Public Hearings - 04/12/23 

1

 

 

 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

 OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION

 PUBLIC HEARINGS 

 SESSIONS 1 & 2, DAY 2 

MORNING AND AFTERNOON

April 12, 2023

On the 12th day of April, 2023, the

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

to 4:00 p.m. 
2

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

P R O C E E D I N G S

MR. WASHINGTON: Good morning and 

welcome to the US Department of Education's virtual 

public hearing to discuss its proposed rulemaking 

agenda. My name is Aaron Washington and I'm a management 

and program analyst in the Office of Postsecondary 

Education. I'm joined by my colleague Jessica Bowen Gall 

in the Office of the Under Secretary. And I'm also 

joined by my colleague Denise Morelli in the Office of 

the General Counsel. We are pleased you have joined us 

and look forward to what am certain will be a productive 

and informative couple of hours. So, we're going to dive 

right into the speakers today. And our first speaker is 

Yolanda Watson Spiva.

DR. WATSON SPIVA: Hello. Thank you. 

Can you hear me?

MR. WASHINGTON: Yes, we can hear you.

DR. WATSON SPIVA: Okay, perfect. 

Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen of the US Department of 

Education, thank you for your time today and for your 

dedication to improving our nation's education system. 

My name is Dr. Yolanda Watson Spiva, President at 

Complete College America, an organization committed to 

promoting equitable college attainment for all students 

regardless of race, ethnicity, age, household income, 
3

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

background, rurality, or other demographic factors. 

Financial aid policies play a crucial role in college 

completion but are often overlooked when designing 

programs. Small, intricate policies can greatly impact a 

student's ability to complete their degree. I would like 

to focus on one such policy, Return to Title IV funds, 

otherwise known as R2T4, and discuss how its reform can 

help protect students while easing administrative 

burdens and promoting college completion. First, let's 

address the requirement for students to complete at 

least 60% of a course to retain their financial aid. 

This negatively impacts degree completion, especially 

for low income students. We therefore propose a 

reevaluation of the 60% threshold to determine if a 

later introduction could improve student retention 

rates. Furthermore, since the satisfactory academic 

progress or SAP policy already exists to incentivize 

completion, it actually is worth examining the necessity 

of the R2T4 policy. Certainly, at the current 60% level, 

which may impose undue burden on students and 

administrators. Second, R2T4 must be simplified and made 

more accessible to students. Currently, the complexity 

of the policy leads to frequent financial aid audit 

flags. The Department has indeed made strides in 

humanizing the FAFSA completion process and clarifying 
4

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

financial aid eligibility. We must therefore extend 

these efforts to R2T4 as well to verification and to SAP 

demystifying how financial aid can be revoked and 

ensuring a more equitable system for all students. 

Third, we encourage flexible repayment options for 

students required to return Title IV funds, and this 

would be in line with recent student loan reforms 

advanced by the administration. This could include nearterm forgiveness of R2T4 related debt, especially if a 

student meets satisfactory academic progress 

requirements. By doing so, we can help reduce the 

financial burden on students, especially those from 

historically and academically marginally disadvantaged 

backgrounds and we can promote college completion. The 

Department of Education has a unique opportunity in our 

belief to transform the R2T4 policy, to better serve 

students and promote equity. By reevaluating the 60% 

threshold, simplifying the policy, and introducing 

flexible repayment options, we can strike a balance 

between accountability and equity while improving 

student retention and college completion rates. Thank 

you for your attention and your consideration.

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you so much for 

your public comment. I'd like to call next, Kelly 

McManus. McManus? Sorry, Kelly McManus.
5

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

MS. MCMANUS: My name is Kelly McManus 

and I'm the Vice President of higher education at Arnold 

Ventures. Arnold Ventures is a philanthropy dedicated to 

tackling some of the most pressing problems in the 

United States, including ending predatory behavior in 

higher education. I want to speak today to the shared 

system of accountability that Congress created decades 

ago for the American Higher Education System. At its 

best, the program Integrity triad deals out oversight 

responsibilities to the entity best suited for the work. 

The state's responsibilities related to consumer 

protection, to accreditors, matters of academic quality 

and integrity, and to the Department of Education 

oversight of the tens of billions of dollars flowing to 

colleges and their students every year. But in reality, 

the triad often falls short. As a result, our nation is 

facing a crisis of accountability, one for which 

students and taxpayers pay the price. Fewer than two 

thirds of bachelor's degree seeking students graduate 

within one and a half times as long as it should take. 

Only one third of students at two-year schools do. More 

than 7 million borrowers are in default on their loans, 

and students in hundreds of postsecondary programs 

graduate no better off than they would have been with 

just a high school diploma. These results are 
6

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

unacceptable. Our higher education system must do better 

by students. That is the opportunity the Department has 

with this upcoming rulemaking. First, we urge the 

Department to significantly strengthen the accreditation 

process. Famously, accreditors provide second, third and 

fourth chances even to the lowest performing schools. 

One even defended schools where 90% of students don't 

graduate, saying that a school can be, quote, good for 

those 10% who graduate. The Department must raise the 

bar for accreditors that serve as the gatekeepers to 

billions in Federal Student Aid. Second, we urge the 

Department to address serious flaws in the state 

authorization of distance education programs. 

Institutions have created a system that lets them bypass 

certain state authorization requirements to operate at 

scale across state lines. But in doing so, states have 

effectively been blocked from enforcing their state 

higher education laws devoted to consumer protection for 

institutions that are operating within their boundaries 

and enrolling their residents, but which are 

headquartered in another state. Undermining states 

authority in this way hamstrings their ability to uphold 

their responsibilities. The Department must find a path 

forward that protects students. And finally, the 

Department has already addressed many of its own 
7

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

obligations as part of the Triad. Through the last two 

negotiated rulemakings. And we look forward to seeing 

the remainder of those rules published very soon. But 

more work remains. For instance, the Department has 

proposed to look at third-party servicer requirements to 

ensure companies to which institutions outsource their 

core Title IV functions are held to the same 

requirements Congress expects of the institutions 

themselves. Additionally, the pandemic laid bare just 

how little the Department knows about distance education 

offerings and student outcomes. It's time to fix this 

blind spot in the Department's systems to enable 

stronger transparency and oversight. Thank you for your 

time today.

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. Our next 

speaker is David Baime.

MR. BAIME: Good morning. My name is 

David Baime and I'm Senior Vice President for Government 

relations for the American Association of Community 

Colleges. I'm pleased to represent the views of our 

member institutions and students and want to commend the 

Department for moving forward in some important 

regulatory areas. My comments this morning are going to 

touch on five topics, and so I'll just hit some of the 

most important features of each of them in my time. 
8

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

First of all, accreditation. Campus officials suggest to 

us that accreditation is working generally quite well,

and they don't see any need for particular changes or 

reforms in the process. They are sensitive to the 

burdens that are placed through regulation on 

accreditors because those costs are ultimately moved on 

to institutions and then students. So, we urge the 

Department to be cognizant of that. Secondly, in the 

area of accreditation, we have institutions that for 

external reasons are being required to change 

institutional accreditors, and we encourage the 

Department to make that movement from one accreditor to 

another as easy as possible. And.

MR. WASHINGTON: It appears as though 

you put yourself on mute.

MR. BAIME: No, I don't- I think it 

was actually Internet. [Inaudible] state authorization. 

We just want to endorse the support for the NC-SARA 

agreements. They're important to our colleges, even 

though the bulk of our institutions, in fact, are 

deliver online education within the state borders of the 

state that they're located in. In distance education, 

the whole issue of clock hours versus programs that are 

primarily online. Few of our programs are covered under 

the clock hour regulations. For the institutions that do 
9

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

offer them, they've informed us that the criteria that 

are used to evaluate those programs and the requirements 

that attach are antiquated. And although they're 

statutory provision in this area, the Department should 

take a close look at whether or not the existing 

legislative and regulatory framework isn't behind the 

times. Return of Title IV funds. You heard a description 

just a moment ago about the issues and complications and 

costs that are associated with that and the implications 

for student access. I would like to endorse the comments 

that the Complete College America made on this area. 

Although the regulations in this area have been settled 

for some time and the statute even longer. Colleges 

continue to say that the implementation of these 

regulations is costly, labor intensive, involves working 

with a myriad of campus officials to determine the last 

date of attendance and then calculate the amount that 

the student must return to the Government. In many 

cases, the institution returns on behalf of the student 

and becomes a liability for them. And so, we do think 

this is an area that we're quite pleased to see the 

Department taking it on. And we hope that the Department 

and working with negotiators can develop ways to make 

this less costly for institutions and make it easier for 

students to maintain their access to Title IV aid. And 
10

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

also, just.

MR. WASHINGTON: 30 seconds left.

MR. BAIME: Thank you. Finally, thirdparty servicers. We are very pleased that the Department 

altered its plans for guidance through the blog post 

yesterday. In the negotiated rulemaking sessions, we 

urge the Department to take a very close look at the 

issue of instruction and non-institutional educational 

providers, businesses, healthcare providers and others 

that are involved in the educational process but really 

aren't what anybody would consider a third-party

servicer. Thank you very much for your time.

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you for your 

comments. Our next speaker is Austin Reid.

MR. REID: A good morning and thank 

you for the opportunity to make comments. My name is 

Austin Reid and I'm the Senior Legislative Director for 

the National Conference of State Legislatures, of whom 

I'm making comments on their behalf. NCSL is a 

nonpartisan organization that works in a bipartisan 

manner to serve the legislatures in all states and 

territories. We represent state legislatures on matters 

of Federal policy by taking positions only that have 

been approved by three quarters of states at our annual 

business meeting. And this standard ensures that NCSLs 
11

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

voice is strongly bipartisan on issues of Federal 

policy. I'm commenting today on any potential state 

authorization rulemaking, particularly around state 

authorization reciprocity compacts. We believe that 

ensuring that students have a high quality postsecondary 

education is a goal that we share and recognize that.

MR. WASHINGTON: Hello, everyone. We 

are back. We'd like to apologize once again for the 

technical difficulties, but we wanted to allow Austin 

Reid to redo his comments due to the unanticipated 

break. So, Austin, you have four minutes.

MR. REID: Thank you for the 

opportunity to make comments again. That was a nice 

practice run. My name is Austin Reid and I'm making 

comments on behalf of the National Conference of State 

Legislatures. NCSL is a nonpartisan organization that 

works in a bipartisan manner to serve the legislatures 

in all states and territories. NCSL represent state 

legislatures on matters of Federal policy only when 

three quarters of states at our annual business meeting 

have approved our positions. This standard ensures that 

NCSLs voice is strongly bipartisan on issues of Federal 

policy. I'm commenting today on potential state 

authorization rulemaking, particularly around state 

reciprocity authorization reciprocity compacts. Ensuring 
12

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

that students have a high quality postsecondary 

education is a goal that state legislatures share. And 

we recognize that state authorization processes are an 

important part of achieving a quality system of 

postsecondary education. State legislators strongly urge 

the Federal Government to defer to states leadership in 

ensuring the quality of postsecondary education and to 

facilitate state efforts to emphasize accountability. 

While the role and monitoring national and regional 

accrediting bodies, accountability of state higher 

education programs and institutions is and should remain 

a state issue. The Federal Government should also 

continue to support state authorization reciprocity 

agreements, which support expanded access to quality 

postsecondary distance learning opportunities 

nationwide. And we recognize that there may be 

opportunities to improve existing reciprocity agreements 

but believe efforts should take place through the 

leadership of states rather than the Federal regulatory 

process. While states must carry out authorization 

processes for institutions to be eligible for Federal 

aid, the Federal Government has placed minimal 

restrictions on and requirements on how states should 

authorize programs. NCSL believes the spirit of this 

practice should be maintained when states are 
13

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

contemplating or implementing reciprocity agreements. 

Now to facilitate state legislative leadership and 

postsecondary education, NCSL is launching a task force 

on higher education affordability and student outcomes, 

which will bring together a bipartisan group of 28 

legislators from 28 states to examine the performance of 

our higher education system and make recommendations on 

the state Federal relationship in higher education. This 

task force seeks to achieve three goals. Making college 

more affordable, improving student outcomes, and 

reducing the incidence of unrepayable student debt. As 

part of these goals, this task force will examine anew 

the state and Federal roles and accountability, 

including state authorization. And we look forward to 

collaborating with Federal stakeholders, including the 

Department, in this process. And as part of that, we ask 

that the state legislative perspective be recognized and 

taken into account in any further rulemaking on state 

authorization. Thanks again for the opportunity to make 

comments.

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you very much. 

I'd like to call Bob Shireman next.

MR. SHIREMAN: There we go. Good 

morning and thank you for the opportunity to provide 

input into the next Neg Reg session's. First on state 
14

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

authorization. Over the past year or so, the board of 

NC-SARA and the regional state compacts, one of which I 

serve on, have been engaging in a process for revising 

some of the policies on reciprocity for state 

authorization. I'm pleased to see that these changes 

that could be made to the SARA agreement could make it 

much stronger from a consumer protection perspective. I 

raise this to suggest that the Department pay attention 

to improvements that may come out of this process in the 

fall, since it is possible that some proposed changes to 

regulation spurred by complaints about reciprocity may 

no longer be necessary. On accreditation, my suggestions 

are informed in part by my role as a NACIQI member for 

the past two and a half years. First, the Higher 

Education Act requires accrediting agencies to include 

public members. Some accrediting bodies have implemented 

this requirement with care and attention, bringing to 

their decision making boards, employers, student 

advocates and public officials who are able to serve as 

independent advocates of the public interest and of 

student interests. Other agencies, however, have 

unfortunately taken a minimalist or even cynical 

approach to this requirement appointing people who 

technically don't violate the regulations, but who also 

do not bring the intended integrity to their boards. In 
15

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

one case, the public member was someone who worked at 

another accrediting agency. In another case, the public 

member was a career bartender, being paid tens of 

thousands of dollars by the agency to be a public 

commissioner. The public member definition should be 

fixed. Second, the last administration attempted to 

create a timeline for the accreditor recognition process 

that would allow for adequate opportunity for agencies 

to respond to concerns. That is fine, but the 

regulations are so prescriptive that nearly a year goes 

by when no substantive input can be entered into the 

process. Some adjustments need to be made. Third, the 

last administration also tried to make sure that 

documents submitted by accreditors would be ready for 

public review. However, something seems to be preventing 

the Department from releasing the documents in a way 

that is useful for public participation in the process. 

For example, the public should have access to the agency 

applications when the public is asked for comments on 

the application. If regulatory changes can help clear 

this mysterious logjam, the Department should consider 

those changes. Fourth, some accrediting agencies have 

complaint policies that seem designed to prevent the 

agency from ever having to actually handle a complaint. 

Perhaps the Department can demand improvements based on 
16

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

the current regulatory requirement that the complaint 

processes be timely, fair, and equitable. But if not, 

then the regulations should be strengthened. Fifth, the 

Department is only supposed to recognize an accrediting 

agency that is a reliable authority on the quality of 

the education and training offered by the institutions 

it accredits. But the recognition process includes zero 

evidence.

MR. WASHINGTON: 30 seconds left.

MR. SHIREMAN: Thank you. That anyone 

other than the accredited institutions consider the 

agency to be a reliable authority on quality. The 

schools are not reliable authorities, particularly if 

the agency is their ticket to Federal funding. Agencies 

should be required to submit evidence that employers and 

other independent entities, including institutions 

accredited by other accreditors, rely on the agency's 

determinations. Thank you so much for the opportunity to 

provide input.

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you for your 

comments. I'd like to call Tyler Dean next. Tyler Dean, 

are you able to unmute your computer and turn on your 

camera? You can also turn on your camera if you'd like.

MR. DEAN: Okay. Sorry, I was just 

getting set up. I didn't realize I thought my time slot 
17

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

had passed, so I'm just trying to get set up again. But 

I guess I can't really turn on my camera now either. But 

my name is Tyler Dean. I'm an Air Force Veteran. The 

reason why I'm here today is I enrolled in an applied 

engineering degree at Keiser University, and I want to 

be able to make some change because I feel like they 

were really practicing in some deceptive practices. When 

I applied, their admission counselors knew I wanted to 

become an engineer and told me that they were fully 

accredited, and their program would lead to a job in 

engineering. I specifically asked those questions to 

make sure, but hey, I'm not wasting my time here. And I 

was told all along, yes, we're good. You'll come out of 

here, you'll be able to get an engineering job. Well, I 

realized after I enrolled, it took a little bit. It took 

me about nine months’ worth of classes to figure out 

that, yes, while technically they are accredited as a 

school, they're not abet accredited, meaning that it's 

basically a useless degree and I cannot get a job in 

engineering afterwards. I started becoming suspicious 

about the accreditation, about the coursework, I mean 

the engineering classes in particular were really like 

it looked like they were put together very quickly. 

There was errors everywhere. For example, engineering is 

very math heavy and even on tests and stuff, the math 
18

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

was wrong, like flat out wrong, and we would be graded 

on the answers. Like even though I would provide a 

correct answer because the teacher's answer was 

different, we would still get like bad grades for it. It 

just needs to be looked more heavily and more 

scrutinized into the different programs out there. So 

about nine months in, I complained to the dean about the 

poor quality of the classes and realized that, well, it 

was not an engineering program. And even though they 

told me it was fully accredited; their plan was to get 

people to graduate through their program and then try 

and backdate the ABET accreditation basically 

retroactively applying it. So, their whole thing was 

they- it's essentially a gamble for the students, but 

for them, they're still getting paid full tuition and 

everything for the program and not being upfront about 

it. I did withdraw early 2022. I was going through the 

process of also getting out of the military, so it was a 

pretty stressful time period. I wouldn't wish that on 

anyone. So as of right now, I did find a job, but not 

within the engineering field that I want. I have, I've 

used up nine months of my GI Bill that I cannot get 

back, which is another thing that I think we should be 

addressing here is when there are deceptive practices 

amongst schools being able to get those benefits back. 
19

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

And it's not just the benefits to it's also my time. 

Like I spent nine months and realistically that like, 

for most degrees isn't that much. I could have been one 

of the guys that went through the full program [30 

seconds] Tyler. Okay, cool. And I just believe that they 

should.

MR. WASHINGTON: Well, you have 30 

seconds, so you have more time remaining if you have 

more comments.

MR. DEAN: Shoot.

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. I was just 

letting you know that you had the 30 second warnings. 

Commenters have four minutes. So, did you have anything 

left? I didn't know if had more.

MR. DEAN: No, that was it. Thank you.

MR. WASHINGTON: Alright. Thank you so 

much for your comments. I just wanted to remind everyone 

also that we had technical difficulties. Those that 

signed up to speak will have the chance to speak. Your 

time slot that was originally allocated may be slightly 

different, but that's due to the technical difficulty. 

So, I'd like to call Nicholas Whatley next to speak.

MR. WHATLEY: Yes, hello. Good 

morning, everyone. My name is Nicholas Whatley. I'm a 

Veteran of the United States Navy. I enrolled in a 
20

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

program called Hallmark University for Airframe and 

Powerplant Technology Associate's program and an A&P 

certification at around 2016, late 2016, 2017. I was 

there for about 18 months. The course work was less than 

desirable. The actual degree certification itessentially none of the credits transferred to any 

college that is reputable. And when I left the school, I 

was never told that there was anything owed. I was even 

given a transcript initially but last year whenever I 

decided to go back to school, I was approved through the 

VA for the Veteran's Readiness and Employment Program 

due to my service connect disability and the program 

would pay for me to go back to school. I was accepted 

into my local community college but could not start 

classes because Hallmark University refused to release 

my transcript and they said that I owed them $4,000, 

which is, you know, not expected at this time and was 

new from what they told me in the past. My disabilities 

left me without work for over two years and want to go 

back to school. So that could possibly find work that I 

could do with my disability. I could not pay Hallmark to 

$4,000 easily when I had only a $1,700 fixed income and 

could not get the training, I needed to be able to go 

get a job because Hallmark would not release my 

transcript. They were holding it hostage. When 
21

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

considering the new rules, I hope that you would think 

about ways to make sure student Veterans are able to get 

the education and training they need and deserve and are 

able to get their transcripts. Thank you for your time.

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you for your 

comments. I'd like to call Lacy Barnes next.

MS. BARNES: Good morning, Department 

of Education. Thank you for your time. I'm Lacy Barnes, 

a 30-year plus faculty member in psychology at Madera 

College out in California and co-chair of the Higher 

Education Program and Policy counsel at AFT, the largest 

higher education faculty union in the country. Our 

research suggests that past rule making panels have been 

filled mainly with high level administrators who are 

typically far removed from the classroom experience, 

which we all know has changed rapidly since the 

beginning of the pandemic. These individuals absolutely 

have knowledge and skill to add to the rule making 

process. Their abilities matter very little to the 

process if they are incentivized to act in biased ways 

when faced to uphold the reputation of their 

institutions. Such compromising positions might prevent 

the strongest of administrators from being fully open 

and objective, especially around credit and selfreporting, third-party servicer accountability, how 
22

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

distance education and what distance education truly 

means. Tenured faculty functioning through a system of 

shared governance typically have security and 

independence to be honest about such topics. In AFT's 

view, the Department should consider recent, if not 

current, teaching experience when selecting 

representatives for institutional panel seats. AFT 

further believes there must be at least one faculty on 

the negotiating rulemaking panel. Where regulations are 

being formed on topics like the recognition of 

accrediting agencies, third-party servicers and related 

issues and definition of distance Education, AFT 

strongly believes that ongoing faculty input is needed 

and should be highly recommended. Currently, the 

accrediting system extends the assumption of veracity to 

most, if not all, self-study [inaudible] from 

institution. There is no independent judge out there 

determining whether those self-statements made in selfreports are actually true. Our ask of the Department is 

that when you consider new regulations to recognize 

accrediting agencies that you intentionally include a 

faculty perspective. AFT asks that you do everything in 

your power to ensure that accrediting institutions hold 

failing educational institutions accountable when they 

fail to protect faculty voice as expressed through the 
23

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

principles of tenure, academic freedom, and shared 

governance. As it exists today, the self-study process 

and the accrediting entities themselves are dominated by 

executives and administrators who, as mentioned before, 

may be compromised by conflicts of interest by the very 

nature of their positions. As such, faculty perspective 

becomes even more so important to the [inaudible] as a 

lifeline to legitimacy. Faculty are one of the few 

stakeholders with the independence to tell the truth, 

students are another. As a union, AFT is concerned when 

institutions outsource its work to third parties,

especially when their standards of accountability are 

lower. We fully support the Department's efforts to call 

[30 seconds] such contracts and written arrangements 

when they do not ultimately serve [inaudible] interests 

and in some cases harm institutions. OPMs intentionally 

blur that line. Federal Student Aid is meant to fund 

students education and to properly overseeing the 

quality of education. We strongly urge the Department to 

solicit more direct insight from students themselves on 

OPMs. And we hear it clearly.

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you so much for 

your comments. That concludes four minutes. Thank you so 

much.

MS. BARNES: Thank you very much.
24

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. I'd like 

to call Katie Steen-James next.

MS. STEEN-JAMES: Hi. Thank you for 

the opportunity to provide comments. My name is Katie 

Steen-James and I'm the manager of Public Policy and 

advocacy for SPARC. SPARC is a nonprofit, including 200 

academic libraries across the US. We advocate for the 

use of openly licensed course materials to improve 

equity in higher education. My comments today will focus 

on the Department's cash management regulation and its 

intersection with the costs of textbooks, which is a 

significant but often overlooked barrier to academic 

success for many students. SPARC recommends the 

Department revisit a specific change it made in 2016 

under the Cash Management Regulation 34 CFR 

668.164(c)(2), which allowed institutions to 

automatically use student's Title IV funds to pay for 

books and supplies by counting it as part of tuition and 

fees. Before 2016, institutions had to get permission 

from the student or parent to charge textbooks to their 

tuition bill. Recognizing that students could save money 

by shopping around between on campus and off campus 

sources. The regulatory change cleared the way for 

institutions to begin automatically charging students 

for course materials through preferred publisher and 
25

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

bookstore vendors, which has widely proliferated under 

the term inclusive access. So-called inclusive access 

programs have proved beneficial for vendors because they 

effectively guarantee student sales. While the 

regulation includes requirements for institutions to 

have an opt out policy and to ensure materials are 

offered at below competitive market rates, these 

requirements have not proved meaningful in practice. Opt 

out avenues can be hard to find or impractical for 

students if the course materials are embedded in an 

online homework platform or impossible to purchase off 

campus. Also, there is no consistent definition of a 

competitive market rate, nor is there a requirement to 

be transparent about the methodology used. This has 

allowed the largest textbook publishers to set the price 

of their own materials in the market to define it for 

themselves. This makes it incredibly hard for students 

to determine if these models are actually better deals 

than a rented, used or openly licensed textbook. And 

even when students find a better deal, it may not be 

possible for them to meaningfully take advantage of it. 

While it was not the Department's intent, the effect of 

this regulatory change has been to give textbook vendors 

significant power to push compulsory sales models on 

students while at the same time restricting students 
26

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

ability to compare and utilize the various textbook 

options in the marketplace. This model is expanding 

rapidly and, in some cases, even moving to campus wide 

programs where course materials are charged as a flat 

fee per semester, which completely obscures the value of 

what students are being billed for. There are also 

opportunities for conflicts of interest to arise, since 

vendor contracts may include revenue sharing agreements 

or quotas. The impact of this regulatory change on 

students, even if unintended, must be addressed by the 

Department. We ask the Department to revisit the cash 

management regulation, specifically the section on 

crediting a student's ledger account as part of the 

negotiated rulemaking process on proposed Title IV funds 

[30 seconds]. SPARC will submit more detailed written 

comments on this topic. Thank you.

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you for your 

comments. I'd like to call Carolyn Inmon next.

MS. INMON: Morning. Oh, wait. Okay. 

The South Orange County Community College District 

serves more than 50,000 students per year through our 

two colleges, Saddleback College, and the Irvine Valley 

College. The district serves nearly 1 million residents 

across 382 square miles and employs more than 2500 

faculty and staff. I want to touch today on Federal TRIO 
27

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

program eligibility during my time. South Orange County 

Community College District appreciates the availability 

of competitive trio grant funds to help institutions 

establish and maintain a variety of programs that help 

diverse types of students enroll in and succeed in 

college. However, the threshold established for lowincome levels are far too low in our region in 

California. To receive support through TRIO, a student 

in a one person household has to make $29,580 or less. 

This is considered low-income individual under current 

TRIO guidelines. It is estimated that approximately 25% 

of our student population qualifies under this metric. 

In contrast, the California Department of Housing 

considers any Orange County one person making $75,900 or 

less to be low income individual. This is a truer number 

as it adjusts for the cost of housing and basic needs in 

the region. It is estimated that approximately 53% of 

our student population qualifies under this regionally 

adjusted metric. This mismatch means that fewer students 

in high-cost regions like ours can benefit from TRIO 

programs. Because of this, it is more challenging for 

institutions like ours to compete for funds and makes it 

harder to recruit and enroll qualifying students for 

services should we receive a grant. I think it is 

appropriate to allow applicants to propose regional 
28

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

adjustments to the low-income threshold they use to 

better reflect what low income truly means in a region. 

This is in place at the state level for Hawaii and 

Alaska, and applicants that present strong evidence of a 

need for regional variation should also be allowed to 

propose an alternative. I encourage the Department to 

use what flexibility it has to make this program more 

accessible and equitable. Thank you very much for your 

time and the opportunity to provide testimony.

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you for your 

comments. I'd like to call Sarah Pingel next.

MS. PINGEL: Hello and thank you for 

the opportunity to provide public comments today. I'm 

trying to start my video. I apologize. I'm having a 

little bit of trouble with that. So, I might just go 

without it. Anyway, my name is Sarah Pingel. I am 

pleased to be able to share some thoughts related to 

Return to Title IV funds or R2T4. I share these first 

comments from the perspective of someone who was a Pell 

Grant recipient, a financial aid administrator for 

nearly ten years and is the incoming Vice president of 

the National Center for Higher Education Management 

Systems, or NCHEMS. R2T4 policy intends to protect 

taxpayers by allowing the Department to recoup funds 

from students who did not ultimately complete their 
29

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

courses. The policy is also intended to ensure that 

students are using their lifetime Pell eligibility in 

aggregate loan limits in step with progress towards 

their desired credential. And in practice, I have 

serious doubts that either of these goals are actually 

being achieved. Experience leads me to believe that 

taxpayers aren't recouping unearned aid from students. 

They're recouping it from institutions. Although we have 

no data from institutions or from the Department to 

quantify the scope of this problem. Taxpayers should 

care about this distinction because institutions often 

respond by using holds to systematically exclude 

students from continuing postsecondary education until

their debts are paid. We heard from some students 

earlier today that are impacted by this. This hampers 

our collective ability to equitably meet educational 

attainment imperatives for our modern workforce. Second, 

R2T4 is a relatively blunt instrument to ensure that 

student aid is dosed out at the same pace as credential 

completion. Regardless of the point in the term where a 

student withdraws, they're still going to earn no 

academic credit for that term. What's more, if a student 

withdraws from, for example, a semester-based program 

past the second or third week of class, they're 

generally on the hook for the full amount of tuition for 
30

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

the entire semester. Unless institutions adjust their 

charges, having only the aid adjusted put students in a 

situation where they are required to immediately pay for 

services that they did not and will not receive. If R2T4 

is not meeting at least two of its objectives, what 

should the Department do? We can look to state aid 

programs for other strategies that could better support 

students that are in emergency situations that require 

them to withdraw. Just as the Federal Student Aid 

programs did not always include the R2T4 process, many 

state aid programs have declined to add a process 

similar to R2T4 to their policies. This does not mean 

that students are allowed to enroll, draw down aid and 

withdraw repeatedly. Instead, they rely on satisfactory 

academic progress or SAP to tamp down on potential 

abuses of the programs without placing the roadblocks to 

re enrollment that billing back aid causes. However, I 

recognize that this type of wholesale reform to R2T4 

would require both regulatory reform and legislative 

action. And we're talking about regs today. So given 

this, I suggest that the negotiators first explore ways 

to possibly narrow the window between when institutions 

can charge full tuition and when a student is considered 

to have earned 100% of their aid. This would hopefully 

result in fewer students being billed back for services 
31

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

that they will not receive. Two, explore ways to 

possibly revise the requirement for dispersed Federal 

student loans to be immediately returned to the 

Department. Students have already signed a promissory 

note to repay their loans, and requiring immediate 

repayment puts students in an unnecessary financial 

crunch. Three, consider allowing institutions to use 

professional judgment to allow new financial aid to pay 

[30 seconds] its first past due balances resulting from 

R2T4. For example, if the sum of the student's new aid 

is sufficient to cover previous and new charges, allow 

the aid to disperse. And four, please collect and 

publish data on the scope of R2T4 and implications so 

that future reforms can be driven by evidence rather 

than anecdote. I encourage the Department and the future 

negotiators to take full advantage of this opportunity 

to better serve students. And thank you so much for the 

opportunity to provide comments today.

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. I'd like 

to call Madison Weiss next.

MS. WEISS: Thank you for the 

opportunity to provide input on the proposed negotiated 

rulemaking. My name is Madison Weiss. I'm a Policy 

Analyst at the Center for American Progress. The CAP 

Higher Education Team works to ensure that the American 
32

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

higher education system provides a high quality, 

affordable college education that prepares all students 

for participation in inclusive economy and American 

public life. Today, I'm going to provide input on 

accreditation in third-party servicers. The Department 

of Education has an opportunity to revitalize 

accreditation so that it might serve its original 

purpose in signaling quality in higher education. We 

propose the Department address the following 

shortcomings in the accreditation system. First, the 

Department should limit instances in which institutions 

can change accrediting agencies or be multiple agency 

accredited. Second, the Department should address the 

back door to Title IV funds that has been wide open 

since the 2019 rule making ease the process for colleges 

seeking approval of substantive changes. Colleges often 

go a full decade between accreditation reviews, and 

because of this, it is important to have a solid 

structure in place for review of any significant changes 

to mission programs or modes of delivery in the interim. 

Third, under rules established in 2019, an institution 

can remain out of compliance with its accreditor 

standards for an extended period of time before the 

accreditor is required to take action. Specifically, 

institutions can be out of compliance with accreditor 
33

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

standards for three years before the agency must 

intervene with a sanction and it can remain accredited 

for a further period after said sanction. The number of 

students subjected to harm in the interim could be 

enormous. Institutions should not be out of compliance 

without a sanction and sanction institutions should not 

maintain accreditation for longer than two years. 

Fourth, the Department has been reluctant to take action 

when accreditors fail in their duty. However, the 

Department has a legal authority to limit, suspend or 

terminate the recognition of an agency. In the upcoming 

negotiations the Department should include the types of 

limitations available to SDL. Finally, to restore the 

original purpose of accreditation, where possible, the 

oversight of financial viability should be removed from 

the purview of accreditors so they can focus on academic 

quality and improvement. Third-party servicers are 

overseen by the Department of Education to ensure they 

operate in a manner that protects students’ interests. 

The Department should update regulations to reflect the 

contemporary nature of the institutional outsourcing. 

According to the GAO, hundreds of institutions outsource 

functions like recruiting, admissions assistance, 

retention, and instruction. However, the Department has 

yet to conduct meaningful oversight of such 
34

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

arrangements. In current TPS regulations, the Department 

provides a non-exhaustive list of activities in which a 

third-party servicer might engage. This list should be 

expanded to include things like interacting with 

prospective students, assisting students with enrollment 

processes, retention activities, and in some cases, 

marketing, and computer services. TPS regulations also 

include a list of functions that are excluded. This list 

should be expanded, to clarify, for example, when the 

warehousing of records or the provision of computer 

services applies. Lastly, the Department should make the 

results of annual audits available to the public. And 

finally, we call on the Department to follow through on 

its commitment to select negotiators who are 

significantly affected by proposed regulations. The 

Department of Education does not have a strong track 

record when it comes to ensuring significant affected 

groups are represented in the rulemaking process. In its 

2019 rulemaking, the majority of those seated at the 

table represented the higher education industry, and the 

Department refused to seat an attorney general, a key 

constituency in student consumer protection and that 

particular negotiation, student advocates were 

outnumbered and felt pressured to concede at a number of 

areas. In 2021, the Department improved representation 
35

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

negotiations by including students, student loan 

borrowers, consumer advocates and civil rights 

organizations. However, these categories were initially 

collapsed into just two. We urge the Department to 

maintain discrete [inaudible] [30 seconds] for each of 

these constituencies. Each should have their own 

negotiator and alternate. Thank you so much.

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you for your 

comments. I'd like to call Jennifer Welding next.

MS. WELDING: Hello. Can I start my 

video?

MR. WASHINGTON: You can if you want. 

Most people have.

MS. WELDING: Thank you. Good morning 

and thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. 

My name is Jennifer Welding and I'm offering comments on 

behalf of Ellucian, where I serve as Deputy General 

Counsel and Chief Compliance officer. Ellucian is the 

leading higher education technology solutions provider. 

We provide institutions with the platform and solutions 

that they need to support the entire student experience. 

We serve over 2900 institutions and 22 million students. 

I refer the Department to Ellucian's written comments 

submitted on March 27th for a more fulsome discussion of 

our concerns and will spend my time this morning 
36

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

highlighting the impact that will be caused by expanding 

the definition of third-party servicer to include 

software companies that provide ERP or SIS solutions to 

institutions. First, though, we appreciate the 

Department's desire to better understand the 

relationship between institutions and the outside 

entities they partner with to ensure proper oversight. 

And we also appreciate the Department's decision to 

delay the final guidance effective date and to 

reevaluate the scope of this guidance. As the Department 

considers revisions to the DCL we ask that you consider 

our concern. One shared widely in the higher education 

community that the unclear and vastly expanded 

definition of TPS as currently drafted would have 

unintended consequences to institutions, and the 

expansion would exceed statutory and regulatory 

authority. The Higher Education Act defines TPS as any 

entity that enters into a contract with an institution 

to administer through manual or automated processing any 

aspect of such institution's student assistance programs 

under the HEA. Consistent with the language of HEA, the 

regulations provide examples of the kinds of activities 

that would subject an entity to TPS requirements. All of 

those activities involve the administration, processing 

disbursement or delivery of Title IV funds. Up until the 
37

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

February DCL, the Department's position on whether 

software companies were subject to TPS requirements had 

been consistent with the HEA and the regulations. That 

is, unless the software involves the administration, 

processing disbursement or delivery of Title IV funds, 

it was not considered a TPS. In a departure from this 

long held position, the DCL listed a whole host of 

activities beyond Financial aid administration that for 

the first time would now subject an entity to TPS 

requirements. As it relates to software companies, mere 

access to student data would subject a company to TPS 

requirements, even when that access has nothing to do 

with Title IV administration. Routine I.T. support and 

maintenance activities like, for example, migrating 

student data from one system to another or assisting 

institutional staff and data cleanup would now render a 

software company a TPS and it would be held to the same 

standards as third parties that institutions have 

specifically engaged to perform Title IV administration. 

We don't believe this outcome was the intention of 

Congress when they enacted the HEA, nor is it supported 

by the plain language of the statute. With this expanded 

definition, hundreds, if not thousands of companies 

would now be subject to new, unanticipated, disruptive,

and costly regulatory activity and oversight, including 
38

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

annual audit procedures and a sweeping change to 

contractual terms, in particular the imposition of joint 

and several liability on software providers for Title IV 

violations. Institutions would be burdened with 

additional administrative and compliance obligations,

including the onerous exercise of identifying all the 

third parties they contract with and updating all their 

contracts. Worse, this will undoubtedly create added 

costs for institutions by forcing providers to create 

new processes and operations like training on Title IV, 

compliance, hiring additional staff to support audit 

activities, and adding additional layers of insurance 

coverage which may increase software licensing fees paid 

by institutions. Respectfully, a more targeted [30 

seconds] that is aimed at entities engaged in Title IV 

activities would be better suited to achieving the 

Department's stated goals. In closing, we thank the 

Department for hearing our concerns and those of the 

higher education community and urge you to reevaluate 

the scope of guidance based on an informed understanding 

of the manner in which institutions use software and how 

an expansive definition would impact institutions, cause 

disruptions in their activities and ultimately have a 

negative impact on services to students. Thank you.

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you for your 
39

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

comments. We're going to move to a five-minute break. 

So, we will return at 11:08 with our next speaker. 

Welcome back, everyone. And we're going to resume the 

public hearing today with Justin Hauschild.

MR. HAUSCHILD: Thanks so much. Can 

you folks hear me?

MR. WASHINGTON: Yes.

MR. HAUSCHILD: Good morning. My name 

is Justin Hauschild and I'm policy counsel of Student 

Veterans of America. On behalf of SVA chapters at 

institutions across the country and internationally, SVA 

thanks the Department for the opportunity to provide 

comment on the topics for the upcoming regulatory 

negotiations. The mission of Student Veterans of America 

is to act as a catalyst for student Veterans success by 

providing resources, network support and advocacy 

throughout their higher education journey. SVA broadly 

supports the robust rulemaking agenda proposed by the 

Department. I will comment briefly on three topics that 

are particularly important to student Veterans and 

military affiliated students. Accreditation, Distance 

Education and Third-Party Services. I'll begin by 

addressing accreditation rather. The shared history of 

student Veterans and accreditation dates back to the 

earliest versions of the GI Bill. In fact, the first 
40

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

Federal accrediting standards were specifically designed 

to protect student Veterans, and their GI Bill benefits 

from bad actors in higher education. Today, students 

reasonably expect that if they attend an accredited 

institution, they stand a solid chance of ending up 

better off than if they hadn't attended at all. But 

while that expectation does bear fruit for some data 

show it doesn't for a concerning number of others who 

attend accredited schools. Its clear accreditation can 

work better for students. SVA strongly encourages the 

Department to proceed with negotiations on accreditation 

regulations to address weaknesses in the current system. 

Among others, we ask that the Department at least 

explore three issue areas outcomes, enforcement, and 

transparency. Next, I'll turn to the topic of distance 

education. SVA supports innovative, responsible learning 

options that include high quality online programs. These 

approaches can offer students greater flexibility and 

ultimately increase access to higher education for 

student Veterans and other post-traditional students. 

These students commonly juggle other responsibilities 

like family obligations and full time jobs in addition 

to their studies. Online learning will continue to play 

a larger and larger role in higher education, which is 

precisely why the Department must ensure its regulations
41

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

keep pace. The Department revised distance education 

regulations just a few years ago, but they must be 

revisited, especially as online learning continues to 

evolve and expand rapidly in the wake of the pandemic. 

Again, we encourage the Department to proceed with 

negotiations on distance learning regulations to ensure 

they keep pace and to foster quality student outcomes. 

Finally, I'll turn to the related topic of third-party

services. In recent years, many institutions have 

expanded their online programs and continue to do so, 

spurred in part by the forced shift to online learning 

during the pandemic. In the process, many institutions 

have partnered with online program management or OPMs, 

which allow institutions to utilize established online 

learning technology and services offered by companies 

with years of experience administering such programs. 

OPMs offer certain benefits, but they also pose 

concerns. When students enroll, they reasonably expect 

their institution to administer their program of 

education. OPMs are taking on sometimes outsized role in 

the academic experience of more and more students, with 

some contracts giving OPMs significant control over core 

aspects of programs like recruitment, course development 

and instruction. Students are unlikely to know an OPM is 

managing their program of education or to understand the 
42

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

potential implications and concerning the US Government 

Accountability Office found that even the Department of 

Education doesn't have the information necessary to 

appropriately monitor these relationships for 

violations. For all these reasons, SVA strongly 

encourages the Department to proceed with negotiations 

on third-party servicer regulations, increased 

transparency, and accountability in addition to ensuring 

quality student outcomes. SVA thanks the Department for 

including negotiators and the Veteran and military 

constituency in the last two rounds of negotiations. We 

look forward to ensuring the student Veteran voice 

continues to be a part of the conversation. We encourage 

the Department to review our written comment for 

additional details on the topics covered here today, 

including relevant sources [30 seconds] and we thank you 

again for the opportunity to comment. And we appreciate 

the Department's ongoing commitment to student Veterans 

and higher education.

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you for your 

comments. The next speaker is Tyler Smith.

MR. SMITH: Good morning and thank you 

for the opportunity to provide comments today. My name 

is Tyler Smith and I'm the Senior Director of Government 

relations for the PA Education Association. PAEA 
43

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

represents the 303 accredited physician assistant 

education programs nationwide, which collectively 

graduate over 10,000 new PAs into the health workforce 

each year. We're joining today to express ongoing 

concerns with the Department's recent updated guidance 

on requirements for third-party servicers and 

institutions published on February 28th. While we were 

pleased to see the Department's announcement yesterday 

that it is delaying the effective date of the guidance 

and clarifying its potential impact on clinical 

education partnerships, the broad nature of the guidance 

leaves several areas of concern that could lead to 

increased costs for students and PA programs 

unaddressed. Originally, PAEA's strongest concern with 

the Department's guidance focused on its implications 

for clinical education. As first written, the 

Department's expanded definition of third-party

servicers would have very likely included hospitals, 

private doctor's offices, community health centers, and 

the array of other clinical settings that provide the 

practical experiences necessary for students to complete 

their programs. At a time where 85% of PA programs 

nationwide are reporting that their existing clinical 

sites are taking fewer students than before the COVID 19 

pandemic, new and burdensome audit reporting, and 
44

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

liability requirements on an already limited supply of 

clinical sites could have been a very real threat to the 

future of our healthcare workforce. We applaud the 

Department's clarification that it does not consider 

clinical settings to be third-party servicers for the 

purposes of these requirements. Beyond the impact on 

clinical education, however, PAEA has remaining concerns 

about the Department's expanded definition of thirdparty servicer activities pertaining to recruitment and 

admissions, specifically. PAEA centralized admissions 

service, CASPA, streamlines the PA school application 

process for tens of thousands of applicants each year, 

reduces applicant costs that would otherwise be incurred 

through a noncentralized admissions process and is 

administered in a high-quality manner, as evidenced by 

its adoption by the vast majority of PA programs 

nationwide. Any new compliance requirements imposed by 

third-party servicer regulations that are not justified 

by evidence would only serve to increase the cost of 

applying to PA school, threatening other goals of the 

Department and PAEA such as more diverse student 

cohorts, as well as a more affordable pathway to higher 

education for all of our students. Additionally, while 

the Department's updated announcement clarified that it 

does not consider, quote, core sharing consortia and 
45

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

arrangements between Title IV eligible institutions to 

share employees to teach courses or process financial 

aid, unquote, as third-party servicer activities, it 

does not speak specifically to instructional resources 

provided by external professional associations. As a 

member service, PAEA routinely publishes curricula and 

educational resources that are integrated into PA 

programs nationwide and are rigorously vetted for 

quality assurance prior to publication. Potential TPS 

designation for these purposes, as was the case for 

centralized admissions systems, has no basis in evidence 

and would only serve to increase the cost of publishing 

resources that aim to strengthen student training. For 

these reasons, PAEA urges the Department to ensure that 

centralized admissions services like CASPA as well as 

instructional content provided by professional 

associations, are not subject to new TPS requirements 

and to adopt a more precise regulatory framework 

specifically for online program managers through the 

negotiated rulemaking process. Thank you again for the 

opportunity to share our comments today.

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you for your 

comments. I have Fanta Aw to speak next.

MS. AW: Good morning, everyone. My 

name is Fanta Aw and I'm the Executive Director and CEO 
46

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

of NAFSA, Association of International Educators. Thank 

you for this opportunity to speak today. On behalf of 

our thousands of members and partners in the United 

States and worldwide, let me begin by commending the 

Department of Education for announcing yesterday that it 

will clarify and amend the February 15th guidance 

regarding third-party servicers or TPS. As it was 

originally written, the February 15th guidance posed a 

grave threat to US students’ access to global skills, 

experiences, and perspective. They need to thrive in 

today's economy. It also ran counter to an important 

goal of Title IV programs, which is to provide greater 

education opportunities to a wide swath of American 

students. NAFSA and its coalition partners were among 

the more than 1000 commentaries on the guidance. We 

pressed the Department to rescind or defer it and revise 

it in critical ways. It is gratifying to see a swift 

response to some of our concerns. For example, we're 

heartened to see that the Department will exempt 

contracts involving study abroad programs and 

international student recruitment from TPS requirements. 

It also intends to remove the provision borrowing of 

foreign owned TPS from contracting with a US college or 

university. The changes communicated in yesterday's 

update are incredibly meaningful to higher education and 
47

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

its ability to prepare US students for a globally 

connected world. International partnerships are truly 

the lifeblood of most study abroad programs. They're 

also an essential component of international student 

recruitment efforts in today's increasingly competitive 

markets for the world's best and brightest. We were also 

pleased to see in yesterday's announcement that the 

Department intends to consider narrowing the scope of 

guidance in several areas. We strongly agree and urge 

the Department to limit the TPS definition to only 

contracts involving an institution's administration of 

Title IV program funding. It should not include entities 

related to educational programing, student retention or 

logistical or technical support that does not involve 

the administration of Title IV program funds. We remain 

concerned, however, that keeping a broader scope of 

entities around the TPS umbrella could stifle or disrupt 

the wide range of transnational partnerships that 

currently exist in US academia. These partnerships 

enable students, scholars, and faculty to study, earn a 

degree, intern, and conduct research at institutions 

abroad, either virtually or in person. We advise the 

Department to follow the Administrative Procedure Act 

rulemaking process if it wishes to include any nonfinancial activities in TPS definition. We stand ready 
48

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

and eager with our partners to help the Department 

finalize the guidance in such a way that maintains US 

student's ability to reap the many benefits that accrue 

from a globally enriched education. Thank you for this 

opportunity to express these comments today. We look 

forward to working with the Department to address these 

critical concerns. Thank you.

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you for your 

comments. I'd like to call Dr. Edward Conroy next.

DR. CONROY: Thank you. Good morning. 

My name is Edward Conroy and I'm a Senior Policy Advisor 

with the Higher Education Program at New America, a 

nonpartisan think tank. Thank you so much for the 

opportunity to comment today. My comment covers multiple 

regulatory topics, first of which I'd like to discuss is 

accreditation. The accreditation regulations provide one 

of the clearest ways to ensure quality in higher 

education and accreditors have shown that they are 

unwilling to hold institutions to standards that protect 

students and taxpayers. Strong Federal regulations can 

improve accreditation greatly. Effective accreditation 

requires significant resources, and the Department can 

better guarantee accreditors a meeting their obligations 

by clarifying the agencies must have adequate resources 

to effectively carry out their work. We also recommend 
49

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

the Department require agencies to provide clear 

expectations for their student achievement standards and 

effectively implement them to ensure institutions 

improve student outcomes. Research by New America has 

highlighted chronic problems with accreditor complaint 

processes, which often seem designed to discourage the 

submission of complaints. To address these issues, the 

Department must build out complaint policy requirements 

such as easy and anonymous complaint submission, public 

reporting on complaint volume and effective monitoring 

of institutions that agencies receive a high volume of 

complaints about. Finally, we are concerned about the 

potential for newcomer accreditors seeking Department 

recognition without the necessary expertise to succeed. 

We recommend enhancing the accreditation experience 

regulations by requiring two years of effective 

accreditation decision making. Like accreditation. State

authorization is a vital part of the program Integrity 

Triad and must be strengthened. Online education has 

revolutionized higher education while simultaneously 

creating new challenges and complexities for students, 

institutions, and state Governments. State authorization 

is crucial for protecting students from predatory 

institutions. Unfortunately, few states have created 

protections for online students and NC-SARA prevents 
50

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

states from enforcing consumer protections when harms 

and abuses occur and allows institutions to shop for 

authorization from states with the weakest consumer 

protection laws. Reciprocity agreements must be defined 

in a more consumer friendly manner. Next, I want to 

address pathways to ensuring borrowers can select an 

income driven repayment plan and avoid unnecessary 

deferments and forbearances. The Department must ensure 

that when borrowers are making decisions about 

repayment, accessing IDR is as easy as choosing any 

other option. The Department has taken important steps 

towards remedying past issues with deferments and 

forbearances through its IDR and PSLF waivers, increased 

oversight of services and by designing a new, 

streamlined IDR plan that is more clearly the best 

choice for many borrowers. But to truly eliminate 

barriers to IDR the Department must act outside of the 

negotiated rulemaking process to ensure robust 

implementation of the Future Act. The Department must 

ensure that borrowers and their spouses can provide 

consent for data sharing early and often in repayment, 

including through the master promissory note, IDR 

application, their online accounts, and any time they 

engage with the Department and its contractors. Early 

consent for data sharing will allow the Department to 
51

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

tell borrowers what they will owe on an IDR plan if they 

enroll. A powerful tool that can help borrowers avoid 

periods of paused payment. In its new IDR plan, the 

Department proposes automatically enrolling delinquent 

borrowers into IDR. It should also auto enroll borrowers 

into IDR other times when they are likely to pause 

payments, including when they exit default. Finally, the 

Department must ensure borrowers can easily update their 

income information when their circumstances change. As 

part of this process, the Department should allow 

borrowers to use documentation such as evidence [30 

seconds] means tested public benefits as proof that they 

qualify for a low or $0 IDR payment. Lastly, we are 

encouraged by the Department's efforts to regulate on 

return of Title IV aid. R2T4 often penalizes students 

who have to withdraw due to circumstances beyond their 

control. To improve our R2T4, the Department should 

consider all approaches consistent with the statute that 

would limit the harm it can do to students who withdraw 

due to unforeseen circumstances. Thank you for the 

opportunity to provide comments today.

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you for your 

comments. I'd like to call Crystal Gibson next.

MS. GIBSON: Thank you. Can you hear 

me, okay?
52

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

MR. WASHINGTON: Yes.

MS. GIBSON: Okay. I'll go ahead and 

get started. It doesn't look like video is working, but 

I'll go ahead and get started. My name is Crystal 

Gibson, and I attended DeVry University from the fall of 

2008 until the spring of 2012. I'm here today because 

throughout those four years, I experienced a low-quality

education and an unaccountable administration. And I 

know that these issues still persist today. While 

attending DeVry, some of my semesters were full time 

credit hours. Others were only part time. As I became a 

mom shortly after enrolling and was also working full 

time. My reasoning for choosing DeVry was the 

flexibility of fully online classes from start to 

finish, something that was not readily available at most 

other schools at that time. DeVry assured me that they 

were accredited just like other colleges and 

universities. They even asked if I had attended other 

schools before them as credits could be transferred. 

While I hadn't, I did ask the question if I don't finish 

my degree through DeVry, could credits earned there also 

be transferred to other schools? They confirmed that 

they could. Through my own research, I found on their 

website that they listed themselves as being accredited 

by the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central 
53

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

Association. And it went on to say that this association 

was listed under the Department of Education as a 

recognized accrediting association. Between my 

conversation with the recruiter and the information 

provided on the website, I felt confident I could trust 

the school and began taking classes. Unfortunately, 

DeVry charged upwards of $600 per credit hour and on top 

of technology fees and electronic books, I maxed out the 

loan allowance from the Department of Education with 45 

credits left to get my degree. I eventually still found 

a job in my field of study, but at a wage well below the 

industry average. Five years later, my employer offered 

tuition reimbursement so I could finish my degree, but 

only from a local institution that I could take inperson classes at. I applied at BGSU Firelands in 

October of 2017, and much to my surprise and dismay, I 

was told that almost none of my credits transferred, 

just the electives. I was going to have to start my 

education all over. I was heartbroken and did not enroll 

as a sacrifice of another four years in school again, 

would be unfair to me and my family. Three years later, 

my husband's union announced free tuition for themselves 

and family members to attend Central State University. 

Again, I tried to apply for my third attempt to complete 

my degree and again was told only elective credits would 
54

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

transfer. I did start taking classes this time since it 

was completely free one class at a time. I figured I'd 

finish eventually. Unfortunately, I lost my mom during 

my first year there and had to withdraw to take care of 

my stepdad. So, my story remains unfinished. I applied 

through two different schools, neither of which are 

difficult to get into, and both denied almost all my 

previous education from DeVry. Now I'm left with over 

$55,000 of student loan debt and no degree to show for 

it. And even after having ten plus years' experience in 

my field, I still won't be considered a qualified 

applicant to most jobs without a bachelor's degree 

listed on my resume. Thank you for taking the time to 

hear my story.

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you for your 

comment. I'd like to move to Gretchen Ehret Hoshaw.

MS. EHRET HOSHAW: Good morning, 

everyone. My name is Gretchen Ehret Hoshaw, and I am the 

Chief Accreditation Officer at the American Speech 

Language Hearing Association. On behalf of the Council 

on Academic Accreditation in Audiology and Speech 

Language Pathology or CAA, I'm here to comment on the 

Department of Education's intention to establish one or 

more negotiated rulemaking committees to prepare 

proposed regulations for the Federal Student Aid 
55

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

programs authorized under Title IV of the Higher 

Education Act as amended, HEA. We appreciate this 

opportunity to fully participate in this process, 

provide public testimony and share feedback on the 

suggested topics the Department may consider. The CAA is 

recognized by the Council on Higher Education 

Accreditation and the Secretary of the US Department of 

Education as a programmatic accreditor for graduate 

programs in audiology and speech language pathology. The 

CAA offers voluntary programmatic accreditation to these 

graduate programs that are housed within accredited 

institutions of higher education. The CAA is the entity 

within ASHA that has the authority to establish and 

enforce a set of standards for the accreditation of 

these graduate education programs and to make 

accreditation decisions. At this time, we would like to 

highlight the importance of three issues for the 

professions of audiology and speech, language pathology 

and those we serve. The first is eligibility 

requirements for programmatic accreditors. Second, 

compliance and reporting requirements and third, 

importance of tele-practice. The Secretary's role in 

recognizing accrediting agencies in 34 CFR Part 602 and 

related parts is imperative. We request that the 

Department consider maintaining current eligibility 
56

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

requirements for programmatic accreditors without 

significant changes to administrative and fiscal 

structure requirements that may increase accreditation 

costs and unintentionally harm students financially. 

Current requirements recognize the unique role 

programmatic accreditors play in ensuring that 

educational programs produce qualified and competent 

practitioners. We understand that proposed changes may 

include requirements for third-party services and 

related issues such as reporting, financial 

responsibility, compliance, and past performance 

requirements as a component of institutional eligibility 

for participation in Title IV HEA, Federal student 

Financial Assistance programs under 34 CFR 668.25 and 

682.16. The CAA requests clarity on who falls under the 

definition of third-party services and what reporting 

and auditing activities they would be subjected to. 

Additionally, the CAA requests clarification on the role 

that would then be played by the programmatic accreditor 

and what reporting and auditing activities the 

programmatic accreditor would be subject to. It is 

critical to maintain current eligibility and reporting 

requirements for programmatic and specialized 

accreditors, while allowing the Department to monitor 

and sanction those accreditors that fail to comply with 
57

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

recognition criteria. Programmatic accreditors are 

concerned with the ability to maintain valid, high 

quality data on achievement outcomes. Any new reporting 

on contractual arrangements with third-party servicers 

would place an increased administrative burden on 

programmatic accreditors, which would be burdensome to 

non-Title IV fund gatekeepers. CAA maintains that these 

responsibilities should remain with institutions for 

Title IV gatekeepers. 15 of the nationally recognized 

programmatic and specialized accrediting agencies are 

not Title IV gatekeepers and are not required to monitor 

Title IV activities because that responsibility is 

conducted at the institutional level. [30 seconds] 

Regarding the definition of distance education as it 

pertains to clock hour and the importance for students 

who enroll primarily online, we would like to highlight 

the importance of tele-practice and ensuring any changes 

do not negatively impact the provision of these 

services. In closing, we thank you for your willingness 

to engage with a range of stakeholders who may be 

impacted by these regulations. We look forward to being 

a vibrant part of the rulemaking process and appreciate 

the opportunity to lend our members experience to help 

further inform the Department's work.

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you for your 
58

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

comments. I'd like to call Tara Persinger Harris next.

MS. PERSINGER HARRIS: Hello. Can you 

hear me? Okay. Hi, my name is Tara Persinger Harris and 

I'm speaking today regarding accreditation and the 

victimization of the loss of accreditation. I'm a postclass member of the Sweet settlement, and while my 

school did do all of the things such as the schools of 

ITT Tech and the other 150 plus schools. We were left 

behind. The school I attended was in a poor area within 

southern West Virginia and started as a junior community 

college called Beckley College in 1933. Unbeknownst to 

most in the community, the school changed to a forprofit model in 2001. Within 12 years of the leadership 

of President Polk, the school lost their accreditation. 

The students at that time had no idea that- there were 

rumblings that it was coming and occurring, but we were 

left holding all the financial responsibility. I began 

attending at the advice of the West Virginia Board of 

Labor after my school, after my company initially closed 

down without notice. While attending Mountain State 

University, formerly Beckley College, I worked 

diligently towards my BA in criminal justice and a BA in 

forensics. As early as 2005, there were rumblings that 

the school was in trouble and our professors were 

telling us that we may need to find other accommodations 
59

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

because there was a strong air of uncertainty that the 

school would continue. While attending, we were advised 

that these programs would lead to high paying jobs 

within the criminal justice field, that there would be 

openings for us at the corrections level from state on 

up to Federal level positions, including places like 

Quantico. These were- this was information that was 

provided by the professors and these school counselors 

and that there would be job placement and referrals. 

Obviously, none of that was true. By 2010, the school 

was put on notice. By 2012, they fully lost their 

accreditation. We were told that the prior credits and 

degrees would show as being accredited, but my personal 

experience has shown that that is not the case. Once a 

school or potential employer accesses that information, 

they automatically see that that school lost their 

accreditation and that's where they stop. They do not 

dig further and that automatically puts an air of 

disinformation in regard to mine and others integrity. I 

have personally experienced the victimization of not 

being able to move forward within my career and my life. 

At a time that the school was being investigated, the 

president was paid the sixth highest income in the 

nation. And this is from a school in a town in southern 

West Virginia in the midst of coal country, in the 
60

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

second poorest state in the union. Our school had a 

schoolbook publishing company, the only published books 

that he wrote. No one knows why the school fully lost 

their accreditation because it sealed. Just as they did, 

and the students were left paying exponentially for 

educations that we could not use. The school did have a 

teach out program for the nursing students, and there 

was a class action suit that garnered millions for 

attorneys. But many students were not included, and the 

average settlement per student was $1,000. I still have 

$80,000 in student loans. [30 seconds] This school lost 

their accreditation. They have essentially broken the 

contract that they have with the student to provide this 

service. It should never be on the consumer to pay for a 

service they did not receive. However, within schools 

and students, that's exactly what continues to happen.

MR. WASHINGTON: Does that conclude 

your comments?

MS. PERSINGER HARRIS: That's it.

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay, thank you, 

thank you so much. I'd like to call Ryan Audus next.

MR. AUDUS: Good morning.

MR. WASHINGTON: Good morning. You can 

begin when you're ready.

MR. AUDUS: Alright. Thank you for the 
61

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

opportunity to speak with you this morning. My name is 

Ryan Audus, Vice President of product for TouchNet, a 

global payments company. For more than 30 years, 

TouchNet has been considered a leader in payments 

technology for the higher education sector, serving more 

than a thousand colleges and universities. We were 

previously an active participant in negotiated 

rulemaking regarding the disbursement of Title IV funds 

to students. Those discussions started in 2012, a time 

when TouchNet supported direct deposit via ACH because 

it was widely available and was the easiest, fastest,

and lowest risk form of electronic disbursement for 

students. Over the last decade, many payments 

technologies have evolved, creating new electronic 

disbursement options that are more in line with current 

consumer behaviors and expectations. For this reason, we 

support proposed negotiated rulemaking pertaining to the 

Title IV HEA program we encourage the Department of 

Education to include regulatory issue number five 

regarding cash management as a topic to ensure the best 

interest of students is met when it comes to timely 

access to Title IV funds now and in the future. To give 

you an example of changes in payment products and 

consumer behaviors since negotiated rulemaking ten years 

ago, many checking accounts today no longer include a 
62

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

book of checks unless requested by the account holder. 

This is particularly true for those accounts designed 

for students. My own son is a freshman in college. When 

we opened his first checking account, we chose not to 

include a book of checks, which means his primary form 

of transacting is with his debit card. The idea of 

writing a check has become so foreign to him, I'm not 

sure he would know where to find his bank routing and 

account number for setting up a direct deposit. This use 

of debit cards has led students to using newer, faster 

ways to move funds electronically. The use of newer,

faster forms of electronic transactions to move funds 

from one account to another was accelerated during the 

COVID 19 pandemic. In fact, during the early days of the 

pandemic, many schools were exploring new ways to get 

funds to students more quickly by leveraging these 

newer, faster forms of transacting to facilitate the 

disbursement of aid to students. An example of one such 

disbursement method for real time payments is OCT which 

was approved as part of the Heroes Act that updated 

waivers and provided modifications of statutory and 

regulatory provisions during the COVID 19 pandemic. OCT 

enables students to receive Title IV disbursements or 

other funding from an institution by using their debit 

card number instead of the bank routing and account 
63

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

numbers needed for direct deposit. One sent using OCT 

are available to the student's account in real-time, 

eliminating the 1 or 2 day wait period for traditional 

direct deposit. In short, this option for students is 

easier, faster, and secure. Language in the Heroes Act 

only allowed for OCT transactions during the Federally 

declared pandemic emergency. With the emergency ending, 

there is now discussion on what is the most efficient, 

secure, and overall effective way to disperse Title IV 

Funds to students as direct deposit is no longer the 

only method that meets the requirements established in 

previous negotiated rulemaking. That is why we would 

like to propose cash management be a topic for committee 

review to ensure guidelines are in line with current 

consumer expectations and disbursement processes that 

are now in place. Thank you.

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you for your 

comments. I'd like to call Glenn Stroman next. Glen, if 

you're speaking, you are on mute.

MR. STROMAN: Can you hear me?

MR. WASHINGTON: I can hear you now. 

Yes.

MR. STROMAN: Okay. Thank you, sir. 

Thank you, sir, very much. My name is Glen Stroman and 

I'm a Veteran who attended Grand Canyon University to 
64

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

earn my doctorate degree in education. I am a teacher 

and have advised many students on the college choices. 

So, I did my due diligence when I decided to go back to 

school. I was initially somewhat skeptical, skeptical of 

Grand Canyon, but they said all the right things and did 

all the right measures. They assured me that we were 

very attentive to the military friendly and that would 

always be able to contact someone if I had a problem. 

Early on, I had reservations about the quality of some 

of the classes. The teachers weren't teaching quality 

work and took three classes that were basically at the 

end of my doctorate degree with the different name, but 

they were the same class. But I continued on making the 

most of my opportunity that I had to advance my career. 

When I ran out of my GI Bill benefits, suddenly, it was 

hard to get anyone from Grand Canyon to communicate with 

me. I reached out to ask questions about whether the 

school had correctly applied a military discount for me 

and told that I was out of luck because did not apply 

for in the semester before and there was no retro 

activeness. I asked if there was any financial help 

available for me to finish out my final three courses 

and was told that there was nothing. I felt completely 

alienated by the school and told them I would have to 

take a break to secure funding to finish my degree. The 
65

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

entire time I was away, Grand Canyon kept pestering me 

about coming back. I would ask them if there was any 

financial help and they would say no, there was not. But 

they didn't stop calling me or texting me or even 

sending me emails. After an almost five-year break, I

contacted Grand Canyon about returning for my last three 

courses. Even though they had been calling me the whole 

time I was away to finish they told me that I'd have to 

start my whole doctoral program all over again. I told 

them that I was not going to do that. So, then they 

offered me one course to get my EDS degree, my 

specialist degree in education. I took that course 

because I did not want to walk away with nothing, so I 

paid the out-of-pocket expense to take this one class, 

which I finished in the fall of 2022. The quality of 

instruction was terrible, and the degree wasn't in the 

same field that I was initially studying for. Keep in 

mind was a doctoral student and had three courses to 

finish with most of my dissertation completed and just 

simply ran out of money. So overall, I was left with the 

impression that Grand Canyon just wanted to use my GI 

Bill money. Once it was gone, it was hard to get anyone 

to help me at all. I couldn't recommend the Grand Canyon 

to anybody who asked me now. I hope they will take my 

experience and make rules that would prevent schools 
66

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

from treating students the way Grand Canyon University 

treated me. I thank you for your time and wish you all 

the very best.

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. The next 

speaker is Eduardo Ochoa.

MR. STROMAN: And I'm muted. I'm done. 

That was it.

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you.

MR. STROMAN: Thank you.

MR. OCHOA: I think I'm going to have 

to turn off the teams. Okay. I'm Eduardo Ochoa. I'm a 

former President of California State University at 

Monterey Bay. Former Assistant Secretary for 

postsecondary education and currently a member of the 

board of directors of NC-SARA, the National Council for 

State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement. SARA is an 

agreement among 52 member states, districts and 

territories that establish national policies for 

interstate postsecondary distance education. Among other 

benefits, SARA provides a set of uniform policies for 

student consumer protections that otherwise would vary 

state by state that ensures valuable oversight of 

distance education, that allows students access to 

distance education programs across states. It was 

established in 2013. Today, more than 2300 institutions 
67

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

are approved to participate in SARA by the SARA member 

states. They represent more than 75% of eligible US 

postsecondary institutions that offer distance 

education, serving millions of students annually. We're 

concerned that the topic of state authorization 

reciprocity was introduced during negotiated rulemaking 

in 2022 under section 668.14 program participation 

Agreements, subsection 32 (iii) certification 

procedures. We have specific concerns regarding the 

proposed language as well as the process through which 

it was written and discussed during negotiated 

rulemaking. First, there likely would be significant 

consequences of new Federal regulatory language about 

state authorization reciprocity. If that language moves 

forward, we could return to the confusing and complex 

patchwork of state authorization distance education 

regulations that existed before SARA. The language 

proposed at that time appears to be a solution in search 

of a problem. There is no evidence that SARA opens the 

gate to unchecked fraudulent behavior on the part of 

institutions offering distance education. Furthermore, 

SARA does not prohibit any state Attorney General from 

investigating or taking action against an institution 

committing fraud or engaging in deceptive behavior. Any 

issues regarding student consumer protections and state 
68

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

authorization should be the purview of the states. I 

might add that some of the anecdotes that have been 

bandied about in this area have involved institutions 

that were not part of SARA at all. So, it was kind of, 

uh, it didn't, wasn't germane to the point. Secondly, 

another concern we have is the language about state 

authorization reciprocity that was proposed during the 

March 2022 negotiated rulemaking session was inserted in 

the section about program participation and 

certification procedures rather than state 

authorization. The placement of language about state 

authorization reciprocity is problematic in that the 

Federal regulations concerning state authorization are 

in a separate section 600.9, which was not discussed in 

that negotiated rulemaking session. Furthermore, the 

negotiated rulemaking process in March 2022 did not 

allow sufficient time for research and impact analysis 

or for thoughtful discussion and deliberation inclusive 

of constituents that could be impacted by such a 

regulatory change. It also did not include state 

authorization experts who could speak about the 

potential consequences. So, we're requesting two things. 

If the Department chooses to retain language that 

impacts SARA, then the proposed regulatory changes 

should be moved to a 2023 negotiated rulemaking session, 
69

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

focused on state authorization and distance education. 

And secondly, that the potential consequences of any 

Federal regulatory changes that impact state 

authorization we request be explored with experts in 

state authorization and SARA serving as negotiators. In 

conclusion, SARA is very well positioned for and 

committed to continuous improvement. The new SARA policy 

modification process [30 seconds] in broader stakeholder 

engagement and enhanced transparency was launched in 

January 23 and is underway for the first round of 

approved policy changes coming this fall. Everybody who 

has chosen to participate in the policy modification 

process has a seat at the table, including participation 

in public forums and public comments. We also wish to 

convey the SARA community is committed to the 

Department's emphasis on student consumer protections, 

and we wish to express our sincere intention to continue 

to work collaboratively with all stakeholders toward 

common sense, common ground approaches to continue to 

ensure protections needed for today's distance education 

learners. Thank you.

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. And our 

final speaker, Bob Carey. Final speaker before lunch, 

Bob Carey.

MR. CAREY: Can you hear me?
70

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

MR. WASHINGTON: Yes, we can hear you.

MR. CAREY: Thank you very much. Thank 

you very much. I'm sorry that I'm having a call from the 

parking lot at Walter Reed National Military Medical 

Center. I have, while I'm retired Navy myself, I have a 

relative who is recently in there and I had to be there 

in order to be able to provide some power of attorney 

assistance. So sorry, this is a little discombobulated. 

But I represent the National Defense Committee. We 

started in 2003 as a niche Veteran organization focusing 

on Veterans civil rights. We did a lot of our initial 

work on Veteran voting rights and freedom of conscience. 

But one of the things that we're working on now is the 

freedom of contract. And to the extent that the 

Department of Education has oversight on many of the 

Veteran educational benefits, as well as the fact that 

many of the Veteran educational benefit regulations are 

based upon the Department of Education broader 

regulations. That's why we wanted to be able to comment 

on this. And the fundamental issue that we have a 

concern with is that ability- that right to contract. 

Throughout the regulatory process, both in the generic 

and in the Veteran space, there is this underlying 

belief in the Veterans community that there is this 

condescending paternalism towards students. That they 
71

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

are unable to be able to figure out for themselves what 

is the best way to educate themselves and to use their 

educational benefits to do so. For the Veteran benefits, 

these are earned benefits. These are not like, you know, 

means based. They're earned through service in the 

military. And just like a Veteran's retirement or a 

Veteran's paycheck. And so to have these regulations 

such as 90/10, such as 85/15, such as, you know, 

accreditation requirements, you know, that are beyond 

what would normally be considered, you know, the normal 

state adjudication requirements, is detrimental to the 

ability of students, especially military and Veteran 

students, to be able to pursue the educational system 

that provides the best case for them. And the problem is 

that the traditional state run educational systems or 

not for-profit educational systems are not or cannot 

adjust to the needs of military and Veteran students. 

And that is myself, I am pursuing a doctorate through an 

online program. I used to be a teacher in graduate 

school at the US Naval War College and I can tell you it 

is a robust and discriminating academic program. But the 

way that these regulations are going is that I doubt 

I'll be able to use my GI Bill benefits for it because 

there is this underlying belief that unless you are in a 

classroom and unless you are, you know, in a structure 
72

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

from a nonprofit, preferably state run organization or a 

state run educational institution, that you're not 

getting a good education. And that, you know, the fact 

of the matter is the Department of Education, in its 

wisdom, determined that they didn't need to have this 

public hearing in a building with, you know, with live 

presentations. They realize it could be done virtually 

through Zoom. So, too, we should be looking at that from 

the point of view of online education. And we should be 

maximizing maximizing the ability to use online 

education. [30 seconds] Thank you. Not trying to 

minimize. That's really all I had to say. I'll provide 

written comments as well to go into more detail. But 

those are the basic suppositions that we have on this 

process, and I think that there is this belief in the 

Department of Education that the Veterans community is 

strongly behind 90/10 and 85/15 and other types of 

controls on Veteran education. And the fact of the 

matter is there are many Veteran organizations that are 

not. Thank you.

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you for your 

comments. That concludes the morning portion of our 

public hearing today. We will break and resume at 1 p.m. 

Eastern Time. Thank you. Thank you for everybody who 

spoke and have a nice lunch.
73

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

MR. MARTIN: Good afternoon and 

welcome back. I'm Greg Martin in the Office of 

Postsecondary Education. And I'm pleased to join you 

this afternoon. I want to thank my colleague, Aaron 

Washington, for ably hosting the session this morning. 

Before we get going this afternoon, I'd like to announce 

that- I should say that we initially had three of these 

sessions planned starting yesterday and one today, and 

then there would be one tomorrow. But because we have 

been able to accommodate everybody who wished to speak, 

we will not be running the hearing scheduled for 

tomorrow. So, after the comments are complete this 

afternoon, the hearings will be completed. However, I do 

want to remind everybody that there's still opportunity 

to comment in writing. I'll repeat how to do that at the 

end of this session. We welcome comments. We review all 

of them. So, whether you have spoken over the last two 

days or whether you will offer comments in writing, we 

will give equal attention to those comments. Joining me 

this afternoon is Steve Finley from the Office of the 

General Counsel. I'm also joined by Wesley Whistle, who 

is with the Office of the Under Secretary. So, with 

that, we will begin this afternoon's comments and our 

first speaker this afternoon will be Jee Hang Lee. So, 

Mr. Lee, whenever you are ready.
74

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

MR. LEE: Hi. Can you hear me?

MR. MARTIN: Oh, I'm sorry. I got 

that. Sorry. I'm sorry. Hi. How are you doing?

MR. LEE: Hi. Good afternoon, 

everyone. Sorry, technical problems.

MR. MARTIN: We know how that is.

MR. LEE: You can hear me?

MR. MARTIN: Yes.

MR. LEE: Okay. Secretary Cardona and 

the Department of Education colleagues, thank you for 

the opportunity to provide public comment today. My name 

is Jee Hang Lee. I am the President and CEO of the 

Association of Community College Trustees. ACCT is a not 

for-profit educational organization of governing boards, 

representing more than 6,500 elected and appointed 

trustees who Govern over a thousand community and 

technical colleges in the United States and beyond. 

Trustees have a fiduciary responsibility of their 

institutions and responsibility of hiring the college 

leadership. With this in mind, I join you today to 

strongly encourage the Department to include the topic 

of third-party servicing and its fall negotiated 

rulemaking process. On February 15th, the Department 

sent a Dear Colleague letter requirements and 

responsibility for third-party servicers and 
75

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

institutions that specified in dramatically expanded the 

entities classified as third-party servicers. We 

appreciate the Department's updates to this letter 

yesterday. Very fast one announcing the September 1st 

effective date is canceled and that further guidance 

will be issued with an effective date at least six 

months after the new guidance is released. The 

Department's proposal greatly expands the current reach 

of the third-party servicers definition. In the DCL the 

Department stated in particular it wanted to focus on 

the growing industry of online program managers or 

purveyors of software products designed to manage 

student recruitment, retention, and hybrid programs. 

While it is necessary for guidance and regulation to 

keep pace with technological advancement, it is also 

crucial that these rules be designed with a precise 

nature to target the intended actors rather than be so 

broad as to implicate many others, including not forprofit organizations and associations in their general 

reach. As a representative of Community Colleges ACCT is 

specifically concerned with the impact of this expanded 

change that will have on our institutions. We appreciate 

the guidance that consortia of Title IV eligible 

institutions study abroad and externships do not 

constitute third-party servicer agreements. We look 
76

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

forward to further clarification or discussion during 

negotiated rulemaking regarding businesses that provide 

training on campus, a hallmark of many trade and 

technical programs. The current legal uncertainty with 

the third-party servicers definition may also 

unnecessarily generate increased compliance costs for 

our institutions, which may of which already face 

significant resource constraints and servicing their 

students. For this reason, the commitment to a six month 

implementation window is necessary. In yesterday's blog 

post, Under Secretary Kvaal stated comments on student 

retention services would be taken under further review. 

As an association and not for-profit ourselves, it is 

possible that ACCT would also become a third-party 

servicer, depending on the specific guidance on student 

retention. Within ACCT center for policy and practices, 

ACCT staff and partners work on projects that include 

college retention as the stated goal. None of these 

activities relate to Title IV dollars nor grant us or 

our partners or our contracted consultants access to 

student data. We recommend that partners providing 

retention services that do not include Title IV aid or 

student personal identifying information or similar data 

be excluded from third-party servicer requirements. ACCT 

strongly encourages the Department to consider the 
77

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

expansion of the third-party servicer role as part of 

this fall's negotiated rulemaking process to ensure a 

surgical approach that [30 seconds] reaches the intended 

goals and audience rather than a catch all approach that 

balloons the number of third-party servicers in such a 

way that those who may be abusing the privilege of 

working with students institutions fall through the 

cracks. Thank you for the opportunity to provide 

comments today.

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

next speaker this afternoon will be Christopher Cross. 

Mr. Cross, whenever you are ready.

MR. CROSS: Thank you and thanks for 

giving me the opportunity to speak with you today. I 

come as having served six years as a public member 

commissioner on WASC, the regional accrediting agency in 

California and the pacific, also known as WSCUC. There 

are several concerns that I've had from my experience 

with WASC and with accreditation in general. I will go 

through them individually. First, each commission should 

have an equal number of public members as nonpublic 

members. Nonpublic members of course, are institutional 

members. And in terms of providing the kind of expertise 

and balance between the interests of everybody, equal 

number of public members would greatly enhance that. I'd 
78

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

also recommend public members be allowed to serve three 

terms, not two, because it does take public members some 

time to get acclimated and really to read into what's 

going on. I'd also suggest that those who have been a 

public- or been an institutional member of an 

institution not in the service area of that regional 

accreditor, not be permitted to be a public member in a 

non-region in another region, I should say, as they 

bring then a different perspective. Public members bring 

some very important perspectives and having that there 

is very important. I would also recommend that all 

commissioners as well as staff be protected under a 

shield of immunity for actions taken relative to their 

duties on a commission, whether as commissioners or as 

staff. I've seen in my time that there's been several

times when people were frankly afraid to take action 

because there was the feeling that well financed 

organization seeking to have their accreditation granted 

or extended would sue if they didn't get the action that 

was demanded or or requested. So, providing a shield of 

immunity for actions taken as a commissioner or as staff 

would be very important. I would also suggest that each 

accreditor should be required by regulation to establish 

metrics in such key areas as persistence, graduation 

rates, Governance, and the rest, and that those metrics 
79

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

should be measured and part of the evaluation when 

accreditation comes up for renewal or initial 

accreditation is granted. And that those metrics, of 

course, must be tied to the accreditation standards in 

each of the regions. Also, accreditors should develop a 

policy and process that allows them to intervene and act 

quickly in situations where institutions are in or near 

crisis. Final two points, accreditor review panels areas 

of expertise should align with the expertise most needed 

for a thorough review, and those with higher education 

consulting practices should [30 seconds] not be 

excluded. And finally, a consideration should be given 

to having public members include potentially parents, K12 experts, and perhaps recent graduates of similar 

institutions. Thanks very much.

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

next speaker will be Jill Desjean. Ms. Desjean, whenever 

you are ready.

MS. DESJEAN: Hi. Thanks. I'm ready.

MR. MARTIN: You can go ahead whenever 

you're ready to begin.

MS. DESJEAN: Thank you. Good 

afternoon. I'm Jill Desjean. [Inaudible] for 

negotiation. Return to Title IV funds or R2T4 and thirdparty servicing. While we appreciate the Department's 
80

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

most recent regulatory efforts in 2020 to allow the R2T4 

process to accommodate new and innovative learning 

models like subscription based programs and programs 

offered in modules, they pile complexity on top of 

complexity and make it even more difficult for 

institutions to not only comply with the rules, but to 

explain them to students. Students leaving school before 

completing a term are likely doing so under already 

stressful circumstances. The R2T4 process should be 

simplified to ensure that it does not add to that 

stress. Any changes to the R2T4 rules must consider the 

fact that the rules and regulations for this process 

already comprise nearly 200 paragraphs of regulatory 

text and nearly 150 pages of the Federal Student Aid 

Handbook. The 2020 R2T4 rules alone required the 

Department publish a 63 question, question, and Answers 

document to help financial aid administrators interpret 

those rules. NASFAA has 271 regulatory assistance 

articles devoted to R2T4 alone in our membership 

knowledge base. In response to your request for input on 

regulatory relief, financial aid administrators 

mentioned R2T4 more than twice as often as any other 

topic area and even with all of the aforementioned 

resources, R2T4 consistently falls within the top five 

audit and program review findings. As a 2015 NASFAA task 
81

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

force noted, errors are virtually inevitable and so 

complex a set of rules. This is not an area rife with 

fraud and abuse. It's an area rife with complexity, 

confusion, and frustration. We're grateful the 

Department is looking to ease R2T4 related barriers to 

students, as well as institutional R2T4 administrative 

burden through negotiated rulemaking. The R2T4 process 

needs a complete overhaul with a focus on where we can 

sacrifice precision and the complexity inherent therein 

with minimal impact on program integrity. Financial aid 

administrators spend far too long on R2T4, a detriment 

to compliance and other areas, as well as in service to 

students. Financial aid officers are facing historic 

struggles with staffing and need relief wherever they 

can get it. With respect to third-party servicers, the 

Department's recently updated guidance about 

institutional requirements and responsibilities for 

third-party servicers has introduced significant 

confusion because the new guidance appears to change the 

regulatory definition of a third-party servicer. As 

noted in our previously submitted comments, it is an 

unusual path to issue some regulatory guidance before 

conducting negotiated rulemaking sessions and issuing 

final rules. We continue to disagree with the greatly 

expanded definition of third-party servicer and the 
82

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

updated guidance and do not believe the scope of the 

guidance falls within the regulatory definition of a 

TPS. We are grateful for Under Secretary Kvaal's 

announcement last night that the Department is 

reevaluating the guidance in light of public comments 

received. It is critical that the Department eliminate 

all potential negative unintended consequences if it 

moves forward with expanding the third-party servicer 

definition, either during negotiated rulemaking or 

through guidance. We look forward to working with the 

Department throughout this rulemaking process. NASFAA 

will also be submitting written comments. Thank you.

MR. MARTIN: Thank you, Ms. Desjean. 

Our next commenter this afternoon will be Charlotte 

Woodward. Ms. Woodward, whenever you are ready.

MS. WOODWARD: Hello, everyone. Thank 

you for the- hello, everyone. Thank you for the 

opportunity to speak to you this afternoon. My name is 

Charlotte Woodward, and I am the Education Program 

Associate at the National Down Syndrome Society. I would 

like to thank my mom, my family for instilling a 

lifelong love of learning in me and my teachers and 

professors, for looking beyond my diagnosis of down 

syndrome and seeing the scholar in me. I advocated for 

my right to access the general education curriculum from 
83

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

preschool through high school with the help of my mom 

and grandmother. I always desired to go to college. So,

I went on to learn as much as I could, made inclusive 

friendship, and ultimately graduated high school with a 

standard diploma, which I needed to apply to college. 

After high school, I was accepted into Northern Virginia 

Community College, where I earned my Associate degree in 

2017, Summa Cum Laude. After I graduated, I knew I was 

not done with my formal education, so I transferred to 

George Mason University with the goal of earning a 

Bachelor's degree. With the help of accommodations such 

as extra time on exams and the ability to record 

lectures, I continued to excel. I was inducted into 

George Mason Alpha Kappa Delta International Sociology 

Honor Society and received the 2021 George Mason 

University Outstanding Sociology Undergraduate Student 

Award and the 2022 George Mason University Sociology

Trailblazer Award. I am proud to say that I graduated 

from George Mason University last night with a degree in 

Sociology, with a concentration in inequality and social 

change. Again, Summa Cum Laude. As you approach each 

topic, it is critical that you think about the potential 

impact on students with disabilities. When looking to 

have these discussions, it is imperative during these 

discussions to always keep in mind that the diverse 
84

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

needs of all learners. We need to ensure that every 

student, especially students with disabilities, are 

included and accepted for the challenges and strengths 

given the supports, services and accommodation needed at 

all levels of education. College should be an option for 

people of all abilities, not just for certain people. 

Thank you for listening to my story.

MR. MARTIN: Thank you, Ms. Woodward. 

Our next speaker will be Martin Kurzweil. Mr. Kurzweil, 

whenever you are ready.

MR. KURZWEIL: Hello and thank you for 

the opportunity to provide comments on the Department of 

Education's upcoming rulemaking agenda. My name is 

Martin Kurzweil and I currently serve as Vice President 

for Educational Transformation at the not for-profit 

research and consulting service Ithaka S+R. At Ithaka 

S+R, we provide research and evaluation, strategic 

advising and program implementation and management, all 

with an aim of improving equitable postsecondary access 

and success. Today I would like to offer comments on 

returning to Title IV funds or R2T4, a policy we have 

learned much about through our work to study and support 

students with past due institutional balances. Across 

the nation, we estimate that over 6.6 million students 

owe a past due balance to a college or university. When 
85

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

students are unable to cover their full balance by the 

end of the term, the vast majority of institutions 

respond by placing holds to prohibit future registration 

and to prevent the release of the student's transcript. 

We call this situation stranded credits because the past 

due balances and related holds effectively block those 

students from using earned credits to continue their 

education, whether at the same institution or by 

transferring to another institution. The aggressive 

collections practices many institutions undertake also 

have a severe negative impact on students financial 

well-being. While systematic data are not readily 

available, our research and direct work helping students 

release their stranded credits suggests that the Federal 

R2T4 policy is a significant cause of past due balances. 

Under the rules of R2T4, if a student withdraws from 

college before the 60% mark of a term, their college is 

required to return a share of the disbursed Federal aid 

to the Government. Because most colleges charge full 

tuition and fees near the start of the term, it is 

highly likely that the student in these circumstances 

will owe money to their college or for charges in excess 

of the amount of aid the student was able to keep. In 

other words, current R2T4 policy routinely transforms 

Federal grants and loans into institutional past due 
86

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

balances, which in turn lead to transcript and 

registration holds and stranded credits. R2T4 and 

stranded credits more generally disproportionately 

affect our most vulnerable students. Students who leave 

abruptly before the midpoint of a term are likely doing 

so because of a personal or financial crisis. Our 

research shows that the institutions with the most 

former students with stranded credits are also the 

institutions with the highest shares of students of 

color and pell eligible students. The Department has 

sent signals that it would like to see the policy of 

transcript withholding end. This has included archiving 

old guidance related to withholding for Perkins loans 

and public comments by the Secretary and Under Secretary 

condemning the practice. We applaud these efforts and 

are grateful to the Department for pursuing them. 

However, simply banning the practice of transcript 

withholding does not address the root of the issue the 

accumulation of an unpaid balance. The Department has an 

opportunity to assess and improve R2T4 and thereby 

mitigate a highly inequitable source of students unpaid 

balances. Specifically, my recommendations to the 

negotiators include first, improve data collection so 

that the Department can understand the extent to which 

R2T4 policy contributes to the pernicious problem of 
87

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

stranded credits. Second, establish a process and 

standards for reconciling the schedule for return of 

Title IV funds and institutional refund policies to 

shift more of the burden of leaving abruptly from 

students to institutions and ensure that the 

institutions provide a complete and understandable 

explanation of [30 seconds] consequences to students. 

Finally, completely protect the lowest income students 

from the financial consequences of returning Title IV 

funds. Thank you very much for the opportunity to 

contribute to the conversation about reforms to R2T4 and 

for your consideration of this important issue.

MR. MARTIN: Thank you. Our next 

commenter will be Lisa Beatty. Ms. Beatty, whenever you 

are ready.

MS. BEATTY: Good afternoon and thank 

you for the opportunity to provide comments related to 

Department of Education negotiated rulemaking on 

postsecondary education. My name is Lisa Beatty and I 

serve as Executive Director of the Association for 

Biblical Higher Education Commission on Accreditation. 

ABHE accredits or pre-credits 135 institutions serving 

approximately 60,000 students in the US and Canada, and 

the agency has been continuously recognized by the US 

Department of Education since 1952. Our most recent 
88

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

five-year recognition was affirmed by the SDO in 

November 2022, with no follow up reporting required. To 

begin, we welcome continued conversations on how best to 

serve students regarding to financial aid, state 

authorization, third-party servicers, and distance 

education. But my brief comments this afternoon relate 

to proposed rulemaking for accrediting agency 

recognition. As noted above, ABHE completed its 

recognition process just five months ago. We were part 

of the first cohort of accrediting agencies addressing 

regulatory changes on recognition implemented in 2020. 

Since the DE recognition process is a two-year process 

for our last recognition cycle, ABHE was required to 

submit its petition for recognition almost 

simultaneously with the implementation of new 

regulations. This timeline made it extremely challenging 

to adequately address regulatory changes in our policies 

and processes, and thus in our DE petition for 

recognition. With proposed rulemaking on recognition 

commencing at the start of another recognition cycle for 

ABHE and other agencies in our cohort and those 

following, I urge the Department to consider the timing 

issues for agencies submitting petitions a full two 

years prior to final determinations. Please consider 

options such as rolling implementation or adjusted 
89

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

timelines for agencies caught between the old and the 

new regulations. Over a period of no less than 70 years, 

ABHE has demonstrated a strong commitment to meeting 

Department of Education regulations for accreditors. 

Please provide agencies like ours with a reasonable 

timeline for demonstrating compliance with new 

recognition and other negotiated regulations. Second, 

may I recommend that a range of institutional 

accreditors be included on negotiated rulemaking 

committees? One of the hallmarks of the American higher 

education system is diversity of institutional type. 

ABHE and other similar institutional accreditors serve 

the public good by assuring quality in smaller but 

important sectors of the higher education market. Please 

ensure that such agencies have seats at the table. Thank 

you for the opportunity to provide comments today and 

thank you for the Department's efforts to serve the 

needs of students through this process.

MR. MARTIN: Thank you, Ms. Beatty. We 

appreciate your remarks this afternoon. At this point, 

we are considerably ahead of schedule. We do have two 

more speakers who are scheduled to provide remarks. 

However, we're working on logging those individuals in 

right now. So, if you'll just bear with us a few 

moments, we should be able to get them queued up to 
90

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

speak. Hello and welcome back. We do apologize for the 

hiatus. Our next speaker will be Eddie Murgasen. Mr. 

Murgasen, whenever you are ready.

DR. MURGASEN: Oh, hey, guys. Dr. 

Eddie Murgasen here. I went to the Medical University of 

Lublin back in 2007, up until 2011. This is through Hope 

Medical Institute. And I wanted to speak to you guys 

today about my experience there. I feel like it was a 

low quality of education, especially for a medical 

school. And they had they were not really accountable 

for their administration during that time. Some of my 

experiences with that regarding being a predatory forprofit medical school as it does relate to the topics 

that the Department of Education wants to hear more 

about today, such as institutional eligibility, Title IV 

funding and time access to disbursement of student 

loans. Now, with Sweet settlements getting a lot of 

press right now, by no means has that provided any 

relief to myself or any other of the medical students 

that were borrowers for this school. So, my school is 

not included in that settlement, despite being guilty of 

the same misconduct as many of those medical schools 

that are included, if not worse. And then in my 

situation, I refinanced Federal student loans in order 

to keep up with interest rates, which puts me at a 
91

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

financial disadvantage for the potential of loan 

forgiveness and all of that because I had no other 

options at that time to be able to afford to make 

payments. My medical school should have not been 

accredited. And there are a lot of reasons why. In terms 

of the admissions criteria, there was none. On their 

website, there was none. And looking back at it when I 

was a student, 19, 20 years old, that's not stuff that 

I'm going to think about. They did say that their past 

rates for their boards were 95% and higher for the board 

exams. However, they did not state that they had a 

graduation rate that was abysmal. My class, for 

instance, was a class of 40 students, and of that, 10 of 

us were allowed to take the board exams after we 

completed four years in Poland. So that is why there was 

a higher pass rate. But the overall rates were terrible. 

If you did not pass these pre-exams that were done for 

screening tests within three times, you were not allowed 

to go for your clinical rotations in the United States 

and that prevented people from getting into residency 

and ultimately practicing. So, some kids spent around 

$400,000 in student loans that they took out and were 

never able to take the board exams in the first place. 

So, all of that now falls onto them where they no longer 

they don't even have the career that they went to school 
92

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

for. By the time I finished HMI, Hope Medical Institute, 

I didn't believe that the school should have been 

approved for Title IV funding. And to be honest, I 

applied and went to that school because we were being 

told that we had Federal student loans that were 

approved for us. So that, in my mind, made it seem like 

the Department of Education is behind this school and 

supports it, which gave me more legitimacy to that 

program where in essence they were funneling money 

through student loans and kind of taking advantage of 

all of us to get as much as they could out of it for as 

long as they could. Again, I just want to reiterate that 

I only attended the school because of that Federal 

Government student loan making it possible for me to do 

so. I do not come from a rich family, so I otherwise 

would not have had that opportunity. And since I had to 

refinance, you know, to kind of keep up with interest 

rates, I know that I don't have the same kind of access 

to student loan forgiveness or borrower relief, even 

though I applied for borrowers’ defense. And I would 

love for the Department of Education to take a deeper 

dive into Hope Medical Institute and the Medical 

University of Lublin because there are hundreds, if not 

over a thousand students [30 seconds] who were not given 

a lot of good information that we could have used ahead 
93

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

of time to make a more educated decision. And a lot of 

us again, they targeted Indian students by making 

commercials on Indian programs, knowing that, you know, 

these are people culturally who want their kids to 

become physicians and kind of targeted that and shuttled 

a lot of us into that school. So, thank you for your 

time. I really hope you guys investigate them and 

hopefully we can get some kind of loan forgiveness or 

something at some point for those students who went to 

Hope Medical Institute. But appreciate your time and 

hope you guys have a great week.

MR. MARTIN: Thank you, Dr. Murgasen.

DR. MURGASEN: Thank you.

MR. MARTIN: Our next and final 

speaker this afternoon will be Toni Lee. Ms. Lee, 

whenever you are ready.

MS. LEE: I attended a predatory 

school by the name of IADT, owned by CEC, the Career 

Education Corporation, and I trusted that the 

educational system of all systems be principled in truth 

and honesty so that the American dream could be more 

obtainable. These notions have been installed in our 

minds throughout adolescence, so I trusted this system 

to hold its school accountable and responsible to live 

up to their end of the deal. I trusted the Federal 
94

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

Government to release my loans to a trusted and approved 

entity. This is why I continued and completed my 

education at this school in particular. And I second 

everything that the previous gentleman said about his 

experience. I feel like I was targeted. I'm a firstgeneration graduate of my family. And I was- I'm told, 

prior to attending, I was told or taught very little 

about accreditation. This is all like aftermath things 

that you learn. There's- I feel like there's no 

transparency as far as like letting students before they 

attend school to know about the accreditation process. 

This was like not even something I really looked at. All 

I saw was it was a very commercialized school. So 

therefore, you know, I'm sitting at home and I'm looking 

at them like just indoctrinate and feed on your 

vulnerabilities of having and obtaining this dream that 

they're displaying in the commercial. So, I just feel 

they not only victimized me, but they victimized and 

took advantage of the system that is made to protect us 

which is the Department of of Student aid. It's designed 

to protect us and help us and give us a leg up and to 

get closer to this dream. And they victimize that system 

as well. So, I really hope that there's more 

transparency going forward with these schools’ processes 

of being accredited and just so there can be a trust 
95

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

that's built throughout the years. And, you know, the 

process is with you, with the Federal Government and the 

school is a tighter supervision that they're living up 

to what they are, their mission statement and what they 

are advertising themselves to be. So was just, I mean, 

it's just been a burden and such a- I'm better off not 

have attending this school like my life would have been 

better off and that in no way, shape or form should be, 

you know, the aftermath of attending any educational 

institution in this country. And yeah, I just I, I mean, 

I know that there's stuff that must be changed and it's 

just abused and taken advantage of. I just wanted to put 

my voice out there for all- I don't know any classmates 

that, I mean, you know, I don't- there's like a small 

percentage, you know, I don't know the stats or 

anything, but if you look at this school I went to, 

there's been numerous lawsuits over the years. My 

accreditation company has been dismantled, my 

everything. Sallie Mae, like, there's just a chain of 

just corruption, basically, and abuse that has taken 

place stemming from CEC and schools that they've had 

under their [30 seconds] corporation. So, I just feel 

like it's pretty much just self-explanatory if the 

Government investigates this corporation. So that's all 

my statement. Thank you very much.
96

Public Hearings – 04/12/23

MR. MARTIN: Thank you, Ms. Lee. This 

concludes today's public hearing. As I mentioned 

earlier, we will not be having the originally scheduled 

session tomorrow. I would like to thank all of our 

speakers for taking the time to prepare their remarks 

and share them with us. As a reminder, comments may be 

submitted electronically at www.Regulations.gov. Have a 

nice afternoon and goodbye.