Negotiated Rulemaking 10/5/2021 1 

 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION

AFFORDABILITY AND STUDENT LOANS COMMITTEE

NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING SESSION 1, DAY 2, MORNING

OCTOBER 5, 2021

On the 5th day of October 2021, the

following meeting was held virtually, from 10:00

a.m. to 12:00 p.m., before Jamie Young, Shorthand

Reporter in the state of New Jersey. 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

2 

P R O C E D I N G S 

MRS. MACK: Good morning, everyone. 

Welcome back to Negotiated Rulemaking, The Affordability 

and Student Loans Committee, session one. We had a 

really productive day yesterday, and I’m totally 

expecting us to build upon that this morning. 

I want to do a quick roster call if you 

will for purposes of our viewing audience and for 

purposes of our transcript and just to re-welcome you all 

again to the process. So, I’ll call out your 

constituency group and if you can just say good morning 

and your name for the record, that would be really 

helpful. Alright.

First, for U.S. Military Service 

Members, Veterans, or groups representing them. 

MR. HAUSCHILD: Hello. Justin 

Hauschild.

MRS. MACK: Thank you. Good morning, 

Justin. For two-year public institutions.

MR. AYALA: Good morning. Bobby 

Ayala.

MRS. MACK: Good morning, Bobby. For 

student loan borrowers. 

MRS. O’BRYAN-LOSEE: Good morning. 

Jeri O’Bryan-Losee.
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

3 

MRS. MACK: Good morning, Jeri. For 

state higher education executive officers, state 

authorizing agencies, and/or state regulators.

MR. TANDBERG: David Tandberg.

MRS. MACK: Good morning, David. For 

state attorneys general. 

MR. SANDERS: Joe Sanders.

MRS. MACK: Good morning, Joe. For 

proprietary institutions.

MRS. BARRY: Hello. Jessica Barry.

MRS. MACK: Good morning, Jessica. For 

private non-profit institutions.

MRS. SABOUNEH: Morning, everyone. 

Misty Sabouneh.

MRS. MACK: Good morning, Misty. For 

minority-serving institutions.

MRS. GONZALEZ: Good morning. Noelia 

Gonzalez.

MRS. MACK: Good morning, Noelia. For 

legal assistance organizations that represent students 

and/or borrowers.

MR. ROVENGER: Good morning. Josh 

Rovenger.

MRS. MACK: Good morning, Josh. For 

individuals with disabilities or groups representing 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

4 

them.

MRS. LILLY: Hi. Bethany Lilly.

MRS. MACK: Good morning, Bethany. For 

independent students.

MRS. MARTIN: Michaela Martin.

MRS. MACK: Good morning, Michaela. 

For four-year public institutions.

MRS. DORIME-WILLIAMS: Good morning, 

everyone. This is Dr. Marjorie Dorime-Williams.

MRS. MACK: Good morning, Marjorie. 

For financial aid administrators at post-secondary 

institutions.

MR. BARKOWITZ: Good morning. Daniel 

Barkowitz.

MRS. MACK: Good morning, Daniel. For 

federal family education loan lenders and/or guaranty 

agencies.

MRS. O’CONNELL: Good morning. Jaye 

O’Connell.

MRS. MACK: Good morning, Jaye. For 

dependent students.

MR. NORWOOD: Morning. Greg Norwood.

MRS. MACK: Morning, Greg. For 

accrediting agencies.

MRS. PERFETTI: Morning. Heather 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

5 

Perfetti.

MRS. MACK: Good morning, Heather. And 

for the Department of Education. 

MRS. HONG: Good morning. Welcome 

back. Jennifer Hong.

MRS. MACK: Good morning, Jennifer. 

Alright. It is great to see you again. Before we get 

into our substantive work, I want to note that a couple 

of documents were circulated earlier, a clarification on 

the closed school discharge, the first subtopic that we 

talked about. And then, some proposed ideas from some of 

our constituency groups for everyone’s consideration 

regarding upcoming issues. So, please make sure that you 

got both of those e-mails sent out from the facilitation 

team. 

Commented earlier we thought we had a 

very productive day yesterday. We applaud all of you for 

your participation. However, with that, we did hear some 

of your concerns and your feedback, and upon listening to 

that and giving that some deep thought we have carefully 

thought about it, consulted with the Department of 

Education and, and we want to make a couple of 

modifications. 

First, during yesterday’s session, the

Department of Education provided us with 10 individuals 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

6 

who were slated to participate in our public comment 

section. Those were the only 10 individuals that 

requested public comment today, so I, I want to report 

that specifically that nobody was turned away yesterday. 

However, we ran into the issue of not having everyone 

show up, so we had some lost time for public comment 

yesterday.

In an effort to maximize that 30 

minutes and make it as efficient and productive as we 

possibly can, we’re adding a waiting list. I can tell 

you that folks are already requesting public comment 

today, and we are going to get in as many individuals as 

we possibly can during that 30 minutes including the 

utilization of a waiting list. 

I do want the public to hear. If you 

are on the waiting list and we do not get to you, you are 

not automatically rolled over to a subsequent day. You 

will, in fact, need to re-register for a subsequent day 

if we do not get you in in that 30 minutes. But we heard 

you. The public comment portion is important, so again, 

we wanted to make that modification on our end to see if 

that can help improve the process for that last portion 

of each of our sessions together. 

We also received some feedback in terms

of the screen sharing and making sure that the folks 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

7 

viewing have the ability to see the committee’s thumbs, 

right, and the temperature checks for tentative agreement 

that we are being -- that we are completing. 

So, we’re going to be really 

intentional when we’re -- when we’re screen sharing to 

direct Vanessa or Erin or whoever’s assisting us to make 

sure that the relevant highlighted text is in fact 

highlighted during the conversation. And when we take a 

consensus check or a temperature check we will stop 

sharing so that the -- all individuals can be seen on the 

screen. For some watching, not all individuals are on 

the screen while we are also sharing the document.

We just wanted to update you on our end 

about a few tech improvements that we think we can make 

to improve the process. Alright? Any clarifying 

questions on that? Okay.

A few reminders. We have lunch set at 

12 Eastern time. If we can, we want to fit in a very 

quick five-minute break on the hour. Alright? And we 

will begin today with closed school discharge. 

Again, we began that topic yesterday. 

We got through, I believe, the first sub-issue. And so, 

we were ready to begin the second -- the second solution 

proposed. Greg, I see your hand.

MR. NORWOOD: Good morning. Yesterday 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

8 

we talked about having a for-profit borrower to join this 

conversation if you think if they provide critical, piece 

to the work that we’re trying to do in this area. Some 

of us got together and want to propose that we add a forprofit borrower as an advisor, someone who can sit in on 

the conversation and advise as 

necessary. 

We think their experience and their 

voice is absolutely critical to this conversation and 

it’s almost useless for us to even talk about it without 

allowing them to share their story or at least be as one 

who could advise on this subject matter.

MRS. MACK: Let me ask a clarifying 

question. As the protocols specifically do not address 

the committee adding an advisor, is the committee open to 

taking a consensus check to in fact adding an advisor in 

this environment rather than an advisor that, similar to 

those that each of you can consult in break-out spaces, 

caucuses, between sessions, etcetera? 

We have two advisors to the committee 

who have been designated. This is a new role, so I 

imagine this is a first instance where it’s been proposed 

to add said advisor. What, what are the committee’s 

thoughts? I’m seeing some thumbs. Does anyone have a 

question or comment? Josh, please.
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

9 

MR. ROVENGER: I would -- I would just be 

strongly in support of us taking consensus check to add 

on this additional advisor.

MRS. MACK: Okay. Marjorie, please.

MRS. DORIME-WILLIAMS: And I just wanted to 

clarify. Was there a reason that we thought the rules --

the person should be an advisor as opposed to a committee 

-- a full committee member? I’d ask Greg if he could 

answer that question. 

MR. NORWOOD: Well, I think yesterday that 

was voted down to add that person as committee member. 

If I am -- if I am wrong, please clarify that for me. 

But I think that person did not get full consensus 

yesterday. Neither of them.

MRS. MACK: Yeah. To be accurate, I believe 

we actually took a consensus check on three separate 

individuals to become a member representing that role and 

did not meet consensus. I’ll have --

MRS. DORIME-WILLIAMS: This is still with 

reference to those same individuals or one of those 

individuals to be an advisor instead? 

MRS. MACK: The way I understand Greg, and 

you correct me if I’m wrong, first we’d be taking a 

consensus check on whether we should add an advisor at 

all, and if that were to pass consensus, then I believe 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

10 

the committee would have to agree on who that individual 

was or there would be some other selection process. 

MR. NORWOOD: Someone feel free to jump in. 

The way I think about it is we did have three names 

proposed. I would assume those three names are still 

available and so I would move to go straight to consensus 

check to see if we can add one of those individuals as an 

advisor. Someone feel free to clarify that if they feel 

the need to.

MRS. MACK: Okay. Jennifer, I see your 

hand next.

MRS. HONG: Yes. I just wanted to say 

that the Department would be supportive of having a 

student serve in that capacity. I just want to reaffirm 

that we are committed to hearing the voices of students 

and particularly the lived experiences that some of these 

students and borrowers have had intimate experience with 

closed school discharge and barrower defense to 

repayment. So, we would be supportive of that. 

MRS. MACK: Okay. Any other questions 

or comments? Heather, please.

MRS. PERFETTI: I believe yesterday 

there was some discussion about at least one of the 

members being a named plaintiff being unable to join the 

committee. Does this same rule apply to the advisor 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

11 

role? 

MRS. MACK: Can someone answer that 

question? Brian?

MR. SIEGEL: Yes. Our position would 

be the same that we remain open to, to adding a committee 

member -- I mean to adding an advisor, but it shouldn’t 

be somebody who’s been named plaintiff in the lawsuits 

against us.

MRS. MACK: Thanks for that 

clarification, Brian. David, I see your hand. 

MR. TANDBERG: Yeah. I definitely 

support this but I’d prefer to have them as a, a full 

member of the committee. But if this is the alternative, 

I would support it. I would suggest we vote on the 

individual that provided testimony yesterday. I thought 

what she said was incredibly impressive. She’s not a 

named plaintiff, and it appears that Greg is wanting to 

take a vote on an individual so we ought to identify an 

individual that we can take a vote on.

MRS. MACK: Greg, will you do me a 

favor and put that individual’s name again in the chat 

just for everyone’s reference? Or someone who has that 

name, please. Josh, I see your hand.

MR. ROVENGER: Thanks. So, one 

question and, well, two questions. One for the 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

12 

Department and one just for the entire committee. For 

the Department specifically, I was wondering if you could 

just elaborate on whether this policy towards precluding 

a named class rep has been utilized for -- to prohibit 

any advisor previously or whether it’s just something 

that the Department is choosing to do for the first time 

now. 

And then the second question for the group 

is whether -- it, it seems like there’s some degree of 

consensus that this is a voice we want at the table. And 

so, in addition to or perhaps even before adding the 

individual as an advisor, I would also be in support of 

reconsidering whether we want them as a full voting 

member of the committee.

MRS. MACK: Okay. Thank you for that, 

Josh. Did anyone want to speak to the first question 

which was the advisor, the question?

MR. SIEGEL: This is Brian Siegel. We 

haven’t had formal advisors in the past who are 

committees. This is a, a new change in our process for 

us, so didn’t come up before. 

 We have allowed negotiators to invite 

experts to address the committee on a one-time basis 

which is also part of our process with this committee, 

but we haven’t had this type -- this specific situation 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

13 

before.

MRS. MACK: Okay. Jessica, please.

MRS. BARRY: Oh, thank you. So, I, I 

thought a lot about this last night. I reviewed my notes 

and I studied the makeup of our committee again. I know, 

Jennifer, you are saying that you would support an 

advisor, but, you know, going back to your comments 

yesterday, the Department has put a lot of effort into 

making sure this committee does represent student 

borrowers in multiple categories. You know, borrowers 

also have the ability to participate in public comment 

period at the end of each day and I’m glad that you have 

instituted the waiting list. I do not support adding 

additional seats to this committee because the Department

has ensured that student borrowers are adequately 

represented. 

MRS. MACK: Thank you, Jessica. 

Daniel?

 MR. BARKOWITZ: Sorry. Having a mute 

fight with my mute button.

MRS. MACK: Happens to (inaudible). 

MR. BARKOWITZ: So, I, I would also 

echo a concern that I raised yesterday which is if we 

start segmenting out student borrower voices or 

individual borrower voices, there are other segments of 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

14 

the borrowing population that aren’t specifically 

represented. 

So, personally, I would be in support 

of the compromise position here which is the advisor 

role. I am concerned about, you know, having an 

opportunity for graduate students to weigh in, for parent 

borrowers to weigh in. There are a number of, you know,

issues that we’re addressing, interest capitalization as 

an example where, you know, it might be helpful to hear 

from a graduate student borrower.

So, you know, I, I guess my, my, my 

concern is how far do we start segmenting the population? 

So, again, as a compromise, I’d be willing to support the 

advisor position, but I’m concerned about adding

additional members as well.

MRS. MACK: Thank you, Daniel. Misty?

MRS. SABOUNEH: I think there’s immense

value in having someone who, a, is willing and has been 

sitting through all of this and took the time for comment 

yesterday and has been through the process. I think a 

lot of us, obviously, we know a lot of this content but 

someone who’s been through the process and can provide 

some of that just nitty-gritty details because we have a 

shot at this. We don’t want to get it wrong. We don’t 

want to miss anything. So, I’m fully in support of 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

15 

adding someone in as an advisor, and I think that that 

would be valuable information and really help round, 

round out this group of knowledge. 

MRS. MACK: So, I would like to move 

you all to a consensus check. I see two names that have 

been placed in the chat and I want to clarify who in fact 

we’d be taking a consensus check on. Josh, can you 

provide that clarification? 

MR. ROVENGER: So, we’re still waiting 

to hear on whether Mr. Londes who is the student 

borrower who spoke yesterday is available. And Ashley 

Pizzuti who is the borrower we put forward in the 

afternoon is available, and from our experience has 

equally valuable in -- insight to share with this 

committee.

MRS. MACK: Okay. So, the original 

motion put forward by Greg was to add this individual as 

an advisor. So, I am inclined to move this committee to 

take an official consensus check on adding Ashley Pizzuti 

as an official advisor to the committee in addition to 

our two advisors. 

Is everyone clear on the consensus 

check and ready to take that check? I’m seeing all nods.

Please raise your hand if you’re not. Okay. Then let me

see everyone’s thumbs on adding Ashley Pizzuti as an 

 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

16 

advisor to the Affordability and Student Loans Committee.

MRS. MACK: We are not in consensus on 

adding Ms. Ashley Pizzuti as an advisor to this 

committee. Josh, I see your hand.

MR. ROVENGER: I have a question about 

the protocols. Does the protocol specifically require a 

consensus to add an advisor or would a majority rule 

carry there? Because I only saw one dissenting voice.

MRS. MACK: So, adding an official 

advisor is not specifically addressed in protocols, 

admittedly. But in every instance where the committee 

collectively makes the decision, it calls for consensus 

and not majority voting. So, I think it would be safe to 

say that for this decision, consensus would apply as well 

simply because that is how this committee makes all 

decisions. Josh?

MR. ROVENGER: And, and I would also 

move further to add Mr. Londes as an advisor, as a second

vote.

MRS. MACK: Let’s take a consensus on 

adding her as an advisor? I’m sorry. I just want to be 

clear. Is that what you said, Josh? Yes, okay. David, 

I see your hand.

MR. TANDBERG: Yeah, I understand the, 

the desire not to segment borrowers too much, but I think 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

17 

we should also make decisions based on data. Students 

who default are overwhelmingly from for-profit 

institutions. For-profit institutions make up the 

majority of closed schools. These are affecting students 

and student borrowers, and so if there is a population of 

borrowers that ought to be represented on this committee, 

it should be the for-profit students.

And so, whether it says an advisor or 

an official member, I think the data are clear what we 

should do. And so, I would strongly encourage everyone 

to give the thumbs-up vote on this.

MRS. MACK: Thank you, David. 

Michaela?

MRS. MARTIN: I just noted that, out of 

the students who are on here, we have two, you know, 

independent, that’s me, and then dependent. I currently 

am a law student at a nonprofit college, so we do have 

representation-- and then my, my teammate, my alternate, 

is also a graduate student loan borrower.

So, we do have public, undergrad, 

dependent, independent, graduate, and nonprofit—,we do 

have like quite a range so we don’t actually have a gap 

here that isn’t represented while many of the other ones 

that have been mentioned are actually represented also. 

 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

18 

MRS. MACK: Okay. So, I see one more 

hand, Justin, and then that’ll be the final comment and 

then I’d like to move towards one additional consensus 

check on Evelyn. Justin, please.

MR. HAUSCHILD: Thanks, Kayla. I just 

want to say we support -- we support this. Frankly, we 

think that these individuals or at least one of these 

individuals should be added as a member. I’m not sure 

if, you know -- I think that’s entirely appropriate and 

consistent with the Department’s call for nominations in 

terms of groups of borrowers that are significantly 

impacted by the topics that we’re discussing. And it’s a 

little concerning to us that we’re seeing a 

representative from a proprietary institution 

functionally -- functionally silencing the voice of the 

very students that attend those institutions. 

So, I, I just wanted to say that that’s 

a concerning thing for us and we’ll support it. Thank 

you.

MRS. MACK: Okay. Thank you, Justin. 

Okay. One additional consensus check on adding Evelyn 

Cervantes as an advisor to the Affordability and Student 

Loans Committee. Please show me your thumbs. Okay. 

Again, we are not in consensus on adding an advisor to 

this committee at this point because we have taken both 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

19 

consensus checks. I would love to move us into our first 

issue. Okay. Alright. Thank you, committee. We are 

going to return to the closed school discharge issue. 

I am going to ask that we pull up the 

relevant document on the screen for all of you to view. 

I know that some clarification was pointed out around the 

subtopic 1, reinstate automatic closed school discharge, 

but I’m wondering if we could visit two, three, and four, 

and then return back to that clarification to discuss. 

Does that order work for everyone? Jennifer?

MRS. HONG: Thanks, Kayla. I think 

because we have this up right now it might make sense to 

just -- oh, I hope we have the right one which we also 

have a -- we have another clarifying document that we 

wanted to share with the committee but it -- that 

document is also pertinent to the comparable program 

issue. 

So, it’s just -- it’s -- it might be 

useful to just briefly revisit automatic closed school 

discharges real quick, and then, then we can move on to 

two and then -- and then that document will be pertinent 

to the comparable program discussion as well.

MRS. MACK: Okay. So, do we want to 

revisit? You’re saying start with the clarifying 

document?
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

20 

MRS. HONG: Yes. I think that, that 

would be helpful. 

MRS. MACK: Bethany, I saw your hand.

MRS. LILLY: Hi. We got the 

complementary document barely before this meeting started 

and so I’m reading it as we’re doing introductions and 

talking through things. I would prefer to start with 

other things on the agenda so I can read through this 

because I think there was a lot of confusion yesterday 

and I’m sure the document will be very helpful. But I 

would much prefer if we could move on to other topics so 

I can review this and then come back to this just in 

terms of when I got the document this morning. Thank 

you.

MRS. MACK: Okay. Thanks, Bethany. 

Josh?

MR. ROVENGER: Yeah. I also would be 

in favor of continuing on with the agenda and returning 

to the auto school discharge after and the comparable 

(audio) discussion. I think it will help streamline the 

discussion because yesterday there seemed to be quite a 

bit of consensus on that among some of us that the 

comparable program requirement shouldn’t exist to begin 

with. And if we do eliminate that, that’ll make the auto 

school discharge discussion much simpler in my mind.
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

21 

And so, I, I would also support just

moving on with the agenda and returning back to it. 

In particular because even, I mean, I don’t think the 

clarification solves all the problems that we were 

discussing yesterday. 

MRS. MACK: Okay. Thanks, Josh. 

David?

MR. TANDBERG: I, I think I agree with 

that. I was able to quickly skim through the, the 

document. I’ll be honest. It raised just as many 

questions as it answered. 

You know, when we return if we are 

going to delay that conversation, I would want far more 

detail and specificity around what are the data 

challenges that are keeping us from making what I would 

say is good policy. It just says data problems without 

articulating what they are, and so I would want to dig 

into that with some detail. But I’m fine putting that 

off if folks want more time to dig into the PDF. 

MRS. MACK: Jaye? 

MRS. O’CONNELL: So, I, I did have a 

moment to review the clarifying document which for my 

confusion yesterday it -- I thought it was incredibly 

useful and just sort of brought me up the learning curve. 

So, I support Jennifer’s proposal.
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

22 

MRS. MACK: Okay. And Joe, please.

MR. SANDERS: I just want to make sure 

that we have time today to discuss the 180-day timeframe. 

The state Attorneys General (AGs) have had some 

significant problems around that, the issue of the date. 

And so, whenever we discuss it I want to make sure that 

we have time to discuss that. 

MRS. MACK: Okay. So, we have two 

options on the table, folks. We can either pick up with 

the second solution which is establish a consistent 

window of eligibility for students and move into three 

and four and then return to the clarification, or we can 

begin the conversation with the clarification and then 

move into subsequent sections, right? We have two 

proposals on, on the table. Do we have a strong 

preference otherwise? I see a divergent reference. Joe?

MR. SANDERS: Yeah. I think it makes 

sense to give people time to read the document. We just 

got it. I haven’t had a chance to read it. So, as a 

practical matter that seems the best to me.

MRS. MACK: Thanks, Joe. Jennifer?

MRS. HONG: We’re amenable to that, you 

know, to give folks time to digest it. We’ll, we’ll 

certainly walk through it together, but, but that’s fine 

if that’s what everybody prefers.
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

23 

MRS. MACK: Okay. So, let’s begin with 

establish a consistent window of eligibility for students 

who withdrew from a school before it closed. If we could 

pull up that document and that source was the first one 

that was pulled up. And on page 2 that subtopic is 

addressed. 

Alright. Department, I’ll turn it over 

to you to walk us through that and then advise us where 

we can find the applicable guidelines. 

MRS. HONG: Sure. Thank you, Vanessa. 

I’ve got you ping-ponging back and forth. So, the 

applicable re -- regulatory language is fairly 

straightforward and I’m eager to hear the feedback on 

this provision. 

Basically, we have, you know, depending 

on loan disbursement, we have two different windows, one 

of 120 days for loans dispersed from one period, and then 

for another period we have 180 day -- days. So, we just 

want to confirm the window of eligibility and make it all 

180 days. And, Vanessa, if you want to go -- excuse me, 

to page 4 of the amendatory text. Toward the bottom, 

you’ll just see the deletion 120 and 180 added there, but 

I am interested to hear what Joe has to say and others 

regarding this window. 

MRS. MACK: Joe, please.
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

24 

MR. SANDERS: Thanks for the time. We 

had a situation where here in Illinois where the Illinois 

Institute of Art lost accreditation. They didn’t tell 

people about it for about six months, and there are a 

number of issues that stem from that. 

One of them has to do with closed 

school discharge and the fact that there was a hard-set

date at the time of 120 days within which people had to 

be enrolled in order to be eligible for closed school 

discharge. 

At the time that the Illinois Institute 

of Art lost accreditation and then subsequently announced 

closure after it was revealed that they lost 

accreditation, we had a settlement administrator that was 

working to make sure that the company was complying with 

a settlement, with about I think it was 40-some state 

AGs. 

The school communicated the closure 

outside of the 120-day window and it caused many 

students, upon hearing of the closure, to drop out. The 

school did not effectively communicate that closed school 

discharge was an option. The school did not effectively 

communicate the date that they expected to close, and it 

created a situation where many, many students dropped out 

of eligibility because of how and when the school 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

25 

communicated about its closure. 

I’m going to put a link to the 

settlement administrator’s report into the chat right 

now. The fulsome discussion of the issue that I’m 

describing starts on page 33. It goes into more -- far 

more detail than I could verbally elaborate right now. I 

have dealt with a lot of closed schools and trying to 

communicate with the Illinois borrowers about their 

ability to apply for this. Most people don’t know it’s 

an option. 

I think that a standard whereby the, 

the eligibility date is linked to the first date that the 

school communicates closure with the students would 

alleviate a school’s ability to manipulate who’s in and 

who’s out on closed school discharge. I’m happy to 

propose language if, if this is of interest to others, 

but it’s a significant problem, and absent the Department

moving the date post hoc many people fell out because of 

this.

MRS. MACK: Thank you, Joe. Any other 

comments on this subpart or points for clarification? 

Heather, please.

MRS. PERFETTI: Thank you. So, I’d 

asked yesterday if there was a definition of closed 

school and I am still curious if there is a definition 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

26 

within regulation or elsewhere that defines a closed 

school.

MRS. MACK: Can someone speak to 

Heather’s question? Justin, I saw your hand next.

MR. HAUSCHILD: Apologies, yeah. I, I 

thought that I had seen -- I’m struggling to find 

specifically where in the reg right now, but a definition 

that referenced I think in terms of closure a complete 

stoppage of instruction. But perhaps I’m off about that. 

I don’t know -- that’s not necessarily 

exactly to your point, Heather, but I’m wondering how 

much that definition colors, colors the answer to your 

question. So, I -- I’m also interested. 

MRS. MACK: Thanks, Justin. Daniel?

MR. BARKOWITZ: I wonder if -- and I --

I’ve seen the definition, Justin, that you’re referencing 

in the sub. It’s A21, the definition of a school’s 

closure date is the date the school ceases to provide 

educational instruction and all programs as determined by 

the Secretary. 

I wonder, first of all, if that is 

statutory or regulatory language. And to address Joe’s 

concern, if there is a significant triggering issue that 

causes the school to, to move to closure whether that is, 

is a law enforcement action or an accreditation action,
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

27 

if, if the closure date itself is later, if really what 

we’re talking about is the earlier of those two dates as

near the triggering date. 

So, to Joe’s point, for the institution 

that lost its accreditation and doesn’t share that, 

should that be the triggering date rather than the 

closure date itself? And I’m not sure if, again, if that 

is statutory or regulatory language, but a precipitating 

event like that could cause significant loss of 

portability and significant loss of ability for students 

to make use of that education regardless of whether or 

not it’s communicated to students in a public forum or 

public way. 

MRS. MACK: Thanks, Daniel. Bethany. 

MRS. LILLY: I understand the, the 

question about closure date and the definition of a 

closed school. But what we’re talking about here is 

whether or not students have the opportunity to take 

advantage of something, right? And so, what we want to 

do is make sure that students know about this and know 

that they have options and can take advantage of them for 

as long as possible. 

And so to my mind, Joe’s initial 

proposal which is making sure that students who are --

when students become aware of the determining date here 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

28 

does seem to be useful. I, I think from a legal 

perspective that’ll be a little complicated to kind of 

establish that kind of mental knowledge, but I think 

their available resources will be pretty clear on that. 

I -- so, I -- I’m much more comfortable 

with Joe’s initial proposal because I think it gets at 

the student knowledge and the students are the folks 

we’re trying to send through here. 

MRS. MACK: Thanks, Bethany. Jessica.

MRS. BARRY: So, I just have a 

question. So, wouldn’t these situations fall under 

extraordinary circumstances or exceptional circumstances?

--

MRS. HONG: Yeah.

MS BARRY: -- extraordinary 

circumstances?

MRS. MACK: I’m going to ask if anyone 

can speak to Jessica’s question and please raise their 

hand. Jennifer.

MRS. HONG: Yes. I mean, that’ll be 

our next subtopic, but we’ve added some exceptional 

circumstances and one of those is, you know, their 

application withdrawal, (inaudible) agency of the 

school’s institutional accreditation. So, in that case, 

that particular situation would be addressed in the 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

29 

scenario that Joe just described under those proposed 

exceptional circumstances.

MRS. MACK: Thanks, Jennifer. Josh?

MR. ROVENGER: Thanks. It actually 

makes me quite nervous to rely on the exceptional 

circumstances exception unless we put it in some 

requirement that the Department has to extend the window 

in all of those circumstances. 

Traditionally, the Department has only 

utilized that exceptional circumstances exception in 

really extraordinary circumstances like the implosion of 

Corinthian. And so, I, I would be in support of Joe’s 

proposal and then would not want to, to rely on that 

exception.

MRS. MACK: Are we talking now about 

subpart 4 with the exceptions? Okay. Let me remind you

all we’re going to get down to subpart 4, but to the 

extent that we can keep the scope of this dialogue and, 

and this coming temperature check for tentative 

agreement, let’s keep it within the scope of subpart 2. 

David, please.

MR. TANDBERG: I’d first indicate 

support of Joe’s proposal. Also, I -- I’m not sure when 

the appropriate time would be, but I do think it’s 

important that we’re -- have a, a shared understanding of 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

30 

the effect of these closures on students and their 

education trajectories, their employment outcomes, 

etcetera. 

And so, I think at some point it would 

be good to stop and allow Raj, our research advisor to 

kind of share some, some research, some data so that we 

can understand really the full impact of these closures 

on students so at least as much as the data and the 

research allow. I know there’s a recent GAO report, also 

some recent research on the effect of closures on where 

students go after an institution closes whether it’s to a 

for-profit, nonprofit. I would love to hear that and I 

think it would help us make decisions. 

I am cognizant. I don’t want to 

interrupt as we reach -- get close to a consensus vote, 

so maybe after the vote or after we’ve moved to the next 

section. But I’d propose that we do that.

MRS. MACK: Okay. Thanks, David, and 

we’ll -- we can check with Raj around when would be the 

appropriate time to do that. Joe, please.

MR. SANDERS: Hi. Thanks. Totally 

understand that exceptional circumstances cover this 

situation, but -- and, and in fact, they were applied 

here. So, the closed school discharge, discharge date 

was moved back to the date they lost accreditation. 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

31 

I think that the issue there is that it 

requires, for instance, at the Illinois Institute of Art, 

it required significant advocacy by my office, by the 

Colorado Attorney General’s office, by student advocates. 

You know, there was a whole system that was mobilized, 

you know. A, a lot of people were affected by this so we 

went to the Department and said, hey, you need to do 

this. 

That may not be the case, and in every 

instance, you have different administrations that may 

have different priorities around when they apply or don’t 

apply exception -- exceptional circumstances. So, tying 

the availability of the discharge to the date that it’s 

communicated to students alleviates those problems. The 

second thing is on the question of evidence. I don’t 

think it’s hard to establish. 

Number one, these things become public 

especially when the school is, you know -- as described 

in the report that I linked you to --when the school is 

ending e-mail blasts to students saying, hey, we’re going 

to close. You should transfer your credits or you should 

do, you know, whatever else. Those things are not 

hidden, right? That comes out. So, I don’t think that 

the evidentiary piece here is a significant burden. 

MRS. MACK: Thanks, Joe. Brian, 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

32 

please.

MR. SIEGEL: Just to respond to an 

earlier question, this is regulatory. It’s not -- the, 

the definition of when a school closes is not the way 

it’s established by the Department and regulations. I 

think it’s been fairly consistent since we -- since 

closed school discharges were first (audio). There may 

have been some minor changes, but it’s been consistent, 

fairly consistent. 

As Bethany noted, I think Joe’s 

proposal it, it would -- could be complex in, in certain 

situations but it would be very helpful to see proposed 

reg language just so we can put it in, in that context. 

And just somebody who’s done negotiated rulemaking a lot. 

Whenever somebody -- whenever you have 

a proposal if you can provide it to us even after you 

state it publicly, provide it to us in some draft reg 

language it helps us to, to put it in the context overall 

of the regulations.

MRS. MACK: Thanks, Brian. And I see a 

commitment in the chat from Joe for everyone’s awareness 

that he believes he can provide some, some language this 

evening. Joe, if you’ll send that to the FNCS 

facilitation group we’ll disperse it out to everyone as 

we have thus far. Thanks. Daniel, please.
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

33 

MR. BARKOWITZ: So, just so I 

understand the point of this particular subparagraph 

we’re looking at. The idea here is that maximal 

flexibility or maximal benefit from a student perspective 

would be -- so, we’re trying to -- going backwards in 

time from whatever triggering date we have to allow the 

student to submit a, a closed school application. 

 So, my concern of using the, the 

awareness date is if that is after the close date or 

after whatever event triggers it, it actually is not 

positive for the student because it means that in fact 

it, it shortens the window. So, you know, I guess I

would just ask Joe to provide some clarity. 

My understanding is again the idea here 

is we want to extend backwards in time to the student’s 

benefit that 180-day waiting period or a period that 

would allow a student to submit a closure request or a, a 

cancellation request from that period. 

And, you know, again depending upon the

sequence of events whether it’s whatever event, in this 

case, the loss of accreditation, the example you’re 

giving, the notification of students, or the actual 

closure date, it will really depend on the sequence of 

those events in terms of what provides maximal benefit 

from a student perspective unless I’m misreading it.
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

34 

MRS. MACK: Thank you, Daniel. Joe, I 

see your hand.

MR. SANDERS: Yeah. There could be a 

situation where the school just one day locks its doors 

and that’s the day people find out. So, you could -- you 

could write in, you know, 180 days or the date the school 

tells people, whichever is longer. Something like that.

MRS. MACK: Thank you, Joe. Anything 

else on this particular subpart? Michaela?

MRS. MARTIN: Is, is the concern with 

just like lengthening the amount of time that someone 

withdrew? The concern then is that folks withdrew for 

other reasons and then could still qualify, right? But 

how many people generally, like is there like any -- do 

you all have any data on how many people actually, you 

know, are withdrawing for other reasons within that 

amount of time? 

I just think that as you all, you know,

mentioned, folks, once you start hearing that because you

hear it before it happens, like that, that’s the thing. 

And 180 days is really only two semesters. Like if 

you’re on a semester system that means if you weren’t 

enrolled in the spring then you will not qualify. And 

that’s actually relatively short if you think about it. 

Like if they close in the fall and you 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

35 

weren’t in the spring because you heard last fall that 

they were going to close and you’re like, dang, like I’m 

going to stop taking out thousands of dollars in student 

loans because it’s going to be worthless like I just -- I 

also am just wondering like how much of like how many 

people would actually be the ones of concern if you did 

just make it a longer timeline? 

MRS. MACK: If anyone again has answers 

to some of the questions and concerns being raised, 

please raise your hand. Josh, I see your hand next.

MR. ROVENGER: I would also be 

interested in seeing data (audio)--

MRS. MACK: Josh, I think you might 

have to log in and -- log out and log back in like 

yesterday. We’re back to robotics.

MR. ROVENGER: (Audio) robotics? 

(Audio). Okay, I’ll be right back (audio).

MRS. MACK: Anyone else have clarifying 

question or comments that haven’t been made on this 

particular subpart? Michaela?

MRS. MARTIN: Sorry. Just to follow up 

on that because these are not for automatic renewals, 

right? Or are these the automatic renewals? I just want 

to make sure that I’m tracking that properly. Like, are 

these for folks who are submitting an application? No? 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

36 

I don’t see any movement of yes or no. Sorry.

MRS. MACK: I don’t think we have an 

answer at this time, Michaela. David, I see your hand.

MR. TANDBERG: I think it, it would be 

helpful perhaps if we tabled this and we just go by the

lang -- the language from Joe. I just feel like right 

now we’re dealing with some nuances that perhaps some 

draft language could help clarify, and then we could have 

a more robust discussion and a vote after we actually 

have language. And perhaps Joe could consider some of 

the comments that have been raised as he drafts the 

language. 

MRS. MACK: Okay. Thank you, David. 

Heather, I see your hand.

MRS. PERFETTI: Thank you. So, I think 

we certainly support the consistent window of 

eligibility, but I would also recommend the notion that 

we obtain whatever data may be relevant so that we can 

see the issues embedded in the 120 days, 180 days, or 

some other time period that may be more appropriately 

informed through that data. 

MRS. MACK: Thank you, Heather. 

Jennifer.

MRS. HONG: Just to get back to 

Michaela, this section deals with auto qualifications for
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

37 

discharge, so yes, these -- all, all of the students 

would be eligible under this section for auto discharge

if they -- if they did not re-enroll after 12 months. 

So, that still applies to this section but they’re not 

interdependent. This just, just, just says that they 

qualify so long as they withdrew from the school no 

longer than 180 days if that helps. So yes, they, they 

still -- they would still be eligible for the auto 

discharge.

MRS. MACK: Okay. So, a couple updates 

on this subpoint. First, Joe is going to bring us 

language. As soon as we get it we’ll get it out to all 

of you folks for your consideration. Also, per David’s 

suggestion, we have already tapped into Raj about putting 

together some data to share with this committee that 

would help inform you around this sub-issue as well. So, 

as soon as we have an update on that, we’ll provide that 

as well.

In the meantime, I would love for us to 

take a consensus -- no, that’s wrong -- a temperature 

check for tentative agreement on the language that’s 

proposed here knowing that we’ll have to revisit it once 

Joe’s language is there. But, but just a, a signal out 

in terms of thumbs on the actual language that was 

already proposed by Ed. Can I see your thumbs? Again, 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

38 

not an official consensus check. 

Okay. Thank you. That’s very helpful 

in guiding our future discussions. Department, can I ask 

that you move us into the third piece which is define 

comparable program for purposes of a closed school 

discharge?

MRS. HONG: So, just to be sure I did -

- did we want to take up the exceptional circumstances 

issue first and then go back in -- because we’re going to

need the, the table that we just provided to everyone. I 

know that they needed some extra time with that, so we 

could -- we could move on to the exceptional 

circumstances if that’s what I’m understanding that folks 

want to do.

MRS. MACK: Is that amenable to 

everyone to go to number four and then talk about number 

three in conjunction with the clarification that’s 

coming? I’m seeing some nods. Okay. Then let’s talk 

about that. Thanks, Jennifer. 

MRS. HONG: Great. Thanks, Kayla. So, 

so we’re just proposing adding illustrative examples, 

additional illustrative examples to the list of 

exceptional circumstances. This list we meant to

maintain as non-exhaustive, however, I think it would 

send -- we think -- we believe it would send clear 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

39 

signals on how a Secretary may use this authority going 

forward. So, we already got into it a little bit but, 

you know, we’ve (inaudible). Thank you, Vanessa. The 

seven -- the seven examples are listed here just to go 

over them real briefly. 

The accrediting agency revoking or 

withdrawing accreditation as we just discussed. The 

revocation or withdrawal by the state authorization 

licensing authority to operate or to award academic 

credentials in the state. Termination by the Department 

of the school’s participation in Title IV HEA programs. 

A finding by a state or federal government agency that 

the school violated state or federal law related to 

education or services to students. A teach-out of the 

student’s educational program exceeds the 180-day lookback period for a closed school discharge. Also, if the 

school responsible for the teach-out of the student’s 

educational program fails to perform the material terms 

of the teach-out plan or agreement such that the student 

does not have a reasonable opportunity to complete his or 

her program of study or a comparable program. And 

finally, subpart seven, the institution is or was placed 

on probation or issued a show-cause order or placed in an 

-- in an accreditation status that poses an equivalent or 

greater risk to his accreditation by his accrediting 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

40 

agency for failing to meet one or more of the agency’s 

standards.

 So, even short of an accrediting agency 

withdrawing accreditation we’ve also included a 

circumstance where an institution is on some probationary 

status. 

MRS. MACK: Alright. Thank you, 

Jennifer.

MRS. HONG: Thank you.

MRS. MACK: Let’s open it up to 

clarifying questions around this and comments. Josh, I 

have your hand first.

MR. ROVENGER: Thanks. So, I have a, a 

broad comment and then a question for the Department. 

And just -- and just to, to start at the beginning, we 

very much support the Department’s inclusion of specific 

examples here, and we really applaud the Department’s 

recent application of this doctrine to ITT Tech. 

It was a really meaningful change 

decision that impacts our, our client base. The first 

comment I had is we would propose some additional 

examples on the list, specifically anytime the Department

places a school on heightened cash monitoring status, in 

our experience that’s often the precursor to significant 

cuts in the school, and that was the case for Education 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

41 

Corporation of America, ITT Tech, and Corinthian. And 

then we also think that a judgment against a school for 

violations of state and federal law that injuriously 

impacts the school’s finances can have the same type of 

effect. 

And, and this is an example there. 

Education Management Corporation in November 2015 was 

ordered to pay a 95.5 million-dollar penalty to the 

Department in several states. That was really the 

beginning of the end for a number of its schools. So, 

that’s, that’s my comment. 

In terms of the question I have for the 

Department, one concern I think that we have with respect 

to exceptional circumstances is that different 

administration -- to the extent it’s discretionary, 

different administrations may apply it differently. And 

so, to our mind, it seems particularly important to try 

and --

MRS. MACK: It looks like we lost Josh

for a moment. Let me move on to Misty, and as soon as 

Josh comes back in we’ll get him -- get him back. 

MRS. SABOUNEH: Hi. Can you guys hear 

me? Perfect. So, agree with the intent of this. I just 

have one clarifying question probably for Jennifer. The 

sentence of finding by a state or federal government 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

42 

agency that the school violated state or federal law, can 

you expand on the intent of that sentence there? 

 I think it could be beneficial to 

have some additional definition and clarity around what 

constitutes a violation just to ensure that there is --

there is an equity across all the different schools and 

institutes (inaudible).

 MRS. MACK: Department, is that

clarification that you can provide at this time?

 JENNIFER HONG: I was actually 

still on Jo -- Josh’s point and then I’ll, I’ll get to if 

we could wind back to Misty, I think the, the point that 

Josh was trying to make with regard to, you know, how 

this is a -- this provision is applied to different 

administrations. This is expressly why we wanted to 

include these illustrative examples is to codify 

situations in which the Secretary would use his authority 

going forward.

I know Josh is not on, so maybe I 

should’ve saved that. Sorry. 

MR. ROVENGER: So, so I’m back. I, I 

switched -- I switched devices. I apologize. I, I don’t 

want to jump ahead but is it okay if I, I finish that for 

the public?

MRS. MACK: Yeah, please speak to that. 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

43 

And, Misty, hold that thought. We’re going to come back 

to your question again.

MR. ROVENGER: Thanks, and I apologize, 

everyone, for my tech issues. I’ve now switched devices 

which I’m hoping solves the problem for everything. So, 

so we definitely appreciate that. One thought we had and 

we’re happy to provide a pro -- some proposed language if 

it would be helpful, is that the Department could 

consider presuming that any of the examples warrants an 

expansion of a window, and then if the Secretary decided 

for some reason that in certain circumstances -- certain 

circumstance it shouldn’t be extended, the Secretary

would affirm that we have to rebut that presumption. And 

that may be just something that kind of takes, takes the 

examples and, and goes even further at limiting the 

discretion for the Department. 

MRS. MACK: Josh, if you do have 

language that would be helpful. If you could send it to 

us we’ll distribute it. And because we might have a 

number of suggested text or language, if you could 

identify the topic and the subtopic specifically related 

to the text that you’re providing, that might be helpful 

if we have a number of text revisions coming in. Okay? 

Justin, or actually Misty. My apologies. Misty, can we 

go back to your question?
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

44 

MRS. SABOUNEH: Sure. So, my question 

was just around the sentence at the bottom of bullet 4, a 

finding by a state or federal government agency that the 

school violated state or federal law. And I was just 

wondering if Jennifer could provide a little context on 

the intent of that sentence. 

 MRS. HONG: So, just, just to 

provide some context here. In, in the event that a 

student might have a claim based on a violation of 

federal or state standards, we, we want to encourage them 

to go through the closed school process because they felt

like they, they would -- it would be a more expeditious 

way of processing their discharge, for example.

 MRS. SABOUNEH: So, I think that my 

comment just that it could be valuable to further define 

this. 

 MRS. HONG: Yes, and we would -- we 

can, you know, we can discuss that when we get into our 

borrower (inaudible) defenses, for example. I mean, any

kind of violation in terms of a, a student feeling that 

they’ve been misrepresented regarding what they -- what, 

what kind of educational services that they -- an 

institution may provide.

MRS. MACK: Okay. Thank you, Misty. 

Thank you, Jennifer. Justin, please.
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

45 

MR. HAUSCHILD: Thank you, Kayla. I, 

I, I wanted to just call attention to one category of 

exceptional circumstances that was previously enumerated 

but doesn’t appear to be included. And I understand 

these are non-exhaustive and non-binding, but in 

paragraph C I think where exceptional circumstances are 

in, in the current language first discussed in terms of 

examples, it talks about the school’s discontinuation of 

the majority of its academic programs. And I wanted, if, 

if possible maybe to include it somehow in, in what we 

have proposed, but would be curious as to why that’s not 

included, and would, would propose that it just be added. 

So, I, I don’t know. If I, I can get a little bit of 

clarification on that, that would be helpful. Thank you.

MRS. MACK: Okay. Please raise your 

hand if you can provide clarification to Justin’s 

question. Bobby, please. 

MR. AYALA: I cannot provide 

clarification to Justin’s question. I had another 

question, so I, I don’t know if you want me to --

MRS. MACK: Yeah, go ahead and ask. No 

one has raised their hand quite yet to speak to Justin, 

so let’s add to our question to you.

MR. AYALA: Okay. Mine has to do with 

number seven and, yeah, and that question about how it 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

46 

may impact students if the, you know, institution was 

placed on probation from the accrediting agency and we 

have students that apply for a discharge, and the 

institution at a later time is, is then found to be in 

compliance and then is rewarded accreditation. How does 

that impact the student’s moving forward that if they 

went ahead and applied for discharge? 

MRS. HONG: So, remember that this --

these are exceptional circumstances so the point is that 

we are providing this as an illustrative example, so it, 

it will take -- the Secretary will take these on a caseby-case basis. The point being that if an institution is 

under some kind of probationary sanction by their 

accrediting agency, that they can shut -- they -- the 

Secretary can consider that as an exceptional 

circumstances for discharging the loans. Again, that --

I mean, it would have to be reviewed by the Secretary but 

certainly is something that the Secretary could consider. 

 MR. AYALA: And, and if the student 

were to be -- have their loans discharged it, it wouldn’t 

come back. If the institution ends up, you know, getting 

off of probation the student’s going to be fine if 

his/her loans discharged.

MRS. HONG: Right.

MR. AYALA: Okay.
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

47 

MRS. HONG: Yes.

MR. AYALA: Thank you. 

MRS. MACK: Okay. Thanks for your 

question and clarification, Jennifer. Marjorie, please.

MRS. DORIME-WILLIAMS: So, this is 

also a clarifying question about point number five. And 

so, it’s of the teach-out if the student’s program 

exceeds the 180-day lookback. Is that -- and I know we 

were just talking about this and so maybe we’ll answer it 

once Joe provides the language. But it’s not clear to me 

whether this is 180 days after the school has stated that 

they were closed. Is it 180 days from again when 

students find out? And is the plan that the teach-out 

plan is finished in 180 days? So, I, I guess just maybe 

some clarification as to what exactly number five is 

referring to. 

MRS. HONG: Jessica? 

MS. MACK: Yeah, please.

MRS. HONG: 180 days applies to the 

lookback before the student with -- withdraws from the 

institution, so 180 days prior to the student’s 

withdrawal.

MRS. MACK: Okay. Thanks for the 

question and clarification. Heather, please.

MRS. DORIME-WILLIAMS: Okay.
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

48 

MRS. PERFETTI: Thank you. So, I did 

want to just ask about some follow-up questions on the 

probation and show-cause piece because the previous 

questions triggered a couple things for me. So, they --

I, I think that just an important reminder for 

institutions that may be in a non-compliant status of 

probation or show-cause, accreditors are getting teachout plans and teach-out agreements if necessary from 

those institutions at that point. 

My question, though, is the noncompliance period could be for a number of years. Is 

this designed to be restricted to the initial 

noncompliance of probation or show-cause or throughout 

the dur -- duration that could be over a number of years?

MRS. HONG: So, I think the answer to 

your question is yes, Heather. I mean, at, at any point 

when we find that an institution is on probation it could 

apply when -- whenever that probation was initially 

applied or throughout the duration if we -- if we find 

information that supports that, you know, the things that 

are not looking good for students then we, we would 

consider making those students eligible for closed school 

discharge. So, yes, and yes.

MRS. MACK: Thanks for that 

clarification. Heather, I see your hand again. Did you 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

49 

have something to follow up?

MRS. PERFETTI: I did just have a 

follow-up question. So, there are some although few 

circumstances where an institution may be on probation 

and they show some improvement and an agency may change 

that status to warning but they may then go back to a 

more heightened status of probation or show-cause. But 

students who may be at the institution while the -- while 

they are on warning would not rise to the level of this 

exceptional circumstance. 

MRS. HONG: I just want to make sure 

I’m following you, Heather. So, if they -- you, you mean 

if they’re -- if, if the institution is subsequently 

placed on a status that is less punitive than probation? 

MRS. PERFETTI: Yeah. So, if an 

institution’s --

MRS. HONG: Right.

MRS. PERFETTI: -- saying year one of

noncompliance is on probation--

MRS. HONG: Mm-hmm.

MRS. PERFETTI: -- year two of 

noncompliance they’re transitioned down to warning 

because they’ve shown some progress in some of the areas, 

but year three they may be showing more difficulty at 

meeting the standards and could go back to a probationary 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

50 

status. Those students at the institution that is at the 

time of the warning would not be qualified under the 

exceptional circumstance here. It really is limited to 

students at the institution during probation or a showcause.

MRS. HONG: That is the illustrative 

example that we are proposing as language, the 

probationary status or equivalent, show-cause. Again, I 

just want to emphasize that this a non-exhaustive list, 

and the Secretary has authority to exercise, so these are 

just meant to be illustrative. 

MRS. MACK: Okay. Thank you, Heather. 

Thank you, Jennifer. Any other additional comments that 

haven’t already been made or clarifying questions that 

haven’t been asked and answered? Daniel. 

MR. BARKOWITZ: Thank you. So, I want 

to return to something that I believe Josh suggested 

around including as one of the determining factors at an 

institution being placed on heightened cash management. 

And I would be -- I would have a concern around that 

especially because currently the way things are in terms 

of the Department factions, of the 400 schools on 

heightened cash monitoring currently, half are not-forprofit institutions, so that isn’t necessarily going to 

lead to closure. 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

51 

So, and again I know we’re not -- we’re 

not picking on a particular sector here, but I’m just I’m 

concerned about the implication of adding that. And, and 

I would imagine in a vast majority of those cases the 

private not-for-profit or public institution is not 

necessarily at risk of closure imminently. So, I, I, I 

would have some concerns about the heightened cash 

management piece.

MRS. MACK: Okay. Thank you for that, 

Daniel. I do want to call your attention that David is 

going to need to step away from the primary table so his 

alternate, Suzanne, is joining us on camera. Thank you, 

David, for the message. Jeri, please. 

MRS. O’BRYAN-LOSEE: I just had a 

clarifying question about the probation of accrediting 

agencies. Are students informed when colleges are on 

probations or lengthy probations? Because student 

awareness is a big piece of what we’re talking about, so 

I was just wondering.

MRS. MACK: Do we have an answer for 

that particular question? Jennifer?

MRS. HONG: Yeah, the institution is 

required to make that information public. 

MRS. MACK: Okay. Thank you. Justin, 

please.
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

52 

MR. HAUSCHILD: Yeah, apologies. And

simply just recycling my previous comment because I’m not 

entirely sure it was addressed. And I -- and I 

understand that this is just a list for illustrative 

purposes, but it was previously deemed appropriate to 

include the school’s discontinuation from the majority of 

its academic programs, and we believe that’s an important 

point to illustrate. And I’m just curious why that was 

removed and, and whether or not the Department’s amenable 

to including it in its proposed regulations.

MRS. MACK: Department, is that 

something that you can speak to at this time, or shall we 

circle back to that?

MRS. HONG: Can we circle back to that? 

I mean, I think -- I, I think the answer to your question 

is just we’re here to consider everything that you’re 

saying right now, so if, if (inaudible) not included we

will circle back and take it into consideration.

MRS. MACK: Okay, perfect. So, let’s 

make note of that and we can circle back as needed. 

Josh, please.

MR. ROVENGER: Thanks. Just to respond

quickly to Daniel’s plan on heightened cash monitoring. 

I, I think in those instances it just would never come up 

if the school doesn’t close. I mean, the only instance
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

53 

in which it’s going to constitute an exceptional 

circumstance to warrant the extension is if the school 

does in fact close. And, and so I don’t -- I don’t know 

that the fact that there are these other schools also on 

HCM status justifies not (inaudible). 

As a, a separate question on a -- on a 

separate topic for the Department, I can send this by email as well, and, and this may already be public, but 

with respect to the dis -- to kind of limiting the 

discretion that the Department has here, it would be 

helpful to know all of the instances that the Department

has utilized this authority just to get a sense of how 

frequently it is actually used in practice.

MRS. MACK: Thank you, Josh. Heather.

MRS. PERFETTI: Thank you. I just 

wanted to add to Jennifer’s answer to Jeri in terms of 

public disclosure of probation. Any noncompliance status 

of an institution is also publicly disclosed by the 

accreditor as well as by the institution. So, all of 

that information is available to students. Admittedly, 

they don’t visit our websites all that much, but the 

information is available publicly at the agency’s website 

as well.

MRS. MACK: Misty, please.

MRS. SABOUNEH: I’m not sure where to 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

54 

slide this in, but I just wanted to make a note here. I 

put this in the chat, but my understanding is that 

currently if a branch campus closes but the program is 

still offered online, this is technically considered a 

closed school. I just wanted to make sure that that 

clarification was put in somewhere here. And then again, 

on just the -- that last sentence on the third bullet, I 

think before, you know, final consensus and we can try to 

propose some additional language, but just to clarify 

what is a violation? And what state and federal laws are 

being referred to here just to provide a little bit more 

definition around that final statement. 

MRS. MACK: Okay. Thanks, Misty. And 

if you do have language or a suggested edit I encourage 

you to share that out and we’ll get it out to everyone. 

Any other additional comments or points of clarification 

that we haven’t touched upon? Because I do want to get 

us into a temperature check on this and then make sure 

that we can revisit the clarification, the comparable 

program aspect, and then I do believe that Raj, as 

requested, has some data to share to the committee as 

well. Jessica, I see your hand. 

MRS. BARRY: I don’t have another 

question but I just want to second what Misty just said. 

There are some strange instances with consolidations of 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

55 

campuses and mergers that happen that I think we need to 

address. So, I just want to second what she said. 

MRS. MACK: Okay, thank you. Heather.

MRS. PERFETTI: Thank you. I don’t 

have additional comments except I too agree that we need 

to think about the unique transactions that may be taking 

place across higher education as we think through this. 

But I did want to just make a suggestion in terms of the 

order. It may be helpful to cluster the accreditation 

criteria together as opposed to them being separated in 

the order in here. 

MRS. MACK: Okay. Thank you. Jeri.

MRS. O’BRYAN-LOSEE: Hi. Just to go 

back to what Misty had said about campuses in the chat 

box and things going online when a program is closed and 

going online. I just want to remind everybody that a 

student has a contract with the institution to deliver it 

in a way that they started their education and they’ve 

signed the paperwork for, and when you move a branch 

campus online there are branch campuses for a reason as 

well. You’re talking transportation issues. You’re 

talking about people who may not have the technology to 

go online, the accessibility to go online. 

 That’s a huge -- that’s a huge -- a 

much bigger question than just throwing them all online. 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

56 

And I think we’ve seen that COVID has really exacerbated 

that problem for students anyway let alone throwing 

somebody into an online that didn’t intend on taking 

online courses.

MRS. MACK: Thank you, Jeri. Jennifer.

MRS. HONG: Real quickly to Misty’s 

first question regarding the applicability to branch 

campuses. So, this is at the -- on the front end of the 

regs where we discussed, you know, what a closed school 

means, right under that, and to limit it to a school 

means the school’s main campus or any location or branch 

of the main campus regardless of whether the school’s 

location or branch is considered eligible. So, that’s 

where we can find that.

MRS. MACK: Okay. Thank you, Jennifer. 

I want to ask you all in terms of a temperature check for 

tentative agreement on what has been proposed here by the 

Department. Remember thumbs up is I’m in agreement. I 

can support this. This is I can live with and support 

this or, this is -- this is something that I will have to 

express dissent on and not support. Can I see your 

thumbs for this particular subpart? We’re not forming --

okay. I believe everyone is sideways or up on this 

particular one. Thank you very much. 

I did promise a five-minute break 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

57 

around the hour. At this point, we have been engaged in 

such robust conversation I did not want to interrupt it. 

I’m going to ask your permission to just push on through 

until lunch. And so if I could see thumbs. If 

everyone’s agreeable to that I’m going to keep us working 

for the next 40 minutes. Okay. Alright. Thank you. 

Thank you very much for that. 

 Our next piece was to talk about the 

comparable program. The Department also circulated just 

this morning a document around clarifying the automatic 

closed school discharge, so I’d like to move us into a 

conversation around those pieces. Josh, I see your hand.

MR. ROVENGER: Thanks. Before we move 

into those pieces just because I think they are inviting 

a very robust discussion, I did just want to flag one 

additional issue that I think the Department should 

consider regulating as is relates to closed school

discharge. I’m flagging it now and I’ll, I’ll happily 

submit some proposed language and a letter if needed. 

But essentially, some schools, in 

particular ITT Tech, manipulated the students into 

enrolling for multiple degrees, and often they would take 

-- they would first have to enroll in an Associate’s 

program and then a bachelor’s program even if the student 

only ever wanted to attend a bachelor’s program and 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

58 

thought they were actually engaged in the bachelor’s

program. And as of now, the closed school discharge 

regulation only accounts for discharging the debt 

associated with the program the student was attending 

when it actually closed even though they’re basically one 

and the same.

And so, we thought -- we have a lot of 

clients who were left with debt from that Associate’s 

program that they never wanted to be in while the, the 

bachelor’s program would be discharged. So, again just 

wanted -- thank you. Just wanted to flag it and, and

I’ll, I’ll circulate something on this.

MRS. MACK: Okay. I have made note of 

that. Jennifer, I’d like to turn it over to you. Which 

document would you like pulled up on the screen?

Ms. HONG: So, this is the -- I, I 

don’t if anybody had time since we’re all engaged talking 

about it, but this is the document with the tables on the 

auto discharge, this PDF clarifying a Section 1 proposal

on automatic closed school discharges. This will also be 

for, for our comparable program discussion and facts. We 

could -- we could even walk through it and talk about 

both issues together. 

MRS. MACK: That sounds great, 

Jennifer. Will you walk us through this?
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

59 

MRS. HONG: Sure. So, during our 

discussion, our staff went back and developed this great 

table to more clearly articulate what we’re thinking 

about in terms of automatic discharge. And then we could 

get into the discussion about comparable program. 

In brief, it’s divided into borrowers 

who did not enroll elsewhere, and borrowers who did 

enroll elsewhere. And it’s a side-by-side with existing 

regulations and proposed regulations. What you’ll notice 

and I -- if I was remiss in making this clear yesterday, 

automatic discharges apply across the board in our 

proposed regulations where they do not currently apply. 

So, if, if I can just make that abundantly clear. 

In every situation except the last two, 

(and that is because we will talk about the data question 

we will have data respectively on an approved, approved 

teach-out. So, in that case, if, if they decide not to 

avail themselves of an auto discharge and go ahead and, 

and re-enroll, they, they would still be eligible just to 

-- for, for a closed school discharge.

 But in any case, within a year across 

the board, they are -- they are eligible for -- ours are 

eligible for automatic discharge if within one year. So, 

I’m just going to give you a minute to digest this. 

So, so for borrowers who did not enroll
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

60 

elsewhere, you’ll see that our proposal is more generous 

at every point in time than existing regulations. So, to 

your left, you have various school closure dates, those 

prior to 2013, the 2013 to 2020, and then what we’re 

proposing to go onward. And basically, automatic 

discharge if they do not enroll within one year. 

And then the second piece, borrowers 

who did enroll elsewhere, again, we’re more generous than 

existing regulations at every point in time. And again, 

the standard is even more generous as data improves for 

borrowers to have opportunities to get an auto discharge 

even if they re-enroll. 

And we, we believe this idea of reenrollment I know there was -- so, maybe we need to take 

this discussion to the concept of re-enrollment. We 

believe that it is important. I know there was some talk 

about taking it off the table altogether. 

We have always interpreted the 

provision, a statutory provision to mean a student’s 

ability to complete the program. And I just I know that 

we, when we think of these school closures, we’re 

thinking often about precipitous situations but they’re 

not always -- that’s not always the case. Some cases 

there may be more or less robust teach-out opportunities. 

There may be students that are very close to getting 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

61 

their degree. Maybe one or two, three credits away. 

They can easily finish their degree elsewhere. We 

believe that, that takes care of this student. 

Do we want to -- why, you know -- we 

believe that the point is that they complete the program, 

they’re happy with the completion of the program, and 

that they (inaudible). Either way, however, they always 

have this option available even if they do re-enroll, and 

I think that’s the point that I really wanted to make 

that may not have been clear yesterday is that they are -

- but we, we, we have to retain this idea about reenrollment because it’s -- it really is what we believe 

this provision is about is a point -- the point being is 

does the borrower have the opportunity to complete their 

program? We want them to complete their studies and 

benefit from the loans that they took out. 

MRS. MACK: Okay. Feel free to keep 

going if there’s more to walk us through and then --

MRS. HONG: No. I think -- I think I 

will end. I see a lot of hands also (inaudible). 

MRS. MACK: Okay. So, let’s start to 

take some clarifying questions and comments on what we 

were just walked through. Joe, I saw your hand first.

MR. SANDERS: Yeah. Jennifer, what 

happens at the point that a student is offered a teach-
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

62 

out? Does the student have the opportunity to walk away 

at that point and receive an automatic discharge?

MRS. HONG: Short answer is yes. 

MRS. MACK: Marjorie, please. Or I’m 

sorry, Joe. Did you have a follow-up there?

MR. SANDERS: Just one point. I don’t 

think that most students or even a lot of people that 

work on these issues very closely understand that option. 

When school offers the teach-out, if I don’t want the 

teach-out then I can walk away. So, just a, a point to 

consider that, you know, maybe some more robust 

communications or something else to let people know about 

that option is something that’s not out there. 

MRS. HONG: I, I think the point is we 

don’t want to penalize students for trying to teach-out, 

you know. They, they can walk away and continue to

receive their discharge if they so wish. 

MR. SANDERS: Yeah, absolutely. We 

have a student-led help line that people can call. We 

tend to get an influx of calls when a school closes. And 

many people in that moment communicate what you’re 

saying, Jennifer. I want to get my degree. I’ve been 

doing this for two years. I want to complete.

We just think it’s important that in 

that moment, in the heat of that moment where there’s 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

63 

this very disappointing thing going on in their life, 

they understand that there’s an alternative to that. So, 

I don’t necessarily have a concrete proposal on that but 

I think it’s an important point that students need to be 

made aware of that option. 

MRS. MACK: Thank you, Joe. Marjorie, 

please.

MRS. DORIME-WILLIAMS: Yes. So, first 

I think like a (inaudible), I appreciate the efforts to 

clarify some of what we’re looking at. And I 

specifically just wanted to speak to this conversation 

about the enrollment. 

I think everyone agrees that that’s 

really important. Our goal is to provide students with 

opportunity to finish their degrees. I think in terms of 

policy, the issue with this and thinking about, you know, 

what is the loan paying for which are courses that they 

took which means credits that they would then transfer to 

another institution. 

And again, I think this is really 

problematic because these student’s aren’t getting that 

money back and often many of those credits do not 

transfer or they’re made to retake these classes again 

and there’s substantial literature to support looking at

the, the challenges that students face particularly for 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

64 

low-income students, students who are women, and students 

of color. And then adding to that sort of differential 

treatment depending on the institutions that they are 

trying to transfer into. 

So, I think in theory it makes sense, 

but in practice, these students are still having to pay 

more both in time and money because even if they do reenroll they’re still having to take courses over again 

that they’ve already taken and won’t be accepted. So, I 

think to not offer the same automatic discharge because 

the issue isn’t our students graduating. The issue is 

the institution that they started at closed and so some 

of those credits are not going to transfer, and having 

sat on many admissions committees and, and having 

conversations with students about curriculum, that 

happens regularly, right, across institutional settings. 

So, I think that to offer this process 

of automatic discharge shouldn’t be dependent on whether 

or not students re-enroll. That’s not to say we’re not 

encouraging students to do that, but again, the transfer 

of credits is a significant issue even for students who 

are not coming from closed institutions. And so, 

ignoring that I think is really problematic in this 

language in, in the proposal.

MRS. MACK: Thank you, Marjorie. I 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

65 

just want to make note that David has come back, and for 

dependent students, Dixie (primary) is back and Greg has 

stepped away the table. Michaela, please.

MRS. MARTIN: I just -- maybe I’m a 

little confused at this stage because yesterday it was 

clarified pretty like firmly that students who re-enroll 

are still eligible for that full discharge, right? We’re 

not talking about a partial discharge. So, I’m, I’m 

missing maybe that part where like why they would need to 

fill out an application, right? Or is it that like, oh, 

maybe if they re-enroll they won’t fill out an 

application and we won’t have to discharge their loan. 

Because like other than that like I, I don’t -- I’m not 

understanding what the practical difference is in having 

them fill out an application versus just getting rid of 

it if you’re going to get rid of it either way.

MRS. MACK: Department, can you help us 

understand that particular point to move forward?

MRS. HONG: Yes. So, we wanted to give 

them one year, right? One year to decide what they 

wanted to do. And the reason -- remember, the reason why 

we said one year, it has to be one year is because if it 

gets to be any longer than that then a student tends to 

go -- tends to go into default, right? So, that’s why 

we’re reducing, reducing that window to one year. Auto 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

66 

discharge within that year. 

If they re-enroll, think about it. If 

you have someone that’s a senior maybe three credits 

short, they, they may want to re-enroll somewhere just to 

finish and graduate. They don’t -- you know, they, they 

are ready to be done and to complete their program 

they found somewhere else where they could finish out. 

That -- in that case, the discharge wouldn’t need to 

apply, right? So, if they -- but they could still submit 

an application if they wanted to even in that situation, 

right? 

So, we want to -- we want to just take, 

you know, take this closed discharge and I know we -- I 

know we think about the big, you know, precipitous 

closures. That’s different. They’re all going to be --

and they’re -- everybody is going to be subject to this 

auto discharge within a year, but we do -- we need to 

preserve the option for re-enrollment for those students 

that are close to being done and they just want to be, be 

finished with it. They can still apply for discharge 

after that. 

MRS. MARTIN: You’re saying in that 

cases where someone has few credits, they’ve taken a 

class and they finish it up, they would still qualify for 

a loan discharge?
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

67 

MRS. HONG: Yes, but not the --

MRS. MARTIN: So, you’re just saying 

that you’re hoping that because they graduated they won’t 

apply and then it won’t have to be discharged?

MRS. HONG: Well, there would be no 

need, right, because they’ve completed their program. 

Why would we auto discharge someone who has met their 

educational goals, completed the program? 

MRS. MARTIN: These schools prey upon 

low-income people and overcharge them and so I think that 

(interposing).

MRS. HONG: I don’t disagree. You 

can’t -- you have -- yes. We -- we’re not contesting 

that point, but we are -- we -- we’re talking about the 

universe of closed schools. And that not every school 

close -- closes precipitously. 

MRS. MACK: We have a number of other 

folks with their hands raised, so Jennifer --

MRS. HONG: Yes, yes.

MRS. MACK: -- and Michaela, I, I would 

like to move on to some of the other comments and 

questions. Josh, please.

MR. ROVENGER: Thanks. And so, I’ll 

start just by saying I, I appreciate the Department’s 

time in preparing this clarification and I think it’s 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

68 

helpful but it doesn’t -- it’s still -- my concerns that 

I expressed yesterday about, in particular, borrowers who 

attended a school that closed before 2014 remain. For 

those -- particularly for those who have re-enrolled and 

therefore not entitled to any sort of automatic 

discharge, you know, it -- I understand that they can 

still submit an application, but for, for those borrowers 

in particular, they’re the least likely to know that 

they’re entitled to this relief. They’re the ones who 

had been waiting the longest for the relief. And we know 

from the GAO that they’re not likely to have transferred 

most of their credits over to any other program. 

And one GAO report from 2019 found that

only 4 percent of students were able to transfer credits 

from for-profit schools between 2004 and 2009. I, I 

guess where, where I’m going with this is if, if the 

Department is going to take the position that the 

possibility that someone out there may be able to 

transfer their credits and complete their program and it 

isn’t this calamitous closed school situation, that that 

outweighs granting any automatic discharge to borrowers 

pre-2014 who re-enroll, it would be helpful for the 

Department to rely on specific instances and specific 

data that would support that and for us to see that. And

because to my mind the, the balance there just, just 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

69 

doesn’t -- isn’t tipping the right, right direction.

MRS. MACK: Thank you, Josh. David, 

please.

MR. TANDBERG: Yeah. In the document 

that’s on the screen right now I’m interested you, you 

say as we get better data we’ll be able to define this 

more broadly, etcetera. I’d like to know the specific 

data points that you would like that you don’t have now. 

Also, I’m, I’m interested in learning 

of those who continue their education yet submit an 

application for relief or discharge, what percentage are 

approved? I’m also concerned as my alternate has shared 

with me the fact that students tend to default after a 

year. That suggests they’re stressed financially by the 

closure, right? 

That, that’s an important data point 

that no matter what they’re doing whether they continue 

their education or they don’t, we have data to suggest 

that this is a population that’s stressed financially and

could use relief. It’d be really interesting to learn, 

to compare those who continue their education without 

discharge versus those that continue their education with

discharge, the difference in the graduation rates between

those. And my, my guess is those that those who receive

relief are probably far more likely to continue and 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

70 

successfully graduate. 

So, two data points I’d like to, to 

summarize. One is what are the data points you need to 

be able, as you suggest, to give more borrowers the 

opportunity to get relief? And then what percentage of 

those who apply for relief actually get it of those that 

are continuing their education? 

MRS. MACK: Thank you. I’m tracking 

those. Feel free to always place specifically what 

you’re requesting in the chat too. It helps us keep 

track of it there as well. Bobby, please.

MR. AYALA: Just a couple of points for 

us to consider. When Marjorie brought it up earlier and 

I kind of wanted to piggyback off the, the transfer 

issue. Throughout the literature, you know, we, we take 

a look at the -- there’s issues with transfer between 

two-year and four-year public schools, so I bet the 

issue’s even exacerbated when we take a look at closed 

schools, you know, transfer issues then. I think Josh 

mentioned the statistic earlier about 4 percent were able 

to successfully transfer credits. 

 And so, when we take a look at students 

that are re-enrolling and they’re being -- and now, if 

they complete their degree, it stands to reason that 

they, they may be ending, you know, paying a lot more for 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

71 

that degree considering a lot of their credits didn’t 

transfer and they’re having to retake a lot of the 

courses. So, why, why should they, you know, be excluded 

from, from the process as, as mentioned earlier by 

Jennifer? 

Another issue that was brought up by --

and, and I totally agree with her, but an alternate is, 

is -- does the treatment of a, a re-enrollment 

decentivize returning to higher education? If we take a 

look again at the literature, when we look at the 

students that are mostly impacted by closed schools in, 

in reference to minorities, one of the biggest issues to 

persist in (inaudible) retention, you know, and, and

ultimately degree completion is continuing on with an 

education. 

 But if they read into this rule they 

may say, okay, you know what? I’ll just stay out for a 

year. And if I stay out for a year, I can get this 

30,000 forgiven and then I’ll just try and come back a 

year later when a lot of times, you know, life happens 

and they may be unable to do so after a year. And so, 

this could create a negative impact on the completion 

rates if, if they consider, you know, the way debt relief

as opposed to continuing on. So, that’s, that’s all 

(inaudible). 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

72 

MRS. MACK: Thank you, Bobby. I just 

want to note that we’ve had a substitute in for Jeri. 

Her alternate, Jennifer, has come into the process for 

student loan borrowers. I have Heather, Justin, Jaye, 

Bethany, Jennifer, and then Jennifer. And then after 

that, I would like to move us to hear and welcome to the 

table advisor Raj who has some of the data that we 

invited before. And I want to make sure that we can get 

that in before the lunch hour. Heather, please.

MRS. PERFETTI: Thank you. So, I won’t 

repeat the point that was just made, but I also was going 

to bring to the table the balance between being liberal 

with automatic discharge while also not being harmful to 

student completion which was just referenced. I think 

that is an important consideration, and, and I’m struck 

by some of what Jennifer was indicating because not all 

closures are precipitous, and so how do we balance some 

of this discussion with the quality closures that are 

taking place? 

I know that those aren’t necessarily 

the ones that are reported in, in the media may not 

necessarily be the ones with large student numbers. But 

there are quality closures, and how do we balance that 

with some of this discussion? Thank you.

MRS. MACK: Thank you, Heather. 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

73 

Justin?

MR. HAUSCHILD: Thank you, Kayla. So,

I want to raise a few points here. I just want to say 

that we appreciate what the Department -- and I, I 

apologize, I’m reading from another screen here so I’m 

not disinterested. Appreciate what the Department is

trying to do here in not wanting to penalize students 

with transferring and attempting to complete, but we’re 

not entirely sure that’s the primary lens we should be 

viewing these regulations through. 

I think Marjorie’s and Josh’s points 

they made earlier were, were incredibly important. You 

know, the GAO, and somebody correct me wrong if I’m 

reading this in, in the wrong fashion, but they talked a 

lot about the barriers that students face when they’re 

transitioning between institutions. They talked about 

how proprietary institutions or proprietary institution 

transfers are the most common, and that how when students 

do that on average they lose 83 percent of their credits 

is I, I think what the number is. And that’s a really 

concerning thing. That means that students making these 

transfers are likely retaking classes that they’ve 

already spent money on to take in addition to taking 

additional time to retake those classes. 

The, the addition -- the next point I 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

74 

want to make is this idea of kind of this -- and I’m not 

going to call it -- well, just this, this idea of a 

three-credit student that they’ve just got three credits 

left and they want to transfer and finish it up, there 

are residency requirements it’s my understanding at, at 

many schools that mean you essentially have to spend a 

certain amount of time at an institution before 

graduating. So, I think that’s an important 

consideration to take into account here. 

And then I understand that there are 

closures that happen in a more responsible manner than 

other closures, but I -- but I just think, you know, when 

we’re -- when we’re talking about and framing this idea 

of a quality closure, it is still a closure and a closure 

still impacts the students. So, thank you. 

 Oh, and (inaudible) I’m, I’m so -- I’m 

so sorry. I did have a suggestion for how we might 

manage this. What about an automatic discharge that has 

an opt-out provision similar to how some of the TPD has 

been done? So, if a student was desiring to transfer and 

complete for whatever reason they have the option to do 

that but in an op-out of an automatic discharge. 

MRS. MACK: Thank you, Justin. Jaye, 

please. 

MRS. O’CONNELL: I’ll be brief. I 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

75 

think this was around the, the issue of balancing the 

quality closures with the precipitous closures and just 

thinking in Vermont of some of the small, nonprofit, 

liberal arts schools that have closed recently and 

they’ve organized with our state universities, other 

institutions that I, I think have responsible teach-out 

programs. And students have completed their degrees so 

it, it just as I listen to where this is going like is 

there -- are there some data points where you could 

understand where students are having to incur additional 

costs to retake classes versus the students really are 

completing their degree maybe even at an institution 

that’s giving them more access. I, I, I just feel like 

we -- I don’t fully understand if this proposed 

regulation gets us to that. Thank you.

MRS. MACK: Thank you, Jaye. Bethany?

MRS. LILLY: So, I wanted to touch on 

automation and how important it is to people because I 

think that’s been to some degree missing in this 

discussion. Low-income folks and people with 

disabilities are disproportionately low-income. People 

of color are disproportionately low-income. 

Figuring out how to interact with the 

bureaucracy to submit an application is very, very, very 

difficult. You’re going to have to go oftentimes to a 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

76 

legal services organization to find assistance with this. 

Some of those organizations are represented here on -- at 

this table. You’ll get these calls and that is really 

why I think you’re getting the level of push-back you’re 

getting on this because you are going to miss lots and 

lots of folks if you do not automate this. 

I really like Justin’s idea about an 

opt-out because I think that captures those folks who are 

in the situation Jennifer identified. But I don’t think, 

you know, there are going to be all that many of those 

folks, unfortunately. I’m curious to see what the data 

says. 

And we’re talking about folks who may 

have limited internet access who probably are going to

run into problems with a collection of other ways of 

accessing the application in and of itself. And if we 

eliminate that automation they’re not going to get it. 

We’ve seen it in TPD. We’ve seen it in other programs. 

You know, that’s not going to happen if there’s not 

automation. 

And so, I think we have to keep in mind

that we’re missing -- if, if we don’t automate this 

process for folks then they’re just not going to go 

through it. And I think we need to be very upfront about 

that. You are like basically leaving people in debt if 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

77 

there’s not automation for them, and I just want to be 

very clear about that. 

MRS. MACK: Thank you, Bethany. 

Jennifer. I’m sorry. There’s two Jennifers. Yeah, the 

alternate that has come to the table. I apologize.

MRS. CARDENAS: Okay, thank you.

MRS. MACK: Mm-hmm.

MRS. CARDENAS: So, I wanted a, I guess, a, 

a clarity on the one-year. I think when it comes to 

thinking about students getting ready to graduate, 

Jennifer from the Department said that yeah, but 

universally the majority, you know, don’t fall into those 

like gaps. But the reality is the majority have 

generational wealth. The majority have the access the 

other students don’t. So then, you know, she also 

mentioned that it would be easier because then they 

wouldn’t go into default. 

So, my question is then why don’t you 

fix the default? Because like one year, I mean, there 

are schools that are semesters, there’s schools that are 

quarters, and then students have to like manage their 

life on like food security, housing security. We have 

students who live in their cars. So, we have so many 

varieties of students that don’t fall into the, well, 

they’re just not going to be able to graduate. 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

78 

So, my thing is like one year seems --

I want to know where that data’s from the one-year, 

because we have so many different institutions that have 

different formats for applying, for getting accepted, and 

then when the school starts. So, anyways, that was it. 

Thank you.

MRS. MACK: Thank you. Alright. We 

have Josh and Jennifer, those two more, and then I am 

turning it over to Raj. 

MR. ROVENGER: Okay. So, I’ll be 

quick. I just wanted to respond to questions and points 

raised by Jaye and Heather. And, you know, who are we --

who are we talking about here? And I think it’s 

important to note that just last week the GAO reported 

that 85 percent of the 246,000 potentially eligible 

borrowers whose schools closed between 2010 and 2020 went 

to for-profit schools. And a tremendous 95 percent of 

the 80,000 borrowers in the cohort who’ve received 

discharges attended for-profit schools. 

So, that’s where -- that what’s we, 

we’re talking about up there and that’s what we should be 

focused on as we think about the policy changes and their 

implications. 

MRS. MACK: Thank you, Josh. Jennifer

and then I’d welcome Raj to turn his camera on and come 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

79 

to the screen. Reminder, he is our designated advisor on 

economic and higher education data. Jennifer, please.

MRS. HONG: So, look forward to hearing 

from Raj. I just want to affirm that all the proposals 

on the table are to encourage automatic discharge. It 

expands -- it’s an expansion from our current regulations 

to provide this benefit precisely for the population of 

students that we’ve all described and discussed. And I 

just want to be sure that that is the intent behind these 

proposals and we welcome all your thoughts on this as we 

continue to refine them. 

But we are interested in trimming the 

paperwork burden and we realize that this is difficult 

for borrowers and for students, we have done so. And 

we’ve done that in the TPD universe and we are finding 

ways to do that here. We’re proposing that across the 

board for closed school discharge. I just want to be 

clear on that point. Thank you.

MRS. MACK: Thank you, Jennifer. I’m 

going to go ahead and turn it over to Raj. Raj sent a 

document to us to share out. Raj, can we send that out 

now to everyone? 

MR. DAROLIA: Yes. So, I’ll bring it

up on the screen.

MRS. MACK: Perfect. The floor is 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

80 

yours.

MR. DAROLIA: Thanks, everyone, for 

including me in this discussion. As I mentioned in the 

beginning, what I’m trying to do is just provide 

resources, information, and data where I can. What I’m 

presenting here is, is (inaudible) last night and this 

morning trying to just (inaudible) some data needs. And 

so, I, I have included kind of three sets of information 

here, and as some other questions came up really just to 

put data and research and I can try to talk about those 

as well. Just to, you know, going in advance just to 

(inaudible) as I’m trying to put this together quickly 

and on the fly. And let me know if there are, are other 

things that would be helpful. And I know it’s always 

hard to talk right before people are going to lunch 

especially because you haven’t had a bathroom break yet. 

So, I’m going to try to do three things here quite 

quickly. 

The first is just to provide some 

highlights from the recent GAO Board. I think some, some 

folks have already mentioned this. It probably would be 

helpful to, to pull some information from there so you 

will understand what was reported in there. I also 

pulled some data from the Digest of Education Statistics 

just to show some of the courses taken specifically 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

81 

amongst -- or sorry, programs offered and credentials 

conferred among for-profit and, and public institutions. 

Then I’ll talk very briefly about some of the research 

evidence we have. 

So, the first thing I want to do is 

just talk about this, this recent GAO report. For those 

of you who haven’t seen it, this was the report that was 

released on -- it says released on the date Thursday, 

September 30th, so, so somewhat recently. So, what they 

looked at was college closures from 2010 to 2020, and 

they reported about 246,000 borrowers for more than about

1,100 colleges that closed. 

I do want to point out one data thing 

here. For those of you who have looked at the closed 

school report, that’s actually got a much larger number 

of institutions. There’s a number of reasons for that. 

One is that the GAO did do some collapsing of categories 

regarding colleges, so that branches that at times were 

included with, with their parent-schools, and in other 

cases they did not include schools that closed that did 

not have any (inaudible). 

So, borrowers that enrolled in closed 

colleges collectively had about 4 billion dollars in 

federal student loan debt outstanding. The median 

student loan debt was 9,500 dollars and averaged about 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

82 

16,000 dollars. 

This was mentioned before. What they 

report was about 86 percent of the students who are 

enrolled at those closed colleges were for-profit 

colleges, 14 percent nonprofit, and 1 percent. So, they 

were able to track based on some restricted data that 

they gained access to, enrollment outcomes overall among 

the borrowers at these closed schools. 

So, about 13 percent completed their 

programs before the college closing. I have a bullet 

point about sort of circumstances surrounding closure

I’ll mention in a moment. At least in their report 

they’re claiming under current policies, the students 

would have been ineligible for closed school discharge 

because they completed their program before the school 

closed. Forty-four percent transferred to another 

program, so (inaudible) of these possibly eligible for 

closed school discharge, thirty percent of the borrowers 

who transferred from a for-profit college transferred to 

a public college. Five percent transferred to another 

for-profit college that subsequently closed. 

And using a subset of their data, so 

this is only pre-2015 cohorts, about half of the 

borrowers who transferred did not graduate within six 

years of transferring. So, I think there’s been some 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

83 

questions about what the outcomes are or have been. 

They’re finding that a fair number or at least half did 

not actually complete the program (inaudible). And then 

about 43 percent did not complete their program before 

their college closed and did not transfer to another 

college, and this is the group that (inaudible) is 

calling eligible for closed school district. 

They do mention referencing some of 

their other reports that circumstances surrounding 

closure appear to matter and they mentioned abrupt 

closure versus orderly closure and this has also been 

talked about here in the discussion this morning. This 

isn’t the slide because it -- I, I sent this along before 

I had a chance to add this. 

There is a little bit of research which

tries to predict the circumstances of closure. Part of 

the discussion today was about heightened cash 

monitoring. What the research suggests, and is this a --

I’m referring to a paper by Robert Hutchin from 2020 

that I can put in the chat -- suggests that heightened 

cost -- heightened cash monitoring does predict closure, 

but weakly, and it’s certainly not determinative. So, 

another way to say that is just because a school is on, 

on one of these monitoring plans does not mean that it’s 

definitely going to close. It’s actually we predict 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

84 

(inaudible). 

Some of the negative consequences of 

closure from the GAO report is that students often lose 

credits and this was also mentioned in part of the 

discussion today. What the GAO reports is that students 

transferring on to for-profit colleges lost about 83 

percent of credits on average. And then when you -- when 

they looked at our student enrollment at public colleges, 

on average, for-profit borrowers who re-enroll at public 

colleges are unable to transfer 94 percent of their 

credits. So, clearly, that is a barrier to transfer 

function (inaudible).

Continuing on from this report, GAO 

findings on College Closures (continued), as of the 

writing of the report as of the analysis period, which is 

April, so this does not include the most recent news 

about some of the discharges, especially August 2021 ITT 

Technical Institute, about 80,000 students had loans 

forgiven for a closed school discharge. This is about 

1.1 billion dollars at 600 -- at 682 colleges, median 

loan debt of 9,900 dollars. And a large share of this is 

students who went to for-profit colleges, 96% of the 

students, and two-thirds of those were concentrated at, 

at certain colleges. So, so a lot of the forgiveness 

thus far -- or sorry, the discharges thus far have been 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

85 

concentrated in small -- relatively small number of forprofit colleges. 

Automatic discharges accounted for 42 

percent of discharges since they were able to do some in 

2002 or 2013, excuse me. This was a, a data point I 

think was asked for maybe indirectly relating to this. 

Of the group that transferred but did not graduate within 

six years of transferring, so again this is kind of a 

group of pre-2015 students they were able to track for 

six years, and they transferred but did not graduate. 

About 700 applied for and received discharges. I believe 

the total amount of, of students in that group was about 

5,500 students, and so 700 of about -- of the 5,500 

applied for and received the discharges. And of those 

who received automatic discharges, about half still ended 

up defaulting on their loans and it tended to happen 

quickly, so within the first year and a half after 

college closing. And then another 21 percent were past 

due.

So, if we think about of those who even 

received automatic discharges, almost three-quarters 

either went into default or experienced some sort of 

(inaudible). So, again this is all from the, the recent 

GAO Report on college closures. 

I’ll stop here for any questions about 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

86 

this. Again, this was my research. What I tried to do 

was sort of surface some of the main findings that I 

could see on this. 

MRS. MACK: Josh, thank you for all of 

that, that information. Let me ask the committee 

members. Do we have any clarifying questions for what’s 

been presented here before we head into our lunch hour? 

Bethany?

MRS. LILLY: Just to be sure that I was 

taking notes correctly, you said for the 700 that applied 

and received discharges that was out of about 5,500 you 

thought? 

MR. DAROLIA: Let me just confirm that 

here. I believe that is correct. Yes.

MRS. LILLY: Thank you.

MR. DAROLIA: Of about 5,500 borrowers 

who transferred prior to 2015 and did not complete the 

programs in six years, only about 700 applied for and 

received discharges as of April (inaudible).

MRS. MACK: Okay. Thanks, Stephanie. 

Michaela?

MRS. MARTIN: Did it show the folks you 

tracked or just, in general, like how much longer it took 

to graduate for those who did transfer? 

MR. DAROLIA: I don’t believe that was 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

87 

reported in this -- in this report. So again, this was 

data that I don’t personally have access to that the GAO 

has. I can -- I can look back for that specific 

question, but off the top of my head, I don’t

(inaudible). 

MRS. MACK: Okay. And David.

MR. TANDBERG: Thank you so much, Raj. 

I really appreciate the -- these data and the effort you 

put to -- into creating this document and then -- and

presenting it to us. I will certainly be referencing 

the document throughout the negotiations. 

I, I think what is clear to me in these 

data, particularly the percentage of students applying 

for discharge and the like, is that we’re facing some 

very significant equity issues. We need to keep in mind 

whenever administrative burdens are put in front of 

people, it’s those with the social capital to negotiate 

that administrative burden that ultimately receive the 

benefits. And so, by restricting automatic discharge 

even for those who continue their education, we’re 

privileging those who already have existing privilege, 

and that, that’s my concern here. 

And I, I know we do not have the data,

but I think it would be reasonable to assume and perhaps 

we can find the data to support this or refute it, that
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

88 

those who receive the discharge have a clearer path to 

continuing their education and being successful than 

those that don’t. And the repercussions of that are 

tremendous, not just for the students but for the 

generations that come after that student, the probability 

if that student doesn’t complete, the probability that 

their kids will ever complete college is significantly 

reduced. 

And so, I, I get that not every, every 

closure is precipitous, but even in the best of cases, in 

the most well-planned (inaudible) designed closure that 

it remains a significant barrier to the student 

completing, and a -- and a promise has been broken. They 

took out the loans on the assumption (interposing) that 

they would be able to complete at that college, that that 

path would be made available to them, and yet that path 

was closed not because of anything they did. So, a 

few points to consider. 

MR. DAROLIA: I’ll just say with that 

that I’m not aware of any research or data that currently 

exists that allows us to track those outcomes to any

extent that you, you discussed. There is other research 

which obviously suggests that as we relieve constraints 

or burdens on students or others, you know, within our

population that their outcomes are, are better. There is 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

89 

also research which does again not directly bear on 

discharges that I’m aware of, but Marjorie sent out some 

literature regarding transfer, you know, that’s also 

relating to other types of bureaucratic processes between 

federal (inaudible) registry that there is 

disproportionate or -- disproportionate burden on certain 

groups where certainly a lot of research (inaudible).

MRS. MACK: Okay. Raj, thank you for 

that information. Committee, we have eaten four minutes 

into your lunch hour. For that, I apologize, 

particularly because I kept you from a break this 

morning. So, we are going to return right at the 1 

o’clock hour so I’m in a -- in a rush to get you to, to 

lunch right now. I do have a quick question, though. 

When we come back from lunch, do we feel like we have 

covered everything that we can with regard to closed 

school discharge for now? Department, do you have 

everything that you need with regard to the 

information/data that’s being request and some of the 

language pieces that we’ve already seen come through the 

chat and will continue to come through e-mail so that we 

can pick up with our third issue when we return?

MRS. HONG: Yes, and I appreciate the 

robust discussion on this issue.

MRS. MACK: Okay. If everyone is 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

90 

amenable, then we will come back to session right at the 

1 o’clock hour and pick up with the third issue, 

eliminating interest capitalization for non-statutory 

capitalization events. I’m seeing some in the chat. In 

the chat we do have information requests, yes, that will 

be saved with regard to this particular issue. And there 

are already language pieces coming in that we will 

continue to share out with everyone. I apologize that we 

can’t always do that in real-time automatically as we’re 

in session, but we’ll get those to you timely. Alright. 

We will see you after lunch in 55 minutes.

(Proceedings concluded at 12:05 a.m.
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

91 

1 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

92 

 Appendix 

Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education 

Zoom Chat Transcript 

Affordability and Student Loans Committee - Session 1, Day 2, 

Morning, October 5, 2021 

 

DISCLAIMER: 

Note: The following is the output of transcribing from a 

recording. Although the transcription is largely accurate; in 

some cases, it is incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible 

passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to 

understanding the proceedings at the meeting, but should not be 

treated as an authoritative record. 

 

From Josh (A), Legal Aid (he/him) to Everyone: 

Evelyn Cervantes 

From Josh (A), Legal Aid (he/him) to Everyone: 

We're checking on her, and the others availability 

From Josh (A), Legal Aid (he/him) to Everyone: 

Ashley Pizzuti 

From Josh (A), Legal Aid (he/him) to Everyone: 

is available 

From Josh (A), Legal Aid (he/him) to Everyone: 

Ms. Cervantes is available, except for today and Thursday. 

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone: 

We have also been willing to have segmented representation 

of the institution sectors. 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

93 

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/hers) to Everyone: 

I want to echo Justin and Michaela on this. Strongly 

support including Ashley or Evelyn 

From Cindy, FMCS Facilitator to Everyone: 

I will be off camera for a few minutes for internet 

stabilization but am engaged and listening. 

From Joe (P); State AGs to Everyone: 

https://defendstudents.org/news/body/nsldn_20190206f.pdf 

pg. 33. 

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/hers) to Everyone: 

Just want to register support for Joe's proposal. 

From Joe (P); State AGs to Everyone: 

Heather's question is a good one. The closure date is tied 

to that definition. 

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/hers) to Everyone: 

Doesn't have any impact on when a student is aware though? 

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone: 

Joe's point is very important. We shouldn't have to rely on 

such advocacy efforts. 

From Joe (P); State AGs to Everyone: 

I will circulate proposed language tonight. 

From Misty (P) Priv & Non-Profit to Everyone: 

Want to queue a question/comment. When defining a "closed 

school" I want to ensure that if branch campus closes but 

the program is still offered online, that would not be 

considered for closed school discharge. 

From Josh Rovenger (he/him/his) to Everyone:
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

94 

Sorry. I’ve changed devices. 

From Joe (P); State AGs to Everyone: 

Proposed Closed School Discharge Eligibility Date Language

§685.214 (c)(i)(B) Did not complete the program of study at 

that school because the school closed while the student 

was enrolled;, or the student withdrew from the school 

following the school’s communication that it will close, 

publicly or directly to students, or not more than 180 

calendar days before the school closed, whichever is 

longer. 

From Joe (P); State AGs to Everyone: 

I also sent a redline word doc to FMCS 

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone: 

I need to step away for a few minutes. My alternate, 

Suzanne Martindale is going to join in my absence. 

From Alyssa (A) Fin Aid Administrators to Everyone: 

Some of us are getting very odd audio. 

From Daniel (P) - Fin Aid Admin (he/him) to Everyone: 

Same 

From Daniel (P) - Fin Aid Admin (he/him) to Everyone: 

Better now. 

From Michaela (P) Ind. Students to Everyone: 

much better 

From Suzanne (state regulators) (A) to Everyone: 

FYI David is coming back to the table for state regulators 

From Joe (P); State AGs to Everyone: 

Would love to see the literature on this point, Marjorie.
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

95 

From Marjorie, (P) 4 Yr. Institutions (she/her) to Everyone: 

Yes, I can share several. 

From Raj - Advisor Econ/Higher Ed/Data to Everyone: 

Joe -- if you can clarify the research evidence you would 

like to see, I can work to track it down (if Dr. DorimeWilliams cannot produce it easily/quickly). 

From Marjorie, (P) 4 Yr. Institutions (she/her) to Everyone: 

The Multiple Dimensions of Transfer: Examining the Transfer 

Function in American Higher Education |

https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552117725177 

From Marjorie, (P) 4 Yr. Institutions (she/her) to Everyone: 

Thank you Raj. I was trying to think of the easiest way to 

share. 

From Joe (P); State AGs to Everyone: 

Thanks Marjorie. This is very interesting stuff on a point 

that is very problematic for students. 

From Marjorie, (P) 4 Yr. Institutions (she/her) to Everyone: 

Agreed Joe. These issues are strongly interconnected. 

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone: 

1. What data does the Department need "to define this more 

broadly and give more borrowers the opportunity to still 

re-enroll and get relief." 

From Marjorie, (P) 4 Yr. Institutions (she/her) to Everyone: 

What We Know About Transfer | 

https://doi.org/10.7916/D8ZG6R55 | Less than 60% of 

students transferring from CC are able to transfer credits 

and 15% are able to transfer NO credits. 

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone:
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/05/2021

96 

2. What share of students who continue their education and 

apply for discharge get their request approved? 

From Christina (A) 2 Year Public she/her to Everyone: 

Please keep in mind financial aid annual and lifetime 

limits when considering the impact of school closure. 

From Joe (P); State AGs to Everyone: 

My office sued Westwood College for misrepresenting its 

transfer of credit policies: 

https://www.cfpbmonitor.com/wpcontent/uploads/sites/5/2014/11/IL-AG-second-amendedcomplaint.pdf 

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone: 

Here is the report that I believe Josh is referencing: 

https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-105373 

From Joe (P); State AGs to Everyone: 

Josh, will you put the GAO report link in the chat for the 

record? 

From Josh (A), Legal Aid (he/him) to Everyone: 

David posted the link. Here’s the full report. 

https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-105373.pdf 

From Joe (P); State AGs to Everyone: 

Thanks Raj, David, and Josh