[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EXAMINING EXECUTIVE ORDER #13607 AND ITS IMPACT ON SCHOOLS AND VETERANS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY (EO)
of the
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
WEDNESDAY, MAY 16, 2012
__________
Serial No. 112-62
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
74-588 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
JEFF MILLER, Florida, Chairman
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida BOB FILNER, California, Ranking
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado CORRINE BROWN, Florida
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida SILVESTRE REYES, Texas
DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
BILL FLORES, Texas BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio JERRY McNERNEY, California
JEFF DENHAM, California JOE DONNELLY, Indiana
JON RUNYAN, New Jersey TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
DAN BENISHEK, Michigan JOHN BARROW, Georgia
ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas
MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
ROBERT L. TURNER, New York
Helen W. Tolar, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
______
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY (EO)
MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana, Chairman
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa, Ranking
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public
hearing records of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs are also
published in electronic form. The printed hearing record remains the
official version. Because electronic submissions are used to prepare
both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process
of converting between various electronic formats may introduce
unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the
current publication process and should diminish as the process is
further refined.
C O N T E N T S
__________
May 16, 2012
Page
Examining Executive Order #13607 And Its Impact On Schools And
Veterans....................................................... 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Chairman Marlin A. Stutzman...................................... 1
Prepared Statement of Chairman Stutzman...................... 47
Hon. Bruce L. Braley, Ranking Democratic Member.................. 2
Prepared Statement of B. Braley.............................. 47
WITNESSES
Mr. Joe Wynn, Special Advisor, Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA). 4
Prepared Statement of Mr. Wynn............................... 48
Executive Summary of Mr. Wynn................................ 51
Mr. Ryan M. Gallucci, Deputy Director, National Legislative
Service, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States (VFW)... 6
Prepared Statement of Mr. Gallucci........................... 52
Mr. Tom Tarantino, Deputy Policy Director, Iraq and Afghanistan
Veterans of America (IAVA)..................................... 8
Prepared Statement of Mr. Tarantino.......................... 56
Mr. Michael Dakduk, Executive Director, Student Veterans America
(SVA).......................................................... 10
Prepared Statement of Mr. Dakduk............................. 60
Executive Summary of Mr. Dakduk.............................. 63
Ms. Judith Flink, Executive Director, University Student
Financial Services and Cashier Operations, University of
Illinois, On Behalf of National Association of College and
University Business Officers (NACUBO).......................... 16
Prepared Statement of Ms. Flink.............................. 64
Executive Summary of Ms. Flink............................... 67
Hon. Steve Gunderson, President and CEO, Association of Private
Sector Colleges and Universities (APSCU)....................... 18
Prepared Statement of Mr. Gunderson.......................... 67
Ms. Margaret Baechtold, Director, Veterans Support Services,
Indiana University--Bloomington, IN, On Behalf of National
Association of Veteran Program Administrators (NAVPA).......... 19
Prepared Statement of Ms. Baechtold.......................... 74
Executive Summary of Ms. Baechtold........................... 75
Mr. Barmak Nassirian, Associate Executive Director, American
Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers
(AACRAO)....................................................... 21
Prepared Statement of Mr. Nassirian.......................... 76
Dr. Jonathan C. Gibralter, PhD., President, Frostburg State
University, On Behalf of American Association of State Colleges
and Universities (AASCU)....................................... 23
Prepared Statement of Dr. Gibralter.......................... 79
Executive Summary of Dr. Gibralter........................... 83
Mr. Chad C. Schatz, Director, Veterans' Education and Training
Section, Missouri State Department of Elementary & Secondary
Education...................................................... 33
Prepared Statement of Mr. Schatz............................. 83
Accompanied by:
Mr. Skip Gebhart, Administrator, Office of Veterans
Education and Training Programs, West Virginia Higher
Education Policy Commission, On Behalf of The National
Association of State Approving Agencies (NASAA)
MG Robert M. Worley II USAF (Ret.), Director, Education Service,
Veterans Benefit Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs........................................................ 35
Prepared Statement of MG Worley.............................. 88
STATEMENTS FOR THE RECORD
Ms. Jennifer L. Steele, The RAND Corporation..................... 89
Mr. Steve L. Gonzalez, Assistant Director, National Economic
Commission, The American Legion................................ 95
Mr. Theodore (Ted) L. Daywalt, CEO and President, VetJobs........ 96
Mr. Patrick Bellon, MPA, Executive Director, Veterans for Common
Sense.......................................................... 98
Ms. Heather L. Ansley, Esq., MSW, Vice President of Veterans
Policy, VetsFirst.............................................. 99
The Paralyzed Veterans of America................................ 100
The Military Officers Association of America..................... 101
EXAMINING EXECUTIVE ORDER #13607 AND ITS IMPACT ON SCHOOLS AND VETERANS
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:06 p.m., in
Room 334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Marlin A. Stutzman
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Stutzman, Johnson, Huelskamp,
Braley and Walz.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MARLIN A. STUTZMAN
Mr. Stutzman. Good afternoon, everyone. If you could please
take your seats and we are going to go ahead and get started.
We are going to have votes probably within the next hour or so,
so I think we will go ahead and start the Committee hearing.
I want to welcome everybody to the Subcommittee on Economic
Opportunity, to our Oversight Hearing and we will be examining
the Executive Order 13607 and its impact on schools and
veterans.
As you all likely know, there has been considerable
discussion on the other side of Capitol Hill and in the press
about instances of questionable practices by schools, as well
as the need to increase transparency to the operations of
colleges and universities.
President Obama recently issued an Executive Order
directing VA, the Department of Education and DoD to take steps
to improve the information and services available to veterans
and to police the college education market.
We are here today to listen to the stakeholders involved in
veteran education and I am eager to hear from them regarding
the possible effects of the President's Order. I would note
that the Executive Order contains some elements in legislation
we considered in our March legislative hearing introduced by
Mr. Bilirakis and myself, as well as many other items.
For myself, I am open to things that will add to a
veteran's ability to make informed choices while not
reinventing the wheel.
For example, the Department of Education's College
Navigator Web site has 272 categories of data, many of which
are further subdivided by various demographic and financial
subcategories. After reviewing those categories, other than the
number of veterans attending a school, I believe it would be
the rare veteran who would need more information to choose a
school than now contained in those 272 data points.
Before we begin with the first panel, I would like to note
that in reviewing today's testimonies, several witnesses have
testified that there needs to be a coordinated effort on the
part of the various oversight organizations. In my opinion,
this Subcommittee's role in that effort should begin with
ensuring that the membership of VA's Advisory Committee on
education reflects that need.
We also must ensure that the Advisory Committee has the
opportunity to present its views on these types of issues to
the Secretary and Congress as required by 28 USC 3692.
I am disappointed that since Congress revised the Advisory
Committee's membership in Public Law 111-275, the Committee has
not met in the past year and possibly longer. Therefore, I hope
that Director Worley will inform us of his plans to make use of
this Advisory Committee. Also, reviewing the membership of the
Advisory Committee, I think we should consider bringing in some
experts in compliance and enforcement. I look forward to
working with the Ranking Member and the Subcommittee to
enhancing the role of the Advisory Committee.
I now recognize the distinguished Ranking Member for his
remarks and I would note that as a graduate of both Iowa State
University and the University of Iowa, he probably has no
problem getting tickets for the autumn Civil War and I am not
sure which city it is in, but I wouldn't want to put you on the
spot asking you which team you are routing for since it is
election year, so.
Mr. Braley.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Stutzman appears in the
Appendix]
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE L. BRALEY,
RANKING DEMOCRATIC MEMBER
Mr. Braley. Mr. Chairman, thank you for that gracious
introduction and it is true that I hold degrees from both fine
institutions. I spent four year at one and three years at
another, and I was a walk-on under Iowa State Coach Earl Bruce
when he was coaching at Iowa State, so it is a matter of basic
math to me, and you can figure that out for yourself.
I want to thank you for holding this hearing today and I
look forward to discussing the President's Executive Order.
Everyone in this room knows that the purpose of the Post-9/
11 GI bill is to provide servicemembers, veterans and their
dependents with a quality education, and although many changes
have taken place since the implementation of that bill, we
continue to provide oversight of this generous Veterans
Education which I was proud to be part of implementing. We owe
it to veterans and the taxpayers to make sure that the money
spent for this program is being spent wisely. Veterans deserve
to have accessible standardized information regarding education
institutions and degree programs in order to make informed
choices on how to get the best education that they have
certainly earned under the Post-9/11 GI bill.
Unfortunately, I have heard reports of aggressive and
deceptive practices targeting servicemembers and veterans by
some educational institutions and as U.S. Supreme Court Justice
Louis Brandeis stated, ``Sunlight is the best disinfectant.'' I
agree and that is why I am pleased the Administration is trying
to address those abuses through an Executive Order that
provides servicemembers and veterans with the information they
need to make informed choices and find the best educational
institutions and course of study that are right for them.
We know that this Executive Order was prompted in part by a
call for action from 13 different veterans and servicemember
groups when they wrote a memo called the Military and Veteran
Students Educational Bill of Rights that I hold in my hand. The
Order establishes Principles for Excellence for Educational
Institutions. These principles provide added enforcement,
oversight, and most importantly, transparency for perspective
students seeking to use their Post-911 GI bill benefits.
These principles would require that educational
institutions collect and provide information to help
perspective students make an informed decision when deciding on
an educational program. Participating institutions will provide
detailed information, such as a know-before-you-owe form, which
discloses information about tuition and fees, financial aid,
estimated student loan debt upon graduation and graduation
rates. These principles will aid in making informed educational
decisions, and by providing needed information in an easily
accessible form, this Executive Order will help curb fly-by-
night recruiting techniques and provide protections to
servicemembers whose deployment may require short absences.
This has been a passion of mine since I came to Congress
which is why I am proud that I introduced and the President
signed into law the Plain Language in Government Communications
Act requiring every Federal agency, including the Veterans
Administration, to write forms, brochures, pamphlets and other
information in language its intended audience can understand, a
practice that has been horrendous in most Federal agencies
until that bill became law.
We know that this information is critical for veterans and
a good number of them may be the first in their families to
attend college. That is why we need to provide them and all
veterans with the tools they need to work their way through
this sometimes-confusing application process.
I don't think there is any such thing as too much
information to provide veterans and servicemembers making
decisions that will affect the rest of their lives.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today, and I
look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, as we try to
make sure that all veterans, everyone utilizing these benefits,
has the information they need to make informed choices that are
sound investments of taxpayer resources and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Bruce L. Braley appears in
the Appendix]
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you, Mr. Braley. At this point I ask
unanimous consent to enter the statements from several
different organizations: The Rand Corporation, for the American
Council on Education; Mr. Steve Gonzalez of the American
Legion; Mr. Ted Daywalt from Vet Jobs; Mr. Patrick Bellon from
Veterans for Common Sense; Ms. Heather Ansley from Vets First;
Paralyzed Veterans of America and the Military Officers
Association of America into the record.
There are copies of the statements on the table outside the
hearing room. Are there any objections?
Hearing no objection, so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Jennifer Steele appears in the
Appendix]
[The prepared statement of Steve Gonzalez appears in the
Appendix]
[The prepared statement of Ted DayWalt appears in the
Appendix]
[The prepared statement of Patrick Bellon appears in the
Appendix]
[The prepared statement of Heather Ansley appears in the
Appendix]
[The prepared statement of Paralyzed Veterans of America
appears in the Appendix]
[The prepared statement of Military Officers Association of
America]
Mr. Stutzman. At this time we would like to invite the
first panel to take their seats at the witness table. Our first
panel consists of Mr. Joe Wynn from the Vietnam Veterans of
America, Mr. Ryan Gallucci from the Veterans of Foreign Wars,
Mr. Tom Tarantino from the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of
America, and Michael Dakduk from the Student Veterans America.
If the first panel would take their seats, since we have
many witnesses today, I remind each of you to limit your oral
statement to the five minutes that is allotted so that the
Subcommittee will have sufficient time for questions.
Let us begin with Mr. Wynn. Mr. Wynn, you are recognized
for five minutes.
STATEMENTS OF JOE WYNN, SPECIAL ADVISOR, VIETNAM VETERANS OF
AMERICA; RYAN M. GALLUCCI, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
LEGISLATIVE SERVICE VETERANS OF FOREIGN WAR OF THE UNITED
STATES; TOM TARANTINO, DEPUTY POLICY DIRECTOR, IRAQ AND
AFGHANISTAN VETERANS OF AMERICA; MICHAEL DAKDUK, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, STUDENT VETERANS OF AMERICA
STATEMENT OF JOE WYNN
Mr. Wynn. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Stutzman,
Ranking Member Braley, other Members of this Subcommittee,
fellow veterans and guests.
Let me first thank you for the opportunity to come before
you on behalf of the veterans' organizations I represent to
share our views on the President's recent Executive Order
13607. This Order is a generous step towards offering for-
profit colleges and institutions that receive GI bill funding
for student veterans an opportunity to improve their
performance before laws are passed that will impose more severe
regulatory remedies.
Though my time of service was many years ago as a Vietnam-
era Veteran of the U.S. Air Force, I still have very vivid
memories of the military experience. I also remember quite well
the tough time I had finding employment after going to a for-
profit institution that provided no placement assistance and
counseling, though they advertised that they would.
My experience just serves as an example of what many
veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan are going through now.
Ongoing analysis is being done by the U.S. Senate's Health
Committee and other organizations shows students at for-profit
colleges have lower graduation rates, employment outcomes with
higher debt levels and loan defaults. For-profit colleges are
misrepresenting their programs in tuition costs, rates are far
higher than at public and non-profit institutions; and these
schools, partly because they serve poor students who often need
more supportive services, receive almost a quarter of their
funding from Federal aid.
It appears to be those Federal aid dollars that has led
many admissions officers to use aggressive recruitment
strategies targeted to veterans using the GI bill for funding.
You see, GI bill benefits do not technically count as Federal
education benefits under the Department of Education's 90-10
rule, a longstanding requirement that no more than 90 percent
of a For-Profit's college's revenues can come from Federal
financial aid.
In light of these findings, its just down-right troubling
to read news that for-profit colleges are being allowed to
continue predatory and fraudulent practices with little or no
accountability. I agree with the President's Executive Order
that when it comes to shopping for an education, a veteran
should not have to be treated as if they are buying a used car.
They need to be given all of the information regarding tuition
and fees up front before they enroll in a program of study.
They should not be burdened with additional fees after
completion of the program of fees not covered by other funding
sources.
I also agree with the President's Executive Order wherein
veterans should be made well aware of the quality of the
education offered and their potential for employment when they
successfully complete the program. Counselors should be readily
available to provide financial and academic advice.
This Executive Order issued by President Obama attempts to
establish a policy that will ensure that our Nation's
servicemembers and their spouses are not deceived by for-profit
colleges. If for-profit colleges' desire to achieve the goals
proposed in the Executive Order, compliance should not be
difficult. Though I suspect that there will be some resistance
since doing the right thing will undoubtedly affect their
bottom lines, less profit. And if this Order will serve to
improve the likelihood of success for our veterans, it will
obviously be well received by them. Perhaps more of them will
become gainfully employed or start their own small businesses.
The Executive Order does not address the 90-10 Rule and
until that law is changed, GI Bill benefits will continue to be
targeted by for-profit colleges. That is a ``for sure.''
Enforcement under the Order needs to be strengthened. Other
pending legislation by Senators Webb and Murray appear to
strengthen the Principles of Excellence referred to in the
Executive Order.
In conclusion, since our young men and women stepped up to
serve this country following the devastating attack on our
Nation on 9/11, many returning as veterans who served with
honor and many who received distinguished honors for displaying
valor and courage during their periods of military service for
this country, they don't deserve to be taken advantage of.
Every effort should be made by every institution, government
agency and commercial enterprise to ensure that these veterans
receive all of the benefits they are entitled to and deserve.
We call upon Congress to not allow for-profit colleges and
institutions in America to be so big that they can be allowed
to take advantage of the citizens of any state, especially
military veterans, members of the Guard and Reserve, disabled
veterans, women veterans, black veterans, minority veterans nor
veterans homeless or of limited means. Congress needs to
implement laws to stop the predatory practices being
demonstrated by for-profit colleges and institutions or provide
support to reinforce the Principles of Excellence as put forth
in Executive Order 13607 for the benefit of our veterans, their
families and our community.
This concludes my statement and I respectfully request that
my oral and written statements be submitted for the record.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Joe Wynn appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you, Mr. Wynn.
Mr. Gallucci, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF RYAN M. GALLUCCI
Mr. Gallucci. Thank you. Chairman Stutzman, Ranking Member
Braley and Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the 2
million Members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and our
auxiliaries, thank you for the opportunity to share our
thoughts on the President's recent Executive Order addressing
consumer protection concerns for today's student veterans.
In the interest of time I ask the Committee to refer to my
full prepared statement for our detailed thoughts on the EO.
Recent Senate investigations and GAO reports have indicated
that some schools make a concerted effort to recruit student
veterans into their programs with no intention of delivering a
quality education. While arguments can be made as to the
validity of these claims or how widespread the problems may be,
the fact remains that these reports have created a perception
in Washington that taxpayer dollars used to fund veterans'
education programs have gone to waste and our heros are not
receiving the education we promised to them.
The VFW has seen numerous efforts from both Congress and
the military to scale back educational benefit programs, which
is why we continue to fight to preserve the landmark
educational benefits earned through the valorous service of
today's war fighters.
Since these reports surfaced, the VFW has worked diligently
to build consensus among advocates and educators to improve
consumer tools and strengthen protections for student veterans
who may have been victims of fraud, waste or abuse.
In January, the VFW co-authored a letter along with many of
today's key witnesses asking the House, Senate and
Administration to take action. We are proud to see that
everyone listened to our collective voice.
Congressman Bilirakis and Chairman Stutzman, we applaud you
for introducing your bill to address this and we applaud your
Senate colleagues who introduced similar bills.
However, today we also applaud the President for taking a
bold first step in ensuring veterans receive the quality
education we promised and believe that this serves as
inspiration to move on legislation.
The Executive Order is naturally constrained to the limits
of current law and available resources, which means that bills
must still be passed in a timely manner to ensure our student
veterans can make the best choices on how to use their earned
benefits.
Executive action can also be limited in scope and progress
can be difficult to assess which is why the VFW and many of our
colleagues feels that an Advisory Committee should be formed to
maintain to help monitor implementation. We also encourage this
Subcommittee to host a hearing at the 90-day mark to assess
progress.
As the agencies is responsible for executing the
President's Order to lay the ground work, the VFW would like to
explain how we envision implementation for certain provisions.
First, the VFW understands that schools may face additional
administrative hurdles in an effort to comply with the newly
established Principles of Excellence. The VFW suggests that VA
adopt similar principles to those found in the new DoD MOU
which many schools will be obligated to sign onto in the coming
months. This will minimize the administrative burden, but also
ensure that VA can collect quality information with which to
inform veterans.
Second, the VFW supports the idea of providing data
comparison tools to veterans through eBenefits, but must stress
that a simple link to College Navigator is insufficient. We
believe that the VA should identify at least five, but not more
than 10, relevant data points with which veterans can compare
programs and we look forward to engaging with VA on exactly
which data points would be most beneficial over the next 90
days.
Third, the VFW must clarify that the anonymous complaint
process means only that VA must protect students' personally
identifiable information, but that processes must be in place
to verify that complaints come from actual enrolled veterans
and that the veteran has exercised proper chains of authority
before seeking VA intervention.
We must also clarify that this new reporting mechanism is
designed as a tool to collect relevant information on the
experience of student veterans. State approving agencies must
still serve as the primary enforcers reasonably resolving
complaints at the local level. The VFW does not want to see new
archaic protocols put in place that only exacerbate potential
challenges faced by student veterans.
Finally, the VFW calls for an additional hearing on the
role in resourcing for the SAAs. As a result of unclear
regulations, the VFW believes valuable SAA resources are being
diverted to cover down on unrelated tasks preventing the SAAs
from conducting quality program evaluations. We must solve this
confusion in the short term to ensure SAAs remain effective.
The Post-9/11 G.I. Bill stands to be a transformative
benefit for today's war fighters, designed to mold the next
greatest generation. We must protect this benefit at all costs.
Unfortunately, the VFW and our partners have felt hamstrung by
an overwhelming lack of quality information on student veterans
to either confirm reports of fraud, waste or abuse, or to
demonstrate student veteran success. Executive Order No. 13607
and the bills currently before Congress will help to gather
this kind of data ensuring future viability of the program and
fostering veteran success in the classroom.
We hope that the Executive Order will motivate Congress to
quickly move on legislation to protect our Nation's investment
offering our student veterans the quality education we
promised.
Chairman Stutzman and Ranking Member Braley, this concludes
my statement and I am happy to answer any questions you may
have.
[The prepared statement of Ryan M. Gallucci appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you.
Mr. Tom Tarantino, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF TOM TARANTINO
Mr. Tarantino. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of
the Committee, on behalf of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of
America's 200,000 Member veterans and supporters, thank you for
inviting me to testify on the President's Executive Order
Establishing Principles of Excellence for Education.
IAVA welcomes and supports Executive Order 13607. It will
help empower student veterans to make educational choices that
meet their needs. We believe that with proper implementation,
this Order will begin to provide veterans and their families
with clarity about their educational choices. We also believe
that this Order complements several more robust legislative
initiatives already under consideration in both the House and
the Senate. By signing this Executive Order, the President has
initiated a process that, if addressed by legislation alone,
the various agencies would have had to wait months to begin
working on.
We firmly believe that sound implementation of this
Executive Order, coupled with passage of bills offered by this
Committee and your counterpart in the Senate, will provide
timely clarity for student veterans about their educational
choices. However, in order to achieve success we must address
two questions: What are the outcomes that consumers need to
make sound choices and how will benefits and/or Federal aid,
how will they pay for education that veterans and
servicemembers need?
For most students, choosing a school is simply not a data-
driven process. This is largely due to the lack of usable
consumer information available to prospective students. While
schools are required to report hundreds of data points to
College Navigator, it does not synthesize that information into
a tool that empowers consumers to make choices that fit their
needs. And furthermore, even a cursory review of College
Navigator exposes broad inconsistencies in the information that
is reported to the Department of Education.
When using College Navigator to compare like programs, the
data often doesn't match up. Unfortunately, there are some
schools that use this confusion to hide poor performance.
Although I don't believe the Executive Order is going to
necessarily going to clean up bad reporting, it certainly will
expose schools that are reporting bad numbers and give
consumers an indication that the school they are looking at
might not entirely be on the level.
Even if this Executive Order, coupled with legislation,
fixes errors and inconsistencies with student outcome data, we
must tie that data to a tool that student veterans can use to
determine what benefits or aid they are eligible for and how
they may use it to help pay for their education.
IAVA has developed and successfully produced a
comprehensive GI Bill calculator at our Web site newgibill.org.
Nothing like this calculator currently exists from the VA or
Department of Education. Identifying metrics students can use
to choose a college is important, but these ultimately must be
coupled with the ability to determine how they can use their
benefits to help achieve their goals.
IAVA is also concerned with trademarking the phrase ``GI
Bill.'' Searching ``GI Bill'' on Google reveals pages of
deceptive Web sites that are designed to market for-profit
schools to prospective students without providing them with
useful information about their benefits. Veterans who submit
their information to these Web sites are often subject to
aggressive recruiting and harassment.
I am concerned, however, that there is no instruction in
the Executive Order to protect Web sites like newgibill.org
that provide students with critical information and assistance
with their benefits that the government is either unwilling or
unable to provide. Almost a million veterans have used
www.newgibill.org to calculate their benefits, gather
information about changes to the GI Bill, and receive help in
understanding this complex program. When implementing this
Order, there must be clearly defined exceptions for those who
are providing a service and not simply looking to turn a
profit.
IAVA is also concerned about housing a consumer information
tool whether it is a link or an actual real tool at the
eBenefits portal. Currently, access to eBenefits is tied to
enrollment in the DEERS. This is a serious access problem since
a significant number of OIF and OAF veterans are no longer
serving.
For these veterans, access to eBenefits is simply too
complicated to make the service useful. You can develop the
best consumer education tool in the world, but it is useless if
your customers can't access it. To remedy this, IAVA recommends
that in addition to being housed at eBenefits, consumer
information tool is also housed at gibill.va.gov.
We applaud the President's directive to establish consumer
complaints, but we are concerned about how the consumer
complaint intake will be handled. In order for this to be
effective, it must be at the VA. The VA is the face of veteran
services within the government. It must be through 1-888-
GIBILL-1 and at gibill.va.gov. Nowhere else does this make
sense from a practical or business perspective.
This Executive Order will not solve all the problems faced
by student veterans, however, it is a good start, but we have
to work to continue to pass legislation like H.R. 4057 and 4052
that will make the provisions of this Executive Order more
robust, and more importantly, permanent.
But we also must pass legislation like 4055 and 4390. These
bills will help restore free-market control to the for-profit
system, as well as prevent veterans from being harassed by
marketers and aggressive recruiters.
The Post-9/11 GI Bill is the most significant veterans'
benefit since World War II. As veterans, advocates, educators
and lawmakers we all have a shared responsibility to ensure
that every student veteran is empowered to use their benefits
wisely and build a first class future.
Thank you for your time and attention. I look forward to
answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Tom Tarantino appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you.
Mr. Michael Dakduk, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL DAKDUK
Mr. Dakduk. Thank you, Chairman Stutzman, Ranking Member
Braley and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting
Student Veterans of America to speak on the President's
Executive Order and its impact on student veterans and
institutions of higher learning.
My name is Michael Dakduk. I served both in Iraq and
Afghanistan as a Marine. I used tuition assistance while in the
service and I participated in distance learning courses while I
was onboard a Navy ship heading towards the Middle East for my
second deployment, and as a first generation college student, I
used both the Montgomery GI Bill and Post-9/11 GI Bill to earn
my undergraduate degree. I now support Student Veterans as
Executive Director of Student Veterans of America.
Student Veterans of America currently has over 450 chapters
at colleges and universities across the Nation assisting
veterans in their education experiences on a daily basis. This
direct contact gives SVA a unique perspective on the needs and
obstacles faced by our Nation's veterans as they return to
their communities to enroll in institutions of higher learning
and reintegrate into the civilian workforce.
As you are likely aware, we recently conducted an annual
review of all of our chapters, both for-profit and non-profit,
and found that 26 for-profit schools were suspected of creating
fake SVA chapters to legitimize there status as veteran-
friendly schools or to recruit future student veterans. We
revoked their memberships per our charter. That perspective
provides the framework for our testimony this morning, or this
afternoon, excuse me.
The issues addressed in Executive Order carry great
significance for our Nation's veterans, servicemembers, and
their families. It reflects highly on this Subcommittee and the
Executive Branch that such attention is being paid to
addressing and resolving the challenges faced by veterans who
are targeted by bad actors in the higher education system.
Regarding the specific provisions of the President's
Executive Order, Student Veterans of America strongly supports
any action that protects student veterans, their families and
their benefits. Any school that attempts to gain from the
generous Post-9/11 GI Bill and other military and veteran
Federal benefits without providing outstanding education
outcomes to the student veterans must be vigorously prosecuted.
SVA supports full disclosure of debt loads and
institutional performance before enrollment. We know from our
extensive experience with this population that there is simply
too much bad or misleading information out there about schools
claiming to be veteran friendly. Requiring schools to disclose
accurate information before a student veteran enrolls levels
the playing field and enables student veterans to make well-
informed decisions.
SVA supports the requirement of every student veteran to
have an academic advisor and academic plan. This is commonplace
in most reputable schools, and those institutions that do not
currently offer this must implement this immediately to ensure
our veterans are working towards realistic academic or career
goals.
SVA strongly supports publishing outcome measures and
graduation rates. Without data and statistics it would be
impossible to know the true impact of the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
This information is also critical to effective congressional
oversight, and we remain concerned that the program's impact to
date would be lost without retroactive efforts.
SVA supports a unified system to report complaints at
schools. We have consistently asked for a formal well
publicized process for student veterans to raise issues with
their educational institutions to the appropriate Federal
authorities. Given the amount of Federal dollars being made
available, it is essential to create a centralized complaint
center that allows student veterans to raise legitimate
concerns about bad actors and the post-secondary education
space.
SVA supports uniform policies for access to military bases
by educational institutions. Having consistency across all
bases will help ensure that good schools have access and
predatory ones are kept out.
Finally, while it is not specifically addressed in this
Executive Order or in today's Subcommittee hearing, SVA would
like to take this opportunity to call for an amendment to the
so-called 90-10 rule.
SVA supports the various bipartisan bills pending that
would affect such a change. Common sense dictates that schools
that are required to receive no more than 90 percent of their
income from the Federal government should not be able to skirt
this rule by accepting the overage in veterans' benefits.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Subcommittee Members for your
attention in support of Student Veterans and their families. I
look forward to answering any of your questions.
[The prepared statement of Michael Dakduk appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you. They just called votes. I will
take five minutes to ask questions. We will ask Ranking Member
Braley to do his questions and then we will go vote and then we
will come back and finish up questioning.
The first question I would like to ask is, I think, Mr.
Gallucci, you had mentioned data categories or maybe it was Mr.
Tarantino, but what additional data categories should be added
to College Navigator and what value would that data add to the
process, if there are any?
Mr. Gallucci. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that question.
Some of the data points, I think, is specifically talking about
data points on student veterans and information on a student
veteran population at a school. Michael and myself had an
opportunity to sit in on a recent IPEDs technical review panel
to discuss collection of information on student veterans. There
are some basic items that the VFW believes a student veteran
would want to know before they attend an academic institution.
Some of these have to do with available unique veteran services
such as veteran's programs or advisors on campus, also the
total veteran population, the number of veteran beneficiaries
on campus. That includes servicemembers, veterans and their
dependents who are eligible for benefits.
One of the ideas that a number of the veterans'
organizations have been kicking around are, is there a better
metric than the graduation rate as it is currently reported
through the IPED system. To a non-traditional student
population like student veterans, the graduation rate is
irrelevant. I had a discussion with my colleague, Ray, about
this graduation rate metric and neither of us are considered
successful graduates through our GI Bill program, even though
both of us received a degree and both of us used the GI Bill.
So we are kicking around ideas as to what would be a better
metric to track, would it be degrees conferred for a certain
amount of time, for a certain cohort, expanding the cohort
beyond first time, full time and items like that. And
unfortunately, we feel that that might be a conversation for a
later date or to have with VA down the road as we are
implementing this Executive Order.
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you. And I guess this question will
be--Mr. Tarantino, do you want to answer anything?
Mr. Tarantino. I just wanted to add to this. You know,
think about College Navigator. It is a great research tool. It
is an outstanding research tool. It is a terrible consumer
information tool. The information that is on College Navigator
is extremely extensive, but the majority of it isn't really
useful to someone looking where to spend their consumer
dollars.
And so a lot of this that we are talking about gathering
data, it is less about gathering new data, although we do need
to figure out how to properly assess graduation because
according to the Department of Education, I am a double college
dropout. We do need to figure out how to figure to account that
metric. This is more about data liberation and putting it in a
tool that empowers consumers to make better decisions of what,
where to spend their dollars.
I think when you look at it in that flight, when you frame
the argument like that, this suddenly becomes a lot clearer.
You know, we need a yelp for higher education. If I can figure
out, you know, what everyone in this room thinks about every
sushi restaurant within five square blocks, I should be able to
figure out how students, what students think, what consumers
think about colleges within the city or state I live in.
Mr. Stutzman. Could you give us some ideas of what data
would be helpful? I mean, could we add something to College
Navigator that we could make this a better tool that is useful
for veterans?
Mr. Tarantino. I think degree completion; how many students
started a programs versus how many students ended each
individual program; how many students entered this history
department and left with a history degree; how many students
got this--entered a mechanical degree and got the mechanical
degree and how long it took them. That is kind of available at
College Navigator, but it is not broken down by program and it
is very hard to synthesize. It is less about finding new data
and figuring out a way to present it to consumers, and that is
really the key. If you don't have something to present to
consumers that they can read and that is simple and
quantifiable, then the data you are collecting is useful.
Mr. Stutzman. So do you think that finding College
Navigator information is difficult or is it easy enough to find
it, it is just the information that is on the Web site that is
not useful?
Mr. Tarantino. Right. It is not only difficult, but it is
also highly inconsistent among its own data sets. And you will
see in my written testimony I talked about a liberal arts
college in--a non-profit liberal arts in Oakland, California
that represented a pretty standard demographic distribution of
students, but when you looked at graduation rates, the only
graduates were Asian females.
Now, either there's a really strong cultural bias in that
curriculum or the data they reported to the Department of
Education was bad, and you find this all over College Navigator
that even within the same data set, the data is inconsistent.
And so as a consumer if you pick out the core data--how much
does it really cost, how much am I going to have to go into
debt, how long is going to take me to do it, how many people
finish the degree--then you can pull that out of College
Navigator and make that for consumers and that would provide a
lot of clarity as to which schools are meeting mission and
which schools are not.
Mr. Stutzman. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Braley.
Mr. Braley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I just
want to get all of you on the record, each one of these
veterans' service organizations that you represent were
signatories to this Education Bill of Rights, the proposals
that I referenced earlier; is that correct?
And am I correct, also, that each one of your organizations
still stands by that original endorsement of this type of a
requirement to protect veterans and active duty and Guard and
Reserve Members who are pursuing higher education?
Mr. Tarantino. Absolutely.
Mr. Braley. I want to follow up on your last point, Mr.
Tarantino, because I think sometimes when we talk about
educational policy, it is frequently divorced from the real
world and, you know, looking at myself, I started at Iowa State
University with a major in aerospace engineering, switched to
civil engineering, switched to journalism. Graduated with a
degree in political science.
You could argue, based on some of the things you mentioned
about what you enter with, your degree target and your actual
degree that I was an abject failure and people probably argue
that for other reasons, but the point is that I was able to
take that degree and go on and do something and find
employment. To me, that is the definition of a successful
college education. I am less concerned about what we enter in
and what we exit with and are we getting students the value
they need for those educational dollars to give them the
ability to have a college degree and an opportunity to earn
income and take care of themselves and their families. To me,
that is the focus of what we should be talking about.
And Mr. Gallucci, you were talking about what type of data
would be necessary. We talked about degrees conferred, but I am
also interested in knowing what employment was obtained and the
correlation between the two, whether that degree actually
resulted in a benefit out in the work force or whether you have
somebody with a liberal arts degree who is counting cars on a
highway. To me, that has impact on how we get the most bang for
our buck for these dollars.
One of the things you mentioned, Mr. Tarantino, was also
proper implementation. You mentioned two questions: What are
the outcomes consumers need to make sound choices? Do you have
recommendations on what you think or do any members of the
panel on what your members feel should be part of those
outcomes?
Mr. Tarantino. I could say that there is a lot of them
actually in legislation. I think the reporting outcomes that
are in, specifically the Web Bill in the Senate, as well as the
Murray Bill, is a pretty good list of very simple metrics that
someone would need to use. And like I said, a lot of this is
already available, but it is not reported in a digestible
manner.
I mean, if you go to College Navigator, and I suggest
everyone try one this, pick four like schools, four technical
schools, four liberal arts schools, four religious schools,
whatever, and do the comparison feature and look at them side
by side to compare schools. You will suddenly find that all
those 270 data points that are found throughout the single
school get severely reduced because not everyone's reporting
the same thing and then some schools are reporting data that is
a little bit suspect and doesn't quite match up.
And so when you actually do the comparison piece, you are
now looking at a much more truncated version of College
Navigator that frankly doesn't give me any use as a consumer
looking where to spend my dollars.
As a veteran I am going in for a tract. I am not an 18-
year-old going to find myself. I found myself getting shot at
in Iraq, you know. I am going through a specific program. I am
going there with a mission and I need to know what is going to
help me achieve the goal that I have identified for my GI bill
dollars.
Mr. Braley. Well, and Mr. Dakduk, you testified about this
in your opening remarks is there, is a new reality out there
for young men and women who are entering the armed forces, and
that is, they are pursuing higher education while they are
serving their country. You did that yourself.
So if we don't have a system in a place that allows that
transparency, allows that consistency of transparency, we are
depriving you of the opportunity to get a head start on the
rest of your life because we certainly have the technology
available now to allow you to do that, but we need to make sure
we have the metrics right and we have the access points right
or we are going to be holding people back who want to make use
of that time to move forward.
Mr. Dakduk. Absolutely, Ranking Member. I will tell you,
when I left the military, I didn't know what College Navigator
was. I never heard of it, never used it. Now, in my current
position, it is a wonderful research tool. It has no bearing
for consumer education, nor is it helpful to student veterans
as far as picking an academic institution or picking an
academic program.
I will tell you that there are certain things that do need
to be there when we talk about data points, and Ryan and I were
speaking about this. I know that some institutions would
certainly find themselves in a precarious situation if you used
graduation rates. That doesn't work for the nontraditional
students, but transfer-out rates for student veterans because a
lot of them go to community colleges first. We get our feet
wet. We tend to try to figure out what we want to do and go to
a community college or an online institution and take a few
credits. So transfer-out rates might be helpful for folks that
don't go and complete a degree at one institution of higher
learning. So that is just something specific on a data point
that I think can be very helpful to many of the institutions of
higher learning.
Mr. Braley. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Stutzman. At this time, we are going to recess. We are
going to go vote and then we will be back. We have one 15
minute vote which is about over, and then three five-minute
votes after that. Two votes after that? Okay. So hopefully we
should be back here in about 30 minutes.
[Recess.]
Mr. Stutzman. We are going to convene. I am going to ask
the second panel to come forward at this time. This group will
include the Honorable Steve Gunderson, formally a distinguished
Member of the House from Wisconsin and is now representing the
Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities. Next
we have Dr. Jonathan Gibralter; is that correct?
Mr. Gibralter. Gibralter, that is correct.
Mr. Stutzman. All right. Who is the President of Frostburg
State University and is representing the American Association
of State College and Universities. And I want to give a special
welcome to our next witness, Ms. Margaret Baechtold from
Indiana University in Bloomington, who is representing the
National Association of Veteran Program Administrators.
Welcome, and it is always great to have a follow Hoosier
testify. As I was telling the Ranking Member, it is those
Hoosier values that we like to talk about. And I also want to
thank you for your years of service in the United States Air
Force.
And next, we have Mr. Barmak Nassirian--is that correct,
all right--representing the American Association of Collegiate
Registrars and Admissions Officers. And then finally Ms. Judith
Flink from the University of Illinois, who is representing the
National Association of College and University Business
Officers.
Okay. We are going to start with Ms. Flink because I
believe she may have to slip out, so you are recognized for
five minutes.
STEVE GUNDERSON, PRESIDENT AND CEO, ASSOCIATION OF PRIVATE
SECTOR COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES; JONATHAN C. GIBRALTER, Ph.D.,
PRESIDENT, FROSTBURG STATE UNIVERSITY, ON BEHALF OF THE
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES;
MARGARET BAECHTOLD, DIRECTOR, VETERANS SUPPORT SERVICES,
INDIANA UNIVERSITY ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF VETERAN
PROGRAM ADMINISTRATORS; BARMAK NASSIRIAN, ASSOCIATE EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGIATE REGISTRARS AND
ADMISSIONS OFFICERS; JUDITH FLINK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
UNIVERSITY STUDENT FINANCIAL SERVICES AND CASHIER OPERATIONS,
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY BUSINESS OFFICERS
STATEMENT OF JUDITH FLINK
Ms. Flink. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, my
name is Judith Flink. I serve as Executive Director of
University Student Financial Services for the three campuses at
the University of Illinois. I have worked in the University's
business office and been actively involved in higher education
for over 30 years. I am testifying today on behalf of the
National Association of College and University Business
Officers, NACUBO, which represents chief financial officers and
their staff at more than 2,100 public and non-profit colleges
and universities.
NACUBO's mission is to promote sound administrative and
financial management of institutions of higher education. It is
an honor for me to be here today.
NACUBO shares the President's goals as outlined in his
Executive Order establishing Principles of Excellence for
institutions serving veterans, servicemembers and their
families. We affirm that these students--and indeed all
students--deserve high quality academic and support services
that enable them to make informed decisions about their
education. We strongly support safeguards against abusive and
deceptive recruiting practices.
Before elaborating on our specific concerns, I want to take
the opportunity to suggests that the Agency's task with
implementing the Executive Order actively consult with
institutions and the organizations that represent them as they
develop the necessary rules.
With my positive experience on the Department of
Education's Advisory Committee and as part of negotiated rule-
making for DoE, I can personally attest to the success of such
dialogue. I would, therefore, the creation of an official
advisory group or groups with a defined membership and
structure to work in partnership and develop workable solutions
as we implement new VA and DoD policy and procedures. I believe
this will go a long way to bring consensus and efficiency to
colleges and universities, our partner agencies in the Federal
government and, most importantly, the servicemembers we serve.
To illustrate, since implementation of the Post-9/11 GI
Bill, I have had the pleasure of participating in a NACUBO work
group that has tried to meet quarterly with VA representatives
to address issues involved in processing Chapter 33 tuition
benefits. These meetings always end with both sides walking
away better informed about how each of us operates--well, most
of the time.
Regarding the Executive Order, we believe most, but not
all, of the President's principles align with existing U.S.
Department of Education requirements. Those principles, if
implemented by DoD and VA, according to the ED guidelines, will
not inflict additional cost or burden on our Member
institutions.
But we do have serious concerns about some of the other
provisions and their potential implications. Our concerns are
as follows:
Section 2(a) requires institutions to provide prospective
students with a broad range of information on an individualized
standard form. Prospective students do not routinely identify
themselves based on their Federal aid eligibility, making it
difficult for institutions to know who should receive the form
until they are actually enrolled and on campus.
Furthermore, the VA has not developed procedures to
communicate with schools about veterans and their eligibility
for educational benefits.
Section 2(f) mandates institutional refund policies in a
manner similar to ED's policies used for returning unearned
Title IV student aid refunds. Outside of Title IV aid, the ED
permits colleges and universities to set their own refund
policies. If the new policy will differentiate from ED's
policy, then this will create significant enrollment planning
and budgeting challenges for institutions of higher education.
Section 29(g) requires institutions to provide education
plans for all individuals using Federal military and veterans'
educational benefits. The intent of this provision is not
altogether clear to us. If it is similar to the agreement
recently reached by institutions and DoD on it's Memorandum of
Understanding, then institutions will be able to comply. If
not, further discussion will be necessary.
Section 3 requires schools to track student outcomes which
may be difficult to measure and may be misleading. Veterans and
servicemembers are often nontraditional students with
educational goals that may differ from the traditional
students. Progress should not be measured solely on graduation
rates.
In conclusion, let me reiterate the commitment of NACUBO's
membership is to ensuring that our servicemembers receive the
education they deserve. However implementation of the
requirements in the President's recent Executive Order requires
further clarification and discussions so that all parties can
gain understanding and move towards consensus on developing an
efficient, sensible policy.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today.
[The prepared statement of Judith Flink appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you.
Mr. Gunderson, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF STEVE GUNDERSON
Mr. Gunderson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
Members of the Committee. I am delighted to return back and
speak to you on this issue that is important to you and it is
important to us. We are honored to be able to say that over
152,000 veterans have attended our school since the enactment
of the Post-9/11 GI Bill. We are proud of that and we are proud
of them.
As a sector, we have engaged in working with the
Subcommittee, and others, to identify and develop protocols
that best meet the academic needs of our veterans. As you know,
on January 31st APSCU joined with others, including some of our
harshest critics in letters to the President, to this Committee
and to the Senate Committee supporting two very basic, but
critical, ideas for ensuring quality educational experience,
increased educational counseling and a protocol to ensure that
legitimate complaints are heard and resolved.
We have also been working with others on this Committee and
in the Senate to develop a bipartisan consensus around the best
protocols for protection of veterans education experience. So
you can imagine that we were a bit surprised and disappointed
that the news of an impending Executive Order was made without
any advance notice from the White House circumventing the
ongoing, bipartisan, bicameral discussions. Today's hearing is
to look at the impact of that proposed Executive Order. Our
position remains one of constructive engagement and pursuit of
consensus and common sense policies.
You may remember from my earlier testimony before this
Committee, we must find new and better ways to calculate
academic progress and graduation rates for veterans as well as
all adults, part-time students, and others returning to school.
If we can identify such metrics, we do everyone a favor,
starting with the veterans. Today, only 18 percent of all post-
secondary students are captured by the IPEDs calculations.
A second area of concern is the complaint process, and that
it be one that appropriately serves and protects the veteran
and the school. We need to know where and how many legitimate
complaints really exist. Therefore, the letter yesterday from
Chairman Miller and Senator Byrd to the Secretary articulates
the importance of appropriate data collection, that this
process must be fair and it should be focused on seeking
resolution. We want every legitimate complaint by a veteran to
be heard, but we do not want this to become a vehicle for
anonymous complaints for those who are not veterans who have a
political agenda very different from the interests of the
veteran students.
On both issues we requested and the White House assured us
that all parties, including colleges and universities would be
a part of a constructive, collaborative process to reach
agreement on these issues before the Executive Order went into
effect. We are concerned because one-third of the way towards
the deadline for implementation of the Executive Order, as of
Monday no institution or organization on behalf of higher ed
had been invited for such discussions.
In moving forward in pursuit of further and appropriate
protections for our veterans, we ask that such additional
criteria be developed with current regulatory and enforcement
powers in consideration. The current authority, as you know,
covers many Federal and state authorities, including but not
limited to, the Department of Education, State licensing
authorities, national, regional and program-specific
accreditation, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the FTC
regarding false and unfair advertising, the Veterans
Administration's authority under the 9/11 GI Bill, the
Department of Defense and others.
We ask that the current authority be used to go after those
engaged in misconducted before we indict an entire sector.
You should also know that our sector is currently taking
the misrepresentation issue one step further. Our Board
requested a student recruitment taskforce develop guidelines
for our membership and we now are creating what is called a
self regulatory organization to deal additionally with this
specific concern.
In conclusion and by chance, Mr. Chairman, long before this
hearing was scheduled, I had a commitment yesterday to visit
ECPI college in Virginia Beach. This school is important to
this conversation because no less than 30 percent of their
student body are veterans. The primary reason veterans choose
this school, and I spent literally half an hour visiting with a
classroom of veterans, is because they deliver academics in
ways that move the veteran from the field through the school
into the workplace as quickly as possible.
During my visit with the school, the veterans told me their
number one complaint was not about the school. It was about the
VA's problems in processing their payments in a timely and
proper manner.
I have submitted to the Committee, but I want to lift up
for your attention the ECPI Standards or Best Practices for
Veterans Education because I want you to see what these
individual schools are doing on their own to make absolutely
sure that they engage in the best education practices and the
best interest of the veterans. This is the way we focus on the
ultimate outcome which is to make sure the veteran has a
positive education experience that moves them from the field of
battle into education and into the workplace as soon as
possible.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Steve Gunderson appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you.
Ms. Baechtold, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF MARGARET BAECHTOLD
Ms. Baechtold. Chairman Stutzman, Ranking Member Braley,
and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity
to testify today on behalf of the National Association of
Veterans Program Administrators regarding Executive Order
13607.
Again, my name is Margaret Baechtold. For over five years I
have served as the Director of Veterans Support Services at
Indiana University. A veteran myself, I retired from the United
States Air Force after 20 years of service and I am now also
the Legislative Director for NAVPA.
NAVPA's membership is comprised of approximately 400
educational institutions from all education sectors and we
advocate for what we believe are the best interests of student
veterans at our institutions.
Our expertise lies in the administration of veterans
programs at colleges, universities, and other education
providers. Our leadership is comprised of non-paid staff
members who voluntarily serve NAVPA in an effort to better
serve the veterans on our campuses.
As a voluntary organization, NAVPA does not police its
membership regarding any of the issues raised by this Executive
Order. Our mission is to provide professional development to
member institutions, collect and disseminate best practices for
student veteran support and advocate on behalf of students and
our institutions. We believe strongly that all educational
institutions should be forthright and open with all students,
particularly with regard to veterans' and military
servicemembers' unique needs and circumstances.
Like so many others, NAVPA has been dismayed at news
reports of unscrupulous organizations' treatment of
unsuspecting veterans and we strongly condemn any abuses to
which veterans might have been subjected at the hands of these
institutions. While we believe that there are no doubt costs
and burdens involved in implementing this Executive Order, we
cannot object to any initiative that seeks to ensure that
veterans are appropriately recruited, advised, and supported
while in school. NAVPA is pleased that the President has taken
such a direct interest in the educational needs of our Nation's
veterans.
We recognize, however, that the requirement in this
Executive Order to provide personalized financial advising will
be exceptionally challenging to implement. This advice can only
be provided if the institution has full access to all
eligibility information required to determine all possible aid
alternatives.
At present, eligibility information is generally not
provided directly to institutions, and we must rely on student
veterans to furnish us with such information. NAVPA has long
advocated for direct access to student information from the VA,
for example, and we will continue to do so.
The timing of institutional and agency business practices
will also make implementation of this requirement difficult.
Students cannot even apply for certain Federal benefits such as
Army tuition assistance until after they have already enrolled
in classes. Schools cannot effectively predict in advance how
much funding might be provided by military tuition assistance,
or even Veterans Affairs education benefits, prior to
enrollment, application to those agencies and benefit
authorization.
Furthermore, many benefits are based on actual enrollment
levels, actual institutional charges, and the receipt of other
financial awards. Many financial awards must be adjusted
whenever a student receives other financial awards. The Post-9/
11 GI Bill is a perfect example of a program that pays a net-
cost which must be readjusted whenever any other tuition-
restricted awards are received.
NAVPA supports efforts to better inform students about
their financial benefits, but we recognize the challenges
involved with implementing the services required in this
Executive Order.
We hope and expect that as policies are developed, we might
contribute to the conversation about how best to provide the
financial information needed by prospective student veterans
and their families.
Regarding student outcomes, all schools are interested in
assessing the success of their students. It will be critical to
define success appropriately for each educational environment
and to develop data collection methods that are robust,
accurate, and meaningful. We hope and expect that educational
institutions and the organizations that represent them
including NAVPA will be involved in developing these desired
outcomes and metrics.
We support efforts to improve information resources for
prospective students, absolutely. We also encourage continued
efforts to provide schools access to data about individual
student's benefits and eligibility so that we can accomplish
the tasks required of us.
NAVPA fully supports efforts to ensure veterans are
appropriately recruited, advised, and supported in school.
Requiring disclosure by schools should not be a substitute for
solid oversight, however. The agencies administering these
programs are in need of further oversight resources to provide
training and enforce the provisions of this Executive Order as
well as the currently existing regulations. The VA needs
assistance with compliance tasks now that the Post-9/11 GI Bill
has become so complex. Diverting State Approving Agency
resources to that role has proven problematic, however, and
leaves no one to fulfill the SAA's historic role of providing
training and supervision to institutions on broader education
issues. There are varying roles within the oversight arena and
tasks should be distributed to the agencies best suited and
situated to accomplish them.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes NAVPA's statement. As a
veteran and on behalf of the members of NAVPA, I would like to
thank you and the Members of the Subcommittee for your
leadership on issues of critical importance to America's
veterans. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Margaret Baechtold appears in
the Appendix]
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you.
Mr. Nassirian, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF BARMAK NASSIRIAN
Mr. Nassirian. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member,
distinguished Members of the Committee.
My name is Barmak Nassirian. I am Associate Executive
Director with the American Association of Collegiate Registrars
and Admissions Officers which we mercifully abbreviate to
AACRAO. We are delighted to be able to participate in this
discussion. I have submitted written testimony for the record,
but I would like to take this opportunity to in plain language
raise four specific issues for the Subcommittee's attention,
and I shall do so dogmatically because of the shortness of
time, but we can certainly talk about the underlying reasons.
One, the for-profit sector in higher education has a
significant and pervasive problem with waste, fraud and abuse.
This is not anything against the profit motive. We endorse the
profit motive. The building we sit in, presumably, was built by
somebody who hopefully was doing it for-profit and did a good
job, but when you compare how we put up buildings in this
country with building codes and inspections and heavy
penalties, if somebody undersizes the beams, we understand that
the profit motive needs to be framed with proper oversight.
What I am here to suggest to you, as somebody who spent
almost a quarter century looking at this stuff we have a lot of
procedural and very burdensome regulations. We do not have
substantive safeguards to ensure that an entity purporting to
be a college or university is actually doing any teaching and
that is equivalent to buildings falling on people's heads on a
daily basis, and the basic reason here is simple. When you put
a building up or you take a color TV home, there are very
obvious performance tests on the basis on which you know what
you got.
Education is a lifetime experiential service. You can show
people all kinds of promises on the front end that they will
only learn 20 years later didn't actually pan out. So that is
one point.
I raise an issue that has been raised before by my other
colleagues about the 90-10 rule. This Subcommittee should pay
particular attention to that because what the 90-10 rule does
is it makes every dollar of VA benefits worth 9 extra dollars
of Title IV money and, therefore, vets today are walking around
with big target signs on their backs because their dollars are
the means by which these entities that have almost no other
purchaser. And this is really the issue, what are they selling
that nobody else is willing to reach into their pocket and put
a dollar of hard-earned cash on the table for.
Now, veterans earn their benefits, but these are Federal
benefits and these benefits are being used to leverage other
Federal benefits. So the notion of for-profit--I am for market-
based profit making the right way, but it is a funny kind of
capitalism we are talking about. It is capitalism consisting of
100 cents on the dollar coming from the feds. There is
something wrong there.
My colleagues from the VSOs talked about the glut of data
in the Navigator. I am mechanically challenged. When I buy a
car, all I want to know is where the key goes and where the gas
goes. I can't even take it to the oil level being right. So
that is the reason, unless you want to get a Ph.D. in
mechanical engineering, we consult consumer reports and attempt
to understand what car is right for us. Very tough to do with
education.
Disclosures are not a substitute for gate-keeping. When I
go to the supermarket, I don't want to have toxic food on the
shelves with a Ph.D. dissertation hanging under each item as to
whether it is going to kill me or it is edible. We should take
toxic programs off the table so vets and servicemembers are not
victimized.
And finally, with regard to the Executive Order, we support
it as an imperfect substitute for what we believe only you can
do. You are the folks who write these laws. You have done so
with leadership and with the best of intentions and I believe
if this Committee takes a look at the situation and addresses
gate-keeping, we could simplify a lot of things that we have to
do circuitously otherwise.
I appreciate the opportunity and look forward to any
questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Barmak Nassirian appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you.
Dr. Gibralter, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF JONATHAN C. GIBRALTER
Mr. Gibralter. Chairman Stutzman, Ranking Member Braley,
and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. I am Dr.
Jonathan Gibralter. I am the President of Frostburg State
University in Maryland. We are a rural university in Western
Maryland and part of the university system of Maryland's 11
campuses.
I am here today testifying on behalf of the American
Association of State Colleges and Universities, commonly known
as AASCU, which represents over 400 public institutions and
university systems.
Thank you for holding this hearing. I would also encourage
Members to view my written statement for further detail and
explanation of this testimony.
Frostburg serves the majority of veterans and active
military connected to our region's National Guard and Reserve
units. The number of veterans we serve varies significantly
from year to year. Our overall enrollment right now is about
5,500 students. We are currently serving about 102 veterans.
Our growing online programs, in particular our accredited
MBA and our new Bachelor of Science in Nursing, are proving
particularly popular with veterans since these programs are
designed to be very flexible.
AASCU, which also serves as the administrative agent for
the servicemen's opportunity colleges supports the intent of
the issued Executive Order. Our Nation's veterans and military
personnel should be able to obtain quality information about
institutions and their programs.
AASCU and its member institutions, including my own campus,
value the perspective and experience that servicemembers and
veterans bring to our institutions. As such, we take our
commitment to providing them a quality educational experience
very, very seriously.
As the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan wind down and over
2,000,000 troops are withdrawn from those areas, more and more
veterans will be arriving on college campuses to use the
educational benefits they have earned serving our country.
In addition, our active duty military are combining service
to the country with higher education. The text of the Executive
Order as written raises a number of concerns for AASCU
institutions regarding implementation. Those of us on the
ground are also most aware of the human issues of the
individuals that we work with.
For example, as there is no requirement that students
identify themselves as veterans, some choose not to do so.
Meaning, they may be missing out on services that we can and
should provide.
The Executive Order requires the Secretaries develop a
comprehensive strategy for developing servicemember and veteran
student outcome measures that are comparable across Federal,
military and veteran's educational benefit programs.
While AASCU appreciates the Order's statement that, ``To
the extent practicable, the student outcome measures should
rely on existing administrative data to minimize the reporting
burden on institutions participating in these benefit
programs,'' there is considerably more burden to finding
available data for these outcome measures than meets the eye.
The issues of data definition and collection raised by the
Executive Order's requirement to develop national level outcome
measures become even more significant for institutions. First,
the Federal government does not collect veterans and military
student specific data from institutions. Second, institutions
and states vary in their ways of defining veteran and military
students based on what data is available to them.
Given the complexity of data identification and collection
on this topic, higher education institutions will inevitably be
asked for data that may or may not be possible to obtain.
This leads to another concern, that of the reporting burden
and associated costs. In 2010 the government accountability
office completed an analysis of the burden placed on
institutions to comply with expanded mandatory IPEDs reporting.
Among other issues, the GAO found that schools reported time
burdens ranging from 12 to 590 hours compared with the 19 to 41
hours education estimated.
GAO further reported that institutions incurred a total
estimated salaries and computer costs of over $6,000,000. The
call for specific comparable outcome measures in the Executive
Order would be an expansion of current reporting requirements
and may require institutions to incur considerable back-office
costs.
Another key concern that was mentioned earlier is the
complaint system outlined in the Executive Order that would
create a centralized complaint system for students receiving
Federal military and veterans educational benefits. Instituting
a centralized complaint system without first establishing
whether an individual has already attempted to resolve their
complaint with the university or college's Veterans Affairs
Office represents a concern. Too often complaints are raised to
the highest level when, in fact, they may better be resolved on
the campus.
We strongly suggest that higher education stakeholders have
significant input into the conceptualization of this
centralized complaint system.
In closing, Frostburg State University and other AASCU
institutions are eager to continue meeting the needs of our
military members and veterans as well as their families. Our
experience is that these returning military become solid
students and campus leaders.
We support the Administration's efforts to ensure that
servicemembers and veterans can make the best informed
educational choices. Thank you for the opportunity to speak
about this legislation.
[The prepared statement of Jonathan C. Gibralter appears in
the Appendix]
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you. And I will begin the questions. I
am going to start with Ms. Baechtold. If you could describe to
us an average student veteran at IU, what's their experience
like in transitioning into college life compared to an average
18-year-old freshman coming into school?
Ms. Baechtold. Mr. Chairman, I would be hard pressed to
define an average student veteran. Every one of them is so
unique in their situation, in their needs, in their experiences
and how those experiences have impacted them and what that
means for them as they now transition into their civilian life
that we really think of them across an entire spectrum of
experiences.
We do find that as they come to school, they have a greater
focus on education, they have a different value on education
than perhaps the average traditional 18-year-old freshman
student might have. They tend to be very interested in their
success there. They tend to be very concerned about their
finances. They tend to be fairly reticent to seek assistance,
even when they know they need it because they come from a
tradition where that is not necessarily looked on as being a
positive value to reach out and ask for help and we work hard
to try to provide that assistance to those who need it and
never assume that those who are doing fine are somehow just
concealing a need that we are not aware of.
So again it runs the full gamut of students who walk in our
door once, sign up for classes, and they are good to go and no
different than any other student to someone who spends most of
three days a week in the office because they have a need to
reconnect with other veterans because they have a need to seek
out other support services or because they just feel lost in a
school of 42,000 students. So I am afraid that is not a very
good answer other than to say there is not an average one out
there. Every one of them is unique and special and different.
Mr. Stutzman. Sure. Sure. And that is probably the case for
every individual. Every individual is looking for something
maybe different in one way or the other.
But Mr. Gunderson, given all of the variables and student
demographics, the availability of jobs, is it reasonable to use
data such as salaries to judge the quality of a school's
education? Could you just discuss a little bit about the
variables in what you see, and then also, if you could maybe
follow-up a little bit on the question that asks Ms. Baechtold
as well?
Mr. Gunderson. Yeah. Actually, when you asked the first
panel that question, I actually put down some notes of some
things that I think would be very helpful on College Navigator
to the typical veteran who is trying to make a decision. One of
them is placement in employment.
Let me quickly, in the interest of time, suggest in terms
of College Navigator, one would be placement of employment. The
second would be the percent of graduates for 100 FTEs. That way
we would be able to evaluate all colleges equally, the percent
of FTE, together with the returning students protocol on higher
education--has on their Web site as we are looking at. The
third, take a look at time. For example, I mentioned to you
earlier that the school UCPI, they literally produce associate
degrees in 14 to 18 months because they concentrate on
academics. That is what the veteran wants. They have been in
that battlefield. They want to get that training. They want to
get that job, so let us look at that issue. Fourth issue,
Schedule E. Thank you.
Mr. Stutzman. The Executive Order, the current data is that
to what extent will this Order, Administrative Order, Dr.
Gibralter, if you could maybe touch on that, is that
information valuable for students that are looking to your
school?
Mr. Gibralter. Well, there certainly is data and also if
you look at the voluntary system of accountability, that many,
the AASCU, you will find that there is a lot of really useful
and easy to read information for anybody, including veterans. I
think the issue that I have heard discussed today is in part
the availability of that information, but it is also the issue
of promoting that the symptoms of accountability for veterans
regretably have failed to do that, so it is a part. Not
necessarily how many items are added but, you know, how you
present that to veterans, sounds like, is an important issue.
Mr. Stutzman. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Braley.
Mr. Braley. Dr. Gibralter, let me start with you. You self
identified as working at a rural university.
Mr. Gibralter. That is right.
Mr. Braley. And to Mr. Stutzman and I, rural America isn't
a policy. It is where we are from.
Mr. Gibralter. Yes.
Mr. Braley. And rural America has a disproportionate
contribution to the defense of this country. And so when we
have young men and women returning, looking for educational
opportunities, we have a moral obligation to reward that
sacrifice by giving them an educational experience that moves
them on the way to fulfilling their career and educational
goals. I don't think you disagree with that.
Mr. Gibralter. I absolutely agree.
Mr. Braley. But one of your statements confused me where
you said that there is no requirement for students to identify
themselves as veterans.
Mr. Gibralter. Right.
Mr. Braley. And yet we are talking about funding from the
GI Bill and Military Tuition Assistance Benefit, so how can
colleges and universities not identify that that is a veteran
when they are receiving those benefits?
Mr. Gibralter. I think you are talking about two different
issues. I think that where we struggle is that there are
students who are on our university campuses who don't ever tell
us or indicate in any way that they are veterans. They don't
want themselves to be known. That is what I am talking about. I
am not talking about those students who are, therefore, also
receiving benefits. If they are receiving benefits, sir, we do
know about it.
Mr. Braley. And you also raised a point that I alluded to
in my opening remarks, and that is if you asked 100 percent of
the population whether they think there is too much government
red tape, you are going to get a 100 percent yes, okay. And to
the average person, the average business, that is a twofold
problem.
One is the conduct that is being regulated and whether it
should be regulated in the first place and the other is if that
regulation or the documents that communicate with people about
their expected behavior, a written and incomprehensible
gobbledegook so people waste their time trying to understand
what is expected of them. And I know that you are all
intelligent highly educated people, but if you are telling us
that you are dealing with Federal regulations that are
incomprehensible gobbledegook to you, we have a big problem and
that is why I introduced the plain language in the government
relations bill to get to the root cause of what we are talking
about. And Mr. Nassirian, you mentioned that, thankfully, in
your opening comments, but this gets to the greater problem.
When you have got companies like Turbotax that can greatly
simplify the time it takes the average veteran college student
to do their tax return and if you give them those same tax
forms and the booklet that is 150 pages long that tells them
how to do the same thing, we have a lot to learn on how we
process information and get you the data you need in the least
inconvenient format possible and that is what frustrates me. So
how do we get there?
Mr. Gibralter. I think that these conversations need to
continue and I think that we need to be involved in and
continue to be involved in the conversation and, you know, I
would use as a reference the voluntary system of accountability
that, at least initially, colleges and universities did not
have to participate in, but many chose to.
I think if you really look at that, you will see at least
from my view, a much more easily understandable interface that
students can get information about, you know, acceptance rates,
graduation rates, percentage of students that get financial
aid, any number of data points about colleges and universities.
Mr. Braley. Mr. Gunderson, welcome home.
Mr. Gunderson. Thank you.
Mr. Braley. I would like to remind you that Iowa used to be
part of Wisconsin territory, but we beat you into the United
States by two years and I won't get into that. But I wasn't
clear from your testimony whether your concerns are that on
behalf of your member institutions you are opposed to the
Executive Order in itself or you are opposed to the
implementation of the Executive Order?
Mr. Gunderson. Great question because I am not sure we are
opposed to either. I mean, I was disappointed that an Executive
Order would preempt all the bipartisan efforts to reach
consensus here on the Hill. That was my disappointment.
Second, what I have lifted up is that the Executive Order,
if it is developed with all of us and all of you in working out
the kinks and the issues that need to be defined, this could be
good. But we got to deal with those two big issues, a complaint
process and a calculation of the information for the veteran on
graduation rates, academic achievement, et cetera, in ways that
works for the veterans and works for higher education. If we do
that together, this is a win-win for everybody. If we don't do
it, it is a disaster for everybody, the veteran, the schools,
you all trying to get the information and the general public.
The verdict on whether it is good or bad is yet to be
determined, but we only got 60 days left before that 90-day
window is to be concluded and this goes into effect. And like I
said, I talked to my colleagues at the ACE on Monday, and I
said we haven't been asked and we were promised by the White
House we are going to be asked. Have you been asked? They said,
no, we haven't been asked and we are the ones who volunteered
to convene all the higher ed groups, so nobody in higher ed has
been asked to come to the table and help work out these issues.
Mr. Braley. Well, I think one of the things that all of us
would tell you is that an Executive Order lasts only as long as
the person who signs it is in office as a practical matter. And
Chairman Stutzman and I and other members of this Subcommittee
are actively engaged because we know that ultimately there has
to be a legislative solution that takes into account the best
interest of the veterans, the people receiving these funds and
the U.S. taxpayers and the institutions who have to administer
them.
So we look forward to working with you and we encourage you
to continue to engage with all the veteran service
organizations who have testified today and Members of Congress.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you. Mr. Walz.
Mr. Walz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, and
thank all of you for your testimony and your expertise in
helping us understand this. I am very proud of the work we did
on the Post-9/11 GI Bill. It was sorely needed. It is going to
open up and has opened up countless opportunities and it comes
back again our--we have a couple of major requirements on this
Committee, making sure that we provide all of the earned
benefits that our warriors so rightfully deserve, while at the
same time making sure that as stewards of the taxpayer dollars
we get them there, and I think, for you, I see that very
similar mission. You are trying to deliver and make the
opportunities available.
I want to be very clear that as we do things, that we are
making sure that we are not contracting the opportunities of
the GI Bill offers, that we are not making it more difficult
for the bulk of our warriors to get their benefits because of a
few bad actors that are in this.
And would you all characterize it as a few bad actors or is
this a systemic problem that truly did need an Executive Order?
Anybody want a try at that one? Go ahead, Mr. Nassirian.
Mr. Nassirian. I think you would not be surprised. The
politically correct thing to say is that it is a few bad
apples. The data argue otherwise. You are looking at 11 percent
of all enrollments, consumer, your Pell Grant dollars
accounting for half of all student loan defaults, capturing 50
percent of the DoD Tuition Assistance Funding, 37 percent of
all VA benefits.
The numbers, you know, you can bring--the plural anecdote
is not data. The data speak to a systemic issue.
Mr. Gunderson. Can I respond to that, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Stutzman. Certainly. Sure.
Mr. Gunderson. I appreciate that because I respect
everybody's right to disagree with the concept of private
sector education. I think, though, that we ought to understand
exactly who private sector colleges and universities happen to
serve in America today and what would happen if they didn't
exist. This tends to be career oriented education. The reality
is that today 94 percent of all the students who attend private
sector colleges and universities in this country are eligible
for Title IV student financial aid assistance.
We ought to be commending the schools for serving students
that otherwise would not have access to post-secondary
education, the skills, the jobs, the incomes and the middle
class families that they are able to obtain through that.
When I hear people who criticize us because we serve a
disproportionate number of veterans or active duty military, I
say, you got this all mixed up. You ought to commend these
schools for the design and delivery of academic programs that
serve the needs of today's veteran. Don't blame these schools.
Congratulate them in that regard.
Mr. Walz. Mr. Gunderson, do you think this was a chainsaw,
then, instead of a scalpel that should have been used on this
because you had something interesting in your testimony I would
follow up on. You talk about the VA having the authority to
prohibit enrollment of eligible veterans in the poor performing
schools and you talk about how the VA could join in agreement
with FTC to do some things here. Have they done those things?
Mr. Gunderson. No, and that is my frustration. You know, I
spent 16 years in the Congress promoting all of higher ed. I am
a big fan of public sector colleges and universities, private
non-profits, the private sectors, everybody. There is so much
out there today in terms of regulatory authority to go after
the bad conduct that all we ask is use your present authority
and go after that school and you will never hear me or my
association here defending one bad apple engaged in misconduct
of a veteran or any other student, but let us not indict all of
higher ed or even just the private sector colleges and
universities for the misconduct of one school.
Mr. Walz. Ms. Baechtold, and several of the rest of you,
you hit on this and I don't say this facetiously in any way. I
am the staunchest supporter of the VA but I will also be their
harshest critic. One of the prescriptions for a better way of
doing this is communication and getting data from the VA. Good
luck with that and I say that, as I said, not facetiously. They
do a lot and there is a lot of things that maybe we put on them
with privacy data and concerns about that.
So I do know that. I couldn't agree with you more. I think
as Mr. Braley hit upon, we have to do better at how we get that
data. We have to do better at how we process. How do we engage
VA better? What are some of your solutions on this or how do we
get that communication working better because this is a sticky
point for us across a lot of issues?
Ms. Flink, you mentioned it also. If you have anything,
please.
Ms. Flink. I have been involved in the NACUBO Committee
that is having conversations with the VA and one of the things
we have continually brought up is that if we could simply have
a release that a veteran would sign that would allow people at
the institution to talk to them. It is a pretty simple concept.
We do have people at our institutions that can talk to
them, but they are usually in Margaret's role. It is not people
in my area where we do the billing and all of those types of
processing. So we will call up and we will try to get some
questions answered for the veteran and we are immediately shut
down.
So we have been trying to work with them to have a very
simple form that a veteran can sign. We could fax it to them.
You could create an online form. But just giving other----
Mr. Walz. What was the feedback you got from them on that
because I can tell you I think this is a fundamental reform
both in the processing of benefits claims, burial claims and
others. My county Veteran Service Officers don't have the
ability of what you are asking for. These are licensed, you
know, basically licensed and bonded folks who say that we are
going to protect this data, and they can't get it. Have they
have been responsive to you on the potential?
Ms. Flink. In the conversations we have, they continue to
say they have to have conversations internally, but we have
been asking for well over 24 months, but that is just an
example of how we could help the veterans move the process.
Mr. Walz. We could go down this line. I have been asking
for six years. Mr. Gunderson might say he was asking for 16
years.
Ms. Flink. Right.
Mr. Walz. I do think that is a problem though, and I am
troubled by this and I very much, I mean, the predatory nature
of some of these folks doing this, I know it appalls all of
you. It appalls all those veterans. It is a disservice to our
veterans. It is despicable and all that, but I also understand
where you are coming and am somewhat-- not somewhat, I am
troubled by the idea of Executive Order without the input. And
the last time many of you were here testifying there was a good
faith effort to include you. I don't think we will truly get at
the heart of this if we don't include everyone in this
decision-making who is actually processing the data and going
up.
But I also think Mr. Nassirian's right. I can't ignore the
data that shows this, and we need to hammer down on this. There
is a lot of money here and lot of those things, but how we get
to that point of communication is still troubling me.
I went over my time. I yield back to the Chairman.
Mr. Stutzman. That is not a problem.
Ms. Baechtold, did you have a comment, I think, you wanted
to make?
Ms. Baechtold. I just wanted to respond a little bit more
to Mr. Walz's question. It has been baffling to school
certifying officials, for example, that we can get full
eligibility and payment information for almost every other
chapter except the Post-9/11 GI Bill. That is and has always
been accessible to us through the VA once, you know, data
interface that we use to report information to the VA, and so
it appears it is a combination of perhaps misplaced privacy
concerns since we obviously are entitled to that information
for every other chapter and limitations on IT systems that may
have other priorities right now, but pretty soon this needs to
become a priority or we will not be able to continue to do many
of the things and provide many of the services that we do on
our campuses. Thank you.
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you. I have got just a couple of other
questions. Mr. Gunderson, you mentioned ECPI University and it
sound like they are having a lot of success. Is there something
that they are doing differently that we should be paying
attention to?
And also, I think everyone of us here would agree, that if
there are bad apples out there, do we have the tools to deal
with those now currently in place?
Mr. Gunderson. You know, one of the things I enjoy every
day is when I hear a new news release that frankly is going
after one of our schools, not because I enjoy that they go
after our schools because it confirms your point, that the
tools are already there to go after those schools engaged in
misconduct, if it is used, so we ought to start with that.
Now, what ECPI has done, which is go above and beyond the
Federal and the state minimums to establish a voluntary set of
best practices, and if ECPI were sitting here today rather than
Steve Gunderson, what they would tell you is, you know what,
when we are engaged in onsite education of veterans, all we
need to do is screw up once and that commander will never again
direct any of his enlistees to our school.
Mr. Stutzman. So when you say if a school is being
disciplined or they are going after a school, what practices
are they performing that requires them to discipline or to
investigate?
Mr. Gunderson. Oh, I think the biggest allegation against
our sector over the last four years has been misrepresentation.
And as I tried to show, certainly in my written testimony and
to a degree much more quickly in my oral testimony, is that
there is between the accrediting standards and between the
birth of the VA and the Department of Education as well as the
FTC, all of them prohibit misrepresentation in advertising or
sales. And so there is a lot of different avenues where you can
go after that particular enforcement. That's number one.
Number two, and why we support counseling is because I
think if the veterans that I have talked to at these schools
would tell you they have a complaint, it is that they don't
know the right questions to ask at the beginning. And they will
tell you as they have told me personally what I thought it was
going to cost to get a degree and what it really costs was
different because there was an annual increase in tuition costs
or because the original tuition and books cost only covered
online books, and if you want to buy a hard copy book--it is
questions like that where I think that counseling becomes such
a key part of equipping the veteran to know what they are
pursuing, even on the transferability.
We all know that if you are nationally accredited, you
probably don't have a good shot at getting transferability to a
regional accreditation. It can be in the paperwork and if it is
not lifted up to that veteran, I got to be honest, I am not
sure when I was enrolling in college I would have had any idea
to ask about national versus regional versus program-specific
accreditation, what its impact would be.
Those are the kind of things, I think, we all want.
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you. Any further questions?
Mr. Braley. Mr. Nassirian, I want to just follow up on one
of the comments you made in direct response to what we have
just been talking about. You talked about the challenge of
eliminating waste, fraud and abuse in these program areas, and
yet the fact that there were burdensome regulations that were
intended to attack that very problem and yet we are not having
the desired results of providing accountability and due process
and enforcement that then changes behavior.
So what can we do to change that system?
Mr. Nassirian. Greater focus on outcomes. I think the
ordinary citizen, I think your approach to the regulatory, to
the turgid pros of regulatory government is right on the money.
The ordinary citizen understands intuitively that the taxpayers
of this country has a moral obligation and recognition of the
service that our servicemembers have provided to this Nation,
are providing for educational benefits. The question should not
be accreditation, licensure and a stack of papers that a
skillful law firm can correctly fill out.
The simple question is did this veteran leave this place
better off or worse off, and I think this Committee can make
tremendous strides by simply focusing on that bottom-line
question, are these billions of dollars that are being spent
actually improving the lot of veterans or are they being
actually left worse off despite the expenditure of funds and
the massive amount of paperwork that legitimate institutions
are dealing with because of the fact that we have a problem we
don't want to stare in the face. We want to be circuitous.
And with regard to the Executive Order, it is very much
that challenge. The Executive Order is an attempt at taking the
right steps. The problem is we have easier ways of getting
there. It requires legislation. It requires test and market
viability. It requires tests of good outcomes for the veterans,
as well as for the taxpayers of this country.
Mr. Braley. Well, we talked to a lot of veterans, and
specifically on this Committee, about how you transition out of
the military into a civilian workforce or into a civilian
education environment, and a lot of the veterans we talked to
who go through those programs talk about what we commonly refer
to as death by PowerPoint. And these are men and women who have
given so much and have sacrificed so much and are so burdened
with that transition and just want to get it behind them and
move on with their lives.
And I think, Mr. Walz, you were there at a joint hearing
with the Senate on this, and I sat there listening, and I tried
to think of this the way somebody in Iowa would, sitting around
their kitchen table, and Holly Petraeus was one of the
witnesses who was testifying there. And I said, you know, if
you are concerned about making sure that somebody has access to
an 800 number or a Web site or a Facebook page that they can
access, we put that on a refrigerator magnet because that is
what we do and we want to know where to find something.
Senator Rockefeller looked at me and he seemed very
intrigued by that concept. I don't know that he has a lot of
refrigerator magnets but it is one of those simple things that
really can have far ranging benefits to people who are so
burdened with information, they don't even know where to start
to get the answers to the questions that they have, and I think
sometimes we have well-meaning people who are highly educated,
who want to do the right thing and want to take into account
every potential contingency and forget the underlying objective
of the original program.
So I appreciate all of you being here today. And thank the
Chairman again for holding this important hearing.
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you to all of you and I appreciate you
being here and your information has been very helpful and very
valuable.
We do have votes at 5:00, so I think we will go ahead and
excuse you all and we will bring up the last and final panel.
With us today representing the National Association of
State Approving Agencies is Mr. Chad Schatz. Thank you. Who is
accompanied by Mr. Skip Gebhart. And I would like to remind
everyone that the SAAs are a critical link in approving schools
and courses for GI Bill benefits.
And then next we have Retired Major-General Rob Worley.
General Worley is the new Director of VA's Education Service
and has been on board for about a month and we welcome him to
his new post. And welcome to the Subcommittee. We thank you for
your years of dedicated service to our country and the U.S. Air
Force as well. So Mr. Schatz, is that correct?
Mr. Schatz. Schatz.
Mr. Stutzman. Schatz, okay. We will recognize you for five
minutes for your testimony.
STATEMENTS OF CHAD SCHATZ, DIRECTOR, VETERANS' EDUCATION AND
TRAINING SECTION, MISSOURI STATE DEPARTMENT OF ELEMENTARY AND
SECONDARY EDUCATION; ACCOMPANIED BY SKIP GEBHART,
ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF VETERANS EDUCATION AND TRAINING
PROGRAMS, WEST VIRGINIA HIGHER EDUCATION POLICY COMMISSION ON
BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE APPROVING AGENCIES;
GENERAL ROBERT M. WORLEY, II, US AIR FORCE, (RETIRED),
DIRECTOR, EDUCATION SERVICE VETERANS BENEFIT ADMINISTRATION,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
STATEMENT OF CHAD SCHATZ
Mr. Schatz. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Braley, Members of
the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, we represent every
school and college and training program relative to the usage
of the GI Bill.
The idea of adopting and applying Principles of Excellence
as outlined in the Executive Order is consistent with sound
educational philosophy and practices and is currently
recognized, respected and implemented throughout much of the
education community. Our experience tells us that while some of
the proposed requirements of the Executive Order may be helpful
to the achievement of the President's goals, they also could
result in the establishment of measures and systems that
duplicate other approaches and services that already meet the
objectives, although in varying degrees of comprehensiveness.
Full execution of the Executive Order principles could lead to
increased work for institutions and other entities without
proportional value being added to the process of helping
Veterans reach their career goals.
For example, the principles related to the availability of
other types of financial assistance and information regarding
debt, and those which address the development of educational
plans and the designation of points of contact for academic and
financial advising are important to the vast majority of
educational institutions and are generally integralled to the
services that they presently provide.
Similarly, the information about outcome resources referred
in Section 2, subparagraph A and further elaborated upon in
Section 3, subparagraph C is currently available through
various systems managed by the Federal government and reputable
private sector organizations. We suggest that these areas of
concern receive additional study and analysis before mandating
their presentation or publication in another separate and
distinct format.
We support efforts to discover false advertising and
fraudulent recruiting practices and to tighten policies and
procedures that discourage such practices. Section 3696 of
Title 38 provides an excellent framework from which to work for
G.I. Bill purposes. We suggest that the Subcommittee consider
holding a work session to address these issues.
We do not support the concept advocated in Section 2,
subparagraph D. It appears to limit the use of the G.I. bills
and discriminate against enrollment in some very good non-
accredited programs of education, some of which are offered by
a quasi-governmental and not-for-profit entities. Section 3676
of Title 38 provides the basic framework for state governments
through their state approving agencies to insure the quality
and integrity of non-accredited programs. We encourage the
Subcommittee to conduct a careful review of existing consumer
safeguards and student information initiatives.
Additionally, we offer the following recommendations.
Number one, convene a working group of stakeholders whose
purpose would be to research problems associated with the
successful administration of G.I. bills and make
recommendations to the Subcommittee on changes necessary in law
and/or policy to address the problems.
Number two, reinstate the approval and disapproval
authority held by state approving agencies prior to the
enactment of Section 203, Public Law 111-377. Remove the deemed
approved provision from Section 3672 and re-designate state
approving agencies as having disapproval authority in Section
3679.
These changes would help to restore the partnership between
the Federal and the state governments that helped to make the
G.I. Bill successful for over 65 years. The changes would
provide the authority to states, and state approving agencies,
to take definitive action to help resolve problems in areas in
a timely manner with minimal disruption to the perspective and
currently enrolled Veteran students. States have the
infrastructure, experience and the expertise necessary to
assist Congress and the VA in meeting the challenges
forthcoming by increasingly complex educational delivery
systems. Where improvements in the process used by state
approving agencies become necessary, there are already existing
provisions in law to help, such as mechanisms in Section
3674(A).
Mr. Chairman, the National Association of State Approving
Agencies suggests that there are many aspects of the Executive
Order that require technical clarification with respect to
current law. With the Subcommittee's agreement, NASAA would
appreciate the opportunity to submit a letter in this regard.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, NASAA expresses to, its
appreciation to both majority and minority staffs for their
many courtesies.
[The prepared statement of Chad Schatz appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you. General Worley, you are recognized
for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF GENERAL ROBERT M. WORLEY
General Worley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman,
Ranking Member Braley, and distinguished Members of the
Subcommittee.
I am pleased to be here today to discuss the Department of
Veterans Affairs' efforts to implement Executive Order 13607,
entitled Establishing Principles of Excellence for Educational
Institutions Serving Service Members, Veterans, Spouses, and
Other Family Members, which is designed to strengthen
oversight, enforcement and accountability within educational
benefit programs.
The VA fully supports the Executive Order which directs VA
and other Federal agencies to develop and implement these
principles of excellence to ensure servicemembers, veterans,
spouses and other family members using military and veterans
education benefits have comprehensive educational and financial
aid information so they can make informed choices in selecting
educational programs which will best meet their educational and
readjustment needs.
Further, the Executive Order will put in place enhanced
oversight and enforcement mechanisms to ensure beneficiaries
are protected from deceptive practices and have avenues to
resolve effectively their complaints. In Fiscal Year 2011, the
VA provided educational benefits to nearly one million
veterans, servicemembers, and dependants, under the Post-9/11
G.I. Bill and our legacy educational benefit programs. While we
continue to focus on processing education claims accurately and
timely, the VA has been working to expand our focus from
benefit delivery to providing more comprehensive information
and support throughout a veteran's academic career.
In 2011, we updated the G.I. Bill Web site to include
resources such as ``Choosing Your School'' guidebook, as well
as links to the Department of Education's College Navigator
tool set, and the Department of Labor's ONET occupational
handbook.
As you know, the VA also sponsors the VetSuccess on Campus
program and offers vocational counseling through Chapter 36 for
all students eligible for VA benefits.
The strong impetus of the Executive Order will help build
on these types of efforts and provide additional support to
best serve our veterans. An additional key aspect of the
Executive Order deals with developing a strategy for the
development of comparable student outcome measures. This is an
important issue and one measure the VA is taking in this regard
is the initiation of a longitudinal study of veterans who are
using post-9/11 G.I. Bill benefits.
This study will track three cohorts of beneficiaries over
20 years and will measure outcomes in four key areas:
employment, educational attainment, income, and home ownership.
The first survey for this effort is out for public comment now
and is anticipated to be put out next year, 2013.
The VA is aware of concerns of improper recruitment of
veterans by educational institutions and continues to work to
enhance our oversight and response. With the passage of Public
Law 111-377, the Veterans Educational Assistance Improvements
Act of 2010, VA is leveraging existing relationships with state
approving agencies in an expanded compliance role, to provide
additional oversight, and we are building upon existing
collaborations with the Departments of Education, Justice,
Defense, Labor, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau to expand oversight, share
information, and develop a strategy for implementing the
centralized complaint system which is required by the Executive
Order.
VA has already begun implementing some of the requirements
of the Executive Order. This week we will disseminate the
Principles of Excellence to G.I. Bill schools, and seek their
response with respect to their intent to comply with the
Principles of Excellence or not. In addition, we've already
initiated the application to the Patent and Trademark Office
for the registration of the term, G.I. Bill.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Braley, the VA is committed to
working with all stakeholders to implement the provisions of
this Executive Order to ensure veterans are informed consumers,
and schools meet their obligations in training this Nation's
next greatest generation.
This concludes my statement. I look forward to your
questions.
[The prepared statement of General Robert Worley appears in
the Appendix]
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you. General Worley, in your written
testimony you say that there have been numerous reports of
aggressive and deceptive targeting of servicemembers. Can you
explain and verify how many of those have been verified? What
were the findings on those?
General Worley. I'm sorry. Mr. Chairman, could you repeat
the question?
Mr. Stutzman. In your written testimony you have towards
the Executive Order headlined, ``Since the post-9/11 G.I. Bill
became law, there have been numerous reports of aggressive and
deceptive targeting of servicemembers.'' Can you elaborate on
that a little bit more? What were, are there findings? Is there
any investigation? How many of those reports have been
verified?
General Worley. Mr. Chairman, I don't have specifics of,
well, I mean, I haven't delved into the specifics of which of
those reports have been verified or not. This is in response to
reports that are out there, and what I can tell you is that
through the Compliance Program that we have and we cooperate
and help the state approving agencies do. That has identified
even in my short time in the job institutions where either
deceptive practices or other issues have been raised that have
resulted in either suspension or withdrawal of those
institutions as G.I. Bill approved schools.
So I have knowledge of some specifics about schools that
have engaged in those kinds of activities. But as far as the
actual reports of specific veterans, I don't have that.
Mr. Stutzman. Okay. Is that, could you submit those names
to the Committee staff at some point?
General Worley. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Stutzman. Okay, and then also, is there a definition
for aggressive recruiting, fraudulent actions that are being
taken? Can we have specifics and better definitions on what
that actually is?
General Worley. My response to that, Mr. Chairman, would be
when we do compliance surveys of these institutions, we are
assessing their programs against the requirements for G.I. Bill
approval. So consistent with those definitions and those
specifications is how that's done.
Mr. Stutzman. Okay, and finally, Mr. Gunderson of a
previous panel stated that the education community has not been
asked to meet with the Executive Branch as part of the
implementation of the Executive Order. Do you know will that
happen, or has that happened?
General Worley. Mr. Chairman, I anticipate that to happen.
I mean, this is the early stages. We'll be, again,
collaboratively working with the Department of Education, DoD,
and so forth to work all of these issues. The Executive Order,
as you know, directs each of those institutions to, in some
cases, lead a particular provision or task, others to co-lead
or collaborate in consultation with. So those, that work is to
be done and we'll be working with all of those agencies.
Mr. Stutzman. Okay. Thank you, and then, Mr. Schatz, in
addition to your suggestion to restore the SAA's role in
approving schools and courses, what specific ways can the SAAs
assist VA in preventing what is being called predatory
practices?
Mr. Gebhart. I'll be happy to answer that, Mr. Chairman.
Contrary to the General's statement and with great respect,
compliance surveys do not necessarily look at that sort of
thing. Compliance surveys look at payment appropriate, or the
appropriate payments, things like that. I was on a compliance
survey not long ago at one of our larger institutions and with
a VA employee, who asked the school to provide copies of their
advertising, and we looked at it and it was perfectly fine.
It's hard to tell what a predatory practice may be in a
compliance survey. It's much easier to talk to veterans and
say, ``Why did you choose this school?''
Another thing that came out when I was participating in a
GAO interview about predatory practices with several of our
NASAA colleagues, one of the questions was basically what is a
predatory and aggressive recruiting practice? And one of my
colleagues said, ``You know, it may be that what we perceive to
be aggressive is what veterans perceive to be good marketing
and good student customer service.'' For example, many schools,
probably private proprietary schools more than public, will
assist veterans and all students with filling out financial aid
forms. Public schools typically do not do that. They say, ``Go
to the Web site, fill out the form.''
So a person who is unfamiliar with the college experience,
the college environment, and all those forms is going to say,
``Wow. This is a really good school because they're helping me
fill this out.'' That is perhaps aggressive, but it may be good
customer service. It's very difficult to go to a school and
say, yes, they're being predatory and aggressive, or no,
they're not, in the kinds of reviews that we have done in a
compliance survey.
Now, when the SAAs formerly would do supervisory assistance
visits to schools, we would talk to a lot of people. We could
sit down and interview. We could look around and we could see
what's happening. We could talk to veterans and see what's
happening much more easily than we can do now in a compliance
survey.
So that's one reason that we are advocating going back to
more of the role that the SAAs used to have, because we had
more flexibility, and two, we're out there every year. This
year in my state, for example, I have 114 approved
institutions. Last year we saw almost each one of them. This
year, I've been tasked to do 28 compliance surveys, and the VA,
my VA colleague is doing about ten. That's fewer than half of
the facilities that we have in West Virginia that are approved.
That means fully half of them get no visit, no assistance, and
no oversight this year. We think that that's not an improvement
in oversight, but rather a step backward.
It also does not allow us to help the schools to fix any
problems that we might find that we can, could easily work with
them to solve very quickly.
Mr. Stutzman. Is that in both for-profit and not-for-profit
institutions?
Mr. Gebhart. In all facilities.
Mr. Stutzman. And would you say that bad practices are
limited to for-profit schools, or do you find it in not-for-
profit schools as well?
Mr. Gebhart. Absolutely not. They're limited to schools.
Period. We find as many issues in public schools as we do in
private proprietary schools or private non-profit schools.
Administratively speaking, the proprietary schools probably do
a better job with the paperwork because, you know, that's part
of their business practice, to do things right because they
depend upon that approval on doing things correctly to continue
getting the benefits.
Where the public schools do not have a profit line to worry
about, they don't necessarily worry about the administrative
things as much, either. Now, that's not to say that all public
schools mess up their paperwork and all private schools don't.
But there is probably a tendency to say in reviews that I've
done over the last several years, I find more problems in the
public schools in terms of accurate reporting and so on, than I
do in the private schools.
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you. Mr. Braley?
Mr. Braley. Well, Mr. Gebhart, it seems like we have a
collective amnesia in this room about the abusive practices
that have been well documented by the general accounting
organization and others, and so let me just start and see if I
can refresh everyone's memory.
This is an April 26, 2012 article called, Accountability in
Military Education by Holly Petraeus, and I think we all know
who she's married to, and in this article she refers to the
interviews that her bureau, the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau had. She describes an active duty military spouse in
Fort Campbell, Kentucky, who filled out an interest form and
was called ten to 15 times a day until she enrolled. That
sounds like an abusive practice to me.
And then in another article she wrote for the New York
Times on September 21, 2011, titled, For Profit Colleges,
Vulnerable G.I.s, she noted the financial reality of what we're
talking about. Between 2006 and 2010, the money received in
military education benefits by just 20 for-profit companies
soared to an estimated $521,000,000 from $66,000,000, and we
all know that the for-profits are getting a lion's share of the
G.I. Bill benefits and military assistance benefits, based upon
the proportion of students they enroll.
The Des Moines Register recently did an editorial called,
For-Profit Colleges Need Close Scrutiny from Congress, and they
cite the GAO study which used undercover Congressional
investigators to pose as prospective college students applying
for admission to 15 for-profit schools. They were mislead about
financial costs, aid, graduation rates, while being hounded to
enroll. One was called 180 times in a single month. A recruiter
said a massage therapy certification for $14,000 was a good
value, even though the same certificate could have been earned
at a nearby community college for $520.
A recent USA Today editorial that just came out refers to
schools stretching the truth or worse, 13 of the 15 colleges
investigated by the GAO gave agents posing as applicants
questionable even deceptive pitches about graduation rates,
guaranteed jobs or likely earnings, and that editorial
concluded, ``This is a shoddy way to treat any student and it's
a dubious way to invest taxpayer money. It's just all the more
offensive when it's applied to veterans.''
So I don't think we should ignore the realities that this
subject has been part of a lot of intense scrutiny and even our
former colleague in responding and providing an opposing
viewpoint, Mr. Gunderson said, ``All schools should be measured
by the same standards. No more, no less. And when the
Administration and Congress apply such standards to all post-
secondary institutions, we applaud their hard work.''
I think that's what we're trying to get to here is a system
of transparency that holds all institutions getting Federal
dollars accountable. But we also have to be aware of where the
lions share of that funding is going and making sure people
aren't being mislead into pursuing education that have no
realistic expectation of completing or getting a good paying
job. And when you look at the default rates on these loans an
on these payments there is another highly disproportionate
figure that stands out. So, I'm not trying to pick on anybody.
I think all of these institutions have a place in the portfolio
of educational services to veterans. But we also can't ignore
some of these realities.
Mr. Gebhart. I thank you, sir. My point was on a compliance
survey or on a review at a school, it's difficult to see those
predatory practices. I'm basically a one person operation in
terms of professional staff, I can't go undercover. Most of us
don't have the resources to do an undercover study like GAO
did.
When we get that kind of information we do react to it, we
do respond to it and I can say in the State of West Virginia we
now have a law--State law that probably was passed--the
regulations were passed today I hope at our commission meeting,
that requires all of our schools, public and private, to
provide the very kind of information that the Executive Order
requires, that the Senator Webb's bill requires and Senator
Murray's bill requires.
We've already taken that step in West Virginia for all
students for all schools, because you're right it is a big
issue. People do need to understand how to make the choice. If
we had more ability to look harder at some of these schools,
perhaps we would find more, but we don't have the resources at
this point.
We've had $19 million for about seven years to fund our
program and nobody's been able to hire any extra people. And
that's what it would take to do the increased oversight.
Mr. Braley. Do you think that the laws on the books at
present provide enough remedies to pursue people who are
engaged in fraudulent and deceptive practices?
Mr. Gebhart. Yes and no.
Mr. Braley. Let's talk about the no part.
Mr. Gebhart. They're vague to some extent and I'm not
suggesting that we can come up with a cutting score that will
say well, if you get to this level you're okay and if you're
below that level you're not, because the metrics are very, very
difficult as a number of people have said today, to nail down.
But with SAA's doing the approval and disapproval as we
used to do, we have more flexibility to find and remedy those
things. Right now, half of our schools, at least in my state
maybe more in other states--half of the schools are no longer
under my jurisdiction for all practical purposes.
Mr. Braley. And I'm sorry and my time is up Mr. Chairman,
but why is that?
Mr. Gebhart. Section 203 Public Law 111-277 said, ``All
public accredited and private not-for-profit accredited
programs are deemed approved.'' And we have no authority to do
anything about that, if we find deceptive practices or bad
educational outcomes or anything.
Mr. Braley. Thank you.
Mr. Stutzman. Mr. Walz.
Mr. Walz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd follow-up on that.
Would it be your contention, Mr. Gebhart, that if we change
that and gave you that ability to go look at those things that
that would help the situation?
Mr. Gebhart. I believe it would.
Mr. Schatz. Absolutely it would. No question about it.
Mr. Walz. Because this one, I think Mr. Braley did a very
eloquent job of this and the frustration. There is fraud in
this and I have to be very clear, this is to me the most
despicable kind. It's putting a target on the backs of those
veterans who already risked their lives for the country.
I also am very cognizant not to paint with a gross
generalization across every institution, but we have got to
figure out a way to weed these folks out.
Mr. Gebhart, you said something I have never heard anyone
say yet. Were you intimating that the public institutions are
worse than the private? Is that the case in West Virginia?
Mr. Gebhart. In terms of paperwork processing, yes, I would
say so. That doesn't mean that they're educationally worse. It
means we find more errors in those kinds of schools then we do
in the private schools. At least that's my experience. I think
Mr. Schatz would agree.
Mr. Schatz. I share that. And with respect to the
supervisory visits we've done in the past and now the
compliance surveys, I think that lines up exactly with what Mr.
Gebhart says. My experience is exactly that.
Mr. Walz. So, we're not getting good data then? We don't
have access to good data? I mean, listening to Mr. Nassirian
and others and Mr. Braley was laying out, I'm concerned about
this, is it shy on paperwork or is it--I'm just kind of at loss
here.
I'm just trying to get my mind wrapped around well, first
and foremost how big the problem is, secondly, how we approach
and tackle the problem.
That's going to be very hard to do if what you're telling
me is we're not even sure we're not getting good paperwork in.
Mr. Schatz. Well, I think it's a mixed bag here. We have a
little bit of both and certainly the issue is, if we're not
involved on the front side--think of it like a physician, the
other hand, a mortician, we're in the mortician's role right
now. Where when we were the physician we helped things where we
fixed problems before they became big issues. And with this
change we are definitely the mortician. We're not the engineer,
we're the mechanic.
Mr. Walz. It's that gatekeeper analogy where Mr. Nassirian
said, ``Well, wouldn't it be better to keep the bad food off
the shelf instead of warning people about it after the fact
that it's there.''
Mr. Schatz. And that's appropriate.
Mr. Walz. And we can do that. And you don't think do you--
is the frustration boiled up to an Executive Order that says do
it and do it now? Do you believe this will be the key to fix
this? This Executive Order as it's implemented?
Mr. Gebhart. I think it will go a long way in some areas,
but it still doesn't do as much in oversight. You know the fact
that I'm only seeing half of the institutions and training
facilities that I saw last year says things could be going on
in that other half that need to be addressed and won't even be
discovered.
Mr. Walz. I think you're hitting on something right there
and my fear is is that we've got a lot of partners I think
could help us. In listening to this last panel they feel like
they were isolated away from being part of the solution and now
they're being deemed as part of the problem and I would hope
the case wouldn't be that there would be resistance put up, but
I think you could see it where there's more requirements coming
down without looking at the data and I think there's a sense of
institutional pride that's going to come with a lot of these
places. That, dang it, we're doing a pretty good job, we're
showing you these numbers, but it's still not making any
difference, we're getting hammered down with everyone else.
Mr. Gebhart. If we are--if the SAA's are out visiting all
of the schools every year as we have always done up until this
year, oversight will be improved, responsiveness will be
improved. We can fix problems on the spot in many cases.
You know, working for the chancellor of higher education, I
can go to a president and say, you have a problem here because
your data system doesn't work right to tell your clerks what to
do when a veteran drops a class.
Mr. Walz. Yeah.
Mr. Gebhart. Instead of a manual check. I can fix that. The
other thing is, I get a sense that there is some feeling that
we are against VA and against compliance. That is far, far, far
from the truth. We have always done compliance reviews, we've
shared the information with VA, we just haven't done it on
their forms and in their process.
We would be very willing--we are very willing to help VA
with doing compliance. What that entails is gathering data in
the field and then analyzing VA payment records to see if they
paid correctly.
Mr. Walz. You're going to have to be trusted with some of
their data then. It goes back to the question I made in the
earlier panel.
Mr. Gebhart. Well, no, not really.
Mr. Walz. Really?
Mr. Gebhart. We can provide data from the school to say,
this is what the school said would happen on the VA
certification form and we look at their academic records and
their financial records and we say, this is what did happen.
When they don't match up, we have a discrepancy. We can send
that data to VA and they can then look at their records, which
are very cumbersome and complicated for most SAA's to even get
into. I don't have access yet, Chad doesn't have access yet,
about half of our people do.
So, if we were to simply say or VA were to say we want you
to look at these 30 cases, get us the data on them, we could
very easily do that because we've always done that anyway.
Mr. Walz. General Worley, doesn't that make sense to see
these partners and have this resource that's out there to do
that? To be able to do what Mr. Gebhart is saying as a
collaborative effort?
General Worley. Thank you, Congressman. A couple of points
on this issue. The pre-approved, if you will, institutions
under the 111-377 law are not, certainly, prohibited from being
visited. They're in the mix, so they get compliance visits just
like other people.
The magnitude of the expansion, if you will, if I could
give you some numbers, last year we conducted, without SAA's
being involved, approximately 1,700 compliance surveys. This
year to date, this fiscal year to date, we've done about 2,700.
And so, being able to use the resource of the SAA's to do
these kinds of surveys is truly been and expanse of the effort.
The other thing to understand is, the compliance surveys
that they're conducting related to the post 911 GI Bill are a
little bit more complex, they take a little bit longer to do.
I'm not sure if that's what accounts for fewer numbers in the
cases you've heard here, but that may account for some of it.
And as we look at these things, although it may be
difficult to determine deceptive practices and those kinds of
things, the compliance surveys are able to identify, in some
cases, some serious enough misrepresentation or improper
practices that the SAA's are pulling approvals.
Mr. Walz. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your
candidness to help us understand this. I appreciate it.
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you. I'd like to follow up on that and
I'm not sure which one of you all can answer this. But, these
aren't just hypothetical situations out there, these are real
cases that veterans are experiencing. But as you're collecting
that information, do we even have a way of classifying that? Do
we have a way of categorizing these specific cases, so we know
what the problem is? Is there a continual problem with a
specific institution? Is there a problem across the board for
veterans that they're experiencing?
In one of the previous panels, actually, Mr. Gunderson said
that the number one complaint that he received at the school
done in Virginia was payment from the VA.
So, we're talking about aggressive or deceptive actions
here, I mean, is there any way--do we even have any categories?
Is this what the Executive Order is requesting? Is that what
we're going to get? Any comments?
Mr. Gebhart. We don't have a database, but we have the data
points. Every time we did a visit, we would know what we had
seen and what we had done. That was transmitted to VA if there
were issues, but we don't have a nationwide database. I don't
believe VA does, but I'm not sure.
General Worley. Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure if we have a
database to get at what you're asking. But, again, as these
things are identified as we go along, the more serious issues
are addressed. Smaller issues are also addressed that aren't to
the degree of withdrawal or a suspension of a school as Mr.
Gebhart has described, so there's a lot of corrective actions
that happen along the way to help educational institutions
comply with what they're supposed to be doing.
Mr. Stutzman. I guess what I'm trying to find is the number
one complaint that we heard from all three panels, the one that
was mentioned was payment issues. What else out there--what
other problems are we hearing about that veterans are
experiencing? We're hearing aggressive tactics, deceptive
tactics. Are veterans experiencing disappointment in the
services that they receive? How are we going to address that?
Is there a plan?
General Worley. Well, as you know, Congressman, there are
many--I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, there are many avenues for
veterans to make their complaints known to us and then we
address those either through our call center or the Web site
and we take actions on that.
Whether they are issues with payments or issues with
timeliness, again, we work hard to process the claims in a
timely way and to pay accurately. And we're, occasionally, of
course, like all humans we might make a mistake and we work to
correct that and restore, the proper benefit to the veteran.
Mr. Stutzman. Would you say that the VA has tools already
in place to deal with bad apples out there if there's an
egregious case that you can deal with them? Are there schools
that already have had payments withdrawn or are taken out of
eligibility?
General Worley. There are schools who have either been
suspended or withdrawn as GI Bill approved schools, based on
things found either through compliance surveys or through State
inspections or reviews, yes sir.
Mr. Gebhart. Mr. Chairman, if I may give an example, I
think too--to back up just a moment, VA has done a fantastic
job of dealing with an extremely complicated benefit package
and initially there were lots of difficulties as there were
with every GI Bill and getting payments out. Things are going
much, much better.
It's the same thing if you ask a military member, how's the
food in the chow hall? They're going to say well, it's not
mom's home cooking. If you ask them how their VA payments are
going? Well, it's not fast enough. That's a fact of life. There
are some legitimate concerns, VA is working on them. VA works
quickly and well to try to resolve individual situations.
And then I lost my train of thought.
General Worley. Keep going.
Mr. Gebhart. Yeah, keep going. In any case, VA is doing a
good job of catching up on things. I think at the school level
there is frustration among the schools because they're not
getting the help they used to get from State approving agencies
because we're not out there as much.
And, yes, we may visit them, we may do a compliance survey
if VA assigns one to us, but under our contract we will not be
reimbursed for the cost of making those kinds of visits unless
they're compliance surveys.
So, that's why we're saying we're not doing the oversight
that we used to do, because we can't afford to do it. You know,
we don't have State money that's flowing into our pockets. We
are reimbursed for the contracts we have, in essence, with
Congress through the VA. So, that has been limited and we can't
make the kinds of visits we used to make.
We would like to be out there more. We would like to head
off the problems. We can fix them on the spot. We notify VA of
the problems we find and sometimes they have to do a compliance
survey.
Just as a bit of background, I was with VA for 23 years, I
started doing compliance surveys in 1975 and I was on two that
ended very badly for the schools. We closed one school
completely, it was a private proprietary operation that was
just not a good thing. And we came very close to closing a
public community college and we cost a president his job
through the State approving agency back then.
This is not new stuff, it's complicated more by Chapter 33,
the post 911 GI Bill and the many ways payments are made and so
on.
It's not that terribly new, but with VA and the SAA's
working together in the past, those problems have been dealt
with for 65 years.
Now, when--we have not been in that kind of partnership
recently. We want to be. We want to be able to help VA. We want
to be able to say we're looking at the educational quality,
we're looking at all those things, we're looking at
appropriateness of reporting. Let VA look at the
appropriateness of their payments. We don't feel we should be
auditing a Federal systems payments or a Federal entitlement
programs payments, which is, in essence, what we're doing with
these new compliance surveys.
We are more than happy to provide them all the information
they need from our campuses to do their audits and we would
welcome the chance to continue that relationship, but do it for
all of our schools like we've been doing.
Mr. Schatz. I might add--I'm sorry.
Mr. Stutzman. Sure.
Mr. Schatz. If I might add, historically there was a period
of time that when some of the states, including my state, the
State of Missouri, Oklahoma in the reign of on the job training
and apprenticeship, we did--we had data gathering assignments
and we assisted with the compliance on that end, which is, I
think, is basically what Skip is speaking to as a possibility
in the future and this worked extremely well. That practice, at
some point, was abandoned, but it was successful.
Mr. Stutzman. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Braley, any further
questions or comments?
Mr. Braley. Just a couple. Mr. Gebhart, that chow in the
chow hall may not be like mom's home cooking, but my impression
is it's a heck of a lot better than it used to be.
Mr. Gebhart. I understand it's improved, yes.
Mr. Braley. And General Worley, I just want to follow-up a
little more question with you. I recently had the honor of
flying to Iwo Jima with 12 World War II veterans who served
there with my dad 67 years ago. One of them is the president of
the University of Richmond.
And these were the original beneficiaries of the GI Bill.
And Holly Petraeus' September 21st, 2011 article in The New
York Times--she wrote one of the most egregious reports of
questionable marketing involved a college recruiter who visited
a Marine barracks at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. As the PBS
program Frontline reported the recruiter signed up Marines with
serious brain injuries. The fact that some of them couldn't
remember what courses they were taking was immaterial as long
as they signed on the dotted line.
When I read that I get furious, because we dishonor every
veteran when we allow practices like that to take place and
don't find an effective way to swiftly and appropriately punish
people who would do that to the men and women who defend this
country.
So, I'm going to give you the last word and ask you, how do
we do a better job once these practices are identified, in
getting that information to the appropriate agency for swift
and effective corrective action?
General Worley. Thank you, Ranking Member Braley. As a
veteran myself with a son who's actually stationed at Camp
Lejeune, I couldn't agree with you more.
The particular issue that you talk about should be
addressed as part of this Executive Order, perhaps not newly
identified necessarily, but on the Department of Defense side,
as you know, the Executive Order will require more focus on
access to educational institutions going on to military
installations, to put more rigor behind even letting the access
happen in the first place,--in addition, as you know, the
Executive Order talks about enhancing the enforcement, some
kind of centralized complaint process. This will take some work
and collaboration between the various agencies because we have
one version or another of a complaint system that we use to try
to address complaints by veterans or try to address these types
of issues. Bringing that together would be some significant
work that needs to be done in order to implement the provision
of the Executive Order. And we stand ready to work those kinds
of issues vigorously. Thank you.
Mr. Braley. Thank you.
Mr. Gebhart. Can I have about 30 seconds?
Mr. Stutzman. Yes.
Mr. Gebhart. Regarding such practices we will take action
immediately. An example is, in my own state, a large private
non-profit university, whose accreditation is now under severe
scrutiny because the nursing program accreditation was
withdrawn by the nursing board.
My first action was to withdraw their approval for GI Bills
in the program. The Higher Learning Commission has come in, for
a study on campus. They will be meeting in June to consider
that school's entire accreditation. If they take that away, my
first step would be to withdraw their approval as well, then
ask them to apply as a non-accredited school and take a hard
look at what they're doing.
So, if we know about things like that, if we're told that,
we do take action. A similar case in Texas, I think--and I
can't think of the name of the school, but our State Approving
Agency in Texas immediately suspended that school because of
the violation. So, when we find about things, action is taken.
It's a question more of how we find out and those things are
very difficult to see from looking at school's paperwork. Thank
you.
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you very much. I apologize for the
microphone situation. I want to thank you for being here, for
your service and testimony today. We, obviously, know the
challenge that we face in that our veterans aren't getting the
service that they deserve or expect.
And if there's nothing further, I think I'm going to go
ahead and call the meeting. I want to thank everyone that's
here and testified today. I ask that all members have five
legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and include any extraneous material in regards to today's
hearing. Without objection. This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:10 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Prepared Statement of Hon. Marlin Stutzman, Chairman
Good afternoon everyone.
As you all likely know, there has been considerable discussion on
the other side of Capitol Hill and in the press about instances of
questionable practices by schools as well as the need to increase
transparency to the operations colleges and universities.
President Obama recently issued an Executive Order directing VA,
the Department of Education, and DoD to take steps to improve the
information and services available to veterans and to police the
college education market.
We are here today to listen to many of the stakeholders involved in
veteran education and I am eager to hear from them regarding the
possible effects of the President's order.
I would note that the Executive Order contains some elements in
legislation we considered in our March hearing, introduced by Mr.
Bilirakis and myself, as well as many other items. For myself, I am
open to things that will add to veterans' ability to make informed
choices while not reinventing the wheel.
For example, the Department of Education's College Navigator Web
site has 272 categories of data, many of which are further subdivided
by various demographic and financial subcategories. After reviewing
those categories, other than the number of veterans attending a school,
I believe it would the rare veteran who would need more information to
choose a school than now contained in those of 272 data points.
Before we begin with the first panel, I would like to note that in
reviewing today's testimonies, several witnesses have testified that
there needs to be a coordinated effort on the part of the various
oversight organizations.
In my opinion, this Subcommittee's role in that effort should begin
with ensuring that the membership of VA's Advisory Committee on
Education reflects that need. We also must ensure that the Advisory
Committee has the opportunity to present its views on these types of
issues to the Secretary and Congress as required by 38 USC 3692.
I am disappointed that since Congress revised the advisory
committee's membership in Public Law 111-275, the Committee has not met
in the past year and possibly longer. Therefore, I hope Director Worley
will inform us of his plans to make use of the advisory committee.
Also, in reviewing the membership of the advisory committee, I
think we should consider bringing in some experts in compliance and
enforcement and I look forward to working with the Ranking Member and
the Subcommittee to enhancing the role of the advisory committee.
I now recognize the distinguished Ranking Member for his remarks. I
would note that as a graduate of both Iowa State University and the
University of Iowa, he must have no difficulty getting tickets to
autumn's civil war between the Cyclones and Hawkeyes. Since this is an
election year, I will not ask him which school he roots for. Mr.
Braley.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bruce L. Braley,
Ranking Democratic Member
Thank you Mr. Chairman for conducting this hearing today, I look
forward to discussing the President's recently issued Executive Order.
The purpose of the Post-9/11 GI Bill is to provide our
servicemembers, veterans, and their dependents with access to a quality
education. Although many policy changes have taken place since the
implementation of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, we continue to provide
oversight on this generous veterans education benefits. And we owe it
to veterans and taxpayers to make sure money for this program is being
spent wisely.
Veterans deserve to have accessible, standardized information
regarding educational institutions and degree programs in order to make
informed choices on how best to get the education they have earned
under the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Unfortunately, I have heard some reports
of aggressive and deceptive targeting of servicemembers and veterans by
some educational institutions.
As US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously stated,
``sunlight is the best disinfectant.'' I agree, and that is why I am
pleased the Administration is trying to address these abuses through an
Executive Order that provides servicemembers and veterans with the
information they need to make informed choices and to find the best
educational institutions and course of study that are right for them.
The Executive Order was prompted in part by a call for action from
thirteen different veteran and servicemember groups when they wrote a
memo called the ``Military & Veteran Students Educational Bill of
Rights.'' The order establishes Principles of Excellence for
educational institutions. These Principles provide added enforcement,
oversight, and most importantly transparency for prospective students
seeking to use their Post-9/11 GI Bill.
The Principles would require that educational institutions collect
and provide information to help prospective students make an informed
decision when deciding on an educational program. Participating
institutions will provide detailed information such as a ``Know Before
You Owe'' form, which discloses information about tuition and fees,
financial aid, estimated student loan debt upon graduation, and
graduation rates.
These Principles will aid in making informed educational decisions.
By providing needed information in an easily-accessible form, Executive
Order 13607 will help curb fly-by-night recruiting techniques, and
provide protections to servicemembers whose deployment may require
short absences.
This information is critical for veterans, a good number of whom
may be the first in their families to attend college. It is imperative
that we provide these veterans, and all of our veterans, with the tools
they need as they work their way through the college application
process.
I do not believe there is such a thing as ``too much information''
to provide veterans and servicemembers making decisions that will
affect the rest of their lives.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and from the VA on the
steps they are taking to implement this Executive Order and make the
Post-9/11 GI Bill the keystone veterans benefit for the 21st Century.
Thank you Mr. Chairman and I yield back.
Prepared Statement of Joe Wynn
INTRO:
Good Afternoon, Chairman Stutzman, Ranking Member Braley, other
members of this Subcommittee, fellow veterans, and guests.
Let me first thank you for the opportunity to come before you on
behalf of the veteran's organizations I represent to share some of my
views on the President's recent Executive Order #13607 entitled
``Establishing Principles of Excellence for Educational Institutions
Serving Service Members, Veterans, Spouses, and other Family Members''
and its impact on schools and veterans.
With more and more reports coming out over the past 2 years about
how For-Profit Colleges and Institutions that receive GI Bill funding
are providing a disservice to students who are veterans; this Executive
Order is a generous step towards offering an opportunity for these
institutions to rectify this situation before pending legislation is
passed that will impose more severe regulatory remedies.
Though my time of service was many years ago, as a veteran of the
US Air Force with the 66th Strategic Missile Squadron, I still have
very vivid memories of the military experience. I also remember quite
well the tough time I had finding employment after going to a For-
Profit Institution that provided no placement assistance and counseling
though they advertised that that would. My experience just serves as an
example of what many veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan have been going
through in the past few years.
According to recent reports by the Government Accountability
Office, the National Bureau of Economic Research and Harvard University
researchers, students at For-Profit Colleges have lower success rates
than similar students in public and nonprofit colleges. Reports also
show lower graduation rates, employment outcomes, with higher debt
levels and loan default rates. Ongoing analysis being done by the U.S.
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP
Committee) shows that the For-Profit Colleges receiving the largest
sums of money also have a large number of students dropping out.
Since our young men and women stepped up to serve this country
following the devastating attack on our nation on 9/11; many returning
as veterans who served with honor, and many who received distinguished
honors for displaying valor and courage during their periods of
military service for this country; they don't deserve to be taken
advantage of. Every effort should be made by every institution,
government agency, and commercial enterprise to ensure that these
veterans receive all of the benefits they are entitled to and deserve.
A new generation of veterans now exists; they are well trained,
loyal, battle-tested and under-employed. `As a Nation, we have been
unsuccessful in providing the originally promised assistance our
veterans have earned, deserved, and required so that they would have
the opportunity to be as successful in their civilian pursuits as they
were in their military assignments.' (VET-Force Report to the Nation
2012)
CAVEAT EMPTOR for VETERANS
Caveat Emptor is a Latin phrase for ``Let the buyer beware.'' The
term is primarily used in real property transactions meaning that the
buyer must perform their due diligence when purchasing an item or
service. In other words, consumers need to know their rights and be
vigilant in avoiding scams. For example in the private purchase of a
used car, the onus is on the buyer to make sure the car is worth the
purchase price because once the transaction is complete the buyer will
not receive a warranty or return option to the seller.
But when it comes to shopping for an education, a student/veteran
should not have to be treated as if they are buying a used car. They
need to be given all of the information regarding tuition and fees up
front before they enroll in a program of study. They should not be
burdened with additional fees after completion of the program that they
were not aware of initially or that would not be covered by other
funding sources.
Students/Veterans should be made well aware of the quality of the
education offered and their potential for employment pending the
successful completion of a selected program of study. Counselors should
be readily available to provide academic advice.
While For-Profit Colleges play an important role in educating
students who may not qualify for traditional schools, over the last
decade, far too many institutions have been cited for burdening
students with ruinous debt. A report from the Government Accountability
Office disclosed that fraudulent or deceptive practices were used at
all 15 of the For-Profit Colleges visited by investigators posing as
prospective students. Some college officials encouraged applicants to
falsify financial aid forms and students were also pressured into
signing enrollment contracts before they were allowed to speak to
financial aid representatives who would clarify costs.
According to a New York Times Editorial dated 9/11/10, the programs
offered at the For-Profit Colleges were substantially more expensive
than comparable programs at nearby public colleges. In one example, a
student who inquired about the cost of studying for a massage therapy
certificate was told that $14,000 was a fair price, even though the
local community college offered the same courses for $520.
In addition, too many For-Profit Colleges have been cited for
enrolling students who have no chance of graduating and tossing them
out once that flow of aid is exhausted. According to a New York Times
editorial dated July 28, 2010 the inspector general for the Department
of Education told Congress that 70 percent of the department's higher
education fraud investigations were focused on For-Profit Colleges.
Schools have been caught falsifying data on student enrollment levels,
attendance and eligibility requirements.
And yet another Senate report found that many For-Profit Colleges
spent suspiciously little money on teaching, while spending lavishly on
recruiting, marketing and administrative costs.
PRINCIPLES OF EXCELLENCE
Executive Order #13607 issued by President Obama attempts to
establish a policy that will ensure that our nation's veterans, service
members and their spouses will not be deceived by For Profit Colleges
and that specific federal agencies will be directed to provide
oversight and management of the benefit programs they use for
educational training. For-Profit Colleges will have to establish fair
and transparent practices that demonstrate how students/veterans are
best served.
For-Profit Colleges and Institutions that receive funding from GI
Bill, TA, or MyCAA funding will be expected to adhere to a set of
principles that include the following:
(A) Provide information about the total cost of the educational
program including amount of debt owed on any student loans after
graduation;
(B) Inform veterans about other forms of financial aid before
advising them of private student loans;
(C) End fraudulent and unduly aggressive recruiting techniques
on and off military installations;
(D) Obtain approval of the state accrediting agency for new
courses prior to enrollment;
(E) Allow service members to be readmitted if they had to
suspend their attendance temporarily due to military service
requirements;
(F) Agree to a refund policy when veterans withdraw prior to
course completion;
(G) Provide a plan that details all the requirements needed for
program completion and the time it will take to complete them; and
(H) Designate a person(s) to provide counseling with regard to
academics, financial aid, disabilities, and job searches.
RESPONSIBILITY for IMPLEMENTATION
The agencies responsible for implementation of the Principles will
be the Departments of Defense (DOD), Veterans Affairs (VA), and
Education (EDU). Consultation will be provided by the Director of the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Attorney General. These
agencies will adhere to the following:
(A) DOD and VA shall reflect these principles in new agreements
with educational institutions regarding veterans; and VA shall notify
all participating institutions that they are strongly encouraged to
comply with the principles and shall post on the VA's website those
that do;
(B) The Secretaries of Defense, VA and EDU in consultation with
the Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the
Attorney General - shall take immediate action to implement this order
and within 90 days of the date of this order report to the President on
the progress;
(C) The Secretaries of Defense, VA and EDU shall develop a
comprehensive strategy for developing student outcome measures and
collecting info on the amount of funding received under the Post 9/11
GI Bill and the Tuition Assistance Program and make them publically
available; and
(D) The Secretary of VA in consultation with the Secretaries of
Defense and EDU shall provide streamlined tools to compare educational
institutions using key measures of affordability and value through the
VA's eBenefits portal and include school performance info, consumer
protection info, and key federal financial aid documents all which
shall be made available to veterans through education counselors.
ENFORCEMENT and COMPLIANCE MECHANISMS
The Executive Order calls for the Secretaries of Defense and VA, in
consultation with EDU, CFPB and the Attorney General to submit to the
President a plan to strengthen enforcement and compliance mechanisms.
The plan shall include proposals to:
(A) Create a centralized complaint system;
(B) Institute uniform procedures for receiving and processing
complaints across the State Approving Agencies;
(C) Institute uniform procedures for referring potential matters
for civil or criminal enforcement to the Dept. of Justice and/other
relevant agencies;
(D) Establish procedures for targeted risk-based program reviews
of institutions to ensure compliance with the Principles;
(E) Establish new uniform rules and strengthen existing
procedures for access to military installations by educational
institutions;
(F) Take all appropriate steps to ensure that websites and
programs are not deceptively and fraudulently marketing educational
services and benefits to program beneficiaries, including a process to
protect the term ``GI Bill'' and other military or veteran-related
terms as trademarks, as appropriate.
IMPACT on SCHOOLS and VETERANS
As referenced herein, this Executive Order offers For-Profit
Colleges and institutions an opportunity to improve their performance
before stricter legislation is passed. If they desire to achieve the
goals proposed in the Executive Order, compliance should not be
difficult. Though I suspect that there will be some resistance since
doing the right thing will undoubtedly affect their bottom line. But
these educational institutions have to be held accountable.
Any laws, policies or regulations that will serve to improve the
likelihood of success for our veterans, military members or their
families will obviously be well received by them. However, the agencies
directed to take actions under the Executive Order have to fully and
continually implement the Principles of Excellence dutifully such that
all veterans are able to utilize the educational benefits to the
maximum extent possible.
NEED for MORE LEGISLATION
The Executive Order does not address the use of federal aid dollars
that has led many admissions officers to use aggressive recruitment
strategies targeted to veterans, military members and their spouses
using the GI Bill, the Tuition Assistance (TA) program, or the Military
Spouse Career Advancement Accounts (MyCAA) program for funding. Until
the law is changed GI Bill benefits, TA and MyCAA funds still do not
technically count as federal education benefits under the U.S.
Department of Education's 90-10 rule.
There are at least 2 bills pending that attempt to address this
long-standing requirement that no more than 90 percent of a For-Profit
College's revenues can come from federal financial aid. The rationale
is simple, make GI Bill, TA and MyCAA funding less desirable and
thereby lessen the predatory tactics used to obtain them.
Other pending legislation by Senators Webb and Murray appear to
strengthen the Principles of Excellence referred to in the Executive
Order. Both Bills were pending prior to the execution of the Executive
Order and include some of the same or similar principles. Under Webb's
Bill additional requirements would include: (1) Expanding the training
responsibilities of the State Approving Agencies by requiring them to
conduct outreach activities to veterans and members of the Armed
Forces, to conduct audits of schools, and to report those findings to
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs; (2) Support services; (3) Compliance
reviews; (4) Interagency coordination; and (5) Title IV eligibility.
Under Murray's Bill additional requirements would include: (1)
Information availability; (2) Counselors for Education and Veterans
Benefits on site; and (3) Curbing misleading marketing and aggressive
recruiting.
IN CONCLUSION
This Congress cannot continue to allow For-Profit Colleges and
institutions in America to be so big that they can be allowed to take
advantage of the citizenry of any State, including military veterans,
members of the Guard or Reserves, veterans disabled in or after
service, women veterans, Black veterans, minority veterans nor veterans
homeless or of limited means. Congress needs to provide support to
reinforce or expand the Principles of Excellence as put forth in
Executive Order #13607 for the benefit of the persons it is designed to
serve.
This concludes my statement.
Executive Summary
With more and more reports coming out over the past 2 years about
how For-Profit Educational Institutions that receive GI Bill funding
are doing a disservice to students who are veterans; Executive Order
#13607 entitled ``Establishing Principles of Excellence for Educational
Institutions Serving Service Members, Veterans, Spouses, and other
Family Members'' is a generous step towards offering an opportunity for
these institutions to rectify this situation before pending legislation
is passed that will impose more severe regulatory remedies.
According to recent reports by the Government Accountability
Office, the National Bureau of Economic Research and Harvard University
researchers, students/veterans at For-Profit Colleges have lower
success rates than similar students in public and nonprofit colleges.
Reports also show lower graduation rates, employment outcomes, with
higher debt levels and loan default rates. Ongoing analysis being done
by the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
(HELP Committee), shows that the For-Profit Colleges receiving the
largest sums of money also have a large number of students dropping
out.
Enrollment at For-Profit Colleges and trade-schools has tripled in
the last decade to about 1.8 million, or nearly 10 percent of the
nation's higher education students. Evidence collected over the past
few years shows that For-Profit Colleges are misrepresenting their
programs and tuition costs. Rates are far higher than at public and
nonprofit institutions. And these schools, partly because they serve
poorer students who often need more supportive services, receive almost
a quarter of the federal aid.
It appears to be those federal aid dollars that has led many
admissions officers to use aggressive recruitment strategies targeted
to students who don't qualify academically for traditional colleges and
who have no chance of graduating and veterans, military members and
their spouses using the GI Bill, the Tuition Assistance (TA) program,
or the Military Spouse Career Advancement Accounts (MyCAA) program for
funding.
You see, since GI Bill benefits, TA and MyCAA funds do not
technically count as federal education benefits under the U.S.
Department of Education's 90-10 rule. An institution can increase
enrollments of veterans, military members and their spouses without
violating a rule that is based on a long-standing requirement that no
more than 90 percent of a For-Profit College's revenues can come from
federal financial aid. Thus, these institutions are receiving billions
of dollars in federal financial aid and still more in GI Bill, TA and
MyCAA funding. It's no wonder why these institutions have been
receiving increased profits in recent years.
In light of these findings, it's troubling to read news that For-
Profit Colleges are being allowed to continue these types of practices
with little or no accountability. No wonder why the Obama
administration wants to impose stricter operating rules for these For-
Profit Schools and have them establish Principles of Excellence.
Prepared Statement of Ryan M. Gallucci
MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE:
On behalf of the more than 2 million men and women of the Veterans
of Foreign Wars of the U.S. (VFW) and our Auxiliaries, I would like to
thank you for the opportunity to testify on the President's recent
executive order, ``Establishing Principles of Excellence for
Educational Institutions Serving Service Members, Veterans, Spouses and
Other Family Members.'' The VFW has been one of the leading voices on
Capitol Hill working to ensure that our service members and student-
veterans receive the educational opportunities they have been promised,
and we are happy to see that this Subcommittee takes this issue
seriously.
A recent Senate investigation and a series of GAO reports have
indicated that certain institutions of higher learning make a concerted
effort to recruit military and veteran students into their programs
with no intention of conferring relevant educational credentials. While
arguments can be made as to the validity of these claims, the fact
remains that these reports have created a perception in Washington that
taxpayer dollars used to fund military and veterans' education programs
have gone to waste and veterans are not receiving the education we
promised to them. During these difficult fiscal times, deficit hawks in
Washington have seized on this opportunity, looking for ways to scale
back these critical programs designed to mold a new generation of
American leaders. Last fall, both the House and Senate Veterans Affairs
Committees asked the Congressional Budget Office to score a series of
scenarios to scale back the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill, and included one such
scenario as a potential cost-savings measure in a ``Four Points''
letter to the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction. The U.S.
Marine Corps also announced that it would pare down its Tuition
Assistance program--a decision that Marine Corps leaders later
rescinded. To the VFW, threats to the continued viability of the Post-
9/11 G.I. Bill and military tuition assistance programs are very real,
which is why we have encouraged the House, Senate and Administration to
take quick, decisive action.
On April 27, the Administration took a bold first step in ensuring
our veterans receive the quality education we promised by signing
Executive Order #13607, and the VFW vocally supported this effort. Now,
we encourage Congress to follow the Administration's lead and pass the
education protection bills now before the committees of jurisdiction.
Since late last year, the VFW has consistently worked to build
consensus among the veterans' community and various sectors of higher
education to better understand the educational landscape encountered by
our student-veterans and to improve the information with which
potential student-veterans make academic decisions. In January, the VFW
spearheaded an effort calling on the House, Senate and the
Administration to improve front-end consumer education for student-
veterans and to codify complaint processes for student-veterans who
believe they were victims of fraud, waste or abuse. The letter, which
was co-signed by many of today's key witnesses, served as one of the
building blocks of the executive order and has been submitted as an
appendix to our testimony today.
As a direct result of this effort, bills have been drafted in both
the House and Senate that seek to codify exactly how VA can improve its
consumer education and consumer protection practices. Executive Order
#13607 reflects many of the ideas included in these bills, and the VFW
believes it offers VA, Department of Defense and Department of
Education the opportunity to jump start their collaborative efforts to
better serve our nation's student-veterans in advance of these
potential new laws. Some in Congress and in the media balked at the
executive order, but the VFW unequivocally supports the President's
efforts to exert his authority over his executive agencies within the
current limits of the law.
From conversations with VA and educational leaders leading up to
April 27, the VFW believes that many of the policy recommendations and
principles outlined in Executive Order #13607 are already in the works.
The President's message will now serve as the impetus for agencies to
act now.
Executive action, by nature, can be very limited in scope and
progress can be difficult to assess. With this in mind, the VFW concurs
with many of our veterans' service organization partners that we must
establish a formal advisory committee among veterans' advocates to
routinely monitor progress on implementation and hold agency officials
accountable for shortcomings, similar to the Advisory Committee on
Veterans' Entrepreneurship. We also encourage this Committee to host a
subsequent hearing on Executive Order #13607 at the 90-day mark from
implementation, at which time VA, DOD and Department of Education can
provide specific details on progress.
As VA, DOD, and Department of Education now must lay the groundwork
for carrying out Executive Order #13607, the VFW would like to explain
the rationale behind certain provisions of the executive order and how
we believe the agencies and schools should go about implementing them.
First, the VFW has heard concerns from schools over potential
administrative hurdles to comply with new ``Principles of Excellence''
established in the executive order. Fortunately, the VFW believes that
many of these principles will be explicitly codified in the DOD
Memorandum of Understanding now required for schools to participate in
the military's tuition assistance program. With schools already
agreeing to comply with these new standards, the VFW recommends that VA
adopt similar principles and establish information-sharing protocols
with DOD to minimize the administrative burden for schools and ensure
that quality information is available across all departments. The VFW
recognizes that a failure to adhere to these new standards will not
preclude schools from their eligibility to receive G.I. Bill dollars.
The role of State Approving Agencies to inspect and approve academic
programs must remain intact, and schools will still be listed in the
WEAMS database. However, VA will now have the leverage to offer
comprehensive information on schools and programs that see the value in
participating, offering better information with which student-veterans
can make a data-driven educational decision.
Second, the executive order calls on VA to provide data comparison
tools to student-veterans prior to accessing G.I. Bill benefits through
the eBenefits portal. This is the direct result of a VFW
recommendation. The VFW understands that VA seeks to ensure that all
beneficiaries will be enrolled in eBenefits; meaning access to VONAPP
and all benefit services will be conducted through the secure server.
This offers VA a unique opportunity to ensure that veterans have access
to quality information before they even start to fill out their online
application. However, the VFW must clarify that a simple link to the
200-plus data points on College Navigator is insufficient to satisfy
this data comparison requirement. We argue that College Navigator is
too difficult to understand and most of the information available is
completely irrelevant for a potential student-veteran. The VFW
recommends that VA identify at least five, but no more than 10,
specific data points with which veterans can compare educational
programs. We look forward to engaging with VA on exactly which data
points would be most beneficial to a potential student-veteran, and
continuing our discussions on how to best implement this provision of
the executive order.
Third, the VFW has heard concerns from schools about the proposed
anonymous complaint process for student-veterans, which we must
address. The genesis of this concept came from a meeting last fall
where VA administrators admitted that the agency lacked a formal
complaint process for student-veterans who believed they were victims
of fraud, waste and abuse; and that VA lacked the ability to formally
track and resolve any such complaints. As a result, the VFW and our
partners in the veterans' community called for a formal complaint
process and responsible redress mechanisms for student-veterans
administered by VA. The VFW believes this new complaint process can be
easily integrated into the current 1-800-GIBILL-1 hotline and the
eBenefits portal. To the VFW, the ``anonymous'' process only means that
a student's personally-identifiable information (PII) must be protected
to ensure students will not face retribution from their school. This is
similar to Department of Education policies, which must, by law,
similarly protect student PII. However, the VFW believes that the VA
must be able to verify a complainant's G.I. Bill status and enrollment
status at an institution before taking action on behalf of a veteran.
The VFW also believes that the formal complaint process must be
conducted in a responsible manner, ensuring that students have properly
exercised other available avenues of recourse before seeking VA
intervention. The VFW suggests that VA establish a threshold question
asking student-veterans who seek to file a complaint whether or not
they have already sought to resolve their issue with their school
administrators. The VFW does not want to see a witch hunt against
schools, but we do believe that student-veterans are entitled to proper
recourse through the fiduciary of their benefit - VA.
Finally, the VFW must address the issues facing State Approving
Agencies (SAAs), who are responsible for ensuring that only quality
programs are approved for G.I. Bill participation. This has been a sore
point for the VFW since the implementation of the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill
and the subsequent changes to the traditional roles of the SAAs. While
the executive order calls for the role of SAAs to be codified within
the complaint process, the VFW believes more must be done to ensure
that the front-line troops in education accountability have the
policies and resources in place to do their jobs. The VFW calls on this
Committee to host a subsequent hearing on the role of the SAAs to
ensure that policies are clear and relevant, to formally evaluate the
SAAs' relationship with VA, and to ensure that proper resources are
allocated to responsibly fulfill the mission of the SAAs.
The VFW recognizes that Executive Order #13607 is just the first
step in ensuring our student-veterans have the consumer education and
consumer protection resources they need to succeed in higher education.
Executive orders can go away. We still need protections outlined in
code to ensure that we can best serve our student-veterans. The Post-9/
11 G.I. Bill stands to be a transformative benefit for this generation
of war-fighters, helping to mold our nation's Next Greatest Generation
of leaders. We must protect this benefit at all costs. Unfortunately,
over the last few months, the VFW and our partners in veterans'
advocacy have felt hamstrung by an overwhelming lack of quality
information on student-veterans to either confirm reports of fraud,
waste and abuse, or to demonstrate student-veteran success in G.I. Bill
programs. Many of the provisions of Executive Order #13607 and the
bills currently before Congress will help to gather this kind of data
to help ensure future viability of the program and continued student-
veteran success in higher education. We hope that the executive order
will motivate Congress to quickly move legislation through both the
House and Senate to protect our nation's investment and ensure success
for our student-veterans.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement and I am happy to answer
any questions the Subcommittee may have.
Appendix:
Serving our Student Veterans
February 2, 2012
President Barack Obama
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20006
Dear Mr. President:
On behalf of the undersigned advocates in veterans' education, it
has come to our attention that many veterans choosing to pursue higher
education are actually becoming victims of institutions that fail to
fulfill their obligations to educate veterans eligible for the Post-9/
11 G.I Bill. In an effort to rein in bad actors across all sectors of
higher education, we urge your Administration and Congress to develop
and reform two key areas that will foster responsible decision-making
and protect veterans who seek to use their G.I. Bill benefits. At a
minimum, we ask you to respectfully consider these two ideas: Mandating
upfront counseling and developing a formal complaint process.
First, we believe VA has an obligation to ensure veterans receive
all of the educational counseling to which they are entitled under
Chapter 3697A of Title 38. VA must mandate this kind of up-front
counseling to student-veterans who use any chapter of the G.I. Bill;
particularly the robust Chapter 33 benefit. Only with proper counseling
can student-veterans make informed decisions about their benefits and
how best to meet their educational goals. Mandatory counseling could be
accomplished in a variety of ways, whether it is through the TAP
program, VA's eBenefits portal or other available outlets; but the
counseling must take place before veterans choose to enroll in an
academic program. Veterans who wish to waive this counseling should
still have this option through an ``opt-out'' system during the G.I.
Bill application process, but the current ``opt-in'' system, which less
than one percent of G.I. Bill beneficiaries utilized in 2010, leaves
many student-veterans inadequately prepared for academic life.
Second, to better understand the scope of problems facing today's
student-veterans, VA must establish a system to process and track
student complaints through existing infrastructure at the VA call
center, as well as an online portal, where student-veterans can
formally file complaints about benefits and report fraud, waste, and
abuse. Veteran complaints should be assigned a case file number and
tracked as VA works with State Approving Agencies, accrediting
agencies, individual schools, the Departments of Education, Justice,
Defense, and other agencies to find resolutions to their problems. A
clearing house for documented consumer complaints will allow VA and
other stakeholders to take decisive action against fraud, waste, or
abuse when necessary. Currently, student-veteran conflicts are resolved
on an ad-hoc basis with little communication among stakeholders.
Our coalition thanks you for your attention to these issues, and we
stand ready to assist, ensuring that our brave service members receive
the educational opportunities they have earned. These two proposals are
critical first steps in accomplishing this goal, while preserving
student-veteran choice in the marketplace. Thank you for taking the
lead on this initiative and for your continued support of our armed
forces and veterans. We look forward to working with you.
Sincerely,
Signature blocks enclosed
Jerome H. Sullivan
Executive Director
American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions
Officers
Terry W. Hartle
Senior Vice President
American Council on Education
Tim Tetz
Legislative Director
American Legion
Brian J. Moran
Interim President & CEO
General Counsel
Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities
Tom Tarantino
Deputy Policy Director
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America
Joyce E. Smith
Chief Executive Officer
National Association for College Admission Counseling
Chad Schatz
President
National Association of State Approving Agencies
Michael Dakduk
Executive Director
Student Veterans of America
William Pepicello Ph.D.
President
University of Phoenix
Raymond C. Kelly
Legislative Director
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S.
Information Required by Rule XI2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives
Pursuant to Rule XI2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives, VFW has
not received any federal grants in Fiscal Year 2012, nor has it
received any federal grants in the two previous Fiscal Years.
Prepared Statement of Tom Tarantino
Mister Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of the committee, on
behalf of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America's 200,000 Member
Veterans and supporters, thank you for inviting me to testify on the
President's Executive Order establishing principals of excellence for
education.
My name is Tom Tarantino and I am the Deputy Policy Director at
IAVA. I proudly served 10 years in the Army beginning my career as an
enlisted Reservist, and leaving service as an Active Duty Cavalry
Officer. Throughout these 10 years, my single most important duty was
to take care of other soldiers. In the military they teach us to have
each other's backs and, although my uniform is now a suit and tie, I am
proud to work with this Congress to continue to have the backs of
America's service members and veterans.
IAVA welcomes and supports Executive Order No.13607, which will
help empower student veterans to make educational choices that meet
their needs. We believe that with proper implementation, this order
will begin to provide veterans and their families with clarity about
their educational choices. We also believe that this order complements
several more robust legislative initiatives already under consideration
in both the House and the Senate. By signing this executive order, the
President has initiated a process that, if addressed by legislation
alone, the various agencies would have to wait months to work on. We
firmly believe that sound implementation of this executive order
coupled with passage of bills offered by this Committee and your
counterpart in the Senate will provide timely clarity for student
veterans about their educational choices. In addition, it will prevent
consumers from falling pray to bad information and predatory practices
in higher education.
Thoughtful implementation of this executive order will be the key
to its success and the potential success of any forthcoming legislative
initiatives. To achieve success, we must address two questions: 1) What
are the outcomes that consumers need to make sound choices? 2) How will
benefits and/or federal aid pay for the education that veterans and
service members need?
For most students, chosing a school is not a data-driven process.
This is largely due to the lack of usable consumer information
available to prospective students. While schools are required to report
a wide range of information to the Department of Education, there is no
clear way to synthesize that information into a usable tool to empower
consumers to make choices that fit their needs. The National Center for
Education Statistics' College Navigator is a tool that displays
hundreds of data points. However, the information that is displayed is
not clear, uniform or useful to consumers deciding where to spend their
GI Bill dollars. Furthermore, an even cursory review of College
Navigator exposes broad inconsistencies in the information reported to
the Department of Education. For example, Patten College is a private
nonprofit college in Oakland, CA. A review of their data from College
Navigator shows an unremarkable demographic distribution of students
(See tables below). However, when you look at graduation rates, the
data indicates that of the 64% of students who graduate all are Asian
females. Either there happens to be a strong cultural bias in the
curriculum of Patten University, or the information on College
Navigator is not displayed or reported in a usable manner. While this
is an extreme example, inconsistencies like this are common when using
College Navigator. It is clearly not designed to be a consumer
education tool. Although I do not believe that this Executive Order
will necessarily clean up bad reporting, it will expose schools that
are reporting bad numbers and give consumers an indication that a
school might not be entirely on the level.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
IAVA is also concerned about the multiple reported abuses from the
for-profit industry. Currently, there is no clear method to separate
schools that provide quality programs from the ones that are only
trying to profit from veterans' benefits.
Several for-profit colleges are valued participants in higher
education. They provide veterans with a service that is not widely
available in traditional non-profit universities, including online and
vocational programs that offer highly technical degrees that are
largely unavailable at traditional non-profit, public and private
colleges. Essentially, they give veterans and their families the
flexibility to obtain the career-ready education required to be
competitive in the workforce.
Unfortunately, it's difficult to separate the good actors from the
bad actors in for-profit education. Many for-profit schools are
excessively expensive, plagued with high drop out rates, and engage in
very aggressive and sometimes deceptive marketing and recruiting
practices targeted at veterans. By clearly displaying data on student
success and engaging veterans with robust consumer education, we can
separate the good schools from the bad actors and allow student
veterans to make a more informed choices. While all for-profit schools
are required to report gainful employment metrics, there is no uniform
or usable way to synthesize that information for consumers. There are
for-profit institutions like the East-West College of the Healing Arts
(where my sister received an excellent education) that report student
outcomes on their website in a full and useful manner (See table
above). Their reporting is useful to prospective students, who want to
understand how attending the school will affect their employment
prospects after graduation. In contrast, finding data from the
University of Phoenix is a laborious exercise in frustration. When
using College Navigator to compare like programs at many of these
institutions, the data often do not match up. This executive order does
not solve all of the problems with the for-profit industry. However,
coupled with legislation currently before Congress, it will help
student veterans obtain the information they need to choose a quality
degree that meets their needs.
Full-Time Programs. Students who enrolled in the full-time
programs (4-term 600-hour, 4-term 801-hour and 5-term 1002-
hour) from April 2008 through January 2009:
124 began these programs, 103 completed these
programs
The completion rate is 83%
Of the 103 who completed these programs, 97 were
eligible for employment, and we were able to verify employment
for 70.
The placement rate is 72%
Part-Time Programs. Students who enrolled in the part-time
programs (6-term 600-hour, 6-term 801-hour or 7-term 1002-hour)
from July 2007 through April 2008:
137 began these programs, 80 completed these programs
The completion rate is 59%
Of the 80 who completed these programs, 78 were
eligible for employment, and we were able to verify employment
for 57.
The placement rate is 73%
Even if this executive order coupled with legislation fixes
the errors and inconsistencies with student outcome data, we
must tie that data to a tool that student veterans can use to
determine what benefits or aid they are eligible for and how
they may be used to help pay for their education. For our part,
IAVA has developed and successfully produced and distributed a
free GI Bill calculator for veterans at www.newgibill.org. This
calculator remains the only comprehensive tool available for
prospective student veterans to determine how to best use their
Post-9/11 GI Bill. Nothing like this calculator currently
exists from the VA or Department of Education. Identifying
metrics students can use to choose a college is important, but
these ultimately must be coupled with the ability to determine
how they can use their benefits to help achieve their goals.
IAVA is also concerned with trademarking the phrase ``GI
Bill.'' There is a clear problem with deceptive websites
misusing the phrase GI Bill to mask marketing for services.
Searching ``GI Bill'' on Google reveals pages of deceptive
websites that are designed to market for-profit schools to
prospective students without providing them useful information
about their benefits. Veterans who submit their information to
these websites are often subjected to aggressive recruiting and
harassment. Trademarking a phrase like ``GI Bill'' will allow
the government to restrict many of those deceptive practices. I
am concerned, however, that there is no instruction in the
executive order to protect websites like IAVA's
www.newgibill.org that provide students with critical
information and assistance with their benefits that the
government is unwilling or unable to provide. When implementing
this order, there must be clearly defined exceptions. Almost a
million veterans have used IAVA's www.newgibill.org to
calculate their benefits, gather information about changes to
the GI Bill, and receive help in understanding this complex
benefit. We must ensure that we are protecting veterans, not
inadvertently restricting the ability for veterans to gain
valuable information, especially when the DoD and VA are not
yet providing it.
IAVA is also concerned about housing a consumer information
tool in the eBenefits portal. eBenefits is a helpful tool for
veterans to gain information about their DoD and VA services.
But access to eBenefits remains a serious problem and continued
improvement is necessary. Currently, access to eBenefits is
tied to enrollment in the DoD's DEERS system. While efforts to
enroll separating service members in eBenefits during the
Transition Assistance Programs (TAP) is an excellent step, a
significant number of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are no
longer serving. For these veterans, access to eBenefits is far
too complicated to be useful. Even if you develop the best
consumer education tool in the world, it's useless if consumers
have trouble accessing it. To remedy this, IAVA recommends
that, in addition to being housed at eBenefits, the consumer
information tool must also be available at www.gibill.va.gov.
IAVA applauds the President's directive to establish a
consumer complaint system and wants to ensure that the system
is effective. One of the biggest problems with the GI Bill is
that there is currently no method for student veterans to
report problems with their benefits or report fraud, waste, and
abuse by their school. Judging by the amount of complaints I
see regularly from our members submitted to IAVA's
www.newgibill.org, there is a clear need for the government to
establish a basic customer service and complaint mechanism. For
the program to be effective, the intake must be housed in the
VA. All intakes must be integrated with 1-888-GIBILL-1 and
located at www.gibill.va.gov. The VA is the face of veterans'
services within the government. Housing this service anywhere
else makes zero sense from a practical or business perspective.
Executive Order No.13607 will not solve all the problems
faced by student veterans, however it is a good start. Congress
must be vigilant in addressing many of the implementation
issues that have been addressed here today. Additionally,
Congress must continue its work to pass pending legislation
such as H.R. 4057 (Bilirakis), H.R. 4052 (Stutzman) that will
make many of the provisions of this Executive Order more robust
and permanent. Congress also must address several of the
regulatory loopholes that are being exploited by many schools
by passing H.R. 4055 (Speier), and H.R. 4390 (Grijalva). These
bills will help restore free-market control to the for-profit
school industry and will prevent veterans from being harassed
by marketers and aggressive recruiters.
The Post-9/11 GI Bill is the most significant veterans'
benefit since World War II. With it, veterans and their
families have the opportunity build a first class future and
shape the destiny of the New Greatest Generation. As veterans,
advocates, educators, and lawmakers we all have a shared
responsibility to ensure that every student veteran is
empowered to use their benefits wisely and build a first class
future. This is why IAVA supports the President's Executive
Order No.13607 and looks forward to working with Congress to
pass pending legislation on this issue.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Prepared Statement of Michael Dakduk
Chairman Stutzman, Ranking Member Braley and members of the
Subcommittee:
Thank you for inviting Student Veterans of America to address the
Subcommittee on the President's Executive Order 13607, ``Establishing
Principles of Excellence for Educational Institutions Serving Service
Members, Veterans, Spouses, and Other Family Members.'' Student
Veterans of America (SVA) currently has over 450 Chapters at colleges
and universities across the nation assisting veterans in their
education experiences on a daily basis. This direct contact gives SVA a
unique perspective on the needs and obstacles faced by our nation's
veterans as they return to their communities to enroll in educational
opportunities and later, reintegrate into the civilian workforce. Our
goal is to provide the resources and support for student veterans to
thrive in post-secondary education and contribute to civilian society
in meaningful ways. As you are likely aware, we recently conducted an
annual review of all of our chapters, both for-profit and non-profit,
and found that 26 for-profit schools were suspected of creating fake
chapters in order to recruit student veterans. We subsequently revoked
their memberships per our charter. That perspective provides the
framework for our testimony this morning.
The issues addressed in Executive Order 13607 carry great
significance for our nation's veterans, service members, and families.
It reflects highly on this Subcommittee and the Executive Branch that
such attention is being paid to addressing and resolving the challenges
faced by some veterans who are targeted by `bad actors' in the
education system. Without the vigilance and oversight of the Congress,
and this Subcommittee in particular, we cannot hope to craft the
policies that will protect those who serve, and have served, and ensure
that we have an effective and functional G.I Bill. We strongly believe
that the education and protection of our nation's warriors is not a
partisan issue, and we are heartened to see that under both parties
this Committee has always worked towards those ends.
Because SVA is so regularly and intimately involved with the
obstacles and challenges of our nation's student veterans, we believe
we have an effective institutional lens to measure the success of
today's educational programs for veterans. Executive Order 13607 takes
up a few very important unresolved issues that impact the lives and
educational experiences of some veterans who enroll in programs that
take may advantage of them as well as the taxpayer.
SVA is deeply invested in this matter. Educational institutions,
for profit schools, private corporations, federal, and state
governments must work together to protect those using the G.I Bill and
tuition assistance. Without protections, fraud would run rampant and
the benefit will not meet its objectives. We appreciate the initiative
that President Obama has demonstrated in signing this order; it is a
strong first step. However, we believe there are issues identified in
the Executive Order that may require the force of law, and that can
only be addressed by the Congress. Those issues are outlined below.
With respect to Section 1 of the Executive Order:
SVA agrees that there are institutions that have engaged in
improper behavior with respect to their recruitment of veterans and
service members. The vast majority of these are for-profit educational
institutions. However, we also recognize that many of SVA's members
studying at technical and vocational training programs that run on a
for-profit basis have been treated well, are happy with their
experience, and go on to find meaningful employment. SVA is a strong
supporter of online education and vocational training. We believe that
policies and the law should target bad actors, whether they are for-
profit or non-profit, without unduly burdening good actors in the
industry. A set of ``Principles of Excellence'' is an appropriate step
toward addressing this issue.
With respect to Section 2 of the Executive Order:
Section a: Choosing an educational institution is an expensive and
life-altering decision. Many veterans are the first people in their
families to attend college. Others have been without a high school
guidance counselor for more than a decade. Complete information is
essential for those using the G.I. Bill and Tuition Assistance to make
sound decisions. By understanding the costs of these programs, their
likely level of indebtedness, and probable outcomes, student veterans
will be able to choose their educational programs more wisely. Better
choices will lead to better outcomes and a more efficient use of
taxpayer dollars. It serves no one to spend taxpayer dollars to produce
students who are deeply in debt, have no marketable job skills, or
transferable credits when they leave.
SVA also recognizes that schools may be burdened by the requirement
to collect and provide this information. However, it is our position
that this burden is far outweighed by the benefits of attracting those
veterans who are eligible for education benefits, and remain convinced
that schools would need to only provide slightly more information to
the VA to paint an accurate picture. Veterans, service members, and
military families not only bring large amounts of federal funding, but
also bring rich diversity and spirit to any campus. Veterans bring a
unique set of experiences with them that enrich the classroom and the
dialogue on campus. Few college students have faced the challenges or
overcome the hardships that military members and their families deal
with every day.
We believe most schools want to make themselves attractive to this
population for more than just financial gain. Therefore, we support the
provision of information collection and believe schools have a
responsibility to report required data and information on student
veterans.
Taxpayer dollars must be directed to those educational institutions
that can best provide for this constituency. Good schools have nothing
to lose by demonstrating the merits of their programs and SVA has no
concerns for either the burden to, or any loss of enrollment from, bad
actors as a result of these policies.
Section b: Notification of eligibility for federal aid reduces the
burden on already overburdened students. Reducing the long-term debt
that a student must incur increases the likelihood of positive outcomes
and makes money spent on those students more efficient. SVA supports
this provision.
Section c: SVA strongly believes it is important to enact
safeguards for Service members. The American public expects that the
military and other federal agencies will protect our troops on the
battlefield. It is only right to expect that these Service members and
their families will be protected from fraud and abuse at home.
Section d: SVA also believes it is essential that federal dollars
be spent on programs that are likely to lead to meaningful employment
and good careers. Requiring accrediting agency approval ensures the
integrity of new course offerings and protects both students and
institutions. That being said, we also believe that some accrediting
bodies are part of the problem, in that they do not provide strict or
meaningful standards for schools to meet. We once again call on the
Congress to require the Department of Education to clearly define
accreditation standards on public websites, and especially to define
the difference between ``national'' and ``regional'' accreditation.
This is one of the greatest complaints we hear from our membership and
continues to lead to great confusion. This Subcommittee would be well
suited to hold a hearing on accreditation standards as they relate to
student veteran enrollment, retention and the transfer credit
nightmares that result from this simple yet misleading distinction
Sections e and f: Interruptions in education due to military
service obligations are not uncommon. They are necessary and reasonable
given the enormous responsibilities that Service members carry.
However, these interruptions can be disastrous for the student veteran.
Those affected can be left with wasted benefits, education plans that
are completely derailed, and lifelong goals cast into uncertainty. The
immediate loss to educational institutions is far less than the overall
waste of taxpayer money resulting from policies that require forfeiture
of tuition and fees payments. Additionally, it is in the interest of
all educational institutions to provide good outcomes for their
students. A refund-reenrollment policy that allows for service related
absences helps to facilitate those outcomes by reducing uncertainty and
protecting the student's progress.
Therefore, SVA strongly supports this provision. We encourage
Congress to consider enacting even stronger legislation, as
appropriate, to protect the progress of students who are forced to
curtail their education due to military Service obligations. In this
regard, SVA stands ready to assist the Subcommittee in drafting such a
Bill and monitoring its implementation.
Sections g and h: Student veterans and Service members are highly
skilled and highly trained. However, they are not generally trained in
the development of education plans. As a consequence, they require
assistance to develop realistic goals. Having a good academic plan and
regular academic advising and other counseling improves their chances
of completing their programs and graduating with marketable
credentials. We believe it is reasonable to require that schools take
every measure to establish policies that facilitate the success of
students receiving the G.I. Bill and tuition assistance. These simple
measures will do a great deal to facilitate that success.
Most schools already provide some form of assistance and advising
to all students. Those that do not ought to. If schools without these
programs in place expect the extraordinary amounts of G.I. Bill funding
to continue, they should do as their peers do and take steps to ensure
the success of their students. The burdens of such provisions are
unlikely to fall heavily on schools already invested in their students
because they already have such policies in place.
With respect to section 3 of the Executive Order:
Sections a, b, and c: SVA believes the agencies that are listed in
this section of the Executive Order are appropriate to execute it. We
remain available to assist both the Congress and the Executive Branch
with the development and implementation of these Principles of
Excellence. Of all of the Veterans' Service Organizations, SVA is most
deeply affected by these principles and we are eager to ensure that
they are crafted and implemented to the greatest advantage for student
veterans, Service members, and military families.
We strongly believe that subsection c, which requires outcome
measures, is essential for the long-term viability of the Post 9/11 GI
Bill and other such benefits. The 1944 GI Bill is repeatedly cited for
its economic impact and creating the middle class. This is only
possible because we know how many returning Service members completed
degrees when they returned home. How is it that we have this
information about the 1940s and 50s, and not since 2001? SVA has been
calling for uniform standards to track graduation and outcome rates
since the Post 9/11 GI Bill was written, and we call on the Congress to
join us. This is not only important for data on which schools are
performing better than others, but also for the essential Congressional
oversight that this Subcommittee is charged with conducting.
Though the Executive Order establishes protections for students
using educational benefits, SVA recognizes that it is not possible for
the Executive Branch to enact policies to the extent they are needed.
Specifically, provisions requiring a refund-readmit policy are based on
participation in the Yellow Ribbon Program. This gives schools the
option to simply opt out of provisions they find burdensome. However,
were such protections given the force of law, schools would have to
openly decline all federal funding in order to opt out of these
provisions.
For example, because existing law does not extend to protecting
Service members whose education is interrupted, Congress should
consider strengthening certain provisions of the Uniformed Services
Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). By amending USERRA to
include a requirement for schools receiving federal funding to have a
refund-readmit policy for the protection of students whose educations
are interrupted, Congress will safeguard both taxpayer dollars and
student success.
Section d: SVA supports the improvement of the eBenefits portal
operated by the Department of Veterans Affairs. We know from experience
that the easier it is to compare opportunities, the more likely it is
that students will make good decisions. All institutions should be
transparent, and they should include tools for comparison and
evaluation that help student veterans make better decisions. Successful
programs will win out over unsuccessful programs, as they should in a
free market.
With respect to Section 4 of the Executive Order:
Sections a, b, c, and d: SVA strongly supports the establishment of
a unified system for accepting complaints by those using educational
benefits. While State Approving Agencies (SAA) already have provisions
in place for complaints, these systems are often difficult to access
and they lack uniform standards for conduct. We also know from
experience that SAAs will refer most complaints back to the VA anyway.
By establishing a more formal complaint process, VA can clarify roles
and responsibilities for each Federal agency involved. It is only
logical that a Federal agency be involved in the enforcement and
protection of a Federal benefit like the GI Bill or Tuition Assistance.
Such a system should be developed in cooperation with SAAs and
include clear mechanisms for enforcement and resolution of complaints.
SVA does not believe it is proper for the VA to dictate to SAAs how to
operate their complaint systems, but rather feels that it is in
everyone's best interests to create uniformity and clarity in the
system that already exists.
SVA believes that Congress can strengthen this system by mandating
a cooperative process between the VA and SAAs to establish a national
system for the acceptance and resolution of complaints by students
receiving educational benefits. It is essential that there be a
workable, reliable and credible mechanism by which students can seek
resolution to complaints regarding their institution or benefits.
Lacking such a resource, many veterans and Service members simply
choose to curtail their education. This wastes not only the valuable
potential of those students, but also the taxpayer monies spent prior
to curtailment. It is far better to provide an outlet for complaints,
and a mechanism for their resolution, than to accept the loss to the
nation, both tangible and intangible, that results from students
dropping out.
Section e: SVA knows it is entirely reasonable and necessary for
the Department of Defense to restrict access to military bases. In this
regard, SVA can be an important resource because our Chapters and
members are available to assist the Department, the military services,
or individual base commanders with institutions requesting access to
military bases. SVA does not support a blanket prohibition of
educational institutions from visiting military bases. On the contrary,
we support strengthening and unifying a vetting and compliance process
for any institution requesting access to military facilities.
Section f: SVA strongly supports the trademarking of the term, ``GI
Bill'' and any other related terms to prevent deceptive marketing
practices. We believe it is important for Congress to support a
trademark process because these terms need to be protected to ensure
their integrity regardless of who is responsible for their protection.
While it is not specifically addressed in this Executive Order or
in today's Subcommittee Hearing, SVA would like to take this
opportunity to call for an amendment to the so called, ``90/10 rule.''
SVA supports the various bi-partisan and bi-cameral Bills pending that
would effect such a change. Common sense dictates that schools that are
required to receive no more than 90% of their income from the federal
government should not be able to skirt this rule by accepting the
overage in veterans' benefits. Requiring competition for 10% of revenue
is a reasonable mechanism for ensuring this and strengthens the free-
market in education.
Quite frankly, any business that complains about having to compete
for 10% of their customers should not be in business. We strongly
challenge the sentiment that a change to 90/10 or the requirements
contained in this Executive Order somehow inhibits a school's ability
to compete. Any school that claims they would have to raise prices on
student veterans in order to accommodate the change is free to do so.
SVA is confident that student veterans will vote with their feet,
especially considering the astronomical profits that these schools
return to their shareholders on Wall Street while still charging the
taxpayer full price. A mere fraction of what most for-profits spend on
marketing and recruiting should more than cover any imposed cost with
being honest brokers of this money.
In conclusion, SVA believes the provisions of the Executive Order
requiring transparency, accountability, and preventing fraud, waste,
and abuse are reasonable to ensure better educational opportunities for
veterans and fair competition for educational institutions. It is all
together proper for the federal government to mandate that educational
institutions provide information to veterans about their programs
regardless of where they attend classes. The Executive Order,
strengthened by legislation SVA has recommended, will make it more
likely that institutions providing good value and service will win out,
just as they should in a free market.
Student Veterans of America is grateful for the opportunity to
provide this testimony. We thank the Chairman and the Subcommittee
members for their time, attention, and devotion to the cause of higher
education. We look forward to continuing to work with this Subcommittee
and the Congress in the future to ensure the success of all generations
of veterans through education.
Thank you for allowing Student Veterans of America to participate
in this important Hearing.
Executive Summary
Student Veterans of America (SVA) strongly supports any action that
protects student veterans, their families, and their benefits. Our
efforts will always be dedicated to ensuring that those who have served
our country can use the benefits they earned to advance their lives and
careers. Any school that attempts to gain from the generous Post 9/11
GI Bill, and other military and veteran federal benefits, without
providing outstanding education and outcomes to the student veterans
who place their trust in their hands should be vigorously prosecuted.
Despite numerous bi-partisan efforts by the Congress to address this
growing issue, taxpayer dollars continue to be wasted on highly-
marketed, but poorly-performing schools with high loan-default rates
and low graduation-rates. SVA Executive Order #13607 in order to curb
these trends and calls on Congress to continue on the momentum to make
long-lasting protections a reality.
SVA supports full disclosure of debt loads and institutional
performance before enrollment. We know from our extensive experience
with this population that there is simply too much bad or misleading
information out there about schools claiming to be ``veteran-friendly''
and their supposedly strong academic records. Requiring schools to
disclose accurate information before a student veteran enrolls levels
the playing field and enables student veterans to make well-informed
decisions. This action will ultimately allow the market economy to
choose which schools provide the best outcomes and thus deserve to be
stewards of GI Bill dollars.
SVA supports the requirement of every student veteran to have an
academic advisor and academic plan. This is commonplace in most
reputable schools, and those institutions that do not currently offer
this must implement this immediately to ensure our veterans are working
towards a realistic academic or career goal.
SVA strongly supports publishing outcome measures and graduation
rates. Without data and statistics, it will be impossible to know the
true impact of benefits as generous as the Post 9/11 GI Bill. This
information is also critical to effective Congressional oversight, and
we remain concerned that the program's impact up to now will be lost
without retroactive efforts.
SVA supports a unified system to report complaints at schools. We
have consistently asked for a formal, well-publicized process for
student veterans to raise issues with their educational institutions to
the appropriate federal authorities. Given the amount of federal
dollars being made available, it is essential to create a centralized
complaint center that allows student veterans to raise legitimate
concerns about bad actors in the post-secondary education space.
SVA supports uniform policies for access to military bases by
educational institutions. We constantly hear about some schools being
allowed on base in some places, and others not, and this makes it
challenging for Service members to start their academic pursuits while
in uniform. Having consistency across all bases will help ensure that
good schools have access and predatory ones are kept out.
Prepared Statement of Judith Flink
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: My name is Judith Flink.
I serve as Executive Director of University Student Financial Services
for the three campuses of the University of Illinois. I have worked in
the University's business office and been actively involved in higher
education for over 30 years. I am testifying today on behalf of the
National Association of College and University Business Officers
(NACUBO), which represents chief financial officers and their staff at
more than 2,100 public and nonprofit colleges and universities.
NACUBO's mission is to promote sound administrative and financial
management of institutions of higher education. On behalf of the
University of Illinois, NACUBO, and my colleagues at institutions
across the country who strive to encourage and support our nation's
veterans, service members, and their families seeking higher education,
I thank you for this opportunity to testify. In particular, I would
like to thank Rep. Stutzman and his staff for this invitation - it is
an honor for me to be here today.
NACUBO shares the President's goals as outlined in his April 27th
Executive Order establishing principles of excellence for educational
institutions serving veterans, service members and their families. We
affirm that these students--indeed all students--deserve high quality
academic and support services that enable them to make informed
decisions about their education. We strongly support safeguards against
abusive and deceptive recruiting practices.
Most, but not all, of the President's principles align with
existing U.S. Department of Education (ED) requirements for
institutions that participate in Title IV federal student aid programs.
Those principles will not inflict additional cost or burden on our
member institutions. But we do have serious concerns about some of the
provisions and potential implications of the Executive Order. Our
concerns are as follows:
1. Section 2(a) requires institutions ``prior to enrollment,
[to] provide prospective students who are eligible to receive Federal
military and veterans' educational benefits with a personalized and
standardized form . . . to help those prospective students understand
the total cost of the educational program; the type and amount of
financial aid they may qualify for; their estimated student loan debt;
information about student outcomes; and other information to facilitate
comparison of aid packages offered by different educational
institutions.'' The intended outcome of this requirement may sound
beneficial but in reality it makes assumptions about what institutions
know about prospective students and when they know it. Prospective
students seldom identify themselves by which federal aid benefits they
are eligible to receive. Often, particularly at open access community
colleges, students don't file their Free Application for Federal
Student Aid (FAFSA) or identify themselves as eligible for veterans'
benefits until after they have enrolled. They routinely wait until
after classes start to apply for aid and veterans' educational benefits
rendering this requirement impossible for schools to administer and
enforce.
The requirement also fails to understand that institutions do
not have access to the information that would enable them to accurately
estimate a student's eligibility for veterans' educational benefits. ED
relies on the privacy strictures of the Family Educational Rights and
Privacy Act (FERPA) to trust institutions with detailed information
about students concerning the amount of their federal financial aid
package. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), on the other hand,
historically had little or no direct communication with schools until
the advent of Chapter 33. So the VA has not developed procedures to
communicate that information to schools and holds tightly to
information about veterans and their eligibility for education
benefits.
Furthermore, the requirement under Section 2(a) assumes that
institutions will use a prototype of the standardized financial aid
award letter being drafted by ED and the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau. However, consensus on this issue has not been reached in the
higher education community. While there is broad support for the use of
standardized terms and definitions, we are concerned that imposition of
specific formats will not serve the needs of students and their
families given the enormous variation in educational programs. The
National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators has
convened a task force to make recommendations in this area. We strongly
encourage the President, VA, and Department of Defense (DoD) to await
and consider the task force's final report which is expected to be
released soon.
2. Section 2(e), to allow service members and reservists to be
readmitted to a program if they are temporarily unable to attend class,
needs further clarification. It fails to stipulate how long an absence
might be termed temporary or what an institution is required to do when
service members return to a program that has been eliminated during
their absence.
3. Section 2(f) is even more ambiguous. It requires institutions
to agree to an institutional refund policy aligned with the rules for
unearned student aid developed by the Department of Education. While it
references ED's statutorily mandated return of Title IV funds policy,
it appears to go further and could create significant enrollment
planning and budgeting challenges for institutions of higher education.
The Department of Education's refund policy applies only to
federal aid and permits colleges and universities to set their own
institutional refund policies. Some institutions have aligned their
refund policies with the ED policy but the vast majority has not. This
is because when a student enrolls in a class and takes that seat, the
institution has committed its resources to provide the promised
instruction. If the student drops out, the institution cannot go out
and find another student to fill that slot, so the committed resources
are lost.
If the intent of this provision is to dictate an institution's
refund policy for Veterans' educational benefits, that policy will be
costly for schools to administer. The cost will vary depending on the
institution and the number of veterans served. But all institutions,
especially those that enroll significant numbers of veterans and
service members, already struggle to keep up with the manual effort
required to certify veterans. In many instances, institutions must
certify a service member twice, once for their housing allowance and
once for tuition and fees. Schools must also comply with DoD billing
and payment processes that are not standardized across the various
branches, as well as untangle the inevitable knots of confusion that
arise in both programs. Creating a separate refund policy for this
population of students would add yet another layer of disruptive, if
not prohibitive, administrative burden associated with educating these
students.
4. Section 2(g) also needs clarification. Its requirement to
``provide educational plans for all individuals using Federal military
and veterans' educational benefits'' is similar to the confusing
provision that appeared in the DoD Memorandum of Understanding for the
Tuition Assistance program last year. The confusion caused by that
requirement took months to clarify and turned out to mean something
very different to institutions than it did to DoD. In order to
forestall needless confusion and misunderstanding, it is important that
institutions have the opportunity to discuss the intent of the
underlying policy before it is implemented.
5. We support the requirement in section 2(h) that institutions
``designate a point of contact for academic and financial advising . .
. to assist service member and veteran students and their families...''
Those of us at the University of Illinois, and my colleagues at other
colleges and universities who assist service members and veterans, are
passionate about providing the best possible advice and support to
these students. Many schools have instituted special programs designed
to help ensure their success. Much as we support this requirement,
however, our ability to provide adequate financial counseling to
veterans is severely impeded by the VA's tightly held control over most
veteran information including their eligibility for VA education
benefits and their indebtedness to the agency. College and university
advisors cannot assist veterans who have debts to settle with the VA,
or inform them about the consequences of failing to make payment
arrangements, if we do not know the debt exists. Nor can we help
veterans resolve payment discrepancies when VA staff members refuse to
speak with us. So we ask Congress to consider revising applicable
privacy statutes to allow the VA to share pertinent debt and benefit
eligibility with the veteran's educational institution. Without that,
it will be challenging for institutions to comply with this provision.
6. Section 3 which addresses student outcomes is not directed at
institutions, but we are concerned because it will have an impact on
us. Student outcomes may be difficult to measure and may prove
misleading to the public. Many veterans and service members are
nontraditional students; many attend multiple institutions during their
educational career and each of the institutions contributes to the
student's success. Some veterans and service members achieve their
educational goals by completing a small number of classes that provide
specific knowledge or skills required for their service or employment.
These students would regard their completion of these courses as a
successful outcome, whereas the measurements included in the Executive
Order which are based solely on graduation rates would not.
Mr. Chairman, I have outlined problems that NACUBO and its members
have with Executive Order 13607. In light of these significant
concerns, we ask that the agencies tasked with implementing this
Executive Order actively consult with institutions and the
organizations that represent them (like NACUBO, ACE, AASCU, and AACRAO)
as they develop the necessary rules. ED is required by law to utilize a
negotiated rulemaking process when drafting Title IV rules. This
process solicits input from stakeholders thereby giving ED a clearer
understanding of the impact, obstacles, and potential consequences of
its actions enabling it to write better rules. The lack of similar
negotiated rulemaking processes or consultation between the DoD, VA,
and educational institutions has created mountainous obstacles due to a
simple lack of understanding of each party's policies, procedures, and
language. Greater collaboration in the development of rules and sub-
regulatory guidance would much better serve not just the DoD, VA, and
institutions, but most importantly, the veterans, service members, and
their families we all strive to serve. Indeed when discussions between
the VA, DOD, and institutions have occurred, consensus, clarity, and
workable policy have been achieved.
I can personally attest to the success of such dialogue. Since
implementation of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, I have had the pleasure of
participating in a NACUBO work group that has met quarterly with VA
representatives to address issues involved in processing Chapter 33
tuition benefits. These meetings always end with both sides walking
away better informed about how the other party operates. VA
participants gain a better understanding of institutional processes;
institutional participants gain a better understanding of VA policies,
procedures, and challenges. These meetings have established a
productive relationship that we hope will continue. We sincerely
appreciate the dedication of our VA participants and the difficult
challenges they face as they implement a large scale educational
benefits program.
And while these dialogues have been helpful, there is no
established or formal structure to them. They have occurred only
because of the willingness and commitment of the parties involved in
the process. I would therefore like to propose the creation of an
official Advisory Group with a defined membership and structure to work
in partnership and develop workable solutions as we implement new VA
and DoD policy and procedures. I believe this will go a long way to
bring consensus and efficiency to the schools, our partner agencies in
the Federal government and service members alike.
In conclusion, let me reiterate the commitment of NACUBO's
membership to ensuring that our service members receive the education
they deserve in a streamlined and efficient process. We understand the
need to protect our returning soldiers from unscrupulous practices but
we have significant concerns with the implementation of the
requirements in the President's recent Executive Order. We believe that
further clarification and discussions are necessary so that all parties
can gain understanding and move toward consensus on developing an
efficient, sensible policy.
Thank you again for the opportunity to present NACUBO's position on
Executive Order 13607. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you
might have.
Executive Summary
The National Association of College and University Business
Officers, representing over 2,100 public and nonprofit colleges and
universities, shares the President's goals as outlined in his April
27th Executive Order (EO) establishing principles of excellence for
educational institutions serving veterans, members of the armed
services, and their families. These students deserve high quality
academic and support services to enable them to make informed
decisions. We strongly support safeguards against abusive or deceptive
recruiting practices.
Most, but not all, of the President's principles align with
existing U.S. Department of Education (ED) requirements for
institutions that participate in Title IV federal student aid programs.
Those principles will not inflict additional cost or burden on our
member institutions. But we do have serious concerns about some of the
provisions and potential implications of the EO, including the
following:
1. Section 2(a) requires institutions to provide prospective
students with a broad range of information on an individualized
standard form. Prospective students do not routinely identify
themselves by federal aid eligibility, making it difficult for
institutions to know who should receive the form, nor are institutions
able to accurately estimate veterans' benefits. While there is broad
support for the use of standard terms and definitions and the
development of model formats, the imposition of specific formats will
not serve the needs of students given the enormous variation in
educational programs.
2. Section 2(f) would mandate institutional refund policies in a
manner similar to the ED's policy used for returning unearned Title IV
funds. The ED policy permits colleges and universities to set their own
refund policies. If a student drops out, the institution cannot go out
and find another student to fill that slot, so the committed resources
are lost.
3. We support the requirement in section 2(h) for a designated
point of contact for academic and financial advising, but our ability
to provide adequate financial counseling is severely impeded by the
VA's tightly held control over most veteran information, including
their eligibility for VA education benefits and indebtedness to the
agency.
4. In section 3, we are concerned that student outcomes may be
difficult to measure and may be misleading to the public. Veterans and
service members are often nontraditional students with educational
goals that may differ from traditional students. They often attend
multiple institutions and each contributes to their success. Progress
should not be measured solely on graduation rates.
We hope that the agencies tasked with carrying out the EO will
actively consult with key constituencies as they develop the necessary
rules. Lack of consultation between DoD, VA, and educational
institutions has created obstacles due to a simple lack of
understanding of each party's policies, procedures, and language.
In conclusion, I reiterate the commitment of NACUBO's membership to
ensuring that our service members receive the education they deserve in
a streamlined and efficient process. We understand the need to protect
our returning soldiers from unscrupulous practices but we have
significant concerns with the implementation of the requirements in the
President's recent Executive Order. We believe that further
clarification and discussions are necessary so that all parties can
gain understanding and move toward consensus on developing an
efficient, sensible policy.
Prepared Statement of Hon, Steve Gunderson
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Braley:
Thank you very much for this invitation to testify before you
today. It is great to be back again before this distinguished
Subcommittee. APSCU shares your commitment to ensuring that every
postsecondary institution provides the highest level of service to each
and every veteran. We take great pride that our schools - with the
support services, flexible schedules, and focused delivery of academics
- are designing and delivering education in ways that meet the needs of
today's veteran-students. As one representative of our Nation's
postsecondary education system, I believe it is our moral imperative to
ensure that our servicemembers and veterans receive the education they
deserve with the benefits they earned at every institution of higher
education.
As a sector, we have been engaged in working with the Subcommittee,
and others, to identify and develop protocols that best meet the
academic needs of our veterans. On January 31st, APSCU made what some
might call a surprising step by joining some our harshest critics on
letters to the House and Senate Veterans Affairs Committees, and the
President supporting two very basic, but critical, ideas for veterans:
increased educational counseling and a way to have their complaints
heard and resolved fairly. It was in the spirit of these tenets that
Rep. Bilirakis (R-FL) first introduced legislation, H.R. 4057,
directing the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to
develop a comprehensive policy to improve outreach and transparency to
veterans and members of the Armed Forces through the provision of
information on institutions of higher learning. I was honored to
represent private sector colleges and universities at a hearing on
March 8th in support H.R. 4057. On the other side of the Capitol, other
Members of Congress, also driven by their deep conviction to protect
our veteran-students as they enter postsecondary education, introduced
legislation modeled very much on the principles included in our letter.
APSCU is committed to continuing our good faith discussions to ensure
that the bill that best represents the needs expressed by veterans
emerges from the House and Senate.
Mr. Chairman, you can imagine our surprise and disappointment,
after sending the letter to the White House and meeting with senior
White House officials, that news of an impending Executive Order
reached APSCU without any advance notice from the White House,
circumventing ongoing, bipartisan, bicameral legislative discussions.
Our Nation's veterans deserve the best effort put forth by the
Administration, Congress, veteran service organizations, and all
sectors of higher education to achieve consensus on the best ways to
meet the educational needs of our veterans through a constructive,
collaborative process.
Quite obviously, Executive Orders have been a widely-used and
accepted privilege afforded to our Presidents, starting with George
Washington and currently with President Obama. However, we have some
concerns regarding the anticipated implementation and potential
negative impact on institutions resulting from Executive Order #13607.
As I earlier stated, APSCU supports the creation of a centralized
complaint system. But, the Executive Order language provides little
guidance on the framework of the system, leaving much open to
interpretation. Ultimately, we want a system that is fair to both
veterans and institutions. But, most importantly we want a complaint
system that leads to a resolution of any problem or misunderstanding.
What we do not want to happen is for the complaint system to become a
conduit for politically-motivated attacks, submitted anonymously, by
those whom are intent to destroy the reputation of any institution. In
order for the process to operate seamlessly, fairly, and ensuring a
resolution, there must be clear accountability and transparency for all
parties involved - the veteran submitting the complaint, the VA, and
the school. When the White House briefed the higher education sector on
the impending Executive Order the night before it was issued, I
requested that all sectors of higher education be at the table to
openly participate in the development of a fair, transparent system. We
continue to hope this will occur. But, we are somewhat concerned by the
very short timetable the Administration has established for completing
this work, and no such conversation has yet to occur.
You may recall that during my testimony earlier this spring we and
others at the table, engaged in an extended dialog about the need to
change the way academic progress and/or graduation rates are calculated
for those whom comprise the new, ``normal'' college student - adult-
learners, including veterans. We are encouraged that the Executive
Order calls for developing new, appropriate metrics to measure a
veteran's academic progress - individually and collectively - and stand
ready to work with the Administration, Congress, and all interested
parties to develop a fair, appropriate measurement. Until that process
is completed, no set of data will be relevant for or related to the
realities of either a servicemember or veteran's educational
experience. Therefore, we have concerns with the use of the, ``Know
Before You Owe'' form, as availability of military and veteran
population and outcomes from IPEDS is nascent or does not adequately
reflect the nontraditional student. Additionally, the ``Know Before You
Owe'' form is not sufficiently nuanced to reflect the complexity of
military and veteran educational assistance, nor does it reflect
crucial student demographics, such as Pell-eligibility. Institutions
are also unable to identify on the form if tuition discounts are
offered to military or veteran students. The Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau's (CFPB), ``Know Before You Owe'' financial aid
shopping sheet prototype does not reference military or veteran
benefits at all, and while the CFPB's college cost comparison tool does
include a military aid calculator, it does not appear that this
particular tool is what the Executive Order is recommending. These
tools, as identified in the Executive Order, cannot adequately, or even
accurately, reflect the unique situations and characteristics of the
military- and veteran-student population. Rather than providing the
resources and information prospective-students would need to make sound
educational decisions, they will instead receive incomplete,
misrepresentative data that will likely cause more confusion than
assistance. We extend an invitation to the Administration to work
collaboratively to create a form that is representative, accurate, and
serves as a true resource for prospective-students. However, before a
form can be created, it is imperative that the current data-collection
system is fixed.
Regarding the new enforcement and compliance provision concerning
institutional access to military installations, we understand that some
institutions with existing Department of Defense (DoD) Memorandums of
Understanding (MOUs) have been warned by installations that they will
be banned from the base, as a consequence of the Executive Order. There
needs to be additional clarification, as to whether or not the
Executive Order has had the effect of invalidating all existing DoD
MOUs. Additionally, as outlined in the Executive Order, the new refund
policy will cause an increased cost and administrative burden on
institutions, as it is inconsistent with our existing refund
procedures. We would also like to work with the Administration on
identifying a suitable refund policy compromise.
Solutions to many of the other areas of concern raised by the
President, and even by Capitol Hill, can be addressed through the
existing oversight framework already in place. In fact, private sector
colleges and universities are one of the most highly-regulated groups
in the country, and the so-called ``triad'' - a reinforcing network of
federal, state and non-governmental accrediting bodies - provides an
enhanced level of oversight to ensure minimum levels of program and
institutional quality are achieved. More specifically: the Department
of Education (ED); state licensing entities; and national, regional,
and programmatic accrediting bodies comprise the ``triad'' of
oversight, which private sector colleges and universities and their
programs are subject to for the purposes of eligibility to participate
in Title IV federal student aid programs. Additionally, publicly-traded
private sector colleges and universities are also subject to Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC) oversight. Virtually all institutions are
subject to state and federal consumer protection laws, Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) rules against unfair and deceptive statements through
advertising, promotion, and marketing, and finance disclosure laws if
they make loans to students, and state corporation laws. Institutions
serving military- or veteran-students are also held accountable through
the DoD MOU process, and oversight by the VA and the State Approving
Agencies (SAAs).
All institutions of higher education, not just private sector
colleges and universities, are required under federal and state law to
provide truthful and unambiguous communications with the student
consumer about the educational services being offered. However, the
recently-implemented changes to the ED's Misrepresentation Rule
provides yet another layer of consumer protections, which private
sector colleges and universities must adhere to in order to remain
eligible to receive Title IV federal student aid. If an institution has
engaged in ``substantial misrepresentation of the nature of its
educational program, its financial charges, or the employability of its
graduates,'' made any false, erroneous, or misleading statement that
has the likelihood or tendency to deceive or confuse without regard to
materiality or intent, or ``substantial misrepresentations'' are made
by a third-party vendor hired to ``provide educational programs,
marketing, advertising, recruiting or admissions services,'' the
repercussions for the institution are severe, including, suspension or
termination an institution's Title IV eligibility. Consequently,
institutions must exercise tremendous caution in how they, and their
third-party vendors, state information concerning their educational
programs, the employability of their graduates, financial aid
availability, costs to students, accreditation, and transfer of credit.
Following the release of the final rule last year, APSCU's Board of
Directors requested that our Student Recruitment Task Force develop
guidance for our membership outlining the potential risks posed by the
conduct and practices of third-party vendors retained by institutions
for student recruitment services. On October 11, 2011, APSCU released
Guidance for APSCU Members--The Misrepresentation Rule and Third-Party
Vendors, which additionally urges institutions to conduct a careful
review of all of their printed and electronic marketing and advertising
materials. The guidance is included as an attachment to my submitted
statement. Issuing this guidance document, online training seminars
identifying best practices on ethical enrollment processes, and hosting
multiple webinars addressing marketing, advertising, and recruiting in
the new Program Integrity Rules environment are just a handful of
concrete examples of how APSCU has tried to provide our members with
the resources and tools to ensure they are complaint with the law.
APSCU also continues to work with our members and other stakeholders on
initiatives designed to promote clear and unambiguous communications
with students and prospective students. For example, industry
stakeholders are engaging in preliminary negotiations towards the
creation of a credible, self-regulatory mechanism to monitor the
marketplace and distinguish the good actions from the bad. While only
in its infancy stage, it is an opportunity for APSCU, our member
institutions, and representatives from the lead-generation industry to
engage in critical conversations about the best practices for the
sector in approaching marketing, recruiting, and advertising, today and
tomorrow.
There are many other existing avenues to enforce misconduct by an
individual school. One such example is our accrediting agencies.
Founded in 1912, the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and
Schools (ACICS) is the largest national accrediting organization of
degree-granting institutions, including professional, technical, and
occupational programs. The organization is recognized by both ED and
the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA). Institutions
accredited by ACICS, admissions and recruitment standards are clearly
outlined in the document, ``Accreditation Criteria Policies,
Procedures, and Standards.'' The policy places the ultimate burden on
the institution to oversee the activities of an institution's employees
and non-employees (third-party vendors or contractors) with respect to
admissions and recruiting referral, recruiting, evaluation, and
admissions and ensure that any information used as part of recruiting
and enrollment activities are clear and accurate. Institutions are also
provided strict guidance concerning employment on third-party vendors
or contractors. Recruiting requirements demand ethical conduct that is
compatible with the educational objectives of the institution, and that
the financial resources expended to engage in recruiting activities is
consistent with the stated mission of the institution. Also outlined
are a list of the minimum standards accredited institutions are
expected to follow concerning recruitment and enrollment, with a
notable inclusion of language directing institutions participating in
Title IV programs to understand regulations imposed by the ED as they
apply to recruiting practices.
The Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges (ACCSC),
founded in 1967, is a private, non-profit, independent accrediting
agency also recognized by ED. Institutions accredited by ACCSC include
private, postsecondary, non-degree-granting institutions and degree-
granting institutions in the United States, as well as those granting
associate, baccalaureate and master's degrees, which are predominantly
organized to educate students for occupational, trade and technical
careers, and institutions that offer programs online. Similar to ACICS,
ACCSC also requires accredited institutions to exercise ethical conduct
and procedures in the recruitment of students and also sets minimum
standards for their institutions to follow. Included in ACCSC's,
``Standards of Accreditation'', the section devoted to ``Student
Recruitment, Advertising, and Disclosures`` sets clear parameters for
recruitment, enrollment, advertising, and misrepresentation, and also
outlines that a school will be held accountable for the actions and
representations of its recruiters and representatives. For example, the
Standards clearly state that ACCSC-accredited institutions must
prohibit school personnel from recruiting prospective students in
settings where they cannot reasonably be expected to make sound,
informed choices about enrollment. ACCSC-accredited institutions are
required to maintain and enforce a code of conduct for all personnel
primarily responsible for recruiting and admissions activities, which
must also meet a minimum set of criteria. The ``Standards of
Accreditation'' also require institutions to comply with all applicable
federal and state laws and regulations pertaining to student
recruitment.
It might come a surprise to some, but the VA currently has the
authority to prohibit the enrollment of an eligible veteran or eligible
person using any VA educational benefits in any course offered by any
institution of higher education, which utilizes advertising, sales, or
enrollment practices considered to be erroneous, deceptive, or
misleading either by actual statement, omission, or intimation. In
addition, institutions which offer courses approved for the enrollment
of eligible individuals or veterans are required to maintain a complete
record of all advertising, sales, or enrollment materials used by, or
on behalf of, the institution during the preceding 12-month period. The
institutional record, as well as any materials, including direct mail
pieces, brochures, printed literature used by sales persons, media, and
any sales or recruitment manuals, are subject to review and inspection
by the SAA or the Secretary of the VA. The Secretary of the VA is also
authorized to enter into an agreement with the Federal Trade Commission
(FTC), where appropriate, to assist in carrying out investigations and
reviews.
``Private vocational or distance education schools,'' or private
sector colleges and universities, are specifically subject to the FTCs
longstanding rules against unfair and deceptive statements through
advertising, promotion, and marketing, as well as state laws
prohibiting unfair or deceptive trade practices. The FTC is empowered
to take corrective action if, after the conclusion of an investigation,
the Commission has reason to believe that the practices fall within the
scope of conduct declared unlawful by the statute. For example, it is
deceptive for an institution to misrepresent, directly or indirectly,
in advertising, promotional materials, or in any other manner, the
size, location, services, facilities, or equipment of its school or the
number or educational qualifications of its faculty and other
personnel.
The Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges (SOC) has established
``Standards and Guidelines'' for all SOC Consortium members about
recruiting, marketing, and program information. For an institution to
be eligible to receive DoD Tuition Assistance (TA) benefits, the
institution must first enter into a MOU with the DoD. A requirement of
the MOU is for all institutions to adhere the SOC Principles and
Criteria, which outlines specific parameters for SOC Consortium members
in their advertising, recruiting, and admissions practices for
servicemembers. The Principles and Criteria each include information
requiring that institutions adequately and accurately represents their
education programs, requirements, and services available, communicate
with servicemembers in a clear, comprehensive, and completely truthful
manner; take responsibility for admissions and recruitment policies,
including being accountable for all recruitment and enrollment actions
whether conducted by staff, faculty, partners, or other third party
agents acting on the institution's behalf; are transparent and truthful
about the cost of attendance or any other costs associated with
attendance.
This extensive list outlining, which authorities currently exist to
address misconduct by any institutions of higher education emphasizes
two key points: first, misconduct by any institution should not be
tolerated by the authorities empowered to enforce their rules and
procedures. The current rules and regulations exist to provide the
appropriate authorities with the power to take the steps and actions
necessary to ensure that any school engaging in illegal or improper
practices is held responsible; and second, we need to stop indicting an
entire sector of higher education for political reasons using anecdote
and rhetoric instead of facts. It would seem to me that if problems or
concerns had been addressed through the existing processes, and
engaging institutions to be a part of the solution, our conversation
today could have focused on how all sectors of higher education can
enhance the academic experience for our veterans rather than
implicating an entire sector that greatly values its service to
veterans.
The Post-9/11 GI Bill was a ``game-changer'' on postsecondary
marketing and recruiting across all sectors of higher education.
According to a 2009 Lumina Foundation/ACE report examining the state of
programs and services for veterans on campuses across all sectors of
higher education--``From Soldier to Student: Easing the Transition of
Service Members on Campus''--more than half of the participating
institutions reported engaging in recruiting efforts specifically
designed to attract military and veterans. In fact, since September 11,
2001, 65 percent of colleges and universities that offer services to
veterans and servicemembers enhanced their services and programs geared
towards military and veteran students with the establishment of
marketing and outreach strategies to attract veterans and military as
one of the top areas of emphasis, regardless of sector. For example, 58
percent of four-year, public and private non-profit and two-year,
public institutions reported an increase in their marketing and
recruitment efforts, with 69 percent of private, four-year, non-profit
institutions reported increases in this area. The principle of Occam's
razor states that ``the simplest explanation is most likely the correct
one.'' The Post-9/11 GI Bill has changed the entire postsecondary
landscape regarding the education and recruitment of veterans. However,
since the benefits began in 2009, time-and-time again veteran students
have cited the reason for their decision to attend public two-year
institutions and private sector colleges and universities is the simple
fact that these schools have the greatest capacity to meet their
educational needs--not because of widespread, ``predatory'' practices.
I could even use this opportunity to thank those here today for
spearheading, ``The Military Coalition'' efforts to first get the Post-
9/11 GI Bill enacted, but then pressuring Congress to subsequently
include non-degree granting institutions as eligible institutions under
the law. The Coalition recognized that veterans, as non-traditional
students, value the qualities inherently ingrained into the framework
of these institutions, such as geographic proximity to home or work,
institutional emphasis on the adult-learner, flexible class schedules,
and campuses in other states.
These qualities were also highlighted in a follow-up to the 2009
report entitled, ``Service Members in School: Military Veterans'
Experiences Using the Post-9/11 GI Bill and Pursuing Postsecondary
Education,'' and report author, Jennifer L. Steele's, subsequent
Commentary in the Army Times entitled, ``Colleges Can Learn from For-
Profits Emphasis on the Consumer.`` The Report indicates that many
veteran-students attend private sector colleges and universities,
including availability of evening and weekend classes, matching skill-
training with marketplace need, and hybrid classroom- and online-based
academic delivery, and generous awarding of military experience or
training as academic credit. Access was cited as the most important
quality to the veterans surveyed, and private sector colleges and
universities often provided the only access to the required courses
leading to a degree. Veterans valued the high institutional
participation in the Yellow Ribbon Program; one-third, or thirty-
percent, of private sector colleges and universities participate in the
Yellow Ribbon program, and proudly, of the participating schools,
forty-five percent place no restrictions on the number of veterans
served or offer the maximum benefit contribution. Private sector
colleges and universities were also given higher-than-average rates by
veterans with respect to their academic advising experiences.
Since the enactment of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, 152,000 veterans,
spouses, and dependents have chosen to attend private sector colleges
and universities using the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Since the benefits began
in 2009, time-and-time again veteran-students have cited the reason for
their decision to attend public two-year institutions and private
sector colleges and universities is the simple fact that our schools
have the greatest capacity to meet their educational needs. As non-
traditional students, veterans in particular value many of the
institutional qualities, which are inherently ingrained into the
framework of private sector colleges and universities, such as
geographic proximity to home or work, institutional emphasis on the
adult-learner, flexible class schedules, and campuses in other states.
Qualities Sergeant Michael Kidd (USMC) considered when he chose ECPI
University because the school gave him the flexibility to continue his
military service and offered the retraining necessary to pursue a
career using computers after suffering debilitating injuries during his
deployment in Iraq. Sergeant Kidd has gone from fighting combat threats
to learning to fight cyber threats, as part of a DoD initiative aimed
at getting injured service members back into the military or the
civilian workforce. Cyber-warfare is an increasingly concerning threat,
according to a 2011 DoD report, identifying the vulnerability of more
than 15,000 defense computer networks and seven million computing
devices across hundreds of installations across the world and civilian
targets, such as power grids and financial systems. Job prospects for
wounded warriors in cyber-security fields are favorable, especially for
those who hold security clearances. Sergeant Kidd is one example of our
Nation's wounded warriors who are making the transition from the
battlefield into a non-traditional combat field thanks to the support
of a private sector university. Comment [SP1]: ECPI student
Corporal Chad Pfeifer (USA) ret. also represents the face of
military and veteran education today. In the immortal words of Robert
Frost, ``the best way out is always through,'' and Chad's story of
recovery and discovery following an IED detonation which took his left
leg while serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2007, is nothing short
of inspirational. Rather than succumbing to depression or the
limitations of his disability, Chad taught himself to play golf, as a
way of staying sane during the grueling seven months of physical
therapy. It is estimated that one that one in five returning combat
veterans reports coping with at least one disability, and Chad returned
home needing time to heal from his debilitating, physical loss while
also readjusting to civilian life. The Army veteran and Purple Heart
recipient, picked up a golf club for the first time during his
rehabilitation and never looked back. Hitting balls became a form of
therapy as he adjusted to life with his new, prosthetic leg, and Chad
was a natural. It was soon clear that golf had a transformative impact
on him and when his therapy was complete, Chad returned to his hometown
to pursue his interest in the golf industry professionally. With the
support of his family and new colleagues, he entered the National
Amputee Championship--a tournament that would come to define his future
education and career path. Chad had tried the ``traditional'' higher
education route, but it was his chance encounter at the tournament with
another competitor who was a student at The Golf Academy of America
that sent him down the path of achieving his dream of a professional
golf career. In 2011, Chad received an associate degree in Golf Complex
Operations and Management and the scratch golfer is now working his way
through the PGA Apprentice Program in Scottsdale, AZ as an assistant
golf professional. What started out as a form of therapy, ultimately
became Chad's personal and professional salvation, and with great
humility, credits The Golf Academy of America for his tremendous
accomplishments and for making his dreams of hitting a little, white
ball into the hole a reality. The veteran-centric support Chad received
at the Golf Academy is evidenced in both the way he ended up enrolling
there and the way he describes his experience as a veteran-student
there. Serving military and veteran students is a top priority for The
Golf Academy of America, as part of the Education Corporation of
America family, and benefits from the Military Student Center (MSC),
which was launched in 2009 and is available to all students, faculty,
and family members. Modeled from the best practices of both private and
public institutions serving military- and veteran-students, the MSC is
a clearinghouse of resources for military and veteran students, and
currently serves more than 2,900 enrolled military and veteran
students. Military veterans and spouses, who have been given
specialized training in both DoD TA and VA benefits, assist prospective
and current students in understanding the complexities of the various
benefits for which they may be eligible. In the last year, the MSC has
responded to almost 29,000 phone calls from students in need of
assistance. Since its formation, the MSC has also awarded more than
$7.7 million dollars in scholarships to servicemembers, veterans, and
their families. In addition, Education Corporation of America is a
member of the SOC and follows guidelines established by the ACE for
evaluation of both military and college transcripts. But, ECPI and The
Golf Academy of America are just two examples of how our schools are
truly serving the needs and addressing the concerns of veterans.
Unfortunately these stories, and countless others, are not often
told in the media or on Capitol Hill. The bad actions of some schools
have set the stage for those with the bully-pulpit to launch an attack
on the hundreds of thousands of veterans, spouses, and dependents who
attend private sector colleges and universities. If there is one thing
we can all agree on today, Sergeant Kidd and Corporal Pfeiffer, along
with their brothers and sisters in uniform who have fought, died, and
continue to proudly serve our Nation, are heroes; not pawns in
Washington's latest political game. To that end, APSCU remains
committed to working with every stakeholder to identify and resolve any
problems that might exist. I would like to address these remarks
specifically to the Members of the Subcommittee, full Committee,
representatives from the VA and veteran service organizations, and even
the Administration, when I say for the record that even one bad action
by any institution of higher education that violates the educational
principals we have been entrusted with by our military and veteran
students is one too many. Further, I cannot and will not defend the
indefensible. The recruitment of any prospective student, veteran or
civilian, who cannot reasonably be expected to make informed and
thoughtful enrollment decisions, is unconscionable. Recruitment
documents that require staff to use psychologically cruel methods and
strategies to pressure prospective students to enroll are absolutely
unacceptable[JS2][SP3]. The majority of private sector colleges and
universities hold the integrity bar very high for their recruiting
personnel, and expect recruiting activities to follow legal,
regulatory, and moral standards when interacting with any prospective
student, however. A veteran who is here in this room today experienced
the frustration felt by many other veterans who visit a very official-
sounding website in search of information about their education
benefits, but are instead bombarded by unwanted phone calls and/or
emails. This is not ok. But, the solution to ensuring that our veterans
enroll at the institution that best meets their needs, receive the
support they need to complete with a degree or diploma, and the skills
and resources to find a job will be found here, in this Subcommittee
and in the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, not through a
Presidential Executive Order. And APSCU appreciates the opportunity to
further assist the Subcommittee in identifying and facilitating the
right solution to the challenges facing our Nation's veteran-students.
[JS2]We need to make clear that if this happens, first it is the
rare exception NOT the norm. And second there already exist remedies
for improper representation of a school's education outcomes.
[SP3]Unfortunately, this comment was not regarding any
misrepresentation - it was regarding multiple schools' inclusion of
very objectionable language (ie ``Pain Funnel; Push the Pain Points)
Ultimately the success or failure of the Executive Order is in the
hands of the Administration. A promise was made to me that the White
House would work directly with APSCU and others in the higher education
sector to address concerns about the complaint process. I will hold
them to that and I hope you will also. We must address the structure
and scope of the complaint process to ensure that both the rights of
the student and the rights of the institution are protected. There are
also significant deficiencies with the ``Know Before You Owe'' form and
the use of insufficient, inadequate data. As I said in my opening
paragraph, if our collective goal is to ensure that our servicemembers
and veterans receive the education they deserve with the benefits they
earned at every institution of higher education, then we must put
politics aside and get to work on a real solution.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I want to express my
deep appreciation for both your continued commitment to insuring our
veterans are provided with both the access and the quality they deserve
using their earned, education benefits; and for your continued
oversight efforts of this process. It is imperative that we seize this
opportunity to work together to achieve the outcome we all seek. But
for that to happen, we must summon a greater spirit of positive
collaboration among all stakeholders. APSCU is prepared to do the hard
work that lies ahead and welcomes anyone, at anytime, to join us in
continuing the evolution of this conversation out of the realm of
political rhetoric and into thoughtful policy discussions with the end
goal of arming our veterans with the resources they need to make the
best academic decisions!
Thank you. I stand ready to answer any questions you might have.
Prepared Statement of Margaret Baechtold
Chairman Stutzman, Ranking Member Filner, and Members of the
Subcommittee, Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on behalf
of the National Association of Veterans Program Administrators (NAVPA)
regarding Executive Order 13607. My name is Margaret Baechtold. For
over five years I have served as the Director of Veterans Support
Services at Indiana University, a major public four-year institution of
higher education where we believe in Honoring Service, Supporting
Education, and Serving Veterans. A veteran myself, I retired from the
United States Air Force as a lieutenant colonel after 20 years of
service. I also currently serve as the Legislative Director for NAVPA.
NAVPA's membership is comprised of educational institutions from all
sectors with an organizational commitment to advocating for what is in
the best interests of student veterans at our institutions. Our
expertise lies in the administration of veterans programs at colleges,
universities, and other education providers and most of our members
serve as school certifying officials for VA education benefits. Our
organization represents close to 400 educational institutions nation-
wide and our leadership is comprised of non-paid staff members. We
voluntarily serve NAVPA in an effort to better serve the veterans on
our campuses.
As a voluntary organization, NAVPA does not police its membership
regarding the issues raised by this Executive Order. Our primary
mission is to provide training and professional development to member
institutions, collect and disseminate best practices surrounding
support for student veterans and military members, and advocate on
behalf of students and our institutions. As an organization, we believe
strongly that all educational institutions should be forthright and
open with all students, particularly with regards to veterans' and
military service members' unique needs and circumstances.
Like so many other organizations, NAVPA has been dismayed at news
reports of unscrupulous organizations' treatment of unsuspecting
veterans and we strongly condemn the abuses to which veterans have been
subjected at the hands of some institutions. While we believe there are
no doubt costs and burdens involved in implementing Executive Order
13607 at our institutions, we cannot object to an initiative that seeks
to ensure that veterans are appropriately recruited, advised, and
supported while in school. NAVPA is pleased that the President has
taken such a direct interest in the education needs of our nation's
veterans.
(Section 2 - Financial Advising) We recognize that a requirement to
provide specific and personalized financial advising will be
challenging to implement, and increases the administrative burden on
schools. This advice can only be provided if the institution has full
access to all of the eligibility information required to determine
possible aid alternatives. NAVPA has long advocated for direct access
to student information from the VA and will continue to do so. At
present, eligibility information is generally not provided directly to
institutions, and it is incumbent upon students to furnish such
information. As students do not always self-identify as military
service members or veterans prior to enrollment, comprehensive
information about student benefit eligibility is exceptionally
challenging to obtain.
The timing of institutional and agency business practices will also
make implementation of financial advising requirements difficult. Some
specific services that may be mandated pursuant to the Executive Order
require information about student benefit eligibility from both the VA
and the DOD at a very early stage (prior to enrollment). However,
students cannot even apply for certain federal benefits or assistance,
such as Army Tuition Assistance, until after they have already enrolled
in classes. Schools cannot effectively predict in advance when and how
much funding might be provided by military tuition assistance - or even
Veterans Affairs education benefits - prior to enrollment, application
to those agencies either for general eligibility or for the specific
term of enrollment, and benefit or award authorization.
Furthermore, it will be particularly difficult to provide
individualized financial counseling prior to enrollment when many
benefits are based on actual enrollment levels, actual institutional
charges, and the receipt of other financial awards. Many federal,
state, private, and campus-based financial awards are determined by a
student's unmet financial need, and must be adjusted when a student
receives other funding. The Post-9/11 GI Bill is one example of a
program that pays a net-cost, which must be adjusted when other
tuition-restricted awards are processed.
NAVPA supports efforts to improve the information flow to
prospective students, which will help veterans make better-informed
decisions about how to use their benefits, but we also recognize the
challenges involved with implementing the services required by this
Executive Order. We hope and expect that as policies are developed, we
might contribute to the conversation about how best to provide the
information needed by prospective student veterans and their families
regarding funding options for their education.
(Section 3 - Data Reporting) We particularly appreciate the
Administration's efforts to rely on existing data and reporting
mechanisms to mitigate the potential increase in workload on the part
of schools. One estimate from a four-year public institution predicts
the initial time commitment to build a report structure in compliance
with the broad goals of this Executive Order would be 100-150 man-
hours. The type of aggregate data reporting required would likely not
come via our members, the School Certifying Officials, but rather from
school Institutional Reporting offices that now collect, analyze and
report data for other federal requirements such as those from the
Department of Education. Collective information is not something that
certifying officials have the authority to access or release on behalf
of their institutions.
(Section 3c - Success Metrics) All schools are interested in
assessing the success of all their students. The most important factor
will be to define success appropriately for each academic environment
and develop data collection methods that are robust, accurate, and
meaningful. We hope and expect that educational institutions and the
organizations that represent them including NAVPA will be involved in
the process of developing these desired outcomes and metrics.
(Section 3d - Information Sharing) We support efforts to provide or
improve resources for comparative data for students about prospective
schools. Links between the VA's eBenefits portal and information
collected and available through the Department of Education could serve
to streamline veteran's access to comparative data regarding their
education options. We also encourage continued efforts to provide
schools access to data about individual student's benefit eligibility
so we can accomplish the tasks asked of us by both this Executive Order
and current regulations. While we understand that these improvements
will require resources to complete, we feel these are worthwhile
investments. We do have concerns should the appropriate resources not
be provided to the entities responsible for implementation.
(Section 4 - Oversight) As I stated previously, NAVPA fully
supports efforts to ensure veterans are appropriately recruited,
advised, and supported while in school. Requiring disclosure by schools
should not be a substitute for solid oversight, however. The agencies
administering these programs at all levels are in need of further
oversight resources to provide training and enforce the provisions of
this Executive Order as well as the currently existing regulations. The
VA needs assistance with compliance tasks now that the Post 9/11 GI
Bill has become so complex. Diverting State Approving Agency resources
to that role has proven problematic and leaves no one to fulfill the
SAA's historic role of providing training and supervision to
institutions regarding education issues beyond the payment of education
benefits. There are varying roles within the oversight arena and tasks
should be distributed to the agencies best suited and situated to
accomplish them
(Section 4 a--Complaint System) We have no reservations about a
structured and centralized complaint system. We too want to see every
institution provide superb education and support for veterans. This is
another area that will require appropriate resourcing to ensure the
agencies such as State Approving Agencies tasked with implementing this
system can manage this along with all other current tasks.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes NAVPA's statement. As a veteran and on
behalf of the members of NAVPA, I'd like to thank you and the member of
the Subcommittee for your leadership on issues of critical importance
to America's veterans. I appreciate this opportunity to share our views
today. I look forward to working with you and would be happy to answer
any questions you may have.
Executive Summary
NAVPA represents almost 400 educational institutions, advocating on
behalf of them and the student veterans enrolled at each of them. NAVPA
has been dismayed at recent reports indicating poor treatment of
veterans by unscrupulous organizations.
While we believe there are costs and burdens associated with
Executive Order 13607, we cannot object to any initiative that serves
to ensure veterans are appropriately recruited, advised, and supported
while in school.
The financial advising required by Executive Order 13607 will be
challenging due to limited access to information and timing. Schools
cannot accurately advise students about financial options prior to
enrollment when benefits are contingent on the student's enrollment
record and other financial awards. Schools also need direct access to
student eligibility information from federal agencies such as the VA in
order to accurately advise students about their various benefit
options.
Reporting of aggregate data on student veterans and military
members will require additional effort on the part of schools that do
not already track these students as a sub-population. We appreciate the
efforts in this Executive Order to rely on existing data reporting
mechanisms to mitigate this increased workload.
All institutions are interested in measuring the success of their
students. The challenge lies in appropriately defining success and the
metrics by which it will be measured.
We support efforts to collect and disseminate information to assist
veterans in making informed educational choices.
We continue to request access to data on individual student
benefits to better allow us to provide the type of financial advising
anticipated by this Order.
Disclosure by schools is not a substitute for robust oversight and
agencies tasked with that oversight need to be appropriately resourced.
We have no reservations about a structured complaint system, but
those charged with its implementation need to be appropriately
resourced to fulfill these tasks along with all others asked of them.
NAVPA hopes and expects to be participants in the conversations
about how to most effectively implement the requirements of this
Executive Order
Prepared Statement of Barmak Nassirian
Chairman Stutzman, Ranking member Braley, and Members of the
Subcommittee.
My name is Barmak Nassirian and I am Associate Executive Director
with the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions
Officers. AACRAO is a non-profit association of more than 2,600 degree-
granting institutions of higher education and some 11,000 campus
enrollment services officials. The admissions professionals within our
membership play a central role in recruitment and academic placement of
veterans and active-duty Service members. In addition, the registration
officials within our membership have historically served as
institutional points of contact with veterans and Service members, and
serve as school certifying officials on many campuses. I appreciate the
opportunity to participate in today's hearing on Executive Order 13607
and its impact on veterans and institutions.
The April 27 Executive Order Provides Needed Protections
While concerned about its implementation challenges and compliance
costs, we nevertheless strongly support Executive Order 13607 (``EO'')
as an important first-step in improving educational opportunities for
veterans and Service members and in protecting them from predatory
providers. There is ample evidence that veterans and Service members
are being specifically targeted by a subset of providers who mislead
them into enrollment in expensive programs of highly questionable
educational and employment value. The nearly $10 billion of combined
federal educational benefits that the Departments of Defense (DoD) and
Veterans Affairs (the VA) provide for veterans and Service members are,
of course, sufficient incentives in themselves for unscrupulous
providers seeking to maximize profits through high-pressure marketing,
deceptive advertising, and misrepresentation of worthless or subpar
programs that often cost vastly more than quality programs at
legitimate institutions of higher education. But a gatekeeping
provision of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (``HEA''), known as the
``90-10 Rule,'' which requires for-profit schools to derive at least 10
percent of their annual revenues from sources other than HEA Title IV
(``federal student aid'') programs, provides an even more powerful
economic incentive for the targeting of veterans and Service members.
This is because revenues derived from programs administered by the DoD
and the VA, although funded entirely with federal dollars, count as
part of the 10 percent non-Title IV cash flows of for-profit schools.
Institutions that have difficulty selling their programs to anyone but
individuals entirely financed with Title IV funds can thus leverage
nine dollars of federal student aid funding for every dollar they
obtain through the DoD or the VA. Enrolling veterans and Service
members is now a matter of company survival for many for-profit
corporations, because without DoD Tuition Assistance and GI Bill
revenues, they would also lose eligibility for Title IV, which is their
lifeblood and otherwise their sole paying customer.
It should therefore come as no surprise that for-profit providers
are resorting to extreme measures in their attempts at recruiting
veterans and Service members. The pattern of fraudulent and abusive
marketing and recruitment practices targeting veterans and Service
members that have come to light over the course of the past few years
are disturbing and reprehensible. These include aggressive recruitment
of veterans with traumatic brain injuries, misrepresentation of actual
costs, and the bundling of ``free'' consumer electronic giveaways with
expensive tuition charges as inducements for enrollment. In addition to
the mounting evidence of corrupt and questionable recruitment
practices, the program utilization data for both the DoD's Tuition
Assistance Program and the Post-9/11 GI Bill clearly evince signs of
systemic abuse, with a disproportionate share of program funds flowing
to institutions with high costs and abysmal retention, graduation, and
job placement outcomes. The EO represents a constructive attempt at
providing greater transparency about costs and outcomes and, if
properly implemented over the coming months, will certainly provide
veterans and Service members with critical protections lacking today.
Even the most robust implementation of the EO, however, would not be
sufficient to root out waste, fraud and abuse altogether. As the
Subcommittee deliberates about future legislative improvements to the
Post-9/11 GI Bill, it may wish to consider more effective gate-keeping
provisions. The single most effective legislative amendment to the
Post-9/11 GI Bill would be the adoption of an ``80/20'' rule to require
that participating institutions derive at least a modest 20 percent
portion of their annual revenues from non-federal sources. The ability
of companies to sell their services to buyers spending non-federal
dollars would provide the best market-validation of their offerings and
would certainly offer an assurance that taxpayers are not the only
buyers of any provider's worthless services.
Compliance Issues
Assessing the likely processes through which the directives
established in the EO would be implemented is extremely difficult at
this early stage. There can be no doubt that even the most carefully
crafted implementation of the EO will entail institutional costs, but
such costs would, we hope, be justified by the added protections for
Service members and veterans. There are significant administrative
challenges in coordinating the efforts of the several federal agencies
involved, and micromanagement and regulatory overreach are distinct
possibilities. But in conversations with Administration officials, we
have been assured that the agencies are sensitive to compliance issues
and institutional burdens, and that every attempt will be made to
reduce duplicative and unnecessary requirements. The higher education
community, in turn, stands ready to work with the Administration and
Congress in implementing the ``Principles of Excellence'' articulated
in the EO.
Principles of Excellence
The EO lists eight specific consumer disclosure and protection
provisions that institutions should comply with to the extent permitted
by law. Participating institutions would be required (or encouraged)
to:
1--provide prospective students who are eligible to receive
military or veterans educational benefits with a ``personalized and
standardized'' form that discloses certain cost, aid, and outcomes
data. While appealing in concept, this requirement will prove
exceedingly difficult to implement in practice, particularly given that
institutions often do not know whether an applicant or even a student
may be eligible for certain federal benefits. Clearly, the mandate
should apply to all cases where institutions do know about a
prospective student's likely eligibility, but unless a readily
available method of verifying eligibility is provided for institutions,
some interpretive flexibility will be essential. In addition, consensus
on the specific data to be disclosed will prove quite challenging. On
this latter issue, we strongly urge the designated agencies to engage
representatives of higher education institutions in a collaborative
effort to arrive at reasonable definitions. Understandably, our
interactions with the Department of Education have been quite collegial
over the years, and we have established better relations with the
appropriate offices within the DoD in recent months. Despite its
increasing prominence given the growing number of student veterans, the
VA has been generally less accessible and less communicative, and we
hope to be more engaged with its leadership and officials as well.
2--inform students who are eligible to receive military or
veterans education benefits of the availability of federal student aid
programs. This requirement can and should be carried out for all
students. The challenge here is how the agencies of jurisdiction will
attempt to carry out the mandate and how institutions would demonstrate
compliance. Federal student aid programs are typically less expensive
and offer greater protections to students than private financing
arrangements, and all students should be properly counseled of their
availability before they resort to private borrowing or payment with
credit cards. Unfortunately, some ill-advised agency policies--the VA's
on-again, off-again policy of attempting to collect outstanding
balances from previously certified veterans' educational benefits due
to institutions, for example--inadvertently promote last-minute private
financing by cash-strapped veterans, a matter that we hope the
Subcommittee takes up with the VA.
3--end fraudulent and aggressive recruiting techniques,
misrepresentation, payment of incentive compensation, and failure to
meet State authorization requirements. Institutions participating in
Title IV are already subject to these strictures and compliance with
this requirement will not be particularly difficult or costly for them.
On the issue of fraudulent and aggressive marketing and recruitment, we
are certainly aware of some the excessive and abusive practices
documented by the media, veterans' advocacy organizations, and public
interest groups. As a voluntary association of colleges and
universities we have no investigative or enforcement powers against
entities that engage in such behaviors, and believe that the Department
of Education has not done an adequate job of enforcing the applicable
regulations. It is our hope that the EO will induce all agencies of
jurisdiction, including the department of Justice, to step in and
address the problem through robust enforcement of the law.
4--btain the approval of the institution's accrediting agency
for new academic offerings when appropriate under the substantive
change requirements of the accrediting body. Again, institutions
participating in Title IV are already subject to these strictures and
compliance with this requirement will not be particularly difficult or
costly for them. We believe that accreditation is increasingly
vulnerable to gaming and manipulation by corporate entities with vastly
greater resources than their accrediting bodies, but hope that this
provision of the EO will serve notice to accrediting agencies that they
need to do more when confronted with rampant waste, fraud, and abuse.
5--allow Service members and reservists to be readmitted in
cases of absence or withdrawal due to Service requirements. This is
current practice at most legitimate institutions, and compliance with
this provision is not substantively problematic. We hope that the
agencies will be minimalistic in interpreting this requirement,
however, because heavy-handedness and micromanagement of policies at
thousands of schools would be ill-advised, costly, and burdensome.
6--gree to an institutional refund policy that is aligned with
return of Title IV rules. This provision can, in its most expansive
reading, be interpreted to upend current refund policies and prove
extremely expensive and unworkable for most institutions. It is our
understanding, however, that the intent of this language is to apply
the existing Title IV refund provision to institutions that do not
participate in Federal Student Aid programs, in which case there would
be no additional costs for the vast majority of institutions.
7--provide educational plans for Service members and veterans.
After months of extensive conversations with DoD officials, we jointly
agreed that a better label for what they hitherto referred to as
``educational plans'' would be ``degree requirements.'' So long as this
provision is interpreted in conformity with that understanding, we do
not believe that it would impose particularly difficult compliance
challenges for institutions. We have been assured that this provision
of the EO is intended to mandate the same general disclosures as those
that the DoD and representatives of higher education institutions have
discussed.
8--designate a point of contact for Service members and
veterans. This is a provision that we support, and would require a
practice that most institutions already have in place.
Implementation
The Departments of Defense, Education, and Veterans Affairs must
take immediate action to implement the EO in consultation with the
Department of Justice, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau;
and are to provide the President with a progress report within 90 days.
While some of the requirements articulated in the EO can be imposed
through administrative, regulatory, or enforcement mechanisms; others
may require legislative authorization. The DoD, for example, has
significantly greater discretion in defining the programmatic
requirements of the Tuition Assistance program than does the VA in its
management of GI Bill benefits. Indeed, we were initially concerned
that the EO may delay the release of the DoD's long anticipated
revision of its Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). But we have been
informed that the EO's requirements will be included in a future
version of the MOU, and that the DoD will release the revised version
sometime this summer as previously announced.
The choices and decisions that the agencies will make over the
coming weeks and months will have significant consequences in terms of
compliance costs and effectiveness of the EO's implementation. Such
contested and controversial concepts as ``student outcome measures'' or
``key measures of affordability and value'' will have to be defined,
and the data needed to generate them will have to be obtained. We urge
the agencies to consult and regularly communicate with institutions of
higher education as they proceed, and are ready to provide assistance
as appropriate. The centralized complaint tracking system, procedures
for referrals to the DOJ and the configuration of targeted risk-based
program reviews and audits are, in themselves, quite reasonable
requirements that we would support. As always, there are dangers
associated with even seemingly innocuous requirements, and the as-yet-
unknown manner in which these new policies will be implemented does
lead to compliance and cost concerns. Other provisions of the EO, in
contrast, are more readily understandable and more immediately
acceptable to institutions. The EO's requirement, for example, that the
agencies initiate a process to protect the ``GI Bill'' from misleading
commercial uses is one that we strongly endorse, as is its call to
create uniform rules and procedure for access to military bases.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity to share some of our
concerns with you and the members of the Subcommittee. AACRAO stands
ready to assist the Subcommittee in its work on this important issue.
Prepared Statement of Dr. Jonathan C. Gibralter
Chairman Stutzman, Ranking Member Braley, and distinguished members
of the Subcommittee. I am Dr. Jonathan Gibralter, President of
Frostburg State University in Maryland. I am testifying on behalf of
the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, commonly
known as AASCU. AASCU represents over 400 institutions and university
systems across 49 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam
and the Virgin Islands.
Thank you for holding this hearing and providing me the opportunity
to present testimony regarding the President's April 27th Executive
Order, which establishes Principles of Excellence for Educational
Institutions Serving Service Members and Spouses. I ask that my
testimony be entered into the record.
AASCU appreciates the intent of the issued Executive Order. Our
nation's veterans and military personnel should be able to obtain
quality information about institutions and their programs that also
take into consideration the particular benefits they have earned. AASCU
and its member institutions, including my own campus, value the
perspective and experience that servicemembers and veterans bring to
our institutions. As such, we take our commitment to providing them a
quality educational experience very seriously.
In fact, AASCU as a whole has concerned itself with the welfare of
military and veteran students for decades both as a member of the
larger higher education community and as the administrative agent for
Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges (SOC) since 1972. As an association
representing four-year public institutions--a sector that in 2007-08,
prior to the Post-9/11 GI Bill's enactment, served roughly 21 percent
of military undergraduates according to the National Center for
Education Statistics (NCES)--AASCU represents many institutions that
have made a commitment to serving this population of students. \1\
Therefore, the specifics of our testimony are offered in the spirit of
assisting the various Cabinet agencies involved in implementing the
Executive Order to best help the veteran and military students who our
institutions have educated for years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See ``Issue Tables: A Profile of Military Servicemembers and
Veterans Enrolled in Postsecondary Education in 2007-8"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To discuss my own institution for a moment, the G.I. Bill has had a
significant impact on the history of Frostburg State University,
marking its move to the modern era. In early 1945, enrollment in
Frostburg State Teachers College had dwindled to 62 students and
Frostburg was slated for closure. With the advent of the G.I. Bill,
however, enrollment jumped to 272 students in 1946. By 1949, it had
grown to 427, a six-fold increase in five years. As the G.I. Bill
transformed our nation, it transformed Frostburg, truly marking the
beginning of the modern era for our institution.
Since then, Frostburg State has continued to evolve as the needs of
veterans have changed over the years. In the 1960s and early 1970s, our
concern was accommodating the disruption in students' educations,
especially if they were drafted mid-year, as well as meeting their
educational and other needs upon their return from service.
The attacks on September 11, 2001, and the subsequent wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq have necessitated the nation undertake similar
measures to serve those who served us. As the conflicts in Iraq and
Afghanistan wind down and over 2 million troops are withdrawn from
those areas, more and more veterans will be arriving on college
campuses to use the educational benefits they have earned serving our
country. In addition, our active-duty military are combining service to
the country with higher education. For example, in 2011, 751,000
active-duty military utilized their Tuition Assistance (TA) benefits by
enrolling in undergraduate programs. A total of 41,223 undergraduate
degrees were awarded; including graduate degrees, 44,691 total degrees
were completed by TA users.
On the veteran front, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
stated in its February 2012 budget request that over a million active-
duty military personnel are projected to become veterans over the next
five years. VA anticipated that if its spending proposals were approved
by Congress, they would support education benefits for more than a
million American veterans. According to the same VA document, in FY
2013, ``The Post-9/11 GI Bill will help pay the educational expenses of
more than 606,000 service members, Veterans, family members and
survivors.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ February 13, 2012 VA Press Release, downloaded May 10, 2012
from http://www.va.gov/opa/pressrel/pressrelease.cfm?id=2263.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, since Frostburg is not near major military
installations, it serves the majority of veterans and active military
connected to our region's National Guard and Reserve units. The number
of veterans we serve varies significantly from year to year. Our
growing online programs, in particular our accredited MBA, are proving
popular with veterans since they are designed for flexibility. We
anticipate that our newly accredited Bachelor of Science in Nursing for
R.N.s, also online, will be of value to military medical personnel.
Those at Frostburg who work most closely with our veterans and
military members recognize the same technical hurdles that my
colleagues at AASCU do, which I will discuss further in a moment. Those
of us ``on the ground'' are also most aware of the human issues of the
individuals we work with. As there is no requirement that students
identify themselves as veterans, some choose not to do so for a variety
of reasons, meaning they may be missing out on services we can provide.
Others arrive at Frostburg without having completed the process to
become eligible for benefits, which also means they will be unable to
take advantage of provisions in the Executive Order.
We understand that the Executive Order was written in more general
terms than any specific implementation documents will be; however, the
text of the Executive Order as written raises a number of concerns for
AASCU institutions regarding implementation. Higher education and
governmental stakeholders learned in the process of rolling out the
Post-9/11 GI Bill and revising the DoD MOU that the old adage ``the
devil is in the details'' is still true today; the process of
implementing the Executive Order will only reinforce it.
One of those details is the issue of data availability related to
the order's requirement that the Secretaries of Defense, Veterans
Affairs, and Education ``shall develop a comprehensive strategy for
developing service member and veteran student outcome measures that are
comparable, to the extent possible, across Federal military and
veterans educational benefit programs, including, but not limited to,
the Post-9/11 GI Bill and Tuition Assistance Program.'' While AASCU
appreciates the order's statement that ``To the extent practicable, the
student outcome measures should rely on existing administrative data to
minimize the reporting burden on institutions participating in these
benefit programs,'' there is considerably more burden to finding
available data for this type of outcome measure than meets the eye.
Currently--as explained in the report from an Integrated
Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) Technical Review Panel
(TRP) convened in November 2011 to address the topic of collecting
higher education data on servicemembers and veterans \3\--IPEDS does
not collect data on veteran and military students. The panel was
composed of 43 representatives including the Department of Defense
(DoD), VA, AASCU and other members of the higher education community,
state governments, and veteran/military student associations. After
lengthy discussion, the panel came to the conclusion that ``There is
value in collecting more detailed information on veterans and military
service members to address policy questions and provide more detailed
information on veteran persistence rates, graduation rates, and the
number of veterans completing postsecondary programs. However, given
the limitations in data systems and available data, the panel concluded
that IPEDS is not the appropriate instrument for collecting these data
at this time.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Report and Suggestions from TRP Panel #36.
\4\ Ibid, p. 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since IPEDS is an aggregated institutional-level database not
designed to collect student-level data, and other national sample
surveys (such as the National Postsecondary Student Aid Survey [NPSAS]
and the Beginning Postsecondary Student Survey [BPS]) are limited in
their ability to provide granular data on military and veteran
students, the issues of data definition and collection raised by the
Executive Order's requirement to develop national-level outcome
measures become even more significant for institutions. This is because
institutions and states vary in their ways of defining veteran and
military students based on what data is available to them. Yet another
significant issue in data definition is, as I have mentioned is the
case at Frostburg State, that not all veteran students self-identify as
veterans or receive veterans education benefits. Also, as the TRP
report points out, institutions and states are not always able to tell
if a student covered by another veterans education benefit than the
Post-9/11 GI Bill has actually received the benefit, or has only been
certified as eligible by the VA. \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Ibid, p. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The points above scratch the surface of the technical issues
involved. Higher education stakeholders, including AASCU, are more than
willing to share their technical expertise with the Federal agencies
tasked with implementing the Executive Order. However, given the
complexity of data identification and collection on this topic, higher
education institutions will inevitably be asked for data that may or
may not be possible to obtain; AASCU would like to highlight this point
for the Subcommittee.
This leads to another concern, which is that of reporting burden
and associated cost as well as a subsidiary issue of mixed messages
from the Administration calling for fewer regulations but adding
reporting burden via an Executive Order. In 2010, as part of the
reauthorization of the Higher Education Act of 1965, the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) completed an analysis of the burden placed
on institutions to comply with expanded mandatory IPEDS reporting. \6\
Among other issues, GAO found that ``Schools reported time burdens [to
complete IPEDS reporting] ranging from 12 to 590 hours, compared with
the 19 to 41 hours Education estimated . . . .'' \7\ Further, GAO
reported that institutions incurred a total estimated salaries and
computer costs of over $6 million. \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See ``Institutions' Reported Data Collection Burden Is Higher
Than Anticipated But Can Be Reduced Through Increased Coordination''
\7\ Ibid, p. 10.
\8\ Ibid, p. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other than mandated Federal and state reporting as well as required
reporting to accreditors, institutions also conduct significant
internal data analyses and respond to external stakeholders including
multiple publishers whose materials are used by many students,
including servicemembers and veterans, to choose colleges. The call for
specific, comparable outcome measures in the Executive Order would be
an expansion of current reporting requirements. As mentioned above, the
data required is difficult to collect (and may be impossible in some
cases) for institutions to obtain on their own. Depending on how the
Executive Order is implemented, it may require institutions to incur
considerable back-office costs related to reprogramming/expanding data
systems and staff time. Given cuts to state-level higher education
support over time combined with ever-expanding reporting requirements
on multiple fronts, this cost is not a negligible issue for AASCU
institutions.
In fact, to turn to my own institution's case again, both Section
2(g) and Section 3(d) in the Executive Order will require the
expenditure of significant amounts of professional time and effort, far
beyond anything currently required by VA or State Approving Agency
(SAA) mandates. It will not be possible to accomplish this kind of task
on our campus without bearing the burden of an additional professional
position.
However, the sense AASCU has from initial conversations with the
White House and other stakeholders regarding implementation of the
Executive Order is that exploring the usability of administrative data
on benefit payments housed in various Cabinet agencies--e.g., the
Department of Education and the Department of Veterans Affairs--would
be a profitable avenue to follow. AASCU encourages the use, wherever
possible, of data housed in the various data silos of the Departments
of Education, Defense, and Veterans Affairs in order to comply with the
Executive Order. If this data were released to the higher education
community (while following applicable data privacy standards), higher
education researchers can assist in analyzing the data. AASCU also
looks forward to continued collaboration with those tasked with
carrying out the Executive Order to find cost-effective ways of
providing usable and meaningful data on military and veteran students.
While data-related implementation issues are of considerable
concern to AASCU, an additional key concern is the complaint system
outlined in the Executive Order that would ``create a centralized
complaint system for students receiving Federal military and veterans
educational benefits to register complaints that can be tracked and
responded to by the Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, Justice,
and Education, the CFPB, and other relevant agencies.'' To provide an
institutional-level perspective, Frostburg State University is already
in high compliance with VA and SAA mandates. The proposed mandates are
very similar to those already in place in Maryland. Our Veterans
Affairs Office is already on the lowest frequency of SAA and VA audits
due to our excellent performance on all previous audits.
Our concern is with the federal government instituting a
centralized complaint system without first establishing whether an
individual has already attempted to resolve their complaint with a
university or college's veterans affairs office or with the SAA
representatives. Too often complaints rise to the highest level of
attention when the difficulty resides at the local level. We suggest
that a complaint be permitted to rise to the agency level only when
local processes or procedures have failed to resolve the issue.
Furthermore, the text of the Executive Order as written does not
give any institution a clear means to appeal complaints made against
them. As documented in previous testimony to Congress on the
implementation of the Post-9/11 GI Bill by various veterans education
and higher education stakeholders including AASCU, \9\ institutions
have both received conflicting guidance from VA and have been subjected
to VA delays in payment processing. This creates a scenario based on
past history where institutions could be investigated by multiple
federal agencies based on delays and confusion created by the federal
government itself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See testimony from the University of Illinois at Chicago,
NAVPA, and AASCU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore AASCU strongly suggests that higher education
stakeholders have significant input into the conceptualization of this
centralized complaint system and its operational processes. This should
not be taken as a repudiation of the idea that military and veteran
students should be able to report valid complaints and have them acted
upon by appropriate state or Federal agencies. AASCU does not want to
see military and veteran students abused by those who would target
their educational benefits. However, AASCU encourages caution and
involvement of higher education stakeholders throughout the process of
bringing this system online to ensure that the final complaint
mechanism serves all parties truthfully and equitably.
This leads me to my final point on behalf of AASCU: As this
Executive Order is implemented, AASCU would like to see those
implementing it pay special attention to increasing communication and
data-sharing by the VA and DoD with higher education stakeholders. As
the Post-9/11 GI Bill implementation process in particular has evolved,
one consistent frustration on the part of higher education
administrators trying to serve their military and veteran students is
the lack of consistent, clear, and reliable communication from VA to
the higher education community.
VA's lack of guidance and inconsistent information-sharing on
matters that seriously affect institutions' ability to serve veteran
students (e.g., the prospective VA garnishment of tuition and fee
payments for unrelated debts, as detailed in a community letter to
Secretary Shinseki on April 9, 2012 \10\) has been well-documented in
the media and in previous higher education testimony. While we
appreciate that VA has had to learn a new way of doing business with
higher education given the structure of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, higher
education--and hence veteran students--have still suffered from VA's
lack of communication with the community.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See http://www.nacubo.org/Documents/BusinessPolicyAreas/
ShinsekiletterVA.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus we strongly urge those responsible for implementing the
Executive Order to use this opportunity to create a new climate of
information and data-sharing in VA and DoD in particular, with higher
education stakeholders as equal partners. This will ultimately benefit
veteran and military students.
Frostburg State University and other AASCU institutions are eager
to continue meeting the needs of our military members and veterans as
well as their families. Our experience is that these returning military
become solid students and campus leaders. We support these efforts to
protect them. In fact, many of the measures presented in the Executive
Order are already in place at Frostburg and within the State of
Maryland.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, I again reiterate AASCU's commitment to
and recognition of the service of our nation's servicemembers and
veterans. As part of that commitment, we strive to provide timely and
accurate information to our students. As such, we support the
Administration's efforts to ensure that servicemembers and veterans can
make the best-informed educational choices appropriate to their unique
needs.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony on behalf
of AASCU. I am happy to answer questions.
Executive Summary
Concerns regarding implementation of Executive Order
D Data availability related to specific outcome measures required
for veteran and military students
u Veteran students do not always self-identify as veterans
u IPEDS does not currently collect data on these two populations
u Other national sample surveys are limited in ability to provide
granular data on veterans and military students
u Definitions vary by institutions and states depending on data
available
u Institutions may not be able to obtain data - VA and DoD are
better sources
D Reporting burden on institutions and associated cost
u Reporting requirements in Executive Order are expansion of
current requirements
u Cuts to state higher education support over time reduce staff
and monies available to meet requirements at AASCU institutions in
particular
D Establishment of federal centralized complaint system without
taking into account whether individuals have already attempted to
resolve complaints at local level or with State Approving Agencies
D Lack of established clear means for institutions to appeal
complaints made against them
D Lack of consistent guidance and information-sharing from VA
already affects institutions' ability to serve veteran and military
students - new culture of data- and information-sharing will need to be
established between VA, DoD, and higher education to effectively
implement Executive Order
Prepared Statement of Chad Schatz
Introduction
Chairman Stutzman, Ranking Member Braley and members of the
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, we are pleased to appear before
you today on behalf of the National Association of State Approving
Agencies (NASAA) to provide comments on ``Executive Order 13607 and Its
Impact on Schools and Veterans''. We also will provide some additional
comments that may be helpful to the Committee as it addresses concerns
about maintaining the effectiveness and integrity of the administration
of the GI Bills.
Before offering NASAA's observations with respect to Executive
Order 13607 and the potential challenges to its implementation, I'd
like to offer a few general comments about who serves, sacrifices, and
benefits with respect to the GI Bill educational assistance programs
administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs under Title 38, USC.
General Comments
We believe NASAA's longstanding presence as the ``face of the GI
Bill'' in the 50 States has the potential to furnish value-added
historical information for the Subcommittee; information that is
germane to today's public hearing.
Who Serves
The Subcommittee certainly knows that America's sons and daughters
who wear the military uniform of the United States represent the very
best of character, commitment, and resolve. Like the 19-year olds who
scaled the cliffs of Normandy, America's post 9-11 generation's
greatness exceeds only its selflessness while in harm's way.
Disciplined by duty and enlightened through experience, our All-
Volunteer Force indeed represents America's most engaging and
resourceful of individuals; a segment of our society that literally
grows leaders; not just for their military time but for a lifetime.
They are mature beyond their years and are undaunted by being part of
something so much bigger than themselves.
Deployed to some 120 countries around the world, many of our
service members have seen first-hand the insidious effects of tyranny
over freedom and dictatorship over democracy. As the late General
Creighton Abrams observed: ``Soldiers are not in the Army. Soldiers are
the Army.'' Ordinary Americans whom we ask to do extraordinary things
in our defense both here at home and on the world stage. Many of the
same airmen, soldiers, Marines, sailors, and coast guardsmen are
deployed again and again--year after year.
Extraordinary things? The National Leadership Index 2005: A
National Study of Confidence in Leadership conducted by the Yankelvich,
Inc. Survey organization for US News and World Report/Harvard's John F.
Kennedy School of Government found that Americans have more confidence
in our military--and military leaders--than any other segment of our
society. They simply do whatever America asks them to do.
Mr. Chairman, perhaps particularly illustrative of the intended
beneficiaries of Executive Order 13607 are the observations, first, of
Representative Henry Brown of South Carolina, recently retired, who
formerly chaired this Subcommittee while working closely with ranking
member Michael Michaud; and second, Representative Ike Skelton,
recently retired, who previously chaired the House Committee on Armed
Services.
At the March 24, 2004 bipartisan House Committee on Veterans'
Affairs press conference titled ``Wall Street and Main Street Agree:
Veterans Give Business the Winning Edge'' Representative Brown asked
rhetorically:
``In what other aspects of society do technology-savvy 20 year
olds maintain multimillion dollar tactical aircraft; navigate and
troubleshoot multi-billion dollar nuclear powered ships; and operate
and maintain space-based technologies to keep us safe in an
increasingly unsafe world?''
Indeed while servicemembers and veterans may be new to
postsecondary education and training, they are not new to initiative
and responsibility.
At his December 1, 2010 farewell, the former 17-term Representative
Ike Skelton expressed concern that fewer and fewer Americans understand
the sacrifices of military service:
``I have always considered each young man and woman in uniform
as a son or daughter. They are national treasures and their sacrifices
cannot be taken for granted. They are not chess pieces to be moved upon
a board. Each and every one is irreplaceable.''
Who Sacrifices
Mr. Skelton answers this question well.
By definition, sacrifices of military service are not required of
average citizens. For example, financial aid abounds for those who
earnestly choose not to serve in our military. As a matter of national
policy, in fiscal year 2012 the United States will award about $36
billion in Pell Grants annually for which no service--and no
``sacrifice''--to the nation is required.
This was not always the case. Former Senator William Cohen, who
also served in the House of Representatives and then as Secretary of
Defense, observed on the Senate floor on May 8, 1987 when the Senate
passed H.R. 1085, as amended, by a vote of 89-0 to create the
Montgomery GI Bill:
``We should remember that when GI Bill benefits were established
in 1944, they were the initial step in the federal provision of
educational assistance. Until 1965, the GI Bill stood virtually alone
as a source of aid to post-secondary students. And as late as 1975, the
Vietnam-era GI Bill provided over 50 percent of all student aid to
those in post-secondary schools.''
Observed former Representative and then-Senator Thomas Daschle -
who previously served on this Subcommittee--during this same May 8,
1987 Senate floor debate:
``Every year we spend approximately $7 billion dollars on no-
obligation educational assistance for college students. This, of
course, is a worthy expenditure and a prudent investment in the future
of our country. But we should not forget that it is also important that
educational assistance be provided to those patriotic young people who
have agreed to delay their education so that they can serve their
country in a tour of military service.''
And for those who wear the military uniform, NASAA notes that the
1999, bipartisan Congressional Commission on Servicemembers and
Veterans Transition Assistance (created under PL 104-275) reported that
it was unaware of any other student-aid program in which the student
himself/herself pays-in $1,200 in `cold cash' to become eligible for
educational assistance.
Not an in-kind family contribution, the $1,200 cash pay-in has been
required of servicemembers under the historic Montgomery GI Bill
(MGIB), which observes its 25th anniversary on June 1, 2012 (Public Law
100-48). Even given the $1,200 requirement, since its inception in 1987
about
95 percent of servicemembers voluntarily have signed up for the
Montgomery GI Bill. Enterprising Americans indeed.
To date, about 2.6 million veterans have used the Montgomery GI
Bill in transitioning to civilian life producing untold numbers of
business men and women, teachers, engineers, entrepreneurs, first
responders, accountants, public servants, pilots, bankers, social
workers and professionals in the full range of specialized technologies
- to name just a few professions.
Who Benefits
Our domestic economy.
Mr. Chairman, I share with the Subcommittee the economic-return
data on the Montgomery GI Bill, as NASAA is unaware of any such data
yet available for the Post 9-11 GI Bill. The data are important because
it addresses outcomes and can serve as an indicator of future benefits
for the Post 9-11 GI Bill.
The preponderance of veterans who have trained under VA educational
assistance programs since September 11, 2001 have done so under the
Montgomery GI Bill; thus creating economic opportunity at every turn
and promise at every door for themselves and their families. Under
contract to the Department of Veterans Affairs, the 2000 Klemm Analysis
Group's program evaluation of the Montgomery GI Bill concluded that:
``The Federal Government realizes a sizable financial return on
its investment for [Montgomery GI Bill] benefit users who complete a
traditional academic program.
``The Government return [projected increases in federal taxes
collected as derived from the income gain beneficiaries realize] on
[Montgomery GI Bill] investment is slightly more than 2 \1/2\-to-one
(2.54) for beneficiaries who complete a four-year college degree. The
Government return on investment for beneficiaries who complete a two-
year degree is more than two-to-one (2.14).
``The private return on investment [income gain beneficiaries
realize as a result of their added educational attainment] is more than
8 \1/2\-to-one (8.60) for a two-year degree and more than seven-to-one
(7.36) for a four-year degree.''
Mr. Chairman, lastly, as the Subcommittee is aware, the ultimate
measure of successful transition from military to civilian life is
long-term, sustained employment. And the ultimate judge of the
Montgomery GI Bill's - and the Post 9-11 GI Bill's--cost effectiveness
is the employers who determine whether the program meets employers'
marketplace-workforce development needs.
Fundamentally, employing veterans represents a good business
decision. Notes former Marine pilot Robert A. Lutz, past Vice Chairman
of General Motors:
``Veterans personify economic strength . . . veterans represent
the ready work force for the 21st Century . . . veterans, regardless of
their generation, have the soft skills that every employer seeks; team
players with a strong work ethic, loyalty, the ability to start a job
and get it done all the way through.''
Indeed NASAA shares the view expressed in 2004 by Representatives
Christopher Smith and Mike Simpson: ``Hiring veterans for patriotic
reasons expresses appreciation and respect. Hiring them for business
reasons gets results.'' The GI Bill allows veterans to obtain the
degrees and training that will allow them to secure those jobs. And
employer-based on-job learning and apprenticeships under VA educational
assistance programs even help veterans `earn and learn' simultaneously.
Remarks on Executive Order 13607
We compliment the President for wanting to ensure that those who
are protecting and have protected our nation are not subject to the
abuse of some who are more interested in padding their wallets than
providing a quality educational experience. The Executive Order is an
effort to address some of the problems that have been identified in
recent months and reported by veterans, veteran service organizations
and government investigators.
The idea of adopting and applying Principles of Excellence as
outlined in the Executive Order is consistent with sound educational
philosophy and practices and is currently recognized, respected and
implemented throughout much of the education community. Our experience
tells us that while some of the proposed requirements in the Executive
Order may be helpful to the achievement of the President's goals, they
also could result in the establishment of measures and systems that
duplicate other approaches and services that already meet the
objectives, although in varying degrees of comprehensiveness. Full
adoption and execution of the Executive Order Principles could lead to
increased work for institutions and other entities without proportional
value being added to the process of helping veterans reach their career
goals.
For example, the principles related to the availability of other
types of financial assistance and information regarding debt [Section 2
(a) & (b)]; and those which address the development of educational
plans and the designation of points of contact for academic and
financial advising [Section 2 (g) & (h)] are important to the vast
majority of educational institutions and are generally integral to the
services that they presently provide. Similarly, the information about
outcome measures referenced in Section 2 (a) and further elaborated
upon in Section 3 (c) is currently available through various systems
managed by the federal government and reputable private-sector
organizations. We suggest that these areas of concern receive
additional study and analysis before mandating their presentation or
publication in another separate and distinct format. This will help to
avoid unnecessary duplication and expenditure of limited resources.
We favor the general concept advocated in Section 2 (e) regarding
readmission after temporary and documented absences. Many institutions
already have such a practice and while we understand that it may be
unrealizable for some, especially those that offer occupationally-
oriented programs consisting of highly sequential learning, most
institutions do or can make appropriate adjustments. Here again, the
idea should receive further study before commitment to its development
as an overarching Principle of Excellence with exacting requirements.
We support the need to redouble efforts to discover false
advertising and fraudulent recruiting practices and to tighten policies
and procedures that discourage such practices. Section 3696 of Title
38, USC provides an excellent framework from which to work for GI Bill
purposes. We suggest that the Subcommittee consider holding a work
session to address these issues and include representatives from the
VA, State Approving Agencies, educational associations, the Federal
Trade Commission and other stakeholders. The session could help the
Subcommittee to determine the actual extent of problems and how best to
address them.
We do not support the concept advocated in Section 2 (d). Without
further qualification, it appears to limit the use of the GI Bills and
discriminate against enrollment in some very good ``non-accredited''
programs of education, some of which are offered by quasi-governmental
and not-for-profit entities. Section 3676 of Title 38, USC provides the
basic framework for State governments, through their State Approving
Agencies, to ensure the quality and integrity of non-accredited
programs. Like many provisions in law, refinements can be made to meet
the demands of today's marketplace. The Executive Order highlights the
need for further review of the topic by the Subcommittee.
Section 4 (a), (b) and (c) of the Executive Order regarding the
development of a centralized complaint system with certain coordinated
features also demands further study and discussion. While we appreciate
and applaud the President's recognition of the critical role that SAAs
play in overseeing and ensuring quality educational programming, most
educational institutions and State Departments of Education already
have comprehensive complaint procedures in place to address a wide
range of issues, such as academics, student conduct and finances. While
we would welcome a system which would enhance the ability of the SAAs
to respond to veteran concerns, this is another topic for an
experienced Working Group.
Recommendations
Mr. Chairman, we encourage the Subcommittee to conduct a careful
review of existing consumer safeguards and student-information
initiatives; particularly those that may reside with the Department of
Education, regional accrediting agencies, the Federal Trade Commission,
State Approving Agencies, the Servicemembers' Opportunity College
consortium, and other entities. Additionally, we offer the following
recommendations. They seem especially timely in light of the increasing
concern about negative reports about the use of funds available under
the Post 9/11 GI Bill and the treatment of veteran students.
1. Convene a Working Group of Stakeholders whose purpose would be
to research problems associated with the administration of the GI Bills
and make recommendations to the Subcommittee on changes necessary in
law and/or policy to address the problems. Included in the charge to
the Group would be a review of the various dimensions of the Executive
Order and the topics addressed in the legislation that has been
introduced in the House and Senate.
2. Reinstate the approval and disapproval authority held by State
Approving Agencies (SAAs) prior to the enactment of Section 203 of PL
111-377; remove the deemed approved provision from Section 3672 and re-
designate State Approving Agencies as having disapproval authority in
Section 3679. These changes would help to restore the partnership
between the federal and state governments that helped to make the GI
Bills successful for over 65 years. More importantly, the changes would
provide the authority to states/SAAs to take definitive action to help
resolve problem areas in a timely manner with minimal disruption to
prospective and currently enrolled veteran students. States have the
infrastructure, the experience and the expertise necessary to assist
Congress and the VA in meeting the challenges forthcoming by
increasingly complex educational delivery systems so as to protect our
veterans. Where improvements in the processes used by SAAs become
necessary, there are already existing provisions in law to help, such
as the mechanisms in Section 3674A.
Closing
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you again for the
opportunity to comment on ``Executive Order 13607 and Its Impact on
Schools and Veterans''. We very much appreciate your efforts to make
continual improvements to the administration of the educational
assistance programs for those who defend the freedoms that we all
cherish and enjoy. From a grateful nation, they deserve no less. I
would be happy to respond to any questions that you might have.
Sources
Some of the wording used in this statement is not original to the
NASAA or to me:
At page 1, ``who represent the very best of character, commitment
and resolve'' is attributed to First Lady Laura Bush at a Troops to
Teachers event, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, October 16, 2002.
At page 1, ``disciplined by duty and enlightened by experience'' is
attributed to the late Michael J. Bennett in newspaper articles that
discussed the Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans Transition
Assistance recommendations regarding the Montgomery GI Bill. These
included: Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star, July 5, 2003; Victorville,
California Press Dispatch, July 6, 2003; and Stamford, Connecticut
Advocate, July 8, 2003.
Mr. Bennett is author of When Dreams Came True: The GI Bill and the
Making of Modern America. Brassey's Press, 1996.
At page 1, ``but for a lifetime'' is substantively similar to words
used thematically throughout the text by Suzanne Mettler, in Soldiers
to Citizens: The GI Bill and the Making of the Greatest Generation.
Oxford University Press. Based on extensive survey analysis, Professor
Mettler found that World War II veterans who used the GI Bill were
twice as likely to be civic leaders, as compared to veterans who did
not use it. Dr. Mettler believes this phenomenon likely will hold true
for the current generation, as well, once studied.
At page 1, ``tyranny over freedom and dictatorship over democracy''
is substantively identical to words used by Prime Minister Tony Blair
in an address to a Joint Session of Congress, July 17, 2003.
At page 2, the Creighton Abrams quote is attributed to A Better War
by Lewis Sorley, p. 370.
At page 2, The National Leadership Index 2005 finding is attributed
to Creating a Veteran-Friendly Campus: Strategies for Transition and
Success: New Directions in Student Services, chapter 10: ``Stewards of
the Public Trust: Federal Laws that Serve Servicemembers and Student
Veterans'', Robert Ackerman and David DiRamio, editors, Jossey-Bass
Press, 2009.
At page 2, the Representative Brown ``Wall Street and Main Street
Agree'' language is attributed to the Jossey-Bass publication above;
same chapter.
At page 2, the Representative Skelton quote is attributed to the
December 2, 2010 Army Times article titled ``Skelton Warns of Growing
Civil-Military Split'', Rick Maze, staff writer.
At page 3, the Senator William Cohen quote is attributed to page
145 of Across the Aisle: The Seven-Year Journey of the Historic
Montgomery GI Bill, a case study in the art of legislative leadership,
by the Late G.V. ``Sonny'' Montgomery, University Press of Mississippi,
2011.
At page 3, the Senator Thomas Daschle quote is attributed to Across
the Aisle, page 145.
At pages 3-4, the Klemm Analysis Group data is attributed to the
``The Montgomery GI Bill: 25 Years of Achievement'', Mississippi State
University, G.V. Montgomery Center for America's Veterans,
www.veterans.msstate.edu, research and development tab.
At page 4, the Robert A. Lutz quote is attributed to Across the
Aisle, page 181.
Prepared Statement of Robert M. Worley II
Mr. Chairman and other Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to
be here today to discuss the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA)
efforts to implement Executive Order (E.O.) 13607: ``Establishing
Principles of Excellence for Educational Institutions Serving Service
Members, Veterans, Spouses, and Other Family Members.''
In fiscal year (FY) 2011, VA provided education benefits to nearly
one million Veterans, Service members, and dependents under a variety
of benefit programs. VA is committed to ensuring that VA's education
benefits provide access to high-quality educational opportunities that
will enhance our beneficiaries' ability to meet their academic and
career objectives. The actions required by the Executive Order align
with these objectives, and reaffirm our commitment to ensuring Veterans
are well served by these programs. VA is working closely with other
agencies to leverage current initiatives and resources to enhance
service to Veterans. My testimony today will review VA initiatives
underway to assist Veterans in the pursuit of their education
objectives and the impacts of E.O. 13607 on that effort.
Prior VA Initiatives to Inform Education Beneficiaries
Prior to the publication of E.O. 13607, VA had initiated several
efforts to increase the amount of information available to Veterans as
they pursue programs of postsecondary education. These earlier
endeavors provide a strong foundation for the Department to better
reach out to beneficiaries in collaboration with other Federal agencies
under the auspices of the Executive Order.
In 2011, VA updated the GI Bill website to include links to other
VA and Federal resources on postsecondary education and employment,
including a ``Choosing Your School'' guidebook. The GI Bill website now
links to the Department of Education's College Navigator website, which
provides comprehensive data on nearly 7,000 colleges and universities
in the United States, and to the Department of Labor's ONET on-line
portal, which provides career-specific information on the educational
requirements, working conditions, and other factors an individual might
consider when choosing an occupation.
VA also sponsors the VetSuccess on Campus program, which will place
VA representatives on 24 college campuses nationwide in FY 2012 to
support the readjustment needs of student Veterans. In addition, VA's
oversight and compliance staff works closely with State Approving
Agencies to ensure that institutional financial aid policies, program
information and course guides, advertising, and recruitment practices,
accurately present the important information needed by potential and
existing student Veterans.
Executive Order 13607
Since the Post-9/11 GI Bill became law, there have been numerous
reports of aggressive and deceptive targeting of service members,
veterans, and their families by educational institutions. Additionally,
members of Congress, the GAO, and others have called attention to the
need to provide our military and veteran students with better
information about educational institutions prior to enrolling, so that
students are aware of graduation outcomes, the true financial costs of
educational programs, and other information that allows such students
to choose where to spend their federal educational benefits.
In response, on April 27, 2012, the President issued Executive
Order 13607, which directs VA, along with the Departments of Defense
and Education, to develop and implement Principles of Excellence to
ensure that Service members, Veterans, spouses, and other family
members using military and Veterans education benefits have the
information they need to make informed decisions concerning their well-
earned Federal benefits. They will also establish a centralized
complaint system for students receiving military and veterans'
educational benefits, and will crack down on fraudulent and aggressive
recruiting techniques on and off military installations.
The Executive Order seeks to provide better information and service
to students and families in a few key ways. First, it directs VA and
other agencies to take steps to ensure that students are provided with
the educational and financial information necessary to make informed
decisions. VA strongly believes that Veterans should have access to
information they need to select high-quality educational programs that
match their readjustment goals. Clear information on the total cost of
an educational program, including the tuition and fees, the amount of
that cost that will be covered by Federal education benefits, as well
as information on student outcome, is critical to helping Veterans and
Service members navigate the variety of educational options available
to them, and helping them choose the program that best suits their
needs. Informing students of their federal financial aid options first,
helps mitigate the likelihood that veterans will be asked to take out
more costly private student loans prior to exhausting all of their
federal benefits. These steps are encouraged by the Principles of
Excellence.
The Executive Order will also strengthen oversight, enforcement,
and accountability within our education benefit programs. It addresses
enforcement and compliance mechanisms by requiring creation of a
centralized complaint system for students receiving education benefits
as well as procedures to address complaints and ensure compliance with
the principles. VA, in accordance with the executive order, will
continue to expand oversight of schools to the extent permitted by
existing law and coordinate with other relevant agencies to identify
complaints and act upon compliance concerns.
The Department shares the concern of many Members and Veterans
advocate groups about deceptive and fraudulent marketing campaigns
using the term GI Bill. The Executive Order requires VA to initiate a
process to trademark the term ``GI Bill'', and in accordance with the
directive, VA has already submitted an application to register the term
GI Bill with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) as a
trademark. We are continuing to work with the USPTO on the appropriate
next steps.
To achieve its goals, this Executive Order requires action on the
part of multiple agencies. The VA will publicly post a list of colleges
that have agreed to adhere to these principles on our website. Over the
next several months, the agencies noted in the Executive Order will
submit a plan to the President detailing how they will carry out the
Executive Order in each of their relevant programs.
This Executive Order underscores the importance that VA and other
federal organizations place on this vital issue. The direction provided
by the President will ensure roles and responsibilities are fully
understood; coordination is clear; and implementation is efficient. As
we review and commence implementation of the provisions of E.O. 13607,
we will keep this Subcommittee informed of our plans and any challenges
that we may face.
Conclusion
The Post-9/11 GI Bill greatly improved Veteran students'
educational opportunities. VA has worked with key stakeholders to help
ensure that Veterans utilizing this benefit are paid in a timely and
accurate manner. However, that is not enough. By further continuing
interagency cooperation and student outreach, VA will ensure that
Veterans are informed consumers and schools meet their obligations in
training this Nation's next greatest generation.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy to
answer any questions you or the other Members of the Subcommittee may
have.
Statements For The Record
JENNIFER L. STEELE, ED.D.
In 2010, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions (HELP Committee) published a series of reports that called
attention to aggressive and misleading recruiting practices and high
rates of dropout and student loan defaults at for-profit colleges.
Because education benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs and
the Department of Defense do not count as federal Title IV financial
aid under a law requiring that at least 10 percent of revenue at for-
profit colleges come from non-Title IV sources (the so-called 90/10
rule), the reports raised particular concerns about for-profit
institutions' recruitment of military veterans. The HELP Committee
noted that in the first year after the new, Post 9/11 GI Bill took
effect in August 2009, 36.5 percent of the benefits went to for-profit
institutions, though these institutions enrolled only 23.3 percent of
beneficiaries (U.S. Senate, 2010).
In light of the HELP Committee reports and the ensuing negative
media attention on for-profit institutions, one might assume it is the
schools' aggressive and targeted recruiting practices that are luring
nearly a quarter of Post-9/11 GI Bill recipients to these schools--in
other words, that naive veterans are being tricked into choosing
overpriced institutions with subpar student outcomes. However, a
separate study that my colleagues and I conducted at the RAND
Corporation in 2010, during the first year of the new GI Bill's
implementation, sheds additional light on why military veterans choose
for-profit colleges and the experiences they have there, relative to
their counterparts in non-profit and public institutions (Steele,
2010). \1\ This testimony summarizes those findings and their
implications for consideration of Executive Order 13607, Establishing
Principles of Excellence for Educational Institutions Serving Service
Members, Veterans, Spouses, and Other Family Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This study can be found online at http://www.rand.org/pubs/
monographs/MG1083.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RAND's study was conducted at the request of the American Council
on Education--a non-partisan membership organization of accredited
public and private higher education institutions--and was funded by the
Lumina Foundation for Education. We were asked to study implementation
of the Post -9/11 GI Bill in terms of the experiences of veterans,
active duty service members, and eligible dependents who were using the
new benefits to pursue postsecondary education. We also wanted to
understand those students' experiences transferring military credits to
academic credits and adapting to life on campus. Our study included
focus groups at 13 college campuses and included a total of 105
students. The campuses were distributed among three geographically
diverse states with large veteran populations--Arizona, Ohio, and
Virginia. In each state, we conducted focus groups at one private for-
profit college, one private non-profit college, one public four-year
college, and one public two-year college. \2\ Building on the focus
group data, we then conducted an online survey of a convenience sample
of 230 veterans, service members, and eligible dependents enrolled in
higher education institutions from across the nation. \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ All private colleges were four-year institutions. In one state,
we visited two private non-profit colleges due to low veteran
enrollment at one of the two.
\3\ Survey participants were recruited through an email list
maintained by the American Council on Education of individuals who had
signed up for an online forum about veterans' issues in higher
education, so this was not a random sample.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As shown in Figures 1 and 2, both the focus group and survey
samples included a substantial share (15-21%) of students at for-profit
institutions, affording us the opportunity to compare students' self-
reported experiences by sector.
Figure 1. Distribution of focus group participants by institution
type (n=105)
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Veterans' Reasons for Choosing For-Profit Colleges
In the focus groups, we asked students about factors that had
driven their choice of college and about their college experiences.
Contrary to the prevailing image of veterans as undiscerning consumers
of higher education, the veterans, Reservists, active duty service
members, and family members with whom we spoke described thoughtful
deliberations about their choice of institutions. \4\ Students in for-
profit colleges reported a number of rationales for their institutional
decisions; the main ones are summarized in the paragraphs that follow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Henceforth I refer collectively to participants as veterans
because separated veterans constituted 77 percent of focus group
participants and 82 percent of survey respondents, respectively.
Reservists made up much of the rest, with active duty service members
and dependents constituting only a small share.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuition costs that were covered by their GI Bill benefits. Much of
the public discussion of for-profit colleges has focused on their
higher tuition rates relative to that of public two-year and four-year
colleges, which offer taxpayer-subsidized tuition rates. Placing a
larger share of the tuition burden on students can mean that they must
take on more debt, but this was not the case for the students we spoke
with in for-profit colleges, because their colleges were setting
veterans' tuition rates to match allowable GI Bill benefits in their
respective states. \5\ Thus, for students who qualified for the full GI
Bill benefit, the choice of a for-profit or a lower-tuition public
institution was cost-neutral.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ When we conducted the study in 2010, the tuition cap reflected
the highest undergraduate tuition rate at a public institution in the
state. A legislative change that took effect on August 1, 2011
standardized the cap at $17,500 across states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adult-oriented, career-focused programs with flexible schedules.
Many student veterans in our focus groups described themselves as
working adults, with responsibilities beyond those of a traditional
student just out of high school. Among survey respondents, 46 percent
said they worked more than 30 hours a week, and 63 percent said so
among respondents from for-profit colleges. Despite the availability of
a housing allowance in the new GI Bill, numerous participants--
especially those with families--reported that they still needed to work
in order to make ends meet. Consequently, they wanted programs that
offered evening and weekend classes and locations close to their homes
or workplaces, with online and face-to-face course options.
While some public two-year and four-year colleges also offer
flexible schedules and online courses, students attending such
institutions frequently expressed frustration with the immaturity of
their peers. One student in a public two-year college said that
disruptive students made her classes feel ``like an extension of high
school.'' Indeed, some students in for-profit institutions mentioned
that they had deliberately sought an environment that catered to
working adults. They were also drawn to the career-focused curricula of
the for-profits and the ability to avoid broad-based requirements and
electives that did not pertain directly to their career plans.
Ability to transfer military to academic credits. For-profit
institutions have been criticized as offering credits that are hard to
transfer elsewhere. However, it was these colleges' willingness to
accept military transcripts that appealed to focus group participants,
who generally described wanting to complete their degrees as fast as
possible. We heard a similar story from survey respondents. Table 1
summarizes survey responses with regard to students' attempts to
transfer credits. Column 4 illustrates that the rate of satisfaction
with the credit transfer experience was 60 percent among survey
respondents who had attempted to transfer credits into for-profit
colleges, versus only 27 percent among those from community colleges,
and 41 percent among respondents from public four-year colleges. Only
participants from private non-profit colleges reported higher credit
transfer satisfaction rates, at 82 percent.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ability to enroll in the courses they need when they need them.
Also critically important to students we spoke with was access to the
courses required for their degrees. Being shut out of oversubscribed
courses was a frequent complaint we heard among focus group
participants at public two- and four-year colleges. Given budget
cutbacks at state-funded institutions, this complaint is not
surprising, but it contrasts with the stories we heard from
participants at private colleges--both for-profit and non-profit--who
did not describe course access as a problem. The reasons for this
discrepancy are not clear. It may be that the private institutions are
more nimble in adjusting to course demand--e.g., by deploying adjunct
instructors to open new course sections as needed (Turner, 2006). Or it
may be that private institutions are already more likely to build
excess capacity into their schedules. Alternatively, it may be an
accident of the sample we drew.
What is clear is that because the Post-9/11 GI Bill offers up to 48
months of benefits, GI Bill benefits go farthest when students are able
to enroll full-time each semester. When they are unable to fulfill
course requirements during a semester, they are at risk of exhausting
their benefits before completing undergraduate degrees.
Ability to attend the same institution in multiple states. A final
reason some student veterans gave for choosing for-profit colleges was
the advantage of being able to enroll in a national chain that offered
locations in multiple states. For students who expected to relocate in
the future, access to campuses in multiple states seemed to reduce the
risk that they would need to transfer their credits to a different
institution in the future, and to increase the potential that they
would be able to graduate from the same institution in which they
started.
Veterans' Experiences in For-Profit Colleges
Beyond veterans' reasons for choosing their colleges, the survey
inquired about their experiences in their schools. Notably, survey
respondents in for-profit institutions reported higher-than-average
satisfaction rates with academic advising, at 67 percent, versus about
50 percent satisfaction among respondents at other institution types,
as shown in Table 2. However, their reported satisfaction with their
faculty members was slightly lower, at 63 percent, versus 67 percent
overall. The reasons for these patterns are not entirely clear. As some
students and institutional administrators reported to us, the for-
profit institutions we visited were quite focused on academic advising,
with advisors routinely calling students to check on their progress. In
contrast, some evidence suggests that for-profit colleges spend less on
faculty members than other higher education institutions, in part by
employing fewer tenured faculty (Deming, Goldin, & Katz, 2011;
Quintero, 2011).
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Return to a for-profit education. An important question the
Subcommittee may be left with is whether these students, despite their
deliberate rationales for choosing for-profit colleges, were
nevertheless making choices that compromised their earning potential
due to poor reputation of some of these schools. For instance, one
recent study found higher unemployment rates (by 5 to 7 percentage
points) and 8 to 9 percent lower earnings six years later among those
who attended two-year and four-year for-profit colleges than among
their counterparts from public and nonprofit institutions (Deming,
Goldin, & Katz, 2011). However, the study used a methodology that may
not have fully accounted for higher risk factors among students at for-
profits. In contrast, a recent study that examined labor market returns
to education from public versus for-profit two-year colleges suggested
that the returns were similar. Controlling for unmeasured individual
attributes by tracking individuals longitudinally before and after
their postsecondary training, Cellini and Chaudhary (2011) found
similar returns to a two-year degree among graduates of public and for-
profit institutions, equal to about 8 percent per year of education.
They also found similar returns, of about 6 percent per year of
education, for those who attend two-year public or for-profit
institutions but do not graduate.
It is also important to remember that the flexible schedules and
openness to military credits that for-profit students described could
potentially allow veterans to earn degrees more quickly than they would
at other institutions, thereby at least partially offsetting any
possible earnings penalty from attending a less-prestigious
institution. Given that tuition differences between for-profit and
other institutions would in most cases be negligible for students who
qualified for full GI Bill benefits, together these findings suggest
that GI Bill users enrolling in for-profit colleges may, at least in
some cases, be economically justified in their choice to do so.
Implications for Consideration of Executive Order Executive Order 13607
This discussion is not intended to suggest that we found no room
for improvement in the for-profit colleges we visited, or that our
focus group and survey samples were nationally representative of
colleges or students. In particular, for-profit colleges were the least
likely of the institution types we visited to offer mental health
services and veteran-specific resources. But our study does add nuance
to the public understanding of military veterans in higher education,
including their reasons for choosing for-profit colleges.
Our findings about students' experiences across sectors suggest
that efforts to encourage high-quality educational programming should
consider all sectors, especially regarding institutions' ability to
meet the needs of military veterans and other non-traditional adult
learners. In the ensuing discussion, I consider two particular
strategies discussed in Executive Order 13607--increasing transparency
of information about higher education institutions, and improving
advising and support services for student veterans.
Increasing transparency of information about higher education
institutions. Because veterans are discerning consumers, strategies to
increase transparency about programs should be encouraged. Since the
RAND Study was published on Veterans' Day 2010, the Department of
Veterans Affairs has already made considerable improvements to its GI
Bill website (gibill.va.gov). For instance, it now provides a link to a
``Choosing a School'' page, from which one can link to the Department
of Education's College Navigator Website (nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/
). College Navigator, in turn, provides a comprehensive search tool
with extensive institution-level information, including hundreds of
variables, such as loan default rates and net price information by
student income bracket, as well as a net price calculator for many
institutions.
In other words, College Navigator already provides excellent
transparency for higher education consumers who take time to review it.
This potentially obviates the need for some of the detailed information
that the Executive Order requires institutions to provide to individual
students as part of Section 2(a). This information includes items such
as total price, total aid, and total debt burden the student can expect
to accrue, since that information can be inferred to a large extent
from the net price calculators on College Navigator.
However, I do have a few suggestions for how gibill.va.gov and
nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator might be strengthened to offer even
greater transparency to veterans:
On gibill.va.gov, the link to the College Navigator is
not identified as such. Instead, it currently looks like just a graphic
or possibly an advertisement. The link should be labeled as College
Navigator and defined as a Department of Education search tool for
finding, comparing, and choosing among higher education institutions.
A variable that College Navigator lacks that may be
useful to add for veterans is information about GI Bill and Tuition
Assistance usage rates/amounts at each institution This recommendation
is consistent with Section 3(c) of the Executive Order. Its benefit is
that it would provide service members and veterans with at least some
information about military enrollment rates across institutions.
College Navigator's net price examples and calculators do
not include military benefits, though they do include other types of
federal aid under Title IV of the Higher Education Act. Through a
collaboration with the Department of Veterans Affairs (and through
guidelines to the institutions that post the calculators), it would
likely be possible to build military benefits into both the net price
examples and the institution-specific net price calculators.
The provision in Section 3(c) for additional reporting of student
outcome information by institution and federal program using existing
data from national datasets would also help to improve transparency,
subject to caveats about the data being merely descriptive and
reflecting the composition of students and academic majors at each
institution. However, responsibility for this analysis and reporting
would ideally be managed at the federal level rather than falling on
the individual institutions, which are already facing sharp resource
constraints in terms of veteran services and education services more
broadly.
Improving advising and support services for student veterans.
Provisions in Sections 2(g) and (h), calling for institutions to
provide academic advising for veterans and a point of contact for such
advising are consistent with areas that our data identified as
important for meeting veterans' needs. However, two additional points
about these provisions are worthy of consideration:
Provision (g), which calls for detailed planning of how
to meet graduation requirements on time, might be at least partially
obviated for all students--not just veterans--if colleges were better
able to meet students' enrollment demands in courses required for
graduation. In our data, as noted above, access to required courses was
described as a particular problem in public two-year and four-year
institutions.
Second, most institutions already provide a point of
contact for veterans; it is typically the certifying official who
confirms enrollment with the Department of Veterans Affairs. However,
the level of knowledge and service that this individual provides varies
dramatically among higher education institutions. Rather than requiring
that a point of contact exist, it may be desirable to recognize or
incentivize sustainable, cost-effective models of excellence in
providing veteran transition services on campus.
The purpose of these recommendations is to assist the Subcommittee
in considering whether and how to act on the provisions in Executive
Order 13607. RAND is grateful to the Subcommittee for considering our
research in your deliberations. We would be delighted to answer any
follow-up questions that arise in response to this written testimony.
References
Cellini, S. R., & Chaudhary, L. (2011). The labor market returns to
a private two-year college education. Washington, DC: The George
Washington University.
Deming, D. J., Goldin, C., & Katz, L. F. (2011). The for-profit
postsecondary school sector: Nimble critters or agile predators?
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Quintero, E. (2011). Can I have some faulty with my college?
Retrieved from http://nepc.colorado.edu/blog/can-i-have-some-faculty-
my-college
Steele, J. L., Salcedo, N., & Coley, J. (2010). Service members in
school: Military veterans' experiences using the Post-9/11 GI Bill and
pursuing postsecondary education. Washington, DC: RAND Corporation and
the American Council on Education.
Turner, S. E. (2006). For-profit colleges in the context of the
market for higher education. In D. Breneman, B. Pusser, and S. Turner,
eds., Earnings from Learning: The Rise of For-Profit Universities (51-
68). Albany: State University of New York Press.
U.S. Senate. (2010, December). Benefitting whom? For-profit
education companies and the growth of military educational benefits.
Washington, DC: Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee.
STEVE L. GONZALEZ
Chairman Stutzman, Ranking Member Braley and distinguished Members
of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity in allowing The American Legion to
submit for the record its views on Examining Executive Order #13607 and
its Impact on Schools and Veterans.
Since the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Program (Post-
9/11 GI Bill) went into effect in August 2009, there has been dramatic
growth in both the number of beneficiaries and benefit payments for
study at post-secondary institutions. The Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) supports over 800,000 students through its education
benefits programs, and the Department of Defense (DoD) aided almost
400,000 through its Military Tuition Assistance Program (TA).
As a result of rapid increases in the amount of VA GI Bill benefits
and DOD TA funds going to for-profit post-secondary institutions, these
institutions have brought a growing scrutiny from many veteran service
organizations and policymakers who are dissatisfied with graduation
rates, recruiting practices, transferability of credits, and lack of
accountability. Higher education among student-veterans continues to
increase during a time where the economic environment and job market is
not favorable for transitioning veterans. Armed with better data, the
theory goes, service members, veterans, and their family members will
vote with their benefits, putting pressure on low-performing colleges
to improve on their product while avoid attending bad actor post-
secondary institutions. Unfortunately, some of these safeguards are not
working nearly as well as intended.
To protect these student-veterans from post-secondary institutions
predatory practices, President Obama signed Executive Order 13607,
Establishing Principles of Excellence for Education Institutions
Serving Service Members, Veterans, Spouses, and Other Family Members,
on April 27, 2012. In short, the EO is designed to combat unscrupulous
practices used by schools to gain access to the military/veteran
education benefits. It protects the full range of military/veteran
education benefits programs, including Post 9/11 GI Bill benefits, the
DoD TA program, and Military Spouse Career Advancement Account (MyCAA).
Its provisions focus on ensuring students have the proper information,
support, and protections they need to make informed decisions about
their educational options.
Even though the abuses are considered by many as isolated
incidents, nevertheless, they are incidents of grave concern when post-
secondary institutions take advantage of America's service members,
veterans, and their families. As lawmakers look to be fiscally
responsible with taxpayer's money, and when billions of taxpayer's
money is spend at times on fraudulent and totally ineffective education
programs, these incidents should be of great concern to all of us.
Here are the facts:
For-profit institutions are not cheap--despite the lack
of campuses or classrooms or counseling or even much personal
interaction with faculty members. According to the Education
Department, for-profits cost on average $30,900 per year compared to
public colleges at $15,600 and private, non-profits at $26,600.
Taxpayer's money is being used to fund marketing ads to
attract service members, veterans, and their family members at a higher
rate.
According to the Department of Education, 26 percent of
all student loan money and 46 percent of all student loan dollars in
default come from for-profit programs, despite the fact they account
for just 12 percent of college students.
In a New York Times \1\ article, attorneys general from more than
20 states banded together to investigate for-profit post-secondary
institutions with fraudulent promises, crushing debt loans, going
bankrupt while leaving the service members, veterans, and their family
members with loads of debt and worthless credits and still on the hook
with those outstanding loans; the actions of these institutions are
just wrong.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``For-Profit Education Scams,'' The New York Times, March 23,
2012, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/24/opinion/for-
profit-education-scams.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are just some of the facts that cannot be ignored anymore by
policymakers. Service members, veterans, and their family members
trying to improve their job prospects shouldn't be duped into taking on
crushing debt in exchange for the promise of a future job that will
probably never materialize. Taxpayers should not be stuck holding the
bag when these bargains inevitably go bad.
However well intended the President's interest in oversight of
Post-9/11 GI Bill and DOD TA programs is, there is some room for
concern. First, its intent should not be limited to for-profit post-
secondary institutions. Post-9/11 GI Bill and DOD TA funds to nonprofit
post-secondary institution should also be a matter of concern as well.
In the absence of shared definitions, common metrics, and clear
standards for how and where information is reported and presented, even
the most ambitious policies, as such Executive Order # 13607 is doomed
not to achieve its ultimate goal - providing information to allow
service members, veterans, and their family members to be savvy
consumers when choosing a college or university.
Policymakers should recognize the need to educate prospective
student-veterans and their families about the right questions they
should be asking about the data points they should examine closely when
choosing a college or university. Policymakers should also review and
readdress creating data collections points in the federal Higher
Education Opportunity Act (HEOA) when the law is under review for
reauthorization.
While the outcomes and impacts of this executive order on post-
secondary institutions and veterans cannot be evaluated until the full
implementation of the order, this executive order is a step in the
right direction. It is one portion of the overall effort in aiding
decision-makers and encouraging prospective service members, veterans,
and their family members to consider certain criteria as an important
component of their college choice.
This is a predicament that should be a cross cutting issue of
bipartisan concern; where bogus degrees are a symptom of crisis among
our service members, veterans, and their families; and where even those
who claim to be accredited are often worthless in the job market. There
is a significant gap between the obligation and delivery of higher
education, which, unless checked, will constrain our economic growth;
risking and squandering this nation's competitive advantage--America's
service members, veterans, and their family members. Regardless whether
these issues are addressed through executive order or legislation, one
thing is sure; we have a problem that needs to be addressed.
The American Legion appreciates the opportunity to present this
statement for the record. Again, thank you Chairman Stutzman, Ranking
Member Braley and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee for
allowing The American Legion to present its views on these very
important issues.
THEODORE (TED) L. DAYWALT
WRITTEN TESTIMONY
Good Afternoon. Chairman Stutzman, Ranking Member Braley, members
and staff of the Subcommittee, and fellow veterans, I appreciate the
opportunity to submit comments on Executive Order 13607 (EO 13607) and
its impact on schools and veteran education.
EO 13607 mandates that schools provide information about the total
cost of the educational program including amount of debt owed on any
student loans after graduation; inform veterans about other forms of
financial aid before advising them of private student loans; end
fraudulent and unduly predatory recruiting techniques on and off
military installations; obtain approval of the state accrediting agency
for new courses prior to enrollment; allow service members to be
readmitted if they had to suspend their attendance temporarily due to
military service requirements; agree to a refund policy when veterans
withdraw prior to course completion; provide a plan that details all
the requirements needed for program completion and the time it will
take to complete them; and designate a person(s) to provide counseling
with regard to academics, financial aid, disabilities, and job
searches.
I want to emphasize that not all for-profit schools are bad, but
those that are bad, are VERY bad and unfortunately they negatively
affect the good for-profit school programs. There is definitely a
demand and a need for legitimate online for-profit schools.
Many of the organizations that are testifying before you today will
rightly extoll the benefits of EO 13607 as it is a good first step in
the right direction. Rather than repeat what VFW, VVA, SVA and others
are saying, I would like to focus on four issues that need to be
included in the discussion.
1. Not all for-profit schools are bad
Many of the for-profit schools in the military education space have
definitely stepped over the line, and in some cases, committed fraud,
waste and outright theft. A recent Government Accounting Office
investigation of for-profit schools found outright fraud and violations
of law at all the schools examined, yet VA and DOD permit the schools
to continue marketing to veterans, servicemembers and their families.
Such a situation should not be allowed to continue.
EO 13607 does not distinguish between good and bad for-profit
schools, which is why I prefer to use the term ``predatory for-profit''
schools when talking about those with egregious records. EDMC, parent
company to Argosy University, The Art Institute, Mackey-Brown and South
University, is currently under indictment from the Department of
Justice for $11,000,000,000 in fraud and deserves being referred to as
a predatory for-profit school. Schools such as Western Governors
University, University of Phoenix and American Military University do
not currently engage in the egregious practices of EDMC and Kaplan. It
would help veterans when looking at schools to know which schools are
predatory for-profits and which are actually providing a legitimate
education that can lead to gainful employment.
2. Accreditation Issues
Many of the for-profit schools cannot qualify for accreditation
through traditional accrediting agencies such as SAC or the AACSB. So
to claim ``accreditation'', they created their own accrediting
agencies, which are not recognized by other traditional brick and
mortar schools or state departments of education. Not knowing any
better, veterans were conned by the bad for-profit schools claims that
they were accredited.
To learn more about the fake accrediting organizations offering
accreditation, please visit http://www.geteducated.com/diploma-mills-
police/college-degree-mills/204-fake-agencies-for-college-
accreditation.
To learn more about legitimate school and college accrediting
agencies, please visit http://www2.ed.gov/admins/finaid/accred/
index.html.
EO 13607 should have included a move to stop the predatory for-
profit schools from using fake accreditation claims in their sales
pitch to veterans needs to be taken.
3. Restoring BI Gill Eligibility
As you will hear from nearly all those testifying, veterans have
had their GI Bill funds stolen and/or they have misled into obtaining
worthless degrees that do not lead to gainful employment. At VetJobs we
regularly encounter veterans who thought they would qualify for a job
since they had a degree only to learn they are not qualified because
the hiring entity or graduate school does not recognize their degree.
The veterans were victims of fraud but now have no money with which to
attend an institution of higher learning and obtain a degree that will
lead to gainful employment.
As EO 13607 did not address this issue, Congress needs to redress
this issue and provide mechanisms by which those veterans who were
victims of fraud by the predatory for-profit schools can have their GI
Bill eligibility restored. This can be done by recovering from the
predatory for-profit schools funds to restore GI Bill eligibility to
the veterans.
4. Incentives for legitimate schools
EO 13607 did not address how the traditional accredited educational
institutions could increase their efforts to attract more veterans and
servicemembers into their colleges and universities by offering more
flexible education options to include online course work. If the
traditional organizations offerings were marketed better to the veteran
community, it would reduce the appeal of the predatory for-profit
schools.
Congress needs to implement laws to stop the predatory practices of
for-profit schools and institutions. Congress needs to enact
legislation to enforce the Principles of Excellence as put forth in
Executive Order #13607 for the benefit of our veterans, their families
and our community.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I would have preferred the issues addressed by EO
13607 be handled by Congress enacting the appropriate legislation. But
given this is an election year and political parties have been having
problems working together to enact necessary legislation, EO 13607 is
an appropriate move in the right direction. A presidential executive
order does not have the impact that Congressional legislation would
provide. Therefore I would support legislation that addresses the
problem of predatory for-profit schools.
Higher education, congressional leaders, and government agencies
need to work together to ensure that the GI Bill investment pays off in
degrees with labor market value, such as those found in traditional
graduate and professional schools.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
PATRICK BELLON, MPA
The economic opportunities of America's veterans are being
threatened by bad actors in the for-profit education sector. After
America's young men and women in uniform have finally come home and
hung up their uniforms for the last time they expect and deserve the
right to pursue happiness like any other American and to enjoy the
benefits that come along with having devoted years of their lives to
serving their country. An important part of that pursuit is the ability
to obtain higher education using the GI Bill, a program that not only
benefits veterans, but the nation as a whole. The GI Bill is not only a
successful veteran's program; it is the most successful public
education and employment program in American history.
Unfortunately, some are taking advantage of veterans and this
successful program for their own profit in the name of greed. They mock
the sacrifices of our men and women in uniform. Troops still in uniform
and veterans at home find their mailboxes, inboxes, and social
networking pages filled with paper and electronic advertisements by
for-profit universities. All of them claim to have veterans' best
interests at heart.
Unfortunately this is not true. The stories are becoming numerous,
well known and difficult to explain away or excuse as isolated. For-
profit recruiters sign up Marines who are being treated for brain
injuries. Sailors are not being told that the classes they're working
hard on and their benefits are paying for won't transfer to other
schools. Soldiers are not informed that they're paying many times what
the same program would cost at a local community college. Airmen are
finding that the support they were promised by recruiters is not there.
Veterans are finding out that industry won't recognize their
qualifications and home town schools do no recognize the accreditation
of their for-profit of choice. U.S. taxpayer dollars are lining the
pockets of for-profit colleges rather than benefitting the veterans and
servicemembers they're awarded to. This is unacceptable. Our veteran's
futures must be protected.
Recently President Obama stood up to these bad actors and signed an
Executive Order that goes a long way to begin to address the problem.
The order will ensure troops get more information on costs, financial
aid, graduation rates, support provided, and which colleges have agreed
to cooperate. It will keep predatory recruiters off installations,
prevent misleading advertisements using the term `GI Bill', and orders
further vigilance in acting against those for-profits that abuse or
violate laws and regulations. The order is a leading step in the right
direction. More needs to be done. Veterans and those still serving
continue to be preyed upon by for-profit universities. While the EO is
a much needed step in the right direction and should be supported by
everyone who has veterans best interest's at heart it is far from being
enough. We need new laws to protect our veteran's economic
opportunities, so that they can make the best choices for their future
and not be taken advantage of as a profit center.
Congress needs to take the lead by implementing measures to stop
predatory practices by for profits. This is not political, it is not
about free enterprise, it is about right and wrong.
Ideal legislation would address the following issues, only
comprehensive reforms can protect our brave men and women. For-profits
should not be allowed to use taxpayer funds for marketing essentially
using taxpayer money to procure more taxpayer money by ripping off
veterans. Veterans and service members must be informed in clear
language about the transferability, industry recognition, and
accreditation and graduation rates for the programs they're considering
undertaking. They must be fully informed of all the costs associated
with programs. A mechanism should be made available with which troops
and veterans can compare these various qualitative and quantitative
measures side-by-side with other programs to make a fully informed
decision on where to direct their hard-earned benefits. For-profits
granting degrees should be subject to the same standards as established
for Title IV schools. Finally, the target should be removed from
service members and veterans backs by immediately changing the so-
called `90/10' rule. This ridiculous rule should be altered to include
VA education and DOD benefits alongside DoE benefits in the cap on for-
profit colleges receiving federal funds.
For-profits are taking advantage of our service members and
veterans by misleading them, providing them an inferior product, lining
their own pockets with taxpayer dollars, subverting the goal of the GI
Bill and military Tuition Assistance for veterans and servicemembers,
and depriving American society as a whole of the follow-on benefits of
furthering the education of those who served. Congress must take action
to ensure our veterans, in uniform and out, are not being taken
advantage up for the sake of profit. This exploitation hurts our
veterans and our society and must be stopped now.
For Further Questions Please Contact Veterans For Common Sense
Executive Director Patrick Bellon at (202) 558-4553 or
[email protected]
HEATHER L. ANSLEY, ESQ., MSW
May 14, 2012
The Honorable Marlin Stutzman
Chairman
House Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Washington, DC 20515
The Honorable Bruce Braley
Ranking Member
House Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Stutzman and Ranking Member Braley:
VetsFirst, a program of United Spinal Association, respectfully
requests to submit this letter for the record of the May 16, 2012,
House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Subcommittee on Economic
Opportunity hearing, "Examining Executive Order #13607 and Its Impact
on Schools and Veterans."
Educational benefits are critical for helping disabled veterans
reintegrate into their communities. Thus, every effort must be made to
ensure that veterans who receive educational assistance due to their
military service are not preyed upon but are provided both the
education and supportive assistance they need to succeed. Disabled
veterans must also have access to the information they need to make an
informed decision in selecting an institution of higher learning.
As a result, VetsFirst strongly supports the requirements detailed
in Executive Order #13607, "Establishing Principles of Excellence for
Educational Institutions Serving Service Members, Veterans, Spouses,
and Other Family Members," which was signed by President Obama on April
27, 2012. This Executive Order includes many of the provisions of the
veterans and military service organization developed "Military and
Veteran Students Educational Bill of Rights." Although the Executive
Order does not fully address our concerns, it represents an important
first step in ensuring the continued integrity of these benefits.
If you have any questions, please contact Heather Ansley, Vice
President of Veterans Policy, at (202) 556-2076, ext. 7702 or by e-mail
at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Heather L. Ansley, Esq., MSW
Vice President of Veterans Policy
VetsFirst, a program of United Spinal Association
Enclosure
PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA
Chairman Stuzman, Ranking Member McNerney, and members of the
Subcommittee, Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) would like to thank
you for the opportunity to submit a statement for the record regarding
Executive Order #13607 announced by the President recently. This
executive order is meant to address concerns that have been raised
about the actions of certain schools towards veterans who are eligible,
and use, Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits. PVA appreciates the fact that you
have chosen to further examine the specifics of the executive order to
ensure that the veterans are able to take advantage of the best
education opportunities available.
Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) is pleased to support the
Executive Order issued by President Obama in April to protect veterans
and military service members from unethical recruiting and marketing
practices on the part of certain schools and colleges. Our support for
the executive order is consistent with similar positions addressed in
The Independent Budget for FY 2013 co-authored by PVA, AMVETS, Disabled
American Veterans, and Veterans of Foreign Wars.
This executive order is, in many respects, consistent with the
Military and Veteran Students Educational Bill of Rights agreed to last
year by PVA and other veterans and military service organizations. The
goal of the Executive Order is to:
Provide students with educational and financial
information to make informed decisions.
End fraudulent and aggressive recruiting techniques on
and off military installations.
Ensure support services for service-members and veterans.
Develop and collect service member- and veteran-specific
student outcome data.
Create a centralized complaint system for students
receiving military and veterans' educational benefits.
Begin the process to trademark the term ``GI Bill.''
A quality education is the essential first step for those who
aspire to a life of productive employment and making positive
contributions to their communities and society. Veterans have already
served their country honorably and deserve the strongest support in
making the transition to civilian life. It is very troubling that some
for-profit schools and colleges with poor track records of serving
students have been taking advantage of the assistance provided to
military service members and veterans through deceptive sales
techniques and promised outcomes that don't reflect the reality of
their performance. This is particularly disturbing because so much of
the income derived by these schools comes from taxpayer dollars in the
form of federal student financial assistance and GI Bill and military
transition assistance payments.
Indeed, according to 2009 data obtained by Congress from fifteen
publicly-traded for-profit education companies, 86 percent of their
revenues came from federal taxpayer dollars. Eight of the ten top
school recipients of GI Bill benefits are for-profit higher education
companies. Yet, analyses of filings from the Securities Exchange
Commission and documents from many of these schools themselves show
most of the federal monies are devoted to marketing and profit margins,
not education.
Data from the Department of Veterans Affairs indicate that the
average cost per veteran at public non-profit institutions of higher
learning is $4874 compared to $10,875 at for-profit schools. Faced with
significantly higher costs, students are compelled to take out loans
from these for-profit schools to complete their education. The U.S.
Department of Education reports that these schools account for almost
half of all student loan defaults. Moreover, many students fail to
complete their course of study at these schools. Ten of the highest
withdrawal rates for Associate Degree students enrolling in 2008-2009
were found at schools run by for-profit education companies.
Because of anomalies in current law, GI Bill and military
transition assistance benefits are particularly valuable to for-profit
education companies. Some of these institutions aggressively solicit
veterans with combat stress-related impairments, severe traumatic brain
injuries or other physical disabilities. They do not disclose their
graduation or withdrawal rates, post-employment outcomes for graduates
or transferability of credits to other educational institutions. Once
these veterans are enrolled, the schools fail to provide them with
adequate academic support and counseling or other accommodations to
enable them to complete their education.
The executive order addresses many of the most egregious abuses to
which veterans and military service members have been subjected and PVA
looks forward to examining the plans that the Departments of Education,
Defense and Veterans Affairs must put in place to implement its
directives. More can still be done to make sure veterans, members of
the military and their families as well as U. S. taxpayers are getting
a proper return on their investments in higher education. However, this
is a great step in the right direction.
Once again, PVA would like to thank you for the opportunity to
comment on the executive order. We appreciate the strong focus that the
Subcommittee has placed on expanding opportunities for success of
veterans in education, the workforce, and the business community. We
look forward to continuing to work with you to ensure that veterans
realize the best outcomes in their education endeavors.
Information Required by Rule XI 2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives
Pursuant to Rule XI 2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives, the
following information is provided regarding federal grants and
contracts.
Fiscal Year 2012
No federal grants or contracts received.
Fiscal Year 2011
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, administered by the Legal
Services Corporation--National Veterans Legal Services Program--
$262,787.
Fiscal Year 2010
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, administered by the Legal
Services Corporation--National Veterans Legal Services Program--
$287,992.
MILITARY OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA
CHAIRMAN STUTZMAN, RANKING MEMBER BRALEY, DISTINGUISHED MEMBERS OF
THE SUBCOMMITTEE, the Military Officers Association of America (MOAA)
representing 375,000 current, retired and former officers of the seven
Uniformed Services and the surviving spouses of deceased members is
pleased to submit testimony for the official record of this hearing.
MOAA does not receive any grants or contracts from the federal
government.
Background
The purpose of this hearing is to examine the impact of Executive
Order # 13607 on post-secondary educational institutions (schools) and
veterans.
President Obama issued the Executive Order--Establishing Principles
of Excellence for Educational Institutions Serving Service Members,
Veterans, Spouses and Other Family Members - to ensure that military
members, their eligible family members and veterans have the
information they need to make informed decisions regarding government-
provided military tuition assistance, `My Career Advancement Account'
(MyCAA) educational stipends and veterans' educational benefits. The
intended outcome of the Executive Order is to develop principles of
excellence to strengthen oversight, enforcement and accountability of
these benefit programs.
MOAA and other service organizations closely collaborated earlier
this year on a series of recommendations we called a ``GI Bill of
Rights'' to accomplish some of the objectives set out in the Executive
Order. The GI Bill of Rights was submitted to the Administration for
consideration in developing a coordinated, interagency approach to
improving oversight and outcomes under military and tuition assistance
programs. MOAA, therefore, supports the Executive Order as an important
first step in the development and execution of an interagency plan to
improve the oversight of generous educational resources provided for
our nation's warriors, their family members and veterans.
The thrust of the ``GI Bill of Rights'' is to ensure that all post-
secondary schools - public, private and proprietary - meet the highest
standards of transparency, quality and measurable outcomes. In short,
all schools should be able to demonstrate a reasonable return on the
enormous investment in the future of our fighting women and men, their
families and veterans.
The Need
The Post-9/11 GI Bill authorized under Chapter 33 of 38 U.S. Code
is the most generous educational assistance program since the great
World War II GI Bill.
The VA has made nearly 700,000 payments to colleges, universities
and training programs on behalf of veterans, active duty service men
and women and dependents who have received transferred benefits.
But a year-long Senate investigation detailed troubling trends in
GI Bill outcomes and oversight:
33% of new GI Bill payments went to For Profit colleges,
which trained only 25% of enrolled veterans in 2009 - 2010, the first
year under the new program
8 of the top 10 recipients of Chapter 33 funds were For
Profit colleges
The government spends more than twice as much per veteran
at For-Profit colleges compared to public not-for-profit colleges
Recruiting expenditures at certain For Profit schools far
exceed student services for veterans, which in some cases do not exist
The Attorney General and multiple states have brought
suit against certain For Profit schools for misrepresentation,
recruiting abuses, inflated job placements and other deceptive
practices.
Recommendations
In testimony before a joint House and Senate Veterans Affairs
Committee hearing on March 22, MOAA presented the Committees the
following recommendations for improving GI Bill oversight, transparency
and outcomes:
Direct the Department of Veterans Affairs to work with
the Department of Education to create an online ``dashboard'' so that
prospective GI Bill users can more easily compare costs, credit and
transfer policies, outcomes and graduation rates and related consumer-
friendly information about colleges in all sectors.
Further expand the VA's on-campus VetSuccess program
beyond the 80 campus, $8.8 million program requested in the
Administration's budget request for FY 2013.
Amend the educational counseling provisions in Chapter
36, 38 U.S. Code to mandate such counseling via appropriate means,
including modern technologies, and permit veterans to ``opt out''. It
will be necessary to raise the $6 million cap in the counseling
provision to meet the enormous demand of new GI Bill enrollments.
Establish a centralized complaint reporting and
resolution process for veterans using GI Bill entitlement.
Require that all programs receiving funding under the GI
Bill be ``Title IV'' eligible; in other words, all post-secondary
programs would have to meet Dept. of Education standards for
accreditation and other requirements.
Support legislation to account for all Federal
educational assistance funding under the Title IV category. Changing
the so-called ``90/10'' rule would compel all colleges and universities
to demonstrate that their product is valuable enough to attract private
sector students to pay for the education offered.
Trademark the term ``GI Bill'' so that the Dept. of the
VA can control the use of that term for GI Bill-related websites and
deter other promotional media that present themselves as quasi-
governmental sources of information on the GI Bill.
A number of these recommendations have been incorporated into the
Executive Order. Comment and perspective on the recommendations above
that relate to the EO follow.
1. Online ``Dashboard.'' Section 2(a) and Section 3(c) of EO
13607. The Department of Education recently developed the ``College
Navigator'' website to provide relevant information to prospective
students, parents and others to support decision-making on college
selection. The EO essentially directs a further refinement of the
online tool so that military students and veterans can more easily
compare school costs, accreditation, graduation, drop-out rates, and
other features. College Navigator is a very useful first step in that
direction. MOAA stated at the March 22 joint hearing that an upgraded
online tool or ``dashboard'' would be akin to an ``online shopping tool
like the Amazon website'' to facilitate making informed choices about
college. (Section 2
2. Complaint Resolution Process. Section 4 of the EO,
Strengthening Enforcement and Compliance Measures. Student veterans and
returning warriors from the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts strongly
support the need for a closed-loop complaint resolution process. Most
of the interactions between the VA and schools concern enrollment
certification, payment and recoupment actions - administrative
activities, for the most part. Student veterans, however, need a
reliable channel of communication to report alleged improprieties in
program quality, fraud, misrepresentation and related concerns to
protect them, the government's interest and the nation's investment in
their futures.
Section 4(b). The State Approving Agencies (SAAs) may be the
right vehicle for this purpose. But the recent change in the SAAs'
mission and reporting chain--placing them under the VA Education
Service and essentially making them an investigative body--were done
with no additional training resources or guidance, as far as we know,
on how they were to accomplish the new mission. We note that there were
no hearings held prior to changing the SAAs mission. In informal
discussions with SAAs it appears that some are still operating as
advisors to schools and veterans while others are trying to function as
``IGs''. MOAA believes there is a need for Congressional hearings to
examine how best to use the SAAs going forward.
3. Educational and Financial Advice. Sections 2(g), (h). The EO
requires schools that receive Federal military and veterans educational
benefits to provide an ``educational plan'' on how these students will
fulfill graduation requirements. The EO also expects schools to
designate a point of contact for academic and financial advising,
including access to disability counseling for service members, military
family members and student veterans.
MOAA believes that veteran support services, other than academic
counseling, should be provided by the VA. Schools themselves that have
a threshold number of student veterans and military students should be
provided additional resources as may be needed for purely academic
advice and planning assistance.
Our understanding is that most if not all campus-based
educational programs already provide academic program assistance via
faculty advisors and registrars for all students. And, a growing number
of colleges and universities have established their own veteran centers
on campus; e.g., Mississippi State University and Florida State
University. Coupled with Student Veterans of America chapters on
campuses, MOAA believes tailored support services for student veterans
and military family members can help foster successful outcomes under
GI Bill and military tuition assistance programs.
In MOAA's testimony on 22 March, the Association recommended
expansion of the VA's VetSuccess program on campuses over and above the
target of 80 campuses (from about 20 currently), as requested in the
Administration's budget request for fiscal year 2013. We believe the
VetSuccess program can provide value-added support primarily for non-
educational VA-sponsored services for our student veterans: enrollment
in VA health care, behavioral counseling, referral to Vets Centers and
application for service-connected disabilities.
The EO directs an Interagency approach to educational planning
for military students and veterans. In that regard,MOAA continues to
recommend mandating the educational counseling provisions in Chapter
36, 38 U.S. Code for delivery by appropriate means, including modern
technologies. Veterans should be permitted to opt out. The current $6
million statutory cap for such counseling is inadequate to the rising
demand. Schools may need additional resources to carry out the EO
directive, but it is unlikely that any new funds would be provided in
this environment.
4. Trademark ``GI Bill.'' Section 4(f) of the EO directs the
Interagency to take all appropriate steps to ensure that websites and
programs are not deceptively and fraudulently marketing educational
services and benefits to program beneficiaries by trade marking the
term ``GI Bill'' and other terms military or veterans-related terms.
Trade marking ``GI Bill'' would set in motion a process for purveyors
of information about the new GI Bill and other military tuition
assistance programs would be required to obtain a license or other
release to use with the program. MOAA strongly endorses this action.
Conclusion. The underlying intent of Executive Order 13607 is to
ensure that all schools meet the same standards of transparency
regarding information about programs, costs, accreditation and other
factors. All schools - public, private and proprietary - should play by
the same set of rules. It is in our nation's best interest to provide
the military community, veterans, educational and political leaders,
and the general public reasonable assurance that the generous
investment in the futures of those who have given so much will yield
great dividends for them and the country.
MOAA strongly supports the issuance of Executive Order 13607 and
urges additional action to strengthen the support of military and
student veterans in their pursuit of their educational goals.