Negotiated Rulemaking for Higher Education - …

Negotiated Rulemaking for Higher Education - … djj 1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION PUBLIC REGIONAL HEARING ON NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING Monday, June 15, 2009 8:58 a.m. – 3:51 p.m. Community College of Denver St. Catejan's Church 900 Auraria Parkway Denver, Colorado djj 2 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 MR. BERGERON: Good morning. By my watch 3 it may be still a minute or two before 9:00, but 4 we're going to go ahead and get started. 5 I'm David Bergeron. I direct policy for 6 the Office of Postsecondary Education at the U.S. 7 Department of Education. With me is Zakiya Smith, 8 from our Office of our Under Secretary; and Sally 9 Wanner, from our Office of General Counsel. We 10 will be starting this hearing off this morning, and 11 others of my colleagues will be joining us or 12 taking our place from time to time as the day goes 13 on and it's necessary. So, we'll change name tents 14 so you know who people are as we do that. 15 First of all, I'd like to thank our host 16 here at the Community College of Denver and 17 Metropolitan State and University of Colorado at 18 Denver. As you know, this is kind of a unique 19 campus where there are three institutions that 20 share the same location. Ever since I got involved 21 in collecting campus crime statistics, I've always 22 been fascinated by this campus. It presents a 23 unique experience for us because it is very 24 different than your traditional college campus. djj 3 1 We do have a sign interpreter here with us, 2 and if at any point during the morning or during 3 the day there's somebody who needs that service, 4 please let us know and we will have her come and 5 join us through the morning. 6 On May 26, 2009, we published a Federal 7 Register Notice announcing our intention to 8 establish Negotiated Rulemaking Committees and that 9 we would have hearings at three locations here in 10 Denver. We will also have a hearing later in the 11 week at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, 12 and then next week we'll be having a hearing at the 13 Community College of Philadelphia. 14 Those hearings will provide the public and 15 anyone who's interested the opportunity to tell us 16 what they think we should be doing in terms of our 17 regulations for the Federal Student Aid programs. 18 These hearings are important to us because they 19 form the basis on which we make decisions about 20 what to include in our next round of Negotiated 21 Rulemaking. 22 Subsequent to these hearings, we will be 23 beginning to take some time and consider the 24 comments we receive in forming a final negotiated djj 4 1 agenda. We will then do a subsequent Notice in the 2 Federal Register, announcing our intention to form 3 specific committees and what those committees will 4 be dealing with, and inviting members of the public 5 to nominate people to serve on those Negotiating 6 Committees. We anticipate that we will begin 7 negotiations in September, but a lot will depend on 8 how this process goes and the kind of input we get, 9 particularly the kinds of issues and the urgency of 10 those issues that people see. 11 In addition to these public hearings, we 12 will be hosting two forums tomorrow, one that will 13 deal with issues around simplification of the 14 process of applying for aid and the kinds of 15 communications that the Department has to help 16 improve college planning, preparation, and access. 17 We will also be having a forum on how we can 18 leverage our postsecondary education programs to 19 foster student educational persistence and degree 20 attainment. 21 With that introduction, I will begin to 22 hear from folks who have signed up to testify, 23 unless Sally or Zakiya have anything they would 24 like to add. djj 5 1 With that, then, I will invite Bob Collins 2 from Apollo Group to come to the podium and say 3 what he would like to say. 4 Good morning, Bob. 5 MR. COLLINS: Good morning, David. 6 My name is Bob Collins. I'm the Vice 7 President of Student Financial Aid for the Apollo 8 Group, which includes the subsidiaries University 9 of Phoenix and Western International University. 10 I've been a practicing student financial 11 aid administrator since 1981 at various colleges 12 and universities in the public and private for-13 profit sector. In fact, my career started here on 14 this campus. 15 I'm also fortunate to have served on three 16 U.S. Department of Education Negotiated Rulemaking 17 Committees since 2002. Thank you for the 18 opportunity to provide my experience and thoughts 19 to this important regulatory process. 20 Allow me to address the topics identified 21 in the Federal Register related to program 22 integrity: 23 Satisfactory academic progress. I 24 understand the issue of student academic progress, djj 6 1 or SAP, is coming forward as it relates to the 2 year-round Pell Grants administration. First and 3 foremost, the current SAP regulation is a template 4 that allows institutions the flexibility to 5 structure a program that is in the best interests 6 of both students and institutions, and it meets the 7 quantitative and qualitative measurement 8 requirements of the statute. If that is true, and 9 given that there does not seem to be a clamor in 10 the higher education community to tinker with its 11 provisions, why change it? 12 The year-round Pell provision in the 13 Higher Education Act is designed to allow low-14 income students the ability to afford continuous 15 enrollment opportunities and accelerate their 16 education program completion. We believe that the 17 existing SAP standards provide adequate safeguards 18 that are consonant with the objectives of the new 19 Pell provisions. 20 As for the definition of "credit hour," I 21 believe that oversight responsibility belongs with 22 the accrediting agencies, who can best determine 23 whether academic outcomes are being achieved. 24 Providing access to education for the over 70 djj 7 1 percent of students who must work while going to 2 school means that colleges need the flexibility to 3 provide alternatives in scheduling. Scheduling 4 alternatives may challenge old modes of measurement, 5 but they are imperative to innovations that benefit 6 students. 7 With respect to incentive compensation, to 8 the Apollo Group the issue boils down to one word: 9 clarity. Historically, these laws adopted in 1992 10 were not accompanied by any clear guidance until 11 2002. Between 1994 and 2002, the regulations did 12 little more than restate the extraordinarily broad 13 and vague wording of the statute itself. Without 14 any clear and official guidance, schools had no 15 idea what was permitted or prohibited with regard 16 to recruiter compensation. In light of this 17 confusion, the 2002 Safe Harbor Regulations brought 18 about the necessary clarity that the Department and 19 schools desired. As long as we understand what is 20 expected, we are more than willing to work with the 21 Department to implement this provision. 22 Regarding gainful employment in a 23 recognized occupation, the gainful employment 24 provisions in the law are legacies left over from a djj 8 1 period in higher education that has long since 2 ceased to exist. These provisions apply 3 predominantly to the proprietary sector. However, 4 it must be noted that in today's higher education 5 marketplace, for-profit postsecondary institutions 6 are no longer just trade, technical, or vocational 7 schools. Many, like the University of Phoenix, are 8 comprehensive universities providing higher 9 education, which doesn't fall neatly into narrow 10 job categories. 11 To graduate teachers, for example, we must 12 provide a wide array of liberal arts courses, and 13 we have graduated thousands of teachers nationwide. 14 Our newer environmental science programs at the 15 Bachelor's and Master's level will open doors to 16 green jobs of the future and should not be limited 17 by narrow definitions. 18 The University of Phoenix, like many other 19 schools of its type, is regionally accredited and 20 offers teacher’s education and nursing programs, 21 doctoral programs, and degrees in numerous other 22 disciplines that are not just trade and technical 23 in nature. 24 The federal government's role djj 9 1 traditionally has been to support the broadest 2 student choice of study possible and to avoid 3 federal intrusion into curricular matters. Any 4 limitation of study, particularly those derived 5 from lists of occupations that are based on 6 yesterday's jobs, not the jobs of the future, 7 places limitations on educational opportunities for 8 students. Certainly, students educated in liberal 9 arts programs are gainfully employed in recognized 10 occupations, yet for-profit providers have been 11 historically shut out from offering these degrees. 12 Any constricted interpretation of the program of 13 study provisions, based on a narrow definition of 14 what constitutes "gainful employment" to a 15 recognized occupation, would run counter to the 16 President's stated priority of making postsecondary 17 attainment a national hallmark by 2020. 18 As policymakers still continue to believe 19 these provisions are necessary at all, my strong 20 recommendation is to leave well enough alone and 21 maintain the current correlation to the Directory 22 of Occupational Titles maintained by the U.S. 23 Department of Labor. Any efforts to rein in the 24 scope of this provision would be contrary to the djj 10 1 President's stated education policy goals. 2 On state authorizations, states have 3 historically exercised their prerogative to find 4 their own regulatory environment, and institutions 5 of all types have learned to accept and operate 6 within defined state-proscribed boundaries. Some 7 states have a very active regulatory oversight 8 structure, and others have little or none. 9 They do not act in a vacuum, however, as 10 states are but one step in our regulatory triad. 11 Regional and national accreditors are actively 12 engaged in maintaining program integrity in all 50 13 states; and the Federal Government, of course, 14 continues its oversight of all institutions. This 15 system has proven to be relatively successful, and 16 we see no reason to force change and upheaval in a 17 system that seems to be working. 18 In states where authorization requirements 19 have not been specifically set, changes to those 20 policies should be addressed by state legislators 21 and governors, not the federal government. 22 Imposing a top-down requirement on states could 23 impede state-level efforts as well as potentially 24 complicate regulatory compliance. djj 11 1 Regarding the definition of "high school 2 diploma," regulatory guidance is welcome on this 3 matter to curb fraud and abuse, and a more easily 4 understood definition of a high school diploma 5 could be a key tool in our collective efforts to 6 ensure that fully qualified students attend our 7 institutions. Perhaps something as simple as a 8 national registry of known related fraudulent 9 activities would be a good start. 10 On other matters that should be addressed, 11 I wish to bring attention to the potential 12 unintended consequences of the 90/10 provisions: A 13 requirement that no more than 90 percent of a 14 proprietary institution's revenue may be derived 15 from Title IV funds on a cash basis of accounting. 16 These provisions only apply to the proprietary 17 sector, and many quality proprietary institutions 18 are feeling pressure to raise tuition after the 19 recent federal loan limits simply so they will not 20 be forced out of compliance with the 90/10 21 requirements. 22 The current economic recession and the 23 frozen credit markets, as well as the inability of 24 schools to deny a student federal loan, have djj 12 1 combined to put proprietary institutions with 2 tuition rates below the annual loan limits at great 3 risk of losing their institutional eligibility. 4 The recent legislation and negotiated rulemaking 5 offer very little and only temporary relief. This 6 is a significant issue and needs to be addressed 7 sooner rather than later. Since the current laws 8 are so prescriptive, I understand the Department is 9 limited in its capacity, and this should be 10 addressed by Congress in statute. 11 In the interest of keeping this testimony 12 brief, I'll defer further comments and supplement 13 my response and written commentary as instructed in 14 the Federal Register, as necessary. 15 Again, thank you for this opportunity, and 16 I'm happy to answer any questions you have today. 17 MR. BERGERON: Thank you, Bob. 18 Sally, do you have any questions? 19 Zakiya? 20 As Bob knows--he's been through this before--we 21 do occasionally ask questions of our witnesses when 22 we need clarifying information. 23 I was curious to--you noted that with 24 regard to credit hours as is principally in your djj 13 1 view something that accreditors should consider, I 2 was wondering if your accreditor provides you with 3 any standards or definitions or an explanation of 4 how they evaluate "credit hour" for their purpose. 5 So, do you have any insight into that? 6 MR. COLLINS: The accrediting agency is 7 responsible for the quality of the education 8 programs. Certainly, we've had numerous 9 accreditation visits to review our curriculum and 10 programs and our structure. And it's not just--11 since the University of Phoenix is nationwide, it's 12 not just the Higher Learning Commission that is the 13 regional accrediting agency that reviews our 14 programs of study. Each of the states in which we 15 operate in other regions, they also have the 16 opportunity to review our curriculum and programs. 17 MR. BERGERON: I was just curious whether 18 they, the Higher Learning Commission, provide you 19 any clear guidance or definition that helps you 20 determine--understand how they will evaluate your 21 programs against credit hour standards. 22 MR. COLLINS: I'm not the chief academic 23 officer. 24 MR. BERGERON: That's fair. That is fair. djj 14 1 MR. COLLINS: I'm not certain of that, but 2 I am aware that, you know, the programs we offer 3 generally meet all of the other traditional 4 university components. 5 MR. BERGERON: Okay. Thank you, Bob. 6 MS. WANNER: Thank you. 7 MR. COLLINS: Thank you. 8 MR. BERGERON: Our next person testifying 9 is Charles Lenth. 10 MR. LENTH: Good morning. I'm Charles 11 Lenth, Vice President of Policy Analysis and 12 Academic Affairs with the National Association of 13 State Higher Education Executive Officers, 14 generally called "SHEEO." We are located in 15 Boulder, Colorado. 16 I am pleased to provide written testimony 17 and speak on behalf of my association and its 18 leadership. In the interest of time, I will 19 shorten my written statements just a bit. 20 The 57 members of SHEEO, the SHEEO 21 Association, are the executive officers of agencies 22 and boards who govern, coordinate, and play other 23 policy roles for higher education at the state 24 level. Nearly one-third of SHEEOs also serve as a djj 15 1 state-level financial aid or loan guarantee agency, 2 others exercise coordinating or budgeting roles 3 relative to state financial aid, and all have a 4 deep concern for both the integrity and the 5 operations of the Federal Title IV programs. 6 Higher education has become a joint 7 federal-state responsibility in ways that were not 8 anticipated when the U.S. Constitution put 9 education in the category of responsibilities left 10 to the states. This has benefited and continues to 11 benefit students, the states, and the nation as a 12 whole. SHEEO’s vision of this relationship is that 13 it needs to be a partnership built on mutual 14 respect, mutual support, and mutual commitment. 15 Such a partnership is essential to support the 16 teaching, research, science, scholarship, public 17 service, and other contributions of higher 18 education to the prosperity and health of our 19 nation. 20 As an organization, we applaud the federal 21 government's increasing commitment to ensuring and 22 expanding access to postsecondary education through 23 Title IV programs. States, like the federal 24 government, provide and promote access through a djj 16 1 variety of programs and mechanisms. States also 2 recognize and are moving to address the need to 3 foster student success and improve rates of degree 4 and certificate completion. 5 Last summer, 96 current and former SHEEOs 6 signed an open letter to presidential candidates, 7 outlining the challenges ahead and calling for a 8 new national commitment to reverse our nation's 9 sagging education attainment and ensure global 10 competitiveness. That statement and a published 11 version, "Second To None in Higher Education, 12 Second to None in Attainment, Discovery and 13 Innovation: The National Agenda for Higher 14 Education," are available on the SHEEO Web site. 15 In our view, President Obama's call to be 16 the first in the world in educational attainment 17 and his administration's commitment to Title IV 18 programs herald a new era in the federal-state 19 partnership. SHEEOs do not shy away from the 20 boldness of the President's goal. Our association 21 has joined with others in arguing that states 22 together need to graduate or credential an 23 additional one million more students a year in 24 order to match the now leading nations of the world. djj 17 1 This goal will necessitate a dramatic 2 increase in completion rates as well as expanded 3 commitment to reach adults, underprepared and 4 underserved populations more effectively than in 5 the past. Such commitments and program 6 improvements in turn necessitate strong state roles 7 in developing student data and information systems, 8 collaborative financing mechanisms, more effective 9 and lower-cost academic and administrative support. 10 And through these and other measures, ensure 11 academic programs of higher quality and affordable 12 cost. Such challenges, we believe, can only be met 13 by the federal and state governments working 14 together more effectively and more consistently 15 than in the past. 16 Part of a new, more effective partnership 17 between the federal government and state 18 governments is surely to make the many parts of our 19 complex federal higher education system work more 20 effectively. Rulemaking is an important tool for 21 this purpose. SHEEOs have been active participants 22 in the rulemaking groups that recently focused on 23 questions raised in the implementation of the HEA 24 authorization under the Higher Education djj 18 1 Opportunity Act of 2008. Similarly, SHEEOs have 2 participated in early rulemaking sessions and would 3 welcome roles at the table in any future sessions. 4 SHEEO’s past participation in rulemaking 5 also helps us to understand its limitations. By 6 its nature, the process is constrained by the 7 limited focus and by the requirement to reach 8 consensus decisions across a wide range of 9 interested partners. In many instances, it seems 10 to us, the process is focused on questions that are 11 certainly of concern to states, but not necessarily 12 of a policy level importance. Similarly, the 13 process is limited by the need to treat all parties 14 and interests as essentially comparable and then 15 deferring to the Department for any decision-making 16 if consensus is not reached. 17 These limitations notwithstanding, SHEEO 18 takes a deep interest in the six or seven topics 19 that the Department listed in the May 26th Federal 20 Register. All of the topics listed are areas of 21 direct and continuing state involvement or interest, 22 or point to new areas where states could benefit 23 from additional federal policy guidance. 24 While today's hearings are not the djj 19 1 occasion for lengthy substantive discussion, let me 2 make a few comments on the importance of each of 3 these areas to states and state policy roles: 4 One, regulations governing foreign schools, 5 including those in the implementation of HEOA. The 6 increasing globalization of higher education brings 7 states face to face with a set of policy issues 8 that go well beyond the activities of traditional 9 international programs. Both American and foreign-10 born students are increasingly mobile, raising 11 questions related to immigration or visa status, 12 financing, liability, consumer protection, and 13 other areas of state interest. U.S. institutions, 14 including state-funded public institutions, are 15 increasingly engaged in programs and investments 16 abroad, often under unclear jurisdiction. 17 Most importantly, globalization demands 18 that states compete in a much broader, more complex 19 higher education marketplace, a challenge that some 20 other nations address through what are, in essence, 21 national higher education export and import 22 strategies. These are designed to help 23 institutions compete globally. For example, 24 Australia, for some years, has had an active effort djj 20 1 to attract students to its institutions; and, on 2 the other hand, the new government in India is 3 proposing to continue rather severe restrictions on 4 the activities of American institutions in that 5 country. 6 These are issues--these and other areas 7 are areas that the states simply cannot and are not 8 prepared to act on alone, and it's not appropriate 9 for them to act alone in many ways. States need 10 federal leadership and assistance in this area. 11 How far rulemaking can go and what other mechanisms 12 we need to think about, it seems to me, are 13 questions to be considered. 14 Two, satisfactory academic progress. 15 States and SHEEOs are engaged in a variety of 16 strategies to improve the preparation of students 17 for postsecondary education, ensure smooth 18 transitions, and increase program completion rates. 19 Satisfactory academic progress criteria for 20 purposes of Federal Title IV programs relate 21 directly to these efforts. Moreover, there is a 22 growing recognition within states that more must be 23 done both to provide students with the academic and 24 other support services needed, and to hold djj 21 1 institutions and students appropriately accountable 2 for the results. If rulemaking in this area is 3 undertaken, SHEEOs and state academic affairs 4 officers would be appropriate participants. 5 Three, incentive compensation for 6 recruiting and admissions activity. States play a 7 variety of roles in preventing fraud and providing 8 consumer protection in higher education as in other 9 areas. Whether through the SHEEO agency or under 10 the authority of the state Attorney General, these 11 roles are both a legal obligation and important 12 components of the regulation of postsecondary 13 education. The forms of compensation allowable 14 under program participation in Title IV may appear 15 to be outside the boundaries of this state 16 authority, but to the extent that abuses or fraud 17 or consumer complaints occur, they are likely to 18 involve state as well as federal laws and 19 enforcement. 20 Four, gainful employment in recognized 21 occupations. While I acknowledge and, to a large 22 extent, agree with the comments of the previous 23 speaker about the need to reconsider many of the 24 traditional definitions and constraints in this djj 22 1 area, I would like to make several other comments 2 on this. Documentation of employment by those who 3 complete federal education and training programs is 4 done in different ways in different states. SHEEO 5 offices may or may not be involved in these efforts. 6 But those efforts aside, a growing number of states 7 and SHEEO agencies are involved in a more 8 comprehensive tracking of students from 9 postsecondary education into the workplace. This 10 generally requires the involvement of state labor 11 market information offices, which operate within 12 differing agency structures. In other words, it's 13 an area of growing importance to states where there 14 remains a lot of complexity and competing ways to 15 go about this. There is a growing need to bring the 16 various federal agencies together and their 17 requirements into better alignment, and to 18 coordinate this with the growing interest of states 19 in doing--in providing better data in this area. 20 Five, state authorization as a component 21 of institutional eligibility. This topic, too, 22 raises extremely complex issues due to the variety 23 of roles states play relative to institutional 24 operation and degree-granting authority. Suffice djj 23 1 it to say that SHEEOs and other state authorities 2 need to be included in any rulemaking on this topic, 3 along with a balanced representation of 4 postsecondary providers who enroll students across 5 state lines. Accrediting agencies, as we mentioned 6 earlier, also need to be part of this balanced 7 participation. 8 Six, definition of "credit hour" for 9 program eligibility. Again, starting from a 10 relatively confined framework, the federal 11 government really plays--and the National Center of 12 Education Statistics, in particular, really play 13 very important roles in establishing consistent 14 definitions for many of the data elements widely 15 used in higher education. Many of these 16 definitions, including those around credit hours, 17 are used directly by states in funding formulas, 18 allocation mechanisms, program review and approval, 19 and other functional or administrative areas. 20 States also defer to accrediting agencies many 21 times in making their definition or in using the 22 definitions that are available. 23 Credit hour definitions under Pell and 24 other Title IV programs are one of the many factors djj 24 1 states typically take into account. Federal and 2 NCES leadership in this area are needed and 3 important, particularly as students and programs 4 use other types of metrics for student eligibility 5 and progress such as competency assessments as a 6 substitute for contact hour or seat-time 7 measurements. Maintaining some consistency between 8 state and federal definitions as these definitions 9 change over time is also important. 10 Let me conclude by saying that SHEEO as an 11 association and SHEEOs in their respective state 12 roles welcome opportunities to be full participants 13 in the Department's rulemaking actions. I suspect 14 that we all realize, however, that we need to take 15 steps that go well beyond the purposes and realms 16 of rulemaking. What we need is a recommitment to 17 work together more effectively to meet increasingly 18 urgent national state and local needs. Immense 19 progress has been achieved when the federal 20 government marshals the efforts of institutions and 21 leverages the resources of states to expand 22 educational opportunity and provide the basis for 23 growth and innovation in the economy. It is time 24 and it is imperative that we make this partnership djj 25 1 work even better. 2 Thank you for this opportunity to testify on behalf 3 of SHEEO, and I would be pleased to respond to any 4 questions. 5 MR. BERGERON: Thank you, Charlie. 6 Sally, do you have any questions? 7 MS. WANNER: Could you say a little bit 8 more about the need for state and federal 9 involvement in the strategies to export or import 10 our education abroad? 11 MR. LENTH: Sure. 12 It seems to me that a beginning point in this area 13 is to recognize that our educational relationships 14 with other countries are really part of our foreign 15 policy in many important respects, and that always 16 has been a role of the federal government, and 17 needs to be. 18 Our challenge, relative to the countries 19 that have more of a ministerial structure for all 20 levels of education--well, higher education in 21 particular, is that we struggle to know who is in 22 the lead, so to speak. And it's not just the 23 federal government and states; it is large 24 institutions and other types of providers that are djj 26 1 now actively engaged in this area. 2 There are very large organizations trying 3 to bring the parts of this together, but my point 4 of view is that neither the federal government nor 5 the states have been as active as we need to be to 6 be really competitive with some of the other 7 nations in the way they're going about this. I 8 mentioned two instances of this. 9 But we struggle, for example, when we try to relate 10 to the activities of the European Union in higher 11 education. I just think it's an area that needs 12 more conversation and discussion, and, again, in 13 which I suspect we'll have to come up with some way 14 for the federal government and state governments 15 and institutions to work together a little more 16 effectively. 17 MS. SMITH: Thanks. 18 Relating to those two instances abroad, can you 19 speak more about what they are? Because I'm not 20 sure I'm familiar with the India example that you 21 shared about foreign-- 22 MR. LENTH: I literally just took two 23 examples off the top of my head. 24 MS. SMITH: Okay. djj 27 1 MR. LENTH: But I'm willing to talk and 2 share what I know, at least. 3 MS. SMITH: Sure. 4 MR. LENTH: I mean, Australia, along with 5 other countries, has been actively promoting access 6 to its institutions by citizens of other nations 7 and recruiting them in very helpful ways. We, for 8 a combination of good reasons, have traditionally 9 been open, but more recently been more restrictive 10 and not done much to really promote that sort of 11 activities beyond some programs that have been in 12 place for many, many years. And, by the way, were-13 -have been very, very effective. 14 But that said, looking at the numbers, 15 students are going to a variety of other countries 16 in higher numbers than they used to, and our 17 numbers tend to go up and down. And we are, in 18 economic terms, highly dependent upon many of those 19 students, particularly in many important fields, 20 both in this country and in their own nations. 21 With respect to the restrictions and other 22 things, there I would make the point that it seems 23 to me as a nation we need to be engaged with those 24 countries that are, in essence, opening up the djj 28 1 higher education markets and bringing some, not 2 uniformity, but ways to articulate the systems more 3 effectively across national boundaries rather than 4 following the direction that India appears to be 5 going in at this time, which is to sort of close 6 down its borders. But in both instances, we need 7 to be engaged and we need good federal leadership, 8 it seems to me. 9 MS. SMITH: Thank you. 10 MR. BERGERON: One last one for me, 11 Charlie, and that is that you mentioned the need 12 for better alignment with state needs around I'll 13 call it "workforce development," you know, gainful 14 employment kinds of things, and spoke to the issue 15 of other federal agencies. I suspect--I have my 16 list of federal agencies. I was wondering if you 17 had a list that we should be coordinating with. 18 MR. LENTH: I happened, a couple of weeks 19 ago, to go to the national meeting of the Labor 20 Market Information Specialists and had--and was 21 really able to understand their point of view more 22 fully, I think. And there were a number of federal 23 agencies represented there: the Bureau of Labor 24 Statistics and Department of Labor and others. djj 29 1 I don't know how you face it in the D.C. 2 area, but sort of out in the states, we don't work 3 together nearly as well as we should in most areas. 4 But the leading examples of Connecticut and 5 Kentucky and several other states really illustrate 6 how much benefit can come from working with those 7 sources, those data providers, who know the 8 workforce education data. 9 I believe, and I don't mean to contradict 10 the previous speaker, but the federal government 11 did education and the economy, economic development, 12 a lot of good by putting into place early, fairly 13 well-defined prescriptions for looking at 14 employment after education and training. I think 15 what we face is a challenge to do more of that, 16 involving more fields and more types of programs, 17 but not to do it in an onerous way. And I actually 18 think there are ways to do that. 19 MR. BERGERON: Thank you, Charlie. 20 Anyone else? 21 MS. SMITH: No, thank you. 22 MR. BERGERON: Thank you. 23 The next person coming to present to us is 24 Jim Simpson. djj 30 1 MR. SIMPSON: Good morning. I'm Jim 2 Simpson, Associate Vice President at Florida 3 Community College at Jacksonville. 4 Florida Community College is a public 5 four-year college serving over 82,000 students in 6 Northwest Florida. We are pleased to offer the 7 following comments as the Department of Education 8 begins the process to improve accountability in 9 Student Financial Aid Programs. Specifically, my 10 comments are going to revolve around three areas: 11 standards of academic progress, gainful employment, 12 and definition of a high school diploma. 13 Americans want access to higher education 14 for themselves and for their children. The 15 dissonance between what Americans hope for and the 16 lack of student success achieved by all sectors of 17 public education is significant. There is a need 18 to change the regulatory requirements for standards 19 of academic progress in order to ensure the ongoing 20 eligibility of Federal Student Financial Aid. But 21 there's also a need to structure those regulatory 22 standards to also increase the likelihood of 23 student success towards achieving their own 24 educational and personal goals. djj 31 1 With these two goals in mind, we recommend 2 the following two changes in determination of 3 satisfactory academic progress. Although access to 4 higher education is virtually universally available, 5 many students who start in higher education 6 programs drop out prior to completing their degree 7 or achieving their individual academic goals. The 8 educational philosophy of having standards of 9 academic progress is to ensure that students are 10 making progress towards academic goals and to serve 11 as a mechanism to provide information to an 12 institution that allows that institution to assist 13 students who are not satisfactorily progressing. 14 Educational research demonstrates that the 15 earlier the intervention happens, the more likely 16 the student is to be successful; and determining 17 academic progress at least once a year--at a 18 minimum of at least once a year--does not lend 19 itself to sound educational practice. FCCJ 20 recommends that institutions monitor satisfactory 21 academic progress at the end of each term, and in 22 programs that are less than one year old at the 25 23 percent, 50 percent, and 75 percent length of 24 program. djj 32 1 In America's community colleges, over 50 2 percent of all first-time-in-college students 3 tested are unprepared for the academic demands of 4 college-level courses and programs. The percentage 5 of underprepared students in higher education has 6 not changed significantly across the United States 7 in the last two decades. A high school diploma is 8 not, nor has it been by itself, an indicator of a 9 student's ability to benefit. Without a college 10 entrance testing, how can we determine if a student 11 is truly college-ready? Without required 12 remediation of unprepared students, how can we 13 expect those students to perform at the 14 postsecondary level? 15 FCCJ recommends that all postsecondary 16 institutions have entrance testing requirements 17 that are consistent with the requirements for 18 publicly supported postsecondary institutions in 19 the state in which they're locally located. FCCJ 20 also recommends that students who do not test into 21 college-ready status receive remediation per the 22 requirements placed on publicly supported 23 postsecondary institutions in the state in which 24 the institution is located. djj 33 1 In regard to gainful employment, I'd have 2 to agree with our previous speaker: We feel that 3 all prospective students are entitled to accurate, 4 detailed, and comprehensive information about 5 recent job placement and earning history in order 6 to make more informed choices before they invest in 7 education or training. 8 In Florida, all public-supported community 9 and state colleges are held accountable for the 10 gainful employment of our graduates. This 11 information is collected by the Florida Education 12 and Training Placement Information Program, 13 lovingly known as "FETPIP." 14 FETPIP is a data collection and consumer 15 reporting system established by Florida statute to 16 provide follow-up data on former students. 17 FETPIP's automatic matching method of data 18 collection replaces conventional survey-type 19 techniques and provides third-party verification of 20 employment status and the earnings of graduates 21 from Florida's numerous public and independent 22 institutions. 23 We recommend the use of wage record data 24 to track postsecondary employment and earnings of djj 34 1 graduates. Linking wage records to student 2 graduate files will provide all types of rich 3 information sources for all types of institutions 4 to gain insights into the effectiveness of their 5 educational programs. The data made available from 6 the state's wage record systems, like FETPIP or 7 California's PEETS, can be used to address a wide 8 range of needs. These include responding to 9 federal and state accountability measures; 10 providing information on postgraduate earnings and 11 employment rates; and, more importantly, providing 12 consumers with an accurate third-party information 13 about employment and earnings of graduates from an 14 institution. 15 In regard to the definition of a "high 16 school diploma" as a condition of receiving student 17 --or Federal Student Financial Aid, Florida public 18 community colleges and state colleges do not accept 19 self-reported high school diploma or GEDs. Each 20 student admitted to a Florida public institution 21 must provide proof that that student graduated with 22 either a standard high school diploma or GED. 23 Institutions that accept self-reporting information 24 run the risk of accepting students ill-prepared for djj 35 1 college-level course work. 2 Basing ability to benefit on self-reported 3 high school completion without credential 4 verification is not in the students' nor the 5 taxpayers' best interests. We believe that 6 institutions of higher education accepting Federal 7 Financial Student Aid funds have the responsibility 8 to ensure that students receiving those funds have 9 the ability to benefit and are able to successfully 10 complete college-level work. Colleges can make 11 this determination by requiring verification of 12 high school diplomas. 13 In concluding my remarks, I'd like to put 14 a human face on what happens when schools take 15 advantage of lax regulations. This is one of the 16 reasons I flew from Jacksonville to Denver to speak 17 to you today. At FCCJ, we see many students who 18 seek admission to our programs and want to transfer 19 credits at other institutions. It's always 20 difficult to tell some of these students that they 21 need to take remedial classes before they can take 22 college credit classes. 23 We had a student come to us with a special 24 high--special education high school diploma who had djj 36 1 attended a for-profit university and was seeking 2 admission to one of our selective access programs. 3 Although the student and their family told the 4 university in question that the student had a 5 special education diploma, they accepted her into a 6 college credit program. The student and their 7 family took out large loans to pay for the tuition 8 and fees, and the student made the academic honor 9 roll by earning A's and B's, including an A in 10 College Algebra, this despite later test results 11 from FCCJ that placed the student at an elementary 12 school level in mathematics, language, and reading. 13 Since the student tested at the elementary 14 school level and did not have a standard high 15 school diploma or GED, they could not be considered 16 ready for college-level work. After counseling and 17 more testing, we encouraged the student to work on 18 their GED, and they were re-administered an easier 19 assessment according to our state guidelines for 20 entry into the GED program. A ninth-grade level is 21 required to take the GED classes, and the student 22 tested overall at the sixth grade, seventh month. 23 Under state law, none of the student's 24 scores would have gained them entry into any credit djj 37 1 or non-credit program offered by a public 2 institution in the state of Florida. This student 3 and their family took out $16,000 in student loans 4 to pay for a two-year degree from a for-profit 5 university that was clearly only interested in 6 tuition money obtained from federally backed 7 student loans. This student has been unable to 8 find employment beyond a minimum wage entry job and 9 will have great difficulty paying off the student 10 loans that their family took out. 11 Verification of a high school diploma with 12 an accurate assessment of academic preparedness 13 would have quickly brought to light the challenges 14 that this student faced. The parents of this 15 student are to be commended for their desire to 16 better their daughter's education, but it is a 17 travesty that they were encouraged to take out huge 18 student loans when their daughter has almost no 19 chance of getting a job that would allow the 20 eventual repayment of those loans. 21 Tighter federal requirements are needed to 22 prevent more aspiring students from facing a 23 lifetime of financial burden that they have little 24 or no chance of repaying. djj 38 1 Thank you for allowing me the privilege to 2 speak before you. If you have any questions, I'll 3 be happy to take them. 4 MR. BERGERON: Let me ask you a couple and 5 make a comment before I do. 6 One of the things that is in the Higher 7 Education Opportunity Act that we're just finishing 8 the process of regulating around--or this phase of 9 the process because we go public comment period--is 10 to deal with the last kind of circumstance you 11 described in the sense that, you know, our higher 12 education system or postsecondary education system 13 really doesn't do particularly well for students 14 with certain kinds of disabilities, particularly 15 intellectual disabilities, and one of the things in 16 the Higher Education Opportunity Act is some 17 provisions to address that and give students 18 eligibility for Pell Grants and other student aid, 19 but not student loans, so that they can pursue 20 programs that are specifically designed to address 21 the needs of those students. 22 And so I think that there are some things 23 coming down the line that will, you know, provide 24 an alternative for families, for students and djj 39 1 families, in that circumstance, and I do think that 2 there's significant promise to that approach. 3 With regard to your point about monitoring 4 set more often, particularly for, you know, the 5 very short intervals for short-term programs, I 6 would like you to address, if you might, the 7 response, the likely response, of some others of 8 your colleagues, which would be that this is 9 burdensome, this is just too hard to do. And could 10 you speak to how you think that can be addressed as 11 we go forward to regulate. 12 MR. SIMPSON: I can speak from the 13 perspective of our own institution. We currently 14 assess student academic progress once a term or at 15 the benchmarks I just described. The reason for 16 that is that, again, we want the students to be as 17 successful as possible. We see a linkage of the 18 student financial aid. But, more importantly, it 19 was an impetus for us to begin earlier 20 interventions with our students. 21 Is it onerous? I would say not, if you 22 look at your overall mission, which is to ensure 23 that students are going to be successful or as 24 successful as you can hopefully make them with the djj 40 1 resources that you have. So, in that regard, I 2 don't think it's an onerous responsibility for an 3 institution. I think it's in that institution's 4 best interest and in the client's best interest for 5 whom they're serving. 6 MR. BERGERON: And so your satisfactory 7 academic progress approach triggers an intervention? 8 MR. SIMPSON: Yes. 9 MR. BERGERON: Right. So, it's really 10 even more than it is used to monitor for purposes 11 of determining aid eligibility. It's really an 12 educational approach to trigger-- 13 MR. SIMPSON: That's correct. We took the 14 opportunity to leverage and to use it as an 15 intrusive intervention strategy. 16 MR. BERGERON: That's very helpful. Thank 17 you. 18 Thank you. Our next presenter is Pamela 19 Swanson. 20 Good morning, Dr. Swanson. 21 DR. SWANSON: Good morning. Thank you for 22 allowing me to speak to you this morning. 23 I'm here really for the purpose of 24 offering you a perspective from an employer of djj 41 1 students from the University of Phoenix. And I 2 currently serve as Deputy Superintendent for Adams 3 County School District 50. It's an urban school 4 district just to the west of us here. We have 5 about 10,000 students, primarily Latino students, 6 but we do have over 44 languages and a high poverty 7 level, and so we face many of the challenges that 8 urban school districts face. 9 I have been in partnership with--and our 10 district has, with the University of Phoenix for at 11 least the past five years; and, during that time, 12 we've been very successful in working with students 13 who have exited the programs, the preparation 14 programs specifically, for teacher education and 15 for administration, educational administration. 16 I'm sure I don't need to echo what you already know 17 about teacher turnover and supply and demand as a 18 nation in terms of quality educators for our 19 students. 20 I believe the rigor, along with the 21 flexibility, that the university provides to its 22 adult students to be able to accomplish advanced 23 degrees specifically, and now with a Teacher Ed 24 Program to be able to enter the field of education djj 42 1 is superior, and we've had great success. And I 2 think it also offers more of a seamless transition 3 because of the practical application aspects of the 4 programs. 5 For our educators, and also our hope now 6 with our high school juniors and seniors maybe 7 wanting to enter the field of education, we're 8 really hopeful that we can continue to have great 9 support from the state and federal government to be 10 able to provide support for our students entering 11 into the University of Phoenix and other 12 institutions of higher learning. 13 And I'd be happy to answer any questions 14 you may have. 15 Oh, one additional thing: 2007, we 16 started our own district cohort with the University 17 of Phoenix, and now we have a Grow Your Own Program, 18 and we're finding great success with that, as well. 19 And our first graduating class will be walking this 20 Saturday with Master's degrees. 21 MR. BERGERON: Thank you. No questions. 22 Thank you. 23 DR. SWANSON: Thank you. 24 MR. BERGERON: Randall Swanson. djj 43 1 MR. SWANSON: Good morning. My name is 2 Randy Swanson, and I do appreciate the opportunity 3 to talk with you today about the University of 4 Phoenix. 5 I have two roles, actually. One is that I 6 am a consultant and senior partner in Swanson Group, 7 LLC, which what happens is we work to support 8 people achieving their potential through their most 9 valuable resource, and that's people. And so, 10 given the opportunity to work with the University 11 of Phoenix to create the best opportunity for 12 success for our company and as well as the 13 companies that people work with, it's been an honor 14 to work with the University of Phoenix. 15 I also have 33 years in public education. 16 I have been a teacher, administrator, principal, so 17 I think I have a little bit of background on what 18 the University of Phoenix can do for our students 19 and what the students can do for public education. 20 I work in the Master's Program and get to teach 21 with all of the adults who come through the program 22 in educational administration and curriculum 23 instruction. 24 So, just a couple of things about the djj 44 1 University's program. It's been an outstanding 2 program in providing flexibility for students to 3 become more than they wanted to be. It gives them 4 opportunities that they wouldn't have in 5 traditional institutions because of time 6 commitments. But the working adult gets an 7 opportunity to grow and develop and become whatever 8 it is that they choose, especially in the 9 educational field. It makes a big difference in 10 their lives. 11 The University of Phoenix has developed an 12 academic rigor that is absolutely second to none. 13 I have been an adjunct professor at two other 14 institutions and find that the University of 15 Phoenix rigor is as good as it gets. And students 16 who use that academic rigor to their best abilities 17 come out with a quality education that they can 18 apply in any direction. I'm very proud of what it 19 has afforded to most of the students that we work 20 with. 21 It also allows them practical application. 22 You know, in some students--in some institutions, 23 students get the knowledge base, but they don't get 24 to apply the program. And because they're not-- djj 45 1 they don't have the ability to use that application 2 on a regular basis because they're not working 3 directly in the programs as they are with the 4 University of Phoenix, they usually don't get to 5 make that application until after graduation of 6 which there's still a learning process that goes on. 7 And while students who graduate from the University 8 of Phoenix continue to grow and develop as they go 9 in through their--the jobs that they choose, they 10 still have that practical application that makes a 11 difference for what they need to do as they come 12 out. 13 I place a lot of those students. The 14 students that we work with--I work with public 15 education as well as high school districts, school 16 districts, all across the State of Colorado and 17 even some out of state. We place these students in 18 quality jobs because they're qualified, because the 19 university has done an outstanding job of training 20 these individuals to be productive in this society. 21 And I have to tell you, I kind of have a 22 selfish reason why I support the University of 23 Phoenix. Saturday, my daughter will be graduating 24 with her Master's degree from the University of djj 46 1 Phoenix, and I'm truly honored to have her been a 2 part of that university. And the knowledge base 3 that she's developed will carry her on through the 4 rest of her life. 5 I'd be happy to answer any questions at 6 this time. 7 MR. BERGERON: No questions. Thank you. 8 MR. SWANSON: You're welcome. 9 MS. SMITH: Thank you. 10 MR. BERGERON: Michael Goodwin. 11 Good morning, Michael. 12 MR. GOODWIN: Good morning. First, I'd 13 like to say thank you for letting me speak. 14 I came up in--to speak on behalf of the 15 students, and mainly the older students. I, myself, 16 just received my Bachelor's and am going on to my 17 Master's. And without the universities and the 18 ease that they can allow us to get into them, us 19 older people would not have that chance. 20 Also, you know, we're trying to balance a job; 21 we're trying to balance our students. And so I'm 22 not sure what's going on with the changes, but my 23 recommendation are, unless it's going to become 24 easier for the student--because we're looking at djj 47 1 higher education and I hear a lot of talk about 2 younger students, but there's a lot of people that 3 are a little bit older that would love to get back 4 into it; and, without this opportunity, we wouldn't 5 be able to. 6 I, myself, went 15 years before going back 7 to college because I had no idea how or what to do 8 or how to do it. So, I'm just trying to speak on 9 behalf of--whatever changes are involved, I just 10 want to make sure that the student is take care of 11 and not just the universities and not just the 12 colleges, but I want the students to be looked at, 13 because it's the student that's going to make the 14 difference. 15 So--and I think that's it. Just a real 16 quick speech. 17 Any questions I can answer? 18 MS. SMITH: Thank you, Michael. 19 And I just wanted to say a comment about the new 20 initiative that the President is very committed to 21 helping adult learners come back to school. And 22 there is "opportunity.gov," which is a Web site, in 23 a joint collaboration with the Department of Labor 24 that was recently launched to help especially adult djj 48 1 learners who have been recently laid off. So, 2 that's a commitment of the Administration, is to 3 really help adult learners. 4 MR. GOODWIN: It's a very nice thing to do, 5 so--and I know three people that have gone through 6 it that would not otherwise have been able to not 7 knowing this chance, so thank you. 8 MR. BERGERON: Thank you, Michael. We 9 appreciate your coming. Always good to have a 10 student perspective. 11 MS. SMITH: Yes. 12 MR. BERGERON: Sharon Parrott, are you 13 ready to speak? She kind of looked surprised. 14 When I was handed the note they said that we--that 15 you were willing to come to be fit in. 16 MS. PARROTT: Well, I was willing to come 17 before the break if you wanted. 18 Good morning. 19 MR. BERGERON: Good morning. I'm trying 20 to get my schedule back in line and I figured you 21 would be ready. 22 Thank you. Good morning. 23 MS. PARROTT: I'm trying. Okay. 24 Well, good morning. I'm Sharon Thomas djj 49 1 Parrott. I'm Senior Vice President for Government 2 Affairs and Chief Compliance Officer at DeVry Inc., 3 which is the parent company for higher education 4 institutions, including DeVry University and it's 5 Keller Graduate School of Management; Ross 6 University School of Medicine and Veterinary 7 Medicine; Chamberlain College of Nursing; Apollo 8 Colleges; Western Career Colleges; Fanor in Brazil; 9 and as well as Advanced Academics, a regionally 10 accredited virtual high school; and Becker 11 Education, providing test preparation for CPA and 12 CFA post-baccalaureate certification programs. 13 It's my pleasure to have the opportunity 14 to speak to you today on behalf of our more than 15 100,000 students enrolled in one of our nursing, 16 health sciences, business technology, and 17 management programs. We also plan to provide 18 detailed written testimony on the specific issues 19 outlined in the May 26 Federal Notice, and hope as 20 well to participate in Neg-Reg panels convened as a 21 result of those hearings. 22 The DeVry Education Network of Colleges 23 and Universities prepare students for meaningful 24 and fulfilling careers by focusing on academic djj 50 1 rigor and workforce needs. While some institutions 2 take justifiable pride in educating Nobel Prize 3 winners, we take pride in educating those who start 4 and manage businesses, maintain the technologies to 5 support our country's businesses, implement designs, 6 provide valuable health care services, service 7 family practitioners in urban and rural America, 8 and monitor and troubleshoot operations. 9 Our student body is diverse, with many 10 being first-time, first-generation, traditional 11 recent high school graduates seeking a career-12 oriented college experience close to home; working 13 adults looking to advance their careers; adult 14 learners eager to re-enter higher education; and 15 aspiring nurses and physicians seeking to close the 16 gap in health care workers. It's important to note 17 that our diverse population represents an 18 opportunity for the nation to incrementally 19 increase educational attainment and prosperity. 20 These so-called "nontraditional students" 21 include those who are not bound by a traditional 22 academic calendar, who stop out on more than one 23 occasion to balance work and family, who migrate 24 from school to school to find the institution that djj 51 1 best fits their needs, and move from job to job or 2 career to career. They are fast becoming the 3 traditional description of America's typical higher 4 education population. 5 Our current economic challenges make it 6 imperative that our Federal Financial Aid Programs 7 support the access that all students require to be 8 successful. We look forward to once again working 9 with the Department of Education on the regulatory 10 issues that have brought us together today. 11 Higher education is in a period of rapid evolution. 12 Financial considerations are intruding on all areas. 13 Students are decrying rapidly raising tuition, 14 faculty are demanding higher pay and improved 15 benefits, inflation affects occupancy cost and 16 other expenses, and taxpayers demand smaller tax 17 increases and more accountability. 18 Earlier warnings, almost 20 years ago, of our 19 nation's state of unreadiness to deal with a 20 declining educational attainment and the resulting 21 economic hardships are coming to pass. The lack of 22 preparedness of our workforce coupled with the 23 increasingly high skill level demands of the 20th 24 Century economy is on a dangerous convergence of djj 52 1 trends. 2 Serving the needs of current and future 3 students and their employers requires an effective 4 and efficient allocation of higher education 5 resources. Private investment represents an 6 additional source of educational capital, which 7 together with public and philanthropic sources can 8 help our society serve its growing educational 9 needs. 10 Our self-interest, our national security, our 11 ability to compete in the world marketplace will 12 require that more of our population receive a 13 quality education. Many students will require more 14 financial assistance in the future, not less. Yet, 15 the return on America's investment if we apply a 16 student-centric higher education funding approach 17 can yield significant benefit for our country. 18 In a recent report by CEOs for Cities, researchers 19 found that "increasing the four-year college 20 attainment rate in each of the nation's 51 largest 21 metropolitan areas by one percentage point would be 22 associated with $124 billion increase in aggregate 23 annual personal income." If we're going to regain 24 our competitive prominence around the world and djj 53 1 emerge from this economic crisis renewed, prepared, 2 and resolved, democratizing higher education 3 through genuine student access and opportunity in 4 an accountable but nimble environment is a must. 5 In my 37 years in higher education, I've had 6 the good fortune to be both a professor and 7 administrator in public, independent, and privately 8 funded institutions, along with a number of years 9 at the U.S. Department of Education. In 1982, I 10 came to DeVry to establish a regulatory compliance 11 program designed to ensure federal and state 12 program accountability. Twenty-seven years later, 13 that regulatory oversight has exponentially grown 14 to include federal and state education departments, 15 the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the New 16 York Stock Exchange. 17 We believe strongly that consistent guidelines 18 should be established to assist all institutions in 19 the sound administration of their educational and 20 student finance programs. We believe just as 21 strongly that performance, not sector, should be 22 the basis of any unique requirements. 23 Solutions that focus on reducing student access 24 rather than improving program accountability can djj 54 1 have catastrophic effects on this nation. Likewise, 2 solutions that do not harshly and swiftly punish 3 abusers of students and student financial aid 4 programs regardless of sector will have a 5 devastating effect on our programs and on America's 6 students. The following recommendations are made 7 to preserve access and choice and to ensure 8 educational opportunity while demanding 9 accountability. 10 Equal and fair performance-based criteria must 11 be developed and used to determine which 12 institutions should participate in Title IV 13 programs and to determine that level of 14 participation. It is vital that any plan based on 15 performance include the development of effective 16 and equitable criteria and the ability of 17 institutions and regulatory bodies to manage and 18 enforce the plan. 19 We support the recent HEA amendments, which 20 require strong foreign medical school Title IV 21 eligibility requirements, including at least a 75 22 percent examination pass rate. To be licensed to 23 practice medicine in the United States, the 24 Educational Commission for Foreign Medical School djj 55 1 Graduates requires students to pass--to take and 2 pass the United States Medical Licensing Exam. Our 3 medical school, Ross University, is proud that our 4 pass rate for first time test-takers on the U.S. 5 MLE is over 90 percent. We are looking forward to 6 the Neg-Reg process and working with you. 7 With respect to the suggested program integrity 8 and forum topics, we offer the following comments 9 and welcome the opportunity for dialogue with a new 10 administration that result in a clearer 11 understanding of and mutual support for student-12 centric rules and regulations. 13 Although some have suggested that recent 14 changes in the Higher Education Act serve to loosen 15 incentive compensation safe harbor regulations, we 16 believe, as was mentioned earlier, that they've 17 actually clarified the rules and given institutions 18 and the Department much needed guidelines for 19 compliance as well as program review and audit. 20 We believe strongly in the triad: the complementary 21 but unique roles of state authorization, 22 accreditation, and the U.S. Department of Education. 23 Working together and sharing information as was 24 mandated in HEA of 1992 --which I will say I was a djj 56 1 part of as well--has strengthened all three and 2 improved oversight based on each one's area of 3 expertise. 4 I think we can all agree that simplification of 5 the higher--of the financial aid application 6 process, including a verification system that 7 utilizes information that the federal government 8 has at its disposal, should be implemented as soon 9 as practical. The complicated and inefficient 10 system we now force students to use is a deterrent 11 to college attendance. It overwhelms and 12 discourages our most at-risk students and their 13 families, resulting too often in them giving up. 14 One of the institutions in the DeVry Education 15 Network is Advanced Academics, a regionally 16 accredited virtual high school, that serves 17 students in more than 200 school districts across 18 the United States by requiring--by providing 19 everything from credit recovery through advance 20 placement coursework, as well as full high school 21 diplomas. 22 We agree that the Department should set 23 standards for the definition of a "high school 24 diploma" used to determine eligibility for djj 57 1 financial aid. The most direct road to increasing 2 college completion is increasing valid high school 3 graduation. 4 Dual enrollment programs such as the DeVry 5 University Advantage Academy, which operates with 6 the Chicago Public Schools and the Columbus Public 7 Schools, provides such a pathway to college 8 completion. This program allows public school 9 students to take their junior and senior year 10 courses from certified high school teachers while 11 simultaneously taking college courses from DeVry 12 professors. 13 At the end of two years, including two 14 summers, students graduate with both a high school 15 diploma and an associate degree at no cost to them 16 or their families and without using federal or 17 state student financial aid, and we do that on the 18 Carnegie Credit Hour. Our graduation rate is more 19 than 90 percent with one-third getting started 20 right in their careers after graduation and two-21 thirds going on for their Bachelor's degrees. 22 About 40 percent of those go on for their 23 Bachelor's degrees at DeVry University. Sixty 24 percent go on to other four-year institutions, many djj 58 1 of them in the State of Illinois or Ohio. 2 In my 27 years at DeVry Inc., I would have to 3 say that working with the Chicago Public Schools 4 under Secretary Duncan's leadership to create the 5 Advantage Academy has been one of my proudest 6 accomplishments. 7 Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify 8 before you today. We look forward to working 9 closely with the Department and the greater higher 10 education community during the Negotiated 11 Rulemaking process. We share President Obama's 12 vision of meeting the educational needs of our 13 youngest citizens from cradle to grave--and career. 14 Not grave. Cradle to career. Scratch that. This 15 can only be accomplished if all sectors of 16 education work as critical components of a diverse 17 system that provide students different paths to 18 success. 19 Thank you. And I'll take any questions if you 20 have them. 21 MR. BERGERON: Thank you, Sharon. 22 Anything, Sally? 23 MS. WANNER: Is the high school program, is 24 that a charter school, a public charter school? Is djj 59 1 that what you said? 2 MS. PARROTT: The Advantage Academy? 3 MS. WANNER: Yes. 4 MS. PARROTT: Or the Advanced--the Advantage 5 Academy in Chicago is--has actually been designated 6 as a Chicago Public School, that portion of it that 7 is the high school courses. It resides at our 8 DeVry University campus in Chicago. 9 MR. BERGERON: Sharon, I know from working with 10 you over the years that you're a very strong 11 advocate of the triad and would ask you the 12 question: How do you think that we as a federal 13 government should respond in circumstances where 14 states have chosen, for example, to loosen or 15 eliminate their oversight of institutions because 16 of budget concerns, or where we identify weakness 17 with an accreditor, where we--you know, while we 18 haven't withdrawn their recognition, we would like 19 to bolster our oversight to address any weaknesses 20 there? Could you speak a bit about how you see 21 that working in an environment where, candidly, 22 there are fiscal pressures not just on institutions, 23 but it falls to states and to accreditors, then. 24 And should there be some mechanism built into our djj 60 1 regulatory structure that is in place to address 2 that? 3 MS. PARROTT: Well, I think we have a unique 4 vantage point because we operate nationally-- 5 MR. BERGERON: That's why I'm asking you the 6 question. 7 MS. PARROTT: --and so with lots of different 8 state bodies, all of whom are slightly different. 9 The way we have approached it is to find the one 10 that is most difficult that we operate in and 11 regulate ourselves to that standard, because if 12 we're at that standard, we've hit the hardest one; 13 and anything that is perhaps more reasonable, I'll 14 say, than that, we are able to accommodate. 15 I think this kind of communication will foster that. 16 I think if you have an accrediting body, be it 17 regional, national, programmatic that you think you 18 need to have that conversation with, I think that 19 is a very valid conversation to have. I think that 20 for the Department of Education, though, to become 21 the academic quality gatekeeper sounds too much 22 like a Ministry of Education to me and very much 23 different from what--how we defined education in 24 this country. djj 61 1 I think that with the states there have been a 2 variety of things going on. Some of them have 3 reviewed the recognition criteria of accrediting 4 bodies and determined that they could use that same 5 criteria to make decisions with respect to 6 authorization to operate. None of them, to my 7 knowledge, have given up their consumer protection 8 responsibilities, however, which I think that when 9 you look at what each does, the blending of the 10 three and the communication between the three, 11 which could probably be even better than that 12 mandated in '92, would be useful. 13 I think we can always do better in all three 14 areas, and the fourth area being the institutions 15 themselves, but I really do believe that there are 16 unique advantages to all of the three. And what I 17 guess I've seen over the years is more a similar 18 reaction to institutions by the three than I've 19 seen diverging. 20 So, anything else? 21 MR. BERGERON: Thank you, Sharon. 22 MS. PARROTT: Thank you. 23 MR. BERGERON: Louis Torres. 24 MR. TORRES: Good morning. djj 62 1 MR. BERGERON: Good morning. Welcome. 2 MR. TORRES: I'm Louis Torres, and I'm the 3 Deputy Provost at Metropolitan State College of 4 Denver. I'm going to talk about the planning and 5 development financial assistance for emerging 6 Hispanic-serving institutions. I've submitted this 7 in writing, by the way, but-- 8 MR. BERGERON: Okay. 9 MR. TORRES: --in consideration of time, I've 10 cut some of that. 11 Metropolitan State College of Denver recommends 12 that the U.S. Department of Education consider 13 providing funding specifically for emerging 14 Hispanic-serving institutions--or emerging HSIs--to 15 develop plans by which to sooner become HSIs than 16 they would without such funding. Currently, Title 17 V provides funds to those institutions that are 18 already Hispanic-serving institutions with at least 19 25 percent Hispanic enrollment, and Title III 20 provides funding for its strengthening institutions 21 programs. However, we believe that funding for 22 those institutions seeking HSI status would greatly 23 accelerate the enrollment of Hispanic students and 24 their increased retention. djj 63 1 The largest and most successful association 2 advocating for Hispanic higher education is the 3 Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities, 4 or HACU. While HACU states that there are no 5 definitive statistics as to the number of HSI 6 institutions, it lists 218 HSI member institutions 7 in 14 states and Puerto Rico. Of these, 32 are in 8 Puerto Rico; by definition, Hispanic-serving, of 9 course. That means there are 186 HSIs who are HACU 10 members in 14 states in the U.S. mainland. 11 In addition, HACU also indicates that it has 99 12 associate member institutions and 55 partner 13 institutions, not HSIs, but HACU members 14 nonetheless. That means there are at least 154 15 HACU members in varying degrees of seeking to 16 become Hispanic-serving institutions, including 17 Metropolitan State College of Denver. 18 None of these institutions or similar 19 institutions not belonging to HACU is eligible to 20 receive funding from the U.S. Department of 21 Education to develop and implement plans necessary 22 to accelerate becoming an HSI. To receive HSI 23 designation, student--Hispanic student enrollment 24 in a higher education institution must reach 25 djj 64 1 percent; and, until recently, at least 50 percent 2 of the Hispanic students had to be low-income. 3 Funding is set aside in Title V for HSIs by the 4 U.S. Congress. For this past year, it was expected 5 that upwards of $175 million was to be so set aside. 6 Between 1995 and 2005, more than $550 million has 7 been awarded to more than 185 HSIs. The current 8 number of HSIs getting Federal Title V funding is 9 173, according to the U.S. Department of Education. 10 According to the Developing Hispanic-Serving 11 Institution Program, this program helps eligible 12 institutions enhance and expand their capacity to 13 serve Hispanic and low-income students by providing 14 funds to improve and strengthen the academic 15 quality, institutional stability, management, and 16 fiscal capabilities of eligible institutions. 17 Also, and very importantly, funds are available to 18 HSIs through other federal departments. For 19 example, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has the 20 Hispanic-Serving Institutions National Program, 21 whose mission is to provide mutually beneficial 22 partnerships between the U.S. Department of 23 Agriculture and Hispanic-serving institutions. 24 HSIs are crucial to the education of Hispanics. djj 65 1 The first major statistical study of HSIs was the 2 report "Hispanic-Serving Institutions: Statistical 3 Trends From 1990 to 1999." It states Hispanic 4 Americans' enrollment in all higher education 5 institutions, from community colleges through 6 graduate school, increased by 68 percent in just 7 nine years. As of 1999, HSIs enrolled only 10 8 percent of all students in the U.S.; however, they 9 accounted for 45 percent of all Hispanic college 10 students. So, a high number of Hispanics 11 concentrate in a small number of HSIs. 12 Even more dramatic is the impact of HSIs on 13 Hispanic graduation. The total number of degree 14 recipients at HSIs who are minorities grew by 87 15 percent between 1991 and 2000. The number of 16 Hispanic degree recipients in these institutions 17 grew by 95 percent, more than the increase in the 18 number of recipients from any other racial or 19 ethnic group. So, those are comments about current 20 HSIs. 21 However, for those striving to become HSIs, or 22 emerging HSIs, no such federal funding program 23 exists. This is a situation in which Metropolitan 24 State College of Denver finds itself. Beginning djj 66 1 with the development of a Hispanic-Serving 2 Institution Task Force in April 2007, we have been 3 engaged in large-scale directed planning to develop 4 as a Hispanic-serving institution with special 5 emphasis on what the word "serving" means in this 6 context. 7 With approximately 13 percent Hispanic, but in 8 a metropolitan area where the K through 12 student 9 population is well over 25 percent, we have asked 10 what will be the place of the Hispanic community at 11 Metro State as this community becomes an 12 increasingly large share of the population in our 13 service area? 14 The mission of the ongoing HSI Task Force is to 15 engage the Metro State community in creating the 16 methods and processes by which the college could 17 plan for and achieve federal designation as a 18 Hispanic-serving institution with at least 25 19 percent Hispanic students within as short a time as 20 possible. Further, the mission of the larger HSI 21 initiative is to equitably educate the students 22 within the geographical area Metro State is 23 legislatively intended to serve, including, of 24 course, Hispanics. djj 67 1 So, we see that Metropolitan State College of 2 Denver is similar to many other institutions in 3 Colorado and nationally that are in a demographic 4 area conducive to HSI status, that are striving to 5 become an HSI, and that have developed a plan to 6 achieve this goal. 7 We began the specifics of planning such an 8 effort in April of 2007. Over 55 Metro State 9 employees nominated themselves or were nominated by 10 others to serve on the proposed HSI Task Force. We 11 arrived at over 50 developed recommendations and a 12 document nearly 400 pages in length. Sixteen of 13 these recommendations became our top priorities, 14 all 16 of which, in one way or another, were added 15 to the college's budget for this current year, for 16 the 2008-2009 academic year. This experience is 17 what leads us to emphasize to the Department of 18 Education that institutions striving to become HSIs 19 should be eligible for developmental funding while 20 in the process of reaching that goal. 21 The need for planning and development funds can 22 be seen in examples of how Metro State has 23 initiated its efforts to increase the enrollment of 24 Hispanic students and to further retain them. For djj 68 1 example, within the past year, the Office of 2 College Communications has devoted at least 3 $117,000 to promote Metro State as the top choice 4 for Colorado's Latino students with marketing and 5 communication efforts aimed specifically at this 6 demographic. 7 Initiating one of the HSI Task Force 8 recommendations, this office implemented an 9 integrated marketing and advertising campaign that 10 included direct-mail postcards; billboards along 11 Federal Boulevard; bus boards on Denver Public 12 Schools' buses; and print, radio, and television 13 ads targeting the Latino market. While no one 14 effort can claim credit for an increase in student 15 enrollment, the effect of this marketing and 16 communication effort can be seen, at least in part, 17 by the increase in Hispanic students from Spring 18 semester 2008 to Spring semester 2009. During this 19 period, Hispanic student enrollment increased 9.6 20 percent, double the white student enrollment 21 increase of 4.9 percent. And there are several 22 other examples that I have given in the written 23 comments about efforts that we are engaging in to 24 increase the enrollment and retention of these djj 69 1 students. 2 Our college has a long history of providing 3 increased access and success for Hispanic students. 4 Among many other examples, Metro State serves as 5 the only institution in Colorado offering a teacher 6 licensure for elementary and secondary education in 7 the curriculum of Chicana and Chicano Studies. Our 8 Hispanic students have a second-year retention rate 9 higher than the college average for the cohort of 10 full-time, first-time-to-college, degree-seeking 11 freshmen, which shows great promise for overall 12 persistence. 13 Also, as one of the Hispanic-Serving 14 Institution Task Force Reports revealed, our 15 Hispanic students are majoring across the breadth 16 of departments with, for example, an 17 overrepresentation--according to their percentages 18 in the college--in such fields as accounting, 19 management, speech communications, political 20 science, and psychology, among others. 21 So, these examples of Metro State's proactive 22 efforts to become an HSI serve to highlight the 23 need for planning and development funds from the 24 U.S. Department of Education, which would allow us djj 70 1 and numerous other colleges and universities to 2 establish an infrastructure for emerging HSIs to 3 become successful to recruit and retain Hispanic 4 students. 5 While some colleges and universities have 6 allowed shifting demographic trends to create their 7 future for them, others have successfully set out 8 on a path to design and create their future for 9 themselves. By providing funds for such planning 10 and development, the U.S. Department of Education 11 could hasten the day when Hispanic attendance, 12 persistence, and graduation rates truly mirror 13 their overall population. 14 Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I 15 would be glad to take any questions. 16 MS. WANNER: If there were a way to increase 17 funding like you're speaking about, what criteria 18 would you want the Department to use? Would it be 19 that the institution wants to serve Hispanics or 20 that it's in a demographic area with lots of 21 Hispanics? If we didn't use a 25 percent ruler, 22 what would we use? 23 MR. TORRES: We think that the 25 percent rule 24 is fine for the HSI institutions, but planning and djj 71 1 development funds for those with a reasonable 2 number--we have, for example, 13 percent--a 3 reasonable number of Hispanic students already 4 enrolled and successes at enrolling and retaining 5 those students and, of course, the surrounding 6 demographic area. But, also, we think that funds 7 are necessary for planning, for developing, for 8 figuring out how to do this, setting a timeline and 9 really, really reaching it. 10 There would be criteria, of course, necessary, 11 but from our experience in our institution and in 12 this area that we serve, we know that we can do it. 13 We need assistance. And so many other institutions 14 are very similar to us that need that assistance, 15 the financial assistance and other assistance that 16 the U.S. Department of Education could provide to 17 help us reach that goal. 18 MR. BERGERON: But the current programs, 19 whether it's HSI or any of the other programs that 20 we have that have racial/ethnic characteristics of 21 student enrollment determining institutional 22 eligibility really are intended to support those 23 institutions in that state, because otherwise you 24 have issues of having federal programs that target djj 72 1 specific racial or ethnic groups, which I think are 2 unconstitutional, although I'll leave that to my 3 lawyer to tell me I am wrong. 4 So, we have programs that--most of our programs 5 are without regard to race or ethnicity of the 6 student recipient. Think about the Federal TRIO 7 programs or GEAR UP, for example, which are 8 intended to increase access and persistence in 9 postsecondary education. And they operate based on 10 objective criteria: income of family and first-11 generation status of the family. Never do we use 12 racial or ethnic criteria. 13 I don't know that there's a question buried in 14 there somewhere, but it's a puzzle for me how you 15 have a program which specifically targets a racial 16 or ethnic group for services and, at the same time, 17 fits within the framework of our regulatory and 18 constitutional--statutory, regulatory, and 19 constitutional constraints. 20 MR. TORRES: Well, Hispanic-serving 21 institutions, the funding is actually provided for 22 all students in the institution--all students in 23 the institution--and our efforts are really 24 directed not only at the Latino students, but at djj 73 1 improving Metropolitan State College for all 2 students, also. 3 However, in our demographic--in the area that 4 we are legislatively mandated to serve, we have in 5 the K through 12 population over the 25 percent 6 that is the indication in the federal legislation 7 that provides funding for HSIs. 8 So, the same is true in many of the state 9 universities, college and state universities, that 10 are intended to serve the population in their area. 11 So, what we're suggesting is a way that we can 12 reach out and enroll and retain a larger percentage 13 simply of the surrounding area. 14 MR. BERGERON: So, you would tie it to service 15 area, population of the service area may be 16 potentially a way to--because I-- 17 MR. TORRES: Yes. 18 MR. BERGERON: --do think there's a-- 19 MR. TORRES: The answer is yes, because we are, 20 again, legislatively mandated to serve the seven- 21 or eight-county metropolitan area. 22 MR. BERGERON: Thank you, that's helpful. 23 Stephen Jordan? 24 MR. TORRES: Thank you. djj 74 1 MR. BERGERON: Thank you. 2 Stephen Jordan will be next. 3 MR. JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 4 For the record, I'm Stephen Jordan, President of 5 Metropolitan State College of Denver. Welcome to 6 our community. 7 I'm going to pick up on some of the comments of 8 Dr. Torres because I think they're really crucial 9 for a state like Colorado, which I think 10 exemplifies the issues facing many states. And let 11 me take a moment to sort of give you a brief 12 demographic. 13 We know that for the state of Colorado, every 14 age group from 0 to 44, between now and 2020, the 15 white population will decline and all the growth 16 will be in people of color, largely--largely, but 17 not exclusively--Latino populations. 18 We also know that as we begin to take a 19 look at the history of Colorado, which has 20 historically been in the top five in educational 21 attainment and historically been in the bottom five 22 in those schools that actually educated their own 23 citizens to that level, but largely imported them, 24 that as we begin to look at the future projections, djj 75 1 and even assuming that we could maintain our same 2 level of importation of college-educated graduates, 3 that with the shifting in the demographics that if 4 we cannot get to our students of color to enter, 5 persist, and graduate at the same rates as white 6 students and even at greater numbers, we will have 7 an economic catastrophe in our state. We will not 8 be able to replace the current workforce that we 9 see. And I suspect that is a view or vision you 10 would see in Arizona, in California, in Texas, and 11 many other states who are seeing these same kinds 12 of issues. So, this question about support for 13 achieving HSI status is a very important one. 14 We currently are in the top 100 in the 15 country in serving Hispanic students. Imagine that. 16 We're in the top 100, but only 13 percent of our 17 students are of Latino background. And we find 18 ourselves in this position of needing to increase 19 the matriculation, persistence, and graduation of 20 these students. 21 So, this question about how we can receive 22 assistance to implement some of the strategies that 23 are necessary, which--and what our studies have 24 found is these strategies are beneficial not just djj 76 1 to Hispanic students, but to all students; that if 2 you can help us to move that forward, it can make a 3 big difference for the economic condition and 4 workforce preparation of states like Colorado, but 5 I think many of the Sun Belt States would be in the 6 very same position. And what I'd like to do is 7 share with you and give you a copy of the report 8 that was put together so you can see that. 9 We put in--as was mentioned, we have 10 funded the first 16 strategies that came forward. 11 That's a half a million dollars in one year of 12 funds that we have put into this effort, and yet we 13 know that we have to do so much more. 14 Related to this issue that we think is 15 important that is something in your court that you 16 can help us out with is that we know that for many 17 of our students--and, again, we see this 18 particularly within the Latino culture--many of our 19 students choose to live at home and commute. We 20 are a commuter school, like many of the urban 21 institutions in other Sun Belt States. But what we 22 see for these students is that there is a terrible 23 culture conflict between the issue of going to 24 school or staying to support family, and that many djj 77 1 times we see that this staying to support family 2 wins out over going to school, even though in the 3 long run—in the long run--family and community 4 would be better off if that student persisted and 5 graduated. 6 So, one of the things that we want to 7 suggest to you as a possible area of consideration 8 is to say that within financial aid you begin to 9 recognize that and say that students who do live at 10 home can receive a basic stipend within the Federal 11 Financial Aid Program that can be a contribution to 12 home so that we don't put them in the conflict of 13 having to say, "Work is so important that I have to 14 put in more hours." And as they put in more hours 15 of work, school becomes less important, and 16 suddenly they become a casualty of the process. We 17 would like to encourage you to think about the 18 incentive that might be created for these students 19 if Federal Financial Aid could be a contribution to 20 family at home while they lived at home in order to 21 provide them the incentive to stay in school. One 22 suggestion for you. 23 The second is--or the third is one where, 24 again, this partnership between the federal djj 78 1 government and the state government which has 2 dramatically evolved since the early, I would say, 3 late sixties and early seventies, when it was very 4 clear that states took care of the education in a 5 general budget, the feds took care of financial aid, 6 and never the twain shall meet, well, now we have a 7 much different view. And we want to suggest to you 8 that there are ways in which the feds might be 9 helpful in this, and let me begin with this concept: 10 Fundamentally, for all the conversations 11 that have been going on nationally about 12 performance budgeting in states, fundamentally they 13 are at the very, very small margin. And the state 14 funding methods for higher education have not 15 changed since the 1960s and are still fundamentally 16 premised upon the old research university model of 17 large freshman classes, increasingly smaller as you 18 go towards the graduate level, and with the concept 19 that we were willing to accept the losses that we 20 were going to have in the first two years. Except 21 times have changed, and we now say we're no longer 22 willing to accept the losses in the first two years; 23 and, indeed, economic conditions require us to say 24 we need to do something very different with low- djj 79 1 income, with students of color, with 2 underrepresented populations, and with older 3 students in the interest of the national economy. 4 So, if our fundamental practice hasn't 5 changed, what we know we need to change is that to 6 be successful with these students, whether they're 7 older students, first-generation students, low-8 income students, we know we need to have smaller 9 class sizes; they need to be more intrusive; they 10 need to have a greater array of support services. 11 And, indeed, it is likely that they will be more 12 expensive in the first two years and less expensive 13 in the last two years, a flip of the old model. 14 You can do for higher ed what you're 15 starting to do for K-12. I saw in the paper today 16 that the Secretary had announced his initiative to 17 encourage states to begin moving towards a national 18 model in terms of standards for graduation by 19 putting out fiscal incentives. In the same way you 20 can provide states fiscal incentives to encourage 21 them to begin changing their funding models to put 22 greater services and emphasis at the first two 23 years in order to encourage the matriculation, 24 retention, and graduation of the very populations djj 80 1 you are most interested as an administration 2 serving today. And so by providing grant 3 opportunities to states that might help support 4 initially these efforts for states to infuse more 5 support in the first two years and begin to change 6 the cycle that we are in, you could make a 7 considerable contribution in the change effort that 8 we know you are committed to as an administration. 9 I'll be pleased to respond to any 10 questions that you might have. 11 MR. BERGERON: Thank you. Thank you for 12 also being one of our hosts. 13 MR. JORDAN: Oh, it's our pleasure. 14 MR. BERGERON: As I said, if you weren't 15 here at the beginning, I commented, ever since I 16 started being involved in the campus crime 17 statistics, this has been one of these unique 18 campuses that we have dealt with from that 19 perspective, and so I've always found it an 20 interesting and dynamic kind of learning 21 environment where you have community colleges--a 22 community college, an urban four-year, and then a 23 broader, more research-oriented institution all 24 sharing space. It's an important lesson to us all djj 81 1 about-- 2 MR. JORDAN: And you might be interested 3 to know, I mean, along that fact--I mean, it is 4 fascinating. We will tell you from an 5 administrative standpoint it's a nightmare; from 6 the students' standpoint it works great. But we 7 have about 250 general classroom spaces on this 8 campus. If you take out the first hour in the 9 morning, the 8:00 to 9:00 hour, and you take out 10 the 9:00 to 10:00 at night, we have a 98 percent 11 utilization against those 250 classrooms the rest 12 of the day. There is not a more efficiently used 13 campus in the country, I would probably suspect in 14 the world, than this campus right here. It is an 15 interesting model. 16 MR. BERGERON: It is an interesting model 17 and yes, I can understand that it is very 18 administratively complicated. But it is one of 19 these things that does help address issues of costs, 20 particularly. 21 MR. JORDAN: Yeah. 22 MR. BERGERON: By the efficiencies that 23 you are able to realize. 24 I'm intrigued by your comments around djj 82 1 state funding formulas and how we might leverage 2 that. I'll have to think about it some more to see 3 how that might play out, and we may be back in 4 touch around that issue. I do agree with you 5 that--you know, I grew up in the seventies and was 6 at a large state university where I saw firsthand 7 the willingness or the acceptance of loss of 8 students. 9 MR. JORDAN: Right. 10 MR. BERGERON: And that was not just 11 unique to the institution that I attended and 12 worked for, for a short while. I think that that's 13 one of the things that we recognized, you know, as 14 not an appropriate approach. And it really is an 15 area where there is a need for fundamental change. 16 MR. JORDAN: And, quite frankly, I mean, 17 we know enough about attendance patterns of these 18 very populations we're talking about to know that 19 they are much more likely to begin in a community 20 college, not in a research university. If they 21 matriculate, they're much more likely to 22 matriculate on to a regional comprehensive 23 institution in the long run than in the research 24 universities. djj 83 1 So, it's not that one model is right or wrong, 2 but I'm suggesting that perhaps what we need to do 3 is think about maybe there are different models 4 depending upon what it is we're trying to 5 accomplish. 6 MR. BERGERON: Correct. Yes. 7 MS. SMITH: I have a question about at the 8 very beginning where you were dovetailing from 9 Louis, who I guess works here as well-- 10 MR. JORDAN: Right. 11 MS. SMITH: --about being--and he made a 12 comment about you're top 100 in the country in 13 terms of serving Latino students. Is that in that 14 report that you're going to hand us, or is that a 15 different statistic from somewhere else? 16 MR. JORDAN: Well, I don't-- 17 SPEAKER: Hispanic Outlook. 18 MS. SMITH: Hispanic Outlook. 19 MR. JORDAN: Yeah, that came from his 20 Hispanic Outlook. And, again, I think it's one of 21 the things about the misnomers or the--one of the 22 problems you have when you say, okay, you become 23 Hispanic-serving when you're 25 percent. But, 24 unfortunately, so many of those institutions are djj 84 1 very small institutions. 2 In Colorado, we're the largest in terms of 3 numbers, minority-serving, four-year institution in 4 the State of Colorado. We have more students of 5 color than the University of Colorado at Boulder 6 and Colorado State combined, and yet we're only 13 7 percent of our enrollment when 20 percent of the 8 population of this region are of Latino heritage. 9 And you begin to say, "Well, if you can't solve 10 that problem in your largest institutions, you will 11 not solve it through a bunch of very small 12 institutions out in rural areas." 13 MS. SMITH: Right. 14 MR. BERGERON: Right. 15 MR. JORDAN: Because, again, those students are 16 much more likely to live at home, so you've got to 17 do it through more urban organized institutions. 18 MR. BERGERON: And I was interested in 19 your thought around this contribution for home. 20 And we've talked about it at the federal level in 21 terms of the need analysis changes for, you know, 22 as long as I've been doing this, and that's years. 23 I hate to-- 24 MR. JORDAN: Don't give away your age now. djj 85 1 MR. BERGERON: I know. I hate to admit it, 2 except there are enough people in this room who 3 know how long I've been doing this. 4 And one of the concepts we've talked about--and 5 maybe you could comment on it--is not just a 6 recognition in the cost of attendance because, you 7 know, people can get an allowance to live at home 8 that's part of their cost of attendance, but some 9 notion that we could allow the expected family 10 contribution, or whatever it is called in the 11 future, to go negative so that, you know, it 12 recognizes the students who are contributing to the 13 fiscal support of the family through their wages 14 and their earnings and not be taxed for that in the 15 need analysis process. 16 MR. JORDAN: I mean, I think that could be 17 a very constructive way to approach it, as you're 18 well aware. I mean, we're really talking about a 19 cultural barrier and how do you break down a 20 cultural barrier. 21 MR. BERGERON: And it's not just in the 22 Latino culture. I mean, it's in many of our--in 23 many low-income communities there is this. You 24 know, I'm French Canadian by background, so go djj 86 1 figure. You know, there was this concept, even in 2 my family, which is that you contributed to the 3 family. 4 MR. JORDAN: Right. 5 MR. BERGERON: And--financially. And, you 6 started working at 14 or 15 and worked full time in 7 addition to going to high school-- 8 MR. JORDAN: Right. 9 MR. BERGERON: --in order to give money 10 back to the family. And so, it is not just in the 11 Latino culture. And I do think it is something 12 that is in need of addressing. 13 MR. JORDAN: I would really hope that it 14 would be possible to do that. I think--because 15 really--I mean, I think we could set up some very 16 interesting analyses to begin to look at it if--you 17 know, what was the retention rate or the dropout 18 rate prior to implementation of a policy like that, 19 and we could really test its ability to see if it 20 made a marked difference on retention in the first 21 two years. 22 MR. BERGERON: And we're talking about 23 reinventing our Experimental Sites Initiative. 24 MR. JORDAN: Yeah. djj 87 1 MR. BERGERON: And, I mean, there may be a 2 great experiment here. 3 MR. JORDAN: Volunteer right here. 4 MR. BERGERON: I hear great experiment 5 come--you know, I'll have to spend-- 6 MS. SMITH: To come before our FAFSA thing 7 tomorrow, our FAFSA forum. 8 MR. BERGERON: It's a FAFSA thing tomorrow 9 for sure, but also I think that there are some room 10 for maybe doing some experimentation around that. 11 MR. JORDAN: Yeah. 12 MR. BERGERON: That's a great idea. 13 MR. JORDAN: Right, great. 14 MR. BERGERON: Excellent. 15 MR. JORDAN: Thank you so much for being 16 here. We really do appreciate it. 17 MR. BERGERON: Thank you. 18 MS. SMITH: Thank you for having us. 19 MR. JORDAN: Yeah. 20 MR. BERGERON: We were scheduled to have a 21 break, but we're not going to do that because I 22 have a student in the room, Andrea Davis, who we 23 are--wanted to get to before our break. 24 Hi, Andrea. Thank you for being patient djj 88 1 with us. 2 MS. DAVIS: Oh, thank you so much for 3 having me. I appreciate it. 4 I go to University of Phoenix, and the 5 alumni representative, Evelyn Hanson, invited me 6 here today to basically put a face to financial aid. 7 I am a 33-year-old mother of five children, 8 doing the best I can to raise them. And I had a 9 dream in second grade to become an elementary 10 school teacher from my second grade teacher. And 11 it has been an inspiration in me that has been 12 growing ever since I was eight years old, knowing 13 that I would one day accomplish it. If it was not 14 for the financial aid the University of Phoenix 15 helped me to achieve, I would not be able to work 16 towards that goal. 17 I am currently starting my second year at 18 University of Phoenix in the Elementary Education 19 Program. My children attend school at the School 20 District 50 that a representative spoke not too 21 long ago about. And, again, I just would impress 22 upon you the importance of financial aid. 23 I am a full financial aid student. I have 24 no out-of-pocket expenses at all right now. And if djj 89 1 it wasn't for that, I could not be a student; I 2 could not be achieving my goals; I could not be an 3 inspiration to my children or my family, who four 4 members of my family so far have also participated 5 in University of Phoenix as well because of this 6 financial aid program. And it has been a wonderful 7 opportunity for me and for my children to see me 8 achieve the goals, and they are now inspired to 9 achieve their goals as well. And for you to 10 understand that and to see that through financial 11 aid I can accomplish these goals is a miraculous 12 thing. 13 MR. BERGERON: Thank you. 14 MS. DAVIS: Thank you for your time. 15 MR. BERGERON: Any questions? 16 MS. DAVIS: Do you have any questions? 17 Thank you. 18 MS. WANNER: Are you able to go full time? 19 MS. DAVIS: I am able to go full time. 20 With the schedule the University of Phoenix allows, 21 I am able to attend once a week for four hours in 22 the evening so I can maintain my family and school 23 and career all at the same time, and help my mom 24 with my grandmother in that, as well. djj 90 1 MR. BERGERON: Thank you. 2 MS. DAVIS: Thank you very much for your 3 time. 4 MR. BERGERON: Okay. We're going to take 5 a 10-minute break and reconvene at 5 minutes to 6 11:00. Thank you. 7 [Brief recess.] 8 MR. BERGERON: We are going to go ahead 9 and reconvene, although I suspect it may not be for 10 that long. We do have two more individuals who 11 have signed up to speak to us this morning. The 12 first is Andrew Parmentier. The second one is 13 intending to be here just before the noon hour. 14 So, if Andrew could come forward. 15 MS. SMITH: You're not speaking? 16 MR. BERGERON: Not speaking? Okay. Okay, 17 Andrew's not--they're not speaking. So, the only 18 other person we have signed up for this morning is 19 Natalie Williams, and she's not signed up until 20 just--oh, she's here. Oh, excellent, thank you. 21 MS. SMITH: Great. 22 MR. BERGERON: Good morning, Natalie. 23 MS. WILLIAMS: Hi. How are you this 24 morning? djj 91 1 MR. BERGERON: Good. Good to see you. 2 MS. WILLIAMS: Good to see you. 3 Hi, my name is Natalie Williams. I'm the President 4 for Westwood College, and I just want to thank you 5 for the opportunity to testify today. 6 Westwood College serves a very diverse 7 student population. Many of our students are first 8 generation students, working adults, and are single 9 parents. We take great pride in producing life-10 long learners, and that's why I'd like to present 11 today my viewpoint in regards to the challenges I 12 face or some of my students face. 13 It is the Title IV program that allows 14 many of these students to advance their careers. 15 You heard that previously today in testimony. 16 Satisfactory academic progress. I agree 17 with the previous statements made today. Westwood 18 College assesses satisfactory academic progress 19 every term. Not only do we want to ensure 20 compliance with Title IV, we also want to ensure 21 the success of our students. 22 On the issue of GEDs, Westwood College has 23 entrance exam and assessment, and we offer college 24 prep courses for those students that may need djj 92 1 additional assistance. Not only do we offer 2 college prep courses, but we offer additional 3 support services, such as a personal inside track 4 coach, to help them not only with their academic 5 issues, but also challenges that we face as we go 6 to school. 7 I also went to school when I had a family, a 8 son, and trying to advance my career and obtain the 9 certificates and degrees needed in the workforce. 10 And it can be challenging because you're dealing 11 not only with school issues, but also with family 12 issues. So, Westwood College would like to provide 13 additional support, so we want to ensure not only 14 that our students are prepared academically, but we 15 also want to ensure that they are prepared with 16 other outside issues in terms of completing their 17 education. 18 On the issue of incentive compensation, 19 provide institutions with clear and concise rule 20 and guidance, and we'll follow them. 21 On the issue of credit hours, as mentioned 22 previously, accrediting bodies regularly review 23 credit hours for compliance. 24 In terms of gainful employment, pending djj 93 1 the accrediting body, institutions are held 2 accountable to employment standards. As stated by 3 Charles, many institutions are involved in 4 comprehensive strategies to track students from 5 graduation and oftentimes prior to graduation into 6 the workforce. 7 In December, Westwood College--the 8 students at Westwood College participated in the 9 Democratic National Convention. This opportunity 10 allowed our students to gain applicable 11 opportunities in the field, as you heard 12 individuals testify today that you need the 13 applicable side as well as the theory side. 14 We also offer alumni training programs at 15 no cost to the students, which allows them to stay 16 current in their workforce. We also participate in 17 program advisory committees in which employers come 18 in to provide us feedback on the curriculum and the 19 standard--and the industry standards. 20 In conclusion, I just want to say we need 21 to make it as easy as possible for our students to 22 access not only Title IV programs, but programs 23 that assist them through their education to develop 24 and to advance their careers. djj 94 1 MR. BERGERON: Thank you. 2 We currently require satisfactory academic progress 3 to be assessed once a year. You do it once a term. 4 Do you think that should be the standard practice? 5 MS. WILLIAMS: For Westwood College, once 6 a term it works good because we have five terms in 7 a year, so we definitely want to make sure that not 8 only are we monitoring it for--in terms of the 9 students academically as well. So, by monitoring 10 it once a term, we're able to assist those students 11 that may be at risk of falling behind in their 12 studies and also helping them get back on track. 13 So, for us, it is a very good tool and resource to 14 assist our students in completing the program. 15 MR. BERGERON: So, you would think it 16 wouldn't--have you developed administrative 17 practices that make it more feasible for you to do 18 than some other institutions, or do you think even 19 if it's difficult, it's something you should pursue? 20 MS. WILLIAMS: I think even if it's 21 difficult it is something that you could--should 22 pursue to help those students complete the program. 23 MR. BERGERON: Sally? Zakiya? 24 MS. WANNER: Is the SAP review mainly like djj 95 1 looking at grades on a term-by-term basis, or you 2 do-- 3 MS. WILLIAMS: It's--oh, go ahead, I'm 4 sorry. 5 MS. WANNER: --you do the whole thing? 6 MS. WILLIAMS: It's actually looking at 7 grades and completion rates. So, for example, you 8 don't--students as they go along, if they are 9 continually dropping out of classes, you know, you 10 definitely want to assist in that matter as well. 11 So not only grades, but completion rates as well. 12 MS. WANNER: Thank you. 13 MR. BERGERON: Thank you. 14 MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you. 15 MR. BERGERON: We appreciate you coming. 16 If there's anyone else who would like to testify, 17 please go see Mary or Kristin out in the foyer. 18 And otherwise, we will go ahead and take another 19 break until there's somebody who is available. 20 I would say, I don't have the schedule in 21 front of me for the afternoon, but we do have at 22 least two people who have signed up to testify this 23 afternoon, one right after the break, so just at 24 1:00, and then one a little bit later on in the djj 96 1 afternoon. So, we do have a couple of people who 2 are speaking this afternoon. 3 But until somebody else signs up to speak, 4 we'll take a break. Thank you. 5 [Brief recess.] 6 MR. BERGERON: We have no one else signed 7 up for the morning, and so it is about quarter to 8 12:00 right now, so we're going to go ahead and 9 take--and adjourn until 1:00, when we'll reconvene. 10 So, enjoy lunch, and we'll see you back 11 here in about an hour and 15 minutes. 12 Thank you. 13 [Whereupon, at 11:44 a.m., a luncheon 14 recess was taken.] 15 djj 97 1 AFTERNOON SESSION 2 [1:20 p.m.] 3 MR. BERGERON: I was wondering if Jennifer 4 Cook is here. 5 [Pause.] 6 MR. BERGERON: Hi, Jennifer. We'll go ahead 7 and hear from you. 8 MS. COOK: Okay. Hi, my name is Jennifer 9 Cook, and I'm here representing the Canadian 10 Consulate, and we have an office located here in 11 Denver. And I'm here to highlight the potential 12 impact that the proposed U.S. student loan reforms 13 could have on approximately 21,000 U.S. American 14 students who are enrolled at foreign institutions, 15 over 9,000 of whom study in Canada. 16 Currently, these foreign institutions are 17 not eligible for direct lending. Thus, the new 18 legislation would negatively impact U.S. students 19 who rely on these loans to attend colleges or 20 universities abroad. I think I would best 21 illustrate the issue by a letter that was written 22 and sent--written by the International Education 23 Council and sent to Representative George Miller, 24 Chairman of--sorry, Chairman on the Committee on djj 98 1 Education and Labor. It arrives with the support 2 of many countries and hundreds of institutions: 3 "The International Education Council is an 4 association of colleges and universities outside 5 the United States that are eligible institutions 6 under the Higher Education Act, so their enrolled 7 students can receive federal student loans. It is 8 important to note that these students are seeking a 9 degree as opposed to a study abroad program where 10 they remain enrolled at a home campus in the United 11 States. The members of the association comply with 12 most of the same regulations and application 13 procedures as U.S. schools so their American 14 students can pay for higher education. 15 "There are approximately 21,000 American 16 students enrolled in colleges and universities 17 abroad--or around the world who receive Federal 18 Family Education Loans, the only type of federal 19 aid that they are currently eligible for. Without 20 these loans, educational plans would have to be 21 curtailed and students would have to seek more 22 expensive private loans, which are currently 23 difficult for them to obtain. 24 "We understand that this new legislation djj 99 1 would eliminate the FFEL Program and have all 2 federal loans made through the Direct Loan Program. 3 We ask that you make the appropriate changes to 4 ensure that foreign schools are made eligible for 5 the Direct Loan Program so that American students 6 can continue to go to the college of their choice, 7 including colleges abroad. 8 "We also ask that the appropriate steps be 9 taken to assist foreign schools with the transition 10 process to the Direct Loan Program to ensure that 11 Americans enrolled in foreign colleges and 12 universities will have similar opportunities for 13 federal financial aid as those enrolled in the 14 United States. 15 "In detail, we propose the following: Modify 16 Section 102(a)(1)(c) of the Higher Education Act to 17 delete the words 'only for purposes of Part B of 18 Title IV,' and insert 'only for the purposes of 19 Part A, Subpart 1, and Parts B and D of Title IV.'" 20 "On behalf of the Board of Directors and 21 the members of the IEC and of the thousands of 22 American students who want to pursue higher 23 education abroad, we urge you to adopt these 24 recommendations. The IEC is working with djj 100 1 representatives of the embassies of our members' 2 countries on these proposals, and we'd be pleased 3 to coordinate answers to any questions you may have. 4 "Thank you for your consideration. 5 Sincerely, Harrison M. Wadsworth, Executive 6 Director of the International Education Council." 7 Thank you. 8 MR. BERGERON: The problem with 9 participation in Direct Loans is not statutory; it 10 is administrative. 11 MS. COOK: Okay. 12 MR. BERGERON: The way the Direct Loan 13 Program and our other grant programs, Pell Grants 14 included, operate is they're--the institution has a 15 direct federal--an account with the Federal 16 Government from which it draws funds. And so that 17 is the impediment to a foreign school participating 18 in the Direct Loan Program. 19 We have interpreted the statute in a 20 manner that would permit a foreign school to 21 participate, but have this administrative problem. 22 You know, whatever budget legislation's enacted 23 will provide some approach or remedy to that 24 specific-- djj 101 1 MS. COOK: Okay. 2 MR. BERGERON: --problem to avoid that 3 administrative issue. But it's, you know, never 4 been anyone's intent that students attending 5 foreign schools be ineligible. 6 MS. COOK: Okay. 7 MR. BERGERON: And so we're aware of the 8 problem and think that there is a fairly easy 9 solution. 10 MS. COOK: Okay. 11 MR. BERGERON: That said, were you 12 suggesting that foreign students attending foreign 13 institutions also be eligible for Pell Grants and 14 Academic Competitiveness and National SMART Grants 15 and TEACH Grants? Because they're all in-- 16 MS. COOK: That's not what's been 17 discussed so far, so-- 18 MR. BERGERON: Well, the reference to Part 19 A gets you there. 20 MS. COOK: Yes. 21 MR. BERGERON: Okay. 22 MS. COOK: I'm getting a little bit out of 23 my area of expertise. 24 MR. BERGERON: That's okay. I just-- djj 102 1 MS. COOK: Yeah. 2 MR. BERGERON: Yeah. 3 MS. COOK: Okay. Thank you. 4 MR. BERGERON: Thank you. 5 If there is anyone else who wishes to speak, go see 6 Mary and Kristin because we have no one else signed 7 up this afternoon. 8 So, we'll go off the record until somebody 9 does either show up newly to speak or one of you 10 decides you want to. 11 Thanks. 12 [Off the record from 1:10 p.m. to 3:45 13 p.m.] 14 MR. BERGERON: Okay. So, it's 10 minutes 15 to 4:00, and we have no one else who's indicated 16 that they are interested in testifying this 17 afternoon, so we're going to go ahead and end this 18 hearing. 19 We will next have a hearing in Little Rock, 20 Arkansas, on Thursday. So, you know, we'll 21 continue to keep the record open and receive public 22 comments through our e-mail at "Neg-Reg09@ed.gov." 23 We will be keeping that receipt of those public 24 comments open until the last hearing, which occurs djj 103 1 on June 23rd in Philadelphia. 2 I want to thank everybody who participated 3 in the hearing and our hosts at the Community 4 College of Denver, the Metropolitan State, and 5 University of Colorado at Denver. 6 Thank you. Have a great afternoon. 7 [Whereupon, at 3:51 p.m., the hearing was 8 adjourned.]