2011 Negotiated Rulemaking for Higher Education - Transcript of the May 19, 2011 Public

111 2 3 Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE) 4 5 U.S. Department of Education (ED) 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Negotiated Rulemaking for Higher Education 2011 16 17 18 Transcription of Public Hearing held at Loyola 19 University, Chicago, Illinois on May 19, 2011 20 21 22 23 The above-entitled matter commenced pursuant 24 to notice, Dan Madzelan moderating. 25 26 27 28 29 30 PRESENT: 31 32 VANESSA BURTON, Department of Education, 33 Office of General Counsel 34 DAN MADZELAN, Department of Education, 35 Office of Postsecondary Education 36 GAIL McLARNON, Department of Education, 37 Office of Postsecondary Education 38 PHIL HALE, Loyola University 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 462 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 121 2 3 4 SPEAKERS: 5 6 ALAN DAVIS, Empire State College 7 DEB BARKER-GARCIA, Corinthian Colleges 8 NANCY HOOVER, NDSLC 9 VICKI SHIPLEY, NCHELP 10 DAVID TRETTER, Federation of Independent 11 Illinois Colleges & Universities 12 TOM BABEL, DeVry, Inc. 13 EVELYN LEVINO, Franklin University 14 DAVID HILL, Georgia Professional Standards 15 Commission 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 452 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 131 2 3 4 C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S 5 6 Introduction 7 8 Phil Hale...... 3 9 10 Dan Madzelan...... 6 11 12 Public Comment 13 14 Alan Davis, Empire State College...... 9 15 16 Deb Barker-Garcia, Corinthian Colleges.....15 17 18 Nancy Hoover, NDSLC...... 20 19 20 Vicki Shipley, NCHELP...... 28 21 22 David Tretter, Federation of Independent 23 Illinois Colleges & Universities...... 38 24 25 Tom Babel, DeVry, Inc...... 43 26 27 Evelyn Levino, Franklin University...... 53 28 29 David Hill, Georgia Professional Standards 30 Commission...... 61 312 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 141 P R O C E E D I N G S2 (9:00 a.m.)3 MR. HALE: Thank you all for4 coming. I am Phil Hale, Vice President for5 Government Affairs here at Loyola University.6 And on behalf of Loyola's President, Father7 Michael Garanzini, and on behalf of our board8 of trustees and of our 16,000 students, we're9 very pleased to have this opportunity to10 welcome all of you this morning. And I am11 particularly pleased to welcome back the12 Office of Postsecondary Education for today's13 hearing and also for tomorrow's roundtable14 discussions.15 And I hope everyone will forgive me16 if I just take this opportunity to highlight17 the critical role that private, not-for-profit18 colleges and universities do play in America's19 higher education system. As we examine20 strategies today and tomorrow among other21 things that encourage college completion, I22 would just like to remind us all that 792 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 151 percent of undergraduate students who attend2 private, non-profit colleges and universities3 do receive their Bachelor's degrees within six4 years. 79 percent. 5 Additionally, both first generation6 students and students with multiple risk7 factors who attend independent institutions8 are more likely to graduate than their9 counterparts at public four-year institutions.10 And in Illinois, private, not-for-profit11 colleges and universities are actually12 granting more Bachelor degrees than their13 public four-year counterparts including 5514 percent of all minority students who receive a15 Bachelor's degree in the State of Illinois.16 And I'd like to thank again the Office of17 Postsecondary Education for recognizing the18 importance of private, not-for-profit colleges19 and universities in higher education by20 choosing Loyola and coming here to host21 today's hearing and tomorrow's roundtable. 22 I hope you all have a very2 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 161 wonderful day, a productive discussion, and2 enjoy yourselves. Thank you.3 (Whereupon, the following speaker's4 microphone was not functioning.)5 MR. MADZELAN: Thank you, Phil.6 And thank you for hosting us once again. We7 had done this -- several years ago at the8 Water Tower meetings in downtown New York.9 So, we are pleased now to have the opportunity10 to see the -- 11 My name is Dan Madzelan from the12 Office of Postsecondary Education. I'm13 Director of the Strategic Planning, Analysis14 and Innovation Service. And joining me up15 here today from the Department, to my left is16 Gail McLarnon from our Office of Postsecondary17 Education. And to my right, Vanessa Burton18 from our Office of General Counsel.19 We are here this morning to hear20 what you have to say -- oh, is my mic on?21 We'll just have to get a little closer and22 talk a little louder. But we are here today2 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 171 to hear from you around what the Department2 ought to consider in the background of3 rulemaking -- Just a little bit of background4 for those who may be a little new to this or5 maybe have forgotten -- but basically an6 Agency's -- in a rulemaking process are7 governed by the Administrative Procedures Act8 that basically provides for these proposed9 rules, submitted for public comment, make that10 public comment whereas -- or publication11 that's not explained why the --12 For the Title IV student aid13 programs, we have an extra step of requiring14 -- that is where we need a series of meetings15 with our stakeholders and the parties16 regularly -- to discuss and to help us17 formulate proposed rules -- again, once that18 occurs, we will prepare -- so this is a kind19 of -- exercise.20 And a little bit of -- today, we21 are also required to engage in public meetings22 on issues that we will take up in a rulemaking2 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 181 negotiating -- session. Now, we did publish a2 notice in the Federal Register. I'm guessing3 most of you read that. That's why you're here4 today -- We also indicated that there are a5 couple of other topic areas that we are6 interested in pursuing at this time other than7 explicitly -- one is the student loan8 discharge -- we made some changes in9 rulemaking a year or so ago -- We are10 also interested in -- because of the all our11 student loans now are -- through the Direct12 Loan Program. We are interested in -- we hope13 they -- to other program areas -- 14 So, those are a couple of areas15 that we're interested in -- what we are not16 interested in at this time is comments around17 regulations that are not yet effective -- we18 are moving forward to this next round. There19 are other topic areas that we -- 20 The format of the day, the format21 of these hearings is we will transcribe them.22 We will make the transcripts available from2 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 191 our website. I believe that -- the format is2 get your name on the list to speak. Everyone3 is allowed to speak -- And we ask you to4 limit your comments to 10-15 minutes -- But5 again we ask that you stay on topic. If you6 are signed up to speak, we will go down the7 list. And if you haven't signed up to speak8 and you would like to speak, again then please9 sign up -- But we hope when you do come up to10 the podium please -- state your name, where11 you're from and who you represent --12 All right. And with that, we will13 have our first speaker, and it's Alan Davis.14 MR. DAVIS: Good morning, thank15 you. My name is Alan Davis. I am President16 of Empire State College at the State17 University of New York. I'm new to this and18 I'm not sure if this is on topic but it's19 short.20 I appreciate the opportunity to21 address the Department at this hearing as it22 considers issues for consideration for action2 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 1101 by the negotiating committees. For 40 years,2 SUNY's Empire State College has created3 alternative, flexible and rigorous approaches4 to serving those traditionally under-5 represented in higher education. We do this6 at 35 locations across New York State, and7 online to students across the state, and in8 fact in all 50 states. We comply with all9 state requirements and are monitored by the10 state legislature which sets our tuition level11 and regulates it directly both by the SUNY12 Board of Trustees and the New York State13 Education Department.14 We've been acknowledged as one of15 the top adult learner, veteran and military16 learner friendly institutions in the nation,17 and we've received many awards for our18 innovation and our commitment to open learning19 in its many forms. This year, the Department20 has chosen to enforce the Higher Education Act21 of 1965 with respect to distance education,22 requiring all providers such as our college to2 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 1111 seek and obtain authorization in each state2 where we have one or more online learners. As3 you know, this decision to enforce the Act in4 this way was a surprise and has received a lot5 of reaction from all areas of higher6 education. The intention of the new7 enforcement mechanism is to encourage each8 state to review and ensure the program9 integrity of all distance learning degrees and10 courses being offered to students in their11 state by external providers.12 We agree with this goal. However,13 there is no real assurance that such a review14 will take place. New fees may be imposed and15 detailed documentation submitted, but16 approvals may be delayed or withheld with17 little or no explanation. States that already18 have regulations may change them, adding any19 number of new submission requirements. And20 states that do not currently have regulations21 in this area, such as my home State of New22 York, may establish them. They may also2 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 1121 decide to impose substantially higher2 registration fees and annual renewal charges3 which could quickly escalate nationally.4 We are now being given the5 opportunity to show good faith in our6 endeavors to obtain applicable state7 authorizations by July of this year with8 complete compliance expected by July 2014. We9 do of course agree that regulation is10 seriously needed to ensure quality and11 protection for learners and to do something12 about the inappropriate behavior of certain13 corporations which have made large profits14 from tax dollars in the form of federal aid,15 charging high fees for minimal quality in16 service, and leaving many students with huge17 loans they are not able to repay.18 The problem with the approach by19 the Department is that it will not solve the20 issue it is trying to address. The process of21 jumping through all the different and multiple22 state hoops and paying the associated fees2 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 1131 will not ensure quality and value for students2 and protection for the taxpayer. The Internet3 has changed our society and our economy in4 many ways, and this has happened rapidly.5 There are many examples of where it has6 created opportunity and transparency,7 connected people with each other in rich and8 important ways, and it is fundamentally9 changing higher education.10 It has created opportunity and11 choice for previously under-served learners.12 It has helped states increase access to13 affordable education. And it will be14 essential to any hope of reaching the targets15 for degree completion across the population;16 and thus, ensuring economic and social health17 set by the President, by the Lumina18 Foundation, and by other authorities.19 On the other hand, these powerful20 technologies have created a lot of temptation21 for quick profits, and in many areas of our22 society we are struggling to come up with laws2 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 1141 and policies that ensure the benefits of2 emerging communication technologies but which3 protect us from its abuse. With five million4 learners and growing, online distance5 education in the United States is an6 increasingly important aspect of the higher7 education system. And given that, I believe8 the U.S. Department of Education should9 consider this a great opportunity to take a10 new approach that leads to the development of11 a national standard to assess online higher12 education that will ensure rigor and value for13 both the learner and the taxpayer.14 There is a lot of goodwill amongst15 online providers of all stripes and among each16 of the state authorizing agencies to engage in17 such a project. And there are long-18 established examples of interstate cooperation19 that can be built upon and emulated. In its20 recent white paper, for instance, the21 President's Forum has proposed a common,22 substantive template of data requirements,2 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 1151 standards, criteria and processes that could2 enable reciprocal compacts between the states3 that use the template. Thus, authorization4 would remain with the states but will become5 consistent, efficient and effective for all6 concerned across the nation.7 This is the role that we need the8 Federal Government and this Department to play9 in order to help us better serve learners all10 across the nation, and US citizens serving and11 working around the world.12 Respectfully submitted, thank you13 very much.14 MR. MADZELAN: Thank you very much.15 Deb Barker-Garcia?16 MS. BARKER-GARCIA: Good morning.17 I'm Deb Barker-Garcia, Vice President of18 Financial Aid at Corinthian Colleges.19 Corinthian is one of the largest postsecondary20 education organizations in North America. We21 offer diploma and degree programs that prepare22 students for careers in healthcare, business,2 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 1161 criminal justice, transportation technology,2 construction trades, and information3 technology. We have 122 Everest, Heald and4 WyoTech campuses, and also offer a variety of5 degrees online. We have approximately 105,0006 students.7 And my comments today all focus on8 two subject areas. First, modifications to9 the income-based repayment plan regulations10 and, second, other changes to the regulations11 governing the federal student loan programs to12 facilitate improvements in loan servicing that13 will promote student loan repayment.14 First, income-based repayment.15 Income-based repayment or IBR is a vitally16 important option that should be readily17 available to graduates of postsecondary18 institutions. It's even more important in a19 period of economic recession, high20 unemployment, and low job growth. In the next21 negotiated rulemaking, the Department should22 examine how to make it easier for us to2 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 1171 establish IBR plans. 2 We have several suggestions.3 First, enable online IBR applications and4 processing of those applications. Second,5 allow electronic transmission of IRS data to6 support IBR applications. This is already7 done with the FAFSA and there is no reason why8 this shouldn't be or couldn't be done for IBR9 applications. And third, promote consistency10 among servicers on when IBR plans can be11 established. Currently, servicers have12 significantly different requirements. For13 example, Sallie Mae will allow IBR plans to be14 set up 30 days prior to the loan going into15 repayment, Nelnet requirement is 45 days. Fed16 Loan Servicing is 60 days.17 In my experience, IBR plans should18 be permitted as early as possible. Students19 should have established a repayment plan that20 they can afford before they even have the risk21 of becoming delinquent on their loans. We22 should be able to discuss the IBR option in2 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 1181 the grace counseling period and set up an IBR2 plan as early as possible in that period.3 Loan servicing improvements. We4 have considerable concerns about the expansion5 of loan servicing to over a dozen servicers.6 We believe that as more services are added,7 confusion will increase for borrowers and8 schools. Moreover, we are concerned about the9 use of the allocation method for distributing10 servicing responsibilities. Frankly, some of11 the smaller state servicers' performance with12 FFEL loans and their lack of infrastructure13 today raise doubts that they will be able to14 service loans adequately to the detriment of15 borrowers and institutions.16 We believe that the solution is to17 do away with the allocation method and to18 permit institutions to choose servicers based19 upon their performance. In a competitive20 marketplace, servicers will have an incentive21 to create and maintain products and services22 that benefit borrowers. One service that2 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 1191 should be available now under the Direct2 Lending Program that was previously offered3 under FFELP is the default aversion products4 and services. 5 We have several additional specific6 suggestions that would improve servicer7 performance. First, servicers should provide8 a portfolio report that provides information9 on delinquent status in a consistent way and10 that has consistent fields. This report11 should achieve what CommonLine accomplished in12 the FFEL Program. The Department can play a13 crucial role in the development of these14 standard file formats.15 Secondly, NSLDS should provide16 current delinquency information in the school17 portfolio report. Finally, we respectfully18 request that the Department cease instructing19 servicers to report loan defaults at 270 days.20 Instead, put loan default data and NSLDS21 should match information on Direct Loan22 defaults which occur after 360 days. We2 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 1201 believe there to be no statutory requirement2 for reporting loan defaults at 270 days.3 On behalf of Corinthian, I4 appreciate the opportunity to provide our5 views and suggestions to you. We hope that6 the forthcoming negotiated rulemaking will7 rationalize the regulations governing the8 Federal Student Loan Programs and are ready to9 contribute to those efforts. Thank you.10 MR. MADZELAN: Thank you. 11 MS. HOOVER: Good morning. My name12 is Nancy Hoover. I'm the Director of13 Financial Aid at Denison University and I'm14 the current Chair of the National Direct15 Student Loan Coalition. 16 I speak to you today on behalf of17 the National Direct Student Loan Coalition, a18 grassroots organization comprised of schools19 dedicated to the continuous improvement and20 strengthening of the Direct Loan Program. Its21 members are practicing financial aid22 professionals working at participating2 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 1211 institutions. I'd like to thank the Secretary2 for the opportunity to provide the Department3 of Education with comments on the Federal4 Student Loan Programs that may be addressed in5 the negotiated rulemaking process later this6 year.7 First and foremost, the Coalition8 wants to extend its thanks and congratulations9 to the staff of the Department of Education,10 and especially at Federal Student Aid for the11 tremendous success in moving all 5,000 plus12 schools to the Direct Lending Program. While13 some in our industry predicted that this would14 be an impossible task, the fact is that there15 has not been a report of even one student who16 was denied access to Stafford Loan funds this17 year as a result of the schools making the18 transition to Direct Lending. This transition19 could not have been more successful for20 schools or students.21 To ensure that the Federal Direct22 Loan Program continues to be strong and viable2 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 1221 source of loan funding for students, we wish2 to address regulatory issues in four areas: 3 The first area, simplification of4 origination regulations. The Healthcare and5 Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of6 2010, HR4872, requires that all new federal7 loans beginning with the 2010-11 academic year8 be originated in the Direct Loan Program. The9 Direct Loan regulations continue to cross10 reference regulations for the Federal Family11 Education Loan (FFEL) which Congress ended12 with HR4872. With so many new administrators13 in the Direct Loan Program needing quick,14 easy-to-read regulatory language to ensure15 compliance with the origination records for16 Direct Loans, it is important to simplify the17 federal loan regulations by negotiating a18 clear, concise, stand-alone set of Direct Loan19 regulations that eliminate any cross reference20 to the FFEL Program.21 Area number two, servicing. One of22 the trademarks and richest features of the2 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 1231 Direct Lending prior to this year was that all2 Direct Loans were serviced by the same3 servicer. Every Direct Loan borrower and4 school staff member knew exactly where a5 student's loan was held and knew who to call6 with questions. The National Direct Student7 Loan Coalition recognizes that the Department8 of Education now uses multiple contractors for9 the servicing of federal student loans, but we10 encourage new regulatory language to address11 the following issues that are inherent when12 multiple servicers compete for servicing13 contracts.14 1.A single interface between students and15 schools and all servicers to avoid16 confusion that now occurs when schools17 attempt to counsel students with loans18 held by multiple servicers.19 2.Transparency to borrowers and their families20 about the contractor that is serving21 their loans in repayment.22 3.The Department's vigilance in monitoring the2 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 1241 servicing contracts to ensure accurate2 data is provided by the servicer to the3 Department for the calculation of the4 cohort default rates.5 4.Capitalization of interest for borrowers6 that is consistent with the historical7 Direct Loan methodology that is8 transparent to borrowers and that is9 uniformly practiced by all contracted10 servicers.11 5.Exit counseling requirements that ensure the12 provision of helpful information about13 consolidation options that benefit14 borrowers with multiple loan types.15 Third area, total and permanent16 disability. The Coalition requests that the17 Department of Education negotiate rules with a18 final result that is fair to both permanently19 disabled borrowers and federal taxpayers.20 Currently, students are required to submit21 multiple applications for loan discharge and22 are monitored for up to three years after2 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 1251 being granted the permanent disabled status.2 We encourage the Department to develop a less3 intrusive and simplified process that retains4 the integrity of the current one.5 The last area is operations.6 Regulations for the Direct Loan Program7 encompass both the policy and operational8 aspects of the program. With all federal9 loans and grants processed through one system,10 the Common Origination and Disbursement11 system, student aid processing and delivery is12 now focused on the student rather than on each13 individual program. It is absolutely critical14 that the Department ensure that regulations15 address the need for a system concept like16 COD. Any solution that does not retain the17 ease in use and understanding of our current18 COD system will set students and schools back19 significantly.20 The standardization of the common21 record file formatting in such a system is22 essential for the following reasons.2 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 1261 Standardization of the common record format2 streamline student eligibility, changes for3 funds, and ensure students receive their funds4 on time. The standardization of the common5 record format simplifies and enables quick6 programming that is required by software7 vendors to deliver funds for new programs that8 Congress develops. For each program in COD, a9 school or third party servicer is assigned the10 same customer service rep team to facilitate11 origination and disbursement processing and12 issue resolution, providing more time for13 financial aid professionals to counsel14 students about all aspects of their financial15 aid.16 Before the COD system, schools did17 not have any online capability to make any18 corrections, changes, process emergency19 requests, and check processing status to help20 resolve issues for students quicker and to get21 their aid disbursed immediately. The COD22 system provides accountability because the2 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 1271 funding for all programs is processed through2 one system, G5. Monthly and annual3 reconciliation process decrease fraud and4 abuse by ensuring that all funds are accounted5 for on a timely basis. Every disbursement6 record for a student fund is recorded in the7 system to ensure accountability for the8 individual student's records. The COD system9 now contains information about the servicer to10 which the student's loans have been assigned.11 Over multiple academic years and institutional12 enrollments, a student's record remains in a13 single record within the COD to ensure greater14 ease in schools' compliance with federal15 regulations.16 In closing, I'd like to thank you17 again for the opportunity to present this18 testimony on behalf of the National Direct19 Student Loan Coalition. Many of our members20 were the first schools to implement the Direct21 Loan Program over 15 years and have years of22 expertise in operational and policy issues as2 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 1281 well as compliance with the regulations for2 the program. The Coalition looks forward to3 participating in the negotiated rulemaking4 process that will occur in 2011. I would be5 happy to answer any questions that you might6 have.7 MR. MADZELAN: Thank you very much.8 Now it works. Thank you. Vicki Shipley?9 MS. SHIPLEY: Good morning. My10 name is Vicki Shipley. I'm Senior Adviser11 with the National Council of Higher Education12 Loan Programs (NCHELP). NCHELP is a non-13 profit association of guaranty agencies,14 secondary markets, lenders, loan servicers,15 collection agencies, schools and other16 organizations involved in higher education17 access and finance. 18 First of all, I'd like to thank the19 Department for their continued support of20 negotiated rulemaking and involving the21 community. We feel, we know that it is a very22 tedious process but we support it. We think2 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 1291 that we definitely come out with better2 regulations as a result of the community3 involvement. So, thank you and we definitely4 are interested in this next round.5 We will be submitting specific6 recommendations tomorrow. I have just general7 comments right now, but you'll get some more8 specific recommendations tomorrow via your9 portal. Our general comment though is first10 related to the items that were on the11 Department's list. 12 Income-based repayment. We13 continue to be a supporter of repayment plans14 that truly provide repayment options, viable15 repayment options for borrowers, and16 especially borrowers who are struggling to17 make repayment plans work. Now that we've had18 a couple of years of IBR experience under our19 belt, we do appreciate the Department's20 continued help in answering our many Q&As.21 Every time we think we completely understand22 IBR, we have a series of very detailed2 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 1301 operational questions that we find that2 sometimes we just don't, you know, we don't3 quite understand and we need to make sure that4 we're doing the right thing for these5 borrowers.6 So, as in past negotiated7 rulemaking, sometimes we have not had all the8 time to finish it, so we do look forward to9 implementing another round that lets us go10 deeper into these IBR regulations where we can11 go in and get it right as it relates to, be it12 consistency or things that hopefully we can do13 to make it more borrower friendly in the14 process. And we also, as a result of some of15 these Q&As, we may have a few more coming your16 way. And based on your response, we may have17 some specific recommendations, especially18 related to the infamous delinquency before19 repayment and what to do and how to handle20 those. So, you may have some things coming in21 over the summer based on those Q&As. So,22 again, thank you for that.2 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 1311 Total and permanent disability2 discharge. We are also very encouraged to see3 TPD back on the list. I think we've been4 working on this one for over a decade now.5 And even though progress was made in the last6 round, we do believe there is certainly room7 for improvement. We know that sometimes they8 get caught, the borrowers would get caught up9 in the paper chase and how do we still protect10 the federal fiscal interest but make sure that11 eligible borrowers have a true process and one12 that doesn't leave them hanging.13 We are encouraged also that we14 think it's important to make sure that the15 process still includes borrower advocates such16 as guaranty agencies and others who continue17 to help borrowers through this process. So,18 we believe that that is important in terms of19 maintaining the role that the borrower20 advocates play.21 We understand also that the22 Department may be coming out with some either2 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 1321 guidance or clarification regarding the use of2 copies of applications rather than having3 original signatures. I know that's something4 that we've been pursuing for many, many years5 be it through the forms process or through6 negotiated rulemaking. So, we are hopeful7 that that rumor is true and we are supportive8 of that. And we look forward to that change9 to hopefully implement some of these quick and10 easy ways in terms of addressing some of the11 inefficiencies and complexities of TPD.12 Another item, under the category of13 borrower-centric, transitional efficiencies14 from FFELP to Direct Lending. This is15 basically our justification for just in time16 reinsurance payment. Guaranty agencies17 continue to be committed to their role as18 borrower advocates, providing important local19 services such as delinquency and default20 aversion services. Given today's transitional21 period and nature in which guaranty agencies22 are operating and the fact that default2 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 1331 aversion fees are paid out of the agency's2 federal reserve fund, it's important that the3 Secretary pay reinsurance on a much more in4 line with statutory requirements promptly and5 without administrative delay.6 We would respectfully request that7 the Department look at implementing a process8 that some of the guaranty agencies use under9 the voluntary flexible agreement process that10 would basically pay reinsurance within 4811 hours of the agency's request. We recommend12 that the Department, if they were able to do13 this, this would ensure that all guaranty14 agencies have adequate resources to fulfill15 their default aversion responsibilities. And16 we also believe that this probably could be17 accomplished without regulatory change,18 knowing that it's already in place for some of19 the guaranty agencies on the VFA.20 And then, as the Department further21 looks to streamline the loan program22 regulations by repealing unnecessary FFEL2 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 1341 Program regulations, we recommend the2 Secretary consider the applicability of3 outdated FFELP laws and regulations with4 regard to the measurement of progress of the5 loan program, especially when a loan program6 is no longer making new loans. And7 specifically, we're talking about current8 metrics such as loan volume, portfolio size,9 reinsurance and reserve ratios that really are10 no longer relevant in terms of how a guaranty11 agency is doing or performing their activities12 because of a suspended loan program. So, we13 welcome the opportunity to work with the14 Department to develop new metrics, metrics15 that are meaningful, that truly identify the16 transitional nature of the FFEL Program as17 well as other borrower friendly, transitional18 efficiencies and services that the guaranty19 agencies continue to provide to these20 borrowers.21 Lastly, streamlining the loan22 program regulations. We continue to look at2 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 1351 borrower friendly ways that, and in fact this2 relates to the regulatory relief initiative3 that I believe President Obama had put in4 place earlier this year. We had sent you, I5 think, 15 recommendations in March. We have6 now, we've looked at those recommendations7 again and we have a revised list that will be8 sent. We tweaked it a little bit, some of the9 same ones. No, it's still 15, maybe 16.10 So, the list is still the same.11 We'll be looking at, still looking at trying12 to, and Gail, you'll love this one, meaningful13 disclosures. We still are not convinced that14 the disclosures are still meaningful in all15 cases and that they're, you know, getting the16 right disclosure at the right time. There is17 also, we believe, some relief that could be18 provided for borrowers in the military, trying19 to make it more easy for them to receive the20 benefits in which they are entitled. And21 also, equal default aversion activities for22 all borrowers regardless of what loan program2 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 1361 they're in, be it Direct Loan or FFELP. And2 then there are some guaranty agency items to3 clarify record retention and also program4 reviews.5 So, that list will be coming your way6 tomorrow also with specific recommendations,7 reg language, and we look forward to the8 opportunity to hopefully either see some of9 those on the list or incentive for a bonus10 round. Dan, as I mentioned, the three times11 rule will be on there. We believe that all of12 these things are very important as it relates13 to providing borrowers with real repayment14 options, and some of these things just don't15 serve a purpose anymore in terms of, you know,16 when they were put in place. And we've got17 them almost there in other negotiated rounds,18 so we're going to try to see it again.19 Also, through the years, the NCHELP20 regulations committee has continued to21 maintain a list of what we affectionately call22 technical corrections. I think through the2 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 1371 years our list is now up to about 190. We2 realize as you go back and clean up the FFELP3 regs and align the Direct Loan and stand alone4 regs, some of those technical corrections may5 no longer be applicable. But in the spirit of6 true cleanup, I mean I think we're up to 1907 technical corrections, we've got about 5 more8 we'll send you tomorrow. But we're hopeful9 that those technical corrections can be looked10 at because we do feel that those are important11 going forward in terms of making sure the12 regulations indeed reflect policy operations13 of what we're doing and what we are going to14 be doing.15 So, thank you again for the16 opportunity and we'll submit the detailed17 formal recommendations tomorrow. Thank you.18 MR. MADZELAN: Thank you. David19 Tretter?20 MR. TRETTER: Good morning. My21 name is Dave Tretter. I'm the President of22 the Federation of Independent Colleges &2 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 1381 Universities which is an advocacy organization2 here in Illinois representing over 60 not-for-3 profit private colleges and universities4 including our host, Loyola, here this morning.5 These institutions currently serve over6 200,000 students throughout the state. The7 independent colleges and universities8 certainly are a vital contributor to the9 Illinois higher education system both in terms10 of the capacity and the diversity of the11 students enrolled. In fact, my members12 annually graduate over 40 percent of all the13 baccalaureate degrees here, 55 percent of all14 the health-related degrees, and a majority of15 graduate degrees. The quality and diversity16 of these institutions is important in Illinois17 and relevant nationally as we work together to18 meet the educational goals set out by the19 Secretary and the President of the United20 States.21 Because we are on a Jesuit campus,22 I'll try to be mercifully brief this morning2 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 1391 as I was trained, but let me concentrate on2 two points if I can. And again, thank you for3 the opportunity to offer some comments here4 this morning and thank you for making the trip5 to Chicago.6 Specifically, we are requesting7 that the negotiated rulemaking agenda include8 the recision of regulations dealing with state9 authorization and federal definition of credit10 hour that are scheduled to take effect July 111 of this year. Over 70 higher education12 associations and accrediting organizations13 have contacted the Secretary to ask that these14 regulations be rescinded. To my knowledge,15 the Secretary hasn't responded yet which is of16 course his prerogative to do. But to the17 extent that negotiated rulemaking process18 would be required to take this action, we19 request that the recision of these two20 regulatory provisions be included in any21 upcoming sessions.22 On the two topics, with respect to2 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 1401 the credit hour issue, we feel that having a2 federal definition of credit hour puts the3 federal government square in the middle of an4 academic decision making process and limits5 the ability of institutions to respond to new6 models of higher education. Secondly, the7 credit hour decisions we feel are8 appropriately made in an academic, not a9 regulatory setting. The notion of a credit10 hour has been remarkably resilient in11 providing a common understanding on what's12 required across a huge variety and levels of13 course work.14 As many of you know, credit hour15 decisions are largely made by faculty members16 and require informed judgments at the local17 level. By its very nature, we feel a18 regulatory requirement seeks standardization19 and conformity, makes sense, but we don't20 think that that can provide the kind of21 breadth and adaptability that current22 practices have provided. We also feel that,2 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 1411 we doubt that any amount of clarification by2 the Department can surmount what we think is3 the inherent problem of imposing the rigid4 federal regulations in this area, and really5 an area or a process that's allowed our system6 of higher education to grow and improve and7 respond to changing circumstances.8 With regard to authorization,9 Illinois schools have been delivering quality10 higher education for decades. In fact, many11 of my members in the city here have been12 around almost as long as the state has been13 incorporated. Long-standing arrangements have14 worked well in the overwhelming majority of15 cases. We feel it's inappropriate and16 unnecessary for the federal government to17 require states to, in this case, second guess18 the explicit decisions that have already been19 made about meeting the authorization20 responsibilities. 21 This isn't necessarily the forum22 for anecdotal examples, but I can tell you I2 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 1421 have a member right down here in the city2 that's operated here for 125 years. You'd3 know the name if I said it. Highly respected.4 The graduates have a great success rate, high5 graduation rates, low in default rates, et6 cetera. They do a wonderful job, and yet they7 could get caught by the net of some of these8 potential regulations coming, some as soon as9 July 1, and are very worried that they won't10 be able to operate next year.11 We are working with our state12 coordinating board. We know there's a13 relationship there between what is going on at14 the federal level and the state level. But15 we're not confident that those things are16 going to come together in a timely enough17 manner. And so, we have very serious concerns18 about institutions that are doing a good job19 that might get caught up in some of these20 regulations and frankly not be able to21 operate.22 The distance education component of2 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 1431 the regulation also has been a source of2 particular confusion and concern to some of3 our members. Many institutions offering4 distance education programs remain unsure5 about what they need to do to be in6 compliance. And in fact, when I talked to our7 state coordinating board, they're unsure about8 how that works and the relationship between9 the fed and the states on this particular10 issue.11 Again, thank you for the time, for12 making the trip. I will submit my comments13 through the portal. Thank you.14 MR. MADZELAN: Thank you. Tom15 Babel?16 MR. BABEL: Thanks. It's good to17 come and talk about something other than18 gainful employment.19 So, my name is Tom Babel. I'm the20 Vice President for Regulatory Affairs at21 DeVry. And I would like to thank the22 Department for holding these regional hearings2 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 1441 and continuing kind of its history of2 transparency into the process.3 My remarks today will address DeVry4 University's efforts to improve college5 completion. Our drive for greater rates of6 college completion are not only crucial to the7 success of our students, but also essential to8 meeting the President's 2020 goals and9 fielding a workforce that can compete in the10 global economy. The accomplishment of that11 goal will rest on our collective ability to12 serve and graduate students historically13 referred to as nontraditional. 14 DeVry University has been serving15 nontraditional students since its inception16 more than 80 years ago when it first began17 training students in the new and emerging18 field of electronics. Like the face of all19 higher education, the face of the20 nontraditional student has changed in those 8021 years. And though it continues to be the22 population we serve, it is now the population2 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 1451 served by all of higher education. 2 There are 27 million students3 enrolled in our nation's colleges and4 universities today. About 7 million or 255 percent of those fit the definition of a6 traditional student. 20 million are7 nontraditional students, what we at DeVry have8 always called our students. They are first9 generation students, typically over 25 years10 of age, and often with families of their own11 to support. 12 These are the students whose13 college completion rate we must increase if we14 are to meet the President's call. We as an15 industry are challenged to do so even though16 the structure of higher education is still17 oriented to serving traditional students18 including who we count, how we measure19 success, how we determine financial aid, and20 in the way we regulate institutions.21 At DeVry, we have come to22 understand there is no silver bullet, or2 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 1461 broad-ranging killer app. to address all the2 challenges that come with educating this3 growing population of students. The solutions4 will be as diverse as the students themselves.5 The successful institutions will be those with6 the passion to serve and the perseverance to7 adapt to the needs of these students.8 While we have a long history in9 serving nontraditional students, we do not10 profess to have it perfected. We have a long11 way to go until our graduation rate is where12 we want it to be. But we're making progress.13 Although we have had as many failures as14 anyone in developing and implementing15 solutions to improve the graduation rate, we16 are seeing progress of several initiatives17 that I would like to briefly talk about today.18 The first initiative is the one19 which I call intrusive engagement and our20 campuses call student central. It is an21 initiative recently studied and reported by22 the Pell Institute for the Study of2 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 1471 Opportunities in Higher Education and found to2 be a promising practice in helping3 nontraditional students succeed. It starts4 with a prospective student who is assigned to5 a student finance advisor and a student6 success coach as they come in the door. These7 two people are assigned to the student for the8 life of his or her enrollment. They will9 assure that the entering student has a roadmap10 to attaining their degree and financing their11 education.12 One of the characteristics that13 sets apart nontraditional students from their14 counterparts is a lack of confidence in their15 ability to succeed. Their education can be16 derailed by even the most trivial of17 obstacles, like missing their train here in18 Chicago. One of the primary goals of our19 student central teams is to instill that20 confidence. They do so by actively monitoring21 the student's academic performance and their22 financing. They are tasked and held2 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 1481 accountable with talking to the students on a2 regular basis, sometimes as frequently as each3 week, in order to identify and resolve any4 barriers getting in the way of a successful5 outcome.6 A second initiative is a commitment7 to customer service. That notion rankles many8 in higher education, but we believe that9 without that commitment and recognition, that10 our students or consumers who have other life11 options, many will choose those other options.12 In addition to typical survey mechanisms, we13 use a system called the net promoter score.14 The net promoter score provides a quantitative15 assessment of how well we are serving our16 students. Only those students rating our17 service and instruction a 9 or a 10 on a 10-18 point scale count. 19 We measure the score at the end of20 every class session, that is, every week.21 Over the past two years, we have seen a better22 than 50 percent improvement in our net2 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 1491 promoter score. And during that same period,2 which we believe not coincidentally, we have3 seen our student persistence also improve4 almost every session.5 The third initiative I'd like to6 highlight is the offering of modalities of7 education that are designed to help the8 student succeed. This first started at DeVry9 University with a shift from the standard 15-10 week course structure to 8-week courses. We11 made the shift after several years of running12 the two options side by side and studying the13 results across almost every demographic screen14 we could think of: age, gender, program of15 study. We found that our students performed16 better in the 8-week modules than in the 15-17 week semester courses.18 Concurrent with this shift, we19 began developing our online and blended20 learning environments. These environments21 require interaction from the student and22 create many more opportunities for faculty to2 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 1501 individually engage with students. Students2 who previously lacked the confidence to ask3 questions or offer answers in the classroom4 are now individually coached by faculty to5 succeed. Together with the peer onsite6 offerings, students have a choice to take7 courses that best fit their learning style and8 life demands.9 Students are drawn to DeVry10 University because of the promise of a11 rewarding career. In fact, 88 percent of all12 graduates from 2009 who are active in the job13 market were employed in their chosen field14 within six months of graduation. Over the15 past five years, the top five employers16 nationwide of DeVry University graduates are17 all Fortune 100 companies -- AT&T, Verizon18 Communications, General Electric, Intel and19 IBM. The average earnings of our graduates in20 the first year on their job exceeds the21 average family income for independent22 students. 2 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 1511 This is an incredible socioeconomic2 lift for our students. The promise is clear3 to them. But what is not for many of our4 students is the academic rigor and the work5 that is needed to be successful. 6 With the intrusive engagement model7 discussed above, by both faculty and staff, we8 are seeing positive returns and believe we are9 on the right path. But obstacles remain.10 More than 70 percent of DeVry students are11 outside of this nation's measuring system.12 For some it's because they are returning or13 transferring students. For others it's14 because they enroll part-time and so for15 others they are classified as failures because16 their individual educational attainment17 horizon is much longer than six years. 18 They are hindered because the19 financial aid system is designed to serve the20 traditional full-time student, or full-time21 semester/quarter based student attending from22 September through May. The 8-week session2 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 1521 which serves our students so well academically2 fails to serve them when it comes to financial3 aid delivery. As a nonstandard term, the4 student who is most likely to have to drop a5 course to care for other life needs is most6 penalized by requirements to succeed in all of7 those classes. Nontraditional students who8 typically face many more financial challenges9 than traditional students have far less in10 financial assistance resources available to11 them.12 We know that these students have a13 more urgent need to continue their studies14 uninterrupted. In fact, we know that even15 planned, short interruptions end up becoming16 years or permanent. Yet with the elimination17 of year-round Pell funding and awarding18 restrictions on FSEOG grants and low-cost19 Perkins Loans, nontraditional students' only20 funding alternatives for much of their studies21 are higher costing Stafford and private loans.22 We know we have institutional tools2 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 1531 to help improve the college completion rate.2 And with hard work and perseverance, we will3 be successful in so doing. But to go all the4 way, we need to modify all of our structures.5 So, thank you again for listening.6 I appreciate the opportunity.7 MR. MADZELAN: Evelyn Levino?8 MS. LEVINO: Hello. Thank you for9 this opportunity to provide input into the10 process for negotiated rulemaking. My name is11 Evelyn Levino and I'm the Vice President for12 Institutional Compliance & Government13 Relations at Franklin University.14 To provide you some context for my15 comments, I will provide a profile about16 Franklin so that you can understand the17 nontraditional roots that we have and how it18 plays into the regulations that are based on19 information from outdated, traditional20 definitions.21 We were established in 1902 and22 accredited by the Higher Learning Commission.2 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 1541 We're a private, not-for-profit school. Our2 main campus is in Columbus, Ohio. We offer3 Associates, Bachelor's and Master's degrees,4 and we are open admission. We traditionally5 serve the adult students. 80 percent of our6 student body is 25 and above. Our average7 undergraduate student is 32 years old. 11,0008 students enroll annually and 90 percent of9 those transfer into Franklin.10 Similar to community colleges, we11 have no dormitories, nor do we have any sports12 teams. The first online program was offered13 at Franklin in 1998 and we now offer over 6514 percent of our credit hours online. We have15 two programs: one is a virtual program, the16 other one is a community college alliance17 program. We have agreements with over 28018 community colleges to offer this program. The19 student completes the Associate's degree at20 the community college, takes additional course21 work at the community college, and then the22 last 40 hours are offered online at Franklin2 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 1551 for the completion of their Bachelor's degree.2 Our academic year runs fall,3 winter, summer. And this is important because4 only 40 to 45 percent of our students actually5 start in the fall. We offer accelerated6 programs. Most of them are in 6-week course7 formats with 4 credit hours. We also offer8 centrally designed curriculum with doctoral9 qualified instructional designers, course10 content experts and developers. And they're11 reviewed every two years, or sooner in the12 case of rapidly evolving knowledge areas such13 as technology.14 So, in essence, we were15 nontraditional when nontraditional wasn't16 cool. And we were innovative when the17 learning management systems didn't even exist.18 I applaud the United States19 Department of Education on their efforts and20 focus on student access and success. Both are21 important. But keeping the goal in mind makes22 the pathway clearer. Education for Americans2 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 1561 is a matter of vital public policy and2 concern. The college completion toolkit3 published by the Department is a fantastic4 example of an effort to not only provide5 guidance for state strategies but also to6 encourage collective and collaborative efforts7 between federal, state and private entities to8 increase success for students from college9 readiness and preparedness through college10 completion. I am pleased to say that Ohio is11 a member of the Complete College American12 Alliances of States and other efforts.13 There are few areas within the14 strategies outlined that warrant some15 additional comments. First is the definition16 of success. As a university administrator, I,17 too, look for these success measurements with18 access, retention, and completion. However,19 we should also consider other milestones or20 goals the students may have. The goal may not21 necessarily be a degree completion, but22 instead it may be educational attainment for2 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 1571 employment or promotional opportunities. This2 is underscored by the number of students who3 obtain promotions or new positions while4 pursuing their education. I've seen more than5 just a few students drop out to focus on a job6 promotion or other family issues. 7 Another nuance is that, in this8 scenario, only degree-seeking students are9 eligible for financial aid. This may inflate10 the number of degree-seeking students in the11 statistics. As Sisyphus demonstrated, rolling12 the rock uphill, there is definitely value in13 the process.14 It's already been mentioned that15 the completion or graduation rate definition16 that's used for IPEDS has flaws. It does not17 include part-time students or transfers. I18 contend that it goes a little further than19 that. It does not include students who start20 in any other term besides the fall term. This21 alone excludes roughly 60 to 65 percent of22 Franklin's population. Adding all the2 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 1581 exclusions together, Franklin's IPED2 graduation rate is based on a mere 3 to 53 percent of our new student population. A4 better way to consider graduation rate is to5 measure everyone who enrolls in a given6 academic year, whether they are transfers,7 first timers, or if they attend full or part8 time. 9 When the IPEDS GRS first began10 around 20 years ago, there were discussions11 amongst my colleagues and I about how or12 whether to properly major transfers. The13 issue was never resolved. Over time of14 course, colleges and universities have15 diversified a great deal, and there is a16 considerable evidence of swirling by students17 from one to two or more schools. Moreover,18 the 18-year-old first-time student is no19 longer the norm, but that's the ideal against20 which we are still measured. Yet there are21 few benchmarks to represent the progress for22 all students.2 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 1591 Another alternative may include2 calculating a ratio of degrees towards FTE3 enrollment. This approach has several4 advantages, including that it can already be5 done using IPEDS data. It's similar to other6 forms of representing population statistics7 such as birth rates. So, in considering8 strategies to increase the success of9 students, definitions and measurements play a10 huge role. You have to know what you're11 measuring, why you're measuring it, and it has12 to have meaning.13 Before I conclude, I'd like to take14 the opportunity to offer an idea for Direct15 Loans. I propose that this loan program16 should be awarded to students in a similar17 manner as to how Pell is awarded. You can18 think of it as Pell with a prom note. Remove19 the overlapping loan period rules and base the20 award amounts on an academic year basis. Pay21 up to half of the eligibility for each22 semester in a two-semester academic year, or a2 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 1601 third in a quarter for a three-quarter2 academic year. This would simplify the3 administrative process while still ensuring4 appropriate safeguards. In addition, it would5 remove the requirement to provide students who6 have eligibility for full academic year's7 worth of loans in one semester. 8 Our school policy is to present9 loan eligibility over a full academic year.10 If a student decides not to attend a semester11 and they request a full eligibility, we are12 not permitted to deny them. So, our cost for13 one semester is approximately $5,000. The14 student can receive $12,500. Excess funds are15 of course refunded to the student. Under this16 proposal, a student would only qualify for17 half of that amount and it would assist the18 students with controlling their indebtedness.19 I thank you for your time and for20 listening to the public in this important21 process.22 MR. MADZELAN: Thank you, ma'am.2 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 1611 John --2 PARTICIPANT: I just came to submit3 my comments.4 MR. MADZELAN: All right. Everyone5 who has signed up to speak this morning has6 spoken. So we will take a recess. And when7 others come along to speak, sign up to speak,8 then we'll reconvene. So for right now we'll9 take a break. Thank you.10 (Whereupon, the above-entitled11 matter went off the record at 12:00 p.m. and12 went back on the record at 1:10 p.m.)13 MR. MADZELAN: We will reconvene14 with our first speaker of the afternoon, David15 Hill.16 MR. HILL: Thank you. I'm David17 Hill. I'm the Division Director for Educator18 Preparation with the Georgia Professional19 Standards Commission. And the remarks I want20 to make are aimed mainly at the regulations in21 Title II, Reporting for Teacher Education.22 Current regulations and reporting2 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 1621 for the most part assume traditional brick and2 mortar institutions with students and faculty3 doing what they've done for at least the last4 half century. We are in a rapidly changing5 world where our teachers are being produced in6 alternative preparation programs and also in7 online institutions, and our regulations need8 to reflect those kinds of changes. For9 example, in Title II reporting, the10 alternative preparation, it's assumed it looks11 like a traditional university program. But in12 Georgia our alternative preparation program is13 not that. There is no student teaching, there14 is no seat time requirement, there is no15 granting of credit. 16 In Georgia we have a strong17 alternative preparation program. One out of18 every five teachers come out of alternative19 preparation, and our traditional institutions20 cannot produce enough teachers. So, as we21 report, we're not able to report accurately22 because our alternative program does not look2 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 1631 like a traditional program. And of course it2 shouldn't.3 The regulations address online4 learning, but they do not in substantive ways.5 And a typical online program, and I've6 reviewed many of these and I'm certainly not7 suggesting they all look this way, but there8 is read, chat, write a four-page paper, and9 occasionally complete a project. And that10 pattern is repeated week after week for the11 semester, and often those semesters don't last12 very long and the students in those programs13 are able to take a great amount of course work14 in a very short period of time.15 Traditional institutions are16 catching on, and they are moving toward17 online. But since they are often not-for-18 profit, they do not have the funding to invest19 in the development that for-profit20 institutions have. And consequently, we have21 traditional institutions developing22 ineffective online programs. 2 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 1641 Here are some of the problems.2 There is a great deal of danger of abuse. One3 professor in a southeastern state recently4 bragged that he had 1,200 plus students in his5 online class. I wondered how the institution6 was able to charge so little for the online7 program, but when I heard how many students, I8 quickly realized that was a Walmart model and9 it was working well for that institution.10 Many of the online programs have large numbers11 of adjunct faculty, and we would question12 whether or not that many adjunct would be13 providing a quality experience.14 Another abuse is the expense of the15 program. I know of one for-profit institution16 that is $60,000, and we were able to head that17 student off because he was going to be in ed18 leadership, and in the State of Georgia that19 program would not have qualified him to be a20 principal in Georgia. And I don't believe21 that institution would have refunded that22 $60,000.2 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 1651 Current regulations are inadequate2 for moving higher education to more research-3 based models. And I'm not suggesting that4 government should necessarily drive change,5 but someone's got to drive change because it's6 not happening. We need to move traditional7 teacher preparation programs to build8 effective clinical practices that give9 students as much real work in real places in10 real time as possible. Those experiences need11 to begin early in the program. They need to12 build to a final year where most of the work13 is field-based with almost no time in a14 university classroom.15 We need to expect strong university16 and P12 partnerships that support meaningful17 clinical practice but also are designed to18 solve chronic problems in education. And19 right now the partnerships we have tend to20 meet twice a year, include food in the21 meeting, have an agenda that is offensive to22 no one, and make one decision and that's when2 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 1661 the next meeting will be. It is important2 that, as we think about partnerships, that in3 an environment where there are few dollars,4 that there is a sharing of resources. And so5 those partnerships need to be structured6 around shared resources between universities7 and the P12 arena.8 It's important to report how the9 university has changed its reward structure.10 There are many people in colleges of education11 who would like to be partnering in the P1212 arena, but the folks in arts and sciences will13 not allow them to because the reward structure14 has not changed. They say it has, but I can't15 find universities where they say it really is16 happening. 17 We need to require universities to18 provide full disclosure. When you complete19 the program of study, what are you actually20 qualified to do? Does the program include all21 of the right pieces? In my job, I have22 educators who call me often crying, they've2 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 1671 completed the program, they've paid tens of2 thousands of dollars only to find they cannot3 be certified to teach in Georgia because the4 program left out important pieces. And of5 course, I've already mentioned the cost of6 these programs that may result in the7 inability to be certified to teach.8 States need support in regulating9 online programs. Online programs are offering10 those programs not only in 50 states but11 worldwide. And clearly their market is12 worldwide, and certainly I understand their13 need to have flexibility in having a worldwide14 student body, and yet we need for them to15 produce teachers for Georgia, and it's very16 difficult for us to control institutions that17 are not located within our borders.18 Finally, regulations need to19 address the university's role in candidate20 induction. Right now we are assuming that a21 teacher knows everything they need to know to22 be effective as a teacher when they graduate2 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 1681 from the university. That's an absurd model.2 There is no way we can teach them everything3 they need in four years. We have an alarming4 attrition rate in the first five years of5 teaching. 6 When you have strong induction7 programs, the attrition rate drops8 drastically. That induction program should9 include the partnership of the university,10 school districts and state departments of11 education. The cost of running those programs12 could be paid for by the savings that would be13 had if we had lower attrition rates because we14 know that a very conservative figure is15 probably about $10,000 to replace one teacher16 lost. Thank you very much.17 MR. MADZELAN: Thank you. Well, as18 we wait for our second speaker of the19 afternoon, we'll take a recess.20 (Whereupon, a recess was taken.)21 MR. MADZELAN: I want to thank our22 speakers this morning and this afternoon for2 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4 1691 coming and sharing their thoughts with us.2 And with that, we will close the hearing.3 Thank you.4 (Whereupon, the above-entitled5 matter went off the record at 3:45 p.m.)67891011121314151617182 3 Negotiated Rulemaking Higher Education 2011 – Public Hearing May 19, 2011 4

2011 Negotiated Rulemaking for Higher Education - Transcript of the May 19, 2011 Public

Details

Download

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

Support