U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION 

PUBLIC REGIONAL HEARING ON 

NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING

Monday, October 6, 2008 

9:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m. 

Johnson C. Smith University 

100 Beatties Ford Road 

Charlotte, North Carolina
P R O C E E D I N G S

MS. McCULLOUGH: Good morning. I'm Carney McCullough from the 

Department of Education, the Office of Postsecondary Education. To my 

left is Pamela Maimer, also with the Department of Education Office of 

Postsecondary Education. Out front, we have Nicky Harris and Patty Chase, 

from the Office of Postsecondary Education. They are the ones you met 

when you came in and signed you in. 

On behalf of Secretary Margaret Spellings and Acting Assistant 

Secretary Cheryl Oldham, I would like to welcome you today to our fourth 

regional hearing. I also want to say a particular thank you to Johnson C. 

Smith University and President Ronald Carter for hosting this event this 

morning. We really appreciate that. As I mentioned, this is the fourth of 

six hearings throughout the country that we are having on gathering 

information from you about the agenda and the issues that we should 

consider during the negotiated rulemaking that we will be conducting as a 

result of the recently enacted Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008, 

the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. So, basically, today, we 

are listening to you, to what you have to say to us. There is a sign-up 

sheet out front. Some of you may have come in through the back way. So, 

if you are interested in testifying or presenting oral comments today, if 

you'd come down and sign in, you can sign in anytime throughout the day. 

We're going to allow about five minutes for each commenter. We have a 

sign interpreter up here, if you need assistance in that way. We are also 

accepting written comments through October the 8th, which is Wednesday. 

Also, if you brought written comments and you want to give them to us 

after you finish testifying, that is fine as well. The address for the 

written comments is, through the Internet, it is HEOA08@ed.gov, if you 

wish to submit written comments. 

There was more information on the Federal Register notice that we 

published on the 8th of September. Let me just talk a little bit about 

negotiated rulemaking, for those of you who may not be as familiar with 

it. The first thing we do when we are conducting negotiated rulemaking is 

we are required to do for certain parts of this act is we have public 

hearings. We hear from you about what are the issues that you think are 

important for us to focus on and to hear what you have to say about that. 

2
We go back, we consider what we've heard and figure out exactly how many 

committees we are going to need to have and sort of what those committees 

are going to talk about, what is going to be sort of the scope of their 

work, and then we'll publish another Federal Register notice sort of 

announcing that information and soliciting nominations for negotiators to 

come and sit at the table and be negotiators in this negotiated 

rulemaking effort. Our actual negotiations will probably start around 

February. As you know, we will be having a new set of bosses in January. 

So we are doing as much as we can in anticipation of that, but we 

probably won't start actual negotiations until February. Each one of the 

committees meets three or four times over the course of three or four 

months and, at the end of that time, we hope to have consensus on the 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to be published in the Federal Register. 

And then we go through the normal and usual and customary process 

of accepting public comments on that Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. After 

that, we go back and we review the public comments, to get everything 

right, is there tweaking that needs to be done here or there, what might 

we need to change, and we'll publish the final regulations. For the Title 

IV programs, we're subject to a master calendar, which means that we'll 

have to have those final regulations published by November 1st of 2009 

for them to go into effect for the 2010-2011 award year. 

Pamela, would you like to say anything? 

MS. MAIMER: Well, thank you, Carney. 

It's wonderful to be here. It's a beautiful campus here at Johnson 

C. Smith, and we are very pleased and honored to be able to listen to 

your comments today. If you would, make sure that when you speak that you 

are speaking so that everyone can hear you and that we have 10 minutes 

per person for your comments. So I just wanted to say welcome. Now, I'm 

going to turn it over to the President, Ronald Carter, to give you some 

comments. 

MR. CARTER: Thank you very much. A very good morning to all of you. 

I am Ron Carter, a three-month, eight-day-old 13th President of Johnson 

C. Smith University. The trustees, faculty, staff, and students are very 

honored to have the opportunity to host this regional hearing for the 

United States Department of Education. Want to thank all of you for 

coming to Johnson C. Smith University today to participate in this 

important first stage in the negotiated rulemaking process. I also would 

like to thank Secretary Spellings and the Department of Education staff 

3
for choosing Johnson C. Smith University to host the fourth in a series 

of six regional hearings. We strongly support the Department's efforts to 

carry out these public hearings in compliance with the new law. 

Ms. Cynthia Anderson, Johnson C. Smith University's Financial Aid 

Director since 1995, will present testimony later today. Cynthia has a 

deep understanding of student financial aid administration. While Mrs. 

Anderson will make recommendations on behalf of Johnson C. Smith 

University, others will suggest particular issues and agenda items that 

we want to convey to the Department of Education as they work on 

implementing the changes made to the Higher Education Act of 1965 by the 

Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008. 

As you know, negotiated rulemaking is required for all Title IV 

Federal financial aid programs and a new teacher preparation program 

provision. Funding for higher education is a vital investment the Federal 

Government makes for millions of our students. As Charlotte's independent 

urban university and one of the country's Historically Black Colleges and 

Universities, we feel it is important to have the HBCU community 

represented as a negotiator as this important process progresses. The 

United Negro College Fund, the Thurgood Marshall College Fund, and the 

National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education would like 

to work with the Department in identifying the negotiators to represent 

the HBCU community. Some issues that are of particular importance to 

Johnson C. Smith include: One, establishing a new policy governing 

institutional and student eligibility and participation in the year-round 

Pell Grant Program during a single award year; two, propose regulatory 

changes governing the statutory modifications and the calculation of 

cohort default rates; and, three, proposed regulations that would 

implement the new statutory requirement limiting student eligibility to 

receive a Pell Grant to 18 semesters. 

Again, I am delighted that we are hosting one of the six regional 

hearings, and I want to welcome all of our panelists and you from the 

Department who are here today. Do your best thinking, for the future of 

our institutions is in your hands. 

Thank you. 

MS. McCULLOUGH: Our first speaker is Belle Wheelan, from SACS. 

MS. WHEELAN: Good morning. My name is Belle Wheelan, and I have the 

pleasure of serving over 800 institutions in 11 Southern States, Latin 

America and now Dubai, as President of the regional accrediting body 

4
known as the Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of 

Colleges and Schools or SACS. Additionally, I am a member of the Council 

of Regional Accrediting Commissions, or CRAC, the organizing body which 

ties together each of the seven regional accrediting commissions that 

collectively represents more than 3,000 institutions of higher education 

in the United States, enrolling more than 17 million students. Appreciate 

the opportunity to address this panel on the crucial issue of 

accreditation and several other issues under consideration during the 

Department of Education's rulemaking process for the recently 

reauthorized Higher Education Act. 

Accreditation in the United States is a nongovernmental, peerreview process, designed to evaluate and ensure the quality of 

educational institutions and programs in our institutions of higher 

education. Each of the accrediting bodies is recognized by the United 

States Department of Education and the Council on Higher Education 

Accreditation, or CHEA, and SACS has been continuously recognized by the 

Department since the recognition process was initiated in the early 

1950s. Not only does accreditation signal to the general public that an 

institution has successfully demonstrated that it meets all of the 

standards that have been developed to ensure quality in all of its 

programs and services, but we also know that DOE uses accreditation as a 

prerequisite for institutions to obtain Federal Title IV student aid. 

Through a network of professional peers and members of the general 

public, the evaluation process assesses formal educational activities, 

including the development and assessment of student learning outcomes as 

well as such things as governance and administration, financial 

stability, library and learning resources, admissions and student support 

services, and institutional and educational effectiveness. 

During the recent process to reauthorize the Higher Education Act, 

accreditation was one of the central issues addressed. Consequently, we 

believe that it will also continue to be one of the most important topics 

facing the Department as it drafts regulations to implement this new law. 

We urge the Department to take special care to ensure that the committee 

structure that is chosen for this rulemaking process is done in such a 

way as not to lump accreditation in with dozens of other unrelated 

issues. We also ask that care be given to getting the right people with 

the right expertise at the table when this issue is considered. Please 

know that the members of CRAC stand ready to be helpful and active 

5
participants in the rulemaking process. While Congress made it very clear 

that the negotiated rulemaking process should not promulgate regulations 

dealing with the standards used by accrediting bodies to ensure academic 

quality, there are other key policy issues that we believe could be 

clarified during the neg-reg process. Would like to briefly outline a few 

now. 

Under distance learning, CRAC is uniquely aware of the issues 

facing online education today. We were in front of this issue several 

years ago when we adopted and implemented a common statement called, 

"Principles of Good Practice," an electronically offered academic degree 

and certificate program that had been developed by the Western 

Cooperative for Educational Telecommunications or WCET. WCET has recently 

developed another document that identifies some of the strategies that 

have already successfully been adopted by institutions to ensure the 

integrity of their electronically delivered programs. Though the student 

authentication requirement would not be overly onerous to the majority of 

accredited online and distance learning providers, it could drive up the 

cost of these programs if expensive procedures are mandated. 

There is an obvious concern on the part of Congress to ensure that 

students who enroll in courses delivered through this medium are the same 

ones who attend and participate throughout the entire length of the 

course. However, the community is not aware of a significant problem in 

this area. Therefore, during the rulemaking process, it will be important 

to know the extent of the problem before mandated solutions are put in 

place. Since the majority of students who enroll in distance learning 

courses and programs are adult learners, many of whom are returning for 

job preparation and who have limited incomes anyway, the cost of 

implementing the system will be another unfunded mandate and the cost 

will fall to them to bear. 

Due process. The issue of ensuring that accrediting bodies provide 

their members with due process throughout the accreditation process, 

including during possible withdrawal procedures, has always been of vital 

importance to members of CRAC. Loss of membership is never taken lightly 

and procedural fairness and due process have always been integral parts 

of the process. At the same time, we must not have so many stringent 

process protections that we lose our ability to take decisive action to 

protect the best interest of students and their families when we find 

wrongdoing or an inability of an institution to comply with the 

6
accreditation standards. Over the years, CRAC members have made a number 

of positive changes to their procedures, and we believe that every one of 

the regional accreditors already have processes in place to reflect 

nearly all of the changes in the new law. 

Under monitoring institutional growth, there is language in the new 

law requiring accrediting bodies to monitor the growth of institutions 

that are experiencing significant enrollment growth. Regional accreditors 

already make a practice of monitoring the growth of our institutions and 

unusual changes they might experience. Any attempt to define the 

parameters of what constitutes significant growth or define steps that 

must be taken to address a particular situation would likely be very 

difficult, in our view. Rulemaking that creates a rigid, one-size fitsall structure will limit our ability to respond in a nimble and efficient 

way. Transfer of credit. The law requires accreditors to confirm that an 

institution has transfer of credit policies that are, A, publicly 

disclosed and, B, include a statement of the criteria established by the 

institution regarding the transfer of credit earned at another 

institution of higher education. These provisions give clear direction to 

accreditors to ensure a transfer of credit policy is in place and does 

not give license for an overall evaluation of any particular policy used 

by an institution or group of institutions. We believe that this language 

is fairly straightforward and unambiguous and does not need to be further 

refined in a regulatory process. The protections of the Higher Education 

Opportunities Act have struck a careful balance between all segments of 

the higher education community. Too much regulatory tinkering or reaching 

beyond the original intent of the law or allowing too many outside 

interests to reopen issues that were resolved by Congress could upend 

this balance. 

Finally, we urge the Department to keep two overarching principles 

in mind during this rulemaking process: consultation to achieve buy-in 

from all parts of our community and flexibility to allow accreditors to 

adapt the policies to the individual circumstances that present 

themselves to our Commissions. Thank you for allowing me to testify 

today. Please feel free to call upon me or any of my colleagues in 

accreditation if we may be of any assistance, formal or otherwise, during 

the rulemaking process. 

MS. McCULLOUGH: Thank you very much. Jack Henderson. 

7
MR. HENDERSON: Good morning. My name is Jack Henderson, and I am 

President of the Brookstone College of Business, a proprietary 

institution with two campuses here in North Carolina. I am also President 

of the North Carolina Association of Career Colleges and Schools, a 

professional organization of North Carolina private career schools. From 

1998 to 2003, I served as a Commissioner with the Accrediting Council for 

Independent Colleges and Schools, ACICS, a nationally recognized 

accrediting agency by the U.S. Department of Education, serving in 2003 

as chair of the Council. 

While a Commissioner, I also worked with the Department in the 

selection of Round 1 and 2 for the Department of Education's Distance 

Education Demonstration Program, reviewing the applications on their 

behalf. I would like to thank the Secretary for this opportunity to come 

before you and present my views on the Higher Education Opportunity Act. 

I would like to address two areas of the Higher Education 

Opportunity Act, 90-10 and copyright infringement. The Higher Education 

Opportunity Act provides additional flexibility to institutions for the 

period July 1, 2008, to June 30, 2012, allowing them to count the net 

present value of institutional loans made during that period on a cash 

basis toward 90-10 compliance. There are several issues related to this 

provision that I would like to address. 

One, the language requires that the loans be issued at intervals 

related to the institution's enrollment periods. This language should be 

interpreted broadly to allow an institution to issue these loans on an 

annual basis to students and not require that there be multiple 

disbursements. The concern that this provision was trying to address was 

that institutions would wait until the end of their fiscal year and only 

make institutional loans needed to reach their 10-percent target. My 

institution and many others have multiple class starts each fiscal year, 

providing these institutional loans to students at the beginning of those 

students' academic year would spread the loans out over the course of the 

institution's fiscal year. Auditors and program reviewers could easily 

cross-reference disbursement dates with the institutions' enrollment 

periods. 

Two, the law also requires that the loans be subject to regular 

repayment and collections. The regulations related to this provision need 

to allow for the deferment of payment on an institutional loan while the 

8
student is enrolled. Deferment of payments is in the best interests of 

student borrowers. 

Three, the provision requires that the net present value be 

determined by the CPAs in accordance with generally accepted accounting 

principles and related standards and guidance. Would ask that the 

Department not regulate this concept but rather leave it to the expertise 

of the CPAs. 

Four, the law provides that an institution cannot, in later years, 

use the revenue derived from repayments on loans toward 90-10 compliance 

if they use the accrual value of those loans in a prior year. This 

provision requires an institution to make a choice each year as to 

whether to use the accrual method or to save those loans for use on a 

cash basis later. The law is intended to provide flexibility to schools 

in achieving 90-10 compliance through the use of this temporary 

provision, and that intent would best be served by allowing institutions 

maximum flexibility to make a decision on a loan-by-loan basis each year 

rather than being required to treat all loans in a given year the same 

way. 

The Higher Education Opportunity Act provides that for loans 

disbursed from July 1, 2008, to June 30, 2011, an institution can treat 

as non-Title IV revenue the amount of Stafford Loan disbursed to a 

student that exceeded the loan limits that existed prior to enactment of 

the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act, Public Law 110-227. 

The intent was, during this period of a tightened credit market, to allow 

funds that otherwise would likely have been provided by private lenders, 

but will now be provided under the authority of the temporary increase in 

loan limits, to count toward 90-10 compliance. A couple of implementation 

issues arise. 

One, because Stafford Loans are divided into multiple 

disbursements, the question arises as to how an institution will 

attribute the extra loan amounts, especially in instances where some 

disbursements will cross over into the next fiscal year. The most 

sensible method for handling this issue would be to attribute the extra 

loan amount to each payment period in proportion to its relation to the 

total amount of Stafford Loan as it was initially packaged. For example, 

assume a financial aid package includes a $6,000 unsubsidized Stafford 

Loan. The loan will be disbursed in two disbursements, with the first 

disbursement occurring in one fiscal year, the second disbursement 

9
occurring in the subsequent fiscal year. The amount of each disbursement 

is $3,000. The law allows for $2,000 of the $6,000 to count as non-Title 

IV revenue. In this example, the institution should be allowed to count 

$1,000 from each of the two disbursements as non-Title IV revenue. 

Schools should not be required to go back after the close of the fiscal 

year and reattribute the loan back to Title IV revenue if the student 

subsequently drops out and does not receive the remaining disbursement. 

Adopting a narrow view, allowing only amounts in excess of the original 

loan in this example, defeats the purpose and intent of the provision. 

Similarly, if a student drops out during the fiscal year and the funds 

are subject to return of Title IV funds calculation, the amount of 

Stafford Loan returned should be proportionately attributed to the extra 

and regular Stafford Loan amounts for purposes of the 90-10 calculation. 

The Higher Education Opportunity Act requires that institutions take 

steps to prevent students from illegally downloading and peer-to-peer 

sharing of copyrighted material. This provision was aimed mainly at 

traditional colleges and universities that provide high-speed Internet 

connections to their students in dormitories. My institution does not 

offer housing. Computers are utilized in the classrooms under the 

supervision of a faculty member. The risk of illegal downloading and 

sharing of copyrighted material is minimal at best. The regulations 

implementing this provision should, therefore, place less of a burden on 

institutions that do not have dormitories or other residential facilities 

where Internet connections are provided for students. Burdensome 

regulations, where there is little risk, serve only to increase the costs 

to the institution and, ultimately, the students. 

Again, I wish to thank the Secretary and the panel for the 

opportunity to express my views. Thank you. Have a great day. 

MS. McCULLOUGH: Thank you. Sherri Avent. 

MS. AVENT: Good morning. My name is Sherri Avent, and I am the 

Director of Financial Aid at North Carolina A&T State University. 

I bring you greetings on behalf of our Chancellor, Dr. Stanley F. 

Battle. I have worked in the financial aid field for about 27 or more 

years, including service at St. Augustine's College in Raleigh. I am 

pleased to appear this morning as a member institution on behalf of 

Thurgood Marshall College Fund. North Carolina A&T is North Carolina's 

third oldest and its largest Historically Black Institution, as well as 

its only Historically Black Land Grand Institution. It was chartered by 

10
the North Carolina General Assembly in 1891, as a State's Historically 

Black Land Grant Institution, following Congress's enactment of the 

second Morrill Act of 1890. We are proud to be America's largest producer 

of African-American engineers. The Thurgood Marshall Fund was founded in 

1985 as the fund-raising organization for the nation's Historically Black 

Public Colleges and Universities. The Fund launched a major public policy 

advocacy and information initiative for its 47th Historically and 

Predominantly Black Colleges and Universities member institutions in 2003 

and has worked closely with its member institutions, the Congress and its 

HBCU partners association during the five-year Higher Education Act 

reauthorization process. I am pleased to join the dedicated 

representatives of the U.S. Department of Education, my peers and friends 

in the financial aid community, my colleagues in the higher education 

community to outline several of the primary issues that we believe should 

be included in the plan agenda for the 2008-2009 negotiated rulemaking 

session with regard to the Title IV student assistance. Mr. Dwayne 

Ashley, President and CEO of Thurgood Marshall Fund, has sent a letter to 

Secretary Spellings, outlining all of the issues that the Fund believes 

should be addressed in the negotiated rulemaking sessions. I will simply 

highlight several of these issues. 

First, the Higher Education Opportunity Act includes a statutory 

change that would amend Section 401 of the Higher Education Act to 

establish a limit of 18 semesters or the equivalent with regard to the 

students' eligibility to receive a Pell Grant for all the students who 

receive Pell Grants on or after July 1st, 2008. The Secretary of 

Regulatory Authority to interpret this new statutory requirement could 

have significant impact on the persistence of lower income and some 

minority and first-generation college students. Accuracy and clarity in 

any regulation implementing this statutory change are critical to a 

successful implementation. 

Second, the Higher Education Opportunity Act also includes a 

statutory change with regard to the calculation of institutional cohort 

default rates. Section 435 was amended to add a third year to the period 

for calculating an institutional cohort default rate, which will have the 

practical effect of increasing default rates at certain institutions. It 

appears that the new calculation could negatively impact the default rate 

at Historically Black Colleges and Universities. 

11
Third, the Higher Education Opportunity Act also includes numerous 

changes in the Federal Family Educational Loan Program and the Ford 

Federal Direct Student Loan Program. Since HBCU students rely 

disproportionately on Federal student loans to pay for college, any 

change, good or bad, can impact enrollment and the opportunity for our 

students to gain access to college and the ultimate survival of the HBCUs 

because of the high tuition dependency. Thurgood Marshall and the HBCUs 

would like to be represented on the Loan Committee organized for this 

2008-2009 negotiated rulemaking. 

Finally, Thurgood Marshall was one of the only three or four 

national higher education associations, including the United Negro 

College Fund, that advocate for the creation of the year-round Pell 

Grant. We believe that our students will benefit from the award of a 

second Pell Grant in an award year, allowing them to attend college year 

round by enrolling for a third summer semester. While some students that 

would normally graduate in four years would finish in three by attending 

year round, we strongly support a regulatory interpretation that provides 

for maximum institutional participation and student eligibility for the 

year-round Pell Grant Program. The Historically Black College and 

University community has been represented at each negotiated rulemaking 

session that follow a reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. The 

three major HBCU associations, the National Association for Equal 

Opportunity in Higher Education, NAFEO, the Thurgood Marshall College 

Fund and the United Negro College Fund, have collaborated in order to 

ensure the presence and participation of the entire HBCU community and 

our member institutions in these important regulatory deliberations. 

Because of the important issues outlined above and others that 

impact our community that we have not mentioned, we look forward to 

participating in the 2008-2009 round of negotiations. My comments 

relative to the hearing today represent my thoughts and views on behalf 

of Thurgood Marshall College Fund. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today. 

MS. McCULLOUGH: Thank you. William Cameron. 

MR. CAMERON: Good morning. My name is William Cameron. I am the 

Assistant Vice Chancellor for Information Security at the University of 

North Carolina, Chapel Hill. 

12
I would, first, like to thank the Department of Education for 

providing this opportunity to make comments. I would also like to thank 

Johnson C. Smith University for hosting this event. 

In response to the recent signing of the Higher Education 

Opportunity Act, with the sections imposing new duties on universities to 

take an active role in combating illegal file sharing, we, as 

representatives of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, would 

like to take this opportunity to submit the following comments regarding 

any new rules that may be developed to further define and/or enforce 

Sections 488 and 493. Specifically, Section 493 requires that every 

college and university develop plans to effectively combat the 

unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material, including through the 

use of a variety of technology-based deterrents. We believe this language 

is intentionally vague. Appropriately, the lack of further definition 

intends to provide academic institutions with the maximum flexibility in 

meeting this new requirement. We are concerned that, as a part of the 

planned enforcement efforts, further rules will be developed which may 

limit colleges' and universities' options in how they pursue effectively 

combating the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material. Such 

additional rules may result in significant and unintended consequences. 

As we are sure you are aware, in terms of information technology, college 

environments are both diverse and complex. Institutions have made 

significant investments in their IT infrastructure with the goal of 

enhancing information sharing. Should the Department of Education seek to 

be more specific in its rulemaking process to define and limit what is 

meant by acceptable technology-based deterrents or if inappropriate 

metrics are applied to measure an institution's success in effectively 

combating the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material, we are 

concerned that long-term severe and unintended consequences may result. 

If implemented without proper consideration, rules may be 

established that require specific technologies that are expensive, 

limiting and ineffective. Arbitrary deadlines could be set which will 

require a reprioritization of equally or more important initiatives. 

Additionally, the selection of poor metrics to measure effectiveness 

could result in wasted resources and inaccurate assessment of a college's 

progress in helping address the illegal distribution of copyrighted 

material. These profound and unintended consequences are possible if 

thorough consideration is not given during the rulemaking process. In 

13
conclusion, we, the representatives of the University of North Carolina 

at Chapel Hill, recommend that any planned rules directed at enforcing 

Section 493, as well as Section 488, be included as a part of a 

negotiated rule process to ensure that thorough consideration has been 

given before developing any related rules. We further request that the 

rules for Sections 493 and 488 be tasked to a negotiated rulemaking 

committee that is dedicated just to this issue. The rulemaking committee 

should be composed of members with the background, skill, and diversity 

required to develop appropriate rules that meet the language of the act, 

while providing institutions with the maximum flexibility to meet the new 

requirements of the HEOA in a way that minimizes the adverse impact to 

college environments. 

We specifically request that EDUCAUSE be included in any rulemaking 

body, as this association has a rich history of addressing this issue on 

behalf of our community and a deep understanding of the issues facing 

higher education institutions in dealing with this complex and difficult 

issue. 

Thank you, again, for this opportunity today to express our 

comments and our concerns. 

MS. McCULLOUGH: Thank you. Cynthia Anderson. 

MS. ANDERSON: My name is Cynthia Anderson. I want to thank you for 

inviting me to speak. I am the Director here, tomorrow will be 13 years. 

My background, for the last 20-something years, has been financial aid. I 

started at the University of Wyoming, which was a state school, I went to 

a proprietary school for several years and then went into the private 

schools. I think what I would like to say is more from the trenches 

because those that make the rules are out there, but we have to enforce 

the rules. 

Some of the things that I have seen that has change drastically in 

the last several years is the Pell Grant eligibility. They have raised 

the eligibility, but they have lowered the EFC, so we have a lot of 

middle-class parents that are not eligible for the Pell Grant anymore. So 

we can limit the semesters they get it or we can broaden the semesters 

they get it, but we have a huge gap for middle-income families, and it is 

stopping those students from coming to school. The adding a semester for 

students I believe would help them. They could possibly finish quicker. 

And with a private school, that would be very important just because of 

their loan indebtedness that we see now. 

14
The default rates. I hate to even mention the default rates because 

they are confusing, as it is now. I know that a lot of schools it affects 

them so dramatically and schools work very hard on trying to keep them 

down, working with the students while they're in school, out of school 

and for someone--for that to change, it's a huge impact on every school 

that is out there, from the community colleges, for those that don't even 

give to loans anymore to these students because they are afraid of the 

default rate. 

Thank you for inviting me. This is our seeing-eye dog that we have 

here, I understand. Thanks a lot. 

MS. McCULLOUGH: Thank you. Bill Zahn. 

MR. ZAHN: My name is Bill Zahn. I'm the Associate Director at the 

University of North Carolina at Greensboro. I am really here more as not 

representing the university but just as the profession. Some of my 

concerns are that as I was going through provisions of the Higher Ed, it 

seems that there are a number of things that are coming out, the new 

definitions for independent students and the documentation that is going 

to go along with that. The schools are going to be responsible for 

collecting, although it is self-reported. One of the things, at least in 

what I was reading, is that they adopted, to clarify that an orphaned 

individual in Foster Care or an emancipated minor can be declared an 

independent. Does that mean it is permissive or is it that they will be? 

The language is there. Hopefully, that will be brought out. 

I hope that when it comes into the negotiated rulemaking that some 

of these provisions that have a cost factor associated will be taken into 

consideration. There was another one, which I'm not sure I can find it 

now, but basically it was, it prohibits somebody that was convicted of a 

sexual crime. Who is going to monitor that and how will that reporting be 

done? 

Hopefully--oh, there was one other one. That in the area where 

there were prohibitions against--and it was in the lending section and in 

the guarantee section, that allowed for exit counseling, but it was 

silent on entrance counseling. Is that prohibited? And yet when you look 

at some of the other provisions and language, it included both entrance 

and exit. So it just appeared to be that there was sort of a disconnect 

in the process. Of course, that may be typical for stuff coming out of 

Congress. 

That was basically it. Thanks. 

15
MS. McCULLOUGH: Thank you. Bill Spiers. 

MR. SPIERS: Good morning. I'm Bill Spiers. I am the Director of 

Financial Aid at Tallahassee Community College, but today I'm 

representing the Florida Association of Student Financial Aid 

Administrators and our some 800 members. 

I am going to try to keep my remarks brief because I know there are 

others following me. Today, we wanted to talk very briefly about Section 

483 and simplification. As a public two-year institution, I feel that I 

can implement simplification without any difficulties. My concerns and 

our concerns as an association arise from the fact that as we continue to 

simplify the free application for Federal student aid, we turn schools 

away from using solely the free application to using other sources that 

provide additional information and are fee based to students. So what we 

have done is we have taken a free process, and we have added a fee to it 

unintentionally, but because we continue to remove the items that are 

needed by financial aid administrators to do their job on a day-to-day 

basis. It would be much better to slow down simplification. I was part of 

the initial effort on this. I was part of the College Board CSS Assembly 

Council, and we were privy to the initial discussions on this topic. And 

my concern was then, and is now, how are we going to do our day-to-day 

job and administer our institutional funds with the elimination of the 

items that we are talking about at this point? 

Another concern that I have are the estimates that have been 

bandied about over the last few months in concern to simplification is 

that it would increase the population applying for aid by approximately 

40 percent. If that number is true, if that number is even in the 

relative ballpark, and we see an increase in applications of 40 percent 

in need-based funds, where are the funds coming from to fund these 

students? So you have to understand, as we understand, I know that we are 

all in agreement that this is not a need-based formula that we are using 

but rather a rationing device to distribute limited funds over the 

largest population possible. So if we increase it by 40 percent, I do not 

see additional funds coming or being funded by the Congress at this time 

with other pressing issues that we know of existing. So we have to ask 

ourselves that question. 

In conjunction with that, Section 484, in model forms, it always 

frightens me when we start talking about model forms. If you will think 

back, I forget, two reauthorizations ago, we were all dictated to put in 

16
front of Pell, Federal Pell; in front of Stafford, Federal Stafford. The 

reason for this because students didn't realize they were receiving 

Federal funds. I don't think students realize anymore today that they are 

receiving Federal funds than they did before we put the word "Federal" in 

front of them. I think that to dictate what we put in our forms and how 

the forms are laid out will actually serve to erode what we can 

communicate to students because each of our institutions collectively 

work diligently to ensure that the message to the student is clear, that 

the message is concise and that the message is correct. So it is very 

important to us that the student understand what we are telling them 

because we realize that our packages are being compared against other 

institutions and we want students to see us in the best light possible 

too. My third point is from Section 111, reporting requirements. Again, 

this frightens us because we don't know what we're getting into. What of 

this information isn't already available either through the various 

reports we're filing or through other actions that we have to take from 

our program participation agreement to other items? What's really not 

available and why are we adding additional burdens on the schools in 

order to provide additional documents? I think this is an unnecessary 

burden that we need to look at, possibly even take back as a technical 

amendment, but those are the three things that we wanted to highlight 

today. 

I want to remind you that in the last real reauthorization we had, 

we were given a great gift. It was called "Return to Title IV." None of 

us have figured that out yet, and now we are looking at these additional 

items. So the main thing to remember as we move forward is that the 

Higher Education Act and the Title IV funds that are available to us are 

for students. And everything we can do to keep this process clear for 

students, keep it free for students, and encourage students to apply, 

they are good things. But let us also remember we are dealing with 

limited dollars and that we have to tell the students, if we have another 

episode of linear reduction, and it falls on us to convey that message. 

Thank you. 

MS. McCULLOUGH: Thank you. Kim Jenerette. 

MR. JENERETTE: My name is Kim Jenerette. I am the Director of 

Financial Aid at University of South Carolina Upstate, just up the road 

two hours from here in Spartanburg, South Carolina. I serve on the 

17
Legislative Relations Committee for SCASFAA, a nine-state association, as 

well as chair the same committee in South Carolina. 

It is my first time at a regional hearing. I was a little bit 

nervous when I first got here. That nervousness quickly evaporated when I 

saw Carney and her smile, her warm demeanor. And as I say that now, 

Carney has not always been friendly to us. I've gone to her before and 

asked her some certain things when I was at Furman University, and she 

came back and told us no. But we still like Carney. She still works with 

us, and she still listens to us. So it's a pleasure to see you here this 

morning. 

As Cynthia noted earlier, and Bill--both Bills--I am in the 

Financial Aid Office as well. So we're in the trenches, and I want to get 

right down to some things that I believe are important. So what better 

place to start than the Financial Aid Office than Section 402, the 

Academic Competitiveness Grant. I believe we're in the third year of a 5-

year-funded program. The last time I heard numbers, we're about 50 to 60 

percent of appropriations--50 to 60 percent of the appropriations were 

actually spent. That cheer you heard a couple of weeks ago, or whenever, 

was not the folks cheering for their favorite football team; it was those 

of us in the Financial Aid Office when we heard or read that ECASLA had 

changed the basis of tracking progression from an academic year to just 

the word "year." That's a major fundamental shift in the Financial Aid 

Office. I never really knew there were different definitions between 

academic year, award year, and year until we came up with the Academic 

Competitiveness Grant. My first recommendation would be when the ACG and 

SMART abolish the weeks of instruction. By trying to mirror this with 

ours and looking at this, this has greatly reduced the efficiency for us 

delivering financial aid. And in some institutions, the last SCASFAA 

meeting, there were well over 100 schools that had not made one award 

yet. So it has not only greatly reduced the efficiency in delivering 

awards but just awarding in general. 

I am hoping that using grade level may be the somewhat universal 

standard that we can use in determining eligibility for the ACG award for 

students. With that, we could allow for the inclusiveness of all hours, 

collegiately earned hours. That would include AP, IB or dual enrollment 

hours. Now, that would be a little tricky, but about two years ago, we 

had a combined Carolina conference at the Grovepark Inn in Nashville, and 

18
Anthony Jones, our friend, talked about the assumption versus the 

tracking methods. 

This would allow us to work with what educators called an 

individualized education plan, when dealing with kids in high school, in 

elementary school, in middle school, and it allows us to work with 

students who may come in with 24 or 30 hours of earned work already. And 

for those students who are on an accelerated track, we could possibly 

view them, and if an appropriate measure, they could get a SMART Grant 

later on, since they may graduate in three years, but for those students 

who would still continue to come four years and not be SMART Grant 

eligible, we could go with the tracking method and allow them to be more 

efficient and receiving the ACG-1 and ACG-2, should they be eligible 

again. I would like to mention maybe considering for ACG-2 for students 

who did not meet the rigorous high school requirements to be eligible to 

receive the ACG-2 by reaching the certain hours, whether it be 24 and 30 

as we have it in the current environment and the necessary 3.0 GPA, if 

they have proven academic success or academic strength. 

Section 401, the Federal Pell Grants, I agree with my colleagues 

about the 18 semester limits and concerns. I would just like to state, 

through technical amendments or what have you, allow institutions to 

continue to monitor this through satisfactory academic progress. If there 

are institutions who are abusing this, we have existing laws on the 

books, we have program reviews, we have audits to deal with it 

accordingly. For multiple Pell Grants within a single year, I don't think 

there would be anyone in this room that would be against that. The only 

thing I would carefully ask the Department to do, through negotiated 

rulemaking, is to allow the regs to be drafted which will allow us, as 

institutions, to meet 668.16. And if memory serves me correctly, that is 

to capably administer the types of aid we have. Section 412, the TEACH 

Grant. That has changed all my presentations. I am now allowed to use the 

word "caveat" in my presentations because this grant is not gift-based 

aid. By the Department's own statistics, they have conservatively noted 

that 80 to 86 percent of students will not meet the service obligations. 

For those of you who are in this room and you are not in the Financial 

Aid Office, let me say that again. This is called the TEACH Grant. It is 

a grant that converts to a loan. We in the Financial Aid Office call it a 

"groan." And the Department has come back and said 80 to 86 percent of 

students will not meet the service requirements. So if a student receives 

19
a $16,000 grant undergraduate, which is the aggregate limits currently 

for a student and they do not meet the service requirements, that grant, 

for those of you not in the office, I want you to understand, this 

converts to an approximately $37,000 unsubsidized loan. That's in 

addition to the annual and aggregate limits a student can receive on the 

Stafford Loan. 

So, very simply, while we applaud the Department allowing for the 

flexibility to utilize majors at each institution, we just want the name 

of this program changed from TEACH Grant to TEACH Loan. That allows, in 

gear-up programs that we have everywhere, it allows early awareness for 

the students to understand what type of funds they may be receiving and 

maybe consider that this loan converts to a grant not after four years of 

service but perhaps after two years of service. 

Lastly, I want to close by just reviewing Section 151. Section 151 

deals with definitions. And we would like to consider revising the 

definition of a "preferred lender arrangement," substitute that to 

perhaps "participating lender arrangement." The word "preferred" denotes 

a school has an active preference for a specified lender, when 

recommendation of such a preference to a borrower is otherwise prohibited 

by law. The word "participating" connotes the appropriate distance 

between the school and the lender that schools are required to maintain. 

Thank you both for allowing me to speak. 

MS. McCULLOUGH: Thank you. Bob Stovall. 

MR. STOVALL: Hello. Thank you. I'm Bob Stovall. I'm from Merit 

Network. It's a 501(3)(c) organization based in Michigan, and our 

community members are the public universities and private colleges and 

other higher eds in Michigan. 

I'm here to talk about the peer-to-peer copyrighting infringement 

provisions that are in this act. The concern we have here, and I think 

some other folks have talked about this, is that we are worried that it's 

going to be a one-size-fits all approach, and that is going to be not 

manageable on the technology side. And our concern is this, is that it's 

really focused against the larger universities, and the smaller colleges 

and junior colleges that have small dormitories or don't have dormitories 

at all, they're going to have to abide by the same rules, and we don't 

think that's going to be manageable or affordable for them. There is 

another concern here, too; that they are talking about the peer-to-peer 

applications and file sharing. There's a whole plethora of legitimate use 

20
for those applications in research and content management within campuses 

and external to campuses to the remote campuses and to the online 

students, and we don't want to damage that ability for the content to be 

provided. We don't want to prevent our institutions from meeting their 

mission, which is to educate our students in our community. So we've got 

to create the rules. And as one of our colleagues has mentioned, and 

bring in organizations like EDUCAUSE in part of the rulemaking, to make 

sure it is measured and the whole community is represented, that we're 

just not trying to say, well, the large universities can do this, the 

research universities can do that--so everyone can do that. No, we've got 

to have measured, leveled rules for each part of our community. It's 

really, really important. Because as we move forward, we need to use our 

technology to educate our communities and to use the technology to get 

the word out and not prevent it. Some of these rules could be made that 

would prevent us from being able to use the right technology for the 

right applications. So I would like to thank you for the opportunity to 

speak on this. I really recommend or just strongly recommend that 

considerations of the smaller campuses are taken when you create these 

rules. 

Thank you. 

MS. McCULLOUGH: Thank you very much. Jim Kessler. 

MR. KESSLER: Good morning. I don't know if anyone has formally 

welcomed you to North Carolina. So welcome. We have this weather that we 

have to put up with all the time, including today. 

My name is Jim Kessler. I'm the Director of Disability Services at 

the University of North Carolina. I am here representing the Association 

on Higher Education and Disabilities, of which I have been fortunate 

enough to be a past President. I want to thank you for allowing us the 

opportunity to speak to you today. And, first, let me say that AHEAD 

fully supports the Higher Education Opportunity Act reauthorization, 

which we believe supports the efforts of institutions of higher education 

and our core constituency to improve transition, support and 

instructional services, service and instructions for all students with 

disabilities. While 77 percent of students with disabilities hope to go 

to college, only 31 percent are able to attend. We are hopeful that these 

new regulations will increase the opportunities for all students with 

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

is a professional organization of individuals involved in the development 

21
of policy and the provisions of quality services to meet the needs of 

persons with disabilities involved in all areas of higher education--

undergraduate, graduate, professional two-year and four-year schools all 

over. We have about 2,500 members throughout the United States and in 

other countries. We are fortunate to have a formal membership with 30 

affiliates around the country and numerous other professional 

organizations working to advance equality in higher education for persons 

with disabilities. 

AHEAD dynamically addresses current and emerging issues with 

respect to disability, education, accessibility for persons with 

disabilities and trying to be able to achieve universal access. As such, 

we are actively involved in all facets of promoting full and equal 

participation by individuals with disabilities in higher education and 

supporting the systems, institutions, professions and professionals to 

attend to the fulfillment of this obligation. There are five points we 

would like to address this morning. 

Under Title II, Part B, Section 3, Subpart 3, Section 251, 

Preparing General Education Teachers to More Effectively Educate Students 

with Disabilities. AHEAD supports a structured, multi-sensory approach as 

outlined by the National Reading Panel, which highlights five pillars of 

literacy that are critical to the essentials of reading skills. As part 

of this, AHEAD supports the use of research-based methodologies in 

determining the best approach to instructions in reading and mathematics. 

The education of teachers takes place within higher education. Our 

approach toward disabilities and accommodations form the foundation for 

the expertise of the future teachers and the employers it prepares. 

The necessity for students in K-12 to be able to learn the skills 

to learn is critical for the transition to higher education. Because of 

the influence of the climate and the importance of modeling the best 

practices, AHEAD supports the model demonstration projects of Title VII 

to provide technical assistance and professional development for faculty, 

staff and administrations in institutions of higher education in order to 

provide students with disabilities quality education at all levels. We 

also encourage the investigation of models, whereby teachers' preparation 

programs can more effectively model and assist in accelerated training of 

those teachers recruited from model national programs such as Teachers of 

America. Point two, under Title VII, an advisory commission on accessible 

instructional materials and postsecondary education for students with 

22
disabilities. This also is a concern for the other gentleman who spoke 

about copyrights. AHEAD fully supports all efforts to make instructional 

materials in a timely and useable format for all students with 

disabilities. This is particularly important for those students with 

print disabilities, as was outlined in the Wall Street Journal article on 

September 17th of this year, which chronicled the increasing number of 

students with learning disabilities entering postsecondary education and 

their needs for varying levels of alternatives to print. AHEAD and its 

members have been important leaders in the creation and the development 

of expansion of services to fill the void of alternative print, such as 

Book Share, and to encourage RFB&D, Recordings for the Blind and 

Dyslexic, efforts to provide materials in a digital format. 

AHEAD member institutions have an obligation to ensure 

nondiscrimination of all persons with disabilities in accordance with the 

language of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its amendments and 

the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. We feel that the current definition, as 

listed in the Higher Education Textbook Access Act of 2007, referring to 

print disability, would exclude or not sufficiently encompass people with 

disabilities who would participate in or benefit from the use of books in 

an electronic format. The definition needs to be revised to not be based 

on the outdated National Library Service standard definition, but on the 

definition that reflects today's scientific realities. As our campuses 

are beginning to deal with issues confronting returning service men and 

women with disabilities, we need to broaden our ability to understand and 

address the disability-related impacts to reading and other academic 

tasks are essential. 

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

broad spectrum of materials and needs to encourage the common approach to 

flexibility and formats that will allow students to move between and 

within our educational systems. We look forward to participating and 

consulting and assisting in these efforts. 

Point three, an e-text clearinghouse. Under Title VII, a model 

demonstration program to support improved access to postsecondary and 

instructional materials for students with print disabilities. Through our 

e-text initiative, a collaborative project involving numerous student 

organizations and institutions they serve, publishers, AHEAD has 

developed an understanding of stakeholders' positions and current 

capacities. AHEAD supports the idea of a national clearinghouse for 

23
accessible text, seeing it as a necessary and efficient first step to a 

seamless provision of accessible digital technology directly for students 

with print impairments. We support the goal and the intentions of this 

legislation to improve timely and useful access to printed instructional 

materials for people with disabilities. We absolutely realize that while 

the current section is not the final answer to the issues of text 

accessibility, it clearly provides for a critical first step in attacking 

a significant area. Point four, data collection under Title IX. Colleges 

will be asked to report the "percentage of undergraduates enrolled in the 

institution who are formally registered with the Office of Disability 

Services of the institution or the equivalent office for students with 

disabilities." 

The collection of data on students with disabilities has been 

inconsistent over time and across institutions. The lack of consistent 

data has hindered the evaluation of our progress toward inclusion, our 

identification of best practices and our ability to predict future 

resource needs. AHEAD sees the simple headcount of students with 

disabilities seeking services or accommodations as an opportunity to 

develop an infrastructure for the collection of more meaningful data and 

the development of reliable models for service delivery and resource 

planning. We are pleased to see the addition of this provision because 

students with disabilities, like all of the minority populations on 

campus, deserve to be included and counted. 

Currently, there is no defined system or methodology in place to 

count college students with disabilities, and determining how this task 

is accomplished is critical. Some questions that need to be considered 

when looking at this provision are, are we going to count students with 

disabilities like we do other minorities or only those students who 

request accommodations? If so, how do we ensure that we include students 

with disabilities who do not register with our offices? We need to ensure 

that students who receive financial assistance through the various 

agencies, such as vocational rehabilitation and other services with 

disability services are not counted more than once. Considering that not 

every disability fits nicely into every category, we will be asked for a-

-we will work on a tracking methodology. In the end, what will be the 

purpose of the data for the individual institutions as well as the 

government? We are pleased to see the addition of these provisions 

because students with disabilities, like all other minority populations 

24
on campuses, deserve to be included and counted. However, as indicated 

above, AHEAD feels that further clarification is necessary in order for 

the data collection to be efficient and meaningful. AHEAD would be happy 

to participate and consult in this discussion. 

Thank you, again, for the opportunity to speak and listen to the 

views of the Association of Higher Education and Disabilities. And thank 

you, Johnson C. Smith, for taking the leadership and hosting us this 

morning. 

MS. McCULLOUGH: Thank you. Meghan Trowlbridge. 

MS. TROWLBRIDGE: Good morning. My name is Meghan Trowlbridge, and I 

am speaking today on behalf of the Center for Disability Resources at the 

University of South Carolina. The Center for Disability Resources, or 

CDR, is one of 61 university centers for excellence in developmental 

disabilities education, research and service, located in major 

universities throughout the United States. We function as a bridge to 

connect the knowledge, expertise and resources of the university to 

persons with disabilities and the service delivery systems in the 

community. Our mission is to enhance the well-being and quality of life 

for persons with disabilities and their families. We collaborate with 

persons with disabilities and their families to develop new knowledge and 

best practices, train leaders and effect systems change. 

I'm here today to provide recommendations on the development of 

regulations regarding financial aid for students with intellectual 

disabilities. We are delighted that Congress included provisions in the 

law that will make it possible for students with intellectual 

disabilities, mental retardation and other significant cognitive 

disabilities who are enrolled in comprehensive transition and 

postsecondary education programs to access financial aid. Research shows 

that students who have the opportunities to participate in postsecondary 

education are more likely to become employed and to live more 

independently than students who do not have these opportunities. We found 

that students who are more self-determined were more independent overall, 

and they were more likely to be working for pay at higher hourly wages. 

These postsecondary actions for students will positively impact the 

overall quality of life. However, affordability is a real issue. The new 

provisions in the law that allows students with intellectual disabilities 

enrolled in programs designed for them to be eligible for work study 

25
programs, Pell Grants and Supplemental Education Opportunity Grants will 

be a real help to these students and their families. 

The CDR is pleased to partner with the College Transition 

Connection and the National Down Syndrome Society, supporting an 

innovative initiative in South Carolina. This collaboration works to 

provide grant monies for postsecondary education programs at colleges and 

universities in South Carolina. The grant covers a planning year, startup costs and personnel. Students or their families are responsible for 

tuition and fees. Partnerships with the Developmental Disabilities 

Council, Vocational Rehabilitation and the Department of Disabilities and 

Special Needs are being cultivated to enhance these opportunities and 

provide support for the students. Currently, there are grants being 

administered to three South Carolina universities: the University of 

South Carolina began the Carolina LIFE, which stands for Learning Is For 

Everyone, Program in August 2008 with the admission of three students. 

Clemson University is halfway through their planning year, and they will 

admit students in the spring of 2009. Coastal Carolina University has 

been awarded a planning grant, and students will start classes there in 

the fall of 2009 semester. 

These programs will provide students with opportunities to 

participate in regular classes, with support, to be involved in 

extracurricular activities on campus and to experience inclusion on a 

college campus. Each LIFE program is different based on the specific 

culture and opportunities offered at the universities. Some specially 

designed or program-specific classes are offered, as well inclusive 

classes with "typical" students. The goal of the LIFE programs is to 

prepare students for employment and independent living upon graduation. 

Our first recommendation is that the negotiated rulemaking team includes 

at least one expert in this area to ensure that the regulations properly 

reflect congressional intent. We also recommend that the following 

principles and suggestions be used in developing the regulations. 

Number one, ensure that the process be as simple as possible for 

families and institutions of higher education to navigate. 

Number two, ensure that the financial aid process is as easy as 

possible for families to understand and use and is closely linked to the 

process that other students use. 

26
Number three, ensure that institutions of higher education do not 

have to jump through multiple hoops to provide assurances that they offer 

a program. 

Number four, in providing clarification on the definition of a 

student with an intellectual disability, include language in the 

conference report that makes it clear that a student with an intellectual 

disability who attends or has attended private school or is home schooled 

is eligible. 

Number five, make it clear that a student who receives financial 

support from a school district or other government agency is still 

eligible to be considered for work study jobs and tuition that they pay, 

if any. 

Thank you for this opportunity to address you today. We would be 

very pleased to provide any follow-up information and my contact 

information is in the written statement. 

MS. McCULLOUGH: Thank you very much. 

Let's take a 15-minute break. When we return, it will be Jeff 

Arthur, from ECPI College of Technology. So we will reconvene at 10:30. 

 [Brief recess.] 

MS. McCULLOUGH: We will now reconvene the hearing. Our next speaker 

is Jeff Arthur from ECPI College of Technology. Before we get started, 

let me remind you that if you have not signed up for a time slot, we have 

plenty of times left available. Just sign in with Patty and Nicky in the 

front, and we'd love to hear from you. 

MR. ARTHUR: First of all, I'd like to thank the Secretary for 

giving us the opportunity to participate in these hearings. I was a 

negotiator at the loan issues neg-reg last year and understand the value 

and the impact that this process can have. So I applaud this process, and 

I'm glad to see so many people participating. 

I am the Vice President of Information Systems and Financial Aid at 

ECPI College of Technology and here representing the Career College 

Association. ECPI has 12,000 students and 18 campuses. I do have a staff 

of six people that have over 20 years in financial at ECPI. So I know we 

still struggle with this. I don't know how everybody deals with a lot of 

the complexities, but we'll get through it, won't we. 

27
The first issue I would like to address is the year-round Pell 

issue. I am very grateful for this provision. With most of our students 

attending one and two-thirds academic years each calendar year, we always 

struggle to deal with students that want to accelerate their education 

and with a system that has disincentives to do so right now. So this is a 

good step to try to remedy some of that. Because of our crossover payment 

periods, our students can have these periods actually occur over 16 

months. You can have an award year with payment periods that cover a 16-

month span. So I do ask that the Secretary give maximum flexibility and 

consideration of these issues when we award these students in dealing 

with this issue. In regards to the 90-10 issue. With the application of 

non-Title IV programs being counted as revenue now, I would remind the 

Secretary or, hopefully, understand that many of our institutions, our 

states and our accreditors approve institutions on an institutional basis 

not on a program basis. So where I have programs, a lot of Microsoft 

certification programs and phlebotomy courses and things like this that 

it appears the intent is to allow us to include those in the revenue, 

those programs may not specifically be approved by the state or 

accreditor other than they are automatically approved in our scope of our 

accreditation to give deference for that and not require us to go to 

those agencies to "Can you approve this program and all these several 

programs." 

With regards to the application of the additional $2,000 that was 

granted to us in July, while it seems logical that when you apply the use 

of that $2,000 in the 90-10 rule, that that would be applied proportional 

that all loans that a student gets, even if there is a refund calculation 

or other issues like that, to allow the use of that $2,000 as a non-Title 

IV aid proportional to all of their student loans. The next issue I would 

like to address is the cohort default rate. I learned with the last 

speaker that CDR has another meaning, too, but I know it has a definite 

meaning to us. We are going to have an interesting time when these CDRs 

are transitioned to three-year rates from two years. It seems that there 

will be a couple of years there where there will be both a two-year and a 

three-year rate published for core default rates. It will be important to 

allow appeal challenges to both rates under the rules that apply to each 

of those rates. It is currently a two-year appeals and provisions allowed 

to challenge and penalties incurred with a two-year rate that we would 

want to see that retained for the two-year and that the new rules that 

28
are related to the three-year apply to the three-year rate and keep those 

kind of straight there. In regard to the preferred lender lists and 

opportunity pools, please understand and consider, as regs are updated 

and written regarding loan programs provided by lenders to our students, 

that we are struggling, on a weekly basis, to find any lender that will 

provide a reasonable program for our students. It would work against the 

interests of students if we were to be required to put a program in front 

of students that is not in their best interests. Right now I only have 

two private loan programs that I consider reasonable for our students. It 

could easily become one in these times or possibly none, but hopefully 

we'll retain at least one. But I would hate to have to go through any 

hoops or things to try to put a program in front of students that does 

not make sense at all. 

An additional issue, we are going to be required to disclose 

retention rates, it seems. Being a year-round school, with a very 

restrictive--there's really restrictive leave of absence requirements 

right now. In light of that, some of our students create their own summer 

term, which they may actually take any time of the year, but because we 

are year round, I would ask that when we calculate retention rates that 

we give consideration to students that return within a reasonable time to 

their program and not have to count those as dropped. So when you look at 

retention rates, you really do need to leave a window from the time you 

close off the end of the cohort period to the time that you calculate the 

rate and allow students a reasonable time to return. 

I also understand that there's some issues regarding distance 

education, verifying that students that are taking courses online are 

actually who they say they are. I could definitely see on the surface how 

it seems that it's a reasonable question, how do you know the person on 

the other end of that on-line course is really how they say they are? But 

in reality, going to college is a lot of work, and I don't see that you 

would find people prepared to attend college for someone else's benefit. 

So I would say keep the administrative burden low on this. Keep the 

impact of this in perspective. I really--we have struggled with this 

issue many times. I'm sure we'd be concerned, but when they go through 

the financial aid application process, you definitely know who is getting 

the financial aid. That we ensure. So the question is do they actually 

have somebody that might be taking a course on their behalf. Well, it's a 

lot of work, and I would suggest it's probably not the issue that it may 

29
seem to be on the surface, so keep the burden low. And then my last 

comment, regarding the copyright infringement. I want to echo something 

that Jack Henderson said earlier, but expand on that a little bit. Our 

institution, bandwidth is precious. We do not have bandwidth available 

for entertainment purposes. Our IT people have phones that go off when 

there's unusual bandwidth activity. And so it would be important to us to 

keep the administrative burden low in an institution like ours, where 

this is absolutely no issue. It is something that we have under control. 

And if we can minimize the impact on us administratively, it would be 

appreciated in consideration of those institutions that are in that 

scenario. 

Thank you. 

MS. McCULLOUGH: Thank you. David Harrison. 

MR. HARRISON: Good morning. 

MS. McCULLOUGH: Good morning. 

MR. HARRISON: I'm David Harrison. I'm the Associate Vice President 

for Legal Affairs at the University of North Carolina, General 

Administration. My business card is this big. You can't have a public 

hearing without a lawyer or two, so I am here. 

You have heard from some of my colleagues from our campuses. 

General Administration is the common enemy around which they unite. We 

are going to be submitting to the Secretary a written statement, a formal 

statement, but I thought I'd take some time, a little bit less formal, to 

talk about peer-to-peer and how important that is to us. A couple years 

ago, I published a journal article for Notre Dame Law School and the 

title was, "The File-Sharing Wars: It Feels Like Belgium Over Here." And 

that's what higher education is. We have this war that we didn't ask for. 

We've got the content community and we've got file sharers who shouldn't 

be doing it, and we do the best we can to stop it. I think we haven't 

told our story very well. The story that we should have been telling is 

that we are the group that educates students about not infringing. We do 

everything we can technologically to stop the infringement, and we've 

done a good job of it. We've done a good job of it for many years. When 

this went to Congress, and we had I guess the prospect of having very 

strict, narrow rules, we were very concerned. We were scared. We've seen 

this before. You start with the player piano, you go through the 

phonograph, you go through cassette tapes, you go through MP3 players, 

and we've all seen the same thing--streams of piracy. We were worried 

30
that we were going to get nailed with some really strict technological 

measures and some difficult administrative measures in order for us to 

keep going on and stopping the infringement and educating our students. 

When it came back from Congress, and it was very sort of broad language, 

I think very understanding language, we were encouraged. We were 

delighted that Congress looked at all the things that we were doing 

already. We don't certify to the Secretary about what we're doing, but 

you can look at 17 different plans at my university. 

Last week we had a meeting of the university attorneys, and I asked 

all these different campuses, you know, we go from 3,000 students at a 

liberal art community at Asheville to Chapel Hill and State, which are R1 institutions, and said, "Is there a common approach that we could take 

for this problem?" And they said, "No, there is no common approach." We 

have an overarching copyright policy which applies to everyone, all 

200,000-plus students, all of our staff, all of our faculty. But what 

each campus does with infringement is totally different. At East 

Carolina, they will go to the student and take the peer-to-peer program 

off their computer. At Chapel Hill, they'll send them up into discipline. 

They have to sign a contract, cut them off from their laptops. They'll 

have to go do their work at the computer labs. Western Carolina has 

expelled some students for file sharing. There just is not one size fits 

all, as one of our colleagues said earlier. 

So what we would ask is that the Secretary balance the concerns in 

the same way that Congress and the courts have balanced, whether it was 

the beta max player, when the courts talked about substantial noninfringement, or it was compulsory licenses when it comes to music. All 

those things are potential piracy, the balance was made. And so what we 

want is a dedicated committee for the peer to-peer and an assumption that 

we are doing the right thing and that the Department will help us 

continue doing the right thing. 

The law is never going to catch up to technology, but we are 

delighted to have this type of rulemaking, and we would be delighted to 

participate in any way. 

Thank you. 

MS. McCULLOUGH. Thank you very much. Marlene Hall. 

MS. HALL: Thank you very much. I am very glad to be here, and I 

will tell you, quite frankly, this is the first time I have ever spoken 

31
at one of these regional hearings. So please forgive me if I slip up a 

little bit. 

I originally came in to simply watch the hearing for UNC Charlotte, 

and particularly for the Police and Public Safety Department. But I found 

that several of my colleagues are quite interested and as members, we are 

all members of IACLEA, the International Association of Campus Law 

Enforcement Administrators, we also are members of the Southeastern 

Chapter too. We found that we have a lot in common in terms of avid 

interest in what the public safety and emergency management provisions 

are in the proposals being made. I do want to thank you for the 

opportunity for us to be able to say some of these things. I'd like to 

just quickly recognize the fact that we have Winthrop, Johnson C. Smith, 

Duke, and Johnson & Wales also with us here. 

One of the things that we were asking that might be considered is 

the fact that we could take some of these public safety and emergency 

management provisions and look at them to clarify some of the definitions 

and parameters that are stated in the regulations, and I will get into 

that in just a moment. Those would be the provisions contained within the 

Title IV, Part G, Section 488 of HEOA. And then we also would like to ask 

that serious consideration be given to forming a separate negotiating 

committee so that we could go through some of these critical, yet very 

complex, issues that are affecting our campus communities. One of the 

examples would be with disclosure of the fire safety standards and 

measures. We need a little more clarification, if possible, on the fire 

safety report. For instance, several times student housing is referred 

to. But every once in a while there will be larger parameters in there. 

And so when we are talking about drills, policies, future improvements, 

is there an interest just in student housing for the report or do we need 

to look further, you know, more expansively on the campus? The other 

thing is that with certain types of incidents and students being 

students, we have all sorts of interesting incidents that occur 

sometimes, but if there is, for instance, a piece of paper that is taped 

to a student's door and someone catches fire to it, is that considered 

property damage? If there is a free newspaper, which oftentimes they are 

there for the picking, is that considered property damage? If so, what is 

the base value that we need to put on there for the reporting on that? 

One other thing that we notice is that it talks about being sure to 

report injuries that require medical treatment. Every once in a while, 

32
you'll have someone who refuses medical treatment. So do we need to go 

ahead and include those in the reports, too, for the spirit of the law? 

Another area is on the criminal offenses that need to be reported, 

the four new reporting crime categories--larceny, simple assault, 

vandalism and intimidation--under the Cleary Act, in the section for the 

hate crimes. Overall, I think most of my colleagues and I would say 

that's pretty easy to add to the record keeping that we are already 

doing. What we would ask is that let's not forget that we already have 

some established guidelines under the old Cleary regarding criteria and 

deadlines. And if we could look toward those to help us regulate the new 

hate crime categories, that would be very helpful. One other thing that 

was mentioned, too, was the term "intimidation." It needs a clear 

definition because it's not listed in the Uniform Crime Reporting 

Standards for other events that are recorded. So we could really use the 

help on that. One other area is on emergency notification. Of course, the 

terms that are involved in that, we need to carefully look at those and 

how they are defined. Just using some of the events of the past 2 years 

as examples, notification of an incident needs a clear definition for the 

reporting of an event, after confirmation of that event, and an allowance 

for professional evaluation of that event prior to a campus wide alert. 

For example, there may be some sort of protocol that we need to take a 

look at, not just for when there is a crime, but let's say if a student 

has a health hazard, such as meningitis or tuberculosis, that would 

obviously cause some concern. 

Looking at some earlier attempts to define some issues in the 

Cleary Act, a term as simple as "calendar" needs to get a little more 

attention, if you could. Seeking some clarity was a little bit--well, it 

was far from easy. The definition of the terms are essential to useful 

compliance and, more importantly, the exercise of notification procedures 

to protect those on campus. Events off campus tend to spread, and it's 

oftentimes a case-by-case judgment. It makes it a little bit difficult. 

We would be very glad to invite a little more definition in that too. All 

cases we have got to use professional judgment of first responders, 

emergency managers and other campus health and safety personnel. They all 

must be balanced with the notification requirement to ensure that 

emergency situations are communicated to those on campus in ways that are 

timely, accurate and useful, and I would like to probably emphasize the 

word "useful." Another area was missing person procedures. This law 

33
requires the creation of a plan for dealing with reports of students 

missing for more than 24 hours. This could be an effective idea for any 

campus that does not have a protocol for missing persons, but regulations 

must ensure that the balance of student privacy and contact provisions 

are smoothly intertwined. I notice that oftentimes there was reference to 

students being 18 years of age and looking at parent notifications, and 

we appreciate that. We just want to make sure that we keep in mind that 

most students are legally adults and that campuses usually have little or 

no legal function in local parentis. MOUs, or Memoranda of Understanding, 

was another area with local law enforcement. We think that MOUs should be 

encouraged, but we want to also make sure that it is understood that that 

is usually by mutual consent between the two or more agencies, and it's 

not a situation that is imposed by one agency over another agency. 

The last thing is on emergency response and evacuation procedures. 

As institutions, we have to provide the campus community with a statement 

of policies and procedures, we understand, that are related to the 

emergency response and evacuation; in essence, requiring the 

establishment of an emergency operations/management plan. This can be a 

very complex issue for negotiated rulemaking. Many different missions, 

resources, programs, structures, and makeup of the country's colleges and 

universities, and I think what we just heard just in the region or the 

state itself and UNC can be challenging. If even a summary discussion 

could be done, that would be really helpful. We are keenly aware of the 

need to plan for emergencies, and we look forward to helping craft 

guidance, if possible, on how best to help institutions develop and plan 

for this. When we were talking about possibly forming a separate 

committee, we would also very much appreciate serious consideration of 

including some of the members of the association from IACLEA on that. My 

understanding--again, this is my first time--that one can nominate 

persons to be on there, and I would like to nominate someone from IACLEA 

being on there. Our IACLEA President sent in a letter just recently 

referring to the Director over Government Relations, and I am sure that 

probably the President, Lisa Sprague, or the Chair of the Government 

Relations, Mike Webster, would be very glad to work with DOE on that. 

Thank you very much. 

MS. McCULLOUGH: Thank you. Debbie Kingsberry. No. All right. Dr. 

Andrea Williams. Antonio Stephens is going first. 

34
MR. STEPHENS: Good morning. My name is Antonio Stephens. I am the 

Director of the Educational Talent Search and Upward Bound Program at 

Saint Augustine College, also the President representing the North 

Carolina Federal TRIO Programs and North Carolina Council for the 

Educational Opportunity Programs, better known as NCCEOP. I am here today 

to talk about the U.S. Department of Education's proposed changes for the 

Federal TRIO Programs, with the reauthorization of the HEOA. We recommend 

the following changes in reference to Talent Search, Student Support 

Services and the annual performance reports of Talent Search to reduce 

the minimum number of participants from 600 to a lower number so that 

Talent Search projects can provide a more targeted service or more 

targeted services to its students and to increase the cost per student 

allotted for Educational Talent Search. 

Student Support Services do not delay the SSS competition more than 

one year from its originally scheduled Fall 2008 time frame, in reference 

to the annual performance reports or APRs to revise and distribute APRs 

to the TRIO community as soon as possible. I would like to go into depth 

a little bit more. In reference to Talent Search, HEOA includes several 

changes to the Talent Search Program. Specifically, the legislation 

modified the purpose of the program to include college completion, 

expanded prior experience to examine whether students pursued rigorous 

programs of study in high school, receive their high school diplomas on 

time and whether students are enrolled in and graduated from 

postsecondary educational programs. It created a required services 

section, specifying that projects must provide students with high-quality 

academic tutorial services, proper guidance in secondary and 

postsecondary course selection, assistance in completing college entrance 

exams and admission and financial aid applications. In order to achieve 

these goals, Talent Search projects will need to increase the intensity 

and, quite likely, the number of counseling sessions for each 

participant. Therefore, we urge the Department of Education to reduce the 

minimum number of participants from 600 to a lower number. This will 

allow the Talent Search projects to provide more targeted services. 

Additionally, we encourage the Department to increase the cost per 

student allotted for Talent Search participants in order to assist 

projects in meeting these objectives. 

In comparison to reducing the number, we can compare this to 

smaller class sizes within secondary schools. Studies over the last 20 

35
years have provided researchers and educators with the opportunity to 

observe reduced class size classrooms and gather data on student 

achievement. Class size reduction has been deemed successful and students 

show marked improvement in learning. This is from the Clearinghouse of 

Educational Policy and Management. And also in recent years reducing 

class size has gained increased prominence as a school improvement 

strategy. Now, some 40 states now have class size reduction initiatives 

in place and Federal money available for such efforts. Such goals led the 

Federal Government in 2000, in the year 2000, to create the highly touted 

Federal Class Size Reduction Program, which gave states funding to 

recruit, hire and train new teachers. Clearly, the size reduction will 

allow more time per student. The Department has also noted that it 

required better funding with reduced sizes. And according to the American 

Educational Research Association, smaller class sizes can produce lasting 

gains particularly for minority and low-income students. So we advocate 

for a reduction in the size of a new program, a new Talent Search 

Program, from 600 to a lower number. 

The Student Support Services Program, it is our understanding that 

the Department is considering a plan to delay the next competition for 

the Student Support Services funding for three to four years so as to 

bring all four-year grantees into sync with those that have extra years 

due to high scores in previous competitions. Now, typically, the next 

competition will take place this fall. While HEOA grants the Department 

the authority to provide a one-time limited extension of the length of a 

TRIO Grant in order to synchronize the awarding of grants, it also 

mandates that it must do so under terms that are consistent with the 

purposes of the TRIO part of HEOA. This is Section 403(a), Part 1, 

Subpart B. Now, one of the many purposes outlined in that legislation was 

the intent of Congress to extend opportunities to participate in TRIO 

Programs to students enrolled in branch campuses. And this is from 

Section 403(a), Part 7, Subpart B. Therefore, we discourage the 

Department of Education from delaying the SSS competition or any other 

TRIO Grant competition for more than one year. To do otherwise, would 

limit opportunities for students at institutions that for the first time 

will be eligible to host SSS projects on their campuses. Indeed, a 

significant delay of any TRIO competitions would prove to be unfair to 

needy and deserving students that desperately need the vital and lifechanging services offered by TRIO Programs. 

36
And, finally, the annual performance reports. For the first time, 

Congress defined prior experience by describing outcome criteria for all 

TRIO Programs. In addition, Congress included new required services 

provisions and amended previously existing permissible services 

provisions. In order to effectuate these changes and to allow current 

TRIO projects to complete these reports in a timely manner, we encourage 

the Department to update these materials and disperse them to the TRIO 

community as soon as possible. 

Thank you very much. 

MS. McCULLOUGH: Thank you very much. Debbie Kingsbury. Andrea 

Williams. 

DR. WILLIAMS: Good morning. I would like to take this opportunity 

to echo the position of our President, Antonio Stephens. I am Director of 

Student Support Services and the Educational Opportunity Program at 

College of the Albemarle. It is two programs, two TRIO Programs. 

These programs have been around for a long time, and we do 

appreciate the support that has been rendered. And the positions that Mr. 

Stephens shared with you this morning, we looked at the concerns with the 

new grants and whatnot, the time frame is very critical. 

As a member of an institution of community colleges, the only thing 

that I would like to echo is that in terms of if you are crafting any 

other legislation or anything like that, the community college system 

uses a database program, Datatel, and we are very interested in extending 

our opportunities, our TRIO Programs, particularly within the community 

college system. But many of our colleges do not collect information 

pertaining to low income, first generation and individuals with 

disabilities on a routine basis. So we are ill-equipped in many aspects 

of being able to compete for these vital resources for the TRIO programs. 

Here in North Carolina, we are represented very well with the number of 

TRIO Programs that we do have, but the concern that we have is the 

ability of the community college system because there is not a routine, 

regular reporting basis or collection method for us to be competitive in 

identifying that type of information. 

So in terms of if there are any opportunities to allow community 

college people in the mechanisms of crafting information for you all or 

being represented, we would like to do so. 

Thank you very much. 

MS. McCULLOUGH: Thank you. Guin White. 

37
MS. WHITE: Good morning. My name is Guin White. I am the Director 

of an agency in Greensboro, North Carolina, that is a community-based, 

first-in-the-state TRIO Program. Mr. Stephens has already given you the 

information that we brought here regarding the Talent Search Program. So 

at this time, I just wanted to add that the research came directly from 

the Department of Ed in regard to class size, and that's what we are 

pushing for. 

Right now, that is all I needed to say. 

MS. McCULLOUGH: Thank you very much. 

MS. WHITE: Thank you. 

MS. McCULLOUGH: That is all of the people that have signed up to 

testify at this point in time. So, with that said, we will reconvene at 1 

o'clock. 

[Whereupon, the morning session was adjourned.] 

AFTERNOON SESSION 

MS. McCULLOUGH: Good afternoon. It is now 1:05. I am calling the 

hearing to order. However, we have no one signed up to testify at this 

point or to provide comment, so we will adjourn until someone signs up. 

[Recess.] 

MS. McCULLOUGH: It is 1:30, and we will reconvene the hearing. 

First, Sharon Oliver. 

MS. OLIVER: Good afternoon. I am Sharon Oliver, Director of 

Financial Aid at North Carolina Central University. Thank you for the 

opportunity to briefly share the impact of Section 436, changes in the 

cohort default rate calculation. 

Is this the right time for a change in the calculation of the 

cohort default rate? Today we have the highest unemployment rate. Today 

we have the highest gas prices. Today we have the highest number of banks 

and lenders closing. Today we have the highest foreclosures on mortgages 

and most recently the highest Federal bailout. The economy is indeed in 

transition. Based on the current status of our economy, it is anticipated 

that the default rates will rise. As you well know, the national average 

for the default rate increased on this year. The change in the 

calculation of the cohort default rate will have a significant impact on 

38
Historically Black Colleges and Universities. It has been noted that the 

default rate will likely increase by 25 to 50 percent with this new 

change. I respectfully ask the Department of Education to consider 

eliminating CDR as a critical measurement for institutional success. 

Instead, I offer that the holders of loans should be held accountable for 

repayment activities. Schools should be responsible for exercising due 

diligence by providing loan entrance and loan exit counseling interviews 

and sharing repayment options. 

Again, I ask is this the right time for a major change in the 

calculation of the CDR during an unstable economy? 

Thank you. 

MS. McCULLOUGH: Next, we have Melody Lawrence. 

MS. LAWRENCE: Good afternoon. My name is Melody Lawrence, and I am 

the Financial Aid Director at Southwestern Community College, about four 

hours west of here. This is the first hearing of this type that I have 

attended, and I really did not come prepared to speak. But given the 

friendly audience, I just wanted to share a concern I have about the 

Academic Competitiveness Grant, since it is being continued under this 

current legislation. 

Really, I have two major concerns. One is the substantial burden 

that this program places on financial aid administrators in trying to 

make sure that we are getting the money to all the right students who are 

eligible and that the students are indeed eligible under all the 

different criteria and just, anecdotally, have observed over the last 

couple of years in my office the amount of time that it takes to give out 

20-some thousand dollars seems to me to be totally out of proportion, and 

I hope that's not what was intended initially. 

My second concern about the program has to do with who is actually 

receiving it. I have to question, when I see that the dramatic falloff in 

the number of students who are receiving second-year grants versus firstyear grants, that there may be something wrong here in the way the 

program is designed or defined. And, secondly, when I have students who 

have past the rigorous course assessments or met that criteria by passing 

the rigorous programs in their high school and they come into my 

community college and are signed up for all remedial courses, and they 

are being given a grant called Academic Competitiveness Grant, I have to 

question, again, whether the original intent of the grant is actually 

being met. And basically just asking that the Department consider doing 

39
some sort of immediate assessment on the effectiveness of the program. 

Because, personally, I would rather see those funds that have been 

allocated to that program be made available to another program that is 

going to meet the students' needs better. 

Thank you. 

MS. McCULLOUGH: Thank you very much. Do we have anyone else signed 

up to testify at this point? 

There is no one ready to testify at this point, so we will adjourn 

until someone else signs up to testify. 

[Recess.] 

MS. McCULLOUGH: It is now 4 o'clock and the hearing is now closed. 

Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 4 p.m., the public hearing was adjourned.] 

40