Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and Institutional Quality - 2/7/24

1

 

 

 

 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION

NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING PROGRAM INTEGRITY 

AND INSTITUTIONAL QUALITY

SESSION 2, DAY 3, AFTERNOON

FEBRUARY 7, 2024

On the 7th day of February, 2024, the

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

to 4:00 p.m.
2

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

P R O C E E D I N G S

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, and welcome 

back. I hope you had an enjoyable lunch and break. I am 

Cindy Jeffries from Federal Mediation and Conciliation 

Service (FMCS) and I will be facilitating this afternoon 

for the parties. As a reminder, the public link is 

different for the afternoon session than it was for the 

morning, please make note of that. If you get 

inquiries, please let people know. Secondly, if you left 

the meeting and you've come back, please check your 

naming conventions as they do switch back when you leave. 

You will need to adjust those. That having been said, 

Barmak, is there a report out from the caucus to share?

MR. NASSIRIAN: [Inaudible] explain 

what we were doing. The group of us that met with the 

Department have submitted a set of written proposals to 

the committee. We wanted to flag to the Department, 

primarily because some of the edits we suggested don't 

have a natural place necessarily where they would arise 

in the conversation. If the conversation is pegged to the 

draft that the Department has put on the table, and the 

feedback we got from the Department was to raise the 

issues during the full committee meeting. Nothing we 

said to the Department includes anything that the 

committee doesn't have and nothing that the Department 
3

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

told us is any different than you will hear during the 

conversation should our issues come up. We appreciate the 

opportunity.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Well, we thank 

you for that report out, Barmak. We are going to move to 

the accreditation document now, which is a very lengthy 

document. We have the rest of today and all day tomorrow 

set aside for it. Just a few quick reminders that as we 

walk through this, it is very helpful for the Department 

if you use your time to bring new concerns, conceptual 

language ideas to the table as well as clarifying 

questions for them. If you have conceptual language, 

that's great. Please feel free to bring it forward and 

place it in the chat. As always, the Department will 

accept written proposals from the negotiators, and we'll 

talk about the timelines for those at the end of the day 

tomorrow. Are there any questions before we get started? 

Okay, wonderful. I am going to turn it over to Greg 

Martin and Herman Bounds and Donna from the Department.

MR. MARTIN: Go ahead, Herman, 

whenever you're ready. Okay.

MR. BOUNDS: Alright. I was gonna ask, 

you want me to go ahead and start? Okay. We're going to 

show the reg text document? Yeah. Thanks, Vanessa. 

Alright, so the way I plan on doing it is go through 
4

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

each section as a whole. Then at the end of this, a 

review of each section, have some open discussion and 

then take a temperature check. Some of the sections 

folks are too long and you want to stop and talk about a 

specific provision, let me know. Otherwise, I'm going to 

try to get through one whole section and then open up for 

discussion. First we'll start with our definitions. 

Vanessa, most of these earlier are minor changes. If 

you can get down to, right here you'll notice that we 

removed the def- institutions of higher education, but we 

have replaced that, you'll see here where we define 

institutions. Again, if you would scroll down to the 

definition of institution. We have changed that, we also 

reference back to 600.4, 600.5, and 600.6. Then 

appropriately below that we have changed that definition, 

as we go through this portion of the definitions. 

Vanessa, I'm going to ask you to scroll to- also scroll 

down to the definition of program. It's not noted here, 

but we did make a change there. You can scroll up, I'll 

tell you what page it is. Definition of program, I gotta 

find it myself here. If you'll notice here, under the 

definition of program, we removed the phrase offered by 

an institution of higher education and, we have taken 

that portion out. You guys don't see that, but that was 

there in place, and we have just removed that.
5

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

MS. JEFFRIES: Herman, could you tell 

us what page that is on so that people that are following 

on their own copies can readily find it? Thanks.

MR. BOUNDS: Yeah, that looks like 

it's on page six. Any questions there? I just wanted to 

point that out to everybody and make sure that you are 

aware that was a change. If we move down now to 

representative of the public. I also want you all to 

excuse my head movement. As you can imagine, I have a 

couple of different documents and screens open here that 

I'm that I'm referring to. If you look at the definition 

of representative of the public, we did take a lot of 

suggestions from the committee under Representative 

Public. Then, we also put in a maximum time, I think 

it's at five years. That would disqualify someone from 

qualifying as a public member. You can scan down bottom 

of page six. I'm sorry, Vanessa, I'm going to go to the 

bottom of page six, and that's where we added that into 

the regulation about who has served in the last five 

years. Then you can go ahead and go down to page seven. 

All of these suggestions, of course, I think were from 

the last discussions that we had about public member. I 

think the next one is probably going to be under 

substantial compliance. We had a lot of discussion here 

about substantial compliance. What we added was to 
6

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

address the issue of, an institution who had basically 

compliant practices, but they needed to update the policy 

to reflect the compliant practice. We wanted to add that 

in because that was not in the definition I think that we 

discussed previously. We took the definition of public 

memory too, from 600.21, I think, for better alignment. 

Okay. If we then go down and I think that takes us out 

of the definition section, I believe. At this point now 

I'll open up that definition section, to discussion from 

the committee.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Any questions? 

Comments? Jamie.

MS. STUDLEY: Thank you. We agree with 

the Department that it was time for a redefinition of 

public members. It was the one we had before was too much 

and too little and didn't really get at the spirit of 

assuring that there were members of accrediting agency 

commissions that have perspectives that they bring from 

other than higher education. Many accreditors had 

already accommodated that and paid attention to having 

people on their commissions who honored that spirit. For 

example, for my own agency, we counted all the ones that 

met the Federal definition but went beyond that in aiming 

for one-seventh who met a definition closer to the one 

that we're talking about here. We certainly appreciate 
7

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

the Department's moving from an absolute or eternal bar 

to a five-year provision and we think that's a reasonable 

one and reflects a good balance. I'd also like to briefly 

mention that this isn't the only way that we get public

input into the work of commissions. It's smart and it's 

also required that we consult with members of the public 

when we are considering important changes, including 

development of our standards. That's not just an empty 

gesture. My agency, for example, in looking at our new 

standards, convened meetings at two stages of our 

standards review process. We consulted with student 

organizations and with people who have historically had 

suggestions for improvement in accreditation, including 

TICAS, Veterans Education Success, the Century 

Foundation, and others. This public member section isn't 

the only one. We would like to relook at the scope of 

the family members provision. Spouse makes sense, 

especially because there are financial considerations. We 

realize that there are trying to imagine where there 

could be mischief at the greatest extent. But, again, 

here, having a grandchild who is cleaning test tubes in 

the lab for the college they attend. Does not seem a 

reasonable basis for precluding an otherwise eligible 

experienced member of the public from serving on a 

commission. 
8

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

MR. WEATHERS: Jamie, you have 30 

seconds left.

MS. STUDLEY: I'll end my point 

there. I may want to return.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Jamie. 

Laura.

DR. KING: Hi, thank you. I'll pick up 

where Jamie left off. My comment was wondering why the 

number five was replaced with the new number five. 

Because honestly, it borders on the absurd. A spouse's 

step sibling maybe a nurse that works at a university 

hospital. Does that preclude that person from serving as 

a public member, if their spouse's step sibling, or 

grandchild has some, connection with the university? That 

doesn't make any sense to me. I think definitionsimmediate family members would be a better definition in 

this place. I think the definition that was there 

previously was really perfectly adequate. I don't know 

if, Herman, there's some reason why this was changed and 

expanded in such a way.

MR. BOUNDS: Yeah, I think this was 

based on the recommendations of the committee last time. 

But we'll take this and go back and look just to make 

sure.

DR. KING: I'm just afraid folks 
9

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

won't even know that there's a conflict according to this 

definition because the family relationships are so 

obscure. Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Laura. 

Carolyn Fast. Carolyn, can you hold up one second? I see 

Donna from OGC has her hand up. Donna, did you want to 

speak on that? 

MS. MANGOLD: I just want to say that 

we took the definition out of 600.21. It's the same 

definition that we use in the other part of our 

regulations to be consistent here.

MR. BOUNDS: Thanks, Donna.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Donna. 

Carolyn, now you're on.

MS. FAST: I just wanted to offer some 

support for the Department's approach here. I think the 

issue of who serves as public members on accrediting 

agencies is actually a very important issue. And there'sit is an issue that we are supportive of these changes. 

In particular, I wanted to draw attention to some 

research that shows that many public members are from

other institutions of higher education. There's a piece 

that shows that as of January 2019, 22 of 69 public 

members on commissions were from institutional 

backgrounds. We think that these are important changes 
10

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

that will address these concerns. We support the 

Department's working to make this a more clear 

prohibition to ensure that these are actually public 

members that are independent of institutions. Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Carolyn. 

Barmak.

MR. NASSIRIAN: Two separate points on 

this. One, addressing the public member issue. In candor, 

I'm a little confused. In a country of, 335 million 

people, what is so unique about these family-related 

individuals that somehow makes their limited supply of 

public members. Somehow forces accreditors to go after 

relatives of higher ed insiders? I just don't understand 

that. Particularly given how candidly insignificant 

their participation is in these boards. So that's one 

comment. The fact that a fairly small class of 

individuals may be excluded doesn't rob accrediting 

bodies from available, - individuals who could serve in 

that role. I don't understand, are they using them as 

experts? I remember Laura made the point that they're 

public members also lead various accreditation teams, et 

cetera, et cetera. Well, that's the way they do it. They 

don't have to do it that way. The public member is 

supposed to be a validation, common sense, sort of 

validation of process to people who are not insiders. So 
11

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

that's one point. The second point, which exceeds what is 

in the Department's draft, but was a proposal we 

submitted, has to do with the fact, as I said, that in 

some ways the Department is putting a steel door on a 

rotten wooden frame. We're here obsessing about the one 

or two or three members of these boards who putatively 

represent the public when everybody else is an insider. 

I don't think accreditation was intended to have 

executives and fiduciaries of regulated entities calling 

the shots. It was supposed to be educators and people who 

understand curriculum and pedagogy. They're supposed to 

be subject matter experts, not presidents, chancellors, 

and vice presidents [inaudible] of regulated entities. I 

want to re-up the proposal we submitted to the Department 

in writing. We also cited the statutory basis for the [30 

seconds] Department to pay some attention to that 

dynamic, that obsessing about public members without 

addressing the composition of the rest of these boards is 

very problematic and inadequate. Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Barmak, 

appreciate your comments. Jamie.

MS. STUDLEY: What Barmak is referring 

to as obsessing is dealing with the section in front of 

us, which has specific consequences. There are, of 

course, many people who could serve these roles, but 
12

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

there are some who are particularly prepared or likely to 

be effective and willing to take on a big job. Being a 

commissioner involves substantial review of complicated 

material, and meetings, and that should be constrained 

only where necessary. We should have an explanation for 

why the family relationships that Laura mentioned need to 

be so broad. Carolyn makes a good point about the 

importance of independence. What I would suggest is that 

in the years since 2019- I just think that the summary 

that- from 2019 is outdated. There's been a lot of change 

in agencies in moving toward as NACIQI has discussed 

this, as we have looked at our provisions, there's been a 

lot of movement. Finally, I'll speak for myself, but it 

may be true of others. Anyone who meets the public 

definition would be counted in the numbers that you were 

describing, even if the agency also had met the oneseventh or more of public members who met a tighter 

definition. I respect you trying to draw on what facts 

are available, but I think those are outdated. The issue 

about fiduciary obligation, I think fits somewhere else 

I don't think we should cover it here.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you, Jamie, 

appreciate it. Laura.

DR. KING: I think that there may be a 

fundamental misunderstanding among some about what 
13

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

accreditation is. It's not a federal process, it's not a 

state process, it's a peer review process. Peer being the 

key word. That's what it is, I think it's important that 

we all take that into account when we're talking about 

these regulations.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Laura. 

Jessi.

MS. MORALES: I just want to address 

that. I think that many of us [inaudible] do know what 

accreditation is, and we have worked with a lot of the 

accreditors. Also, the whole point is to ensure that the 

education that is being provided to students are adequate 

and of quality. So, while this is peer reviewed, is with 

the intention of serving students. Just want to make 

sure that we keep that in mind and that we hold center to 

these conversations.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Jessi. 

Barmak, something new?

MR. NASSIRIAN: Yes. I think I have a 

pretty good idea of what accreditation is. I just want to 

clarify that we're all on the same page as to what the 

difference is between accreditation in the abstract. As 

an entirely voluntary activity and secretarially 

recognized accreditation, which is subject to statutory 

and regulatory requirements. Accreditors I think it's 
14

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

important to be explicit and candid in these 

conversations. Accreditors sometimes speak from two very 

incompatible and incommensurable points of view. When the 

issue comes down to Federal statutory requirements being 

implemented, they put a very heavy foot on the pedal of 

voluntary peer review and quality improvement. When 

there are conversations about severing accreditation from 

eligibility and removing it as a gatekeeping device for 

Federal purposes. They insist that they have a very 

valuable and important role to play in preserving the 

integrity of Federal programs. We are here to deal with 

them in that latter capacity, not in their entirely 

voluntary functions. Which they should be free to pursue 

on their own on the basis of self-selection of peer 

groups and whatever else they want to do. There is very 

much a statutory and regulatory element to accreditation 

that far transcends the, late 19th century origins 

today. Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Barmak. 

Scott Dolan is in for private nonprofit institutions. 

MR. DOLAN: I do have some concerns, 

too, with, at least an understanding of the accreditation 

process, or at least the characterization of one's 

understanding of the accreditation process. When we speak 

of presidents and chancellors and then their lack of 
15

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

qualifications. I suggest a quick review of the academic 

credentials of the large majority of presidents and 

chancellors, which show that they are more than 

qualified, both academically and professionally. Also,

suggest that they get to that position or reviewed as 

part of our accreditation standards, as well. Standard 

seven for us within middle states, they have the 

appropriate credentials and professional experience 

consistent with the mission of the organization. I 

totally agree we should keep it to the conversation at 

hand with public. I get a little bit concerned about the 

nature and the inflammatory kind of comments that are 

made about the process, which prevents us from having a 

really good in-depth conversation about the issue at 

hand. So just a quick response.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Scott, for 

your comments. We have Magin Sanchez in for civil rights 

consumer advocates constituency. Magin, something on 

definitions?

MR. SANCHEZ: I do on the [inaudible] 

definition. I think the importance of I won't say I'm an 

expert on accreditation either. Wwhat I will say, 

though, is I've served on different student roles on 

boards, for example, the largest student proponent of 

career technical education was a member of the state 
16

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

board of that foundation. I'm not going to say, I knew 

necessarily everything that was going on there, right? I 

think it's important to have that voice of you who are 

necessarily tied into the process, right, because it 

gives that different perspective. I think you don't 

necessarily always want people that are, completely 

tied into these decisions, right? You want to make sure 

there's that common sense perspective, right? In terms 

of, presidents be included and whatnot. Iit's great 

they're qualified, but there's a conflict there, right? 

The conflict of interest there. I think that's where, I 

support this initiative, because I k just speak from 

personal experience. It adds a value to that. I think 

that's just good practice beyond just, you know, good 

policy.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Magin. Just 

a quick note, Jamie, before we get to you. Erika is back 

in for private nonprofit institutions. Jamie.

MS. STUDLEY: I certainly agree with 

Magin and the other commenters about the importance of 

balance, including public members. Got a lot of things 

going on here. Accrediting agencies are nonprofit 

organizations with an educational mission, and that is 

voluntary. Like the other nonprofits represented here, we 

operate under state laws and our own conflict of interest 
17

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

policies. Because we have voluntarily assumed a role and 

put ourselves forward to be approved by the Federal 

Government to allow institutions and the Federal 

Government a way to decide who should get Title IV. We 

also have Federal requirements an extensive review 

process determined by the government. We have done that 

if we can maintain our educational purpose as a nonprofit 

and will honor those commitments. On the wider question 

of who can serve on commissions of accrediting agencies, 

Congress has recognized that this is a peer review 

process. We understand that an effective peer review 

process also benefits from public perspectives. I'm going 

to say something here with the greatest respect, and I 

would ask for similar respect in return. Many of the 

nonprofits participating here have board members who work 

for organizations or industries that the organization may 

on occasion question, criticize, perhaps even sue. All 

of you have figured out ways for people to absent 

themselves when they should, when it's not appropriate 

for them to be involved. You've also, like us, have been 

willing to take positions that are counter to the 

organizations that your board members represent because 

they are there for the purpose of your organization. I'm 

going to name some names because I have a lot of respect 

for these groups. The Century Foundation has trustees who 
18

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

work for universities, so does the National Consumer Law 

Center. Veterans Education Success has a board member who 

appears to consult to colleges and their leaders. Every 

one of them has found a way to stand up for what they

consider is important. I do not question their ability to 

pursue issues or matters that may not be viewed with 

favor by those organizations. UNIDOS has board members in 

the entertainment industry, and yet, I think your board 

considers itself willing and able to ask about practices 

in the entertainment industry. The Department has not 

cited problems along these lines at a degree that should 

stifle our ability to have people like the former head of 

TICAS, the governor of West Virginia, bank presidents who 

meet our sense of commitment to public service in this 

way. The decisions that we make are public [30 seconds]. 

The Department reviews them, and they review our 

processes to get there. There are lots of things that we 

can improve, but this is not a place that we should 

strangle our ability to carry out our functions.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you, Jamie. 

I am now going to bring us back around to the section on 

definitions that Herman has laid out for us. Herman, 

there are no further hands. Do you want a temperature 

check on this section?

MR. BOUNDS: Yeah, I think we need to 
19

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

do that based on all the comments. Yes.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, great. Thanks. 

If we could see thumbs, and reminder that a temperature 

check is just a way of measuring, where the committee's 

thoughts are, the process, where they're at with it. It 

is not a vote. Okay? With that, can we see your thumbs, 

please? Give us a minute to record. This is on 

definitions only. Barmak, you have a question?

MR. NASSIRIAN: Did we talk about 

substantial compliance? That's in the definition section, 

isn't it?

MS. JEFFRIES: Yes, we did.

MR. BOUNDS: Yes. 

MR. NASSIRIAN: I don't want to use 

up the committee's time. I just want to flag for the 

Department's attention that we submitted some edits on 

this language. We would appreciate some consideration of 

what we've submitted. Thank you. 

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you. 

Carolyn, question?

MS. FAST: I just wanted to note that 

also in the definition section, I don't know if it's been 

said, but we suggested adding an individual with 

fiduciary obligations to a regulated entity as someone 

who also couldn't be a public member. I just wanted to 
20

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

make sure that was included in the consideration of the 

Department, when they look at whether to make changes to 

the section.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you. Jamie.

MS. STUDLEY: I was going to ask you 

to pop the language up so that we are clear that we're 

looking at the Department's language when we vote, and 

not the other suggestions. Carolyn's just brought in 

something that they wrote, but we haven't had a chance to 

discuss. 

MS. JEFFRIES: Right. We are not 

taking a temperature check on anything other than what 

was sent to the negotiators from the Department that FMCS 

sent out. That is the language that we're doing the 

temperature check. I would like to suggest if you have 

submitted proposals that are not reflective throughout 

this document, that you make those requests in the chat 

or resubmit your proposals for session three. I hope 

that helps, Jamie, answer the question. If we share the 

document, we can't see the screen of thumbs. 

MS. STUDLEY: , I understand the 

points about the proposals is that there in the mix. 

The groups hasn't had a chance to discuss them. I don't 

want to stand in the way of your vote. I did have a short 

comment about the substantial compliance.
21

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay.

MS. STUDLEY: If we're voting on that 

as well.

MS. JEFFRIES: Y It's the entire 

section there.

MS. STUDLEY: Right. The Department 

has sometimes had to figure out what to do when an 

accreditor has not had the opportunity to use a practice. 

If you've never encountered something, they need to be 

clear and you can't expect that they will. What if an 

agency has never had an appeal? Its policy has never been 

applied. I just think they need to be sure that we 

understand what a word like enact a policy means. Does it 

mean have one, or does it mean enact a policy or 

practices? That's where some of uncertainty has come up 

as Herman well knows.

MR. BOUNDS: I'll replay real quick. 

What we're talking about here is that this is a situation 

where the agency has- their practices are compliant. 

We're saying now that you just need to apply policy to 

reflect your compliant practice. I think, Jamie, what 

you're referring to is a situation where policy is right. 

However, because of the timeframe, an agency just hasn't 

had an opportunity to apply policy and we take other 

things into consideration there specifically. One, what's 
22

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

the likelihood of a situation occurring where an agency 

would be able to demonstrate the application of 

[inaudible]. We do treat those things separately from 

what we would classify as a substantial compliance 

situation.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Herman. 

Barmak.

MR. NASSIRIAN: I am a little 

concerned about what was just said because, policy it's 

a written declaration. The policy can be right, the 

practice can be wrong,. that is noncompliance. When your 

practices don't actually accomplish the things, you're 

supposed to be accomplishing. We're very comfortable with 

substantial noncompliance being paperwork related, that 

you're doing the right thing. You're just not taking care

of the paperwork adequately that is sufficiently 

compliant not to be of concern, and that can fall into 

that purgatory of substantial compliance. The idea that 

somebody has good written policies and just happens not 

to enforce them does not strike me as substantial 

compliance. It's substantial noncompliance.

MR. BOUNDS: Barmak, not to carry 

this on, but that's not the situation that I was 

hopefully describing. I'm describing a situation where an 

agency has compliant policy, but that situation may or 
23

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

may not occur within that five-year recognition period. 

It's not that they have done anything wrong, but to hold 

them, to find someone noncompliant for some situation, 

again, that may not occur. They haven't had an 

opportunity during that recognition period to apply that 

policy. I don't think we can hold them noncompliant 

because they haven't applied it. That's the situation I'm 

trying to describe.

MR. NASSIRIAN: Aren't those 

situations if then situations? If something happens, we 

will do X. It never happened, therefore you never had to 

do X.

MR. BOUNDS: No, I'm just saying if 

an agency has a policy to comply with one of our 

regulations, that particular situation has never 

occurred during the recognition period, I can't hold an 

agency at fault for that.

MR. NASSIRIAN: We wouldn't want you 

to.

MR. BOUNDS: That's the difference 

between what we have here and the definition that's 

different from the definition that we have here under 

substantial compliance. 

MS. JEFFRIES: I don't know if it's 

just me, but I don't see Herman. Did your camera get 
24

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

turned off accidentally or?

MR. BOUNDS: No, 

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay.

MR. BOUNDS: That was my fault. I am 

sorry about that one.

MS. JEFFRIES: No worries. I was 

searching and searching going maybe it's just my eyes. I 

don't know.

MR. BOUNDS: If you heard me that's 

the main point. 

MS. JEFFRIES: We heard you. Thank 

you, Herman. Seeing no further hands, let's go ahead and 

take that temperature check on the language that was sent 

out by the Department as written. If I could see thumbs, 

please. Give me just a minute here. Oops. Thank you. 

Those that were thumbs down, indicating dissent with the 

language. Is there anything new that you would like to 

add to your concerns before I have Herman move on to the 

next section. Anything new? Great. Thank you all for 

that engaging conversation. Herman, you want to move on 

to the next section.

MR. BOUNDS: Should be Federal link.

MS. JEFFRIES: Link to Federal 

programs.

MR. BOUNDS: Link to Federal programs, 
25

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

yes.

MS. JEFFRIES: 210, correct?

MR. BOUNDS: That is correct. We 

talked about this quite a bit during our last session. 

The first part of course is deleted language. However, in 

this section, I think the main points here that we have 

that remain is the requirement that both the 

institutional accrediting agency and a programmatic 

agency. They would have institutions or programs that are 

currently participating in that Federal link to qualify 

as a Federal link. Those two key points remain here. 

Last time we did leave in the exception that if you are 

an agency seeking initial recognition. You would just 

have to demonstrate that upon your recognition that you 

have either an institution or program that would use the 

accreditation of that agency seeking this recognition to 

participate in HEA or non-HEA program. With that said, I 

will open this one up for further discussion.

MR. ROBERTS: You're muted Cindy.

MS. JEFFRIES: I'm sorry. Herman, you,

and I, we need to get together here and get our buttons 

straightened out. I apologize. Laura, you are up first.

DR. KING: Thank you. I'm going to 

read so I can be succinct. I want to express my strong 

concerns about the Department's interpretation of statute 
26

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

and the unintended consequences it will cause for 

students, programs, and accreditors with this proposed 

language. I have several points related to this issue. 

First, as context for my fellow panelists, since we have 

been so focused on Title IV funds. There are other nonHEA links that call for recognition, including research 

grants, homeland security requirements, and depending on 

the field. The VA has requirements for students coming 

from programs accredited by recognized accreditors for 

residency placements. As well, the VA won't hire some 

professionals if they have not completed a program 

accredited by a recognized accreditor. These are examples 

of some of the Federal links that programmatic 

accreditors have. First, the term used in statute is 

enable, which means to make possible, not to occur. It 

will follow that if the Federal link exists, the 

Department is statutorily required to recognize the 

accreditor, whether or not a program is planning to take 

advantage of that link in the current year. Statute 

allows for that potentiality. Second, I would like to 

refer the Department to a new provision of 668.14(b)(32)

romanettes 1 and 2 that indirectly ties programmatic 

accreditation to Title IV. This regulation will take 

effect on July 1st, 2024. It specifies when accreditation 

is needed for licensure, the program must meet all 
27

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

requirements for student eligibility for employment in 

the state that it is located. Some states require 

programmatic accreditation from a recognized agency. 

Third, circumstances change over time. In some years, 

there may be several programs taking advantage of an 

accreditor's link, and some years there may be few or 

none. If during the year that an accreditor is up for 

recognition renewal and the link is not being used, then 

the accreditor would lose eligibility for recognition. 

Then the next year, a program requests access to the 

link, so the accreditor must apply for recognition to 

provide that access. The program is very likely to miss 

the opportunity to apply for the linked Federal funding 

with the time that it takes for an accreditor to become 

recognized. This situation would also increase the 

administrative burden on the Department and the 

accreditor. The concern that the Department does not have 

administrative and fiscal capacity to recognize 

accreditors if they currently do not have programs 

needing access to the advantages provided by the Federal 

link has not been fully thought out. If based on 

workload, then the proposed changes made regarding 

recognition should suffice to ameliorate that. Workload 

is not an acceptable excuse for the Department to 

disadvantage programs and students.
28

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Laura. 

Barmak.

MR. NASSIRIAN: I have to say that the 

Department's rationale resonates with me. I have a 

question for Laura that might help me better understand 

the issue. Obviously, when I think about potential 

linkages that are not in actual existence at a given 

moment in time, that could include any accreditor. I 

mean, any accreditor could potentially have a future 

link. My concern is that you would be opening up the 

entire universe of would be wannabe accreditors to queue 

up for recognition. Regardless of how tenuous the 

future likelihood may be that they would in fact be in a 

position to enable certain programs to be federally 

funded or federally financed. One question I have for 

Laura is, are there examples of accreditors that are the 

only show in town for a given potential purpose? In other 

words, is there an example of, if this particularly 

dormant accreditor with a potential future need is not 

approved. That somehow an entire industry or an entire 

line of employment or an entire line of financing would 

be locked up? Aren't there choices to be made by 

beneficiaries?

DR. KING: Not in programmatic 

accreditation. There are a handful of professions that 
29

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

have more than one programmatic accreditor. Education is 

one of them. Business is one of them. But no, most 

programmatic accreditors are, in fact, the only game in 

town.

MR. NASSIRIAN: I don't want that. I 

want the subset that consists of accreditors that are 

the only game in town and have only a potential link to a 

Federal program.

DR. KING: I'm talking about agencies 

that have had a Federal Link that is existing. I'm not 

talking about that. There's no grant program at all that 

mentions the accreditor. In case they might have a link, 

then they should be recognized. I'm not talking about 

that. I'm talking about that there are grant programs as 

an example that do. Require accreditation by a recognized 

accreditor that currently exists. It's just that an 

institution or a program may not be taking advantage of 

that link right at the current moment.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you both 

for that. Any other comments, questions, suggestions 

regarding 602.10, the link to Federal programs? Jamie.

MS. STUDLEY: Yeah. Just to 

underscore, Barmak, what you're hearing from Laura is 

that there are programs that very specifically mention a 

named accreditor. That is the only way in, if the 
30

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

government agency, for example, doesn't do a grant 

offering that year. There would be nobody who would need 

the approval in that cycle or coming through for them, 

but they would still be the only avenue allowable in that 

field. I'm fine [inaudible] Laura's comment about 

[inaudible] to be compelling. At the same time, I think 

we all appreciate that the Department is using, in a 

sense, educational accrediting expertise to advance the 

mission of another Federal agency without support for 

doing it. Laura and I tried to think about other ways to 

achieve the same purpose. It's unlikely that the other

agencies are going to, give, Herman and Antoinette the 

money to fund the reviews. In trying to seek a solution, 

the Department might use its risk-based approach to think 

about whether non-Title IV purposes could operate under a 

more specific or shortened review or set of criteria, as 

the Department did for some period. Having selected a 

set of requirements that were met, unless there was a 

reason to need to dig more deeply. It does seem fair to 

try and solve this problem so that, agencies that want 

the qualitative assurance of a programmatic review have 

those entities available to them in some way that's not, 

overly burdensome for the Department.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Jamie. I 

don't see any further hands. Herman, were you able to 
31

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

get what you needed in this discussion?

MR. BOUNDS: Yeah, I did. I think 

there were a lot of discussions, I think on our point 

where we didn't make any changes again, because we, we 

believe that if a accrediting organization accredits 2 

or 300 programs, we're only asking them to demonstrate at 

least one of those programs participate. Again, the 

Federal Link is about a program participation and 

institutional participation, not about a student 

participating. It's about that program being required to 

participate in that link. We'll take back the 

discussions and have further discussions amongst us.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, thank you. Laura.

DR. KING: I can think of a 

specialized agency that accredits eight programs. It's 

not always 2 or 300 programs that could take advantage of 

a link. Sometimes it's much smaller end than that. I 

just wanted to be sensitive to all of my colleagues and 

their specific needs.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Laura, 

appreciate that. We're going to go ahead and take the 

temperature check on section 602.11. I'm sorry, 602.10, 

Linked to Federal programs. We are going to begin, 

instead of just trying to capture a count of dissent, we 

are going to call the name of dissent so that we're sure 
32

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

we don't miss anyone, and we get an accurate count and 

accurate understanding. Those of you who have 

participated in these before knowing that is how we have 

done it in past ones. With that being explained, let's 

go ahead and show the thumbs, please. I show Laura Rasar 

King as thumbs down. I show Jamie Studley and Jason 

Lorgan as thumbs down. Those are the only thumbs down I 

see. Am I missing anyone? Thank you very much. 

Appreciate it. Thanks for working with us on the change. 

We want to make sure we have accurate reading. With 

that, Herman, I think that takes us to the next section 

with change. 

MR. BOUNDS: It looks like 

MS. JEFFRIES: 602.12?

MR. BOUNDS: Yeah, accrediting agency 

experience.

MS. JEFFRIES: Alright.

MR. BOUNDS: I think we made 

some minor edits here under accrediting agency 

experience. Nothing really, significant that stood out 

here. I'm willing right now to open this one up for 

discussion if we need to. I will highlight that some of 

this language under accrediting experience was removed 

from the recognition process. I think it was 602.32, I 

believe.
33

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

MS. JEFFRIES: Great. Thank you, 

Herman. I see Jo, you have your hand up.

MS. BLONDIN: Yes. I just wanted to 

thank the Department for considering under 602.12(b) 

romanette 3, the language change about the agency's 

capacity. Thank you. 

MS. JEFFRIES: Thanks, Jo. Any other 

comments on this section, 602.12? Jamie? I think you're 

on mute, Jamie.

MS. STUDLEY: Just wondering how the 

term effective in A2 would be defined or understood.

MR. BOUNDS: The A2.

MS. STUDLEY: Conducted effective 

accrediting activities.

MR. BOUNDS: 

MR. BOUNDS: I think that would be 

our overall look to see how proficient the process was, 

whether there was a sufficient review of all required 

standards. I think we're just saying there we would have 

to evaluate the overall review and accreditation process 

that the agency has undertaken and undergone. It would 

be a broad-based review to determine effective.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Barmak.

MR. NASSIRIAN: Y I am a little 

puzzled as to why the Department has decided to take the 
34

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

much more understandable and concrete requirement that 

agencies explain their budgetary requirements, in favor 

of what I view as just sort of, frankly, platitudes. I 

mean, if an agency is undertaking a substantially 

increased workload, they need to explain in numerical 

terms what the consequences of that might be for their 

budgets. Otherwise, what all you end up with is the 

typical again essay question that says, well, we'll do a 

good job because we believe we have adequate resources. 

There's really no specificity and no concreteness to that 

claim that can be examined by the Department, at least 

for purposes of interrogatories, so that you can ask 

them, hey, you're doubling your workload, not your 

budget. How are you going to do that? That at least 

forces them to tell you something a little more than just 

a vague assurance that they're up to the task. I would 

really hope the Department reconsiders the inclusion of 

at least specific addressing the budgetary requirements 

in explicit terms. Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Barmak. Any 

other comments on 602.12, accrediting experience? 

Alright. Seeing none, Herman, ready for the temperature 

check? Herman's gone again. There he is. Let's go ahead 

MR. BOUNDS: I was going to say, is 

it helpful if I turn my camera off during the 
35

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

temperature check, or does it bother you if I leave it 

on?

MS. JEFFRIES: No, it doesn't bother 

me. You scare me when I can't see you.

MR. BOUNDS: I think that's what's 

causing me to be absent here.

MS. JEFFRIES: No worries. Alright. 

Can we go ahead and see the thumbs, please? Jason, I 

see. I am not seeing any thumbs down. Did I miss 

something? Wonderful. No thumbs down on section 602.12 

for the temperature check. Herman, you want to take us 

to the next section with change?

MR. BOUNDS: Yeah, we're looking at 

602.13, acceptance of the agency by others. Again, we 

elected to keep this in. However, we did take suggestions 

from the committee. This provision is applicable to 

agency seeking initial recognition as you all see. We 

struck through the requirement for the renewal of 

recognition. You can also see some additional changes 

in, 602.13(b), where we say that we'll rely on 

accreditation by the agency to establish eligibility to 

participate in HEA or non-HEA programs. So at least one 

institutional program. Those were the minor changes. I 

think again, the larger change was that we made it only 

applicable to agencies seeking initial recognition. I'm 
36

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

happy to open up discussion on 602.13.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you for that 

overview, Herman. Barmak.

MR. NASSIRIAN: Throughout these 

conversations, we often make the comment, all of us, that 

the primary intended beneficiary of these programs are 

the students. I see the enumeration of the kinds of 

support that the Department is seeking. I'm struck by 

the fact that no consumer protection or student advocacy 

group is named as, at least on the front end, vouching 

that an entity's presentation of itself satisfies their 

needs. I would encourage the Department to consider that 

at least as one of the constituencies should really be in 

many ways co-equal with the practitioner constituency and 

the employer constituency. At the very least, they 

ought to be in there as folks who are consulted about the 

presentation of the agency as a reliable authority. To 

the extent that they have any consumer protection 

function, which they do, then it seems to me you really 

sort of want to have at least a mention of those groups 

as adding their voice to the mix.

MR. BOUNDS: Barmak, I did make a note 

of that, but if you could drop that in the chat too just 

in case I lose that place in my notebook, I'd appreciate 

it.
37

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you both. Jamie.

MS. STUDLEY: I appreciate the 

Department's dropping the letter requirement for renewal 

on the basis not that we don't think input is a good 

idea, but that the existing opportunities for public 

comment directly to the agency and to the Department and 

NACIQI are sufficient to achieve the purpose. I would 

have no objection to Barmak's suggested expansion of (a) 

and as for (b), it maintains the former language on 

letters of commitment to participate. Just, as a general 

matter, it's hard to see how an institution could 

responsibly commit as far ahead as this. It could be 

several years to making a change to an agency while the 

wider landscape may still be changing. It's just hard to 

see how a board could make that decision without knowing 

all of the factors which they might not know for several 

years.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Jamie. 

Jillian.

MS. KLEIN: Hi. Sorry if this was 

talked about in January. But in (a) where it says, and if 

appropriate, three employers or practitioners. How would 

an accrediting agency know if it was appropriate or not? 

I guess to me, that language just feels a little bit 

unclear in terms of if the accreditor is supposed to know 
38

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

if it's appropriate or if the Department's going to tell 

the accreditor, or when it's not appropriate.

MR. BOUNDS: Our opinion would be, 

it depends on when you're looking at employers or 

practitioners, depends on the type of agency. If it's 

an accreditation agency who accredits mostly, 

occupational-type programs, we think that, the employer 

or practitioners, would be an active participant to have 

letters from because they would then have direct 

knowledge of the performance of maybe graduates or 

practitioners who may work in the same field. I hope 

that answered your question. Maybe it didn't. 

MS. KLEIN: I think it did generally, 

but just question whether it would be appropriate and/or 

helpful to include a bit more. This is not my issue. 

Obviously, I'm not starting accreditation any time soon, 

so maybe defer to like Jamie and others. It seems like 

if I were an accreditor, I would want to know exactly 

what the requirements are, and not have language that 

wasn't quite as clear, but I'll leave that for somebody 

else to fight about.

MR. BOUNDS: Yeah. I would just 

remind folks too, in the review process, when we're 

looking at a new agency, there's a lot of back and forth 

before there is a no decision made of noncompliant. 
39

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

Again, I think this would definitely be fleshed out in 

that discussion.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you, 

Herman. I don't see any further hands on 602.13. If it's 

alright with you, Herman, we'll go ahead and take a 

temperature check on that.

MR. BOUNDS: Sounds good.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, so we're taking a 

temperature check on 602.13, acceptance of the agency by 

others. Let me see your thumbs, please. I am not seeing 

any thumbs down. Thank you all. Herman, that takes us 

to the next section with change.

MR. BOUNDS: It looks like that takes 

us down to 602.15, I believe.

MS. JEFFRIES: It looks like that to 

me.

MR. BOUNDS: Right. I'm going to use 

the terms spotty changes throughout 602.15. The first 

paragraph, we added effectively carry out its 

accrediting activities. I think we discussed, how we 

would make that determination a little earlier. We added 

the suggestion of data and technical technology 

infrastructure, under the kind of, sort of this 

administrative and fiscal capacity of the agency. I 

think there was a recommendation, if I'm looking at my 
40

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

notes here, there was a recommendation to bar certain 

individuals. I think that's where we get to that point, 

when we look at 34 CFR 668.14(b) and 18, of course, I'll 

ask my colleague, Donna, if she wants to, talk about 

those particular sections. If not, Donna, let me know and 

I'll keep right on rolling. 

MS. MANGOLD: You can keep rolling. If 

there are any questions, we can answer them then.

MR. BOUNDS: Got it. Again, I think 

this is more, (4) is more cleaning up that sentence. We 

have educators and practitioners, employers, or both. I 

think those are all of some of the subtle changes in 

602.15, administrative and fiscal responsibility. At 

this time, I'll open it up for any discussion.

MS. JEFFRIES: Laura.

DR. KING: Yeah, thank you. Can you 

talk about, Herman, what exactly is meant by data and 

technology infrastructure, since that is something new? 

What specifically is meant by that? What would meet that 

requirement?

MR. BOUNDS: Well, first of all, 

kind of looking at the agency as far as, maybe its use 

of data, technology capabilities of the agency. Maybe 

available computer technology or some of that sort of 

infrastructure it's not a definite, but I think some of 
41

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

the discussions from the last, from the last go-round 

were sort of in that direction.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you. Jamie.

MS. STUDLEY: Hello again. Following 

on Laura's comment, the technology infrastructure seems 

like a reasonable thing that the Department might want to 

add at this point. Adding data would seem to get into a 

level of how the entity organizes its data that doesn't 

really go to administrative capacity and could get us 

into a tangle. I would suggest that the words data be 

deleted while leaving technology infrastructure to speak 

to the institution's capacity. You've already got 

requirements for administrative staff relating to 

knowledge of the kinds of data and systems and effective 

use with institutions and teams that would be the human 

side of the technology infrastructure. That's my point 

for now.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thanks, Jamie. Do you 

want to put that suggestion in the chat?

MS. STUDLEY: Sure.

MS. JEFFRIES: Go ahead. Thank you. 

Barmak.

MR. NASSIRIAN: Yeah, I wanted to 

address something else, but very briefly. Technology 

infrastructure devoid of data, I'm not sure, what do you 
42

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

do with it? What is the use of technology and 

[inaudible] like printing letters or something? To 

whatever extent we care about outcomes which I know Jamie 

does, outcomes are data points. To not reference the 

[inaudible]- and I know that her agency actually does a 

fairly solid job on data collection and data 

presentation. But I do think reference to data is 

important because they are the only outcomes fact we have 

and not referring to them is problematic in my book. 

That wasn't why I raised my hand. I think, again, Jamie 

flagged the point when we were discussing public 

membership that my suggestion about the composition of 

boards and accreditation teams belong somewhere else. I 

think it belongs here. I would suggest, at the very end 

of 15 to strike provided that and replace it with except 

that the agency shall not include executives of regulated 

entities or individuals described in 34 CFR 668, etc., or 

individuals with a fiduciary obligation to a regulated 

entity, such as institutions of higher education. We've 

submitted language to that effect, but I think this is 

where it would fit rather nicely. I suggest that the 

Department and the committee consider that as a 

possibility. Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Barmak, if 

you'd like to put that in the chat, that'd be wonderful. 
43

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

Jamie.

MS. STUDLEY: Barmak is right that 

technology and the people to manage and operate the 

technology are not the full story. I just don't think 

that this is the place to get at the agency's capacity to 

use effective data in carrying out its responsibilities. 

Those requirements are elsewhere, and they go very 

profoundly to what's expected of us. This is to talk 

about the administrative and fiscal capacities to support 

the more substantive requirements. just think it's 

putting it in the wrong category. You're right that the 

sophistication to do the job should be required and 

required elsewhere. I also believe that I read a 

suggestion in some of the comments about number six. I 

apologize if I've got this in the wrong place, but where 

it speaks about clear and effective controls, including 

guidelines to present or resolve conflicts. If there's 

anyone who thinks that is too thin the Department now 

does look at effectively carrying out conflicts practices 

and assuring that people do not participate when they 

shouldn't. If there is something simple that would expand 

controls and guidelines to actual practice, there would 

not be an objection. It may be that is handled elsewhere 

and similarly, the Department looks here at the 

guidelines at the operation of the practice.
44

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Jamie. 

Carolyn.

MS. FAST: Yes. I just wanted to echo 

what Barmak was saying about the suggestion to include a 

prohibition on participation by individuals with a 

fiduciary obligation to an institution. Here in this 

spot, I think this would be a very meaningful change that 

the Department could make to address concerns about the 

independence of people who are making decisions. I think 

I just wanted to highlight this as what I see as one of 

the really critical opportunities for the Department to 

make a meaningful change here to improve the way that the 

accreditation system works. I appreciate that. I think 

Barmak may have just added some proposed language to the 

chat and that is language that was submitted already by 

some a group of negotiators. Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you. Laura.

DR. KING: I just wanted to note that 

prohibiting fiduciaries in a programmatic world would be 

nearly impossible. We're talking on visits or 

commissions. We're talking about law school deans, 

medical school deans. Would those be fiduciaries for 

programmatic accreditors? I think we need to think about 

the fact that a lot of those organizations or those 

individuals are important to our process at the 
45

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

programmatic level.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Laura. 

Barmak, something new?

MR. NASSIRIAN: Just to address 

Laura's point.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay.

MR. NASSIRIAN: We are not attempting 

to exclude expertise. Certainly, those folks can be 

consulted by accrediting bodies. More importantly, you 

don't need to have a dean. What you need is pedagogical 

experts. Presumably, the entire faculty are available to 

you. Just because you do something a certain way today 

doesn't necessarily mean that's the only way to do it. 

If there is one critique of accreditation that is quite

prevalent on across the political spectrum today. It is 

that it has been captured by regulated entities for 

purposes that go beyond what it was supposed to be doing. 

It is not so much that these folks don't have the 

credentials. They have the credentials, but they also 

have a fundamental conflict that is then reflected in 

the terrible outcomes we see in accreditation. Nobody's 

saying don't talk to deans, don't talk to chancellors or 

presidents. Yes, they're important stakeholders and 

should be consulted. They shouldn't be decision-makers, 

given the fact that there is a fundamental divergence of-
46

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

potential divergence of interest. Aagain, I want to 

emphasize there is black letter statutory language that 

I believe prohibits the practice. The ubiquity of a 

practice doesn't make it right. Just because everybody 

does something doesn't mean it's compliant with the 

underlying language that we need to be following. Thank 

you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Barmak. I 

make note that David Cohen has come in for a proprietary 

institution. With that, David, you are up.

MR. COHEN: I just had a quick 

question on 602.15 on the word educators, given that a 

lot of, postsecondary programs are taught by 

practitioners that aren't necessarily licensed teachers, 

if the Department has an expectation of what an educator 

would be in those situations. How did we define that?

MR. BOUNDS: We have never defined 

academic administrative personnel, educators, or 

practitioners. We really rely on the agency's definition. 

I mean, if you were to think about the difference between 

maybe an educator and an academic. Maybe an academic is a 

person who's, background has a lot of research 

background at a research institution level. An

educator, who may be an instructor but just doesn't have 

maybe a research background. Again, we don't define 
47

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

those. We let the agency define, , what those are. 

Obviously, practitioner is self-explanatory. We would 

understand that and understand employer. But yeah, we've 

never defined, educator or practitioner.

MR. COHEN: Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you. Jo.

MS. BLONDIN: Yes. To follow along a 

little bit with what Herman was saying about definitions 

of education or education and educator and practitioner.

I just want to really lift that so much of accreditation 

is mission-driven and mission-specific. When we talk 

about research institutions, those aren't necessarily the 

educators and practitioners who are going to do peer 

review at community colleges. I just want to be really, 

really clear about the mission-driven process of 

accreditation. I also want to take deep exception to the 

fact that there are conflicts of interest that are rife 

in this process. They're managed. I'll leave it at that. 

Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Jo. Alright. 

Any other comments? Suggestions? Jamie.

MS. STUDLEY: Yeah. I need to come 

back to the comment about barring fiduciaries from 

participating. This would be a fundamental change in the 

way that we draw on various forms of expertise. On the 
48

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

specific level, this is not just pedagogical expertise. 

There's a great deal more that we are asked to look at 

that includes the expertise of business officers of 

institutions and, senior officials, including CEOs who 

are in the best position to judge things. Like the 

ability to meet our standard on integrated institutional 

planning, financial sustainability, and so forth. I have 

a great respect for faculty, but not all of them have 

these capacities. Many of them go to the overarching 

questions of whether the institution can deliver at a 

quality level, the program that they're designing. 

Second, it's partly in search of a problem. If an 

accrediting agency is being starved in its budgeting by 

people who do not want it to be effective, we have a 

staff of expert people at the Department who inquire 

about that. Third parties can comment if they think 

that's a problem. An institution should not be federally 

recognized if it's in that situation. But the way to get 

at that is to assure that we have the kind of- effective 

open process for Federal recognition. Not to constrain 

the activities of a nonprofit organization that is 

meeting the Federal standards and is required to provide 

the institutional support, or the, administrative 

support and capacity and to carry and to follow up on 

standards that have been set in the public eye, and to 
49

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

the satisfaction of the Department.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Jamie. We're 

going to take one last comment on this. Then move forward 

with a temperature check and then an afternoon break and 

then continue with the document. So, Barmak.

MR. NASSIRIAN: Three points. One, 

it's important not to mischaracterize each other's 

positions by no means. I've said it before, I want to be 

explicit. We do not wish to exclude fiduciaries, 

executives, owners, their cousins from being available 

for purposes of consultation of providing insights. All 

of that. The issue is, should they then be able to also 

make decisions about the entity that is charged with 

overseeing their own operations? That's one point I want 

to make very clear. The second point I want to make is 

that, the way our system is being described, makes it 

sound like accreditation is working extraordinarily well 

and that somehow this radical change. I do concede it's 

a radical change, but it's a meaningful change. In 

candor, it's the only meaningful change this committee is 

considering. People are acting as if everything is hunky 

dory, and somehow a group of know-nothings are coming in 

without understanding what a magnificent Swiss watch they 

are breaking up. Look, ACICS was deemed to be a reliable 

accreditor until nothing, but disaster was left in its 
50

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

wake. There is plenty of evidence of it not- people take 

offense at the suggestion that there is a conflict of 

interest. Please understand, we're not pointing any 

fingers at any individual as personally conflicted. It's 

an ethos, it's a mindset, and more importantly, it runs 

on a spectrum that may not be represented on this 

committee. Perhaps for all I care for 90% of 

participating institutions, but for the 10% where it is 

frankly obvious to anybody who cares to look, it is 

victimizing a lot of people. We have too many vested 

interests making decisions, sitting in judgment of their 

own selves and their own industries, and causing real 

heartache. You've heard from some of the victims during 

these proceedings and previous ones. It is not like what 

we are suggesting [background talking].

MS. JEFFRIES: I'm sorry. Someone is 

off mute.

MR. WEATHERS: 30 seconds remains.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Barmak.

MR. NASSIRIAN: I just want to make 

sure people don't look at this as a theoretical issue. 

The kinds of concerns we are expressing are evident in 

the outcomes associated with accreditors.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you. Alright. 

Scott Dolan is back in for private nonprofits, just as a 
51

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

note. That was the last comment on section 602.15, 

administrative and fiscal responsibilities. Let's go 

ahead and take a temperature check if you're ready, 

Herman.

MR. BOUNDS: I think we're ready.

MS. JEFFRIES: Alright. Let's see the

thumbs. I keep wanting to say, show me the thumbs. Barmak 

Nassirian is a thumbs down. Hang on Carolyn Fast is a 

thumbs down. Jessi, you are thumbs down, correct? Scott 

Dolan, you were okay, right? So those are the dissents. 

Anything outside of what's already been stated, 

pertaining to the section from those who are thumbs 

down, please, let us know by raising your hand. Doesn't 

look like they have anything new so that they did a 

thorough job of explaining their concerns on that 

section. It is 2:23. I'm going to suggest we go ahead and 

take a break. Herman, how long a break would you like? 

10, 15 minutes ?

MR. BOUNDS: 15 minutes? Is that too 

long?

MS. JEFFRIES: No, that's fine. Okay, 

let's make it 17. It's 2:23. So, let's come back about 20 

minutes to 3:00, and then we'll continue through this 

document right up until public comment at 3:30. With 

that, we can go ahead and pause the live feed. Welcome 
52

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

back from the break. We're ready to pick back up where 

we left off, which I think, Herman is 602.16, 

accreditation and pre-accreditation standards.

MR. BOUNDS: Yes, you are correct. 

Alright, so under 602.16, I would expect some passionate 

discussion here. We made changes here, based on 

recommendations from the committee. I think here in the 

first highlighted portion here, we included the 

accreditation standards must set forth clear 

expectations. I think we added that to language. If we 

scroll down I think we talk about in here the use of 

using reliable data- see where that change is. Yeah, it's 

in that first paragraph, I'm sorry, if you can go back 

up. too much going on here. Then we added here, where 

appropriate, consistent, and reliable data, which may 

include, Federal data. Those are the major changes that 

we added under 602.15. I think there , that is really 

it. At this point I think we can open discussions on 

602.16.

MS. JEFFRIES: Scott Dolan.

MR. DOLAN: I guess first question 

would be for further information about how an accreditor 

or an institution might collect information or define 

what minimum expectations for the development of 

curricula might look like. Given the pedagogical 
53

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

expertise of different constituents who might have 

proposed this. It would be helpful to kind of have a 

clearer understanding of what this would look like in 

practice. Given the variety of programs and types and 

disciplines and the role that the faculty play in 

developing curricula according to standards of varying 

types. It just would be helpful for us to kind of fully 

respond to this if we were clearer on, what this would 

look like in practice.

MS. JEFFRIES: You want to put those 

questions, Scott, in the chat, because it doesn't seem as 

though the Department has a response right off-hand, and 

we don't want to lose track of it. 

MR. BOUNDS: I'm sorry, was that 

question for me or was it for other members of the 

committee?

MR. DOLAN: I would suggest it could 

be for both, right? Because at least what I heard was 

that this was included as part of the language based on 

some of the proposals that other negotiators had put 

forward. I don't think it was any of the proposals that 

institutions of higher ed or accreditors put forward. I 

think it would be helpful to hear from both the 

Department and the other negotiators about what the 

rationale would be and how we would go about doing this. 
54

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

As someone who oversees academic programs and business 

technology and liberal arts, it would be helpful for me 

to have a little bit of more guidance around what we 

might be looking for here.

MS. JEFFRIES: Laura.

DR. KING: I just wanted to ask 

about the authority of the Department to regulate in this 

area. I wanted to call out specifically language in the 

statute since I know probably not everybody has it in 

front of them. It says, notwithstanding any other 

provision of the law, the Secretary shall not promulgate 

any regulation with respect to the standards of an 

accrediting agency or association described in subsection 

(a)(5). 'd like to hear maybe from the Department about 

their thoughts about the authority on this issue.

MR. BOUNDS: Of course, I'll ask my 

colleague to join, too. We don't think that putting this 

language bridge that boundary. We're not setting 

benchmarks or any of those things. I think this language 

here is just saying that they must, set forth some clear 

minimum expectations. We're not saying what those 

expectations ought to be. That's going to be totally up 

to the accrediting organization. We just think that this 

may be helpful for institutions or programs to better 

understand what the agency standards are. We don't 
55

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

believe we have crossed that threshold because we are 

very aware of the limitations on the Secretary's 

authority here and also in the Organization Act. Donna, I 

don't know if you want to add anything to that.

MS. MANGOLD: You captured it, Herman.

MR. BOUNDS: Thank you.

DR. KING: Requiring minimum 

expectations is, in fact, regulating with respect to the 

standards.

MR. BOUNDS: Again, I just stated our 

point, Laura. We'll take any other comments into 

consideration. But at this point we don't think that 

we've overstepped that boundary.

MS. JEFFRIES: Any other comments on 

602.16 and/or the questions that Scott Dolan posed, 

seeking a little more clarity that would help him? 

Barmak.

MR. NASSIRIAN: Couple of, editorial 

suggestions with some substantive consequences. I would 

suggest that the Department wants to strike out the word 

consistent in, subsection (1) of 602.16 and replace it 

with valid. In research methodology, reliability refers 

to consistency of data, meaning something is repeatedly 

observed to be the same, and validity refers to the 

accuracy and veracity of data. To refers to something as 
56

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

consistent and reliable is duplicative. More 

importantly, you can have erroneous data that are 

repeated consistently and are thus reliable in that 

sense. I think what you really want to use is standard 

methodological language of valid and reliable. That's an 

editorial change. I think it is pretty consequential in 

terms of consequences. The other editorial change I would 

suggest would be to replace the word may in that sentence 

that follows consistent and reliable, which shall include 

Federal data where available. I just don't see any reason 

why if Federal data are, in fact, available, why you 

would not expect the agency to use them? I would make 

that suggestion. There should probably be a requirement 

for agencies to actually quantify performance goals, and 

we can submit some language in the chat to accomplish 

that. Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Barmak. 

Jamie.

MS. STUDLEY: Thank you. Let me tease 

out a few different pieces. I think Laura asked an 

important question. While I respect the Department's 

view, the use of the word enforce does seem to risk 

transitioning into a bright lines effect of those 

expectations. I'd like to speak separately to student 

achievement and to the other criteria. With respect to 
57

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

student achievement, this is a major area of change in 

transitioning. Agencies have been using information and 

being increasingly clear. In fact, this is an area in 

which it may well be able to come to some agreement that 

takes what is happening now by every agency. I've heard 

before, the last three cycles of NACIQI and put it in an 

appropriate way into this language. But I don't think 

we're there yet. Minimum expectations of performance or 

clear minimum may just be more than is feasible. We need 

to assure institutions that this can be done in a way 

that's appropriate to different institutional 

populations. I do not mean to make excuses or allow 

institutions to make excuses by the population that they 

serve, but that is part of understanding what a 

reasonable outcome measure might be. The NACIQI 

conversations have been just the kind that the 

regulations should be promoting. What do you expect of 

institutions? How many of your institutions are- how are 

your institutions doing? What are your medians? What 

prompts action by you? What action have you taken when 

people fall short. There's a good conversation going on, 

and I'd hate to see regulations stifle or stymie that or 

set that back. As to the other set, expectations of 

performance for curriculum, facilities, faculty, the test 

of those is in the overall student performance. A good 
58

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

accreditor doesn't go stare at each curriculum. They say, 

what do you expect students to learn and be able to do? 

Do they learn it? Can they do it when they finish? Do 

they graduate? Do they have a manageable or positive or 

effective or desirable financial circumstance when they 

end, which are increasingly the questions that are being 

asked. You can't tease out minimum expectations. [30 

seconds] To do so would take us back to the bad old days 

of input measures, to have specific expectations for 

those, and you can't have numerical ones for those 

criteria. What you have is an institutional performance 

result that shows student achievement and an accreditor 

that manages to them.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Jamie. I 

have Robyn Smith back next, but I want to make note that 

Magin Sanchez has joined the table for civil rights and 

consumer advocates groups. So, Robyn.

MS. R. SMITH: Thank you. I 

appreciate that the Department is attempting to sort of 

tighten up some standards that accreditors must comply 

with. But I'm very concerned. This is an area of 

substantial concern for the low-income clients that I 

represent because we see many institutions that have poor 

student outcomes but continue to be fully accredited by 

accreditors. I just want to cite to a report that came 
59

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

out today which we are happy to post or I can post in in 

the chat in a minute., The study shows that 37% of 

fully accredited institutions have completion rates of 

under 50%. These 628 schools receive $20 billion in 

taxpayer-funded student aid dollars. This is for the 

year 2021 to 2022. In addition, 129 accredited schools 

had a completion rate of less than 25% of their students, 

and they took in 4 billion in taxpayer dollars. In the 

last category, the 25%, 51 of those students are Pell 

Grant recipients. They are low-income people who are 

seeking an education to improve their economic stability 

and the future of their families. It's hard to 

understand why accreditors are letting such schools 

continue to receive this Federal funding, when it's clear 

that the majority of those students are not going to 

possibly get the benefits of the education they're paying 

for. I also want to mention that the average annual price 

for a bachelor four-year degree program at the 50% number 

was, $15,920 a year and $63,000 in average in a net 

price for a four-year bachelor’s degree. This is not an 

insignificant investment for these students. I don't 

think they're being well served with the current sort of 

standards. I appreciate what the Department has done, but 

as we mentioned, put forth some suggestions for how the 

Department could tighten some standards, and we'd be 
60

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

happy to share those with the wider group.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Robyn. 

Magin.

MR. SANCHEZ: Bouncing off of that. I 

can appreciate the Department's proposal on this, and we 

submitted this as well in language. Particularly 

recommend the clarification for in terms of setting 

expectations for accreditors in terms of looking at 

student achievement, particularly looking at all 

students. That's particularly disaggregating the data by 

subgroups. We're talking, right, Pell grants for 

[inaudible] race, gender. I think that's especially 

crucial right if we're setting expectations [inaudible] 

here because, you can put a graduation rate, a general 

one for entire school but that outcome can be very 

different for, students of color, right, relative to 

that. I think it's very important that's considered. 

For the stats that Robyn just brought up in terms of, for 

example, for Pell Grant recipients, that's very crucial 

to know, again, not just generally for this policy, but 

again, for best practice to know what's going on for 

these populations. I do recommend the Department move 

forward with that point. Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Magin. 

Jillian.
61

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

MS. KLEIN: Thanks. My question, I 

think was similar to Laura's. I think, follow-up based 

on what I think we heard from Herman. Can the Department 

provide a little bit more either context or details about 

what compliance might look like for an agency to meet the 

minimum requirements threshold in the language? I think I 

heard no benchmarks. That confused me even more 

honestly, because I'm just trying to figure out then what 

exactly the Department is expecting or what it means to 

be in compliance with the proposed language.

MR. BOUNDS: I mean, definitely no, 

no benchmarks. The other factor to look at here is the 

language in (a) where it talks about, we have to

determine whether an agency's standards are sufficiently 

rigorous. When you combine those and all we're asking 

here is for the agency to explain to us what their clear 

minimum expectations are. We're not putting some sort 

of, clear bottom on this. We think that it's important 

though that in the agency standards they do talk about 

again, what are their minimum expectations for an 

institution to be compliant with their standards? It 

doesn't have to be a numerical benchmark. It could be a 

sum of, qualitative requirements that may form that 

minimum expectation. This is all going to be determined 

by the accrediting agency. I think we would also ask, 
62

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

how does the agency determine that their standards are 

rigorous? What kind of research have they done? What kind 

of, reviews or comparisons have they done when they 

establish whatever student achievement standard they 

have? Not just that, we think this one sounds good. I 

think there's a lot of evaluation that would go into our 

review of an agency student achievement standards, just 

like they do now for the agencies that don't have 

benchmarks.

MS. KLEIN: I guess I would just say, 

with all due respect, you guys have heard me say this on 

other topics too. It's not just this section, but 

again, I don't run an accrediting agency, but I would 

think it would be challenging to meet this requirement 

from a compliance perspective without more details. I 

understand that the Department feels like they can't give 

more details, which I think puts us in a really 

challenging spot in terms of how we're to understand what 

compliance looks like for this section. I just, again, 

would reiterate sort of Laura's question at the jump 

about statutory authority in this direction and sort of 

what the Department's intention is. Thanks.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thanks, Jillian. 

Laura.

DR. KING: It seems like from the 
63

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

examples that, the Department has given, that the intent 

really is to apply this to student achievement. I think 

the problem maybe you're trying to apply it to 

everything, because that's a great way to get at student 

achievement. I don't know. I think the challenge that I 

see is minimum expectations, for example, in terms of 

facilities or equipment, minimum expectations on fiscal 

and administrative capacity as well. It already says as 

appropriate to the specified scale of operations, which 

is what we assess as it is now. What kinds of minimum 

expectations? I mean, numbers of buildings, minimum 

budget? I mean, you can’t do that. You have to do that 

per program, depending on what the program offers, or the 

institution offers. It's very context specific. I think 

the language is really problematic in that area about 

setting minimum expectations.

MR. BOUNDS: I think it kind of goes 

back to one of the committee- it all depends on the 

mission is a thing. What's the mission of the 

institutional program when those things are being 

established? Again, the statute and regs is clear. We 

don't set what those are. We're relying on the agency 

telling us what they think those minimum expectations are 

when it comes to facilities. Again, this is something 

that the agency again, would have to define. It's 
64

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

largely dependent upon, again, the mission of the 

institution or the mission of the program or the 

objectives of the institution or program. We hear the 

concerns, and we will definitely, look at that language 

again. But, you asked me to kind of explain how we would 

evaluate that. That's kind of how we would. Again, it 

depends on the mission of the program and the 

institution, and it's up to the agency to define those 

things. Again, we have to determine whether the agency 

standards, again, are sufficiently rigorous.

DR. KING: Right. If that's the case, 

that's what we do now. We base it on the mission of the 

program or the mission of the institution, the 

composition of the institution. That's what we do now. 

I'm confused about why the need for the minimum 

expectations in those areas that are not related to 

student achievement.

MR. BOUNDS: Yeah. And of those, as 

you're saying that you do those things now, what are 

those factors or things that you evaluate to determine 

whether that program does meet your standards? What are 

the minimum expectations that you expect when you're 

conducting that review? But that's what we would like for 

you all to tell us as part of this standard. But again, 

we hear the concerns, and we'll definitely discuss this 
65

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

later, but that's exactly what we're looking for.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you. David 

Cohen, hang tight one second. I just want to announce 

that we are a little bit shy of 30 minutes away from 

public comment. Those who have assigned times, we ask 

that you sign in about 15 minutes prior to your assigned 

time. You will be admitted into the meeting room at your 

assigned time. With that, I want to state that David 

Cohen is in now for proprietary institutions. David.

MR. COHEN: I just wanted to not 

quite echo what the other last two speakers were saying. 

I just wanted to point out, like if you were looking at 

the minimum standards, it's not just, by program. You 

also must consider where the school is located, the 

population that they serve, the size of the institution. 

There are so many regional nuances to what a school looks 

like that coming up with minimum standards. I just think 

would be very, very difficult and not only for the 

accrediting agencies, but then also for the schools in 

terms of trying to understand, what the expectation 

would be in order to meet those standards.

MS. JEFFRIES: Is that a question for 

the Department ?

MR. COHEN: Just a comment 

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay.
66

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

MR. COHEN: The last two speakers. 

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, sounds good. 

Thank you for sharing, David. Jamie Studley, you are 

next.

MS. STUDLEY: I feel like we're all 

trying to get to the same place, and it's interesting 

that as I said, the student achievement area is one that 

accreditors are moving toward. Actually are more 

sympathetic to asking us to think about how to 

communicate what, call it targets, what comparisons, what 

context, makes a well-performing or weak performing or 

superbly performing institution. On the other ones, the 

idea of asking us to set a clear minimum expectation for 

curriculum when when what we do is look at whether the 

total package using sufficient of these resources and 

components yields student achievement. I suggest that 

putting our emphasis on what the results are for students 

is the way to get to what we all want. It's not saying 

you must have this for faculty or that specific array of 

laboratories. It's did people learn what they came to 

learn and to use James Kvaal's phrase, are they better 

off when they left? To the extent that there are many 

students who do not meet that task in American higher 

education, I think we are aligned in wanting to fix that. 

It doesn't help us to go back to putting our energy into 
67

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

internal details when our eyes should be on student 

achievement and rewards to students. I think there's a 

purpose here that many could share. Many agencies will 

say we are moving there already, and that NACIQI's 

inquiry and the Department's expectations already

accomplish what you're talking about. We were all asked 

about the array of performance by our institutions. When 

people were what we thought were, what were we doing 

about it? I think that's the line of analysis to 

continue, and that the second part of it would just take 

us [background talking].

MR. WEATHERS: 30 seconds.

MS. JEFFRIES: Someone is off mute. 

Go ahead, Jamie.

MS. STUDLEY: We'd just be dangerous 

and distracting from the purpose of serving the very same 

students that Robyn's talking about.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thanks, Jamie. Robyn 

Smith, you are next.

MS. R. SMITH: Alrighty. Thank you. I 

just want to mention that in addition to sort of ensuring 

there's minimum performance measures that are enforced 

that appropriate action is taken by accrediting agencies 

when schools do not meet minimum standards. It's really 

important for the Department, I think, to require that 
68

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

agency's standards include adequate controls to prevent 

the manipulation of rates. We know, for example, that 

some for-profit schools in the past have a welldocumented history of inflating placement rates.

Ddifferent numbers of ways by counting placements that 

they shouldn't count as placements by preventing. For 

example, licensure students from completing their 

coursework so that they don't get counted in a low 

licensure rate. I think it's really important for the 

Department to consider language that we've proposed to 

ensure that the accrediting agencies are looking below 

the numbers. That they have standards and adequate 

controls in place to audit those, placement rates, to 

look at those numbers, to take a step below what the 

school is reporting. We also propose having some kind of 

language around that issue in our proposal, which we can 

also post. Thanks.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Robyn. 

Jamie. You're on mute, Jamie.

MS. STUDLEY: Having been an expert 

witness in Kentucky on behalf of the attorney general in 

a case that raised exactly these issues, I think it is 

something worthy of our attention. The danger in some of 

this is overregulating for everybody because there can

be a problem. I'm not saying we shouldn't, but I think we 
69

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

need to be as surgical or refined as we can be. I 

appreciated your correction from enforcement to action. 

Appropriate action to follow up is a reasonable request 

to make of agencies. Finally, I think it would be well 

worth our time, maybe offline, to think about, what I 

will call the NCLEX situation, where, the effect of 

regulation or rewarding things leads to behaviors that 

are not in the interest of students. I think Robyn's 

point about this issue is something that deserves some 

attention. I don't know whether we'll be able to do it 

within this negotiation, given the time and what the 

Department's put forward. I think it is a worthy 

question, both in data quality and not creating perverse 

incentives that are bad for students.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Jamie. I 

see one more hand on this up, and that is Jo Blondin. 

then I think, Herman, at that point, if you're ready, 

we'll take a temperature check.

MS. BLONDIN: I was just going to add 

the data hygiene question, and I don't like to ever use 

the word hygiene in this regard. I'm always concerned 

again, a mission perspective, how we capture student 

intent and what the student is actually intending to do. 

Again, at a community college, often a student comes for 

one class. That student is not first-time, full-time, and 
70

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

that student is not counted as a completer by many 

standards. I do agree with Robyn on her point about 

making sure that we have data and that we don't have bad 

actors in that data. I also want to be clear about 

making sure that the data that we are collecting makes 

sense by institution. Again, I'm not eschewing what 

Robyn is saying. Please let me be clear about that. I'm 

simply saying I want to collect data that makes sense for 

my students, because out of 6,000 students, about 350 are 

first-time full-time. Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thanks, Jo. Alright, I 

think we're ready for a temperature check on 602.16, 

accreditation and pre-accreditation standards. Can I see 

your thumbs, please? Alright, I see Laura Rasar-King is a 

thumbs down. Jo Blondin as well. Robyn Smith is a thumbs 

down. Jason Logan is a thumbs down. Jamie Studley is a 

thumbs down. JoEllen Price is a thumbs down. Erika Linden 

is a thumbs down. Jillian Klein is also a thumbs down. 

Thank you all for that. With that, Herman, are we ready 

to move to the next section? Does 602.17 have changes?

MR. BOUNDS: Let's see. No, I think 

if there is one minor change in 602.17 where it says at a 

minimum. I would just like to say under student 

achievement, we do appreciate all the comments. Student 

achievement is always a tough subject to talk about. 
71

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

We'll be happy to entertain or to look at any additional 

suggestions that the committee might have in that area. 

Iit is always a tough one to discuss, and standards in 

general. So, yeah, but I don't think, yeah, I think it's 

the only one in- and then we struck, if you can go back 

up, we did strike- I'm on, I think a couple paragraphs 

below at a minimum, we struck including pilot programs. 

That was just the wrong reference there, I believe. 

That's why we got rid of those citations there. I think 

we're down to 602.18, ensuring consistency in decisionmaking. There are some minor, very, very minor changes 

there. We talked about the language that we have stricken 

here in that section. We talked about that before, some 

of this has been moved under 602.20, I believe. I think 

this portion has been deleted altogether. Most of this 

has been moved under 602.20. If you scan down. I'm sorry, 

I'm ahead of you. If you scan down to page 17 and then 

into page 18.

MS. JEFFRIES: Discussion on 602.18, 

ensuring consistency in decision-making, with the changes 

that have been proposed there. Discussion? Alright. 

Seeing no hands. Do you want a temperature check, Herman?

MR. BOUNDS: We can. I think most of 

this was deleted, I'm happy to check with the 

deletions.
72

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

MS. JEFFRIES: Can I see your thumbs, 

please? Alright. I'm not seeing any thumbs down. Alright, 

let's move to the next section., 

MR. BOUNDS: Looks like next we are 

602.19. One minor change there. I think that was at the 

recommendation of the committee's next available meeting 

of the National Advisory Committee. I think that's it for 

that section. I don't know if we need a temperature 

check there. I'm happy to take one, but there's only that 

one small edit there.

MS. JEFFRIES: We can ask the 

negotiators if they're good with just moving on okay, 

I'm seeing a lot of head nods, so why don't we move on to 

the next section? 

MR. BOUNDS: The next section where 

we have some major changes is under the enforcement of 

standards. There are several in this section. Let's see. 

In paragraph (a), we basically kept the recommendations 

here to, increase the enforcement timelines, excuse me, 

not increase, but go back to what was in previous 

regulation here. Then we still have a carve-out for 

student achievement. If we go down looks like page 20. 

This is the language from the previous regulation, where 

we went back to, which is basically the 12 months or if 

the longest length of the program is a year, 18 months.
73

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

If the length of the longest program is at least one year 

less than two and then two years for the agency to come 

into compliance if the program is two years. I think we 

discussed a lot of this language before. We did keep the 

carve-out here for student achievement and allowing that 

provision to stay at the four years or 150% of the length 

of the program. We did put in a maximum timeframe for an

extension for good cause under (c) and we limited that to 

one year. d I will have to say that this is the first 

time that we have put a limitation in for extension for 

good cause. That was not a requirement in the 2020 

regulatory change, nor was it a requirement in the 

regulations before we had the rulemaking in, in 2020. If 

we go down to (e), I think we're on page- yeah, we're 

good. On (e) we put in initial arbitration requirements 

under- that's (f) now. I'm sorry. Under (f). Tthen if 

you would scan down to the next set I know it's a lot. 

If we scan down to the next set of major changes in (h), 

we left this language in previously, but we did add if 

you go down to the next page, I think it's going to be 

page 22. We did add five here. Where we say that an 

extension in this area under special circumstances must

constitute this sort of new and independent noncompliance 

area. I think that kind of addressed some folks' 

concerns about somebody maybe being able to stack on the 
74

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

special circumstances here with the situation that an 

institution may be already noncompliant for. Again, I 

know that's a lot in that section. So, happy to open it 

up for discussion, which I don't think we'll finish 

before third-party comment because this was quite a bit. 

We're happy to open conversation and hear your 

suggestions or concerns in this section.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Herman. 

Before I start calling on people, just another reminder 

to the public to please log in 15 minutes prior to your 

assigned speaking time. Please utilize the name that you 

registered under when you log in. Thank you. So first up 

we have Laura.

DR. KING: Thank you. I wanted to 

look at (a). I'm trying to kind of go in order here, 

(a)(1). Immediately initiate adverse action against the 

institution or program. I don't know. I think, Herman, 

that was previous language that was in the regulations 

before. Is that correct?

MR. BOUNDS: Yes. This is taken 

from the regulations prior to the 2020 change. I think, 

let me double-check. I think that language is also still 

in our current set of regs. Let me get to that but go 

ahead.

DR. KING: While you're looking I can 
75

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

immediately initiate adverse action. It would still be 

subject to due process requirements, correct? 

MR. BOUNDS: Absolutely. That's 

after the institutional program has completed the 

requirements in 602.25 would prevent you from taking this 

immediate adverse action until that process had been 

worked through. 

DR. KING: Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Laura. 

Additional comments, discussion on 602.20, enforcement of 

standards? Barmak.

MR. NASSIRIAN: Yes, just to point out 

that we need conforming changes with .16 regarding valid 

and reliable as opposed to consistent and reliable. There 

are a couple of occurrences of that phraseology that need 

to be corrected if the Department buys the argument in 

16, they need to be corrected here.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thanks, Barmak. 

Jamie.

MS. STUDLEY: In the interest of the 

hour, I'll start with a practical one. Looking at number 

five and what Herman called the possibility of stacking, 

let me just offer a real example and the Department might 

want to think about this one. An institution might be, 

unsanctioned for financial sustainability reasons. Over 
76

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

the time that it was allowed, it has made substantial 

progress and is moving well toward compliance with that 

standard. The hurricane, typhoon, fire, you name it, 

hits, and causes damage to buildings, need to support 

faculty and staff and students. Student aid increases to 

cope with the emergency. They're now, their financial 

situation is now more challenged. Would that be an 

unacceptable- it was always financial so you can't have 

the extra time because of the hurricane or typhoon? A

comprehensive look at the situation; they were moving 

toward stability. They understand how to do this. 

Something happened that qualifies them for some time to 

come out of the new hole or crisis. I'm just literally 

thinking about institutions that have had these problems 

and trying to be fair to them.

MR. BOUNDS: I think that's a valid 

point, Jamie. We meant to kind of deal with something 

like that. We said an independent cause for 

noncompliance. Like you say, if an institution was 

going through some sort of financial issue and I taught 

in Oklahoma for 15 years, and we had institutions with 

tornado damage. Y We would not frown upon, the 

provisions of this particular criteria playing a role in 

maybe that institution having some additional time to get 

back on its feet. Number one, because this is a new 
77

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

issue that caused that. We would understand your decision 

that they were moving and making some pretty good 

progress toward compliance, but they had this issue that 

they had no control over.

MS. STUDLEY: Right. I think we all 

just ought to look at the language to make sure it is 

what you are describing.

MR. BOUNDS: Absolutely. We'll take 

some more suggestions here, yes.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thanks. We are four 

minutes away from public comment. Robyn, you had your 

hand up and then down and now back. Oh, okay. Jillian, do 

you have something that youMS. R. SMITH: I was on mute. I 

didn't mean to do that. Just really quick. I just wanted 

to mention that we appreciate the Department's trying to 

restore some of the shorter time periods during which a 

school may remain out of compliance and continue to be 

accredited. We have concerns that some of the periods 

are still really too long. We just want to remind people 

that during this period, during which a school is having 

issues, students continue to enroll and may be getting a 

substandard or low-quality education. We've made some 

proposals to the Department about potentially shortening 

some of those time periods, and would really strongly 
78

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

encourage the Department to really consider the harm to 

students and shorten these time periods so that 

noncompliant institutions aren't continuing too long in 

operation.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thanks Robyn. Jillian, 

are you able to say what you want to say in a minute or 

less? If not, we can pick up with you first thing in the 

morning.

MS. KLEIN: I'll wait till tomorrow, 

thanks.

MS. JEFFRIES: Great. I wanted to 

give you the option because I didn't want to cut you off 

because we do need to start the public comment on time, 

so I appreciate that. Thanks. I made a note that we will 

pick up in the morning session at 602.20 with the 

discussion leading off with comments from Jillian, okay? 

With that, I think that we can prepare for our public 

comment. Krystal, who do we have up first?

MS. K. SMITH: Yes. Our first speaker 

is Natashia Monk, who is representing herself. Natashia 

is in the room.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you. Natashia, 

can you hear me? Natashia.

MS. K. SMITH: You're on mute, 

Natashia.
79

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

MS. MONK: Thank you. Yes, I do hear, 

y'all.

MS. JEFFRIES: Great. So, welcome. A 

You will have three minutes to address the committee. 

Your three minutes start now. You will receive a 30-

second warning. Go ahead and begin.

MS. MONK: My name is Natashia Monk, 

and I'm here to tell you how I have never been able to 

use the degree I received from the University of Phoenix. 

I was a single mother, and I was determined to make more 

of my career for myself to support my kids. In 2009, I 

decided to go back to school. I chose the University of 

Phoenix because they fit my schedule. I would work all 

day and then go to classes at 6 p.m., sometimes till 

10:00 at night. I was a full-time mother, full-time 

worker, full-time student. The program went straight 

through with no breaks, and I just wanted to get it done 

and move on in my career. I told Phoenix advisors that I 

wanted to be an accountant together with them. I chose to 

enroll in the Bachelor of Business with a concentration 

in accounting. They told me that it would give me a 

diversity of experiences and allow me to work either in 

accounting or in a management. In the last year and a 

half of my program, students started dropping out. We 

heard that there was an accreditation of the school that 
80

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

was in question. I was self-motivated to see it through 

what I had started, so I persevered. However, when I 

started looking into the CPA exam. I realized that I 

would not have enough credits that I needed to take the 

test. My degree included six accounting classes which I 

would need seven to become a CPA. All the jobs that I was 

looking into were CPA candidate preferred. I applied for 

lots of jobs, but I never could get any without 

additional classes. I contacted Phoenix to see what 

classes I would- that I- to take one class. They told me 

I would have to enroll in a master's program and take a 

bunch of prerequisites before I could take the final 

accounting class. After graduating from Phoenix, I worked 

at the same place as I did before I started. I never have 

been able to get an accounting job. I've never been able 

to be promoted to one of the roles that required that 

degree. My past promotion did not require a degree at 

all. I graduated with $50,000 in debt. Over 50, excuse 

me, $80,000 before the loans were discharged. I felt that 

Phoenix failed me. They would not fix the problem they 

had caused by letting me take one class. I am not able to 

utilize my degree for promotions for better job 

opportunities. I have received no financial benefit from 

the degree, only years of strain. Phoenix knew what I 

wanted. 
81

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

MR. WAGNER: 30 seconds remaining.

MS. MONK: And the program they 

enrolled me in should have made me eligible to become 

one. I hope you will consider my situations like mine, to 

make rules that help students get what they paid for. 

Thank you for your time.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Natashia. 

Krystal, who do we have next?

MS. K. SMITH: Next, we have Henry 

Hawley, who's representing himself. Henry is in the 

room.

MS. JEFFRIES: Welcome, Henry. Can 

you hear me? Henry?

MR. HAWLEY: Yes. I can hear you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Wonderful. You have 

three minutes to address the committee. You will receive 

a 30-second notice of time about to expire. With that, 

your three minutes begins now.

MR. HAWLEY: Sounds great.

MS. JEFFRIES: Go ahead, Henry.

MR. HAWLEY: Good afternoon. My name 

is Henry Hawley. After serving in the Navy for four 

years, I decided to use my GI Bill benefits to attend 

college. I chose Stratford University and attended from 

2010 until 2013. I completed an associate degree in 
82

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

culinary arts and then began a bachelor's degree in 

hospitality management. My hope was that this would set 

me up for a career in management. I finished my culinary 

arts requirements and received my chef's coat, but the 

school did not award me my diploma. They said they would 

wait to award me my associate degree with my bachelor's 

once I completed it. When I was about two-thirds of the 

way through my degree, I started at Stratford at a 

different Stratford campus. Stratford said I would be 

able to carry over all my credits, but that actually 

was not true. I had to retake some courses I had already 

completed, and many of the non-degree classes were very 

low quality. In my Spanish class, I knew more than 

everyone else in the class, including the teacher, even 

though all my Spanish I knew was from high school 

classes. I was ahead of all the students in my program in 

some courses. I was the only student at one point. I had 

to take medical leave for a burst appendix, but the 

school still required me to pay out-of-pocket even though 

I was through for the classes. Before I could complete 

the master's degree, sorry, I had to move back to 

Minnesota to take care of my parents. When I tried to 

transfer to the University of Minnesota, they said they 

would not accept credits from Stratford because the 

school was fraudulent. Stratford has since closed. Not 
83

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

only did I leave Stratford with worthless credits, but I 

didn't even get the associate degree that I earned. I 

wish I could say that Stratford wasn't a bad apple, but 

also briefly attended the Art Institute, and it was 

having the same sorts of problems. These schools target 

veterans because they know they can access our benefits. 

Please consider rules that will force predators to weed 

out bad schools so that veterans like me don't waste our 

benefits. Thank you for our time.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Henry. 

Krystal, who's next?

MS. K. SMITH: Next we have Sharon 

Edwards, who is representing herself and [inaudible] she 

should be in the room.

MS. JEFFRIES: Let's go to the next 

one until we figure that out.

MS. K. SMITH: Our next one is 

Madison Weiss, who is from the Center for American 

Progress.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you. Madison, 

can you hear me?

MS. WEISS: Hi. Can you hear me?

MS. JEFFRIES: Yes. Welcome. You will 

have three minutes to address the committee, and you will 

receive a 30-second notice of your time about to expire, 
84

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

okay? With that, you may begin and your three minutes 

will start.

MS. WEISS: Thank you for the 

opportunity to provide input on the proposed negotiated 

rulemaking. My name is Madison Weiss and I'm a policy 

analyst at the Center for American Progress. The Cap 

Higher Education team works to ensure that the American 

higher education system provides a high-quality, 

affordable college education that prepares all students 

for participation in an inclusive economy in American 

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

accreditation. Accreditors significantly influence 

college and university operations and thus the student 

experience. Under current regulations, accreditation 

centers, colleges, and universities at the expense of 

protecting students from low-quality institutions and 

programs. During this rulemaking, the Department has an 

opportunity to revitalize accreditation so that it might 

serve its original purpose in signaling quality in higher 

education. The following recommendations prioritize 

student welfare in every aspect. First, the Department 

should provide stronger oversight of events that may 

substantially change an institution. Oversight should 

include continuous and detailed monitoring, specialized 

training for review teams, and internal audits to ensure 
85

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

that standards are consistently applied. Second, the 

Department should eliminate expedited reviews of 

substantive changes. Expedited reviews can overlook 

critical risks to students, and accreditors should have 

ample time to review these changes. Colleges often go a 

full decade between accreditation reviews. Because of 

this, it is important to have a solid structure in place 

for review of any significant changes to mission programs 

or modes of delivery in the interim. Written arrangements 

between institutions and third parties that are engaged 

in the enrollment process can have major consequences and

should be treated with caution via the substantive change 

review process. Accreditors should be required to, at a 

minimum, see assurances that an institution actively 

supervises or maintains control over core program 

functions, as well as marketing and recruiting. Third, 

compliance issues should be addressed more rapidly. 

Accreditors should be required to act as soon as it 

becomes evident that an institution is not compliant with 

standards. Institutions should be given a maximum of two 

years to come into compliance. Fourth, institutional 

performance data should be reported in a consistent 

format. Accreditors should retain the ability to assess 

schools against their stated missions, while also evenly 

reporting that information using metrics that are 
86

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

consistently defined across agencies. This will enable 

students to compare key insights into the level of 

quality to expect at different institutions and allow for 

a more reliable assessment of accreditor efficacy. 

Finally, the accreditation process should be more 

available and accessible to the public. This should 

include easing the requirements for submitting feedback 

to both institutions and the Federal panel that oversees 

accreditors. The barrier for participation in 

accreditation and accreditor review processes is 

enormously high. When compared to comparable processes 

that originate out of the Department that are open to the 

public, like this very rulemaking session. By considering 

these recommendations, the Department can ensure that the 

accreditation system not only upholds [30 seconds] of 

educational quality, but also reflects the interests and 

concerns of students. These reforms are essential for 

making accreditation a reliable indicator of quality and 

effectiveness. Thank you so much.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Madison. 

Krystal, who do we have next .

MS. K. SMITH: Go ahead, Cindy.

MS. JEFFRIES: I do want to remind 

people that we do have ASL interpreters behind the scene 

interpreting what's being said here. So, please be 
87

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

cognizant of that when you're speaking at a pace that is 

reasonable for them to keep up with. Thanks. Krystal, who 

do we have?

MS. K. SMITH: Sharon Edwards is in 

the room. Sharon, can you unmute yourself? You are next.

MS. JEFFRIES: Sharon, can you hear 

me?

MS. K. SMITH: We can't hear her, so 

we will go on to our next person, who is Aaron Shenck.

MS. JEFFRIES: Aaron. Are you there? 

Can't hear him.

MS. K. SMITH: Looks like he's on 

mute.

MS. JEFFRIES: Aaron, if you're on 

mute, unmute yourself so that we can hear you.

MS. K. SMITH: In the bottom left-hand 

corner.

MS. JEFFRIES: I'm not seeing anyone.

MS. K. SMITH: Okay. 

MS. JEFFRIES: Let's move on. Oh, 

there he is. Aaron?

MR. SHENCK: Yes. Hello? Are we ready?

MS. JEFFRIES: You have three 

minutes, and you'll receive a 30-second notice. Your 

three minutes begins now.
88

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

MR. SHENCK: Great. Thank you all for 

the opportunity to speak today. Also, thank you for 

volunteering to serve on this neg reg committee. My name 

is Aaron Shenck, and I'm the executive director of the 

Mid-Atlantic Association of Career Schools. We're a 

501C6 nonprofit that advocates for over 100 career and 

technical institutes from a five-state region. In the 

distance education regulations being discussed, I ask the 

committee to reconsider or table the proposal to remove 

asynchronous learning and clock-hour programs. Before 

2020, most of my member schools did not offer online 

education. They are career and tech institutions with 

predominantly hands-on education programs. Many of them 

either feared online learning or simply did not think it 

was an appropriate modality for hands-on education. Then 

COVID forced their doors to close for many months. They 

had no choice but to figure out creative ways to continue 

to offer education through various forms of distance 

education, both synchronous and asynchronous. Since 2020, 

I believe the pandemic helped a lot of my members become 

better schools. Because this forced change, many of them 

have now permanently changed their programs to offer a 

portion of their curriculum through hybrid deliveries. 

They've realized some theory-based courses can be 

delivered remotely, while continuing to provide the 
89

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

hands-on practical education in person on campus. 

Furthermore, the flexibility works for the students. Many 

of the population served by postsecondary career and tech 

schools are nontraditional students. Many of them are 

raising families and holding down jobs while in school. 

By providing a portion of their program through distance 

education, including through asynchronous tools, this 

gives students greater flexibility. This flexibility 

provides a stronger chance of program retention, 

completion, licensure, and employment. Personalized 

learning is the future of many educational paths. 

Although, I understand the Department's concerns how you 

accurately account for asynchronous clock hours, my 

recommendation is to figure out ways to better account 

for these hours. Nnot to throw away a whole modality of 

learning that helps many students and can improve 

outcomes. Whether it's flipped classrooms, learning 

management systems, video instruction, artificial 

intelligence, and many more options. There are a ton of 

ed-tech tools and other emerging technologies available 

to help with asynchronous learning. Finally, I want to 

close by raising a different issue, but related. In a 

recent Department regulation, there is a new rule set to 

take effect July 1st that would essentially mandate all 

clock-hour programs change their program length to align 
90

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

exactly with state minimum hours. This rule change is 

already removing flexibility for institutions to offer 

programs in a way they believe best prepares student for 

licensure or a career. Now, this current proposal to 

eliminate asynchronous delivery and clock-hour programs 

would be yet another loss of flexibility for institutions 

to meet student and employer needs. In the year 2024, [30 

seconds]. Thank you. In the year 2024, we should be 

advancing flexibility that leads to strong outcomes, not 

restricting them. Let's not go backwards in policy 

decisions. Please reconsider or table the proposal to 

remove asynchronous modalities. Thank you again for your 

time today.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Aaron. 

Krystal, I see Sharon is on camera now. Sharon, can you 

unmute yourself? We can't hear you. Try it again.

MS. EDWARDS: It's unmuted.

MS. JEFFRIES: There we go. We got 

you, girl. Wonderful. Sharon, you'll have three minutes 

to address the committee, and you'll get a 30-second 

notice of your time about to expire. So please go ahead 

and start. And your three minutes begins now.

MS. EDWARDS: Thank you for the 

opportunity to allow me to share a bit about my not-sogreat experience at Fisk University. My name is Sharon K. 
91

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

Edwards and for the longest time I have put off going to 

college while supporting my husband's 21st year in the 

Army career. My desire to go to college was to study, get 

a degree and be allowed to help others. In 2019, I saw an 

online article and a flier from the Fisk University that 

was coming to Clarksville, Tennessee, advertising an 

online human development leadership degree, bachelor's 

degree. I reached out to the recruiter about that degree 

and was told that I would receive that degree in two 

years with no core classes. Fisk University Facebook page 

confirmed the two-year time limit as well. No time during 

that recruiting process was it mentioned an associate 

degree was needed. I was 59 years old, and this was my 

first time attending college, so this was all new to me. 

I was enrolled in the online program under the assumption 

I will be getting a two-year Human Development leadership 

bachelor's degree with only 60 credits hours and not 

requiring any core classes. The robot process felt 

rushed. I felt myself signing lots of forms. The forms 

were done via mail and phone. During the enrollment 

period, Fisk requested a high school diploma and that is 

all I had. I was a first-time college student. I had 

been at Fisk for about four months without an advisor for

my major. I had to request one. After the completion of 

58 credits, I met my advisor to see my next step for 
92

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

graduation. I was approaching my 60 hours. The advisor 

for the very first time informed me that the degree of 

human development was a 100-hour degree, a 120-hour 

degree, and it was a requirement to have an associate 

degree prior to me being enrolled in this program. I had 

not done that. I had only done the 58 credits. I would 

have to complete an additional 62 hours more to contain 

that degree. I felt deceived, disgusted, devastated, and 

disappointed when I left Fisk. It took me two years to 

find another college, which is Austin Peay University. 

The gap what the school promised and what the school 

delivered left me $14,000 of debt and used up half of the 

GI Bill benefits I was granted. I want to ask, the 

accreditors need to make sure colleges and universities 

[30 seconds] are clear about what they offer for 

recruitment to graduation. They are to be held 

accountable and the college's oversight to stop this kind 

of experience from happening to our students. Thank you 

very much.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Sharon. 

Krystal, who do we have next?

MS. K. SMITH: Next, we have Christina 

Navarro, who's representing herself. She's in the room.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Christina, can 

you hear me?
93

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

MS. NAVARRO: I can, can you hear me? 

MS. JEFFRIES: Yes, wonderful. You 

will have three minutes to address the committee, and 

you'll receive a 30-second notice of your time about to 

expire. With that, you can go ahead and begin, and your 

three minutes will start now.

MS. NAVARRO: Thank you. My name is 

Cristina Navarro, and I wanted to come here today to 

share my University of Phoenix story. In 2009, I was 

already well-established working in the financial 

industry for one of the largest banks in the country. I 

had jumped into my career straight out of high school, 

didn't go to college right away, but my employer did 

offer to pay for me to go back to school. Since I 

already had a full-time job, I needed something that was 

flexible that didn't require me to be in a physical 

classroom every day. After looking through the options, I 

enrolled at the University of Phoenix and earned my 

associate degree in computer networking. But that was not 

the end of my time at University of Phoenix. That 

associate degree did help me get a new job at the same 

company. While I was raising a family and living through 

the global pandemic. I decided in 2020 that it was time 

to return back to the University of Phoenix to achieve my 

bachelor's. Over the next ten months, I was able to 
94

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

complete my bachelor's degree in Business Administration. 

University of Phoenix made it possible for me and many 

other working adults to finish our degrees while not 

sacrificing our flourishing careers as well as our family 

life. As working adults, we know firsthand how essential 

alternative pathways are for career-oriented individuals 

and those that were provided by the University of Phoenix 

and to the future of higher education. I recently joined 

with a large group of other Phoenix alumni in signing a 

letter to Secretary Cardona. We asked to meet with 

representatives of the Department. We feel that our 

experiences as adult students should be heard and the 

choices we made should not be questioned. I am here today 

to ask you to carefully consider the implications of your 

proposals on adult students as you work to ensure all 

students have opportunities to pursue affordable, highquality degree programs like those offered at the 

University of Phoenix. As we wrote in our letter to 

Secretary Cardona, we do hope to explore with you how to 

elevate the discourse about higher education and share 

with you why adult students require many different 

options than those that follow a traditional pathway from 

high school to college. I kindly ask that you seek out 

more adult learners like me, ask us about our experiences 

and listen to our stories. Thank you so much for this 
95

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

opportunity to speak with you today.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Christina. 

Krystal, who's next?

MS. K. SMITH: Next, we have Robb 

Friedlander from Swipe Out Hunger, and Robb is in the 

room.

MS. JEFFRIES: Robb, can you hear me?

MR. FRIEDLANDER: I can, yes.

MS. JEFFRIES: Wonderful. You have 

three minutes to address the committee with a 30-second 

notice of your time about to expire. With that, you can 

begin now along as your three minutes will start now.

MR. FRIEDLANDER: Fantastic. Thank 

you so much, everyone, and hello, committee members. I'm 

here today to speak in favor of the proposed changes in 

cash management to credit a student's ledger account for 

unused dining dollars spent. My name is Robb Friedlander. 

I'm the director of advocacy at Swipe Out Hunger. We are 

a national college student anti-hunger organization that 

works on more than 750 campuses across all 50 states to 

end college student hunger, both on and off campus. The 

proposed additions are an excellent improvement and would 

allow students to use their Title IV funds the way that 

they deem best. However, we are concerned that by 

focusing only on the cash equivalent portion of meal 
96

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

plans. Students may still be faced with losing 

significant funds if they are unable to use all of their 

meal credits that do not have a cash equivalent each 

month. Students frequently find that they have unused 

meal credits at the end of each semester as we work with 

more than 200 colleges across the country that run meal 

credit donation programs, because of many meal credits 

wasted each year. This is in addition to an ever-growing 

number of higher education institutions, which are 

requiring all students, including low-income students, to 

purchase meal plans despite their income or their level 

of need. Students who drop out of school may need those 

funds to cover living costs and even student loan debt 

they cannot afford to repay. In particular, we are 

concerned that even more institutions could adopt a meal 

credit approach in response to these regulations as a 

loophole that will allow them to continue to hold on to 

Title IV students' unused funds. Effectively free money 

for the school at the direct expense of students whose 

school may even require them again to purchase more meal 

plan swipes than they were able to use, or any at all. To 

correct this issue, we are suggesting that institutions 

should be able to also refund the students the equivalent 

of the cost of value, not the retail value, to students, 

along with any cash equivalent funds. Thank you so much 
97

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

for your time today and greatly appreciate it.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Robb. 

Krystal, who's next?

MS. K. SMITH: Our next speaker is Amy 

Ledgister, who's representing herself. Amy is in the room 

and just needs to go on camera 

MS. JEFFRIES: There she is. Hi, Amy.

MS. LEDGISTER: Hi.

MS. JEFFRIES: You have three minutes 

to address the committee today, and you'll receive a 30-

second notice just before your time expires. With that, 

you are free to begin, as your three minutes will start 

now.

MS. LEDGISTER: Hi, my name is Amy 

Ledgister. I am the founder and CEO of 3D Lash and Brow 

Salon and Academy in Dallas and in Forney, Texas. Thank 

you for letting me be here. I'm in support of distance 

learning as it has positively impacted our student body.

Many of which are single mothers or divorcees or widowers 

who are needing to get their license to provide for their 

families. Having that asynchronous learning allows them 

to continue their education from wherever they are. 

Sometimes they have difficulty with childcare, or maybe 

they're in an abusive relationship and they don't have 

access to transportation that day, but they can continue
98

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

their education. Getting that license might be the thing 

that will allow them to get out of that particular 

situation that they're in. In Texas, we're required to 

use Milady as a textbook. However, they have leveled up 

and now created a digital platform called CIMA. This has 

tests, quizzes, reading materials, basically everything 

that we as an instructor will be giving to our students, 

they now have access to it at their fingertips. It 

allows for our students to still be able to learn 

wherever, whenever. Covid-19 kind of changed things up, 

shut everything down, and we had to go 100% online. 

Using these platforms like CIMA and Milady really allowed 

for our standard of education to continue to stay high. 

Our school is at a 95% state board passing rate, even 

since Covid and even now with our distance learning 

opportunities. I really think it's a benefit for schools 

to keep this. Not only does it have excellent education, 

but it also has great time-tracking capabilities. 

Students are only getting the time earned for what 

they're doing in these platforms, so it's keeping track 

of everything. I do have a letter that I wanted to read 

from one of our graduates. It says, thank you for having 

me in the esthetician program. This has truly been a 

blessing for me to be able to do some online learning. I 

am a single, divorced mother of three children, and I 
99

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

also work full-time as a nurse on a night shift. The 

esthetician online program has allowed me to make a 

career change from making a living to doing something I 

truly enjoy. Most importantly, it will allow me in the 

future to be more present with my children and work while 

they are in school, thus eliminating any daycare 

babysitting expenses. I have looked forward to becoming 

an esthetician for quite a few years now. However, I have 

been unable to find a cosmetology program that I can 

attend due to having to work full-time to support my 

family. This online program I'm currently attending has 

impressed me because I can work and attend this program, 

which is an answer to my prayers. Because of my support 

[30 seconds] I have been working full-time while being 

able to continue to work on this program part-time. If 

I'm not able to finish this program, I will be 

devastated. I put time, money, and lots of effort into my 

studies, and I'm so proud of the progress that I have 

been able to make. 

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you. 

MS. LEDGISTER: Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Krystal, who's next?

MS. K. SMITH: Our next speaker is 

John Eielson from- the CO-CEO of Flat World. And John is 

in the room.
100

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

MS. JEFFRIES: Welcome, John. Can you 

turn yourself off mute, please? Should be a little button 

by your- let me see.

MR. EIELSON: Can you hear me now?

MS. JEFFRIES: Yeah. There you go. You 

got it. Welcome. You have three minutes to address the 

committee, and you will receive a 30-second notice of 

your time about to expire. With that, your three minutes 

begins now.

MR. EIELSON: Well, thank you. Good 

afternoon, everybody. I've been waitlisted the last 

couple of days, so I want to turn the topic back to cash 

management. Flat World, who I represent, is a small 

college textbook publisher with a mission to publish 

high-quality textbooks at affordable prices. Our books 

are written by faculty, peer-reviewed and priced in the 

30 to $40 range, including a full homework system. We've 

been growing fast as a popular, affordable alternative to 

the big publishers. Most of our sales are made directly 

to students as we pass on the distribution savings in the 

form of lower prices. I've also, in a previous life, 

spent 20 years working for the big publishers, advising 

them on pricing strategy and, other growth strategies. 

I know the economics of the industry well. We firmly 

believe that inclusive access programs are bad for the 
101

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

student. The industry loves them. Since everyone in the 

value chain is making more money at the expense of 

students. These programs are dependent on auto opt-in. 

Auto opt-out doesn't work. Opt-out- auto opt-in is 

required for them to make the money they want to make. 

The industry is fighting hard against these proposals. We 

strongly support the Department approach here. When you 

look at the value chain, you start with bookstores. These 

agreements give them the exclusive right to sell all the 

materials at the school. Their market share goes from 

25% to 100% at the schools. They also get guaranteed 

markups for books, typically demanding 33% or more. They 

make more money. They love these programs. Publishers 

make more money because it squeezes out the competition 

of alternatives such as used book borrowing, libraries, 

etc. So 100% of the students have to buy new materials, 

and the discount off of the prevailing rate is de 

minimis. Usually, the student's paying more because the 

markup on from the bookstore. Finally, the universities 

are making more money. They typically get 15% of gross 

sales on books sold to the bookstore. The contracts I've 

seen even have a kicker in it if they have first-day 

access in it where they get another 7% or so. They're up 

to 25% of the gross revenues from sales of the bookstore 

for learning materials. Universities care about this 
102

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

money. We try and get professors to send their students 

to our website because it's always the lowest cost. We 

frequently get the response of professors, we can't do 

that because the university makes money from textbook 

sales through the bookstore, and this is an important 

source of revenue. Everyone's making more money and the 

student is on the short end of the stick here. They're 

the ones that's paying more. We as a company try to avoid 

these programs because they're counter to our mission of 

affordability, but we're forced into it many times to win 

an adoption by the bookstores and the school. T [30 

seconds] Finally, first day completed the most anticompetitive of all material fees per credit hour. Take 

away the incentive of professors to care about the price 

of textbooks and selecting materials for a class. That's 

because the individual professor's decision will have an 

insignificant impact on the overall cost per credit-hour. 

This will prevent value-based publishers like us from 

successfully competing, and no one will care about price, 

and prices of learning materials will start to rise at 

10% plus a year like they were a decade ago because no 

one cares about pricing. Thank you very much.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, John. We are 

going to squeeze in one last speaker, and I see Ben has 

joined us. Ben, can you hear me?
103

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

MR. REYNOSO: Yes, I can.

MS. JEFFRIES: wonderful. You will 

have three minutes to address the committee with a 30-

second notice of your time about to expire. With that, 

please go ahead and your three minutes will start.

MR. REYNOSO: Well, Good afternoon, 

Committee. My name is Ben Reynoso. I am the director of 

three TRIO programs here in California. I oversee Student 

Support Services, which helps college students, as well 

as two Upward Bound programs which help high school 

students who are first-generation. I'm here to talk a 

little bit about the expanding of TRIO programs 

eligibility for undocumented students. In the last year, 

we've been participating in what we call the P3 

Initiative, which allowed us in the state of California 

the ability to bring on board undocumented students into 

our programs. This initiative has been highly successful 

throughout the state. As a person who sits on our WESTOP 

Board and Service Council. I can attest that last year 

when we had a WESTOP conference, we had over 125 members 

attend a workshop on how to serve our undocumented 

students better. With all of them very excited and 

anxious to be serving our students. We've proven over the 

last year that these students we were able to retain 

them in high school, get them to go to college as well as 
104

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

for them to continue on in college or attend college 

retention. With the P3 statistics, you'll be able to see 

that, we've been able to do that. Currently, I'm the 

the Dream Center director here at my college. We have 

over 700 students in a $21,000- 20,000- 21,000-student 

district. If you do the math, that's about 5% of our 

students are dreamers at our college. Our goal is to 

serve all students equitable, and give them support. 

With TRIO now being on the forefront of being able to do 

this, we highly, highly push you to be able to add this 

language as an option for us. In some areas they may not 

have undocumented students, which is great. They can 

continue to get those first-generation, low-income 

students. In some areas, like my areas, we want to be 

able to serve these students as well. They are not 

taking the spaces of anybody. They are hard-working 

students. They come from great families. I will tell you 

in the last year that we've had this program, P3, there 

has not been one issue with anyone being against it or 

having any kind of issue with us having it. With that 

being said, I thank you all for your time and hope you 

guys vote positive on adding this language. Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Ben. That 

concludes day three of session two. We will resume at 

10:00 a.m. tomorrow morning promptly. Wwith that, well, 
105

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

have a good evening.

 
106

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

Zoom Chat Transcript

Program Integrity and Institutional Quality- Session 2, Day 3, Afternoon, February 7, 2024

*Chat was copied as presented, as a result minor typos or grammatical errors may be present.

From P, Jamie Studley, Ins�tu�onal Accreditors to Everyone:

I'd suggest that those provisions serve different purposes.

From Robyn Smith to Everyone:

I agree with both Carolyn and Barmak’s points.

From P - Carolyn Fast, Civil Rights/Consumer to Everyone:

+1 to Barmak's point about the cri�cal need to eliminate inclusion of people with fiduciary 

obliga�on to a regulated en�ty from accreditor commissions

From Robyn Smith to Everyone:

Here is the research Carolyn referred to: 

htps://www.americanprogress.org/ar�cle/bolstering-public-voice-accredita�on/

From P - Carolyn Fast, Civil Rights/Consumer to Everyone:

Here is a summary of the research I was quo�ng earlier: 

htps://www.americanprogress.org/ar�cle/bolstering-public-voice-accredita�on/

From P - Erika Linden, Private Nonprofit Ins�tu�ons to Everyone:

Scot Dolan joining for private nonprofits.

From P - Carolyn Fast, Civil Rights/Consumer to Everyone:

Magin Sanchez is joining the table to comment.

From A, Scot Dolan, Private Nonprofit IHEs to Everyone:

Erika will step back in

From A, Scot Dolan, Private Nonprofit IHEs to Everyone:

important to note conflict of interest policies

From P - Carolyn Fast, Civil Rights/Consumer to Everyone:

+1 to Magin. The issue is independence, not exper�se, or commissioners.

From P - Carolyn Fast, Civil Rights/Consumer to Everyone:

Replying to "+1 to Magin. The is..."

*of commissioners.

From Robyn Smith to Everyone:

+2 to Magin, having non-insider, non-fiduciary as public members adds value and credibility 

to accreditors.

From Robyn Smith to Everyone:
107

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

I just want to clarify that the proposal we submited re fiduciaries was in our first 

accredita�on proposal submited in January, thanks.

From P - Carolyn Fast, Civil Rights/Consumer to Everyone:

+1 to Barmak, if they have writen policies that they are not following, that is not 

substan�al compliance.

From P, Jamie Studley, Ins�tu�onal Accreditors to Everyone:

the accreditor is men�oned specifically in a federal program requirement

From (P) Barmak Nassirian, Veterans & Mil. Students to Everyone:

602.13 Please add student/consumer groups to the list of recommenda�ons that an agency 

seeking ini�al accredita�on must produce

From A - Zack Goodwin (he/him), Financial Aid Administrators to Everyone:

Reacted to "602.13 Please add st..." with ��

From Donna Mangold - ED OGC to Everyone:

as to 602.15- reference to 668.14 (b)(18) is convic�on, plea to crime, etc. 668.16 is 

reference to suspended or debarred

From P, Jillian Klein, Proprietary Ins�t to Everyone:

I know Jamie men�oned this in another sec�on, but would just call out that the use of the 

word "effec�vely" also here is vague and unclear.

From (P) Barmak Nassirian, Veterans & Mil. Students to Everyone:

602.15(a)(2) Competent and knowledgeable individuals, qualified by educa�on or 

experience in their own right and trained by the agency on their responsibili�es, as appropriate for 

their roles, regarding the agency's standards, policies, and procedures, to conduct its on-site 

evalua�ons, apply or establish its policies, and make its accredi�ng and preaccredi�ng decisions, 

including, if applicable to the agency's scope, their responsibili�es regarding distance educa�on and 

correspondence courses, except that the agency shall not include individuals described in 34 CFR 

668.14(b)(18)(i) or (ii) or 668.16(k) or individuals with a fiduciary obliga�on to a regulated en�ty, 

such as board owners, board members, or execu�ves of an ins�tu�on of higher educa�on do not 

meet this requirement;

From Robyn Smith to Everyone:

+1 to Barmak and Carolyn.

From A, Magin Sanchez, Civil Rights/Consumer to Everyone:

Reacted to "602.13 Please add st..." with��

From P, Jillian Klein, Proprietary Ins�t to Everyone:

My alternate, David Cohen, will join the table to make a comment

From P - Erika Linden, Private Nonprofit Ins�tu�ons to Everyone:

Scot Dolan back in for private nonprofits.
108

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

From A. Ashlynne Haycock-Lohmann (vets) to Everyone:

Reacted to "+1 to Barmak and Car..." with ���

From P - Carolyn Fast, Civil Rights/Consumer to Everyone:

+1 To Barmak's comments about the need for meaningful change in the system to protect 

students, and the fact that addressing conflicts of interest is cri�cal.

From P, Jillian Klein, Proprietary Ins�t to Everyone:

Echo Laura's general ques�on on statutory authority

From P - Carolyn Fast, Civil Rights/Consumer to Everyone:

Magin Sanchez is joining the table to comment.

From Robyn Smith to Everyone:

Here is the study I men�oned: htps://www.thirdway.org/blog/when-will-the-watchdogsbite

From P. Jo Blondin, Community Colleges to Everyone:

and Part-�me v full-�me

From (P) Barmak Nassirian, Veterans & Mil. Students to Everyone:

Proposed 602.15: "(1) The agency's accredita�on standards must set forth clear and 

effec�ve minimum expecta�ons of performance that the agency must verify and enforce for each 

ins�tu�on or program it accredits, including by using appropriate, valid and reliable data, which 

shall include Federal data where available. The accredita�on standards must set forth minimum 

expecta�ons, including, as applicable, a quan�fied and sta�s�cally appropriate performance goal 

for each ins�tu�on or program, in the following areas:"

From (P) Barmak Nassirian, Veterans & Mil. Students to Everyone:

CORRECTION to my previous submission-- cita�on is 602.16(a)(1)

From A, Scot Dolan, Private Nonprofit IHEs to Everyone:

i think the details are important to ensure compliance. the accredita�on standards do 

already lay out expecta�ons across all of these categories.

From P, Jillian Klein, Proprietary Ins�t to Everyone:

David Cohen will rejoin the table.

From P, Jillian Klein, Proprietary Ins�t to Everyone:

Maybe "clear" expecta�ons instead of "minimum"?

From P - Erika Linden, Private Nonprofit Ins�tu�ons to Everyone:

Erika Linden has rejoined for Private Nonprofits.

From P., Diana Hooley, State Atorneys General to Everyone:
109

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

Agree with Robyn that such adequate controls/audits need to be in place to prevent 

manipula�on.

From P - Carolyn Fast, Civil Rights/Consumer to Everyone:

+1 to Robyn's comments about the need to include language on manipula�on of standards.

From Robyn Smith to Everyone:

We propose a new sec�on (2) as follows: The agency’s standards must include adequate 

controls to prevent ins�tu�ons from manipula�ng or otherwise infla�ng their performance on the 

standards, such as by discouraging or precluding students who complete coursework from taking 

licensure exams or by preven�ng ins�tu�ons from infla�ng their job placement rates by coun�ng 

individuals as employed who are not bona fide employees or who were employed in the field prior 

to gradua�on.

From (P) Barmak Nassirian, Veterans & Mil. Students to Everyone:

Addressing Jamie's point about the "NCLEX issue," we suggested specific language: "(2) The 

agency’s standards must include adequate controls to prevent ins�tu�ons from manipula�ng or 

otherwise infla�ng their performance on the standards, such as by discouraging or precluding 

students who complete coursework from taking licensure exams or by preven�ng ins�tu�ons from 

infla�ng their job placement rates by coun�ng individuals as employed who are not bona fide 

employees or who were employed in the field prior to gradua�on."

From A-Alyssa Dobson, 4Yr. Public Ins�tu�ons to Everyone:

With regard to this topic, am trying to reconcile the juxtaposi�on of crea�ng minimum 

standards and then limi�ng/prohibi�ng prac��oners or experts from evalua�ng them?

From P, Jillian Klein, Proprietary Ins�t to Everyone:

Reacted to "With regard to this ..." with ���

From A, Scot Dolan, Private Nonprofit IHEs to Everyone:

Reacted to "With regard to this ..." with ���

From P, Jillian Klein, Proprietary Ins�t to Everyone:

+1 Alyssa's comment - would be helpful to understand how we should make sense of these 

two seemingly contradictory approaches.

From Robyn Smith to Everyone:

We don’t think they are contradictory, happy to discuss further.

From P - Carolyn Fast, Civil Rights/Consumer to Everyone:

+1 To Robyn's comment about long periods of noncompliance pu�ng students at risk. We 

urge Department to reconsider the �me periods.