1

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION

+ + + + +

DOCKET ID ED-2018-OPE-0076

+ + + + +

PUBLIC HEARING

+ + + + +

TUESDAY,

SEPTEMBER 11, 2018

+ + + + +

The Public Hearing convened in the 

Xavier University Convocation Center Annex, Room 

111, Building 62, New Orleans, Louisiana, at 9:00 

a.m., Aaron Washington, Facilitator, presiding.

PRESENT

MICHAEL BRICKMAN, Senior Advisor, Office of the

Undersecretary, U.S. Department of

Education

AARON WASHINGTON, Office of Postsecondary 

Education, U.S. Department of Education
2

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S

2 9:00 a.m.

3 MR. BRICKMAN: All right. Good 

4 morning, everyone. Thank you for being here. My 

5 name is Michael Brickman. I am Senior Advisor in 

6 the Office of the Undersecretary at the U.S. 

7 Department of Education.

8 On behalf of Secretary Betsy DeVos, I 

9 am pleased to welcome you to this public hearing. 

10 I'm joined at the table by Aaron Washington, who 

11 is from the Office of Postsecondary Education at 

12 the Department.

13 First, let me say how much we appreciate 

14 our hosts at Xavier University for having us here. 

15 It is a beautiful campus, and we're really 

16 appreciative of the opportunity to join you all 

17 here in New Orleans.

18 This is the second of three public 

19 hearings that we're convening to gather input 

20 regarding regulations that govern programs 

21 authorized under Title IV of the Higher Education 

22 Act of 1965. Later this week, we will hold a 
3

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 similar hearing in Wisconsin.

2 Secretary DeVos has challenged us to 

3 rethink education. And to us, rethink means 

4 everyone questioning everything, to ensure nothing 

5 limits students to be prepared for what comes next.

6 In postsecondary education, we have 

7 focused largely on breaking down barriers to 

8 innovation and reducing regulatory burden, while 

9 protecting students and taxpayers from 

10 unreasonable risk.

11 To this end, we are seeking input 

12 regarding the number of regulatory provisions, 

13 including issues related to the recognition of 

14 accreditors; distance learning and 

15 competency-based education, including the 

16 definition of regular and substantive interaction, 

17 direct assessment, and prior learning assessment; 

18 state authorization; the definition of credit 

19 hour; and roles and responsibilities of 

20 institutions and accrediting agencies in the 

21 teach-out process.

22 More specifically, with respect to 
4

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 accreditation, the Department is interested in 

2 improving the recognition and oversight process to 

3 ensure consistent and equal treatment of all 

4 agencies.

5 In this work, we wish to recognize the 

6 autonomy and independence of agencies, support the 

7 need of today's students, and honor the missions 

8 of various types of institutions.

9 We would like to hear your thoughts 

10 about how to simplify the Department's process for 

11 recognition of accrediting agencies and how to 

12 emphasize the criteria that focus on educational 

13 quality, rather than administrative minutia.

14 We are also interested in revising any 

15 accreditation regulations that are ambiguous, 

16 repetitious, or unnecessarily burdensome, as well 

17 as reducing duplication of oversight 

18 responsibilities between the Department of 

19 Education, states, and accrediting agencies, and 

20 ensuring the Department is more accountable and 

21 responsive to those it serves.

22 In addition to the accrediting 
5

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 regulations, we are exploring some specific 

2 regulatory provisions that are not directly part 

3 of the accreditation regulations, but that impact 

4 the work institutions do and the way that work might 

5 be evaluated by accreditors.

6 Those provisions include the 

7 development of a single job placement definition 

8 and a single methodology for calculating job 

9 placement rates; the determination of reasonable 

10 program length for clock-hour programs that result 

11 in certification or licensure; the elimination of 

12 barriers to innovation and competition in 

13 postsecondary education or to student completion, 

14 graduation, or employment, including barriers 

15 created by unnecessary credential inflation or 

16 other practices that are unfair to students; the 

17 ability for an institution to contract with other 

18 entities to provide a percentage of an educational 

19 program, including to promote innovation and 

20 enable more rapid responses among career and 

21 technical programs to employer and workforce 

22 needs; and the simplification and clarification of 
6

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 program requirements to minimize inadvertent 

2 grant-to-loan conversions for TEACH Grant 

3 recipients.

4 Additionally, in light of the recent 

5 Supreme Court ruling in Trinity Lutheran, the 

6 Department will review provisions and our 

7 regulations related to the eligibility of 

8 faith-based entities to participate in Title IV 

9 programs and the eligibility of students to obtain 

10 certain benefits under those programs.

11 We welcome your perspectives as we work 

12 on updating our regulations in each of these areas. 

13 We anticipate bringing these issues and any others 

14 that might be added, including at the public's 

15 suggestion, before a negotiated rulemaking 

16 committee that will begin its negotiations in 

17 January of 2019.

18 We also plan to create two 

19 subcommittees, with one focused on 

20 competency-based education and the other focused 

21 on the eligibility of faith-based entities to 

22 participate in Title IV programs. The 
7

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 subcommittees would consist of experts in those 

2 areas, who would not make decisions, but would 

3 report their recommendations back to the full 

4 committee for deliberation during public 

5 negotiations.

6 In the late fall, we will 

7 publish a notice in the Federal Register seeking 

8 nominations for negotiators and subcommittee 

9 members. We hope that you and your colleagues will 

10 consider serving in that capacity at that time.

11 In order to best use the time of the 

12 committee, prior to its first meeting we plan to 

13 provide draft proposed regulatory language for 

14 discussion by the negotiating committee and the 

15 subcommittee, rather than the issue papers we have 

16 used in the past.

17 This will enable the committee to 

18 consider concrete proposals before the 

19 negotiations and to begin more of its essential 

20 work during the first session.

21 With respect to the logistics for 

22 today, many of you have already signed up for times 
8

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 to speak, and Aaron will call you up to the 

2 microphone accordingly.

3 We still have some time slots available 

4 for today, so if you have not signed up and would 

5 like to speak, please see Aaron and sign up for a 

6 time.

7 Speakers are asked to limit their 

8 remarks to five minutes. If you get to the end of 

9 your five minutes, Aaron will ask you to wrap up, 

10 and we ask that you do so within 20 seconds.

11 Please note that this hearing is being

12 transcribed, and the transcription will be posted 

13 on our website in the next few weeks. Although the 

14 Department is not preparing a video or audio 

15 recording of the hearing, this is a public hearing, 

16 and it's possible that a member of the public may 

17 record your remarks.

18 If you have written comments you would 

19 like to submit here today, you can give them to me 

20 or Aaron. We are also accepting those written 

21 comments via regulations.gov through Friday, 

22 September 14, at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time.
9

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 We have three scheduled breaks today. 

2 Or, actually, two scheduled breaks today. One in 

3 the morning from 10:30 to 10:40 and one in the 

4 afternoon from 12:00 to 12:15. We may extend those 

5 breaks if we do not have people scheduled to speak.

6 In consideration of others, please 

7 silence your cell phones while you're in this room. 

8 You're welcome, though, to make calls out in the 

9 lobby.

10 When you're called to speak, please 

11 provide your name and affiliation. We look 

12 forward to your comments.

13 Thank you for your time in sharing your 

14 expertise with us. We look forward to an 

15 interesting and productive day.

16 MR. WASHINGTON: Mike Saunders?

17 MR. SAUNDERS: Good morning. My name 

18 is Mike Saunders. I'm the Legal Advocacy Director 

19 of Veterans Education Success. I appreciate the 

20 opportunity to share my thoughts and concerns with 

21 you regarding the Department's proposed regulatory 

22 changes.
10

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Veterans and military service 

2 organizations stand united against waste, fraud, 

3 and abuse by bad actor colleges. Veterans, 

4 service members, their families, and survivors are 

5 often targeted by bad actor colleges with deceptive 

6 and aggressive recruiting for subpar education.

7 We understand the desire to encourage 

8 and improve innovation in higher education but take 

9 issue with several of the regulatory rollbacks that 

10 we believe will undermine critical protections for 

11 students, while permitting low quality education 

12 providers to waste or fail to provide an adequate 

13 return on taxpayer dollars.

14 The Department must stand strong 

15 against this poor behavior and not become an 

16 abettor to it.

17 Of the numerous proposed changes today, 

18 I want to focus on the following two key issues, 

19 the reasonable relationship between programs and 

20 entry-level requirements and outsourcing 

21 education.

22 The requirement that higher education 
11

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 institutions demonstrate a reasonable 

2 relationship between the length of a program and 

3 the entry-level requirements for the recognized 

4 occupation for which the student is studying is a

5 common sense regulation that was put in place to 

6 combat fraud from unscrupulous schools.

7 The current regulation limits the 

8 length of a program that a school can offer, so that 

9 the number of hours provided in the program cannot 

10 exceed by more than 50 percent the minimum number 

11 of hours required for training in the recognized 

12 occupation for which the program prepares the 

13 student.

14 Removing this regulation will allow 

15 schools to arbitrarily choose any number of hours 

16 they wish, essentially charging the student for 

17 excess education that is not required in that field 

18 of study.

19 To put this in perspective, even if a 

20 program should only be one semester in length, as 

21 required by the targeted occupation, removal of 

22 this regulation would allow a school to require 
12

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 student veterans to use all 36 months of their GI 

2 Bill benefits.

3 At many of these low quality schools, 

4 students finish a course of study and are unable 

5 to get certified or find employment.

6 In a 2015 published report, Veterans 

7 Education Success documented that 20 percent of 300 

8 GI Bill-approved programs in licensed occupations 

9 did not leave the veteran eligible to even sit for 

10 the licensing exam.

11 Equally disturbing, with the rollback 

12 of this regulation, the school would have no 

13 incentive to ensure their students complete their 

14 program of study. This would result in schools 

15 putting much effort into recruiting veterans and 

16 service members to get them in the door and to the 

17 first few days of class, receiving the money for 

18 the GI Bill for only a few short days of attendance, 

19 with no incentive to encourage persistence and 

20 completion of a program, and leave the student on 

21 the hook for paying back the VA for their wasted 

22 GI Bill.
13

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Unfortunately, this is not a 

2 hypothetical example, as it has happened in the 

3 past, and it is why these regulations were 

4 instituted in the first place.

5 Additionally, the cap on the ability of 

6 Title IV eligible colleges to outsource 

7 instruction to private companies and ineligible 

8 institutes is of high importance. Currently, 

9 schools must be approved by accrediting agencies 

10 authorized by the state and approved by the 

11 Department of Education before they can receive 

12 federal aid.

13 As it stands, ineligible institutions 

14 can enter into outsourcing agreements with 

15 eligible institutions to provide 25 percent, but 

16 no more than 50 percent, of the educational program 

17 the student receives.

18 Repeal of this cap would undoubtedly 

19 hurt students by undermining the quality of their 

20 education. Weakening the limitations on school's 

21 ability to outsource the educational programming 

22 would also undermine the oversight system tasked 
14

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 with ensuring sufficient educational quality and 

2 eliminate the deterrence factor currently in place 

3 that attempts to prevent these schools from 

4 engaging in deceptive tactics.

5 Unscrupulous schools who were deemed 

6 ineligible to receive federal financial aid by the 

7 Department will partner with approved schools to 

8 continue receiving Title IV funding.

9 The Department's own Inspector General 

10 found institutions were inflating the value of 

11 college courses with little or no oversight from 

12 accreditors, demonstrating that there are bad 

13 actors attempting to defraud students and the 

14 government.

15 The weakening of these regulations 

16 would pave the way for similar bad actors to charge 

17 excessive fees for no real education, to ultimately 

18 hurt those that we represent, service members, 

19 veterans, and their families, who use their hard 

20 earned military education benefits to go to school 

21 and are often the targets of predatory schools 

22 looking to capitalize on these benefits.
15

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 It is reprehensible that those who have 

2 been willing to sacrifice all for our country and 

3 chose to pursue necessary training that leads to 

4 a successful career would find themselves the 

5 victims of predatory schools who defraud them of 

6 their hard-earned benefits.

7 It is even more upsetting that the 

8 Department would choose to turn a blind eye to this 

9 behavior and remove common sense protections that 

10 were put in place because this behavior did indeed 

11 happen.

12 In conclusion, the Department of 

13 Education must be a good steward of taxpayer 

14 dollars and keep quality standards that protect 

15 both students and taxpayers.

16 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. Jimmie 

17 Bilbo? Jimmie Bilbo?

18 Okay, we're going to move on to Marshall 

19 Hill.

20 MR. HILL: Shall I begin?

21 MR. WASHINGTON: Yes, you can.

22 MR. HILL: Good morning. My name is 
16

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Marshall Hill. I'm Executive Director of the 

2 National Council for State Authorization 

3 Reciprocity Agreements. Thankfully, we have an 

4 acronym, NC-SARA, which is a bit easier to manage.

5 NC-SARA is an independent 501(c)(3) 

6 nonprofit organization that provides a voluntary 

7 regional approach to state authorization and 

8 oversight of postsecondary distance education that 

9 crosses state lines.

10 Forty-nine states, plus the District of 

11 Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands 

12 are members of SARA. About 1,875 institutions 

13 participate, including Xavier University.

14 Our close partners in this work are the 

15 Midwestern Higher Education Compact, the New 

16 England Board of Higher Education, the Southern 

17 Regional Education Board, and the Western 

18 Interstate Commission for Higher Education.

19 The matters identified by the 

20 Department to be addressed in the proposed 

21 negotiated rulemaking are critically important to 

22 both students and institutions.
17

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Clear, workable, and effective rules 

2 about them best serve all legitimate interests. 

3 The issues identified by the Department have all 

4 been significantly affected by recent and 

5 accumulating changes in higher education, and 

6 ensuring that they are addressed in ways that meet 

7 the national interests and the needs of students 

8 is a goal we support.

9 I'm focusing my substantive comments 

10 today on one of the other issues you proposed to 

11 address in negotiated rulemaking, the issue of 

12 state authorization of distance education.

13 NC-SARA supports the Department's 2016 

14 requirement, the one now delayed, that 

15 institutions participating in Title IV programs 

16 must be able to demonstrate that they have obtained 

17 all necessary authorization to offer distance 

18 education in each state in which they enroll 

19 students.

20 We appreciate the Department's 

21 previous determination that institutions could 

22 demonstrate that compliance either by documenting 
18

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 each individual state's approval or through 

2 institutional participation in a State 

3 Authorization Reciprocity Agreement that covered 

4 the states in which the institution enrolls 

5 distance education students.

6 We do have some concerns about the 

7 late-2016 rule's definition of a State 

8 Authorization Reciprocity Agreement, and we urge 

9 that that definition be addressed and clarified 

10 during the upcoming negotiated rulemaking process. 

11 I have provided details of our concerns and 

12 suggestions for addressing them in the written 

13 materials I have submitted electronically.

14 Finally, having served on four 

15 negotiated rulemaking panels convened by the 

16 Department, including two of them dealing with 

17 accreditation, the number, breadth, and complexity 

18 of the regulatory issues proposed to be addressed 

19 appear to me to be exceptionally daunting.

20 If a reduction in the number of topics 

21 does not meet the Department's goals, I suggest you 

22 consider establishing several additional 
19

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 subcommittees, similar to those you currently 

2 propose on direct assessment and the eligibility 

3 of faith-based entities for participation in Title 

4 IV programs.

5 Thank you for allowing me to comment, 

6 and best wishes as you begin this process.

7 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. Renee 

8 Seruntine?

9 MS. SERUNTINE: Good morning. My name 

10 is Renee Seruntine. I'm a student veteran, and I 

11 just recently made ten years in the Army National 

12 Guard.

13 I went to Full Sail University in Winter 

14 Park, Florida, from 2004 to 2005, and received an 

15 associate's degree. Between living expenses and 

16 tuition, I left school with about $95,000 in 

17 student loan debt.

18 Full Sail University made it seem like 

19 after attending their school, I would be able to 

20 earn a lucrative salary, which their job placement 

21 service would help me find.

22 I never would have spent over $60,000 
20

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 on tuition and over $30,000 on living expenses had 

2 I know that three years after I graduated, I never 

3 used that education again.

4 Their career development program, 

5 which was featured prominently when I enrolled, 

6 turned out to be a joke. When I called their career 

7 development office, they told me to go to the alumni 

8 section of their website, at alumni.fullsail.edu.

9 The website currently says that Full 

10 Sail's career development program can provide you 

11 with industry resources and valuable information, 

12 not that they do or that they will, but that they 

13 can.

14 I was not concerned about that at the 

15 time I graduated because New Orleans was the number 

16 three location in the country for film production.

17 After living in Orlando for six more 

18 months because of the devastation wrought by 

19 Hurricane Katrina, I returned home to my chosen 

20 profession.

21 I quickly learned that I did not need 

22 a degree, especially the $60,000 one that I got from 
21

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Full Sail, to work in the jobs that were available 

2 in the industry.

3 The pay was good, $18 an hour plus time 

4 and a half after eight hours each day. A very 

5 demanding schedule of 15 to 16 hour days. But 

6 because of the nature of the industry, the jobs only 

7 lasted for a few weeks or a few months at a time.

8 I was constantly out of work and 

9 competing with others to jump on the next new 

10 project. That was never discussed during my time 

11 at Full Sail.

12 Due to the physically demanding work of 

13 being a set lighting technician and a grip, 

14 something that I should have learned prior to 

15 graduation if my training at Full Sail had been of 

16 adequate quality, three years after attending 

17 school and $95,000 in debt, I joined the National 

18 Guard.

19 Today, I work in the public affairs, 

20 doing photojournalism for the Louisiana National 

21 Guard, and the debt hangs over me daily.

22 When I went to school, I believed that 
22

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 it was a quality school since the school was able 

2 to offer federal financial aid. I believed that 

3 the government's approval of that school to use 

4 taxpayer dollars was a stamp of approval on the type 

5 of education they offered.

6 I would have never guessed I would be 

7 here, 13 years later, still dealing with the 

8 pressures of having such high student loan debt for 

9 a worthless degree.

10 I thought the Department of Education 

11 was looking out for and protecting, but instead, 

12 they approved a school that has done nothing but 

13 cause me heartache and stress, as I struggle to pay 

14 down unnecessary student debt that grows in 

15 interest.

16 The Department of Education has a 

17 responsibility to protect students like me from 

18 schools that take advantage of unsuspecting 

19 students.

20 We go to these schools to learn 

21 information that will enrich our lives, not to find 

22 out afterwards that our futures were sacrificed for 
23

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 short-term profit.

2 I implore the Department to please 

3 consider the impact of their decisions on students 

4 like me and to please keep protections for students 

5 in place, so others will not find themselves in the 

6 same situation I am currently in.

7 Thank you for your time and 

8 consideration.

9 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. Dr. 

10 Michele Ernst?

11 DR. ERNST: Good morning. My name is 

12 Dr. Michele Ernst. I am the Dean of SAE Institute 

13 North America and the President of Central States 

14 Private Education Network, or CSPEN.

15 I appreciate the opportunity to talk 

16 today about some of the key issues that are 

17 impacting the future of higher education.

18 I've had the privilege of being a peer 

19 evaluator for two national accreditation agencies 

20 over 20 years. Additionally, my dissertation 

21 research reviewed the differences between national 

22 and regional accreditation in the implications of 
24

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 higher education.

2 Accreditation agencies across the 

3 country were created as a way to ensure quality in 

4 higher education, while also ensuring 

5 standardization of expectations of students 

6 entering colleges and universities.

7 This fundamental expectation was 

8 changed when the accreditation agencies were made 

9 the gatekeepers of Title IV with the Higher 

10 Education Act.

11 No longer was accreditation about 

12 ensuring quality in higher education, but it also 

13 became a way to police schools for receiving 

14 federal financial aid.

15 We need to refocus on the purpose of 

16 accreditation agencies being responsible for 

17 ensuring quality, instead of determining whether 

18 an R2T4 was calculated properly or whether an 

19 institutional loan is administered correctly. 

20 While those questions need to be answered, it 

21 shouldn't be the role of an accreditation agency.

22 As many are aware, the credit hour 
25

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 definition was created by the Carnegie Foundation 

2 over 100 years ago. It was a system created to aid 

3 in the calculation of college professor pensions 

4 by gauging how many hours an instructor was 

5 teaching.

6 As stated by the Carnegie Foundation, 

7 it was never intended to function as a measure of 

8 what students learned. Yet, that is what it has 

9 become.

10 A student spends so much time sitting 

11 in a class and earns a grade of a B, and the 

12 expectation is that the student has mastered the 

13 learning outcome of the course in order to earn a 

14 grade of above average. Unfortunately, this is 

15 not always the case.

16 We need a system that determines how 

17 much financial aid a student is qualified for, 

18 while also communicating to the student, to the 

19 public, including the employers, what a student 

20 actually learned.

21 This leads me to the discussion on 

22 innovation in higher education. There are some 
26

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 institutions of higher learning that have been able 

2 to push the envelope and create some very 

3 innovative practices, such as Western Governors, 

4 Capella University, Excelsior College, to name a 

5 few.

6 However, these schools are the 

7 exception, and we have not seen innovation 

8 throughout higher education. Certainly, the 

9 implications of attempting something unique that 

10 might challenge this current system comes with 

11 risk, especially with our regulatory environment.

12 As a school administrator, I have found 

13 myself continually having to set aside what I know 

14 to be a better approach to student learning simply 

15 because I cannot make it fit into the current 

16 regulations.

17 I've had the privilege of working with 

18 a global group of schools, with over 50 throughout 

19 the world. During my interactions with my global 

20 colleagues, I hear about the innovations that 

21 they're able to implement, but yet, very few are 

22 things that we can replicate in the U.S., due to 
27

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 our regulations.

2 Competency-based and direct assessment 

3 are innovations that I believe can be a game changer 

4 in the U.S. The ability for a student to focus only 

5 on learning what they don't know, instead of 

6 spending time relearning what they already know, 

7 seems like a poor way to teach.

8 I have triplets that are now in college, 

9 all three of whom are attending traditional 

10 four-year public universities. My son, after his 

11 first semester, told me how easy college was 

12 compared to high school, and it was in large part 

13 because he was being taught what he already knew. 

14 He thought he was smarter than everybody else.

15 As a parent and as a taxpayer, you can 

16 imagine how disappointed I am, knowing that I paid 

17 that much money for my son to learn what he already 

18 knew.

19 Clearly, I support the need to commence 

20 with a new round of negotiated rulemaking that will 

21 address these critical topics. I applaud the 

22 Secretary for having the courage to review these 
28

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 critical components of higher education in an 

2 effort to make it better.

3 However, I am concerned about the sheer 

4 volume of topics --

5 MR. WASHINGTON: Twenty seconds left.

6 DR. ERNST: -- that are scheduled to be 

7 addressed. While they all need to be discussed, 

8 it seems it would be difficult to cover completely 

9 to reach consensus.

10 Thank you very much for giving me the 

11 opportunity to voice my opinion on these matters. 

12 I'm very passionate about all these topics and 

13 believe that we have the ability to make great 

14 changes to the current landscape, which will have 

15 lasting effects on future college students, as well 

16 as the employers who hire them.

17 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you.

18 DR. ERNST: Thanks.

19 MR. WASHINGTON: Rachel Farris?

20 MS. FARRIS: Good morning, thank you 

21 for this opportunity. My name is Rachel Farris, 

22 and I serve as Registrar for Columbia Southern 
29

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 University, and have for the last 13 years.

2 Prior to joining CSU, I served in the 

3 United States Navy for the same amount of time. I 

4 take pride in my chosen profession, and I am 

5 passionate about providing the necessary support 

6 to see our students succeed, no matter where they 

7 attend.

8 It is also my pleasure to support my 

9 fellow veterans and active-duty military students, 

10 which represent approximately 40 percent of CSU's 

11 nearly 30,000 active student body.

12 CSU is a private, family-owned, fully 

13 online institution that serves students across 

14 many professions. CSU is accredited by the 

15 Distance Education Accrediting Commission, which 

16 is a national accreditor recognized by the U.S. 

17 Department of Education and CHEA.

18 In addition, CSU participates in 

19 Quality Matters, a nationally recognized 

20 faculty-centered peer review process that 

21 certifies the quality of online educational 

22 courses.
30

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 I appreciate the Department reviewing 

2 the regular and substantive interaction, the 

3 credit hour definition, and state authorization, 

4 among many other areas affecting accrediting 

5 agencies and institutions.

6 However, today, I would like to 

7 specifically share an issue I see all too often as 

8 the Registrar. Because CSU is nationally 

9 accredited, our students are oftentimes denied 

10 acceptance of their earned credit or are denied 

11 entrance into a graduate program, a decision based 

12 solely on accreditation, with no comprehensive 

13 review of the program.

14 It is not uncommon for CSU students to 

15 encounter transfer credit and admissions policies 

16 that indicate only credits or degrees from 

17 regionally accredited institutions are accepted.

18 This happens even though the Department 

19 of Education and CHEA recognizes both national and 

20 regional accreditation.

21 Furthermore, CHEA, the American 

22 Council on Education, and AACRAO, issued a joint 
31

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 statement on transfer credit and award of the 

2 credit that states, institutions and accreditors 

3 should ensure that decisions about awarding 

4 transfer credit are not made solely on the source 

5 of accreditation of the sending program or 

6 institution, and further states that students 

7 should have reasonable explanations when credit is 

8 denied.

9 Despite this strong support for merit 

10 review when determining transferability of credit, 

11 we continue to see the denial of earned credits with 

12 no review or explanation, other than the sending 

13 institution is not regionally accredited.

14 Interestingly, it is common for 

15 admissions policies to accommodate international 

16 students holding academic credentials from foreign 

17 institutions to receive a review based on merit, 

18 but exclude a U.S. citizen who has earned a degree 

19 from a nationally accredited domestic institution.

20 In an effort to further assist these 

21 students, my office prepares transfer packets 

22 containing instructor credentials and curriculum 
32

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 information to encourage a merit-based review. 

2 Unfortunately, these efforts do not work if the 

3 receiving institution chooses to base transfer 

4 credit decision based solely on accreditation.

5 Discussing the issue of denied credit 

6 or a degree not meeting admissions requirements 

7 because of national accreditation is disheartening 

8 and a source of student frustration. These 

9 practices do not honor the student's investment of 

10 time and money, nor does it promote timely program 

11 completion with minimal financial debt.

12 I am not a proponent of regulations as 

13 a solution to fix every issue. I support each 

14 institution's responsibility for establishing its 

15 own academic policies.

16 However, I do believe that earned 

17 credits from a recognized institution should be 

18 granted a fair and merit-based review prior to a 

19 decision to deny the credit.

20 I understand why so many states have 

21 passed regulations to provide for the transfer of 

22 credit between community colleges and public 
33

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 four-year institutions.

2 I hope the Department can further 

3 explore this issue affecting so many students 

4 during this negotiated rulemaking session and 

5 determine a proper solution that respects the right 

6 of institutions to establish its own policies, 

7 while requiring transfer credit practice described 

8 in the joint statement.

9 I believe that we all want to promote 

10 timely program completion, the ability of a mobile 

11 student population to transfer earned credits, and 

12 for all students to be treated fairly.

13 CSU will follow up with written 

14 comments.

15 MR. WASHINGTON: Twenty seconds 

16 remaining.

17 MS. FARRIS: Thank you for the 

18 opportunity to share my remarks.

19 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. We've 

20 reached the end of our registered speakers. If 

21 someone who has not already spoken wishes to speak, 

22 you can come forward at this time.
34

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 If you haven't signed it, please sign 

2 in at the table here with the sign-in sheet. I did 

3 notice a few folks came in after we began.

4 And I will be here until our first 

5 break, if anyone wishes, that hasn't already 

6 spoken, wishes to testify. Thank you.

7 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

8 went off the record at 9:32 a.m. and resumed at 

9 10:31 a.m.)

10 MR. WASHINGTON: Hello, everybody. 

11 We have decided to change the break schedule, based 

12 on not having any speakers for the remainder of the 

13 day. We are going to take a break from 11:00 to 

14 12:15.

15 So we're not going to take a break now, 

16 we're going to take a break from 11:00 to 12:15. 

17 And we will reconvene at 12:15 until 1:00 p.m. 

18 Thank you.

19 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

20 went off the record at 10:31 a.m. and resumed at 

21 11:00 a.m.)

22 MR. WASHINGTON: We're going to break 
35

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 from 11:00 to 12:15.

2 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

3 went off the record at 11:00 a.m. and resumed at 

4 12:17 p.m.)

5 MR. WASHINGTON: Hello, everybody. 

6 We are reconvening for the rest of the day. So 

7 anybody in attendance who would like to come and 

8 speak that has not spoken, please come forward. We 

9 will finish the day at 1:00 p.m.

10 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

11 went off the record at 12:18 p.m. and resumed at 

12 1:01 p.m.)

13 MR. WASHINGTON: That concludes our 

14 public hearing. Thank you all for coming.

15 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

16 went off the record at 1:01 p.m.)

17

18

19

20

21

22
36

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1

2