1 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION 

90/10 PUBLIC HEARING 

SESSION 1, DAY 2, MORNING 

October 27, 2021 

On the 27th day of October, 2021, the 

following meeting was held virtually, from 10:00 a.m. 

to 12:00 p.m. 
 

P R O C E E D I N G S 

MR. MARTIN: Good morning. Thank you for 

your attendance at our virtual public hearing today. My name 

is Greg Martin. I'm the director of the policy development 

group in the Office of Postsecondary Education. I'm pleased 

to welcome you to today's public hearing. This is one of two 

public hearings that we are convening this week. The first 

occurred yesterday. Our purpose is to gather input regarding 

regulations on the 90/10 provisions that were amended by the 

American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 in Section 2013, 

modification of revenue requirements for proprietary 

institutions of higher education. I am joined today on 

camera by Steve Finley from the Office of General Counsel. 

Also joining us today will be Clare McCann from the Office 

of the Undersecretary. With the respect to logistics for 

today's hearing, I will call your name to present when it is 

time for you to speak. We ask speakers to limit their 

remarks to three minutes. If you get near the end of your 

time, I will ask you to wrap up and ask that you do so 

within 15 seconds. If you exceed your time you may be muted. 

Speakers have the option to turn on their cameras presenting 

but that is not required. We do ask speakers to turn off the 

sound for the main meeting site to avoid any interference. 

We hope that you can be in an area free from background 

noise while presenting as much as possible. Perhaps most 

importantly, we asked that speakers remain on mute before 
being called and leave the Microsoft Teams meeting after 

speaking to join or rejoin the public Microsoft Teams 

meeting. If you are a speaker and did not mute yourself when 

not presenting or speak when it is not your turn, we will 

administratively mute you from the Microsoft Teams meeting 

and may remove remove you from the speaker line. Remember, 

you can always join the Microsoft Live Live Team meeting as 

an attendee where you can listen to the hearing. When you're 

called to speak, please provide your name and your 

affiliation. This hearing is being transcribed and the 

transcription will be posted to our website in the next few 

weeks. The Department will also provide a recording of the 

hearings with audio and video. This is a public hearing and 

it is possible that a member of the public may record your 

remarks and post edited clips of them before or after the 

Department posts the full unedited hearing. Closed 

captioning is available in real time during the hearing. 

Live captions in a meeting go to real live captions in a 

meeting, go to your meeting controls and select more 

options, then turn on live captions. If you're submitting 

written comments, we encourage you to do so through the 

regulations.gov website. You may submit comments through 

postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery but 

please do not submit your comment more than once. If you 

wish to hand deliver comments please email Vanessa Gomez at 

Vanessa.Gomez@ed.Gov. She will coordinate with the front 
 

desk in the lobby at the Department of Education's Building 

at 400 Maryland Avenue, Southwest Washington DC so that you 

may leave your comments there. We will not accept comments 

by fax. In addition, please indicate the docket ID which is 

ED-2021-OPE-0077-1311 at the top of your comments. We will 

also use that number to quickly access the place to submit 

your comments using the regulations.gov website. I would 

like to offer one final reminder that today's opportunity 

for public comment is limited to the topic of 90/10. If a 

speaker's remarks do not appear related to 90/10, I will 

remind the speaker to redirect their remarks to to the topic 

at hand, and we do reserve the right to mute individuals who 

continue but are not addressing the the the topic of 90/10. 

I will call names but please restate your name and indicate 

the organi- organization that you represent. So with that, 

let's move to our first speaker for today, who is Daniel 

Elkins. Mr. Elkins, are you available? Okay, Mr. Elkins. 

Okay, I'm going to go to the next speaker and we'll move 

back to Mr. Elkins. Our next speaker is Hugo Lentze. Mr. 

Lentze. 

MR. LENTZE: Good morning. So, Hugo 

Lentze, I work for the Travis Manion Foundation. So good 

morning, and thank you for the chance to be here today. As I 

said, my name is Hugo Lentze, and I have the honor of 

serving as the chief strategic partnerships officer at the 

Travis Manion Foundation. For those who may not be as 
familiar with our work we strive to unite and strengthen 

communities by training, developing and highlighting the 

role models, veterans and families of the fallen within 

those communities. Inspired by and dedicated to Marine Corps 

First Lieutenant Travis Manion, who made the ultimate 

sacrifice for the safety of his military patrol in Iraq’s Al 

Anbar province in 2007. Due to his actions that day, all 

members of his patrol survived. Today we carry on his legacy 

of selfless service and leadership and that of all of those 

who have served or continue to serve our nation. Over the 

years this nation has viewed servicemembers and veterans in 

many ways. We are fortunate to have reached a point where 

they are respected and valued members of our society. When 

it comes to the closing the closing of the 90/10 loophole we 

request for this Department to honor the service and 

sacrifices of veterans by keeping the law strong. It took 

many organizations, a bipartisan Congress and nearly a 

decade of advocacy to finally close this loophole. Last week 

our team hosted General Joe Dunford, the recent Chairman of 

the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he had some instructive advice 

for those who served in Afghanistan. And after the pullout 

from Kabul. He posed the question so many veterans have been 

asking, was my service worth it? And he set up his standard 

to judge that question. Did you serve your best and keep 

your honor clean? If yes, then you did your part to keep 

America safe. To all of us veterans, General Dunford's 
 

 

statement is not mere lofty words. As a retired Blackhawk 

pilot, I can tell you from my own time in the Army, veterans 

are some of the best Americans you will ever come across. 

They raised their hand when their country called. It is up 

to us to keep faith with those remarkable men and women who 

did their part. Veterans deserve the best education they can 

get from their hard earned GI Bill dollars. As a country, we 

should accept nothing less. If a school doesn't garner even 

1 out of 10 students willing to pay out of pocket, schools 

need to know veterans aren't a lifeline to inflate their 

programs. Closing this loophole has been a long time in the 

making and we ask that you remember the last words that 

Travis said before he went overseas, an ethos that he lived 

his life by: If not me, then who? Will this Department live 

up to that high standard that he set for us all? I hope so. 

We are grateful for the opportunity to speak here today. 

Thank you. 

MR. MARTIN: Thank you, Mr. Lentze. Our 

next commenter is Jill Desjean. Ms. Desjean? Ms. Desjean, 

you appear to be on mute. 

MS. DESJEAN: Good morning, and thank you 

for this opportunity to comment. I'm Jill Desjean, 

representing the National Association of Student Financial 

Aid Administrators. We acknowledge that the 90/10 rule 

change in the American Rescue Plan aims to address concerns 

that proprietary schools are financially incentivized to 
enroll veterans and their dependents, which may lead to 

aggressive and sometimes deceptive marketing tactics. We 

think it's worth noting, however, the unintended 

consequences of this change that ED has the opportunity to 

address proactively through Negotiated Rulemaking. The 

inclusion of veterans’ educational benefits in the 90% 

revenue calculation beginning in 2023, will likely cause a 

significant number of institutions to become out of 

compliance. A 2019 Brookings Institution paper estimated 

that the impact of adding veterans educational benefits to 

the 90% revenue calculation would cause for profit 

institutions serving nearly a quarter of all students 

enrolled in that sector to fail that metric. A 2021 veterans 

Education Project paper estimated that 87 institutions would 

fail the 90/10 rule if military benefits were added to the 

90% revenue calculation. Those institutions enrolled roughly 

127,000 students, that level of potential student 

displacement should be alarming. Setting aside whether these 

changes should have been implemented, the most practical 

question becomes, how can the Department proactively prepare 

for the potential impacts to students who are currently 

enrolled or who will enroll in these institutions? First, 

the Department should consider examining the regulations on 

teach out plans to ensure that institutions at risk of 

closure due to the new 90/10 rule have an alternative for 

their students to continue their education with minimal 
 

disruption. It may be too late to require a teach out plan 

only once these institutions are placed on provisional 

approval status. Second, the Department should reconsider 

whether it provides adequate disclosures to students about 

the potential impacts of 90/10 changes on their schools. 

Currently, when an institution fails the 90% federal revenue 

thresholds for one year, institutions must disclose the 

failure to students as well as whether they've been required 

to develop a teach out plan. The Department also publishes 

90/10 Rule failures on the college navigator website. These 

disclosures should be reexamined to ensure that students 

aren't left in the dark. Third, separate from regulations 

and negotiated rulemaking, we ask the Department to be 

proactive in anticipating potential closures as a result of 

the 90/10 rule changes, especially with respect to offering 

automatic close school loan discharges. As noted in the 

ongoing affordability and student loans regulate 

negotiations, many students are unaware that the option for 

a closed school discharge even exists. Granting those 

discharges automatically, using data the Department already 

holds helps the greatest number of students and removes 

burden from them at a time when they may already be under 

considerable stress. Thank you again and have a great day. 

MR. MARTIN: Thank you, Ms. Desjean. 

We're now going to go back and pick up Daniel Elkins. Mr. 

Elkins. 
 

 

 

MR. ELKINS: Hello, thank you. Sorry for 

the technical difficulty earlier. Can everyone hear me? 

MR. MARTIN: We can hear you just fine 

Daniel. 

MR. ELKINS: Excellent, thank you. Over 

the past decade, policymakers and advocates have helped hold 

colleges accountable for how their students fare in the job 

market. And in some regards, the reformers have been wildly 

successful. There's now more information available about 

student outcomes at colleges and universities than ever 

before, and much of it is collected and published by the 

federal government through the College Scorecard. Despite 

this wealth of new data on student outcomes, some advocates 

and lawmakers still want to measure college quality based on 

obscure counting rules, considering the ongoing efforts to 

expand the so-called 90/10 rule that applies to for-profit 

colleges. Some 30 years ago before data on student outcomes 

was widely available, lawmakers developed this rule to cut 

off ffederal grants and loans to any for-profit colleges 

that earn more than 90% of its revenue from such programs. 

The assumption was that these were low quality institutions, 

one would think the 90/10 rule has been rendered unnecessary 

now that policy makers can access student outcomes directly 

through the new data systems like College Scorecard, but 

surprisingly, that's not the case. An analysis published 

earlier this year, the Veterans Education Project offers 
 

evidence that suggests this reasoning is ill-informed at 

best and counterproductive at worst. We also find that up to 

one in five for-profit institutions, regardless of the 

quality of their student outcomes could suddenly fail the 

90/10 rule if proposed changes are adopted. These 

modifications of the 90/10 rule would radically alter the 

educational choices of over a 100,000 military students who 

enroll at these institutions. Specifically, we find that 

recent inclusion of military benefits in the 90/10 rule 

could cause 87 for-profit institutions that currently pass 

the rule to fall out of compliance. And if the restriction 

was limited further from 90 to 85%, we estimate that 333 

institutions currently in compliance could violate the rule. 

Prospectively, that represents 5 and 20% of all for profit 

institutions that participate in the Student Aid Program 

operated by the Department of Education. We find that there 

are hundreds of public institutions that produce student 

outcomes in line with those for-profit colleges failing a 

90/10 rule that includes GI Bill and Department of Defense 

benefits. And such evidence undermines the argument the 

90/10 rule is necessary to root out the lowest quality forprofit institutions. Policymakers should not settle for an 

outdated policy that will produce such severe and unintended 

consequences. They can identify institutions directly, 

public, for-profit, and nonprofit alike that aren't serving 

students well by using the data that is currently available, 
 

 

 

 

and we suggest that be the case. Thank you. 

MR. MARTIN: Thank you, Mr. Elkins. We 

will now move on to our next speaker, who is Mike Wherry. 

Mr. Wherry? 

MR. WHERRY: Hey, good morning. Can you 

hear me, Greg? 

MR. MARTIN: I can, yes. 

MR. WHERRY: I'd like to thank the US 

Department of Education for this opportunity to speak today. 

My name is Mike Wherry, and I'm a CPA at McClintock and 

Associates. We specialize in serving postsecondary 

institutions, mainly proprietary institutions since the 

1970s. Our firm has audited hundreds, if not over 1,000 

90/10 calculations development, a deep understanding of the 

nuances of the calculation, and I've been asked to present 

at numerous conferences on this topic. As a CPA focused on 

financial reporting and regulatory compliance, we have 

struggled to understand the relationship between educational 

quality and an institution's 90/10 rate. The 90/10 

calculation is a math equation with three main variables; 

student financial need, available outside funding, and 

institutional costs normally in the form of tuition and 

fees. We have seen no proof that a high 90/10 rate results 

in a poor education and a low 90/10 rate results in a high 

quality education. Our experience indicates three common 

factors for institutions with highest with the highest 90/10 
rates. They're educating students with the most financial 

need, they do not have access to outside funding, and they 

are focused on providing education at a reasonable cost. 

This is exactly what institutions should be doing, 

especially in light of the student debt crisis, which has 

been so publicized. The most significant driver to the 90/10 

rate is whether the institutions students are eligible for 

outside resources for which the institution has limited 

control over. The 90/10 calculation penalizes the 

institution for having tuition and fee lower than the 

maximum eligible Title IV aid. This is a poor outcome for 

any federal regulation. Two identical institutions with the 

same student base operating in different states could have 

significantly varying 90/10 rates. To my point, this has no 

bearing on the quality of the education or job placement 

outcomes received by the student. We should be focused on 

outcome measures and not input measures. Previously, the 

gainful employment metric was designed to lower the amount 

of student debt. Therefore the 90/10 calculation and the GE 

metric will work in opposite directions. How is an 

institution supposed to comply with both regulations? This 

was illogical. As CPAs, our firm understands the role we 

play in the regulatory process and the importance of 

accountability metrics. However, these metrics should have a 

correlation to the to the desired outcomes. Peter Drucker 

famously said, "What gets measured gets managed." Is the 
 

 

Department of Education's intention for institutions to 

manage the 90/10 rate or to focus on quality education, 

placement outcomes, debt levels, and licensure pass rates 

when applicable? In conclusion, I pose this question to 

Department of Education officials and the broader community. 

If an institution has a 90/10 rate of 100%, maintains low 

tuition which reduces student loans, graduate students and 

places them in jobs that enable them to pay off their 

student loan debt, should this institution lose access to 

Title IV funding? I encourage Department of Ed. officials 

and the broader community to keep these points in mind as 

changes are proposed. Thank you for your time. 

MR. MARTIN: Thank you, Mr. Wherry. Our 

next commenter will be Ashlynne Haycock. Ms. Haycock. 

MS. HAYCOCK: Good morning. My name is 

Ashlynne Haycock and I serve as the Deputy Director of 

Policy at the Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors. I 

come to you today to stand up for the over 100,000 families 

of fallen heroes that TAPS represents, many of who have or 

will use education benefits from the Department of Veterans 

Affairs. We stand here today to call on the Department of 

Education to ensure strong implementation of the new law to 

close the 90/10 loophole. As you know, the 90/10 loophole 

resulted in targeting of our community by aggressive and 

deceptive marketing. Countless veterans, families, 

caregivers, and survivors were seen as nothing more than a 
dollar sign in uniform, and have had their lives 

financially ruined because of this loophole. We thank 

bipartisan members of Congress for listening to us and 

finally closing the 90/10 loophole. At TAPS, we are 

especially concerned with the discussion that funds paid 

directly to the student will not be included in the final 

calculation of 90/10. While most people generally just think 

of the BAH portion of the post 9/11 GI Bill when discussing 

it, they forget that chapter 35 benefits are paid the same 

way. This proposal would take the target off the back of 

veterans and place it on a much more vulnerable, vulnerable 

population, that is caregivers and survivors. Between the 

significantly lower payment rate of chapter 35 benefits and 

the responsibilities a veteran caregiver has, they generally 

have significantly less options when it comes to 

institutions of higher learning than most, as most choose an 

online program with flexibility around the needs of their 

family. The same goes for surviving spouses who tend to also 

choose online programs with flexibility, as many of them are 

single parents and online programs tend to be a better fit 

with limited childcare needs. This makes some prime targets 

for predatory for-profit programs that market on 

flexibility. Closing the loophole was supposed to help 

protect them, not including funds paid directly to students 

will instead put an even bigger target on their backs. We 

strongly encourage the Department of Education to include 
 

 

both the chapter 35 and Montgomery GI Bill benefits paid 

directly to the students in the final calculations for 

90/10. At TAPS, we have not come to these positions lightly 

and we stand unwavering in our commitment as it has a 

significant impact on those we serve. Thank you for the time 

to present our views. And please let us know in the future 

if you have any clarifying questions. Thank you. 

MR. MARTIN: Thank you, Ms. Haycock. Our 

next speaker will be Cory Titus. Mr. Titus. 

MR. TITUS: Good morning, to everyone on 

the call. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. My name 

is Cory Titus, and I'm the Military Officer Association of 

America's Director of Veterans Benefits. I'm speaking on 

behalf of our 350,000 members to urge your department to 

strongly implement the new laws passed to Congress to close 

the 90/10 loophole. Education and the opportunity to better 

one's life have been a cornerstone of services since the GI 

Bill was first implemented during World War II. While this 

benefit has changed the lives of millions of servicemembers 

and veterans, myself included, it has also made our 

community the target of deceptive schools seeking profits 

first and foremost. Our service members, veterans, families 

and survivors using the GI Bill deserve better. Congress 

certainly understood this when it closed the 90/10 loophole 

on a bipartisan basis. The legislative delay in 

implementation allows schools more than enough time to 
 

 

account for the upcoming changes, and it would be a 

disservice to the intent of the law and our GI Bill students 

if the Department of Education were to weaken Congress's 

intent with the final rules. GI Bill students deserve a 

quality education and a choice of schools, not a focused 

effort by the institution to pocket their education 

benefits. It is perfectly reasonable to expect a college to 

receive 10% of its funding from nongovernment sources. MOAA 

has worked hard on this issue for years and supports the 

closure of the 90/10 loophole after seeing the harm it has 

done by schools to target our community. Thank you for the 

opportunity to contact and please, to comment and please 

contact us if you have any questions. 

MR. MARTIN: Thank you, Mr. Titus. Our 

next speaker will be Kaitlynne Hetrick, Ms. Hetrick. 

MS. HETRICK: Good morning. On behalf of 

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America's more than 425,000 

members, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to share 

our thoughts on today's topic, the 90/10 loophole. 2008 was 

a landmark year for Post-9/11 for the Post-9/11 generation. 

After years of tireless advocacy by IAVA and others, the 

Post-9/11 GI Bill was passed into law. With it, millions of 

veterans and their dependents had the doors to higher 

education open for them. After deploying for years to Iraq 

and Afghanistan and other conflict areas, Congress and the 

American people agreed that these warriors had earned the 
right to a degree. This benefit has been enormously 

transformational is one and is one of the most popular 

veteran benefits available. The Post-9/11 GI Bill has now 

sent more than 1 million veterans and dependents to school 

and remains one of the military's best retention and 

recruiting tools. In IAVA's 2020 member survey, 93% of our 

members reported having used or they were currently planning 

to transfer their Post-9/11 GI Bill benefit, 79% agree that 

the Post-9/11 GI Bill is essential to military recruitment, 

and 87% believe that it is extremely or very important to 

transition to civilian life. However, the GI Bill continues 

to be exploited by underperforming actors who take advantage 

of veterans' benefits and often leave veterans stuck with 

unnecessary debt and a subpar education. IAVA and many 

veteran advocates celebrated in March 2021, as the COVID-19 

response legislation, the American Rescue Plan, was signed 

into law. This emergency package included a provision that 

would establish accountability for predatory schools that 

profit off of Post-9/11 GI Bill beneficiaries by finally 

closing the 90/10 loophole. IAVA and our VSO allies have 

fought tirelessly to close this loophole in law for many 

years after the enactment of the new education benefit 

attracted unscrupulous actors who had designs on military 

connected students’ funding. And while we can call this 

provision a win, there's still a war to be won when it comes 

to predatory institutions. IAVA believes that veterans 
 

 

 

should have the choice of which educational institution they 

would like to attend. But we also know that due to this 

loophole, these predatory schools know exactly how to market 

their programs to the military community and make it seem 

like they have an exceptional program, only to close and 

leave veterans with nothing to show for for their hours, 

days and even years that they spent on these programs. It is 

simple. The 90/10 rule was put into place to prevent schools 

from being able to take advantage of taxpayer dollars and 

students. It only seems logical that the GI Bill funds be 

allocated within that rule. We cannot allow another 

institution to make false promises only to fail those that 

they would sacrifice that would sacrifice everything for 

this country. IAVA calls on the Department of Education to 

ensure a clean and full closure of the 90/10 loophole and to 

see that it is implemented effectively and efficiently. It 

is unacceptable that servicemembers and veterans are 

targeted specifically for a benefit that they selflessly 

earned. The military community should be afforded the same 

protections as those in the civilian world, and allowing 

these predatory institutions to continue their practices is 

inexcusable. On behalf of IAVA, I thank you for your time. 

MR. MARTIN: Thank you, Ms. Hetrick. Our 

next commenter will be Stephanie Hall. Ms. Hall. 

MS. HALL: Good morning. My name is 

Stephanie Hall and I'm a senior fellow at the Century 
Foundation. For-profit colleges have governed are governed 

differently from their public and nonprofit peers. And as 

such, they have different incentives. And because education 

is an intangible product, sector-specific guardrails are 

essential for leveling the playing field and for protecting 

students. Closing the HEA’s 90/10 loophole will transform it 

into the market test it was intended to be. To the extent 

that a regulation can be future proofed the 90/10 rule 

should be written to capture the sometimes expanding sources 

of federal funds directed at students and schools. I also 

urge the Department to develop limitations on what can be 

included in the 10% side of schools revenue ratios in a way 

that keeps with the actual intention of the 90/10's rule, he 

90/10 rule's check on market value. According to a 2019 

Century Foundation analysis, at least 30 states send a 

substantial amount of public funds to proprietary 

institutions. The Department should consider a mechanism by 

which students in those states do not become undue targets 

of schools, looking to remain compliant while delivering a 

product that has no value. Likewise, improving the 90/10 

guardrail is just one important piece of the student 

protection puzzle, as other metrics around inputs and 

outcomes are equally essential to ensure colleges do not 

engage in predatory pricing to become compliant with the 

90/10 rule. I would like to echo concerns shared by the 

Children's Advocacy Institute yesterday. Youth with 
 

 

experience in the foster care system are a group that, like 

veterans, receive voucher-like funds for postsecondary 

education, and if they're not considered in this process, 

the target will move from the backs of veterans to former 

foster children. Therefore, the Department should regulate 

with the most vulnerable in mind. The for-profit college 

industry pushes the message that it is innovative, and it 

will indeed innovate to find other targets once veterans can 

no longer help them fill the 20, the 10% side of the revenue 

ratio. A closed 90/10 loophole is not meant to drive 

proprietary schools out of business, but it is meant to 

adjust incentives to get them closer to those already baked 

into public and nonprofit organizational structures. School 

owners, executives and shareholders that want to continue 

providing an educational product must provide programs of 

value. To do so, some may have to adjust their priorities 

when it comes to expenditures and operations, and that's 

exactly the point. Thank you for providing me time to make a 

comment today. 

MR. MARTIN: Thank you Ms. Hall. Our next 

speaker will be Philip Johndrow. Mr. Johndrow. 

MR. JOHNDROW: Good morning. My name is 

Command Sergeant Major Philip Johndrow. I am a retired 

Command Sergeant Major, who served in the United States Army 

for over 33 years as a squadron, brigade, and division and 

corps level Commands Sgt. Major. Thank you for the 
opportunity to testify today in support of protecting our 

veterans' ability to choose their education programs, as 

these institutions provide a great value of service to men 

and women who serve. While serving, I pursued my education 

through online courses at Trident University. It was one of 

the best decisions that I ever made because it helped my 

growth and strengthen my abilities as a leader responsible 

for others. I initially made a decision to take classes 

while deployed when a colleague made the suggestion. I saw 

it as a way to help me meet some therapeutic needs and to 

help ensure my life was moving forward and not stagnant 

while on tour as I consider myself individual transition to 

civilian life. Throughout my deployments, all three of my 

commanders were supportive and agreed the online courses 

would help clear my mind and make me better on the job. I 

initially enrolled in one course because I thought it would 

be too hard to focus on while in the middle of hard fighting 

during the Iraqi surge. My experience to my surprise was 

just the opposite. The opportunity to focus on my coursework 

for a window each night was a welcomed distraction to the 

challenges surrounding the 110,000 soldiers we were leading. 

My mind felt clearer. It kept me grounded, and I was 

developing useful and critical thinking skills. Whether 

education is a welcomed distraction as it was for me or to 

help others pursue their interests, online programs work for 

nontraditional learners. The flexibility and tailored needs 
 

 

motivated me to complete not only my bachelor's degree, but 

two years later to complete my master's degree. I could not 

have done this without an online program. The school came 

with me no matter where I was. That flexibility helped me 

both as a soldier and in my transition back to civilian 

life. The coursework was challenging and demanded that I 

look deep within myself to develop the critical writing and 

thinking skills that are practical and essential in today's 

world. I implore you to make sure that the veterans' ability 

to choose their programs are protected. Online programs help 

nontraditional students like myself. Most importantly, they 

work for all of us as civilians who are looking for 

enrichment and require the flexibility to fit into. Please 

don't let the 90/10 rule interfere with their benefits. We 

cannot limit education choices to a group that desperately 

needs it. Thank you and have a great day. 

MR. MARTIN: Thank you Mr. Johndrow. And 

our next speaker is Lanette Johndrow. Ms. Johndrow. Ms. 

Johndrow? Okay, I'm going to move on to the next speaker 

then and we'll come back and pick up Ms. Johndrow if she's 

available later on. Our next speaker is Nick Wood, Nick 

Wooldrid, Nick Wooldridge. Mr. Wooldridge. 

MR. WOOLDRIDGE: Good morning officials 

and staff of the Department of Education. My name is Nick 

Wooldridge, and I'm the Policy and Outreach Fellow at Blue 

Star Families. I'm speaking on behalf of the families of our 
all-volunteer force from Blue Star Families seeks to 

strengthen as they serve by creating vibrant networks of 

support across the country. We call on the Department of 

Education to ensure strong implementation of the new law to 

close the 90/10 loophole and believe the Department should 

not allow the weakening of these provisions during the 

rulemaking process. The 90/10 loophole has resulted in the 

aggressive targeting of military and veteran communities and 

must be reformed. Student loan debt can be a massive burden 

for many military families. Blue Star Families research has 

revealed the effect that this debt has had on members and 

dependents of our armed forces. When the financial stability 

of their family is in question, service members cannot focus 

on the mission, impacting not only their family's lives, but 

the readiness of our military. In our 2020 military family 

lifestyle survey, student loans were the second greatest 

contributor to active duty family respondents’ financial 

stress, just behind unemployment or underemployment. Over a 

quarter of active duty family respondents reported being 

financially stressed, selected student loans as a 

contributor to their family's current financial stress. This 

ranked higher than excessive credit card debt, out of pocket 

relocation costs, out of pocket housing costs, and out of 

pocket childcare costs. The MSO and VSO community have been 

tireless advocates for the closure of the 90/10 loophole 

because as VSF’s research and countless other studies have 
 

 

shown, student loan debt and the targeting of the military 

community has had a significant impact on their quality of 

life and financial readiness. Members of Congress acted in a 

bipartisan way to close this loophole. After years of 

advocacy and debate, it is incumbent upon the department to 

see this final workthrough. Thank you for the opportunity 

today to present Blue Star Families' views. Please reach out 

to us with any clarifying questions you might have. Thank 

you. 

MR. MARTIN: Thank you, Mr. Wooldridge. 

We are now going to go back to Lanette Johndrow. Ms. 

Johndrow. 

MS. JOHNDROW: I apologize for that 

earlier. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify 

today. My name is Lanette Johndrow, and I speak before you 

as a working mother, a grandmother and a military spouse 

with a marine son who is currently deployed. I'm a proud 

Trident University graduate with a bachelor's, a master's, 

and working on my doctorate degree. Having the ability and 

the motivation to complete these programs opened up the 

opportunity for a whole new phase in life for me that I 

would not have had with a traditional schooling. I first 

earned my bachelors of science with a concentration in 

contract management to support my career as a contract 

manager. As a working mother and a sole breadwinner at the 

time, the ability to pursue my degree in the evenings and 
online while working and earning a paycheck to support my 

family was a pivotal point in my life. It gave me the 

freedom to pursue both objectives simultaneously, while 

continuing to support my family. With my degree, I was able 

to take advantage of a new career opportunity, handling 

government contracts for the State. Having different 

learning options available with the flexibility to tailor it 

to my needs allowed me to continue my education and further 

my career. After I finished my bachelor's degree, I got 

married. And then a couple years after that my son deployed 

again, and my daughter went off to college. So my husband 

encouraged me to pursue my master's degree, and I got that 

in leadership. Armed with my leadership degree, I was 

afforded the opportunity to develop a team from scratch and 

lead a strategic initiative department within the State. 

From there I moved up to more executive positions within the 

State on a broader contract strategies, developing 

organizational goals, and then completing my doctorate 

degree. The pursuit of knowledge extends outside the 

physical confines of a traditional institution. My online 

coursework is a credit to that value. It helped me with my 

ability to move forward to greater heights, opportunities I 

never could have imagined I would acquire as a single 

mother. I work not I would not have had these opportunities 

in my second phase of my life and the fulfilling, rewarding 

career that I have now if I was confined with traditional 
 

 

education. Online programs work. I am just one of many 

stories like this, and they do make a difference. Thank you 

for your time today. I appreciate it. 

MR. MARTIN: Thank you, Ms. Johndrow. Our 

next speaker is Darrin Bovia. Mr. Bovia. 

MR. BOVIA: Thank you for the opportunity 

to speak this morning and thank you all for your public 

service. The work you do is very important. I'm Darrin 

Bovia, as you noted, I'm the son of a Veteran. I'm a 

Veteran. I'm the father of veterans and my youngest son will 

enlist in the US Navy this Friday, so service to our country 

has been part of my family makeup and will continue to be 

will continue to be so, moving forward. I myself have 33 

years in public service in the active Army, Army Reserve, 

National Guard, as a federal civil servant, and as a local 

government employee. I used my GI Bill funds to earn a 

degree at the University of Phoenix. I started early on when 

I was younger with two years at a traditional institution, 

but life interfered and thankfully, I was able to find a 

flexible option later at Phoenix to finish my bachelor's 

degree. I feel obligated to share my story and speak a 

warning. This so-called 90/10 rule should not be used to 

measure educational quality. I do not like how some people 

twist this policy argument into ways that speak down on what 

I accomplished. We veterans know how to choose a school 

based on what we need. We worked hard to finish our 
 

 

 

 

coursework and earn our degrees and the quality was obvious. 

The university was accredited. Accredited schools should be 

held to the same rules. If it's a standard for one school, 

it should be the same standard for every school. If the 

government recognizes one accrediting body, the rules should 

apply to schools with the same accreditation. I'm aware that 

I am a nontraditional student. That's what the system views 

me as, that's how you see me. But know this, I put in the 

work to complete my degree. I was in Hawaii completing my 

coursework between 2014 and 2016. At the time I was doing 

learning team assignments and coursework, I managed the 

intelligence analysis enterprise for US Army Pacific. My 

days were long and demanding having to watch things like 

North Korean missile launches, and Chinese adventurism in 

the South China Sea. Through it all, the support I received 

at University of Phoenix made it possible for me to 

graduate. Please engage more students with their stories 

like mine. There are many of us. We need consistency in the 

rules so that we can all advance in our careers. Thank you 

very much for allowing me to speak today. 

MR. MARTIN: Thank you, Mr. Bovia. Our 

next speaker is Carlette Satterwhite. Ms. Satterwhite. Ms. 

Satterwhite, you are on mute. 

DR. SATTERWHITE: Can you hear me now? 

MR. MARTIN: I can. You may begin. 

DR. SATTERWHITE: Thank you. Good 
morning. My name is Dr. Carlette Satterwhite, and I am a 

veteran from Austin, Texas. I am here today to share my 

issues with the University of Phoenix with the hope that no 

other student veteran will go through what I did. My first 

complaint with the school was that they actually came on to 

the military installation, and lied to me and my fellow 

vets. They promoted their program and told us upon 

completion, they will place us in well-paying jobs. That 

didn't happen. My second complaint with with Phoenix was 

that they were more interested in what military benefits 

apply to me than anything else. They constantly kept tabs on 

them. They will call my military caseworker and ask for 

extensions to complete a program that I thought was already 

fully funded, but then would set up strategic leave of 

absences for me so that they could squeeze out the maximum 

amount of my benefits for me. I didn't know this was going 

on until much later. The third complaint is my doctorate 

program. They kept adding courses that wasn't pertaining to 

my degree plan. They changed my program twice without my 

knowledge. I literally took the same final class from my 

doctorate at least 10 times from 2016 to 2019, just so they 

could continue to collect my benefits. I am thankful that 

Congress has closed the 90/10 loophole that allows schools 

like Phoenix to target veterans for our benefits for years. 

I hope by sharing my story you will consider making sure 

these schools are regulated and monitored to keep targets 
 

 

 

 

off vets going forward. I would like to thank you for your 

time. 

MR. MARTIN: Thank you, Dr. Satterwhite. 

Our next our next commenter is and I will apologize in 

advance if I do not pronounce the name correctly. Chaunte' 

Hall. So, if you're ready. 

DR. HALL: Yes, I am. Thank you very 

much. It is Chaunte'. 

MR. MARTIN: I'm very sorry, I will do 

it. I'll do better at the end of that when you finish. Thank 

you very much. 

DR. HALL: No worries, no worries. Good 

morning and thank you so much for having me. I am Dr. 

Chaunte' Hall. I am an Air Force veteran. I am also CEO of a 

nonprofit Centurion Military Alliance, where we aim to 

train, prepare and educate our transitioning service 

members, veterans, spouses, caregivers. Now today, as an 

advocate for all education, I am a nontraditional learner. 

And I do believe in the freedom of choice, as we have the 

freedom as Air Force veterans, as veterans as those in the 

military community that have raised their right hand to 

serve, defend and protect. I absolutely believe that all 

education is important, is impactful, is empowerful, and it 

is up to the individual on how we choose to use our 

benefits. Now, the unintended consequences and the detriment 

to the 90/10 is that 1000s of service members can be 
 

 

impacted with their choice of their education institution. 

Again, all education matters. And as a nontraditional 

learner from an Air Force veteran of multiple deployments, 

as a single mother, had I had not been afforded the 

opportunity to choose my educational pathway, I wouldn't be 

standing before you today with a doctorate and multiple 

certifications and continuing to advocate on behalf of our 

military service members. And so today, I would challenge 

there are two key takeaways that are supported by the 

Congressional Research Summary Report dated 26 April 2021. 

The application of faulty logic is applied in the 90/10 rule 

to reduce fraud, waste, and abuse of proprietary educational 

institutions only, as if nonprofit institutions are immune 

to such failings. It is arbitrary and inequitable, and that 

it targets proprietary institutions knowing fully well, that 

given that a fair portion of nonprofit institutions have 

similar outcomes in terms of whether its rate of pursuit, or 

persistence, as well as graduation rates. I would argue to 

look at graduation rates, I would argue to look at the level 

of gainful employment at the aftermath, again, as all 

education matters, and given the preponderance of evidence, 

which suggests that a considerable amount of bias against 

proprietaryMR. MARTIN: Dr. Hall, you appear to be 

on mute. 

DR. HALL: Excuse me? 
 

 

 

 

MR. MARTIN: I can hear you now. We 

couldn't hear you for a while. You might want to repeat your 

last sentence please. 

DR. HALL: Given the preponderance of 

evidence which suggests a considerable bias against the 

proprietary institutions, the only logical conclusion would 

be to apply the ruling, the 90/10, to all postsecondary 

institutions or remove it entirely. Again, we raised our 

right hand to serve, defend and protect and I believe that 

we should be afforded the opportunity to choose or else we 

need to go to all military recruiters and let them know that 

as we choose and decide to join our military, that we also 

will have all of these rules and regulations over which 

school we are allowed to use our earned benefit. Again, I'm 

a nontraditional student. I thank you for your time, and I 

hope to see some change in the future. 

MR. MARTIN: Thank you Dr. Hall. Our next 

commenter will be Nathalia Rodrigues. Ms. Rodrigues. Ms. 

Rodriguez, are you ready? I'm told I skipped somebody, that 

is my fault. And I will go back and I'll pick up Mr. 

Rodrigues later because I appear to have skipped Mr. 

Freehan, so hold on just one- Okay, thank you. Our next 

presenter is not on my list, but I see he's he's on the 

screen. So, Matthew Freehan. So, I'm sorry, Mr. Freehan, 

please go ahead. 

MR. FREEHAN: No, sorries at all, not 
needed. Good morning, honorable members of this committee. 

My name is Matthew Freehan, and it's my distinct honor to 

testify today and the recent changes to the 90/10 rule and 

its implementation. I'm a disabled student veteran, a 

graduate of Western New England University School of Law and 

a current communications graduate student at the University 

of Rio Grande University of Texas Rio Grande Valley. I'm 

happily married. I am a father of four and reside in the 

great state of Texas. Partisan lobbying organizations in DC 

have recently lauded the successful closing of the 90/10 

rule. For years, many experts in this area have targeted the 

for-profit sector with aggressive biased research that 

paints a grim picture of massive for-profit institutions 

gobbling up student veterans for their valuable federal 

benefits. While some of the negative attention for the forprofit education is received, it is certainly more than 

justified. It has all but completely shrouded the aggressive 

recruiting practices of educational institutions not for 

profit. Further, the closing on the 90/10 rule loophole will 

do nothing to remove the metaphorical target sign on my 

fellow brothers and sisters' uniform who are eligible for 

these enticing federal benefits. To pretend that the 

nonprofit and public educational sectors are not negatively 

affected by a national drop in postsecondary educational 

enrollment and are incentivized to recruit student veterans 

is not only patently inaccurate, it is reckless. If you look 
at any nonprofit educational institution in the United 

States, you will see a military and student veterans page 

and it will be found under its admissions tab. Becker 

College, for example, located in Worcester, Massachusetts, 

recently closed this year. It's listed as a nonprofit 

organization by the Internal Revenue Service. At the time of 

its closing, Becker College received $421,282 in GI Bill 

benefits, and $61,000 roughly in Yellow Ribbon benefits from 

the Department of Veterans Affairs in fiscal year 2020, from 

23 veterans and 13 veterans respectively. At the time of 

Becker College's closing, a total of 43 GI Bill students had 

been enrolled according to the GI Bill Comparison Tool. Even 

today, this as of this morning, I checked, you can access 

the GI Bill Comparison Tool and look at Becker College, and 

it will say it's still open, there's nothing in there about 

it being closed. So with that, I'll switch to just an 

informal conversation about choice. Choice is important. We 

choose to have our coffee in the morning, we choose which 

where we want to go to get our coffee in the morning, I'll 

add to the previous speaker, Dr. Hall, who mentioned the 

need to possibly add an asterisk to the recruiting slogans 

at local recruiting centers. You can join the military, you 

can use your benefits, but we're going to tell you where you 

can go to school and where you can't go to school, and that 

I can't live with. Thank you very much for your time today. 

I really appreciate having the opportunity to testify today. 
 

 

 

 

And I wish you all the best in the implementation of the new 

rule. Thank you. 

MR. MARTIN: Thank you, Mr. Freehan. And 

I do apologize for the for the mixup there at the beginning. 

Our next speaker will be Matt Daly. Mr. Daly. 

MR. DALY: Hello, can you hear me? 

MR. MARTIN: I can. 

MR. DALY: Awesome. Well, thank you, 

again, for the opportunity. I just want to give you a little 

bit of insight into how this regulation would negatively 

impact our school. We run about a 500-student trade school 

in West Baltimore, serving predominantly male students, 

predominantly fully Pell eligible students, and a high 

percentage of veterans. And I think to echo the theme of 

choice, those veterans choose our programs because they are 

hands-on, because they are in trades that lead to jobs that 

they've been around, that they're familiar with, that they 

are interested in pursuing. So we are not and I don't know 

of any any good schools in Maryland and Pennsylvania that 

are targeting or aggressively recruiting one type of student 

over another. There is a disproportionate bias right now to 

the impact that this will have on students that are poor. 

And schools that are serving demographics of students that 

are high high Pell eligible. I don't want to be in a 

position to have to raise tuition so that all of our 

students that otherwise would get a Pell and would get 
 

 

 

student loans. I don't want to have to treat them in a 

negative way to counteract the impact that this would have 

on our school. And as we've said several times, it does go 

against the diversity, the inclusion, and our school 

represents a population of typically underserved students, 

that if we start to have to treat them differently because 

of this change, or this regulation, I certainly don't think 

that that's the intent. I certainly don't think that it's 

fair to those students, and anything that we can do to get 

our voice out, have people see the school and see who we're 

serving, we would love the opportunity to do that. So thank 

you for your time. I appreciate everything and wish you all 

the best. 

MR. MARTIN: Thank you Mr. Daly. Our next 

speaker will be Kevin Hollinger. Mr. Hollinger. 

MR. HOLLINGER: Hello, my name is Kevin 

Hollinger, I'm a legislative director for the Enlisted 

Association of the National Guard of the United States of 

America or EANGUS. We are current we currently have for 

40,000 members and we represent the 420,000 serving members 

of the National Guard and the one the over 1 million 

retirees and their family members. We work daily to improve, 

protect the benefits of the men and women serving in the 

National Guard and their families. When it comes to 

education programs, EANGUS believes that those those who 

wore and those who wear the uniform have the ability given 
all the current information to make a sound choice with 

their money. We consider educational benefits earned with 

service to be theirs to use within the laws and policies. 

EANGUS believes that the educational assistance from the 

military should be flexible and meet the needs of the 

service members with their various goals. Not every GI Bill 

beneficiary wants or needs a four-year degree. Many have 

shown us that they want technical certificates, for example, 

often available to them from not for for-profit, proprietary 

schools, of which there are many fine examples. As we 

explore other benefits, we want to start a business or buy a 

buy a franchise, both of which can be in the spirit of the 

GI Bill's inception help them and the nation. It is now 

commonly recognized that the porthole to success is no 

longer necessary, necessarily a university admissions office 

door. For some colleges, universities and vocational 

schools, government dollars can make a huge, even even a day 

breaking difference for their financial varieties. There is 

evidence that the situation has promoted some educational 

institutes, both public and proprietary for non for forprofit schools to aggressively pursue students who have 

federal aid necessarily to protect those benefits. So far 

those those protections suggested seem to leave only against 

proprietors sector. The recommended protective fix was to 

add VA and DOD educational funding assistance to the 90 side 

of the 90/10 ratio, because they are not part of Title IV. 
This means for example, a school's hurdle to achieve 10% 

minimum tuition revenue target would not easily be inflow or 

would not ease the inflow of GI Bill money into the 10% 

bucket. EANGUS considers this biased against one educational 

sector. It therefore reduces veterans' choice, a requirement 

assessment associated with if and how much federal funding 

can a school can receive should be applied to all 

educational institutions and link to achievement certificate 

standards. For example, metrics could be in place that use 

the performance of students equipped to succeed, i.e. 

graduation certificate or certain GPAs, getting decent jobs, 

and accountability. Simply put, if an institution can show 

the by objective merit or metric, applied equally to both 

both proprietary and conventional institutions, it can get 

all its funding from a federal source. What matters isn't 

the student putting it in putting in 10 cents to every 

dollar. Rather, what matters is the quality of the 

experience and its likelihood to succeed. If a school does 

not perform then maybe corrective measures are in order. 

Ratios or some other measurement, if some ratio is 

necessary, which EANGUS does not believe is it, should be 

applied to everyone. The military operates on standard 

supplied to all that. If Congress determines that the 

safeguard quality education for the GI Bill benefits, it 

must refine standards beyond those applied by stateapproving agencies. Those standards should be applied to the 
 

 

 

 

 

entire educational sector, not just the proprietary 

educational sector. The reason for EANGUS's position also 

goes into the concern that many proprietary schools offer 

vocational training and certificates. Because military 

members lead withMR. MARTIN: 15 seconds, Mr. Hollinger. 

MR. HOLLINGER: In closing we just like 

to say that we do not support the 90/10 ratio and that we 

believe that the vocational vocational aspect of exiting 

military individuals is very important. Thank you very much. 

MR. MARTIN: Thank you, Mr. Hollinger. 

Our next speaker is Congressman Fred Keller. Congressman 

Keller. Congressman Keller. Okay, while we wait to hear oh, 

okay. Alright, we so, obviously the Congressman schedule is 

tight and probably he has scheduled, you know, every minute 

of his day is likely scheduled. So we're running a little 

bit ahead of schedule here. So while we wait for the 

Congressman, I would I would just remind you again, that 

there's still a an opportunity to, to submit comments and 

I'm going to provide that docket number again, our ED docket 

number is ED-2021-OPE-0077-1311 at the top of your comments. 

So you can you can still submit comments if you wish to do 

so. Alright. Alright, I'm going to go back then to pick up 

Nicholas Kent. One second. 

MS. MCCANN: I think we have that 

Congressman now. 
 

 

MR. MARTIN: Oh, we do. We have 

Congressman Keller. Okay. Alright, great. Alright. So let's 

go with Congressman Keller. Congressman Keller, go ahead. 

CONGRESSMAN KELLER: Thank you. I 

appreciate the Department of Education hosting this crucial 

discussion to thoroughly review proposed changes to what is 

commonly known as the 90/10 formula. As you may or may not 

be aware, Congress recently reached a bipartisan agreement 

on an amendment to the longstanding statutory requirement 

that proprietary institutions received no less than 10% of 

their revenue from nonfederal sources. And myself and many 

other members of Congress oppose these changes. However, 

because they were recently signed into law, it is 

inappropriate to make further changes to this provision 

before the Department concludes its rulemaking process. The 

provision in fiscal year 2022 of the appropriations bill 

would also be effective upon enactment, meaning it would 

apply to the current institutional fiscal year, changing the 

90/10 formula so close to the enactment of the bipartisan 

agreement will have perverse, secondary retroactive effects 

that will punish institutions that reasonably relied upon 

the current statute. This is one of many reasons the 

appropriations process is not the appropriate forum for 

making authorization changes to the Higher Education Act. 

More importantly, the metrics is completely arbitrary, and 

placed unfairly on one sector of higher education that is 
flexible and capable of meeting the needs of employers and 

their and students. The metric has nothing to do with the 

quality of an institution and it simply leads to higher 

costs for schools that serve low income students solely 

because of their tax debts. If enacted, this would force 

institutions to turn away these students and reverse the 

decades of progress made in reaching populations of 

Americans, for whom higher education has been traditionally 

inaccessible, such as first generation, low income, and 

other disadvantaged populations. Further, this provision 

would be catastrophic to student veterans. The Veterans 

Education Project estimated that some of the proposed policy 

changes to 90/10 would negatively impact 333 institutions 

who collectively enroll 116,000 veteran and military 

students. An accountability system should be applied equally 

to all institutions and serve the best interests of 

students. Further, Secretary Cardona agreed with this notion 

when he testified before the Education and Labor Committee 

on June 24, 2021. And later said he later said, we really 

want to make sure that we keep the student at the center of 

the conversation and protect them wherever they go. On that 

we can agree. Let's put the focus squarely on the students. 

Any institution that provides valuable educational 

opportunities for students should be given tools to succeed 

and not burdened simply because of how they file their 

taxes. So when we look at that, I'm still looking forward to 
 

 

 

 

the Secretary's plan on how we hold the institutions 

accountable across the board in that same metric. Since 

these testified I have, we have not gotten nothing back from 

the Department. I'm going to continue to work to see that 

plan. It's been four months. And it's time that we put a 

plan together that puts the students first and holds all of 

the institutions accountable to the same metrics. With that, 

I appreciate your time and yield back. 

MR. MARTIN: Thank you, Congressman 

Keller. I think at this point, if Mr. Kent is ready, we'll 

go back to pick up Nicholas Kent. 

MR. KENT: Yes, I'm ready. 

MR. MARTIN: Okay, go ahead Mr. Kent. 

MR. KENT: It's always hard to follow a 

member of Congress, but I'm excited to do so. Good morning. 

My name is Nicholas Kent, Senior Vice President of Policy 

and Regulatory Affairs at Career Education Colleges and 

Universities. CECU is the national trade association 

representing proprietary higher education institutions. On 

behalf of CECU and its members, I want to thank the 

Department for holding these informative public hearings. 

CECU supports legislation and regulations that improve 

student outcomes and protect taxpayers. However, the 90/10 

rule does neither, as you've heard today. The 90/10 rule 

does not measure whether an institution retains, graduates, 

or places its students in jobs. Likewise, the 90/10 rule 
does not consider the amount of debt a student incurs or 

whether their postgraduate earnings are sufficient to repay 

their loans. What the 90/10 rule does measure, however, is 

the student's ability to pay for their education and not 

their willingness to pay. Proponents of the 90/10 rule claim 

the policy is intended to ensure students find enough value 

in their education to pay for something out of their own 

pockets. The reality is, however, that many families often 

do not have the financial resources to contribute to their 

education without these federal supports. The tight 90/10 

rule deters high quality institutions from enrolling low 

income students such as Pell Grant recipients and students 

of color. This frustrates public policy that is supposed to 

extend access to higher education to families that cannot 

afford this necessity. The 90/10 rule is an antiquated and 

poorly constructed input test that is divorced from 

educational quality and student outcomes. As part of the 

upcoming rulemaking, we urge the department to narrowly 

interpret section 2013 of the American Rescue Plan Act by 

only including federal education assistance programs on the 

90 side that are consistent with congressional intent. 

Although CECU disagrees with this policy approach and the 

ARP is clear that Congress intended for GI Bill, the Bill 

and DOD tuition assistance funds to count on the 90 side. 

Any aggressive interpretation that captures funds beyond GI 

Bill and TA benefits would not be consistent with 
 

congressional intent. Second, we recommend the Department 

convene a separate Negotiated Rulemaking committee to 

address the 90/10 rule. The 90/10 rule is exclusively 

applied to proprietary institutions and is deserving of 

significant attention given the grave consequences 

associated with filling the role. Alternatively, if the 

department decided not to form a separate 90/10 committee, 

we recommend the formation of a 90/10 subcommittee. Third, 

we recommend the Department appoint several negotiators from 

proprietary institutions to the committee, such as those who 

represent large and small schools, campuses located in urban 

and rural areas, including those near military bases, and 

institutions that serve a high portion of low income 

students. Finally, we ask the Department to publish a list 

of the funding streams it proposes would be included within 

the meaning of the phrase ”federal education assistance 

funds” before the first rule making session so that 

stakeholders have adequate time to consider these proposals. 

We stand ready as always to provide the Department with 

further input and recommendations as it proceeds with this 

important work. Thank you. 

MR. MARTIN: Thank you, Mr. Kent. And 

that concludes our comments for today. I want to thank 

everybody who participated for their poignant comments and 

for sticking to the topic and the timeframes. I also want to 

thank Mr. Finley and Ms. McClair for joining- Ms. McClair-
Ms. McCann for joining me today. And I also want to thank 

all the people behind the scenes that made this virtual 

event possible. You don't see them but without their 

assistance, trust me it would it would not go off smoothly 

at all. So again, I thank all of you for joining us and that 

concludes our proceedings for today.