by the admitting institution of higher education and 

should be minimally burdensome for students, families, and the IHE. 

Whenever possible, existing documentation should be utilized from 

school records or sources such as previous evaluations conducted for public 

agencies to determine eligibility for disability benefits. Rather than a 

complex application process, institutions of higher education should provide 

assurances that they offer a program that meets the criteria of a 

comprehensive transition and postsecondary program for students with 

intellectual disabilities, and this process should be as streamlined as 

possible. 

As a point of clarification, if an institution of higher education 

desires to design a program around a single student with an intellectual 

disability, this should be allowed, as long as it meets the criteria of a 

comprehensive transition and postsecondary program for students with 

disabilities. An institution for higher education should determine if the 

student maintains satisfactory progress based on standards the institution of 

higher education sets. Also, the Secretary should further clarify that 

46
participating on not less than half-time basis, as determined by the 

institution, means that the amount of time the student participates should be 

similar to the clock hours and credit hours for non-disabled students; 

however, programs such as work study and mentor programs should be considered 

into half-time requirements as determined by the institution of higher 

education. 

In addition to this brief summary, I've also submitted written comments 

that were done in collaboration with the National Down Syndrome Society and 

other disability organizations. I've left it here at the table for you. 

And again, I just want to thank you for this opportunity to provide 

comments and to the negotiated rulemaking process for Title IV of the Higher 

Education Opportunity Act as it concerns access to financial aid for students 

with intellectual disabilities, and AUCD and the disability community looks 

forward to working with you in the future on this. 

MS. GILCHER: Thank you, Tammie Pickelsimer. Dialo Sumby. 

MR. SUMBY: Good morning. Forgive me if I'm a little nervous. I'm much 

more comfortable speaking in front of a group of students than I am here, 

but-- 

MS. GILCHER: Well, we could slouch. 

[Laughter.] 

MR. SUMBY: --I'll do my best. First, it gives me great pleasure to 

stand before you today as the current President of the District of Columbia 

Consolidation for Educational Services, which is a grassroots nonprofit 

organization comprised of all the Washington, D.C.-based TRIO programs right 

here in the Nation's capital. 

I also want to thank you all for the opportunity to come here and 

provide some suggestions on this reauthorization on behalf of our national 

TRIO community. Specifically, what I'd like to do is offer suggestions in 

three areas that directly affect TRIO, one being Talent Search, which is also 

a program that I coordinate here in Washington, D.C. at the city's only 

public institution of higher learning, which is the University of District of 

Columbia, the other would be Student Support Services, and the revision in 

distribution of all annual performance reports. 

With regard to Talent Search, the legislation has modified the purpose 

of the program to include college completion, expanded prior experience 

points to examine whether students pursue rigorous programs of study, whether 

they receive their diploma on time, and if students enrolled and graduated 

from a postsecondary institution. Furthermore, the reauthorization also 

47
creates a required services section to specify--or specifying that projects 

must have high-quality academic tutoring, proper guidance in secondary and 

postsecondary course selections, and assistance in completing college 

entrance exams, admissions, and financial aid applications. I think I speak 

for all TRIO personnel in Talent Search when I say that this is an exciting 

challenge, and we are excited about the opportunity to address those 

challenges; however, that excitement is only real when it's underscored by a 

reduction in the minimum number of participants to below 600, and when there 

is an increase in the cost per students allotted for Talent Search 

participants. According to the ASCA in 2004-2005, they recommended that the 

counselor-to-student ratio be 250-to-1. In Washington, D.C., it's 224-to-1 

for high schools, and 2,711 for K through 12. 

With all due respect, the Talent Search programs would be asked to do 

something as an outside program working with schools with an equal or larger 

counselor-to-student ratio that the schools themselves couldn't do. We would 

necessarily be required to fight all of society's ills, or battle those ills 

with the students, to assist them in pursuing a postsecondary education and 

follow them through college to ensure their completion, which would almost be 

virtually impossible unless the authorization reduced the number of Talent 

Search participants to below 600, while at the same time--increase the cost 

per student allotted for participants. So, again, I just want to underscore 

that TRIO programs are excited about the challenge; however, we will be 

doomed to failure without those other measures of reducing the numbers to 

below 600 for the minimum number of participants and to sufficiently 

increasing the cost per student allotted. 

With regard to the Student Support Services Program, it is our 

understanding that the Department is also considering to delay the next 

Student Support Services competition for three to four years in an effort to 

bring all of the Student Support competitions grantees into sync with those 

have had five-year grants due to their high scoring. This is something that 

the TRIO community is strongly opposed to delaying for greater than one year. 

To delay this for greater than one year, it would extensively limit the 

opportunities for students at institutions that would be eligible to host 

Student Support Services projects, as well as those institutions that already 

have Student Support Services projects. Any delay of these services to 

students who are already dealt pretty much an unfair blow due to 

multigenerational poverty and lack of access to postsecondary institutions, 

would be dreadful. So, again, we encourage the Department that, if that delay 

48
is to happen, that it not be greater than one year so that the participants 

at the various universities around the country who need Student Support 

Services, because they've already made it into an institution and they need 

that assistance to complete the postsecondary institution--that that delay is 

not greater than a year. 

Finally, we encourage the Department to revise all of the TRIO annual 

performance reports and distribute them to the community as soon as possible. 

That's extremely important for the TRIO community so that we can really 

prepare the data that we need to submit to the Department, and really focus 

our priorities on the work, which is assisting the many, and unfortunately 

continuing growing number, of low-income and first-generational students who 

don't have the opportunity to pursue postsecondary education. 

Thank you guys very much. 

MS. GILCHER: Thank you. Shelly Saunders. 

MS. SAUNDERS: Good morning. My name is Shelly Saunders, and I am Vice 

President of Strategic Services with the American Student Assistance, or ASA, 

and I'm speaking on behalf of ASA and my fellow guarantee agencies in the 

National Association of Student Loan Administrators, or NASLA. 

NASLA is a private, nonprofit, voluntary membership organization that 

represents the interests of FFELP guarantee agencies. A core focus of 

guarantee agencies is to maximize the success of borrowers in repaying their 

loans. As administrators of the FFELP guarantee agencies work closely with 

the Department, students, families, schools, lenders, and loan servicers 

throughout the life of their loan. Inclusion of a guarantee agency voice in 

the negotiations will promote a broad-based, well-informed discussion as 

rules are developed. NASLA proposes the following list of issues for 

negotiation for both the FFELP and the Direct Loan Program--Default Reduction 

Program. 

The Higher Education Opportunity Act requires that, upon the sale of a 

rehabilitated loan to an eligible lender, the guarantee agency and previous 

holders of the loan must remove the record of default from the borrower's 

credit history. NASLA supports this incentive for borrowers to rehabilitate 

their loans. However, we are concerned that some borrowers misunderstand the 

actual result when a default trade line is removed but the pre-default 

delinquency history remains. NASLA believes guarantee agencies and lenders 

that provide borrowers with information on the rehabilitation program should 

be required to disclose in a conspicuous manner that the removal of the 

49
default from the credit history does not remove any history of pre-default 

delinquency that has been reported for the rehabilitation loans. 

Information provided to borrowers having difficulty making payments. 

The HEOA requires that, when a borrower notifies his or her lender that the 

borrower is having difficulty making payments on a loan, that the lender 

provide the borrower with repayment option information in simple and 

understandable terms. NASLA believes that these disclosures should include 

the applicable guarantee agency's contact information and notice that the 

guarantee agency may be contacting the borrower to assist in resolving the 

delinquency. The addition of this disclosure information ensures that the 

borrower knows he or she may be contacted for default aversion purposes, and 

also enables the borrower to contact the guarantee agency directly to help 

resolve issues that arise during repayment. With respect to the cohort 

default rate, the HEOA requires that an institution with the cohort default 

rate of 30 percent or more to establish a default prevention taskforce to 

prepare and submit a default prevention plan to the Department. NASLA feels 

strongly that guarantee agencies can play an important role in assisting such 

an institution by being included in this taskforce, and suggest regulations 

be written to require a FFELP school to request the guarantee agency's 

participation on the school's default prevention taskforce. 

Guarantee agencies have consistently demonstrated that they play an 

important role in assisting students in managing their student loan debt 

successfully. In recent years, a number of guarantee agencies, particularly 

those with voluntary flexible agreements, have explored new approaches to 

delinquency and default aversion activities, providing additional insights 

about how to improve borrower success in loan repayment with assistance tools 

and information available through schools, lenders, and guarantee agencies. 

In addition, since guarantee agencies have observed innovative and 

permissible, as well as overreaching and impermissible default managing 

practices, we encourage the Department to facilitate periodic forums with 

guarantee agencies to exchange frontline useful information and to promote a 

consistent understanding of permissible approaches for schools. The 

Department is in a critical position to ensure that guarantee agencies, the 

Department, and the Department's FDLP servicer are all on the same page 

regarding the provisions of clear and consistent default management guidance 

for schools. 

In deference to time, please refer to our written testimony for 

comments regarding loan forgiveness for service in areas of national need, 

50
teacher loan forgiveness, total and permanent disability, eligibility 

criteria, school code of conduct, entrance and exit counseling. NASLA 

appreciates the Department's consideration of this testimony, and offers 

itself as a resource to the Department on these and other issues that the 

Department may consider in the negotiated rulemaking process. 

Thank you. 

MS. GILCHER: Thank you, Shelby. Nancy Broff. 

NANCY BROFF: Hello. My name is Nancy Broff, and I'm here today 

representing ITT Educational Services Corporation. 

ITT Educational Services appreciates the opportunity to provide input 

to the Department as it begins the process of developing regulations to 

implement the Higher Education Opportunity Act. ITT is a leading provider of 

technology-oriented postsecondary degree programs. As of September 1, 2008, 

ITT operated over 100 ITT technical institutes and nine learning sites in 36 

states, predominantly providing career-focused associates and bachelors 

degree programs of study to a total of approximately 53,000 students. 

I'm going to cover a number of issues quickly this morning, and I will 

provide additional written testimony and I will do my math word problems--

they're in the written testimony, but I'm not going to get into them here 

today orally. The first issue I wanted to talk about briefly is one that 

hasn't been mentioned yet today in very much detail, and that's the yearround Pell Grants. ITT technical institutes operate on a year-round schedule 

throughout the year. We provide four quarters a year, and allow students to 

complete their education in a shorter calendar period of time by continuing 

throughout that entire period. This schedule generally provides students, 

many of whom are non-traditional students, with the flexibility to attend 

school while they're employed. Under this schedule, our full-time students 

can complete an associate's degree in eight academic quarters over two 

calendar years and a bachelor's degree in 15 academic quarters over three and 

three-quarters calendar years. 

Under current Pell Grant rules, these students have a number of payment 

periods where they're unable to access Pell Grants because of the limit to 

one Pell Grant per award year. And because we do more than one complete 

academic year of education during an award year, there's been a gap for our 

students. The HEOA remedies this, but there will be a couple of 

implementation issues in determining how exactly this provision will be 

implemented. We would like to make sure that the provision is implemented in 

the way that will be the most flexible to allow students the best opportunity 

51
to have access to these additional funds. And one way to do this is to give 

the institution maximum flexibility in attributing a payment period either 

backwards to the current award year or forwards to the following award year 

when you are deciding whether that student is going to be eligible for that 

extra bit of year-round Pell. And the reason this makes a difference is two 

things. 

One is, the student has to have been at least half time during that 

award year, and students, because they sometimes change how much they're 

doing in a given period, that could influence whether they're meeting that 

standard or not in a given year. 

Second, things economically change for a student from year to year, and 

they might increase or decrease their estimated family contribution from one 

year to the next. So, being able to attribute the payment period to the one 

with the lower estimated family contribution would allow them to get the 

additional amount of Pell. On the issue of cohort default rates, we agree 

with much of what many of my colleagues have already talked about this year 

with the change from the two-year to the three-year cohort default rate. The 

transition period is going to have to be handled very carefully, and the 

period once we're fully using the three-year rates. One issue that I'd like 

to talk about that hasn't been raised yet is the provision in the regulations 

currently that is not something that is required by law where the Department 

views institutions that have a single-year cohort default rate of over 25 

percent as not being fully administratively capable, and puts these 

institutions, sometimes, on provisional certification. 

I would cite, again, the CCA study that Harris referred to in his 

testimony that showed really that there isn't a link demonstrable by the 

research so far that demonstrates the cohort default rates--really tell you 

much about institutional quality or about the administrative capability of an 

institution, and we would urge that this provision in the regulations be 

deleted. And in the alternative, if the Department thinks that this is 

something you need to keep, we would urge that the new trigger comply with 

the 30 percent trigger that will be used for all other purposes for the 

cohort default rates. There are a number of provisions related to 90-10 that 

I talk about in my written remarks. I want to just talk about just one or two 

here today. 

One is the issue between the accrual loans and the cash basis loans. We 

believe that the Congress very much wanted to ensure as much flexibility for 

institutions as possible as they move forward in implementing this. And 

52
institutions should be allowed to treat loans on a loan-by-loan basis, either 

on the accrual basis or on the cash basis, because they're not going to be 

allowed to double count the loans. The law says if you use this accrual basis 

temporary provision during the phase-in period, you cannot use the income 

that comes in on those loans later on. We think it's very important to allow 

schools to determine how they're going to make their allocation in a given 

year as between which loans they want to count on an accrual basis, and which 

ones they want to save for out-years to be able to count on the cash basis. 

So, that would be an additional. And then, we also agree with many of our 

colleagues that have talked today about how the extra $2,000 in the 

unsubsidized loans should be counted. I do have a math word problem in my 

written testimony that will kind of walk through what the issues here are. 

There are issues both in how you count the money initially, and in how you 

treat this loan if you have to do a return of Title IV funds and how that 

will impact on the 90-10. 

Okay. On the issues of some of the consumer information provisions that 

have been enacted in the law, we very much support enhanced consumer 

protection and advanced consumer information. There are a number of issues 

that are going to arise in how you actually implement that. 

Retention rate, for example, is something that institutions have not 

had to report before, and there are going to be some very difficult issues in 

figuring out how best to report a retention rate. One issue particularly 

arises in the context of year-round institutions, which is that a lot of 

times, students will choose not to continue through their academic program 

term by term by term. They might stop out for a term, particularly over the 

summer, because their kids are home and they want to be at home a little bit 

more with their kids. Depending on how you do the calculation of a retention 

rate, we want to be sure that students who have just stopped out for a term 

but are intending to return are not counted as dropouts, which would 

artificially inflate your withdrawal rate and decrease your retention rate, 

so that--we think that that is an important issue. 

On the disclosures relating to cost of textbooks--I know you're not 

supposed to be regulating on this. We would appreciate some sub-regulatory 

guidance for institutions who include the cost of books and supplies within 

the cost of their tuition. We think that presents a particular issue, and 

would be happy to work with you offline in creating some guidance that we can 

give to institutions to deal with that. 

53
Finally, on the loan issues--again, I don't want to repeat much of what 

has already been said here--we think it is very important to make sure that 

institutions are giving clear road map on how they can use recourse loans in 

ways that will comply with what the HEOA permits to make sure that 

institutions are capable of continuing to do recourse loans, but doing them 

in a way that makes sure that they are done properly. We would very much like 

to also make sure that the new provisions dealing with private lender 

preferred lender lists are explicitly explained in the regulations, again, so 

that schools have a road map for how to comply with their private lender 

relationships. It's getting more and more difficult to have private lender 

relationships right now because of the dislocations in the credit markets, 

and we want to be sure that, if an institution only has one lender, private 

lender, who is willing to make loans to their students, that this is not 

something that violates the provision that requires that you have two private 

lenders if you are going to have a private lender list. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to talk with you all this 

morning, and we do look forward to continuing in the process with you as 

negotiated rulemaking proceeds. Thanks. 

MS. GILCHER: Okay. Nancy, thanks. We're going to take just one more 

person this morning and then we'll break for lunch. Cindy Littlefield. 

[Pause.] 

MS. GILCHER: Okay. I guess Cindy has stepped out, so we will all step 

out. Please return within an hour so we can get started immediately--oh. She 

got in under the line, it looks like. Well, Cindy, that was impressive, here. 

MS. LITTLEFIELD: Yes. I got my workout. I think I can still say good 

morning to the Department of Education. And I'm sorry I'm a little bit out of 

breath. I didn't know I was up next, so I thank you for that indulgence. 

Today, on behalf of the Association of Jesuit Colleges and 

Universities, I want to thank the Department for once again convening these 

most interesting and illustrative negotiated rulemaking listening sessions. 

AJCU represents 28 institutions across the U.S. in 19 states, and we 

are affiliated with over 100 institutions worldwide. In--I still haven't 

caught my breath, I apologize. In this new reauthorization of the Higher 

Education Act are 100 new regulations for colleges and universities. Not all 

will be negotiated in our negotiating panels. Thank heavens, I think we all 

would have to say. 

Today, I'm going to make a few just general comments on a few issues of 

concern. On Title IV, the soul of the Higher Education Act is always the 

54
implementation of our federal student aid programs. Certainly, AJCU was very 

happy that our Pell Grant authorization levels were increased, and the 

preservation of our campus-based aid formula program stayed intact. 

On Pell Grant, we concur with our colleagues that the year-round Pell 

Grant is an excellent achievement to try to secure and encourage more 

students to graduate earlier. In doing so, we will be saving taxpayer dollars 

in the process. There are, however, two areas in Pell Grants where 

institutions will need some further guidance, and one in particular is the 

added addition of the parents of--who may die either in Iraq or Afghanistan. 

Their students, if in college, would then receive a full Pell Grant maximum 

award payment. That is in the newly-developed law. While this is a very 

positive development, problems for colleges and universities would be, how 

would they find out about this particular development. So, obviously, we need 

a process and verification procedure with the Department of Defense to make 

sure that that program is adequately in place. 

Second, there is another added area of concern, certainly by members of 

Congress, in not allowing sexual offenders any Pell Grant funding. In that 

regard, again, process and procedure would be helpful to colleges and 

universities. Another important program is the Federal Work Study Program. We 

approve of adding the civic participation as a new area for Federal Work 

Study students. We can think of numerous entities, certainly in the 

Washington, D.C. area where numerous of internships of students from around 

the country come here to participate in really very worthwhile adventures and 

internships. And so, further clarification, I think, not only on those areas 

here in Washington, but certainly across the country would be in order. 

And we are very happy that there was an additional flexibility offered 

for Federal Work Study students who are impacted by major disasters in the 

United States. This is the direct result of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. And we 

want to, again, commend the Department of Education who is an excellent 

partner in trying to assist the Gulf Coast colleges and universities, or who 

are heavily impacted in that regard. A discussion on negotiated rulemaking 

would not be complete without talking about campus crime. In 1999, AJCU was a 

negotiator on campus crime, and that was the first year, in essence, that 

colleges and universities had the opportunity to discuss these very 

worthwhile legislative mandates in making sure and assuring that our 

reporting requirements were accurate and not too cumbersome. 

We recognize the need in some complications, particularly on emergency 

notification--in emergency notification, certainly every college and 

55
university across the United States recognizes the need to notify students 

should an incident occur. But we also recognize the need that one cannot 

clearly articulate every imaginable incident that would ever occur on a 

campus in this country. And as a result, we concur with our colleagues who 

have mentioned before the need for strict and open flexibility provided to 

colleges and universities provided through a regulatory language. Another 

area of concern to our association is the peer-to-peer file sharing that has 

also been articulated before. We want to associate our comments with that 

made of EDUCAUSE here before. AJCU, our Jesuit institutions, have been in 

compliance with listing the legal limitations of the copyright laws on our 

Web sites for over two to three years. And so, I'm happy to report, we're 

already in compliance with some of those provisions. 

However, we share concerns about adopting regulatory language in 

regards to planning on how to stop the illegal use of these copyrighting 

infringements. We are interested in this area because AJCU developed over 

eight years ago, Jesuit Net, our distance education consortium among our 28 

colleges and universities. Because of that, we have over 400 institutions--

400 courses, rather, excuse me--offered online on graduate programs and 

degrees, and we have had the opportunity to work with the Department on 

distance demonstration programs in the past, as well as the once authorized 

LAAP Program, which no longer exists. So, that is an area of interest that we 

share. 

On TEACH Grants, I also would be remiss if we did not mention this, AJC 

was also a negotiator in the TEACH Grant negotiating process this past year. 

And through this process, we were able to realize, as the Higher Education 

Act Reauthorization process was also going on simultaneously, that there were 

some areas in particular that needed to be addressed in legislative language. 

So, we are grateful that the language we submitted to Capitol Hill was 

adopted in HEOA. And as a result, we concur with the remarks also made by 

AACTE that these amendments that would allow students who were majoring in a 

specific academic area and then later found out after graduation that their 

academic area was no longer a high demand--that they would not be lost in the 

system, and the TEACH Grant Program would not be automatically converted to a 

loan program. We think that this is an important initiative, and also to 

encourage students as well as institutions of higher education to utilize 

this very important TEACH Grant program. 

Now, we recognize that, most likely, elements in Title I and other 

Titles will most likely not be negotiated in the negotiated rulemaking 

56
process, in all likelihood. One of the larger issues in Title I for all of us 

in higher education has been the issue of college cost. I will not get into 

that issue today because it is a very complicated one. Many of the new 

reporting requirements for colleges and universities are really not new--that 

will be required and listed on college Web sites provided by the Department 

of Education. Most of that information is now currently given either through 

IPEDs or FISAP already. However, there is a new area of net tuition pricing 

that is not. And as a result, the legislative language clearly indicates that 

the Secretary should be in consultation with institutions of higher education 

and interested parties over formulating the definition of net tuition price. 

And AJCU would want to recommend once again that that consultation indeed 

occur, and we would be most happy to work with you in whatever forum you 

believe appropriate, but we strongly endorse that measure. 

And finally, I couldn't be standing here unless I would mention the 

Education Disaster Loan Program. On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina 

ravaged the Gulf Coast Region of the United States. Fifteen colleges and 

universities in five states were damaged, some substantially. Since that 

time, AJCU has been working extensively with the New Orleans institutions--

one of ours, Loyola University in New Orleans was damaged, in addition to 

Tulane University and the University of New Orleans. The four of us have been 

in partnership in trying to secure funding through three emergency 

supplementals. 

We were able to secure $280 million in that process, but that's a far 

cry from the $2 billion losses that occurred from this devastating hurricane. 

In the second emergency supplemental, we included an education disaster 

loan component, and we had secured approval of everyone in the Senate and 

House side, from appropriators to authorizers, as well as the Department of 

Education, at that time, and were stopped by the OMB because this program was 

not authorized at that time. 

So, naturally, we authorized this program, with the help and support, I 

might add, of other higher education associations who, indeed, signed our 

letter asking for this inclusion. Now that the Education Disaster Loan 

Program has been included, we face a hurdle. And the hurdle we face is the 

fact that we have been told by the Department of Education of your desire not 

to do any new regulatory language on any new program unless it is funded by 

Congress. While we understand the necessity and the practicality of that 

statement, we also have to disagree, and in particular for the Education 

Disaster Loan Program. It does not have to be stated here enough about what 

57
has already happened this year from Hurricane Gustav and Ike. Texas 

institutions and Louisiana institutions have incurred over $800 million in 

damages just in this one-month timeframe this year. And combined with the 

fact that Hurricane Katrina institutions, again, who were shut down for over 

a full semester, are still in dire need of this funding. We respectfully 

request from the Department not to do a negotiated rulemaking session, but to 

somehow find a way and a means to come up with regulatory language so that 

these institutions who were impacted over the last three years, much less 

those institutions who will be impacted from a major disaster in the future, 

have this as an opportunity for them to recover. 

Now, we have learned from these disasters that colleges and 

universities are the economic epicenters of a city or a town. And as a 

result, we believe that it is vitally important that this Education Disaster 

Loan Program legislative language that's already adopted be adopted somehow 

through some regulatory process. And I know I share the interests and 

concerns by the Katrina-impacted institutions by saying that AJCU and those 

institutions would be willing to work with the Department in trying to find 

out how in the world we could come up with regulatory language in a way that 

is not too cumbersome for the Department, but in a way that allows us to try 

to secure funding on Capitol Hill. 

So, I thank the Department for this wonderful opportunity, and we hope 

that AJCU can once again be part of this very important process. 

Thank you. 

MS. GILCHER: Okay. Thank you all for your patience and attention. 

We will reconvene--we'll try for 1:00, because we have a full schedule 

for the afternoon, as well. Thank you. 

58
AFTERNOON SESSION 

MR. BERGERON: Good afternoon. Welcome back. We have a lot fewer--many 

fewer people here this afternoon. We were saying we should have found a 

different venue with more--that was larger, but maybe not if we stay at this 

level of people in the afternoon. Our first person speaking this afternoon is 

Phil Day. Phil, if you could indicate who you are and where you're from, that 

would be great. 

DR. DAY: Thank you very much. My name is Dr. Phil Day. I am President 

and CEO of the National Association of Student Financial Administrators here 

to talk with you today about the topics for negotiated rulemaking. 

On behalf of the nearly 3,000 postsecondary educational institutions 

that are a member of the National Association of Student Financial Aid 

Administrators, I would like to express NASFAA's strong support for the 

negotiated rulemaking process. We believe that the community participation in 

the regulatory process allows us to work together to protect student access 

and choice in higher education, provide workable procedures, and ensure that 

statutory boundaries are maintained. Although the Higher Education 

Opportunity Act advances the goals of the federal student aid programs in 

many ways, it also presents challenges that require careful analysis and a 

deliberate plan of action. 

In implementing the HEOA, we urge the Department to regulate only when 

necessary in order to ensure understanding of and compliance with the law, 

and to preserve the integrity of the student aid programs. We also urge you 

to negotiate all regulations that impact on institutional operations or 

student decisions. Allow us to focus institutional resources towards serving 

students rather than feeding an insatiable but meaningless data machine. 

Consolidate and standardize disclosures to avoid confusing students and 

their parents, and take a wide view towards provisions that encourage 

families to think early of higher education as an attainable goal. Our 

written submission lists the provisions from the Act that we feel should be 

negotiated. We also ask that the Department take this opportunity to revisit 

existing regulations that, now that they have been tested through 

implementation, may need some fine-tuning. We have included some 

recommendations for regulatory areas to review. Today, I would like to 

highlight a few general areas of special concern. In its approach to 

reporting and disclosure requirements, the HEOA takes a shotgun approach 

59
asking institutions to produce as much data as possible without any clear or 

meaningful purpose. Unless carefully orchestrated, the effort required to 

comply will divert resources and detract from the time schools would 

otherwise focus on services that more effectively help students and 

contribute to their success. 

We urge the Department to consult information and research specialists 

to assist the data and design its presentation. To the extent possible, 

consolidate reporting so that it is unduplicated and derives as much data as 

possible from reports already being submitted. We also should point out that 

the information burden is not limited to schools. Students are the targets of 

so many scattered and duplicative disclosures from schools and lenders, it is 

no wonder they become frustrated and ignore them. Disclosures to students and 

their parents should be coordinated, unduplicated, unless absolutely 

necessary for comprehension, and at the very least, consistent and 

straightforward. The HEOA places a good deal of new disclosure and reporting 

requirements under Title I of the Higher Ed Act. Although negotiated 

rulemaking is not required for Title I, we ask the Department to use that 

process to ensure the most effective regulatory results. We make the same 

requests for Title X provisions. A number of HEO provisions reflect recent 

attention to ethical integrity. We all have a stake in ensuring that the 

federal student aid programs are viewed as a good investment of public funds, 

but that should achieved through a rational dialogue that ultimately helps us 

help students. 

We hope the Department will take this opportunity to establish that 

federal student aid is subject to federal requirements that take precedence 

over other jurisdictions and resolve ambiguity in the law about the 

permissible uses that institutions may make of the expertise of lenders and 

guarantors in their efforts to educate students about loan provisions, debt 

management, and financial literacy. The HEOA also opens the door to 

simplification of both application and the verification processes. Although 

NASFAA believes the true need for simplification is in the EFC formula 

itself, we hope the Department will take up the HEOA authority to try out a 

prior prior-year basis for need analysis among a limited number of 

applicants, together with an IRS database match. We also urge the Department 

to use whatever resources it can, including negotiated rules and procedures 

with the TRIO and GEAR UP Programs to implement HEOA recommendations 

regarding early application and analyses to make--to help make low-income 

60
families more aware of higher education--that higher education is possible 

for them. 

Thank you for this opportunity to comment. NASFAA is looking forward to 

working productively and proactively with the Department to achieve the best 

results possible, and we're hoping to encourage as many members of our 

association to step forward and volunteer, as I've already indicated to Dan. 

Thank you very much. 

MR. BERGERON: Thank you. I'll just make one observation. 

The way in which the Department develops its data collections 

principally related to the Title I requirements is through not a negotiated 

rulemaking process, but through technical review panels that are conducted by 

the National Center for Educational Statistics. 

DR. DAY: Right. 

MR. BERGERON: And then, as part of that, they post on their Web site 

the results of those technical review panels and solicit public comment on 

the plans. And then, also, there's the Paperwork Reduction Act process with 

OMB. 

So, there's lots--actually, in some sense, more involvement from the public 

in those collections, although the points you made about consolidating and 

making it as least burdensome as possible, you know, we hear that. Thank you. 

DR. DAY: We understand that those processes work concurrently. And in 

fact, I've been invited to sit on one of them myself, because my background--

former background in an earlier life was institutional research and 

evaluation. So, I look forward to that opportunity. 

Thank you very much. 

MR. BERGERON: Yeah, they're actually very good experience--learning 

opportunities. 

DR. DAY: I heard all about them. I met some of the folks as well. Thank 

you very much. 

MR. BERGERON: Thank you. 

DR. DAY: And I have to apologize. This is a little bit of a comedic 

aside--on our way over here, and I'm a little bit embarrassed by this because 

I don't usually perspire like this, but I found out from my associate over 

here that IDs were required, so I ran--literally ran--all the way back to my 

offices and back only to find out that they weren't taking IDs. 

[Laughter.] 

DR. DAY: So, my pulse rate is a bit high. Thank you. 

CROWD: They like to keep you on your toes. 

61
DR. DAY: They sure do. 

MR. BERGERON: Thank you, Phil. Christine Johnson. Again, if you could 

say what organization you're from, that would be great. 

MS. JOHNSON: Good afternoon. My name is Christine Johnson, and I'm the 

Director of Government Affairs for Capella University. I appreciate the 

opportunity to present to you some of Capella's thoughts and suggestions 

regarding the implementation of Title IV of the HEOA. And just a quick note 

on Capella, we're based in Minneapolis, Minnesota. We are accredited by the 

Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association. We serve 23,000 

students, and we are primarily an adult-serving online institution. 

In the interest of the issues pertaining to HEOA, we'll be talking 

about distance education, accreditation, and access to student loan programs. 

On the distance education provision, Capella is pleased that the Act defines 

the term "distance education," and distinguishes it from correspondence 

programs and other delivery methods. We support the definition for its 

flexibility, recognizing that a number of modes of technology are utilized. 

In particular, the Department has already interpreted that the statutory term 

"regulatory and substantive interaction between students and the instructor, 

synchronously or asynchronously" to mean an interaction that should take 

place at regular intervals and not be trivial. 

We support this interpretation, and even though not a subject for 

negotiated rulemaking, I want to take this opportunity to suggest that the 

Department's interpretation be included in the regulations implementing this 

new definition of distance education. 

Capella also wants to applaud Congress for defining the term "diploma 

mill." It's not a perfect definition, but as all of us in the distance 

education field know, it's not an easy task. We're grateful that the HEOA 

requires the Department to continue its coordinated federal efforts to combat 

the diploma mill problem. Like many other legitimate high-quality distance 

education institutions, Capella University finds it essential to continue the 

battle against these illegitimate entities and hope that the Department will 

seek any guidance or assistance from institutions like ours. 

Finally, included in Title XI of HEOA is a provision requiring the 

independent evaluation of distance education for which the Department of 

Education must rely on the National Research Council within the National 

Academy of Sciences. Capella welcomes this evaluation, and particularly its 

review of how the quality of distance education and student achievement in 

the distance education environment is assessed. We hope that Capella would be 

62
able to provide helpful information to the Department and to the NRC as this 

evaluation occurs. On the accreditation provisions of Title IV, there is a 

provision that requires an institution that offers distance education or a 

correspondence education to have processes through which the institution 

establishes that the student who registers for the course or program is the 

same who participates and completes the program. There have been suggestions 

that this provision requires the installation of sophisticated verification 

technologies by institutions and students, and that they have the ability to 

infringe on the students' right to privacy. This was very clearly not what 

Congress intended, and the accompanying legislative history to both HEOA and 

the initial House bill that included this language was clear in setting forth 

Congress's expectation. The conference report to HEOA states that Congress 

expects institutions offering distance education to have mechanisms such as 

identification numbers and password information in place when students 

participate online. 

With regard to future use of newer technologies, Congress defers to the 

institution and Accreditors' considerations of whether those technologies are 

cost effective and appropriate. In no circumstance should the use of any 

technology infringe on the right to privacy of students. 

Capella would urge the Department and Accreditors to respect the intent 

of Congress when implementing the supervision. And again, we would be happy 

to share our experience and efforts to ensure student verification, which we 

believe are equal to and perhaps surpass the efforts of our on-ground 

colleagues. 

Secondly, Capella supports a new provision which requires that 

accrediting agencies train their evaluators specifically on distance 

education. While we believe that our Accreditors already take such steps to 

ensure that the evaluators who visit Capella have some experience and 

knowledge in the area of distance education, we believe that a federal policy 

supporting this concept will provide some consistency and assurance that all 

institutions offering distance education are being evaluated by site visitors 

with the appropriate experience and training. On student achievement. While 

Capella believes that the accreditation provisions on student achievement 

maintain the appropriate balance between the responsibility of the 

institution and the Accreditors, the discussion during the congressional 

debate left some impression that institutions may not be prepared to have 

their outcomes data evaluated in a consistent and a comparative manner with 

other institutions. 

63
I would like state Capella's unequivocal readiness to not only disclose 

to--student achievement data, whether quantitative figures like graduation 

and job placement rates are qualitative, but also to provide students the 

ability to view that information in a comparative fashion with other 

institutions. That is why Capella has played an instrumental role in the 

formulation of Transparency by Design. Transparency by Design is the result 

of a collaborative effort between fourteen regionally accredited 

institutions, all of which offer their education at a distance. Beginning in 

2009, these institutions will issue regular reports that disclose 

comprehensive data on student demographics, cost, and student outcomes, 

including completion and progress rates, program-level earning outcomes, and 

alumni feedback. I mention Transparency by Design and the issue of data 

disclosure, because in addition to the role of the accreditor, HEOA includes 

several disclosure provisions relating to student achievement and outcomes. 

There are several significant amendments to the Title I disclosure 

requirements on IPEDS relating to graduation and completion rates, and there 

are also similar but not identical provisions amending the public disclosure 

requirements in Section 485 of the Act. 

The Department has already issued a notice for comments in the 

implementation of new guidance for IPEDS. As I noted, Capella strongly 

supports the disclosure of outcomes data to the public. However, we also 

believe that the multiple manners in which the information is disclosed 

should be as consistent as possible so as not to confuse the student 

consumer. I strongly urge the Department to seek consistency between its 

IPEDs requirements, which will implement through notice and comment, and the 

new requirements of Section 485, which will implement through negotiated 

rulemaking. These two provisions require a coordinated effort on the part of 

the Department. On Title IV funding, Capella strongly supported amendments to 

permit students access to Pell Grants on a year-round basis. By enacting this 

provision, Congress has recognized that achieving higher education no longer 

occurs on a nine-month, per-year basis. Our students at Capella are enrolled 

year-round, and this amendment will significantly help many of them. 

We ask that, as the Department implements these amendments, that it 

provide maximum amount of flexibility in determining on a student-by-student 

basis the distribution of these funds. Capella would also like to applaud 

Congress for relaxing the provisions on 90-10. We believe that these 

restrictions serve a very limited, if any, public policy purpose, and has the 

detrimental impact, in some cases, of denying access to those students that 

64
may need an education and training the most. The provisions included in HEOA 

on 90-10 are extremely helpful but also complicated and will require some 

interpretation by the Department. Again, as the Department begins the 

negotiated rulemaking process, we urge the Department to include institutions 

with specific knowledge on how 90-10 affects students. 

I appreciate the opportunity to speak today. On behalf of Capella, that 

concludes my testimony. Thank you. 

MR. BERGERON: Thank you very much. Ginger Rushing. Good afternoon. 

MS. RUSHING: Hello. My name is Ginger Rushing, and I'm here on behalf 

of the Recording Industry Association of America. The RIAA is the trade group 

that represents the United States recording industry, and its members create, 

manufacture, and/or distribute approximately 90 percent of all legitimate 

sound recordings produced and sold in the United States. As you can 

understand, we've been extremely concerned about the rampant illegal file 

sharing occurring on college campuses across this country, and we're 

therefore pleased to see provisions to address this problem included in the 

HEOA. For several years, we have worked together with the higher education 

community including the Joint Committee of the Higher Education and 

Entertainment Communities to find reasonable and effective solutions to this 

problem. Our discussions with schools and observations of successful 

strategies have led us to advocate for the adoption of strong, acceptable use 

policies, consistent enforcement of those policies, implementation of 

technology to deter illegal file sharing, and the adoption of legal services 

for music and movies. 

This combination of efforts has not only helped to reduce illegal file 

sharing on school networks, but has, in many cases, increased network 

efficiency, reduced exposure to viruses, and saved schools money through 

reduction of personnel and network operating costs. In short, taking these 

steps is the best interest of content creators and education institutions 

alike. We greatly appreciate the efforts that schools are already taking in 

implementing these measures, and welcome HEOA's recognition of their 

leadership in guiding others to do the same. In particular, we acknowledge 

Section 488 of the HEOA's requirement that schools create institutional 

policies against copyright infringement and inform students of the penalties 

for violation of these policies of federal copyright laws. It is important 

for students to understand and appreciate the dangers of illegal file sharing 

and to know that the school does not condone and will punish such activity. 

65
We have, in fact, prepared a number of sample policies and best 

practices often in cooperation with universities, and would be more than 

happy to work with the Department and institutions to help apply them. We 

also appreciate Section 493's inclusion of legitimate services and 

technology-based deterrents. Services such as Ruckus have worked with a 

number of schools to offer administrations and their students the ability to 

legally offer and access both movies and music, and companies such as Audible 

Magic and Red Lambda offer technologies that have helped schools regain 

control of their networks and save thousands, even millions of dollars in the 

process. These Businesses are eager to work with schools, and we encourage 

the Department to keep them in mind as possible. We would be able to--we 

would be glad to provide context and additional information on these vendors. 

Once again, I wish to thank the Department for holding these hearings. 

These forums allow us to convey the importance of these sections in the HEOA 

and provide an opportunity to ensure the requirements are fulfilled 

appropriately and effectively. We look forward to our ongoing cooperation 

with schools and to assisting the Department in any way we can. Thank you. 

MR. BERGERON: Thank you. We are a little ahead of schedule. Is Nancy 

McNabb in the room? Hi, Nancy. 

MS. McNABB: My name is Nancy McNabb and I'm the Director of Government 

Affairs for the National Fire Protection Association. The National Fire 

Protection Association urges the Department of Education to enact regulations 

that keep the intent of the Campus Fire Safety Right to Know Act legislation 

part of the Higher Education Opportunity Act intact. 

NFPA was founded in 1896, and for more than 100 years, we have 

influenced the safety of the built environment through our codes and 

standards, which have changed the regulations that drive building 

construction and operations. This legislation to require the disclosure of 

fire safety standards and measures at eligible institutions makes sense 

because the lessons that students learn about fire safety while at college 

will stay with them for the rest of their lives. Crafting regulatory language 

to set forth the requirements mandated in the student right to know portion 

of the HEOA will not be easy, if the required institutional reports are to 

provide useful actionable information to students, applicants, and their 

families. These reports need to be more than routine checklists and they need 

to be in a format that supports consistency and comparison between campuses. 

Historically, the lessons learned from fires resulting from a major 

loss of life have driven important changes in fire protection and fire 

66
prevention practices. Few lessons have been learned as thoroughly as the one 

from the Our Lady of Angels fire of 1958 which killed 95 people but resulted 

in many new requirements for fire protection and fire prevention at the K-12 

level. NFPA hopes that these new Department of Education regulations will 

encourage a similar wave of change for higher-level institutions. 

In response to the Department of Education's request for public input 

in this matter, we offer the following specific comments. We suggest that the 

reporting begin with guidance on what is included in on-campus housing. We 

suggest reports should indicate what fractions of students live in designated 

on-campus housing facilities versus other properties. Otherwise, the 

university that is working to control the living environments of its students 

wherever they live could be held to a higher standard than a university who 

has no on-campus housing and provides no oversight of any other student 

housing. For example, although fraternity and sorority houses are not 

technically on-campus housing facilities in terms of location or ownership, 

many universities dictate very specific rules for the operations of such 

policies. Guidance is also needed on definitions and reporting details for 

each of the specific requirements. We encourage the Department to ask for 

such guidance from the U.S. Fire Administration National Fire Data Center, 

agency to agency. NFPA would be pleased to work with the Department on such 

guidance, but believe that USFA has the expertise and the authority to make 

it the appropriate body to coordinate the work. We suggest the use of 

standard shortlist of causes, or else there will be no way to compare results 

from different campuses, or even from one reporter to another on a single 

campus. We note that communities differ in how they refer exposed people to a 

medical facility. The Department should specify how long a follow-up will 

qualify for a late reportable fire death. The U.S. official view is a year, 

but most communities aren't set up to track that far out. 

The Department should consider what they wish to count as property 

damage, and how the value is to be determined. Does the cost of temporary 

housing for displaced students count? This is not direct damage, but it may 

be reimbursable loss under some insurance policies. We encourage the 

development of a scope and coding categories for the elements of a facility 

fire safety system. A fire protection system might be generally understood to 

mean only active systems, primarily sprinklers and smoke alarms, but also any 

other fire detection alarm systems and smoke control systems, if any. The 

somewhat vaguer fire safety system might be understood to include automatic 

door closers, exit signs, any illumination or other equipment used to support 

67
paths, et cetera, as well as fire prevention rules such as controls on hot 

plates or other fire safety technologies, like AFCIs or ranges that shut off 

when they sense an incipient fire. It is not clear what "regular," 

"mandatory," or "supervised" mean in this context. If "regular," means 

scheduled, then they may miss the opportunity to check readiness through 

unannounced drills which is the best way to see whether people will really 

react as they should. "Mandatory" could mean mandatory for the university, 

the students, or the managers of the facilities. "Supervised" could mean 

supervised by student floor wardens, student facility leaders, resident 

faculty, campus fire safety personnel, or the local fire department. 

The Department should clearly establish the meanings of these terms so 

that it is clear who is being mandated and counted as the supervisor. NFPA 

urges the Department to provide some reporting structure. This would make the 

difference between of a stack of narrative reports and a database amenable to 

statistical analysis. The latter would allow one to say, for example, what 

fraction of campuses has hot plate policies, while the former would make that 

very difficult to do. The Department should provide guidance on the necessary 

elements of a plan. It should specify what is being added, budget cost, and 

schedule. Absence such compliance, the Department might give credit to 

universities' plan for improvements as no more detailed than, for example, 

"One of these days, we really ought to sprinkler those dorms." The students 

should clarify what is meant by--the Department should clarify what is meant 

by the nature of the fire. Is this term intended to be another word for 

"cause"? The Department should carefully consider the requirements for 

publishing. Will each campus publish its report for distribution to 

designated members of the campus family, that is students, their parents, 

applicants--their parents, faculty, staff, legislators, local officials? 

Although the Secretary is charged to annually report on compliance, 

what kind of reporting will be available to the Secretary to make that 

determination? The results may range from a simple e-mail from the campus 

that says, "Here's what we're doing," to a more meaningful national 

collection and analysis of the data. NFPA favors the latter. At NFPA, we 

believe that safety is everybody's business, and encouraging campuses to 

invest more in fire safety policies, procedures, programs, and practices is 

important. Effective campus right-to-know regulations will provide meaningful 

information that will enable prospective parents and students to select a 

safer school. 

68
Properly crafted regulations have the potential to significantly reduce 

fire-related injuries and deaths in student housing, dormitories, and other 

campus buildings, and decrease the amount of property loss associated with 

the fire incidents. In order to achieve the intent of the enabling 

legislation, the Department will need to define a project to fill in the 

necessary details to disseminate the information to campuses, and to do 

quality edit checks on submitted reports, or at least on a sampling basis. 

NFPA encourages the Department to coordinate the student right to know 

project with and through the U.S. Fire Administration without providing an 

unfunded mandate in the process. NFPA is committed to assist where 

appropriate in these activities, and for all these reasons, we support the 

Campus Fire Safety Right to Know Act. 

Thank you for your attention and the opportunity to be heard on this 

important issue. 

MR. BERGERON: Thank you. I've got one question. As I read this 

provision, the only information the Secretary would receive is the 

statistical information. We wouldn't receive the plans for future 

improvement. We wouldn't receive the policies and procedures. We wouldn't 

receive a description of each on-campus student housing fire safety system. 

The statute is fairly clear that what we are to receive is the statistical 

data. Am I missing something? 

MS. McNABB: Well, you have to craft the regulations on how to--how the-

-you receive--they are to give you that statistical data, and our advice is, 

to you, to get that statistical data in a form that is comprehensible. 

MR. BERGERON: Today, we collect campus crime statistics. We do it on--

in a Web-based tool and make it available to the public using that same kind 

of tool. It would seem to me that the data we're required to collect under 

the law is easily collectible in that kind of a system. What the law--what 

our system would not collect is narrative form content of--in the nature of 

the other things that are listed here. And I'm not sure what we would do if 

we got it. And the specific requirement of the statute is that we collect the 

statistical data. 

MS. McNABB: Right. I'm just giving you advice on how to collect that 

data so that it's meaningful. 

MR. BERGERON: Okay. 

MS. McNABB: Because fire data is not crime statistic data, and it's, 

you know, collected differently than crime data. 

MR. BERGERON: Thank you. 

69
MS. McNABB: You're welcome. 

MR. BERGERON: Is Richard Williams in the room? Good afternoon, 

Richard. 

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Richard Williams, 

and I am the Higher Education Associate with United States Public Interest 

Research Group, or US PIRG. The PIRGs are a nationwide network of statebased, non-partisan nonprofits that work with students on 200 different 

campuses and 30 states. 

We work on federal higher education issues on behalf of college 

students and their families. We believe that American colleges and 

universities play a pivotal role in training the Nation's citizens, leaders, 

innovators, public servants, and educators. In today's economy, a college 

education is practically a necessity. Millions of high school students strive 

for its promise and the benefits it brings for both the individual and 

society. As such, we aim to keep college affordable and accessible. Today, I 

would like to thank the Department of Education for allowing me to relate our 

concerns regarding the implementation of the Higher Education Opportunity Act 

as well as other pieces of higher education legislation passed recently. I 

have submitted more extensive written comments, and will limit my statement 

to three items of concern. 

Our first area of concern is the subject of the provisions related to 

textbooks. The most significant reform the bill contains is the provision 

that focuses--that forces publishers to disclose the wholesale price of the 

textbook to a faculty member in all sales interactions. The disclosure 

provision is critical to help faculty take price into account. But due to the 

language of the provision, which instructs against the Department to write 

the regulations, the Department may conclude that it has no role to play in 

guiding the implementation and enforcement of this provision. To the 

contrary, the provision recognizes the means that the Department has at its 

disposal to publicize the new law and to broadly disseminate the information 

to colleges, universities, and other relevant stakeholders. 

More significantly, the successful implementation of the rules 

provision necessitates strong departmental enforcement. If the Department 

fails to put tough enforcement mechanisms into place, then the new provision 

will fail to accomplish its goals of lowering college costs for students when 

and if a publisher is found to be breaking the law. We urge the Department to 

devise and enact strong enforcement mechanisms for the textbook provisions. 

70
Our second area of concern is the new self-certification process that 

the reauthorization bill creates. If not implemented correctly, the process 

occurring through college financial aid offices could allow students and 

their families to be exposed to a conflict of interest between colleges and 

lenders. The process by which students must report his or her private loans 

to the college could facilitate further deception about private loans, could 

increase student and family confusion, and it may even promote more 

borrowing. We urge the Department to ensure that this new process protects 

students and families from these potential pitfalls by tightly controlling 

the content of this process and supervising it. 

Finally, we are concerned that no information is given to college 

students about the income-based repayment and public service loan forgiveness 

programs. The creation of the income-based repayment and public service loan 

forgiveness programs over the past year has been enormously encouraging to 

students and families looking to keep college affordable. However, 

information about these programs is not currently integrated into the full 

range of required information that colleges must ensure that students receive 

about the federal loan programs. As a result, borrowers can leave college 

unaware of the assistance that these programs can provide, and on the front 

end, incoming students and student aid recipients may make major and career 

choices based on the knowledge--on the lack of knowledge about the 

flexibility of repayment options that await them upon graduation. 

We urge the Department to modify student aid counseling regulations to 

accommodate information about these two important programs. On behalf of US 

PIRG and its members, thank you very much for your time. 

MR. BERGERON: On textbooks, just for a second--the Department of 

Education Organization Act has a general prohibition against federal--any 

federal education official getting involved in a list of things. One of the 

things on that list is textbooks. So that, taken with the requirement here, 

that we not regulate, seems to place the Department in a position where what 

we can do is tell institutions and tell publishers what the requirements of 

the law are, but I don't know to what extent we have a lot of flexibility to 

go beyond that. Is there something in the law that I'm missing that we should 

look at? 

MR. WILLIAMS: Yeah, I can definitely keep in touch, but we strongly 

encourage the Department to use any flexibility at its disposal, and I'll 

definitely get back to you on specific areas. 

71
MR. BERGERON: That'd be great. Thank you. Jean Morse. Good 

afternoon. 

MS. MORSE: Somebody left a watch here. 

CROWD: You've got a new watch-- 

Thank you for inviting us-- 

CROWD: Somebody's got a new watch. 

 [Simultaneous discussion.] 

MR. BERGERON: You know, that's on the record now, right? 

MS. MORSE: Thank you for inviting us to testify. 

MR. BERGERON: Thank you. 

MS. MORSE: My name is Jean Morse. I'm the President of the Middle 

States Commission on Higher Education. We accredit over 500 colleges and 

universities serving over three million students in our region, which 

includes Washington, D.C. 

We participate in C-RAC, which is the Council of Regional Accrediting 

Commissions. C-RAC meets regularly to develop common policies and positions 

for regional accreditation. The seven regional accreditation commissions 

accredit all of the major public and private universities in the U.S., over 

3,000 institutions serving 17 million students. On behalf of both MS CHE and 

C-RAC, thank you for this opportunity to testify. The representatives of CRAC have testified at each of the preceding hearings, so, I will try not to 

repeat what you've already heard. While we work to meet U.S. DOE requirement 

regulations, we strongly support the non-governmental peer review character 

of accreditation as truly essential to maintaining and improving quality in 

higher education. 

We can be and are tough when needed. For example, the number of 

warnings and probation actions issued by my commission has more than doubled 

in the last two years, and we ask for some type of follow-up in 50 percent of 

the actions that we take. We need to have the flexibility to take appropriate 

action when serious problems are found, considering the context, and not be 

spinning wheels for situations that we don't think merit it. We've been 

working very hard to improve the quality of student learning and student 

learning assessment. We've offered almost 30 workshops during the last three 

years on various aspects of assessment and planning. 

I'd like to comment on a few general approaches in regulation before 

commenting on specific aspects of the new legislation. And the first has to 

do with focusing on practicalities of implementation. I think that we 

realized in the last neg-reg hearings that we--it would be helpful for us to 

72
have input in--and the institutions about what the actual, on-the-ground 

consequences of some of these regulations might be, what's possible, what 

isn't possible. If we don't have regulations that aren't needed that will, of 

course, reduce cost. And sometimes, we and the institutions just don't have 

the staff, the technology, or even the data to implement complicated new 

regulations. Those kinds of regulations also inhibit the kind of innovation 

and accreditation in higher education approaches that were recommended by the 

Spellings Commission. We would like to be flexible and adventurous in trying 

new ways, but we're already overloaded and constricted by existing 

regulations that are extremely detailed about areas that standards must 

cover--things as small as academic calendars--how institutions must be 

reviewed, the self-study, and what types of substantive change must be 

reviewed. In fact, I don't know if this is possible, but it would be 

extremely helpful if the Department would consider adding flexibility to 

existing regulations to encourage innovation while you're looking at the 

regulations. 

I'd like to give an example of this as substantive change, where the 

regulations are so specific that we really can't tailor their application 

where it's needed. Congress, in legislation, named a couple of areas, branch 

campuses and change of ownership, where regulation was needed. Obviously, 

that's--those are important areas. The regulations then added six substantive 

changes, including, for example, additional locations with more than 50 

percent of a degree. This means that our institutions are having to submit 

what are actually rather lengthy applications. We're having to gather a 

Committee. Everybody is supposed to meet, the Commission has to meet if 

they're offering a program in a high school for one year, and that's a real 

example. So, it's not something that we can tailor, and it means that we are 

really doing a lot of work that we don't need to do. Related to that, a 

variation of that, is creating regulations that permit multiple approaches 

rather than one-size-fits-all. One of the strengths of accreditation and of 

higher education is diversity. In order to allow each agency and institution 

to find the approach that best fits its context, the regulations should allow 

flexibility. We commit ourselves to finding appropriate approaches in a 

timely and effective manner. That's why I mentioned earlier the extent of 

enforcement that we're doing. 

Lastly, I would like to comment about having the right people at the 

table. The group that considers new regulations should include fair and 

representative participation of regional, national, and specialized 

73
Accreditors engaged in proportion to the number of institutions and students 

affected. We are the ones who can speak best to our current standards and 

processes, as well as to the impact of the proposed new regulations. 

Institutional representatives should be truly representative of the 

major institutional types of American higher education in relation to their 

proportional enrollment of students, and should include participation of 

representatives of the national associations representing the different 

sectors. We feel that there would be greater buy-in and perhaps more mutual 

sharing of information if that kind of representation were included. We would 

also suggest that accreditation not be lumped in with all of the very many 

other subjects that are included in this Act. I know you're setting up 

committees right now, and given the importance of accreditation during the 

legislative process, we think that perhaps it needs to be considered 

separately. With respect to specific provisions, I know you've heard these 

before--the first is due process. We feel that we already have very good 

processes in place. We always feel caught between--well, you've got to 

protect the students, immediately, right now, and, well, you've got to let 

the institutions have a long time to have all of their appeals and 

everything. It's a difficult balancing act. We think that the provision 

allowing new information to be considered seems clear as drafted, and we 

suggest that regulations do not go beyond what is stated clearly in the law. 

We support allowing each agency to implement the HEOA provision, permitting 

legal counsel, rather than adopting highly detailed and prescriptive rules. 

That's partly because we do have different appeals processes, all of them 

complying, but we would have to tailor it to ourselves. And by the way, 

Middle States already does allow submission of additional financial 

information. 

Next one is transfer of credit. Again, we feel the law is clear. 

Institutions must have and publish their policies on transfer of credit and 

the criteria they apply in making transfer decisions. Given the directness of 

the language, we do not see the need for further regulation or interpretation 

and I noticed that earlier testimony today by a national accreditor agreed 

with that. Distance education has been discussed a lot today. The report that 

went with the new legislation says, as new identification systems are 

developed and become more sophisticated, less expensive, and more mainstream, 

the conferees anticipate that accrediting agencies and associations and 

institutions will consider their use in the future. 

74
We think that the conferees clearly were calling for flexibility, and 

we concur with that. The regional Accreditors have called together a group of 

institutions to ask for suggestions, state of the art, what's the best thing 

we can do now, and we hope to get together in our approach. And finally, 

monitoring institutional growth is new language in the law requiring 

accrediting agencies to monitor the growth of programs that are experiencing 

significant enrollment growth. Any single metric as to what constitutes 

"significant growth" is problematic, and we urge a flexible response. Much 

depends on institutional size and context to determine how to implement this 

provision, and Accreditors are equipped to consider each change in the 

appropriate context. I would also note that the regulations already require 

us to monitor rapid growth of additional locations. 

In conclusion, when it comes to rulemaking on accreditation issues, we 

urge the Department to keep two overarching principles in mind: consultation 

and flexibility. We look forward to working with the Department as the 

regulatory process proceeds. 

MR. BERGERON: I have a question. How large do you think the negotiating 

committee should be so that we can get proportionality? If you think about 

the nine sectors of higher education and the multitude of Accreditors, you'd 

have to have a committee of, what, a hundred? 

MS. MORSE: Well, you know, the people who were attending the hearings 

and kind of complaining "so, the votes you had last time" [ph.]--were some of 

the groups of universities that didn't feel--and colleges that didn't feel 

that their national associations were included. So, I think as a minimum, it 

would be helpful to have those national associations. 

There were some Accreditors on the committee last time. There was some 

question as to whether the particular institutions that were chosen were 

really representative--as representative as they could have been. I think the 

size of the committee last time was fine--maybe even too big, considering 

that we don't have that many issues outstanding, but I think that the 

composition might be different. 

MR. BERGERON: Thank you. Donald Spicer. We're still running a little 

ahead of schedule. How are you? 

DR. SPICER: Good afternoon. I'm Dr. Donald Spicer, Associate Vice 

Chancellor and Chief Information Officer for the University System of 

Maryland. 

75
The University System of Maryland consists of 13 public universities, 

with a combined student population in Maryland of over 135,000 students, and 

more than 50,000 additional students on all seven continents of the world. 

I also have an appointment as a Senior Fellow of the EDUCAUSE Center 

for Applied Research. I wish to submit oral comments regarding the peer-topeer file sharing and copyright infringement provisions in Section 493 of the 

HEOA. In general, my observations give emphasis to those on this topic made 

in the conference report of the House Senate Conference Committee. The 

conferees clearly understood the diversity of American higher education and 

the need to develop rules that are flexible enough to allow varied 

institutions to deal with the problem and to meet the expectations of the law 

as appropriate to their local needs. 

While the university system of Maryland consists of only 13 

institutions, they vary widely in their mission, demographics, geography, and 

character. Two are research-only institutions, with a community consisting 

only of graduate students and researchers. One institution has only 

professional schools, largely populated by graduate students. Several 

institutions are more traditional, with undergraduate and graduate 

residential and commuter students. And two of our institutions have focused 

on non-traditional age students with place-based and online programs. These 

institutions are located in the full range of locales: inner city, suburban, 

rural locations, as well as fully online. In the University System of 

Maryland, we've worked for years to address the issues of copyright 

infringement via illegal downloading. Our framework, which agrees with that 

presented by a previous commenter, includes education programs, policy and 

its enforcement, technology approaches, and offering legal alternatives. 

However, we recognize that, given the diversity of our institutions, each 

institution before us has needed to adopt approaches within this framework 

appropriate for its individual circumstances. 

This is particularly true regarding the expectations for plans and for 

the use of technology. How one might plan if the institution has few if any 

residential students is quite different than planning for an institution with 

a large number of residential students, and this is largely a residential 

student problem. Regarding technology, most of our institutions using packetcheck technology such as Packeteer. A few have adopted Audible Magic's 

CopySense. One research university feels that any such technologies 

potentially interfere with legitimate research applications of peer-to-peer 

technologies. 

76
There are also serious concerns regarding technologies that do content 

inspection as potentially compromising privacy, as well as being a security 

point of failure. Further, our experience with technologies has been that 

technology filters can be easily foiled by means of encryption, and 

therefore, any investment one might make at the current time would be soon 

worthless. 

Given the fact that we've used a wide range of technologies, some of 

our experience might be of interest. One of the previous commenters mentioned 

one of our institutions as having used technology to filter out peer-to-peer 

traffic, and that is correct, but the nuance on that is that they filtered 

out only two of the peer-to-peer protocols that have no known current 

applications, and they use the technology that, in fact, was perceived by 

that commenter as being ineffective, which is using packet-shaping 

technology. One of our institutions that's using CopySense has in the end 

received a disproportionate number of DMCA notices and other legal notices. 

The institution that did not apply technology for reasons that I 

mentioned does receive DMCA notices, but it's proportionate to the size and 

the character of its residential population as compared with our other 

institutions, but it stringently applied policies and severe sanctions 

whenever a violation has been found, and they have a very low rate of 

recidivism. Which brings me to the issue of how to measure the effectiveness 

of institutional approaches to dealing with infringement. Historically, there 

have been proposals put forward in previous versions of the bill that use the 

number of DMCA and other legal notices as an appropriate metric. Our 

experience is that these notices are episodic and generally are not related 

to anything we see happening on the campus. 

Also, these notices are externally generated by an opaque process, and 

do not appear to take into account any measures that we might be putting 

forward to deal with the problem. We strongly feel that a more valid measure 

of success or failure of our efforts is the amount of recidivism, i.e., the 

number of repeat offenders who receive notices. This is something we can 

measure and deal with through our internal judicial systems. Admittedly, our 

experience is that stringent enforcement will lead to a very small number of 

repeat offenders, but that's the point of the law. 

Finally, we have had, long in place, a legal alternative to illegal 

downloading. We have currently over 21,000 subscribers system-wide, which is 

a substantial number of our residential students. That being said, the first 

company with whom we contracted has left this business, and we had to go out 

77
and redo a contract with a new company, and I've now been told that the 

second company is no longer offering such institutional contracts. It should 

also be observed that not every institution in the university system has 

offered this service to its students. In particular, the two institutions 

focusing on non-traditional age students, whose students--none of whom live 

on campus, and may not even been in Maryland or the United States, for that 

matter--do not feel that investing in such a service serves a need. And in 

fact, investing in that service might be seen as being in conflict with a 

growing number of commercial alternatives for online music and movie 

services. Thus, while our experience is with a small sample of institutions--

I hope it is sufficient to indicate that a flexible rather than a 

prescriptive rulemaking will be necessary in applying this law. 

I recognize you have a difficult task, and I wish you well in creating 

rules that will apply appropriately to the breadth of American higher 

education institutions. I might also say that these are complex and everchanging technological and marketplace factors at play here. We support the 

suggestion that you include professionals from EDUCAUSE in the negotiated 

rulemaking. 

MR. BERGERON: Thank you. One of the things that we've heard some 

mention about is the role that institutions play as an Internet service 

provider, and that has implications for some of the things that you could do 

as an institution. Does the University of Maryland serve in that role, and if 

so, do you see that is an issue? 

DR. SPICER: I'm a little hard of hearing. Was it us contracting with a 

service provider? 

MR. BERGERON: No. Some institutions are themselves an Internet service 

provider, and therefore there are additional issues for them in terms of what 

they can do--they can't restrict content. 

DR. SPICER: The answer is a little complicated, but we are an 

institution-centric system. We do run--my office does run the inter-campus 

network, and we hold a number of the Internet protocol addresses for--is that 

me? We do hold the IP Addresses, and we occasionally get notices, but we pass 

them on to the institutions. 

MR. BERGERON: Okay. Thank you. Our next speaker is Wendy Fox, if she's 

in the room. Hi, Wendy. Take your time. 

MS. FOX: That's the fastest hour I've ever... 

MR. MADZELAN: Time flies when you're having fun. 

78
MS. FOX: I guess so, yeah. My name is Wendy Fox, and I am a member of 

the National--of my national association, the American Speech Language 

Hearing Association. And the reason I am here today is because I hope to give 

some testimony that will help to dramatize the importance to find the funding 

that has been extended to disciplines where national shortages exist. It will 

also help to recognize the importance of supporting the training programs for 

designated professions where the shortages exist. And in addition, I hope to 

also show for you the importance of speech language pathologists' roles in 

the school system, and what we seem to be involved in. Over the past 30-plus 

years, I have practiced my profession in a variety of medical and educational 

settings both in the United States and abroad. Within the past 20 years, I 

have seen firsthand that our professional responsibilities in the school 

setting have steadily grown to an increasingly significant degree of 

importance. 

The responsibilities to our students are quite comprehensive and 

demanding as we take on increased numbers with our caseloads. These 

responsibilities include but are not limited to the following tasks that 

require evaluations, comprehensive testing, active participation at student 

studies and participation in eligibility teams. Additional time is spent at 

IEP meetings where we develop relevant programs for our students. Needless to 

say, the speech language pathologist schedules and delivers the students' 

programs. And in addition to this, time is carved out to consult with our 

faculties and parents while simultaneously merging the other responsibilities 

intrinsic to each school. And if that is not enough, there is the everincreasing and timely documentation required for meeting of regulations at 

the local, state, and federal levels, as well as the ongoing credentialing 

for improving our skills. Speech language pathologists, as well as educators, 

have very demanding jobs. They're considered as part of the educational team, 

and thus should be given this respect in accordance to the Higher Education 

Opportunity Act. 

However, given the climate of reduced funding and fewer training 

program options for students who would be attracted to the field of speech 

language pathology as well as educational audiology. We're finding an ongoing 

challenge to meet the current and future shortages of speech language 

therapists, as well as educational audiologists daunting. Our profession's 

visibility by the Department of Education for support is currently 

diminished. When reading the survey that the Bureau of Labor Statistics 

reveals, we find that in the next ten years, our Nation's public schools are 

79
going to need to fill over 14,000 additional speech language pathologist 

positions and 3,000 additional educational audiologists nationwide. This is a 

15 percent increase. Concurrently, over half of the speech language 

pathologists now employed by our Nation's schools will be retiring by 2017. 

This will exacerbate that shortage. 

Given that most of us here at this hearing work tirelessly to provide 

quality services in the field of education, we acknowledge the importance of 

a comprehensive educational program. We know the important role we play today 

and will need to play in the future for all our students. Professional 

shortages in the area of communication disorders should be more strongly 

considered by this United States agency. Anecdotally, I continue to hear 

stories from colleagues and from students who cannot afford the tuition to 

complete the two-year master's program in state university programs, and in 

even more costly private universities whereby the cost for undergraduate and 

graduate school over this period may exceed in excess of $80,000. In a 

profession where the mean starting salary, with a master's degree, 

nationwide, hovers around the $40,000 range, this investment may not be 

particularly attractive in these current economic times. Speech language 

pathologists in the school setting should be treated as educators with regard 

to funding to offset their academic schooling. To give you more insight, this 

past year, I had worked with two specific graduate students amongst others. 

One woman was concerned that she could not afford to work in this field after 

graduate school, as her debt was so high. She was seeking work elsewhere 

despite her completed master's degree program. This capable professional was 

not feeling confident that she could pay back her loans. Her parents were 

Korean immigrants and worked entry-level positions at local cleaners in their 

hometown community. She had no cushion to get temporary support. 

Another student with whom I worked was coming from a small community in 

North Carolina where he was a first-generation graduate from college. His 

parents worked at factories where they too had limited resources and could 

not help him out. His debt for college and graduate school was well in excess 

of $70,000. He knew that the school districts in his home state did not pay 

the salaries that he would need to work locally, and thus sought work 

elsewhere. Had each of these students had the opportunity to gain access to 

postsecondary loan forgiveness in a program like the Title IV program, these 

exceptionally qualified students would have had more than likely sought 

positions in the school setting, where there are and will be ongoing 

shortages. 

80
Had each of these students had access to a postsecondary loan 

forgiveness program, I sense that each of these students may have more 

strongly considered going back to their hometown school district communities, 

which both have Title I programs. One district was in a major metropolitan 

area with a large inner city school district, and the other in a rural 

setting. We all know that one of the hardest battles for each of these 

settings is in retaining qualified personnel in their districts. Had this 

option been available to these fine young people, it may have been a 

beginning to pave the way for young professionals to get debt relief. 

At the same time, they would be gaining excellent professional 

experience, which may have been self-fulfilling and grounding for pursuing 

their professional career paths. And equally important, they would, in turn, 

be exposing their young students to accomplished and motivated young 

professionals who may have been influential role models. Speech language 

pathologists do student teaching and meet parallel standards to teacher 

training, as well as participating in a clinical fellowship year after 

graduation. They take the relevant practice exams as well as the required 

state educational exams such as the CBEST in California. With all of this 

being stated, it should now be more clearly understood that the 

interconnection of the speech language pathologist and the educational 

audiologist in the educational setting should be included in the teacher 

training opportunities of the Title II programs and the loan forgiveness 

program for the Title IV program. I appreciate you taking the time to allow 

me to address my views on this important matter. hope that my input and the 

input from other colleagues will encourage your recommendations to enable us 

to seek some relief from the existing shortage of speech language clinicians 

and educational audiologists in the public schools setting. 

Securing the funding needed for loan forgiveness and training programs 

would be welcome opportunities to further the importance of higher 

educational outcomes of all of our students across the United States. 

 Thank you. 

MR. BERGERON: Linda Sickman. 

MS. SICKMAN: Good afternoon. 

MR. BERGERON: Good afternoon. 

DR. SICKMAN: Good afternoon. My name is Dr. Linda Sickman. I am a 

certified speech language pathologist by the American Speech Language Hearing 

Association, and I am licensed by the State of Maryland Board of Examiners in 

Speech Language Pathology. I am an Assistant Professor in speech language 

81
pathology at Towson University. My area of expertise is in child language and 

literacy development disorders. I have 16 years of experience, even though I 

don't look like I have 16 years' experience, I do have 16 years' experience 

working in a variety of settings, including early intervention, the public 

schools, and Head Start. I am here today to speak to the issues that are 

important to speech language pathologists, or SLPs, and audiologists, 

particularly those who are new to entering the field of communication 

sciences and disorders. Loan forgiveness is one such issue. This tool can be 

used by states and school districts to assist in the recruitment and the 

retainment [sic.] of ASHA certified school-based SLPs and audiologists. 

Today the need is great in our schools, and I'm going to echo exactly 

what Wendy said. The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that between the 

years 2004 and 2014, more than 14,000 additional SLPs will be needed to fill 

job vacancies, which is a 15 percent increase in that decade. This increase 

coupled with almost half of all school-based SLPs who will be eligible to 

retire in 2017 make this issue of utmost importance. And this last statistic 

was from the U.S. Department of Education's 24th Annual Report to Congress on 

the Implementation of IDEA. In addition, 3,000 more audiologists will be 

needed to fill the demand between 2002 and 2012, which is a 29 percent 

increase according to the Bureau. Currently, in some locations in the United 

States, there is only one full-time audiologist for every 10,000 children 

between the ages of birth and 21 years of age. The bottom line is that there 

will be a severe shortage; it's inevitable, and it will happen soon. And one 

way to combat this shortage would be through the new loan forgiveness program 

under HEOA. 

The federal education statues and regulations on student loan 

forgiveness are incongruent and need to be harmonized, and this issue may 

seem very costly monetarily, particularly at this time in our country, but 

I'd like to ask you this question: Would it not be more costly for our 

children not to have qualified SLPs and educational audiologists in our 

schools? I have taken an informal poll among the students of the three 

courses that I have at Towson University. Two courses are graduate courses 

where they are in their first year, and that's 45 students. The other course 

is my undergraduate course with 36 students, and they're in their sophomore 

and junior years of school. Overwhelmingly, the undergraduates were in 

absolute favor of loan forgiveness, and the graduate students were 

approximately 50-50 split on the idea of providing a specific amount of time 

in service for loan forgiveness. 

82
Can you imagine how many new and qualified SLPs can be hired into 

schools across the country to support IDEA with loan forgiveness? Can you 

imagine the number of educational audiologists who can address school-based 

hearing screening programs, auditory management needs, and ensure the 

education, communication, and psychosocial needs of children with hearing 

loss? So, I strongly encourage you to consider this issue. One of the reasons 

why I went into Head Start was because my loan program offered me the 

opportunity to have loan forgiveness if I worked with low-income children. 

So, I strongly believe in this program. Another issue which ASHA supports is 

the current accreditation statutory requirements. I am making a request that 

the Department of Education not consider accreditation as a part of the 

negotiated rulemaking. Judgments about student achievement should remain in 

the hands of institutions. Accreditors' activities are focused on standards 

to support the student acquisition of knowledge and skills, and on protocols 

for how programs can demonstrate that students are achieving the necessary 

outcomes. The process of accreditation is highly successful, and a well 

tested system of quality assurance and quality improvement. 

The final issue I would like to discuss today is to request the 

inclusion of SLPs and audiologists among the providers eligible for funds 

under professional preparation programs in Title II. The induction into 

teacher training and recruitment efforts should be extended to SLPs and 

audiologists as they're an integral part of the special education team, which 

Wendy also highlighted. Providing SLPs and audiologists the same access to 

training and educational opportunities is important because they are a part 

of the student educational team. The services provided by these professionals 

help students in both general education setting and in the special education 

setting so that they can succeed in school. States should be given the 

flexibility to utilize funds to provide training opportunities to all 

professionals who are providing services to children in schools. By allowing 

SLPs and audiologists access to professional preparation funds under Title 

II, this is another way by which to retain and recruit these professionals 

who have been identified by Congress as a professional area of national need. 

Again, I encourage you to consider these issues under HEOA which are 

important to speech language pathologists and audiologists. The loan 

forgiveness to recruit and retain qualified professionals in the schools, 

keeping the current statutory requirements related to accreditation, and 

include SLPs and audiologists among the providers eligible for funds under 

professional preparation programs in Title II. 

83
It was an honor for me today to represent ASHA and Towson University 

this afternoon, and I thank you for your time. 

MR. BERGERON: Thank you. Linda. 

DR. SICKMAN: Yes. 

MR. BERGERON: Why don't you stay there for a second. I was wondering if 

you could speak to how you think that states and local governments can use 

this loan forgiveness to recruit and retain students, especially since the 

way that this program is structured, it's on a first-come, first-serve basis 

where there's no guarantee that anyone would receive the benefit. 

DR. SICKMAN: Well, there are some identified areas of need in the 

United States, such as West Virginia. That is a state where we are actually 

doing teleconferencing for speech language pathology services rather than 

actually having a physical body there. And in order for the states to do a 

first-come, first-serve basis, I think if they were allowed to know what was 

going on, they could-- 

MR. BERGERON: But this is a federal program where the federal 

government would be delivering the loan forgiveness on a first-come, firstserve basis. 

DR. SICKMAN: To the actual students who are participating? 

MR. BERGERON: Yes, yes. 

DR. SICKMAN: Well, what would happen is, through ASHA, we would let 

them know in those high areas of need where, if they are working in specific 

sites, that they can apply for that loan forgiveness. And what would happen 

is, the students--I have a couple of students who are actually from West 

Virginia, and they would like to go back home and work. And if this was an 

opportunity, it would entice them to go back and actually provide those 

services in their state. Am I getting at the heart of your question, or not 

really? 

MR. BERGERON: Not really. The way that this program is structured is 

that people apply for the loan forgiveness, and they get on a first-come, 

first-serve basis, and audiologists and speech pathologists are among other 

groups--early childhood educators, occupational therapists, nurses, and on 

and on the list goes. 

DR. SICKMAN: Right. 

MR. BERGERON: Right. So, they're competing, essentially, on a firstcome, first-serve against all of those other students. Contrast that to our 

teacher loan forgiveness where there is mandatory money available and anyone 

who qualifies gets the benefit. I'm having a hard time understanding how this 

84
first-come, first-serve program would serve the needs of state and local 

governments and recruiting people to be audiologists or speech pathologists. 

I'm just having a hard time understanding how that would work. 

DR. SICKMAN: Well, first of all, we would need to allow the students to 

be aware of the fact that this was a program that existed, and to identify 

the areas in which there is a need, which ASHA would fulfill that role, I 

assume, in letting these students know where these areas of needs are. Now, 

as far as state and local governments, if--I'm not clear about how they would 

go about signing up for the funds or anything like that, but I would assume 

that, if the state is aware of the fact that they can have these loan 

forgivenesses for certain areas of need, that they could also advertise that 

as a fact in their job positionings. Does that make sense? 

MR. BERGERON: See, this is--I guess I've heard this testimony a couple 

of times and I'm trying to meddle around with it in my brain a little bit. 

And it seems to me, that if a state or local government wanted to offer loan 

forgiveness in order to use it as a recruitment benefit, they could do that 

and be effective in using it to get people to come and work for them. 

DR. SICKMAN: Right. 

MR. BERGERON: I'm having a hard time understanding how a federal 

program would accomplish that goal, because it's first-come, first-serve, 

it's for a whole range of possible fields--this is just one of them. 

DR. SICKMAN: Right. 

MR. BERGERON: So, there's no guarantee that anyone who is an 

audiologist would ever get the benefit. 

DR. SICKMAN: Right. 

MR. BERGERON: Even if they did everything right--everything that you'd 

want to do and were working in a low-income school and in a community with 

lots of needs for these kinds of services--but I don't--but they would not 

necessarily end up with a benefit. It's just as likely someone who's a nurse 

might get that benefit instead. And I don't understand how that would quite 

work. So, that's why I'm asking the question. Just don't understand. 

DR. SICKMAN: Okay. Well, I guess that's an issue that's beyond my 

control, then, as far as that goes. But I would think that, if the 

opportunity was there, that the recruitment would increase. And even if the 

student was put into a hopper and said, "You may have the opportunity to have 

this," it's a lot better than having them go into the medical field, where 

they're assured of possibly getting a car, a cell phone, a sign-on bonus, and 

that type of thing. I mean, that's what we're competing with. I was talking 

85
to my students, in fact, today about this very issue, and I said, "You know, 

you've got all these rehab hospitals and medical places who are saying, 'I'm 

going to give you a car. If you sign on with us today, you're going to get a 

$5,000 bonus, you're going to get a car, and you're going to get a cell 

phone.'" Now, granted, they're going to get--have to do other things with 

those. I mean, it's not just, you know, have that as a plaything and that's 

it. But when schools are competing with that type of a thing, I hate to tell 

you what these grad students are thinking. I mean, I had one student who was 

like, "Woo-hoo. I'll go there. I don't care." 

And I'm like, "Do you realize you would be on 24-hour notice?" And it 

didn't matter to them. So, at least giving some sort of an incentive, whether 

they actually will come through with that--you know, I see where your 

question is, but we have to start offering some sort of an incentive, or else 

we're not going to get that pull into the schools of the really bright 

students who really want to help a lot of people. We've got to have some sort 

of an incentive, and we've got to start someplace. 

MR. MADZELAN: Yeah. I think the issue that we're grappling with here is 

this notion of an empty promise, because, as David said, we may be in a 

circumstance where an individual does everything they're supposed to do, and, 

you know, they may be the five thousand and first person in line-- 

DR. SICKMAN: Right. 

MR. MADZELAN: --and the first five thousand get the benefit. I mean, 

that's what-- 

DR. SICKMAN: Right. 

MR. MADZELAN: And that's the kind of thing that we're struggling with 

here. 

DR. SICKMAN: Sure. Well, we can do as much as we can at the university 

level, and we can do as much as we can at the professional level-

-organization as well to try to ensure the notification of when the deadline 

is and how it would work. I do know that would be in place. 

MR. MADZELAN: Okay. 

MR. BERGERON: Thank you. Appreciate it. 

DR. SICKMAN: You're welcome. 

MR. BERGERON: Pam Fowler. 

MS. FOWLER: Good afternoon. 

MR. BERGERON: Good afternoon, Pam. It's nice seeing you. 

86
MS. FOWLER: I just made it. I have to leave. I'm Pamela Fowler, 

Executive Director of Financial Aid at the University of Michigan. I am here 

today representing the Financial Directors of the University of the Big Ten. 

Many people know that the Big Ten is a major athletic conference 

founded in 1896 comprised of large research universities in the Midwest. 

However, the Big Ten I represent today is also a group that is part of the 

Committee on Institutional Cooperation, or the CIC, a consortium of 12 

research universities. With campuses in eight states, CIC universities enroll 

more than 300,000 undergraduates and 76,000 graduate students, and employ 

some 33,000 full-time faculty, and 139,000 full-time staff. Our mission is to 

advance academic excellence by sharing resources and promoting and 

coordinating collaborative activities across the member universities. 

Our comments are restricted to three areas of the Higher Education 

Opportunity Act that we deem of high importance and that eleven people could 

agree on; not always easy. Section 483, improvements to paper and electronic 

forms and processes, early estimates. The Directors of the Big Ten have long 

been interested in providing notifications of aid eligibility to students, 

especially low-income students, much earlier than the current system allows. 

In April 2007, we offered our services to Under Secretary Sara Martinez 

Tucker for a pilot program using prior prior-year data to determine aid 

awards so prospective students could be notified of their eligibility for aid 

at about the time they learn of their admission to the university. We believe 

moving the start of the aid application process back to the fall of the year 

will give us more time to work with low-income and other high-risk 

populations to make their transition to college smoother. A pilot project was 

not specified in Section 483; however, our interest in earlier award 

notifications to students remains strong. We would welcome the opportunity to 

work with the Department in any capacity to ensure early notification to 

needy students and thereby--to thereby assure them that college is possible. 

Second is Section 494, regulatory relief and improvement. Eight 

universities of the Big Ten have participated in the experimental sites 

initiative since its inception. We participated in this initiative because we 

believe the regulations from which we sought relief did not improve the 

administration of the programs, enhance the students' educational experience, 

or produce measurable improvement in student outcomes. We believe our 

experiences have substantiated our initial assessment; therefore, we support 

the continuation of these experiments until such time they are proved to be 

ineffective or become part of new legislation. As a group, the universities 

87
of the Big Ten participate in nine out of thirteen experiments. Although we 

do not participate in all experiments, we strongly support the continuation 

of all that have proven to be successful. The reason for this initiative is 

just as relevant today as it was when it was authorized. The initiative 

addresses concerns that federal requirements place unnecessary burdens on 

postsecondary students and institutions, and may foster unintended 

consequences counter to the goals of the Higher Education Act. In the last 

two academic years, four new aid programs have been introduced, creating 

confusion for students, parents, and aid administrators, and increasing the 

administrative burden of aid officers throughout the country. If there were 

ever a time to eliminate unnecessary burdens, it is now. We are interested in 

the development of measures and standards by which the existing experiments 

will be reviewed and evaluated. We suggest the Secretary establish control 

groups, develop and publish reasonable analytical measures so participating 

institutions can assess their progress prior to the official reporting 

timeline. 

For example, entrance and exit counseling and loan proration are two 

experiments we believe can be evaluated in this manner. Comparing the cohort 

default rates of experiment schools to that of a peer control group would 

provide meaningful data to the Secretary. If the data show that the 

experimental site universities had default rates lower than or equal to the 

rates of the control group, one could conclude that the experiment was 

successful. For the fiscal years 2003 to 2005, the cohort default rate of the 

Big Ten Universities was half that of the national average for four-year 

public universities. Therefore, we suggest that we improve in our experiments 

with entrance and exit counseling and loan proration to be a success. The 

third one is the private education loan disclosures and elimination, Section 

1021. We strongly support any regulation that requires intervention by the 

aid office before a private educational loan can be obtained by a student. 

In our experiences, far too many students have borrowed at exorbitant 

interest rates and/or fees when lower cost options were available to them. 

Any means of notifying the aid office in time to intervene and advise 

students of their options is in the best interest of the student. However, we 

do not want the self-certification process to become unwieldy for both 

families and aid offices. The process should be standardized regardless of 

lender, and should be Web-based for maximum processing efficiency. Most of 

the information required in Section 155 can be found on an award letter if 

the student applied for aid and/or the institution's Web site. If the student 

88
did not file for aid, the EFC is unknown an estimated aid beyond an 

unsubsidized loan--beside an unsubsidized loan cannot be readily determined. 

One suggestion is a certification statement that states the student is 

aware of his or her eligibility for an unsubsidized loan but chooses to 

forego this option for the private loan. The development of this statement is 

very important from our perspective, and we look forward to providing 

suggestions and comments on the self-certification form during the negotiated 

rulemaking process. 

On behalf of my fellow Big Ten Universities, I thank you for the 

opportunity to present our primary concerns and comments to you today. 

MR. BERGERON: Pam--and I call your attention to Section 894 of the 

Higher Education Act as amended by the HEOA, which authorizes that early 

Federal Pell Grant commitment demonstration burden. 

MS. FOWLER: Oh, okay. 

MR. BERGERON: It just didn't--it just isn't in Title IV. It migrated 

back to Title I. 

MS. FOWLER: Well, good. 

MR. BERGERON: The other--just so that you know that it's there, and 

we'll--I'm sure we'll have opportunities to talk about it. The thing I was 

going to ask is, when we look at the statute governing X-sites, it seems 

clear to us that the measure of success of an experiment that's conducted 

under that is that the experiment results in changes to the law and 

regulations. And Congress has had opportunities over the last several years 

to change the law to adopt the X-sites and-- 

MS. FOWLER: And some of them have been adopted. 

MR. BERGERON: --and some have been and some haven’t. Similarly, we've 

had a few rounds of regulatory activity, and in the--they didn't get changed, 

and that--those--that context, either. So, that's kind of our view, and I'm 

not really necessarily looking for a response, but that's kind of our view of 

what constitutes success in X-sites. 

MS. FOWLER: Well, you know, in my view, success is not always the same 

in all institutions. 

MR. BERGERON: Thank you. 

MS. FOWLER: There are differences in institutions, and therefore 

differences in the success of those institutions. 

MR. BERGERON: Thank you very much. I appreciate it. 

We're going to take a break and reconvene at 3:00--okay, 2:40. We'll 

reconvene at 2:40. 

89
 [Brief recess.] 

MR. BERGERON: Good afternoon, again. We're going to go ahead and 

reconvene. Our first person speaking this afternoon is Gregory Cendana, and 

if you could say where you're from and state your name for the record, that 

would be great. Thank you. 

MR. CENDANA: So, good afternoon. My name is Gregory Cendana. I 

currently serve as the Vice President for the United States Students 

Association. USSA is the country's oldest and largest national student 

association, and represents more than 4.6 million students. We have been the 

official voice of students to the Department of Education, the Capitol Hill, 

and White House since 1947. So, thank you for the opportunity to speak with 

you on behalf of the current and future students of this country. 

The focus of today's hearings, implementation of the Higher Education 

Opportunity Act, is vital to continued access to higher education in America. 

The HEOA has the potential to increase student protection, and work towards 

the all-important goal of making college more accessible and affordable. 

However, there are several areas that will require attention during the 

implementation process to ensure the program's success. My intention this 

afternoon is to highlight two of these areas and share some personal stories 

that may help--that may help members of the negotiated rulemaking committees 

keep the student perspective in mind as you all move forward. So, I'll start 

off with the Pell Grant. In addition to the incremental increases to the 

maximum Pell Grant award amount over the next six award years, the HEA 

includes language that would allow Pell Grant eligible students to receive 

two grants during a single award year. 

This addition is seen by some as giving students a chance to attend 

college year-round and speed up their progress towards graduation. However, 

the addition of two grants in a single year does not clearly address the 

issue of year-round school attendance. Greater explanation is required to 

this item in Section 401, Title IV. The idea of a Pell Grant covering the 

cost of fall and spring semesters, plus an additional grant during the summer 

semester is ideal for many students on a fast track to earning a degree. 

However, if this is the intention, it is not clear in the current law. It is 

necessary that the rulemaking process discuss the logistics and practicum of 

this measure to ensure the express goal of the year-round Pell Grant is 

reached. 

90
As a past Pell Grant recipient, I cannot begin tell you how beneficial 

it would have been to receive two Pell Grant awards in one year. As a student 

that had to work 30 hours a week during the school year and more than 50 

hours a week during the summer, and still graduating with more than $30,000 

in debt, the additional Pell Grant would have helped with my work and loan 

burden. Additionally, more institutions are beginning to implement policies 

that require minimum unit progress each semester, and are pushing students to 

graduate at faster rates, even though they may not be able to handle certain 

workloads at one time. 

So, these policies are making summer sessions and summer school a must 

in order to meet the minimum standards, and thus make the year-long Pell 

Grants a necessity for students who are already working numerous hours and 

taking out thousands of dollars in loans. Please ensure that the year-long 

Pell Grant is implemented through the rulemaking process. Last year, more 

than 5.3 million students received a Pell Grant and are looking forward to 

the additional support from the program. The second thing I'd like to talk 

about is loan forgiveness programs. With the widespread discussion of 

Americans doing more in areas of public service, the addition of student loan 

forgiveness programs in the HEOA is timely and beneficial to students in 

their communities. 

The loan forgiveness programs have the potential to have far-reaching 

benefits, and it is important that the implementation of such programs 

includes clear methods to educate students on the details for service-based 

loan forgiveness programs. The rulemaking committee must outline the criteria 

for a student to qualify for loan forgiveness as a public servant. We would 

like to see a list of job categories or an application process for a student 

to have their job of choice included in the loan forgiveness program. 

It is also important that institutions of higher education are 

encouraged to share the information about loan forgiveness programs with 

students at all levels of the aid process. These are just some suggestions to 

be discussed during the rulemaking process. A clear understanding of the loan 

forgiveness eligibility may give students the chance to major in and work in 

areas of public service without fear of paying back unmanageable loan debt. 

The average student graduates with $19,000 in debt, and with such high 

amounts of debt, many choose to forego bachelor's degrees or working in 

public sector to ensure that they're making enough to pay back their loans. 

Students are excited about the potential of the loan forgiveness 

programs and what it may mean for their futures as public servants and 

91
community members. We ask that, during the rulemaking process, clear and 

detailed methods be discussed. These are just some of the issues concerning 

my constituents. Members of the United States Student Association have been 

invested in the Higher Education Act for decades. We will continue to push 

for measures that protect students and reduce the cost of receiving an 

education. 

Thank you for this opportunity, and USSA looks forward to working with 

the Department of Education as this paramount legislation moves into its 

final stages. 

MR. BERGERON: Thank you, Gregory. Angela Peoples. Angela knew she was 

next. How are you, Angela? 

MS. PEOPLES: I'm doing very well. How are you? 

MR. BERGERON: Doing great, thanks. 

MS. PEOPLES: Thank you. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, and thank you 

for allowing the time for public comments on the Higher Education Opportunity 

Act. My name is Angela Peoples, and I am Legislative Director of the United 

States Student Association. This fundamental legislation includes some great 

additions in the regulation of higher education. On behalf of the members of 

the U.S. Student Association, I want to say we are very pleased to see the 

Higher Education Act reauthorized after ten years. I would like to take a few 

minutes to submit some areas of concern that should be examined during the 

negotiated rulemaking process. 

USSA has been advocating with and on behalf of students since 1947. Our 

membership is diverse and far-reaching. We believe that students need 

assistance in all aspects of higher education. The concept of a certification 

process for students taking out private loans seems to be a positive step 

towards encouraging students to exhaust all possibilities before turning to 

private lenders who offer fewer protections than federally-certified lenders. 

However, the certification--the self-certification outlined in the 

reauthorization of the HEA does more to hinder student protections in this 

process. Attempts should be made to give financial aid officers more 

flexibility in the certification process. A certification process that 

requires a school's financial aid officer to verify that a student has 

utilized all federal and state aid available before turning to a private 

lender will cut down on the number of students accessing private loans 

unnecessarily. 

However, the process for students reporting private loans to colleges 

could also facilitate further deception about private loans. It is important 

92
that this process be reviewed during the negotiated rulemaking process to 

ensure that students are protected and that this new process is as 

streamlined as possible. I would also like to echo the sentiments of my 

colleague, Mr. Cendana, in saying that the addition of the loan forgiveness 

for public service in areas of need is very exciting for our members. 

However, we urge the Department of Education to consider the process by which 

students are informed of these new programs, as well as the types of careers 

that qualify for loan forgiveness under the program. Finally, I would ask the 

Department of Education to consider measures designed to simplify the Free 

Application for Federal Student Aid. The creation of the EZ FAFSA form 

targeting families that qualify for an auto-zero family contribution is a 

step towards simplifying the aid process, which will lead to increased access 

to college for many first-generation and low-income students. However, 

efforts should be made to further simplify the aid process by allowing all 

students to file a simpler, shorter FAFSA form, not just auto-zero 

qualifiers. The HEA reauthorization also gives the Secretary of the 

Department of Education the opportunity to work with the IRS to share tax 

information for students and families that would minimize the number of 

questions in the FAFSA to about half the current number. These two provisions 

in the student aid process must be reviewed by the rulemaking committee to 

ensure that the goal of simplifying the federal aid process is in fact 

reached. 

The U.S. Student Association is committed to working on these and other 

issues that have been proven to affect both college access and affordability. 

Thank you for the opportunity to share the concerns and perspective of 

students on the Higher Education Opportunity Act. 

MR. MADZELAN: If you will, I have a question or two. 

MS. PEOPLES: Sure. 

MR. MADZELAN: Going back for a moment to the notion of the so-called 

private label loans and the self-certification by a borrower--and I think you 

suggested--and we heard others suggest that perhaps the college, university, 

or the financial aid office ought to be somewhat more involved in that. And I 

think I heard you say something to the effect that--you know, just to make 

sure that the student has availed her or himself of all of the federal 

opportunities. I guess my question is, what--in your mind, what additional 

heft might the aid administrator bring in terms of having--ensuring that the 

student has exhausted all the federal opportunities, given that you can't 

make somebody take a Pell Grant--of course, why wouldn't you? You can't make 

93
somebody borrow under the Stafford Program, that kind of thing. We all know 

that the federal loan programs are the best deal out there. But again, you 

know, this notion is you can't force someone to borrow from the person you 

want them to borrow from. So, that's one of my questions--is, what's the 

added value there of the third party involvement--the financial aid 

administrator involvement? Do you think-- 

MS. PEOPLES: Sure. Yeah, I think that, in cases where a student, 

however rare I think they are--that students just absolutely want to take out 

private loans, it will be difficult for a financial aid officer to keep them 

from doing that. However, it's been my experience that a lot of students are 

just unaware of all the opportunities they have under federal loan programs. 

Students are not aware of, for example, a PLUS Loan that their parents 

may be eligible to take out for them, and so they just feel like, 

automatically, they have to go to a private loan, when, in all actuality, 

they have other options, and it's--and if the financial aid officer has more 

ability to--or more flexibility for a certification process, they'll be able 

to say, "Oh, well, this student hasn't--they have applied for the following 

loans, but they haven't gotten x, y, and z loans. So, these are still options 

for you before you head to the private loan." 

MR. MADZELAN: Thank you. Another quick one on the Free Application for 

Federal Student Aid, that is--it's technically not a subject for negotiation, 

because basically it reflects the federal need analysis formula which, by 

law, we cannot regulate. 

There are, obviously, opportunities to comment. We still have the 

Paperwork Reduction Act process where you can comment on the FAFSA. But I 

think where we are--and this is born out certainly by the announcement that 

Secretary Spellings made a week ago up in Cambridge about, you know, some of 

the ideas that the Department has put out there about a greatly simplified 

FAFSA by greatly simplifying the eligibility formula. So, you know, given the 

formula that we currently have in statute, which we cannot regulate--or at 

least regulate in a straightforward manner, you know, there may not be a 

whole lot more that we can do with the FAFSA. I think our student aid office 

has done a pretty good job over the past couple of years, certainly on the 

electronic side, because, you know, we have the targeted questioning and the 

skip patterns and all that kind of stuff. You know, you're only presented 

with the questions that you need an answer. But that's just something that 

we've been struggling with. 

94
And of course the reauthorization legislation does direct the federal 

government look at alternative measures of, my words, family ability to pay 

or unexpected family contribution calculation. But again, I'm just suggesting 

that we may have gotten as far as we can go with FAFSA simplification, given 

the other constraints around eligibility determinations. 

MS. PEOPLES: Yes. And while that may be the case, I think it's 

important to further encourage the federal government to work to exhaust all 

possibilities, and especially working to include tax information that 

families have already filed with the government in the federal application 

process. 

MR. MADZELAN: Thank you. 

MS. PEOPLES: Thank you. 

MR. BERGERON: Stewart McLaunin. I would note that we have just two more 

individuals signed up to speak this afternoon. If anyone does want to speak 

and hasn't checked in with Mary or Patty or Nikki, I'd encourage you to do 

that. Thank you. Thank you, Stewart. 

MR. McLAURIN: Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm Stewart McLaurin, 

Executive Vice President of Education Affairs for the Motion Picture 

Association of America. 

I appreciate the opportunity to provide comments as the Department 

begins the negotiated rulemaking process for the Higher Education Opportunity 

Act. We look forward to continuing discussions, and respectfully ask that the 

entertainment community, along with others seeking to protect intellectual 

property, be adequately represented on rulemaking committees regarding the 

campus-based digital piracy issue. The MPAA stands ready to work with the 

higher education community on a common sense approach that will actually help 

institutions develop anti-piracy plans and that will reduce theft and improve 

network performance and security in a cost effective manner. 

With the passage of the Higher Education Opportunity Act, institutions 

of higher education will now be asked to focus more intently and responsibly 

on how their networks are being used. For the first time, institutions of 

higher education must develop plans to "effectively combat the unauthorized 

distribution of copyrighted material included through the use of a variety of 

technology-based deterrents." There are examples of this being done 

successfully on campuses around the United States currently. Effective and 

proven technology-based deterrents are currently available to universities 

through a number of private vendors. These technologies can be deployed 

95
according to the individual needs and sensitivities of the campus community. 

Here are just two examples: 

The University of Utah, which utilizes Audible Magic's CopySense 

Network Appliance has saved over $1 million in Internet bandwidth charges, 

and an estimated $70,000 per year in personnel costs. That would have 

otherwise been required to investigate and respond to copyright 

infringements. The University of Florida has also saved over $1 million by 

implementing Red Lamda's Integrity program, and has seen dramatic 

improvements on their system because they have essentially eliminated illegal 

file sharing on their network. Those two examples are from the congressional 

testimony of those two institutions. The fact is, an effective technologybased plan to combat unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material can 

ease the burden on university technology infrastructures. It saves money for 

universities and for taxpayers who help subsidize considerable university 

research, reducing digital piracy on campus networks, save staff time and 

resources of personnel designated to deal with responding to complaints of 

illegal activity. Preventing piracy maintains the integrity and security of 

campus networks. Finally and perhaps most importantly, a proactive 

technology-based plan to fight piracy on campus networks sends a clear 

message to students that illegal peer-to-peer file sharing is wrong. It's 

illegal, and illegal activity must not be tolerated. 

Technology-based responses ensure that university computer networks, 

the bulk of which are funded by taxpayer dollars, are available to help 

fulfill their core educational purpose, and not to help facilitate elicit 

activity. The MPAA stands ready to work closely with leaders in the higher 

education community to implement the digital piracy prevention components of 

the Higher Education Opportunity Act. As part of our proactive effort to work 

together, this month, in October, we will provide colleges and universities a 

campus briefing book that will include information on the new law, and how to 

meet the new requirements. The materials will also include information on 

peer-to-peer file sharing, examples of technologies that can be used to 

detect infringing activity, and a list of Web sites that provide legal 

content such as movies and television shows. And on October 21st, in 

partnership with the University of California system, the California State 

University system, and the University of Southern California, MPAA will host 

a conference with leaders of higher education, the entertainment industry, 

and technology companies to discuss entertainment issues and challenges 

currently faced by campus communities. 

96
Thank you again for the opportunity to participate in this process. The 

MPAA looks forward to working with the Department of Education, the Congress, 

and postsecondary institutions on this vital economic issue. We are confident 

that this can be accomplished in a way that meets the needs of the higher 

education community and their sensitivities, while also protecting our hardearned intellectual property and the workers in this industry. As Chancellor 

William Kerwin of the University System of Maryland acknowledged before the 

House Committee on Education in the Workforce in 2006, and I quote: "There 

are many compelling reasons why higher education must address this issue. 

First and foremost, if members of our community, the education community, are 

using our resources to do something illegal, we have an obligation, a 

fundamental obligation, to respond and address that matter." 

"Also, intellectual property is one of the coins of the realm of higher 

education. We want to raise a new generation of people who have a great 

respect for and value the sanctity of intellectual property. So, it is an 

obligation on our part to ensure that our students are educated properly in 

this way." 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to be with you today. Thank 

you. 

MR. BERGERON: Thank you. George Nunez. How are you, George? 

MR. NUNEZ: First of all, thank you for the opportunity to address this 

Panel and provide input into the process. I am George Nunez. I am the 

Supervisor for Operations and Partnerships with the Office of Public Safety 

and Emergency Management at the George Washington University here in D.C., 

just down the street. And I'm also a member of the International Association 

of Emergency Managers, specifically with the Universities and Colleges 

Committee. But today, I come before you and offer comments as a private 

citizen, which is very different from everyone else who has come before you, 

and also a practitioner of emergency management in higher education. 

I come before you with comments on Section 488 of Title IV, Part G, 

specifically to request that the Department establish a separate committee to 

address this Section due to the specific and complex matters in this Section. 

As you may know, this Section covers a wide area of--a wide breadth of 

topics, especially when it comes to campus safety and security, and certainly 

the area also covers a wide breadth of incidents that could occur on any of 

our college campuses, including natural disasters, public health incidents, 

as we had here in D.C. recently, and also law enforcement incidents. However, 

we need to be able to take special consideration into the uniqueness of each 

97
of our campuses, whether it's our location, our size, or whatever else may be 

unique to our campuses. I, along with my other emergency manager 

practitioners and our safety personnel, encourage the appropriate personnel 

be brought to the table, certainly, the Association of Emergency Mangers is a 

perfect resource to offer its expertise. This is a similar practice, and 

service that is offered to other legislative bodies, executive agencies both 

at the national, state, local and also international level. So, again, I just 

encourage the establishment of this committee to look at these specific 

comments and certainly thank you for this opportunity. Written comments will 

be provided, and I know some of my colleagues that are out in the country 

have also provided testimony and written comment as well. 

MR. BERGERON: Just to clarify, when you speak for the aid, you're 

speaking of E, criminal offence reported and--as well as the disclosure for 

fire safety? 

MR. NUNEZ: Right. And that's also--there are several sections, 

including for campus safety reporting, fire safety. I believe the bulk of it 

is in Section 488. 

MR. BERGERON: Right. Thank you. Just wanted to make sure. 

MR. NUNEZ: Thank you. 

MR. BERGERON: Thank you. Is Mollie Benz here? Hi, Mollie. 

MS. BENZ: Hi. 

[Off microphone.] 

MR. BERGERON: Well, we're not sure you're last, yet. We won't know 

you're last for sure until about 4:00. 

MS. BENZ: Okay. Well, good afternoon. am Mollie Benz, the Assistant 

Vice President for Federal Relations at the Association of American 

Universities, representing 60 of the leading public and private research 

universities in the United States. I very much appreciate the opportunity to 

provide comments on the proposed negotiated rulemaking process to implement 

the Higher Education Opportunity Act. And these comments are really intended 

to supplement the comments that have been provided by a lot of our member 

institutions at numerous negotiated rulemaking hearings outside of 

Washington, D.C. Written testimony has also been submitted. 

Overall, AAU believes that institutions are taking their new 

obligations under this Act seriously, and are making a good faith effort to 

comply as they would with any federal law. We recognize that the Secretary of 

Education is obligated to conduct the negotiation process in a timely manner, 

and thereby plan to identify the appropriate campus experts who will be able 

98
to provide the advice and recommendations concerning the necessary 

regulations regarding Title IV of the Act. So, we very much look forward to 

working with the Department to clarify existing ambiguities in the Act, and 

to streamline new regulations in a manner that minimizes the cost burden and 

maintains maximum flexibility for institutions of higher education. Now, with 

respect to new federal requirements under Title IV, AAU recognizes and 

appreciates that the federal government must set appropriate conditions and 

requirements to ensure that federal student financial aid funds are used 

effectively to help finance a very high quality higher education system. 

However, we remain concerned that many of the new reporting and 

regulatory requirements are duplicative, and may create costly new 

administrative burdens on colleges and universities. We want to work, again, 

with the Department to try to streamline these provisions, recognizing that 

institutions already comply with a multitude of reporting requirements. In 

light of the long list of new requirements, AAU plans to actively work with 

Congress to secure funding for a particular provision in the Act authorizing 

a study of all federal regulations with which colleges and universities must 

comply. We believe that the results of this study will be very valuable in 

informing policy decisions in the future. 

AAU research institutions are particularly interested in the 

implementation of the following new regulations: copyright infringement, 

peer-to-peer file sharing, which we've heard many testify on today, alumni 

reporting and graduation rate reporting, campus safety reporting, and private 

education loan disclosures. So, as a function of time restraints, I will 

provide very brief comments on the P2P provisions as well as campus safety, 

and perhaps mention the cost provisions, even though it's not included in 

negotiated rulemaking. With respect to P2P file sharing, AAU understands and 

appreciates the need to reduce illegal uploading and downloading of movies 

and music. In fact, the higher education community has long been committed to 

working with others to find workable solutions to the problem. The law now 

requires institutions to certify to the Secretary of Education that they have 

developed plans to effectively combat the unauthorized distribution of 

copyrighted material and offer alternatives to illegal file sharing. 

In fact, many institutions already provide regular notices to students 

explaining that the illegal distribution of copyrighted materials may subject 

them to criminal and civil penalties. As the Department works to interpret 

this requirement, it is very important in our mind to keep in mind that the 

software and technologies for monitoring and discouraging unauthorized 

99
distribution and the new approaches for legitimate distribution of digital 

entertainment are constantly emerging. Technologies that may, for example, be 

effective in one setting may not be effective in another setting. For that 

reason, rules on policing P2P file sharing should maintain maximum 

flexibility. With respect to campus safety reporting, AAU is particularly 

interested in the new reporting requirements related to the disclosure of 

fire safety standards and measures, criminal offenses, emergency 

notifications, missing person procedures, memoranda of understanding with 

local law enforcement agencies, and emergency response and evacuation 

procedures among a few others. With so many requirements, it is critical that 

certain terms are clarified during the negotiated rulemaking process. AAU's 

written testimony outlines a list of such questions that campuses have 

identified with respect to the new reporting requirements. Again, we look 

forward to working with the Department to develop rules to implement these 

requirements that are both practical and provide real protection for 

students, faculty, and staff. 

With respect, very briefly, to the college cost requirements, as noted 

in previous communications to Congress and the Department, AAU supports 

institutional as well as targeted federal efforts to provided improved userfriendly information to students, families, and taxpayers about college 

tuition and financial aid. 

As a practical manner, AAU is very interested in the additional 

guidance from the department that will be necessary to determine the full 

extent of these requirements. In particular, AAU is interested in the cost 

provisions related to the net price calculator, the multiyear tuition 

calculator, and the Federal College Affordability List. It is very worth 

noting that several AAU members have already developed a net price calculator 

as a means to provide the public with information on financial aid packages 

and net costs using institutional state and federal resources. AAU hopes the 

Department will draw on the expertise of these institutions. Overall, we look 

forward to identifying the appropriate campus expertise to help the 

Department sort through the multitude of issues related to the college cost 

provisions. 

In conclusion, thank you again for this opportunity. AAU intends to 

work with its higher education colleagues in the coming months to identify 

and nominate campus experts for the various negotiated rulemaking panels. 

100
Overall, we look forward to working with the Department, Congress, and 

the broad higher education community to help ensure practical and cost 

effective implementation of the new law. 

 Thank you. 

MR. BERGERON: Thank you, Mollie. I don't have any questions. Thank 

you. Right now, we don't have anyone signed up to speak--I don't think so. 

We'll just hang out for a minute while Danny goes to check to see if anyone 

has signed up. 

 [Brief recess.] 

MR. BERGERON: We have no more witnesses who wish to testify, so we're 

going to go ahead and adjourn the hearing. We will next have a hearing in 

Cleveland, Ohio, on the 15th. Thank you. Thanks, everybody who participated 

today. 

[Whereupon, at 4:00 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

101