U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION 

PUBLIC REGIONAL HEARING ON 

NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING 

Monday, September 29, 2008 

9:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m. 

Paff Auditorium 

80 Washington Street 

Providence, Rhode Island 

P R O C E E D I N G S 

MR. BERGERON: We're going to go ahead and get started. It's 9:00. I'm 

happy to be here at the University of Rhode Island. Let me first introduce 

myself. I'm David Bergeron. I direct policy for the Office of Postsecondary 

Education at the U.S. Department of Education. I know Rhode Island well, having 

been born in Providence, and then growing up in Warwick, and then going to the 

University of Rhode Island. So, I was happy to have the opportunity to come and 

have one of our hearings here at the University of Rhode Island. 

I'm glad we're here in Providence. I love Kingston, but Providence has--is 

a lot more convenient for folks, particularly from other institutions. I want to 

thank Bob Cruthers and Andrea Hopkins and everybody else at the University of 

Rhode Island who made it possible for us to be here. And let me take a minute 

and I'll introduce my colleagues. 

I'll start with Sophia McArdle, who I think you met as you came in. If you 

didn’t see her and sign up to testify, you can do that at any time during the 

day. 

Right now, we are--have people signed up for the whole morning, and we 

will be looking for people to sign up for the afternoon. And it's possible we 

may have some time, still, this morning, depending on how the schedule goes. You 

1
never quite know when people sign up how long they'll really speak for. So, we 

can see what we do have in terms of time at the end of the day. So, see Sophia 

if you want to do that. 

With me on the Panel is Kay Gilcher. Kay is on my staff and is an 

Education Programs Specialist, and particularly knowledgeable in areas like 

distance learning. And you probably have seen her name if you follow issues 

around distance learning or accreditation or those kinds of things--a great 

asset to us. 

Also with me on the Panel is Sally Warner. Sally is in our Office of 

General Counsel. When we do these things, we like to have our lawyers along. 

They help us keep on track and make sure we do things correctly. 

This is a part of an important process for us as we begin to think about 

the regulations that we will develop coming out of the Higher Education 

Opportunity Act of 2008. That Act makes substantial changes to nearly every 

program in the Higher Education Act, as well as extending those programs. It's 

not a minor set of changes. In some programs, there are just tinkerings, but in 

others, you know, it's wholesale rewrites, and I know that some of you are going 

to be talking about some of those program areas where there are substantial 

rewriting that has occurred. 

We will be having additional hearings after this one here. We have four. 

We did have our first hearing at Texas Christian University on the 19th of 

September. The hearing transcript for that hearing is already available on the 

Department's Web site. 

We have a Web site specifically for the implementation of the Higher 

Education Opportunities Act, which is WWW.ED.GOV/HEOA. That Web site will be 

where we post the hearing transcripts, and then the follow-up activities related 

to the implementation of the Higher Education Opportunity Act. 

After we complete our hearings, we will take some time and make some 

decisions about what kinds of regulatory activity we will be undertaking, and 

what the specific timeframes are. 

We will then publish a notice in the Federal Register, which will announce 

the committees that we will be creating and soliciting nominations for people to 

serve on those negotiating committees. And it's expected that that process will 

likely begin early in next calendar year. We may do the notice. We may solicit 

people to serve as non-federal negotiators before the end of the year, but the 

negotiations themselves will likely begin sometime next year. 

With that, I will see if Kay or Sally have anything they would like to 

add. Otherwise, we'll go ahead and have the first person come and testify. Ed 

2
Comeau. And if I mispronounce names, please let me know. We do have a sign 

interpreter with us today. If anyone needs her services, please let us know. 

Otherwise, she'll sit down for a little while. Okay? Go ahead, Ed. 

MR. COMEAU: Thank you for the opportunity to be here this morning. My name 

is Ed Comeau. I'm the publisher of Campus Firewatch, which I've done since 2000. 

I'm also the former Director and founding Director of the Center for Campus Fire 

Safety. I am also the former Chief Fire Investigator for the National Fire 

Protection Association, who are investigating a number of campus-related fires. 

And I also wrote the chapters for the current and the previous handbook, NFPA 

Handbook, on campus fire safety. 

The reason I'm here today is that in the Higher Education Opportunity Act 

are provisions from the Campus Fire Safety Right to Know Act, which were first 

introduced in 2000 in Congress. At that time and since then I've had the 

opportunity to work with the legislators who introduced that to try to get it 

moving through Congress. What these will do is require colleges and universities 

to report fire safety information and make it publicly available, that'll 

include how many fires they have on campuses, how many people have been injured 

or killed by these fires, how much damage they've caused and how many beds are 

protected by sprinklers and fire alarm systems, and also how much fire education 

they're providing to the students and the staff. 

This legislation was born out of the tragic fire in 2000 at St. Helens 

University that killed three students, and since that time we've documented 

about 130 people have been killed at campuses across the country. A vast 

majority of them happened off-campus, but a number of them have also happened in 

residence halls and Greek housing. 

What makes this so important is the fact that it does call, for example, 

for the inclusion of education--reporting how much education they're providing 

to students on fire safety, which can be absolutely instrumental in making a 

change when it comes to losing the lives of students across the country, either 

on-campus or off-campus. 

The reason I'm here today is to try to make sure and emphasize the 

importance of this legislation. It was a long time coming. We have had a lot of 

support on it--both bipartisan support--we've had the support of national 

organizations across the country, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, 

the International Association of Firefighters, the International Association of 

State Fire Marshals. I can go on and on. There are a lot of organizations there 

that did support this legislation that finally was signed into law this year. 

3
Coincidentally, on the heels of this, too, I believe today the Senate is 

also debating legislation--the Stephanie Tubbs Jones College Fire Prevention Act 

that passed the House already and is now--looks like it's going to pass the 

Senate as well--that'll provide grants for colleges and universities to install 

sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, and provide other systems, too. 

So, it's kind of nice that these go hand-in-hand with one another. The 

first one's only a reporting, but also there's the possibility of funding coming 

out as well in terms of matching grants that help colleges and universities. 

So, I'd really like to emphasize the importance of this legislation. It's 

been a long time coming, a lot of people are supporting, and as the regulation 

phase goes forward, we'd really like to make sure that the intent of the law was 

carried through in terms of the regulation phase, and certainly Campus 

Firewatch, myself, and the other people that I work with a lot across the 

country are more than happy to work with the Department of Education in helping 

to craft these regulations. With that, that's my statement here for you today. 

MR. BERGERON: Thank you very much. 

MR. COMEAU: Thank you. 

MR. BERGERON: Caroline Aspinwall. 

MS. ASPINWALL: I really appreciate the opportunity today to be able to 

share with you some of the wonderful things Rhode Island has done. 

I'm Caroline Aspinwall. I'm the Director of Special Services at the East 

Bay Collaborative, and I'm providing information today on behalf of the Rhode 

Island Transition Academies here in Rhode Island, and on behalf of the Rhode 

Island Transition Centers here in Rhode Island. We have five such Centers in the 

state. They are a unique situation here in Rhode Island, and we're concerned and 

want to provide information about Section 769, The Model Comprehensive 

Transition and Postsecondary Programs for Students with Disabilities. 

For about six years now, we've developed and operated these innovative 

programs for students with disabilities on our college campuses, and 

fortunately, today, we've also brought some alumni students who have actually 

completed these programs on the college campuses with us today, and they'll be 

able to share their success with you as well. Rhode Island is the only state in 

New England that has successfully secured cooperative funding between our school 

districts, between the Office of Rehab Services, and the Division of 

Developmental Disabilities in funding programs for students on college campuses, 

and before they graduate high school. So, this is a unique program. 

4
We call these programs Transition Academies. Presently Salve Regina 

University, CCRI in Warwick, Roger Williams University, and Johnson and Wales 

have participated in these unique programs. 

The programs are for students 18 to 21. They are for students who need one 

more year to transition--to get ready for adulthood. These are opportunities for 

kids in age-appropriate settings. So, we are thrilled--when you look at Section 

769, you see, it was almost written just for us. And if you look at those 

programs, it's exactly what we've been doing here in Rhode Island. So, we are 

thrilled, and when this passed, I think there were phone calls going around, 

screaming, how this can open up doors and continue our success here. 

Students are able, through these programs, to access college courses, 

develop social skills that they weren't able to do in high school, and receive 

job training. All of our students leave these programs either matriculated at 

the college level, whether at--it was at the program they were at--or a 

different college. They have jobs. They are ready for adult life. We are 

thrilled. We've been around to different venues, whether they were national or 

local, speaking about these programs. We've had several states that are 

interesting in repeating these models, replicating these model programs. 

We are concerned, however, and this is our point to be here today, is 

that, as we look at grants that are going to be funded through this initiative, 

that there are certain pieces or elements that are added to those regulations. 

We are concerned that colleges and universities who create these programs have 

the appropriate partnerships with agencies around their state, national 

agencies. Some of those--and I will provide you with written testimony today so 

that you can have that list of the key players. We want to make sure that 

colleges and universities, when creating these programs, include parents in the 

development, that they include the Office of Secondary Education, that they make 

partnerships with the offices of career and technical education in their state, 

and association of higher education, workforce development, which would be the 

Department of Labor and Training in any state, the Office of Rehabilitation, 

independent living centers, state agencies for mental health for developmental 

disabilities, behavioral health, adolescent health issues, child protection 

agencies, Department of Children, Youth, and Families, and private nonprofits 

who truly have a track record in providing these programs for students with 

disabilities. 

We are also concerned that these projects have a clear plan for 

sustainability. The only way these programs are successful, and how we've been 

able to make them successful, is to make them part of the campus. The college 

5
must own the program. They must be able to accredit the program. They must be 

able to provide some certificate of completion for those programs. Without a 

tangible certificate, students will leave with no job opportunities. They will 

not be able to fund their participation in the program. Right now, most of our 

programs are funded through a cooperative effort from our school districts who 

pay tuition and from our Office of Rehab Services. It's a very unique 

arrangement. But when we look at maybe expanding those programs to look at a 

certificate program for students, it really needs to be part of that college 

experience. The college needs to own it, and we need to open up avenues for 

financial support for those kids. 

They have to be given all access to all the resources on the campus. The 

course should be listed in their bulletin, course bulletin, and they should 

receive a certificate, and financial aid is a must. Without that, students will-

-families will not be able to access such programs. 

So, we leave you today with the thought that we are in a position, I 

think, in Rhode Island, to be a model for the rest of the country. And I think 

that we'd like to be represented on maybe a rulemaking committee as a state with 

experience and a proven track record for the last seven years of what we've 

done. So, I thank you for your time. 

MR. BERGERON: Thank you. Kyle Wilbur. 

MR. WILBUR: Here I am. 

MR. BERGERON: How are you this morning? 

MR. WILBUR: Oh, fine. 

MR. BERGERON: Good, good. Thank you for coming. 

MR. WILBUR: Oh, you're welcome. Is this thing on? Testing one, two, three. 

Okay. Mr. Chairman and members of the Board, my name is Kyle Matthew Wilbur, and 

I live in Barrington, Rhode Island. I'm here representing myself and the many 

other students who struggle in high school and would like to have some of the 

same choices as others students, such as to be able to go to college and take 

classes and to have a job with a paycheck. 

I support Sections 767, 768, and 769--let me see if I got that right--767, 

768, and 769--yeah, I got that--of the Higher Education Opportunity Act. 

The Rhode Island Transition Academy opened many doors for me, like to be 

on a college campus and take classes with other students--you know, kids--folks 

my own age--such as life--to try out different jobs. I've had a lot of jobs. 

I've had quite a few jobs over the years. Of course, I've had the same job at 

Ace Hardware for four years. To think, at the beginning I never even got paid 

for it. Now, I'm getting paid for it. It also taught me how to ride the public 

6
buses, and successfully learn the bus system, and also told me how to speak up 

for myself and give me some independence. I would like this community to open 

the doors for other students like myself, so please give this federal money to 

the State of Rhode Island for the Transition Academy. I'm not sure if you guys 

have a good sense of humor, but I'll read it, anyway. As Porky Pig would say, 

"That's all, folks." 

[Laughter.] 

MR. WILBUR: You know, they do have a sense of humor. Thank you, and thank 

you for letting me speak today. 

[Applause.] 

MR. BERGERON: Thank you. 

MR. WILBUR: Yeah, don't mention it. 

MR. BERGERON: Barbara Brittingham, please. Good morning, Barbara. 

MS. BRITTINGHAM: Good morning. That's a tough act to follow. That was very 

good. Good morning. My name is Barbara Brittingham, and I am the Director and 

President of the Commission on Institutions of Higher Education of the New 

England Association of Schools and Colleges. We're the regional accrediting 

agency for over 240 colleges and universities in the six New England states, and 

the Commission has been continuously recognized by the Secretary of Education 

since that process began. 

We're a member of C-RAC, the Council of Regional Accrediting Agencies, the 

group that links and coordinates the seven regional accrediting commissions in 

the six regions. Collectively, these commissions oversee the accreditation of 

approximately 3,000 colleges and universities that serve more than 17 million 

students throughout our country. Through C-RAC, regional accreditation has 

strengthened and aligned our efforts in a variety of areas, including distance 

learning and assessment. 

On behalf of the Commission and C-RAC, thank you for the opportunity to 

testify this morning. The renewal of the Higher Education Act was a long and 

complex process. During that time, regional accreditation has continued to 

evolve and now reflects many of the changes in the law. We're pleased that there 

will not be further regulation regarding the standards an accrediting agency 

uses with respect to academic quality. 

Further, we believe that some of the new provisions of the law are clearly 

stated, and will not require further regulation, such as the requirement that 

institutions make publicly available their transfer of credit policy, including 

the criteria established by the institution, and that accreditors confirm this 

matter. With respect to regulation, I wish to make four additional points. One, 

7
participation. We ask that the Department include regional accreditors at the 

table of negotiated rulemaking on any matters related to accreditation. The 

members of C-RAC stand ready to be helpful and active participation in the 

negotiated rulemaking process, and to work formally and informally with the 

Department of Education throughout this process. 

Two, distance education. We urge the Department to tread carefully on 

regulating the requirement that accreditors verify that institutions have 

measures in place to ensure that students enrolled in distance education are the 

ones doing the work and receiving the credit. While institutions must assume 

these responsibilities of academic integrity, we concur with WCET that good 

pedagogical practices must be at the heart of any effort to meet this 

requirement of the law. We note that the report language did not intend that a 

certain type of technology be specified as required, at least at this time, and 

we believe that this aspect of the law should be implemented in a way that does 

not represent a cost burden to institutions or students. 

Third, due process. The law includes considerable new language in this 

regard, [with] most of the requirements already being met by regional 

accreditors. We urge a light touch in regulating the due process requirements. 

Clearly, institutions appealing the denial or termination of accreditation 

deserve a careful process; their rights must be protected. But accreditors do 

not make such decisions lightly or casually, and the appeal process should not 

become lengthy, burdensome, or expensive. We know that our member institutions 

are already concerned about the cost to them in implementing the requirements of 

the Higher Education Act, and we ask the regulations around due process in an 

accreditation denial or termination not add to that collective cost. We are also 

concerned about time. We must not have so many stringent process protections 

that we lose our ability to take decisive action to protect the best interests 

of students and their families when we find wrongdoing or a clear failure to 

meet one or more of our standards. 

Fourth, transfer of credit. We would note that the new law requires 

accreditors to confirm that an institution has transfer of credit policies that 

are publicly disclosed and include a statement of the criteria established by 

the institution. These provisions give clear direction to institutions and 

accreditors, and we do not believe they need to be further refined in the 

regulatory process. 

We look forward to working with the Department of Education as we fulfill 

our responsibilities as a recognized, reliable authority on the quality of 

education under the regulations that respect the intentions of the Congress, and 

8
do not place undue regulation on either accreditation or institutions of higher 

education. Thank you very much. 

MR. BERGERON: Thank you, Barbara. Jill Wilbur. You sure you want to do 

this, Jill? 

[Laughter.] 

MS. WILBUR: I don't know if I can even keep up with him. But Mr. Chairman 

and members of the Committee, my name is Jill Wilbur, and I live in Barrington, 

Rhode Island. I'm here representing our son, Kyle, who has developmental 

disabilities, as well as other young people with comparable challenges who 

struggle to find postsecondary programs, educational or vocational development 

and opportunities so they can further their development. I wholeheartedly 

support Sections 767, 768, and 769 of the Higher Education Opportunity Act. 

Our son Kyle attended the Rhode Island Transition Academy that was located 

at Salve Regina University in Newport. Quite simply, this program gave him 

wings. The Rhode Island Transition Academy afforded Kyle with a postsecondary 

environment that allowed him to experience real life situations. On a level of 

job and career exploration, Kyle applied his computer skills he gained through 

the courses at Salve, and developed a basic resume for possible employment. 

Furthermore, upon obtaining this non-paying job, as he mentioned, at Ace 

Hardware in Newport, over the past few years, he has transitioned that 

opportunity into a part-time, independent, hourly paying position with the same 

employer. He has also enhanced and developed his abilities to interact in--

appropriately with his fellow employees and supervisors. On a second academic 

note, Kyle has developed a wonderful relationship with one of his professors at 

Salve Regina. He's had the opportunity to audit a number of her courses, and is 

currently enrolled at one at this moment. 

Kyle's desire and willingness to participate in this venue has rewarded 

him with age-appropriate peer interactions and involving social skills that 

complement his educational experience. The logistics of transportation from 

Barrington to Newport were addressed by the Rhode Island Transition Academy, 

thus enabling him to successfully navigate the RIPTA bus system. And like so 

many other life experiences, this has been a process of evolution rather than 

revolution. 

The State of Rhode Island has, over the past several years, been the 

beneficiary of local communities funding these model programs. And, given their 

success and our programs have demonstrated, I believe that additional federal 

funding should be given to the State of Rhode Island to ensure that this 

continued level of achievement is afforded by these programs. Only through our 

9
perseverance and vigilance can we actually provide the tools necessary for these 

individuals, fellow citizens, to truly embrace their potential for a full life, 

a degree of liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 

I would like this Committee to embrace this opportunity that is being 

afforded to these individuals by expressing their support for the aforementioned 

programs. Thank you for this opportunity to speak. 

MR. BERGERON: Thank you. 

[Applause.] 

MR. BERGERON: Ms. Miller. Good morning. 

MS. MILLER: Hi. My name is Megan Miller, and I'm one of the alumni from 

the Rhode Island Transition Academy. What the Rhode Island Transition Academy 

has done for me is so much that I can't even--if I start to talk about how much 

it's done for me, you guys would be sitting there tapping your fingers on the 

table because you would probably be so bored of hearing me talk about it. 

But I've grown up a lot with it. When I was in high school, high school 

wasn't that good, junior high school wasn't, and grade school wasn't, because 

I've gotten made fun of and teased a lot. When I was at CCRI with the Rhode 

Island Transition Academy for the two years that I was, I never got made fun of 

once, And that was, like, a big break for me. Like, finally, because I've gone 

through a lot. And we'd go to an apartment, we'd rent one, and doing that is a 

fun experience. We get to cook. We get to learn how to clean. We get to budget 

money, learn how to do math--all different kinds of stuff. And one of my 

favorite things was we got to go to IKEA and we got to pretend that we had 

$1,000, and we got to make our own room. And that made me feel like I was 

regular college student, like, getting to find, "Oh, I would like that if I had 

a dorm." "Oh, let's go over here and see what's over there," you know? And it 

was really, really, really fun. And it's a really good program. I mean, I don't 

know that--I don't know any other programs that are like the Rhode Island 

Transition Academy that are out there. I mean, my mom and I and my dad have a 

time--well, you know, for programs, and that's the one that we chose, and I'm 

glad I chose it. 

And kids who have what I have--Williams Syndrome--only one in 25,000 

people have it. It's a rare genetic disorder. And sometimes we tend to be oversocial--sometimes--and they've helped me to kind of lower it a little so I can 

go to different places and not act too over-social. 

And when I was with them, I got to do a lot of job opportunities and go to 

different places, and I volunteered at a nursing home doing--being the 

activities assistant, and I had the best time of my life over there. The people 

10
there were surprised at how excited I was to wake up and get to go to volunteer 

work because I could, you know? And it's a good program, and I hope that it 

stays around for a while. It really needs to. So, thank you for letting me 

speak. 

[Applause.] 

MR. BERGERON: Thank you, Megan. Melissa Elliot. Good morning. 

MS. ELLIOT: Sorry. Just give me a second. 

MR. BERGERON: It's okay. Take your time. 

MS. ELLIOT: I didn't know I was next. Hi. My name is Melissa Elliot, and I 

support Section 767, 768, and 769 of the Higher Education Opportunity Act. I'm 

here representing myself and my fellow students who have benefited from the 

Rhode Island Transition Academy. This program not only helped us find a job or 

volunteer positions, it has helped us find out who we really were and what our 

strengths were. It helped me personally find out what difficulties I would have 

in a job, and in turn, I looked for different jobs that played on my strengths 

instead of weaknesses. The Transition Academy also helped me with things such as 

cooking, money management, how to keep an apartment, and what products to use 

while cleaning. They helped me feel confident and that my goals were actually 

within reach. They did mock interviews with us, and now I feel great about going 

into one and feeling that I may get the job. I think more people would benefit 

from the Rhode Island Transition Academy and programs like it. Thank you for 

letting me speak. 

[Applause.] 

MR. BERGERON: Thank you, Melissa. Christine McGuire. Good morning. 

MS. MCGUIRE: Good morning. Thank you. I’m Christine McGuire, the Executive 

Director of Financial Assistance at Boston University. 

I speak to you today on behalf of the Massachusetts Association of Student 

Financial Aid Administrators, MASFA. MASFA's more than 800 members are from 

schools in all sectors of higher education, including public, private, and 

proprietary institutions, and range in size from very small colleges to very 

large research institutions. I want to thank the Secretary for the opportunity 

to provide the Department of Education with areas of specific concern within the 

Higher Education Opportunity Act. My comments today are intended as a brief 

outline of MASFA's concerns. A more detailed version will be submitted in 

writing to the Department of Education. 

First, we'd like to encourage the Department to include the following 

Sections of the Title IV legislation as part of the agenda for the negotiated 

rulemaking process. 

11
Number 1, Part a, Grants to Students, Section 401, Federal Pell Grants. 

Implementation of the elimination of eligibility for persons subject to 

involuntary civil commitment for a sexual offense and implementation of an 

automatic Zero EFC for students for whom a parent or guardian was killed in Iraq 

or Afghanistan after September 11, 2001. 

Number two, Part b, Family Federal Educational Loan program, Section 436, 

definition of eligible institution and eligible lender, implementation of the 

new standard for cohort default rate, CDR, and the appeal process for 

noncompliance. 

Number three, Part d, Federal Direct Student Loans, Section 451, specific 

disclosures about loans to borrowers that will be required of institutions 

participating in the direct loan program. 

Number four, Part f, Need Analysis, Section 472, discretion to make 

adjustments, inclusion of parental refusal to complete a FAFSA as a basis for 

professional judgment to award an unsubsidized Stafford Loan. 

Part f, Need Analysis, Section 473, exclusion of veterans' educational 

benefits in determining eligibility for federal student aid. 

Part g, General Provisions Relating to Student Assistance, Section 488, 

institutional and financial assistance information for students. 

There are several parts to this. 

A. require disclosure of information about plans to improve the academic 

programs. 

B. require development of plans to detect and prevent unauthorized 

distribution of copyrighted material on information technology systems, 

including the offering of alternative software for legal downloading of 

intellectual property. 

C. require disclosure of information on student body diversity, the 

placement in employment, and types of employment obtained by graduates. 

D. require disaggregation of institutional data on completion and 

graduation rates based on student gender, race ethnicity, and combinations of 

Pell Grant and federal loan recipients. 

E, require parental notification of students missing for greater than 24 

hours. 

F. institutional requirement to separately notify a student of the loss of 

aid eligibility due to a drug-related offense and ways to regain eligibility. 

Number seven, Part g, General Provisions Relating to Student Assistance, 

Section 493, program participation agreements, relocation of the 90-10 Rule for 

proprietary institutions to the program participation agreement, and the 

12
redefinition of countable, non-Title IV revenue toward the required 10 percent, 

consideration of safeguards for schools immediately at risk for noncompliance. 

For the other Titles of the Higher Education Opportunity Act not subject to 

negotiated rulemaking, the members of MAFSA urge the Department to carefully 

consider constituency feedback before issuing regulations regarding the 

following Titles and subsections. 

Number one, from Title I, General Provision Section 111, Transparency and 

College Tuition for Consumers. Specific concerns include the definition of net 

price, the development of a net price calculator, and the purpose of an 

individual student to estimate an award, and including merit-based aid in this 

calculation. 

Number two, Title I, General Provisions, Section 112, Textbook 

Information. Specific concerns include the requirements to incorporate ISBN 

information within course schedules, and how this will be defined within the 

regulations and encouragement, in quotes, of the institution to disseminate 

information to students on how to save money on textbooks. 

Number three, Title VIII, Additional Programs, Section 803, business 

workforce partnerships for job skill training and high growth occupations or 

industries, authorization for competitive grant awards for development of job 

training programs in high growth industries should include proprietary 

institutions. 

Number four, Title X, Private Student Loan Improvement, Section 1021, 

private education loan disclosures and limitations, development of a selfcertification form for private educational loans. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today and share some of 

the collective concerns of the Massachusetts Association of Financial Aid 

Administrators. MAFSA looks forward to our continued dialogue with the 

Department as we collaboratively proceed with the negotiated rulemaking process 

and implementation of the Higher Education Opportunity Act. Thanks. 

MR. BERGERON: Thank you. A couple things, and then we're going to take a 

short break. You can sit down. I just wanted--there are certain things that, in 

the Higher Education Opportunity Act and the base law of the Higher Education 

Act that we can't regulate around. 

One of the ones in the base law is around need analysis. So, things where 

they've called on us to do things on need analysis--Congress really tied our 

hands. We really can't regulate. Another area where they specifically said we 

can't regulate is around textbooks--textbooks' pricing, information. So, there 

are going to be some areas where we're going to have to work very hard to try to 

13
work with the community in ways that don't result in or rise to the level where 

we're doing regulatory activity. We're going to reconvene, I think, in about 

five minutes. We're running ahead of schedule, but I do want to take a minute 

before we continue. And next--so, probably at 9:50, it will be Eric Klein. And 

so, we'll reconvene in about five minutes. Thank you. 

 [Brief recess] 

MR. BERGERON: Good morning, again. We're going to try to reconvene, if 

folks are ready. Before we go to our next witness, I wanted to say that there 

are--because we're running a little ahead of schedule, there are additional time 

slots this morning for people to sign up for if anyone wanted to do that--or 

even if they had signed up for the afternoon, we certainly could move you to the 

morning, I think, if you are interested in doing that. But just go out and see 

Sophia to do--to reschedule, if you wanted to do that. 

Also, as I mentioned before, we do have a sign interpreter. If anyone 

needs the interpreter, let us know, let her know, and she'll interpret. And with 

that, Eric Klein, if you're ready, come on up and we'll hear your testimony. 

MR. KLEIN: Thank you very much. All right. My name is Eric Klein. I am 

this year's President of the Rhode Island Educational Opportunity Association. 

We're a professional association for TRIO Programs in the state of Rhode Island. 

We belong to the New England Educational Opportunity Association, and are 

represented on the national level by the Council of Opportunity and Education. 

Here with me today are Philomena Fayanjuola, who is the Director of the 

Talent Search and the Educational Opportunity Centers here in the State of Rhode 

Island, and Joe Costa, who is the Director of the SSS Program at Rhode Island 

College. I would just like to make a couple of points specifically relating to 

three TRIO Programs, and then one point relating to the annual performance 

report for TRIO Programs. Specifically, first of all, for the Upward Bound 

Program, there's not a lot in HEA that affects Upward Bound, because a lot of 

work has been done, and I'd just like to applaud the Department for the 

abolition--the absolute priority as regard to the Upward Bound Program. That was 

fantastic. A lot of work got done on that in the spring. So, nothing in HEA 

about that, but thank you. 

Number two, Talent Search. We request a reduction in the minimum number of 

students served from 600. That would allow more targeted services to students, 

and I'm going to let Philomena talk more specifically about that. 

The Student Support Services Program, the big issue there is the delay in 

the competition for the Student Support Services Grant Competition. It was 

originally due this fall--originally due in the end of this month, actually. And 

14
although HEA allows for a one-time extension to bring--to synchronize all grants 

into the same cycle, we believe, and so does the Council of Opportunity in 

Education, that extending that date beyond a year is not good for the TRIO 

Programs, or for SSS in general. The HEA allowed for multiple campuses for the 

same university--college or university to apply for individual grants, and 

that's a change from prior years, so that basically it, in effect, opens up the 

amount of grants that can--students that can be served over areas and delaying 

the grant application is postponing the service of additional participants, as 

well as continuing to perpetuate the stereotype of TRIO--it's, to some degree, a 

closed shop. We already have the prior experience points which kind of give that 

impression of--it serves to--tends to serve to keep grants that are functioning, 

it gives them the extra edge, and delaying--there's some rumors out there that 

it might get delayed all the way up until 2012 or the--for new money in 2012, 

and that would be, really, way too long. One other issue with Student Support 

Services, and I bring this from Len Lamberti, who is the Director of Student 

Support Services up at the University of New Hampshire. He called me Friday and 

said, "Eric, when you're talking to them, please say that the move to required 

services for TRIO Programs, the"--let me just get this right--SSS Programs are 

now required to assist students in the completion of financial aid applications. 

And there was some concern that that could cause--there are offices on many 

campuses doing that already, like the financial aid office, and if TRIO Programs 

are prevented from duplicating services that already exist at the institution, 

requiring them to help students complete--so, there's just a--there was a 

question. There was a question, there--some ambiguity. 

And just one further point: The annual performance reports for all TRIO 

Programs, we really encourage the Department to revise and get those out to 

programs as soon as possible. There was prescribed--the new required services 

and the amending of the existing permissible services are going to need some 

work or changes from years past. So, as soon as we can get those--you get those 

to us, we'll get them back to you as soon as possible. And--but that concludes, 

basically, what I have to say. 

MR. BERGERON: Thank you, Eric. Philomena Fayanjuola. How'd I do? 

MS. FAYANJUOLA: Good. 

MR. BERGERON: Good morning. 

MS. FAYANJUOLA: Good morning. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to 

address the forum. Again, my name is Philomena Fayanjuola. I am the Director of 

two TRIO Programs at the Community College of Rhode Island, the Educational 

Opportunity Center Program, and the Educational Talent Search. 

15
I am here this morning, and may show up later on this afternoon, to talk 

about EOC. But this morning I am here to talk to you about the impact of the new 

law on the Talent Search Program, in two areas. 

One, mandated services and the demand of high performance outcome. In 

other words, prior experience requirements for Talent Search. As someone, who, 

for the past four years who has been "level" funded to serve 750 students in 

some of the poorest and lowest performing schools in Rhode Island, we've really 

had to stretch--and I mean stretch--our resources to make sure that the students 

we serve meet all of the current--I mean, current before August 14--requirements 

and provide services so that they'll stay in school, graduate, and enroll. 

Now, the new law mandates, amongst other things, another service that we 

all know it is really very expensive. The law now "stress"--requires that we 

provide a high-quality academic tutoring--services to our students. If we are 

struggling to provide services now at the funding level we are, I'm not sure how 

we can do that in addition to all of the other services that we have to provide. 

My other area of concern, really, speaks to the prior experience 

requirements that are now--in addition to the current ones, the new law imposes 

four that I really have a big concern about. One of them really talks about the 

rigorous secondary school program of study that will make our students eligible 

for the Academic Competitive Grant Program. If we're serving the lowest 

performing schools in the state--and all Talent Search Programs--that's really 

why we selected them as target schools, because they have the highest dropout 

rate, they have the lowest graduation rates, and the lowest postsecondary 

enrollment rates. 

Some of these schools do not offer honor programs, not to talk about AP 

programs. So, to require that we recruit students that will meet this 

requirement will, in my mind, speak about the very students that we--that need 

the services--may not be the ones that programs will end up recruiting because 

they're concerned about meeting the prior experience criteria. 

The second one--it's the graduation from school of our students of a 

regular diploma in the standard number of years. For me, it says, "Okay. If a 

student has ever repeated a class, does that mean I can't recruit that student, 

or would I be forced to recruit only students that I know are going to graduate 

in four years, even if we have students that really do need the services of 

Talent Search in order for them to continue to stay in school and graduate." 

That's another area of concern for me. 

This one, it's really big for us in Talent Search, because we've never had 

to do this before, none of these three that I've mentioned have we ever had to 

16
do. It's to track the postsecondary completion of students that we assist in 

enrolling in postsecondary institutions. We have a difficult enough time getting 

our students to graduate and enroll. Now, the law requires us to track them. And 

as students, low-income, first generation students, we all know take much longer 

than the average student to graduate. 

My other concern about the one about graduating on time or rigorous--we 

have students that enroll in community colleges. They enroll in community 

colleges because they haven't met the rigorous--so, what do we do with those 

students? In my mind, in order to--in the implementation of these current 

requirements on top of the existing ones--because those still exist. These are 

in addition to existing prior experience criteria--we make an already difficult 

job near impossible to do. And I'm afraid the very students that the program is 

designed to serve--if programs are now concerned about meeting prior experience 

requirements, we may have to "cream" students, and that's really not what we 

want. 

So, my recommendation would be a drastic reduction in the number of 

students that the Talent Search Program is mandated to serve. Currently, the 

minimum is 600. We serve 750 in Rhode Island. And in addition to that--

concurrent with that, not one or the other, is to greatly increase the cost per 

participant. An average Talent Search Program cost per participant is under 

$500. And incidentally, these three areas of concern that I listed are identical 

to what the new requires of another TRIO Program, Upward Bound, that serves 

maybe a maximum of 125 students at the cost per participant of anywhere from 

$2,000 to $5,000. So, I would hope that you will seriously consider those two 

areas of my recommendation. Thank you. 

[Applause.] 

MR. BERGERON: Joe Costa, please. How are you this morning, Joe? 

MR. COSTA: Fine. Good morning. How are you? 

MR. BERGERON: Doing great, thanks. 

MR. COSTA: I'm not going to be speaking for very long. I'm Joseph Costa, 

Director of the Student Support Services Program at Rhode Island College. 

I just want to follow up with my colleague Eric gave in terms of the 

extension of the process or participation in the grant writing for a year. But I 

wanted to offer suggestions for those programs that have two to three years left 

on the books. My suggestion would be that, when these programs--if we extend it 

a year, these programs can participate next year, and they still have three 

years "out of book." And if they are successful in the competition, those three 

17
years--we should take those three years and divide those monies over a five-year 

period for those programs that are successful. 

We know if they're not successful, then they just play out the string, but 

if they are successful, then I would suggest that we take the three years that 

they have on the books and spread it out, spread those monies over the five-year 

period of the grant that they're going to receive if they're successful. That 

would be my suggestion for that, rather than keep playing along and playing 

along, et cetera, et cetera. And that's what I have to say. 

MR. BERGERON: Thank you, Joe. 

[Applause.] 

MR. BERGERON: Dan Egan. 

CROWD: He's not here. 

MR. BERGERON: Yeah, we're way ahead of our schedule. So, why don't we just 

take a minute and--well, Tim Leshan, then. Good morning, Tim. 

MR. LESHAN: Good morning. My name is Tim Leshan. I am the Director of 

Government Relations and Community Affairs at Brown University. I'm here today 

to speak a little bit about the impact of the Higher Education Opportunity Act 

on our university, and urge the Department to use the regulatory process to take 

advantage of the existing reporting mechanisms to promote efficiency for both 

institutions and the public who access that information. 

Brown University thanks the Department for having these meetings to seek 

out input on the implementation of the HEOA. Brown was supportive of the passage 

of the legislation, but we are concerned about some of the implementation and 

the burden of this law. In terms of the reporting requirements, from our 

perspective, at the same time that universities are being urged to control costs 

to ensure access to higher education, the law has a myriad of new reporting 

requirements with no federal funding to offset the expense of these mandates. 

Detailed new reporting requirements have been imposed in such areas as 

campus crime, fire safety, textbooks, net price income, peer-to-peer file 

sharing, and receipt of gifts from foreign donors, and I'll talk about a couple 

of these specific ideas. We support greater transparency and in fact have 

participated in the You Can Project, which provides for information about 

universities like ours to all students. 

But at the same time, we hope that the Department works to develop 

implementation of regulations around this new law that will funnel these new 

reporting requirements through existing reporting structures to the fullest 

extent possible. Doing so will benefit both the institutions that are educating 

the next generation of students as well as consumers. One of our areas of 

18
concern is campus safety. The law requires institutions to notify students 

immediately of the dangerous situations on campus. We at Brown believe that 

safety of our students is paramount. We have taken many steps since the tragic 

events of Virginia Tech to further enhance our efforts to notify our students 

when emergencies occur, such as adding an MRI3 mass communication system, and a 

campus siren in consultation with our city and our neighborhood. 

But we are concerned that implementation and compliance with the immediate 

requirement may be difficult to comply with. Some clarity around what is meant 

by "immediate and significant campus emergency" in the rulemaking process would 

be helpful. We suggest the Department work closely with those appropriate 

professional organizations and experts in the field to come up with something 

that is both practical to implement and comply with, and serves the ultimate 

goal of protecting our students, faculty and our visitors. 

Peer-to-peer file sharing. We're also concerned about the provisions in 

the HEOA on illegal peer-to-peer file sharing, especially Section 493, related 

to combating infringement on our campus networks, and offering alternative 

unauthorized content distribution. 

The detailed rules for this Section will have an impact on our operation 

of our networks, and in terms of staff time, cost, network stability. It's 

important that the Department get it right and avoid a one-size-fits-all 

approach. We hope that you will err on the side of flexibility. 

Student aid. While Brown was pleased with many of the student aid 

provisions in the HEOA, the law does make some changes to the programs that may 

cause some problems. 

An example, seemingly simple, is a date change from the Academic 

Competitiveness Grant, and the SMART Grant Program from January 1, 2009, to July 

1, 2009. As the Department issues guidance about these changes, we urge you to 

follow an orderly transition to these new dates in a responsible and easy to 

manage fashion. 

In conclusion, I have tried to outline a few examples of the impact of the 

HEOA on institutions like Brown. My main point is that we urge that you take 

into account many of the new requirements of this law, and the impact it will 

have on the diverse institutions across the country. 

We will, of course, fully comply with the law, and we will--we think many 

of its revisions are good. It does impose a burden, though, and we hope that you 

will try to create regulations that are efficient and based on common sense. The 

goal of implementing this law should be to enhance higher education for all 

19
students. I have written remarks, and I can submit those as well. Thank you very 

much. 

MR. BERGERON: Yes. If you'd leave it with Sophia--well, Sally. Thank you. 

Thank you. Michael Joyce. Good morning, Michael. 

MR. JOYCE: Good morning. How are you all doing? 

MR. BERGERON: Doing great, thanks. 

MR. JOYCE: My name is Michael Joyce. I am Interim Director of Program 

Administration at the Rhode Island Higher Education Assistance Authority, and 

I'm here today representing the National Association of State Student Grant and 

Aid Programs, NASSGAP, and I thank you in advance for your consideration. 

I'm going to focus on financial aid application simplification, 

specifically Section 483. NASSGAP would like the Department to keep in mind that 

states do use the FAFSA as a primary application for state need-based grants, 

that state financial resources are finite, but the population of needy students 

is growing, as is their cost. Simplification is a relative term. Efforts in its 

name should be done knowing that there is a very delicate balance between 

reducing complexity and sacrificing good stewardship of public funding. 

If questions important to state grant agencies are eliminated from the 

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

students to complete in order to capture the missing FAFSA data. It's essential 

to understand that FAFSA is not just a form used by the federal government to 

distribute federal aid, it is the primary form used by state agencies in 

awarding non-federal aid as well. It is for this reason that states have vested 

interest in the development of this document and any related replacement 

vehicles. 

For example, one of the most critical questions to the state programs that 

has recently been discussed as an item that could possibly be dropped is the 

applicant's state of legal residence. Some assume that an address is a clear 

proxy for that question. Let me assure it's not. Students do not often live in 

their states of residence while they are in college, and often confuse the two 

when completing the address line, neither do a huge number of others, such as 

those who serve in the military. So, it is a question that, if dropped from the 

FAFSA, is likely to create significant turmoil. We believe HEOA provides 

abundant opportunity to achieve a more accessible and successful application 

system through the development of several provisions. We seek every opportunity 

to support the work that is needed, whether it is through negotiated rulemaking 

or other engagements such as committees and focus groups to work with the 

Secretary. Again, I thank you for your time and consideration. 

20
MR. BERGERON: Is Dan Egan in the room? If not, we'll go to Eileen O'Leary, 

because I see her sitting in the room. Thank you. 

MS. O'LEARY: Thank you. 

MR. BERGERON: We're way early, see. 

MS. O'LEARY: I guess you are. My name is Eileen O'Leary, and I'm the 

Assistant Vice President for Student Financial Services at Stonehill College in 

Massachusetts, and past Chair and a member of the Executive Board of the 

National Direct Student Loan Coalition, and I speak to you today on behalf of 

the National Direct Student Loan Coalition, which is a grassroots organization 

representing over 1,300 schools nationwide who participate in the Federal Direct 

Student Loan Program. 

Our mission is to promote the success of the Federal Direct Student Loan 

Program in serving the interests of students, taxpayers, and institutions. I 

want to thank the Secretary for the opportunity to provide the Department with 

comments on our areas of concern within the Higher Education Opportunity Act. We 

hope that the negotiated rulemaking process will consider all aspects involved 

in the implementation of the new legislation, taking into account the 

repercussions of the various means of putting a law into action. In this way, 

the best possible outcomes will be achieved. Please note that, although this 

testimony is on behalf of the Direct Loan Coalition, because we are an 

organization of practicing financial aid administrators, we are also addressing 

areas of interest beyond the student loan program. We are concerned that any 

rules promulgated to interpret and implement the following Sections will prove 

onerous and virtually impossible to manage if the rules are not created with a 

comprehensive feedback from appropriate college and university personnel 

throughout the process. 

First, I'd like to address the area about the Direct Student Loan Program. 

Specific disclosures about loans to borrowers that will be required of 

institutions participating in the direct loan program, given the conference 

committee comments, it is essential that the Secretary promulgate rules that 

provide for disclosure statements that are formulated and disseminated by the 

Secretary to schools or, more appropriately, to borrowers by the Secretary's 

designated servicer on behalf of schools. This would prevent variations in 

process among the many direct loan schools, prevent burdensome requirements, and 

ensure that direct loan borrowers receive the best and most consistent 

information possible. Within the Federal Family Education Loan Program, the 

areas of concern are the definition of the eligible institution and eligible 

lender, as well as something that I assume also affects the Direct Loan Program, 

21
and that is the implementation for the new standard for the cohort default rate 

and the appeal process for noncompliance. In the private student loan area, we 

ask that, when crafting disclosures and certifications in this Section, that it 

be essential to get feedback not only from the lending industry, but from 

student groups and from financial aid administrators as well. The whole process 

of the disclosures of existing financial aid when applying for private loans 

should not prove a barrier to students but should make sense from their 

perspective, and be as streamlined as possible. 

The requirement that there be a disaggregation of institutional data on 

completion and graduation rates based on student gender, race, and ethnicity, 

and combinations of Pell Grant and federal loan recipients must be carefully 

regulated, particularly as it applies to schools that have very small cohorts of 

students in any of those tracked areas. The required disclosures of information 

on student body diversity and placement in employment and types of employment 

obtained by graduates must be carefully clarified in regulation, particularly as 

it applies to schools who also have very small cohorts in these areas. 

The requirement to notify parents of students missing for greater than 24 

hours could be extremely difficult to administer, given the privacy and freedom 

of movement afforded to students living in campus housing. So, we ask that great 

care be taken when crafting the rules associated with this provision, taking 

into account the realities of what schools are dealing with on a daily basis. 

The institutional requirement to separately notify a student of the loss 

of aid eligibility due to a drug-related offense and ways to regain eligibility 

will also be a provision that's difficult to administer. If the differences in 

institutional type, control, and administration are not taken into account when 

the rules are created. In addition, it needs to be clarified how financial aid 

administrators would obtain the information in reasonable manner. 

In the area of transparency and college tuition for consumers, the goal of 

having that type of information available for potential students and their 

parents is very good. The definition of net price, development of a net price 

calculator, to allow students to estimate their awards, including merit-based 

institutional awards must be carefully crafted in order to take into account the 

many and various ways that colleges and universities award their students their 

own institutional need-based and merit-based scholarships and grants. It's not a 

one-size-fits-all environment, and the rules need to take that into account. 

In closing, I'd like to thank you once again for the opportunity to 

present this testimony at today's hearing at URI and on behalf of the Direct 

Loan Coalition. We look forward to continuing our commitment to the Department 

22
to collaborate to achieve the best possible rules and regulations to manage not 

only the Direct Loan Program, but all the financial assistance programs for our 

students. Thank you. 

MR. BERGERON: Thank you. Dianne Oure. Good morning. 

MS. OURE: Good morning. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak with this morning. My 

name is Dianne Oure, and it's great you pronounced it right. Nobody ever gets 

that spelling. I am representing the American Speech Language Hearing 

Association, an organization of 130,000-plus members, speech language 

pathologists and audiologists, and they're based in Rockville, Maryland. And I 

am the ASHA Vice President for Government Relations and Public Policies, and I 

am employed here in Rhode Island as a speech language pathologist in the 

Woonsocket school system, and I'm a department chair there. 

And I would like to address the major issues for speech language 

pathologists and audiologists under the Higher Education Opportunity Act, and 

the first one is loan forgiveness. We view this as one tool that states and 

school districts can use to help recruit and retain qualified speech language 

pathologists and audiologists. There is a growing need for school-based--we call 

them SLPs, speech language pathologists, and audiologists, nationwide, actually, 

and also in Rhode Island. The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that between 

2004 and 2014, more than 14,000 additional SLPs and 3,000 additional 

audiologists will be needed to fill the demand. Many Title I schools fight a 

constant battle to recruit and retain qualified speech language pathologists and 

audiologists. I know that from personal experience. The U.S. Department of 

Education's annual report to Congress on the implementation of the IDEA states 

that almost half of all school-based SLPs will be eligible for retirement by 

2017. I wonder if that's ever going to happen. 

The study concludes that, unless the number of newly prepared SLPs 

increases substantially, a severe shortage will be unavoidable, including the 

SLPs and the audiologists in the new loan forgiveness program under the HEOA and 

Title IV would encourage students to enter our fields and to accept positions in 

school-based settings. The second issue is accreditation, and ASHA supports the 

current statutory requirements related to accreditation, and requests that the 

Department of the Education not consider accreditation as part of the negotiated 

rulemaking. We believe that judgments about student achievement should remain in 

the hands of institutions, and should not be shifted to the federal government 

through the Department of Ed's role in recognizing accrediting organizations. 

23
The current accreditation is highly successful for speech language 

pathologist and audiologist programs, and it's very well tested in quality 

insurance and quality improvement. The third issue, inclusion in teacher 

preparation. ASHA requests that the Department of Ed include SLPs and 

audiologists among the providers eligible for funds under professional 

preparation programs in Title II. Allowing SLPs and audiologists access to 

professional preparation funds under Title II is another means by which to 

retain and recruit these professionals. 

So, in conclusion, speech language pathologists and audiologists, as you 

know, are an integral part of a child's success in school in such areas as 

literacy, communication, et cetera. We are facing dire shortages in the near 

future, and we are asking for funding of and inclusion in the loan forgiveness 

program under Title IV to attract and retain SLPs and audiologists in the school 

setting. We're asking for access to professional preparation funds under Title 

II. And we're asking for accreditation requirements to remain in the hands of 

institutions rather than shifting them to the federal government. Thank you very 

much. 

MR. BERGERON: Is George Loftus in the room? Tim McGovern. 

MR. MCGOVERN: Good morning. You are running a lot early. 

MR. BERGERON: Yes. This is the way these things go... People think that-- 

MR. MCGOVERN: I'm a rookie. 

MR. BERGERON: But one of the things we've learned about this is you tell 

people they can speak for five minutes and that's not enough time. So, we said, 

"Well, it's not enough time." And we always allow ten, because people say, "We 

can only speak for five? That's not enough time." And we say, "Oh, yeah. We 

always run early. If we have lots of people, we run early. If we have a few 

people, we run early." But thank you, Tim, for coming early. 

MR. MCGOVERN: No, that's not a problem. I may run long. 

[Laughter.] 

MR. MCGOVERN: I don't think I have any friends or colleagues in the 

audience. They know I run long, sometimes. So, I'm actually going to try to keep 

it short. My name is Tim McGovern. I am from MIT in Cambridge, Mass., and yeah, 

a specific area of my work is in information technology. So, I'm going to speak 

to the 493 provisions, or Section, and not talk to many of the other areas that 

MIT has concerns in. I'm not in government relations, and I'm sure that they'll 

be submitting some suggestions. We're also part of a number of other 

associations, one of whom has already spoken this morning. We also are a very 

active member of groups that represent higher ed. generally in information 

24
technology and policy in Washington. So, I'm sure you'll be hearing from us 

directly and/or indirectly. The area of my work in particular over the last ten 

years has been IT security, IT policy, and, within that, the work within the 

DMCA of enforcing U.S. copyright law on our campus. So, I've been a very active 

and involved and interested member of the MIT community in terms of what we've 

been doing, how we've been doing what we've been doing. We've been engaged in 

the legislative effort up to date. We think the legislation is as good as we 

probably could have hoped for and so we're glad for that. In particular, and 

others have risen this morning to talk about this, and we want to reinforce 

that, flexibility on the campus is critical as we move forward. 

Certainly, we've already heard, and you've heard, and I've learned a lot 

this morning even in the last hour, about the number of different institutions 

and the kinds of challenges that are going on on different institutional 

campuses. Our challenges are not unique, but they're different than others. 

Certainly, we have already, in terms of trying to offer alternatives on our own 

campus, have found it extremely difficult to find a vendor who will still exist 

a month or two or three or four or five after we started to engage with them in 

terms of alternatives. We've attempted to engage with vendors of products that, 

in their minds, will combat or completely block infringement on our network, and 

have found those vendor relationships to be very wanting in terms of their being 

interesting in sharing with us what the impact of their products will be on our 

infrastructure. We have, certainly, by most people's standards, by most campus 

standards a large, very fast, very resource-rich environment, very resource-rich 

campus network. 

On the other hand, the things that we're doing with that network in 

support of teaching and research to our experience and through our research to 

date, we have certainly determined that those missions will be seriously 

impacted should we implement the wrong product to try to do what some parties in 

the entertainment industry would like to see done. Should the Department decide, 

therefore, to go forward with rulemaking in the area of 493, we would hope that 

nothing would happen that would remove from our ability to sort of approach this 

in a flexible way, one that would balance our desire to maintain a rich resource 

environment for our faculty and our students. And at the same time, as seriously 

as we have done for the past ten years since the passage of DMCA, to continue to 

try to educate those students and those faculty and those staff who come to our 

campus about appropriate use of copyrighted materials, and to continue to 

explore alternative opportunities for them. So, I thank you for this 

opportunity. 

25
MR. BERGERON: Thank you. Has George Loftus come into the room? If he 

hasn't, we will go ahead and take a break until 11:00, unless somebody else 

signs up. And if they do, we'll let you know, but we'll take a break for about a 

half an hour. Thank you. 

 [Brief recess.] 

MR. BERGERON: We're going to go ahead and reconvene. As you know, we have 

a sign interpreter up at the front. If you let us know, she'll continue to 

interpret. Otherwise, we'll let her sit down until we need her. We're going to 

go and ask Dan Egan, if he's in the room, if he wants to come on up. Good 

morning, Dan. 

MR. EGAN: Good morning. I apologize for not being here when I was called 

twice earlier. Rhode Island, when you register to sign up at 11:10, you usually 

get heard about 5:00. 

[Laughter.] 

MR. EGAN: So, I went back and did a little more work. But thank you for 

your time this morning. My name is Dan Egan, President of the Association of 

Independent Colleges and Universities of Rhode Island, affectionately known as 

AICU Rhode Island. Thank you for the opportunity to share the thoughts on behalf 

of my membership, Brown University, Bryant University, Johnson and Wales 

University, New England Institute of Technology, Providence College, Rhode 

Island School of Design, Roger Williams University, and Salve Regina University. 

I'm President of a diverse organization which represents differing 

independent traditional colleges and universities. I represent an Ivy League 

university, two faith-based institutions, a technical institute, a world-leading 

art and design school, a diverse university with outstanding business programs, 

a diverse university with a world-class culinary reputation, and a diverse 

university housing Rhode Island's only law school. Our membership welcomes the 

opportunity to share our views today. 

Knowing the points of the task before you, recognizing that there's many 

other speakers, and I have a time limit, I would like to briefly offer some 

suggestions on issues of particular importance to AICU Rhode Island and its 

memberships. Many of these views parallel those views expressed by Texas 

Christian University, Victor Boschini, who I know hosted you in Fort Worth just 

ten days ago. He was also the Chair of NAICU, our membership organization. 

First, on the Student Loan Sunshine. This is a complex area of 

legislation. We understand that. It will address the conflict of interest 

between colleges and lenders. Our membership welcomes the new guidelines that 

are set forth in this legislation. 

26
Although the legislative language is unclear in several areas, we hope 

that the process will be patient in clarifying these guidelines. As you know, 

this is additionally complicated as some of the Sections are in Title V, which 

is subject to negotiated rulemaking, yet others are in Title I which is not 

subject to rulemaking. Restoring public confidence in our student loans lending 

practices will most certainly occur through thoughtful consideration of these 

guidelines. 

Secondly, on transfer of credit, one of the most contentious areas of the 

debate and reauthorization over the past five years calls for every college to 

publish its transfer of credit policy and articulation its agreements on its Web 

sites. Postsecondary institutions should be required to post this information on 

the Web site in a manner that is appropriate to the institutions. Consistent 

with requirements for College Navigator in Title I, which is not subject to 

negotiated rulemaking, we would support College Navigator simply provide a link 

to the section of each institution's Web site for further ease of reference. 

A third issue, and probably our most important is the new reporting 

disclosure requirements, and obviously you've heard from others in terms of the 

length and size and number of these requirements. In addition to the transfer of 

credit provision, the new law includes numerous new reports and disclosure in 

areas such as fire safety, campus emergency response, and peer-to-peer file 

sharing. Others will speak specifically to those areas. But during the debate 

over the past five years on reauthorization, these provisions have been refined 

to respond to the concerns of cost and complexity such would impose on any 

colleges and universities. That's another area where further regulatory changes 

should be kept to a minimum, as a five-year dialogue has addressed many of these 

concerns directly. 

Additional issues that are not a subject to negotiated rulemaking but I 

will mention briefly are the various provisions related to college cost and the 

new disclosure on College Navigator. These provisions include the development of 

a college cost watch list and definition of net price in the creation of a net 

price and multiyear tuition calculator. I'll mention them only briefly, because 

these new provisions are enormously complex, and yet all of them carry 

enormously high stakes, and that they will have significant impact in shaping 

public perception of individual institutions. Through the core Section of the 

Bill, the new law directs the Department to consult with institutions of higher 

education and the development of these new tools. 

While following this directive will not entail a negotiated rulemaking 

process, my membership does believe in inclusion of all higher education 

27
representatives, and such planning is imperative to achieve a functional process 

of these provisions. We urge the Department officials to be inclusive, follow 

Congress's intent, and work toward a clear and simple process which is consumer 

friendly. 

Finally, whether we support or are uncomfortable with particular 

provisions of this law, we will need some guidance regarding what is expected of 

us, in particular, as Victor mentioned last week, regarding the new provisions 

that went into effect on August 14th. The rulemaking process that will produce 

more specific directions for us understanding takes some time, but in the 

interim, we request the Department provide a list of things that colleges should 

do now, and a sense of how we should approach these rules in the absence of 

regulatory guidance. Again, many thanks for allowing me this opportunity to 

speak in this productive and collaborative process. 

MR. BERGERON: Thank you, Dan. Let me just make a couple of points related 

to the last two things you talked about. One is there is a process the 

Department has in place for consulting, working with the higher education 

community to develop new reporting requirements within the framework of the 

IPEDS data collection. And so, If you go to our Web site at WWW.ED.GOV/HEOA, 

there's a link there to the--what's going on with regard to the IPEDS data 

collection, and I know they're having some technical review panels to work on 

some of those issues beginning as early as October. 

And the other thing I would mention is that we're in the process of 

developing a "dear colleague" letter that will address the requirements of the 

HEOA overall. You know, the last time I asked anybody this, the staff person 

who's kind of bringing that all together was over 114 pages in length and 

growing by the day. So, but look for that. It will provide you interim guidance, 

and we'll get it out as quickly as we can, but it's a fairly extensive piece of 

legislation that we're trying to summarize and get some guidance around. So, 

look forward to that, and I look forward to working with you, Dan. 

MR. EGAN: Same here. Thank you. 

MR. BERGERON: George Loftus. Good morning, George. 

MR. LOFTUS: Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to speak with 

you. My name is George Loftus. I'm the Executive Director of OSHEN, which is the 

Ocean State Higher Education Network. We provide network services to all the 

universities and colleges in the State of Rhode Island, as well as several 

healthcare organizations, and other nonprofits dedicated to research and 

education. I'm also here as a volunteer member of the network policy council of 

EDUCAUSE, which is the national higher ed. IT organization. 

28
I'd like to speak with you today about Section 493 of the HEOA, and with a 

couple of very specific issues. 

With respect to the language that refers to combating infringement, the 

detailed rules will make a huge difference in the operation of our networks, in 

terms of the staff time that we spend on it, the issues of network stability, 

and the cost of implementing any unintended consequences that might happen from 

a not-a-well-articulated plan. So, it's very important we feel the Department 

get it right when we talk about the implementation rules and what we'll need to 

do to deal with copyright infringement. 

There are also large implications for legal exposure; there are privacy 

violation issues. And again, we're concerned about unintended consequences, such 

as limiting access to legal content and legitimate content that is actually 

emerging greatly on our campuses as we start to look at video as a major 

component of how we deliver educational content to our students. 

Again, it is important that the rules be carefully considered and reviewed 

in order to put the implementation rules in place. 

The report language discusses a number of considerations and issues. The 

major conclusion is that the campuses should be provided plenty of flexibility 

in how they deploy these technologies to combat infringement. 

Now, this is market that is rapidly changing. There is much discussion and 

concern that there is not today an adequate technology to handle the kind of 

infringement requests that are being made by the recording and motion picture 

industry. 

Peer-to-peer systems are rapidly changing as we're starting to see 

commercial entities utilizing those heavily. Specifically, Verizon has been 

looking to implement peer-to-peer implementations for their delivery of video to 

the consumer market. So, we want to note that whatever is put in place today 

might quickly be out of date if we're not provided with a great deal of 

flexibility in how we put that together. 

With respect to offering alternatives, this is an area where, again, we 

need--we think flexibility is quite important. Our organization, OSHEN, every 

student in a higher educational institution in Rhode Island is offered a free 

alternative. We use the Ruckus Tool today, but even that model is changing. 

Ruckus has agreed in just the short time we've been using them to change their 

model, go to more of an advertising model, and not work with consortia but 

actually work directly with students. We're also starting to see the emergence 

of these kind of alternative tools in the social networking space with MySpace 

and Facebook, and we're also starting to see a real change and merger in that 

29
marketplace. So, very dynamic marketplace. We seek to find alternative 

opportunities for our students, but we need some flexibility in doing that. 

And this, as you can tell, is a very complex area. Of the many things that 

you have to consider, this is a very small component, but it really does hit to 

the heart of keeping the cost of education down, making sure that we can meet 

the requirements of this new Act and this portion of the Act, but also making 

sure we've got the flexibility to do it in a way that does not drive our costs 

up significantly to deliver the service. 

We would like to respectfully request that we ensure that we have a voice 

at the table. I would recommend respectfully that a group such as EDUCAUSE, who 

has been working very closely on this issue nationally and with several national 

educational organizations, be considered as a party that might be invited to the 

table. Thank you very much. 

MR. BERGERON: Thank you. While I think that we have one more person who is 

available to speak this morning, let me talk a bit while Kay is going to get the 

list--about how the process will go forward. At the conclusion of the public 

hearing process, we will go ahead and try to identify some families of issues 

that can be negotiated. And so, we will do that and then identify--put a notice 

in the Federal Register that's saying, you know, there are going to be these 

three or four or so committees established, and what the types of issues they'll 

be seeking to deal with. 

At that time, we will also go ahead and solicit participation in those 

negotiating committees and obtain nominations from the community of people to 

serve on the negotiating committees, with a little bit of frame--with that 

little bit of knowledge about what those committees would be dealing with. 

The last couple of times we've done negotiated rulemaking, we've had to do 

it under different kinds of time constraints and have done one Federal Register 

notice that said we're doing hearings, then we're going to create committees and 

solicited nominations without a real framework for those committee processes to 

go forward. And so, we're going to do it a little differently this time, not 

because we have a lot more time, but because of the different levels of issues 

and complexity of the Bill, and because we have other things happening in the 

next couple of months that change the dynamic a little bit about how we get 

negotiated rulemaking done. That is, changes--knowing that there will be changes 

in policy officials and political leadership in the coming months that we kind 

of have to figure out how the timing will play out. 

We do have, I think, Theresa Freedman, if she's in the room and would like 

to speak now. You could do that--yeah, I know. We do have just the one more 

30
person who is available to testify this morning. We do know we have somebody 

signed up to testify at 1:20. But if there are people who would like to testify 

this morning, and if you could see Sophia, that would be great. Otherwise, we 

will go ahead and after Theresa speaks, we'll go ahead and take a break until 

1:00. So, go ahead, Theresa. 

MS. FREEDMAN: Thank you. Good morning. 

MR. BERGERON: Good morning. 

MS. FREEDMAN: My name is Theresa Freedman, and I am the Assistant Vice 

President of the North Atlantic Region for Client Services at EDFUND. The North 

Atlantic Region includes New England and the Midwest. EDFUND is a not for profit 

public benefit corporation and one of the nation's leading providers of student 

loan guarantee services under the Federal Family Education Loan Program. EDFUND 

offers students a wide range of financial aid and debt management information, 

while supporting schools with advanced loan processing, solutions, and default 

prevention techniques. 

EDFUND was founded in 1997, and in 2006-07, processed more than $9.3 

billion in student loans, and we manage a portfolio of outstanding loans valued 

at more than $30 billion. EDFUND is based in California, and we (WORLDWIDE 

REPORTING, LLP, 529 14th Street, S.E. Washington, D.C. 20003, (202) 544-1903) 

operate with regional representatives such as myself located throughout the 

nation. I'm pleased to be here with you today to discuss just a few that are of 

particular importance--issues that are important to EDFUND and the schools, 

students, and the families we serve. I'll keep my comments brief today, but will 

let you know that we will be submitting additional written testimony covering 

these topics, and a few additional issues. Before I address the specific issues, 

we would like to take this opportunity to applaud the U.S. Congress for 

reauthorizing Higher Education Act through the passage of the Higher Education 

Opportunity Act. We at EDFUND believe the new laws contained many new provisions 

that will continue to open the doors of opportunity for millions of American 

families, and we look forward to working with you in conjunction with our trade 

associations to implement the new law with the best interests of the students 

and families we serve at the forefront. 

The first topic I'd like to discuss relates to entrance and exit 

counseling activities performed by lenders and guarantee agencies in conjunction 

with school personnel. Language included in Section 493(e) of the Higher 

Education Opportunity Act explicitly states that entrance and exit counseling 

activities are not considered a gift under the gift ban Section. 

31
The law also explicitly allows lenders and guarantors to perform exit 

counseling services in Section 422(d) and 436(c) under the supervision of school 

personnel. Conversations with congressional staff have indicated that they 

believe the language adopted in the HEOA permits lenders and guarantors to 

provide both entrance and exit counseling. Based on the legislative citations 

provided and the express congressional intent, we request that the Department 

modify its regulation position on guarantors and lenders performing both 

entrance counseling and exit counseling on behalf of any institution. EDFUND 

believes that allowing lenders and guarantors to assist both direct loan and 

FFEL schools with entrance and exit counseling activities is good for schools, 

good for the loan programs, and most importantly, good for students. 

As financial aid offices are increasingly stretched for resources, lenders 

and guarantors are best equipped to provide the most comprehensive and accurate 

information to student borrowers on the specifics of their loan obligations, and 

what options and programs federal, state, and institutional exist to ensure a 

successful repayment experience, which is our goal. 

Additionally, some of the new repayment options and program benefits 

available to borrowers will require more than sound bite type counseling for 

borrowers to fully understand the options available to them. The new incomebased repayment option, for example, may require significant explanations from 

knowledgeable staff, like us, in order for borrowers to understand how to fully 

take advantage of the new program. We would like to help the financial aid 

administrators with this. We suggest the Department align its regulations with 

the Higher Education Opportunity Act and with congressional intent with regard 

to entrance and exit counseling performed for any FFEL or direct lending school 

that may request the assistance. 

The second topic I'd like to address relates to the new provision in the 

law that requires schools with cohort rates of 30 percent or more to assemble a 

default prevention taskforce that will create a default prevention plan to be 

submitted to the Secretary. EDFUND, along with our guarantor colleagues, 

believes we can play a valuable role in this process, working directly with 

schools to develop strategies to lower their cohort default rates. 

Guarantors have consistently demonstrated that we play an important role 

in assisting students to successfully manage their student loan debt. The 

growing importance of this role has been emphasized by increased requirements 

for guarantee agencies to provide financial literacy information and other 

resources to both schools and students, showing these agencies to be 

knowledgeable and affected trusted agents. A school with a higher-than-desired 

32
default rate likely does not have the resources and experience needed to 

effectively assist--in particular, constituencies avoiding delinquency and 

default. By including the guarantee agency in the taskforce designed to help the 

school develop and implement its default prevention plan, the school is able to 

take advantage of existing resources and expertise at assisting both the school 

and its students achieve success, as well as ensuring that these default 

prevention plans become the effective tools that they are intended to be. 

Guarantors could also work with the Department globally to help develop 

some default prevention plan best practices. The two topics I have addressed 

here today represent two opportunities for the Department to strengthen the 

student loan programs by utilizing the demonstrated experience of the guarantor 

community to better serve postsecondary institutions and the students we all 

serve. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. I am happy to 

answer any questions that you have. 

MR. BERGERON: Thank you. David Levy. Good morning. 

MR. LEVY: Good morning. My name is David Levy. 

MR. BERGERON: Levy. 

MR. LEVY: It's fine. I'm a Certified Public Accountant, and I represent 

many proprietary institutions throughout the country on the for-profit sector, 

and I'd like to discuss Section 493, specifically the 90-10 Rule. I've been in 

the industry long enough to remember when it was the old 85-15 Rule. So, there's 

a lot of new changes to it in which I'm very pleased to see. 

First and foremost, it's leaving the institutional eligibility and going 

more into administrative capability in going to a two-year rule. A couple of 

issues that I just want to bring up and just address is, the first is the use 

of--it used to only be a cash basis calculation, and they're implementing a new 

accrual-based calculation on some specific aspects. And I want to just make sure 

that the institutional loans that are going to be counted as a present value of 

these calculations--it says in accordance with GAAP. Well, GAAP is fairly 

extensive and involved, you know, very large and extensive. So, it has to be 

addressed and implemented in a consistent manner. So, what are the Generally 

Accepted Accounting Principles when we discount these loans and incorporate them 

into the 90-10 calculation? So, I think I just want to address that and make 

sure that that is addressed in the rulemaking. 

Secondly, I want to address that the idea of student loans and how it's to 

be used and how it has been used in the past. Previously, student loans were 

never allowed to count toward any 90-10, because they were institutional loans, 

33
and I want to make sure that institutional loans, even at the--that they don't 

have to be separated from the institution and have to create a separate entity 

so that those loans become non-related party--distanced from the school. It 

appears in the regs that they're not; they can be internally generated loans and 

that they can be used in this calculation. In the past, that calculation was 

never allowed to be used. So, it's a very positive change, but I just want to 

make sure it doesn't get lost in the translation, here. And another part of the 

90-10 change is the use of the unsubsidized loan limitations in the new 

regulations, effective July 1st forward. Any incremental increase in the 

unsubsidized loans can get used for the denominator for the 90-10, not just the 

numerator, which is very substantial, because many of our schools are below the 

institutional tuition level for the total available funds, and it's put the 

institutions at a very high disadvantage when the Department of Education, which 

fantastically increased the loan limits and the grant limits, but by doing that, 

they potentially increased the loan and grant limits above the level of the 

tuition, thus putting for-profit proprietary institutions out of business and 

not in compliance with this regulation. So, I'm very pleased to see that this 

Sunshine Provision, however, is being implemented into the regulations, and that 

the incremental costs can be used for the denominator. 

The incremental costs, it says in the regulations, are the gross amounts, 

if you received a loan in excess of what the maximum limit was from the previous 

year. A lot of institutions are not full-time institutions: They're part-time 

institutions, three-quarter institutions. I just want to make sure that that 

provision encompasses them, too. If they weren't entitled to the full maximum 

supplemental loan, but only two-thirds of it in the past, that two-thirds is 

also going to be eligible for the calculation, and not--since the--and be used 

consistently as a full-time or a part-time institution. So, I want to make sure 

that gets encompassed as well. 

And finally, in the 90-10, I'm very pleased to hear and read that programs 

that the institution is offering that are not Title IV eligible will now be 

incorporated as tuition revenue. That's a very powerful and positive change in 

the regulations. I just want to make sure that a lot of institutions have 

contractual arrangements to train out students through other institutions, that 

those also would be acknowledged and accounted for in the calculation as the 90-

10. It's overall a very positive direction, I just want to make sure we don't 

lose any of the details in any of the changes, and I want to thank you for the 

opportunity to speak. 

34
MR. BERGERON: Thank you. Appreciate it. That's all the folks who've signed 

up to testify this morning. So, unless there's someone else who would like to 

testify and hasn't checked in with Sophia, we will go ahead and take a break and 

come back at 1:00. 

[Whereupon, at 11:24 a.m., the morning session was adjourned.] 

AFTERNOON SESSION

MR. BERGERON: Good afternoon. I hope everyone had time for lunch, and then 

come back here. Again, we have a sign interpreter with us this afternoon, and if 

people need her interpretation, she'll continue to do that. Otherwise, she'll 

sit down and rest until we're ready for somebody who needs her. 

We do have one person signed up at this point to testify this afternoon, 

and that is Jack Warner. And so, I would invite Jack to come to the microphone 

when he's ready, and good afternoon. 

MR. WARNER: Good afternoon, and thank you for this opportunity. I am Jack 

Warner. I am Commissioner of Higher Education for the public system of higher 

education here in Rhode Island, and I appreciate the opportunity to testify on 

this Act. In addition to my role as Commissioner of Higher Education in Rhode 

Island, I currently serve as the Treasurer of the State Higher Education 

Executive Officers, or SHEEO. Today, I will be representing both the 

perspectives of SHEEO and myself in these remarks. 

SHEEO represents the chief executive officers serving 28 statewide 

governing boards and 29 statewide coordinating boards of higher education around 

the country. A primary function of the organization is to speak in public and 

private forums, promoting the interests of the states in effectively planning 

and financing higher education. SHEEO has been a contributing partner to the 

reauthorization of the Higher Education Act and other supporting legislation 

since 2001. SHEEO has supported elements of the HEA reauthorization and other 

critical federal legislation by offering comments to bills, authoring letters 

from state higher education executives, and weighing in on those issues that 

matter most to the states. Chief among those, of course, is remaining accessible 

and affordable to state residents, as you know. 

We believe it important to take interest in and be part of federal 

policies that shape higher education. We have contributed our comments, 

suggestions, and recommendations, in formal and informal manners, and it is in 

that spirit today that we come before you today to share our priorities for 

35
consideration in the forthcoming negotiated rulemaking sessions. Consistent with 

our expressed views of shared responsibility, SHEEO members unanimously endorsed 

an open letter to presidential candidates Senator McCain and Senator Obama 

calling for a national movement to increase postsecondary educational 

attainment. A letter to the candidate outlined specific principles and ideas, 

many of which are embodied in the authorization act, for working together to 

improve the implementation of federal and state programs. It also emphasized the 

role and duties of the states as principle agents responsible for public higher 

education. 

Today, I will address three primary issues of importance to SHEEO and my 

colleagues in the State Higher Education Executive Offices around the country. 

Specifically, these items focus on ensuring that educational achievement, 

quality, discovery, and innovation in the United States are second to no other 

nation. 

First, as previously stated, SHEEO is committed to increasing the 

educational attainment of our nation. In fact, the premise of our open letter to 

the presidential candidates is that the United States must produce 16 million 

more graduates over and above the base that we produce today with an associate 

or bachelor's degree by 2025 to match today's leading industrialized nations. 

The context for this goes something like this: There are only two 

countries among the industrialized nations in the world where the educational 

attainment of its older working cohort is superior to that of the younger cohort 

that follows, and the United States and Germany are those two countries, which 

means that our position among those countries is slipping when it comes to 

educational attainment. In order to do this kind of additional degree production 

means setting an ambitious but achievable goal of ensuring our colleges graduate 

an average of one million more students with degrees or certificates every year 

between now and 2025. The federal government is uniquely positioned to assist 

states and institutions with these degree completion and attainment efforts by 

helping states develop information systems that can track students' progress and 

determine whether they are at risk of dropping out. 

One excellent sample is the provision in the Act for a five-state data 

system pilot. This pilot should be given high priority, with close attention 

paid to the lessons learned for application and replication in additional 

states. And I would certainly not be so bold as to say New England would be such 

a great place for a pilot like this. Additionally, we share a common national 

interest in better measuring the knowledge and skills of our workforce. The 

federal government should consider financing state-level samples of learning 

36
measures such as the national assessment of adult literacy, the program for 

international student assessment, and the 12th grade national assessment of 

educational progress. We feel that regular administrations of those types of 

instruments will present a much better picture of how our residents are 

performing. 

Second, SHEEO is committed to ensuring our policies target low-income and 

first-generation students. We believe that those who are least likely to succeed 

in college should be provided necessary resources and support in order to 

succeed. As such, we support efforts by Congress and the Administration to 

simplify the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, the FAFSA. We applaud 

both Congress and the Department for authorizing and implementing policies and 

practices that will ensure this necessary form is more user-friendly. Since over 

two-thirds of the FAFSA data elements can be derived from the Federal Tax Form, 

we believe that a simpler, more efficient process can be achieved by combining 

the two collection tools without adversely affecting the neediest students. In 

order for this effort to be successful, states and institutions must cooperate 

in achieving such simplification. We also support efforts by Congress and the 

Administration to strengthen the Pell Grant Program and increase annual 

maximization award levels. Given the convergence of two critical elements, one 

being the collective recognition for a simpler, more efficient financial aid 

process, and the second being a renewed commitment to the Federal Pell Grant, we 

believe that this is the opportune time to reexamine the calculation methodology 

of the Pell Grant through a lens of shared responsibility with students, states, 

and institutions. 

SHEEO and its members realize that the strength of the Pell Grant Program 

is maximized when states and institutions take responsibility for calibrating 

state and institutional aid to their tuition policies. Equally important is 

students fulfilling their responsibility by taking and excelling in high school 

courses that will prepare them for postsecondary success, and there should be 

rewards in the financial aid system for such success. 

Third, the Act contains numerous provisions to strengthen quality 

assurance and the roles of accreditation. Like the federal government, states 

rely on accreditation to provide a framework for effective self-regulation by 

colleges and universities. States rely on accreditation in their policies and 

practices for program review and institutional licensing decisions and 

increasingly to encourage better definition and assessment of student learning 

outcomes. Because of this involvement, SHEEO and its members need to be involved 

37
in the proposed members to strengthen self-regulation and the functions of 

accreditation that go beyond those needed by the federal government. 

Also, it is important to recognize that the states and institutions will 

be responsible for implementing the policies embodied in the higher ed. act. 

During its deliberations in selection of negotiators, SHEEO encourages the 

Department of Education to thoughtfully consider SHEEO member involvement in 

further developing and defining those national and federal policies. 

States can serve as valuable resources in these efforts. Just as careful 

consideration has been paid to the impact of regulation on institutions, 

students, and lending partners, an equal amount of attention should be paid to 

the impact of regulation and undue burden on states. Regulation can support or 

stymie what happens with state higher education policy, and SHEEO encourages the 

Department to use our members as a resource as new regulations are being 

developed. 

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to articulate the interests and 

views of both my association and we in Rhode Island. I appreciate your presence 

here today. 

MR. BERGERON: Thank you, Jack. Have you or SHEEO given any thought to the 

new Maintenance of Effort requirements that are contained in Title I as it 

relates to state spending over a five-year period? 

MR. WARNER: Yes. I don't know that SHEEO has taken an official position on 

it, and I might do so at my own peril. But I think that the principal that the 

federal government should see a reasonably consistent maintenance of effort on 

the part of state funding is a useful principal. I think I would suggest 

involving SHEO in particular in the evolution of the particular ways that that 

plays out so as to avoid the unintended consequences that always accompany our 

best intended policies. But the principles that lie behind that, I certainly 

would support. 

MR. BERGERON: Thank you. I appreciate your coming. Right now, we don't 

have any witnesses who have signed up. So, what we'll do is take a break until 

we do. So, don't go too, too far if you want to hear what's going on. So, 

thank you. 

 [Brief recess.] 

MR. BERGERON: We're ready to reconvene when everybody is ready. Patricia 

Plummer is our next witness. Thank you, Patricia. 

MS. PLUMMER: Good afternoon. So, I'm Pat Plummer. I'm from the University 

of Massachusetts. I've just arrived so I haven't heard previous testimony. So, 

I'll apologize in advance if I'm too repetitive. There are just a few things 

38
that I wanted to bring up. I understand that other colleagues from Massachusetts 

are going to be submitting testimony regarding the Title IV provisions. So, I 

won't be addressing those at all. I'm going to leave those to more expert than 

I. 

Some of the things that I want to address have to do with the university 

campus, which is a five-campus system with a medical school and four 

comprehensive research universities that have both teaching and nursing programs 

that I want to address a couple comments to. The first is on the Title II and 

the accountability for programs that prepare teachers. I do have a concern about 

the additional reporting requirements that appear to be burdensome without 

necessarily achieving some good outcomes, and I thought that might be part of 

the rulemaking that you'll be looking at. For example, while I understand that 

getting accurate assessment of pass rates on teacher license examinations is 

difficult, especially in states like Massachusetts where students must pass the 

test in order to complete their clinical work. 

However, given this, I don't believe the change in provision to report all 

of those who have completed 100 percent of the non-clinical coursework will 

actually get to any more complete information for the Department, and will only 

add to some burdensome reporting. The reason I feel this way is that programs 

across the countries differ in definition of the major and when students declare 

a major, whether it's freshman, sophomore, or junior year. So, in the end, by 

asking for this, I'm not sure that you'll be getting to the information that you 

need. And that was Section 205. In Section 206, the reporting on goals to 

increase the number of teachers in high-need fields. I think this reporting is 

laudable, and that it--if only that it shines the light on the issue, and is 

going to commit to paper a report on what the different institutions are doing. 

It is difficult to encourage the hard work for recruiting students into 

these high-need fields, and reminding people by having some kind of reporting I 

think is helpful with that. And it may even have the secondary effect of 

increasing the number of students who apply for some grants in that area, 

because it will have our institutions--be looking at both things: increasing the 

numbers and then also making sure students find out about the scholarship help 

that's available that I don't think always happens right now. So, I think that's 

a really good provision. 

In Section 231 on preparing teachers for the digital age. I'm very pleased 

to see a continued emphasis on technology. And I do have one suggestion, and I'm 

not familiar, you know, enough to know whether it's possible to go in this 

direction at this point, and that is that I think it would be very helpful if 

39
there was a way, especially for public systems, to look at multi-campus 

proposals for this. I feel this way, because, if you were to--I've seen a number 

of these grants in the past that go to individual institutions. But I think--and 

nothing has been as systemic as we would like it to be or we wouldn't need this 

right now--then I think that by going to multi-campus institutions when you're 

in the public sphere, you're more likely to get some sustained changes around 

teacher preparation programs and technology. So, if there could be a whole 

system within a university, or other state university system, and grants to five 

or six institutions at the same time, around some of the same goals, I think it 

would make more of an effect, and that also may encourage states to then put 

some more funds into infrastructure, especially into the amount that--the type 

of technology that's needed in K-12 schools for those teachers to then practice 

there. So, I think there could be some improvements this time around in getting 

some more sustainability by looking at it in that way. 

And the next piece I'd like to address has to do with the transition 

programs for students with intellectual disabilities. I think this is a 

wonderful very, very much needed program, and I just want to bring to your 

attention that Massachusetts is entering the third year of what essentially is 

still a pilot program of providing college courses for credit at our community 

colleges for students who are still in the high school, have not been aged out 

yet and will not get a diploma because of their disabilities. 

And I understand that Massachusetts is one of the only places in the 

country that's gotten quite this far yet. So, what I'm offering is some 

assistance from Massachusetts in this, having been involved in this as the--my 

previous position as Commissioner of Higher Education in Massachusetts--I know 

that it's a very needed but also very difficult kind of program to implement. 

As you know, the K-12 sector has been involved in special education for 

about 30 years now. So, they're very well versed in it, but not so with higher 

education. So, it's not just a matter of getting the program going, but also 

thinking about how we train faculty to do the same kind of good job that our K12 teachers have been doing. So, I offer up the good people from Massachusetts 

and some of our non-profit agencies that have been really pushing for this--our 

disabilities folks--to try and be of some assistance in--with the experience 

we've had in this area. 

And the last I'd like to mention is the Title VIII nursing provisions. I 

think that is a great suggestion for a rewards system in increasing the 

production of nursing faculty. Again, I wonder if a multi-campus approach would 

make sense here, even though it's a great idea, really $3,000 per student isn't 

40
a huge amount of money for any one institution to go after, and the challenges 

of increasing the number of nursing students both for RN and also for faculty 

positions is quite expensive. I think that perhaps looking at a multi-campus 

approach--an example would be University of Massachusetts--all four of its 

institutions have baccalaureate, masters, and doctoral level programs that there 

may be a way to leverage some more success out of a program like this if it's 

looked at in the public system as a multi-campus. 

So, those are my few comments, and I thank you for your attention. 

MR. BERGERON: Thank you. You actually raised, I think, almost exclusively 

new items. So, thank you. 

MS. PLUMMER: Oh, well, I'm glad I did that. 

MR. BERGERON: The one area where we did some testimony this morning was 

around the transitions for students with intellectual disabilities program, 

where folks from Rhode Island were talking about their success with those 

programs. One of the issues raised by your testimony, for me, is that in the 

Higher Education Opportunity Act that Congress authorizes 69 new programs, only 

three of which are funded in the Bill. The three are a master's program for a 

predominantly black institution, a master's program for historically black 

colleges, and a postbaccalaureate program for Hispanic-serving institutions. The 

rest of the programs are all subject to the appropriations process. So, it's 

hard to know exactly how that will play out. 

I know that the Congress passed the continuing resolution for 2009, which 

starts Wednesday for us at the federal level, and the new programs are, by and 

large--they're not included in that appropriations bill. So, we'll have to see 

how all that plays out going forward. So, I just thought I should put that on 

the record, that there is this issue that we have 69 new programs authorized, 

but only three are funded. 

MS. PLUMMER: Well, thank you. That is very helpful. It does still help as 

we try to push this program in Massachusetts to know there's so much federal 

attention to it and the hope that there's going to be funding in the future. So, 

even from that point of view, it helps us to keep people working on what can be 

a difficult program to implement. 

MR. BERGERON: And another part of that is that in the Title IV area, there 

is a provision that would allow students with intellectual disabilities to 

receive federal funds, which they can't--generally, can't currently, because 

there's, well, a couple things. One is there is a high school graduation 

requirement--or an ability to benefit. So, that's a --that's often a barrier. 

And on the other side, there, you know, you have to be enrolled in a career 

41
certificate program in order to get financial aid. Well, if there isn't a 

recognized educational credential at the end, but there is that provision. So, 

even if there isn't--the program that is authorized, there is an opportunity for 

the students to receive federal funds for those programs and those activities--I 

think it's July 1, 2009 when that becomes available to students. So, that's 

something we need to be really focusing on, even if the new program isn't funded 

because of that particular provision in the student aid program area. 

MS. PLUMMER: Well, I'll make sure that those in Massachusetts know about 

that. Right now, we have $2 million for this fiscal year to run this program. I 

don't know what will happen after that, but knowing that that financial aid is 

available will be very helpful. 

MR. BERGERON: Okay. Thank you. And I think that that's the last person 

that we have on the schedule to testify right now. So, we're going to go ahead 

and take a break until we have someone available. 

 [Brief recess.] 

MR. BERGERON: Good afternoon, again. We're going to reconvene to hear 

testimony from Matthew Buchanan. Matthew, welcome. 

MR. BUCHANAN: Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Matthew J. Buchanan, 

an ETS alum, born and raised in Providence, Rhode Island, a product of the 

public schools, the target schools that ETS works, Hopkins Middle High School, 

Central High School. 

My senior year of high school was a difficult transition. I was a senior, 

you know, very excited, but I didn't know what my life was after high school. I 

met an ETS counselor, Mr. Gerald Williams, who is now the Director of Talent 

Development at the University of Rhode Island. He just recruited me. I wanted to 

get out of class, he needed more students, so it was a perfect match. 

[Laughter.] 

MR. BUCHANAN: I'm looking for guidance, he's looking for students: again, 

perfect match. He said, "You want to take a visit to college?" I said, "Do I get 

to miss school?" He said, "Yes." I said, "Yes, I'll go to school. Sounds good to 

me." First trip was to the University of Connecticut. Looked good, like, you 

know, sounded good, but I just didn't think college was in my plans. None of my 

parents went to college, my siblings didn't go to college, so I was just going 

to visits just to get out of school. Lucky for me, ETS was there. They supported 

me through my college academic process, the application process, the fees--I 

didn't even know we had to pay for college applications. So, as I'm filling them 

all out--filling them out--I come across a $50 payment, and I'm like, "Wait a 

minute." So, I brought it back to ETS and said, "Look, this application cost 

42
$50." "Don't worry about it. We're going to give you a waiver." I said, "All 

right. I thought maybe because it was URI, a local school, so I applied to Yukon 

and Virginia and all these schools down South, knowing I didn't want to go 

there, but I figure if they're going to pay for it, let me just apply anyway. 

So, they end up paying for all of them. I got accepted to University of 

Rhode Island and Hampton University of Virginia. But again, being born and 

raised in Providence, Virginia was just way too far for me. I took it to my ETS 

counselor, and they recommended the Talent Development Program. Mr. G, 

coincidently enough, is actually the Director there, so it was pretty crazy. 

So, again, without ETS, God knows where I'd be. I can't stress enough the 

importance of it. The target schools--the people they target is me. The people 

they target, first generation, low-income, I fit the description. Unfortunately 

for me, at ten years old, I was shot with a stray bullet. So, looking at myself 

at ten years old to where I am now at 32, I earned my degree from University of 

Rhode Island in 1998 with a bachelor's in human development and family studies. 

Currently, I am enrolled at the Education and Leadership Program at Rhode 

Island College. I tutor up at URI every summer, Talent Development. I also work 

now at CCRI for the EOC, another one of the TRIO programs. 

So, when I came early and I just heard about, kind of heard kind of about 

the passions and I heard about the students, for me, ETS was my springboard to 

working human services and education. Without having had a job--not one job have 

I had that hasn't impacted some youth lives, from working at youth problems to 

community prep, to the MET high school, and now at CCRI, every one of my jobs 

I've had, I've been given back somehow, some way, I think a large part to 

Educational Talent Search. So, I plead that, whatever we do, we definitely, you 

know, we kind of--not necessarily cut down the numbers, but you know, there are 

700 kids, $500 a pupil just isn’t enough. I didn't realize it was $500. I didn't 

realize so little money in there doing so many good things. So, if you don't 

remember anything I say, remember that, again, twenty years ago, you couldn't 

have paid me to bet that I'd be up here talking, representing myself, 

representing my family, representing Educational Talent Search. So, I try to--

every time I go out, everyday I'm out with the community talking to youth about 

just going to school, you know, bettering their lives. And college doesn't make 

you successful. College isn't the end-all, be-all to--everyone has their own 

road, whether it's college, whether it's work, whether it's learning a skill. 

For me, it was college, but, you know, when I talk to the youth in the street, 

I'm like, "Just find something you're into. Find something you're passionate 

about. And ETS was key with, you know, "Find your passions. Find your passion. 

43
What do you need? If not college, what can we do? What trade can we help you 

perfect? What skill can we help you craft?" 

I mean, from helping with my resume to--I wrote my college essay probably-

-you know, it seemed 200 times. It was probably 5 times, but it seemed 200 at 

the time at 18 years old, I was like, "I don't know why I'm still writing the 

same essay over and over again," but they wanted it right. They knew I was 

representing them. I knew I was representing them as well. I was representing 

them, they were representing me. So, they said, "Look, if ETS is on it, we want 

to make sure it's perfect." So, with that said, I thank you for your time. I 

appreciate your efforts, and please keep the ETS thing going. Thank you. 

MR. BERGERON: Thank you, Matthew. We'll adjourn again until we have 

somebody else who is available to speak. Thank you. 

 [Brief recess.] 

MR. BERGERON: Okay. Good afternoon. We're going to go back on the record 

again. We have a couple of people who have signed up to testify. Jarso Sageby? 

Could you come to the microphone please. Thank you. Good afternoon. 

MS. SAGEBY: Good afternoon. 

MR. BERGERON: Welcome. 

MS. SAYGBY: Thank you. Basically, I was here to speak a little bit about 

Talent Search and what it's meant to me as a counselor, and what I see I doing 

to my students. I brought with me a student who graduated two years ago from the 

Talent Search Program, but also from Mt. Pleasant High School. He's a student 

from Liberia. He came--we recruited him in the 9th grade. And if it wasn't for 

the program, I don't think the track that he's had with the support of the 

program--he would have landed where he is currently. 

He's going to speak to you about that, his process and transition in the 

program. But for most of these students that we do service, some of them 

oftentimes don't realize their own potential, and it takes us meeting with them 

consistently--even sometimes more than what is legislated that we meet--you 

know, the times that is legislated that we meet with them. It's that extra mile 

that we go, seeing our students, providing them with the services, and telling 

them, "Yes, maybe your parents might not have gone to college, but the college 

possibility is there for you if you want to work hard in providing them"--

usually, what I tell them is you are going to learn so much and financial aid. 

You're going to be so interested that the only thing for you to do is go to this 

college that we keep talking about. And it is so particularly important for 

these students because, when they get home, no one is looking at their report 

card at times. There's no accountability home. Sometimes you might get 

44
accountability from the teachers, but if you're in an inner city school where 

there are hundreds and thousands of students, the commitment that teachers might 

want to have or take in their student is sometimes--it's a bit lacking. And even 

with the guidance counselors, they want to, you know, have the need to meet with 

students, but there are so many of them that these pre-college programs are the 

students best chances at getting into a postsecondary institution. 

For me, for example, I'm a student from Africa who really was not exposed 

to the program, and I struggled along with connecting in high school, even 

graduating valedictorian in my high school, I still struggled to get 

information, getting my applications in on time. And I felt, if I was in a precollege program that really directed my efforts, knowing my potential, I would 

have ended up--I love Rhode Island College, don't get me wrong, but I would have 

ended up somewhere even more prestigious and what have you. But because I didn't 

have that, I lost that momentum or that extra push that could have gotten me 

somewhere. And my concerns for the legislation now is that there--we're going to 

be held to having more service--providing more services, and with a less amount 

of money. From my perspective, that's a difficult task, because if we're going 

to expected to give more services to students, at least reduce the number of 

students that we do service. Currently, we are regulated to serve 750 in Rhode 

Island, which I know the minimum number from our legs and regs is 600 students. 

So, if that number is lowered, and the amount allotted for cost per student 

increased, I think we're going to have even more phenomenal results from what we 

currently have in the Talent Search Program. 

Thank you for having me. 

MR. BERGERON: Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you. Where'd you go to 

high school? 

MS. SAGEBY: Hope High School. 

MR. BERGERON: Oh, Hope. Okay. Tito, welcome. So, you're at Providence 

College. 

MR. SCIANI: Yes. 

MR. BERGERON: Go ahead. 

MR. SCIANI: The Talent Search Program has been a very good inspiration in 

my life. Both the staff and the programs that--emigrating from Liberia to the 

United States and going to school was very difficult. 

MR. BERGERON: If you could talk just a little bit louder. 

MR. SCIANI: Emigrating from Africa and going to school in the United 

States was difficult for me. It was hard adjusting to the programs, adjusting to 

the classes and going about doing things. So, when I met this wonderful lady 

45
through the Talent Search Program, she taught me and gave me inspiration that I 

myself couldn't believe that I could do. And she pushed me to the point that I 

sometimes wanted to give up, but she was there with me, giving me the courage 

and the motivation. And as God would have it, I graduated in 2007, number 1 in 

the class of 280, which I am very proud of, because she was on my back. Not only 

because she was on my back, it's also because of the way the program is run. 

There are a lot of caring individuals, and I think if you're going to give them 

more work to do, I say you give them the resources that they will be able to 

perform their task, because their task is not easy. We are from inner cities, 

and a lot of the kids--most of them are minorities, and they are at the lowest 

state of society. And if you are going to treat them lowly, it is going to be 

difficult for them o do the work, because I would say, for one, I was a pain to 

her all the time, but she kept with me, and that's how most of the kids are. 

Once they find a place where they feel comfortable, they're going to keep going 

back and keep going back. Even being a second-year student in college, I still 

come back to her for that motivation, because that's where my root is at. 

And just, I am pleading with you guys, whatever decision you guys come up 

with, make it possible that kids like me, kids that are in Mount Pleasant and 

kids that are in inner city schools, we have the opportunity to go to Providence 

College and even better schools. So, I'm asking that you guys choose wisely, 

because we are the future for this country and the future for the world. So, our 

input and our education matters. Thank you. 

MR. BERGERON: Thank you. Bill Talbot. Hello, Bill. 

MR. TALBOT: Good afternoon. My name is Bill Talbot. I'm the Assistant 

Director for Rhode Island Educational Talent Search. I'm also the counselor at 

Hope High School and Central High School. And the reason why I'm here today is, 

looking over a little bit of the new regulations, we were a little bit concerned 

about a couple of areas. One would be the tracking students in college. Right 

now, we are compared to another college program in doing that, and we serve 

about five times as many students. So, one area was the amount of students that 

we be required to meet with. 

Another one, too, is the rigorous programs of study. Right now, I have a 

lot of ESL students--or some ESL students, I might say. Some of them might start 

in high school taking ESL classes, but then moving right up into an English 12 

later on. But because they might have came in from another country like the 

Dominican Republic, they might not--they have the potential, and I actually have 

had some--or a lot that have gone on to college and done great, but if we're 

required to more or less cream or to look at just a certain amount of students 

46
that they--have that, that might be a big problem in just these students not 

being served. So, that was one thing where--I don't know if they can either 

change the language or something, but--or how they want to do that. I know, 

obviously, we want to encourage every student to take the hardest courses they 

have, but a few of our schools, you know, might not offer the AP--or how many AP 

courses they have. So, that's a concern for us. Also, tutoring sessions. 

Tutoring, as you know, costs money. And right now, of course, with the budgets 

being flat for a number of years, that--and the amount of students that we'd 

have to do that to could be a problem. 

So, you know, I know the purpose of this legislation is excellent. I mean, 

we should try to do as much as we can. It's just that, with the limited amount 

of funds that we have to do what we currently do, I'm not sure if they want to 

change the amount of students that we meet with. You know, I think that's very 

important. We service a lot of students, and I think we do a very good job. 

As you can tell, Tito is obviously one of the best students we've had, but 

we have so many others that are just as good as Tito. And you know, I really 

like serving as many students as we have. But like I said, if they do implement 

this or how much they do it--it would be good if they'd look at that. 

 Thank you. 

MR. BERGERON: Thank you very much. And I think that may be all we have for 

the moment, so we'll take a break until we have more people available to talk. 

So, just stand by and we'll reconvene as we need to. Thank you. Okay. Our next 

witness is Donald Hayes. Welcome, Donald. 

MR. HAYES: Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to share some 

perspectives relevant to the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008. Welcome, 

also, to the fine State of Rhode Island, the Ocean State, one of the greenest 

states in the nation, and home to former Senator Pell, who was Rhode Island's 

longest-serving senator. Senator Pell's wisdom and passion for education led, of 

course, to the establishment of the Pell Grant Program, which has created a 

legacy of educational opportunity for many thousands of young Americans. 

For so many of us involved in higher education, the rising cost of college 

represents an enormous concern and frustration, especially for those of us in 

public land grant institutions, who value deeply access to education and the 

role of university education, research, and outreach programs at enhancing the 

greater good and economic opportunity for our citizens. As we struggle to 

contain our costs in higher ed., we encounter numerous external forces that 

result in steady increases in the cost of delivering a meaningful educational 

experience for our students. In particular, the escalating cost of energy, 

47
health care, and other benefits for our faculty and staff, advanced technology 

expected and needed by our students and faculty, and the rapidly escalating 

costs of competitiveness of financial aid. 

However, here in Rhode Island, far and away the largest financial 

challenge facing higher education is the rapidly declining investment on the 

part of the state in higher education. Over the past two years, the University 

of Rhode Island has seen its state appropriation reduced by $23 million, from 

about $85 million to $62 million, and we expect additional cuts this year. The 

challenge associated with this is compounded when considering the context of 

those previously mentioned cost increases. A major implication of this 

disinvestment on the part of our state is both reduced affordability and access 

to higher education for Rhode Island citizens. 

Right now, our university has the lowest in-state tuition and fees among 

the New England land grant institutions. However, at current levels of state 

appropriation and in-state tuition, the university currently loses about $6,000 

per year on every Rhode Island student attending our university. As such, we are 

forced to seek greater-than-normal tuition increases for Rhode Island residents 

to make up the decrease in state subsidy. In addition, we must recruit and 

enroll non-resident students who pay the full cost of their education, which can 

compromise access to Rhode Island students. I commend Congress for including the 

maintenance of effort language in the legislation, which urges states to 

maintain a level of expenditure for its public universities equal to the average 

provided over the five most recent academic years. To be effective, however, 

there will need to be an enforcement mechanism that is substantive and creates 

appropriate incentives for state governments. 

While I'm also supportive of the legislation's efforts to promote 

affordability and transparency, and note that the University of Rhode Island is 

pleased to participate in the voluntary system of accountability, I also urge 

you to consider very carefully criteria used in the development of national 

lists of expensive universities, criteria such as the largest percentage 

increase for such lists, may have the unintended, I presume, consequence of 

selecting against institutions with a disproportionately low tuition who are 

trying to catch up in order to remain vital and deliver a meaningful educational 

experience for its students. I'm also pleased to note the inclusion of 

quantifiable goals for increase in the number of teachers in high-need areas, 

such as the STEM disciplines. I am pleased to report that there is extraordinary 

work underway in our state, being led by our university, and numerous partners 

throughout the state. 

48
I wish to emphasize, however, the importance of multicultural inclusion in 

this arena, as well. Programs to support access to excellence in science, math, 

and engineering disciplines aimed at inner city students will be necessary to 

transform teaching, learning, and educational quality for all students in all 

communities, and to ensure inclusion in the knowledge innovation, and 

information economies of the future. 

Finally, I note with enthusiasm the increase in the maximum Pell Grant 

Award, and its availability on a year-round basis. Also, given the importance of 

energy to the future of our economy and well being, I commend Congress on the 

passing of the Higher Education Sustainability Act as part of this 

reauthorization. On all of these provisions, I urge you to move forward swiftly 

to aggressively seek appropriations to truly advance these important 

initiatives. 

Thank you very much, and if you'd like, I'd be happy to share a copy of 

this testimony. 

MR. BERGERON: Thank you. We would like to have a copy. We will take 

another break until we see if we have any more witnesses. Thank you. 

 

 [Brief recess.] 

MR. BERGERON: We're going to go ahead and close out the hearing. It is 

4:00. I appreciate everybody who made it possible for us to be here at the 

University at Rhode Island. So, thank you, and we'll continue with our hearings 

in California at Pepperdine on Thursday. Thank you. 

 [Whereupon, at 4:00 p.m., the public hearing was adjourned.] 

49