[Senate Hearing 113-170]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-170
VOLUNTARY MILITARY EDUCATION PROGRAMS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SPECIAL HEARING
JUNE 12, 2013--WASHINGTON, DC
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=senate&committee=appropriations
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
81-611 PDF WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 APPROPRIATIONS
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland, Chairwoman
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama, Vice
TOM HARKIN, Iowa Chairman
PATTY MURRAY, Washington THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
JACK REED, Rhode Island LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas MARK KIRK, Illinois
JON TESTER, Montana DANIEL COATS, Indiana
TOM UDALL, New Mexico ROY BLUNT, Missouri
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire JERRY MORAN, Kansas
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
MARK BEGICH, Alaska MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
Charles E. Kieffer, Staff Director
William D. Duhnke III, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Defense
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois, Chairman
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
TOM HARKIN, Iowa MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
PATTY MURRAY, Washington SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
JACK REED, Rhode Island LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana DANIEL COATS, Indiana
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas ROY BLUNT, Missouri
Professional Staff
Betsy Schmid
Colleen Gaydos
David C. Gillies
Katy Hagan
Kate Kaufer
Erik Raven
Jennifer S. Santos
Teri Spoutz
Andrew Vanlandingham
Stewart Holmes (Minority)
Alycia Farrell (Minority)
Brian Potts (Minority)
Jacqui Russell (Minority)
Administrative Support
Maria Veklich
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Opening Statement of Senator Richard J. Durbin...................
1..............................................................
Statement of Senator Thad Cochran................................
3..............................................................
Statement of Hon. Frederick Vollrath, Assistant Secretary of
Defense, Department of Defense.................................
4..............................................................
Prepared Statement of Hon. Frederick Vollrath................
5..........................................................
The Military Tuition Assistance Program..........................
6..............................................................
Oversight of Military Tuition Assistance:
DOD Facilitating Servicemember Success.......................
6..........................................................
Ensuring Quality Education Programs..........................
7..........................................................
Preventing Predatory Practices...............................
7..........................................................
Improving Management.........................................
8..........................................................
Education........................................................
8..............................................................
Complaints.......................................................
9..............................................................
For-Profit Schools...............................................
10.............................................................
Financial Aid Counseling.........................................
12.............................................................
Educational Advisor..............................................
13.............................................................
Tuition Assistance...............................................
14.............................................................
Tuition Charges..................................................
14.............................................................
Audit............................................................
15.............................................................
Courses..........................................................
16.............................................................
Military Spouse Career Advancement Accounts Programs.............
18.............................................................
Statement of Terry Hartle, Senior Vice President, American
Council on Education...........................................
20.............................................................
Prepared Statement of Terry W. Hartle........................
22.........................................................
Statement of Steve Gunderson, President and CEO, Association of
Private Sector Colleges and Universities.......................
24.............................................................
Prepared Statement of Steve Gunderson........................
26.........................................................
Statement of James H. Selbe, Senior Vice President, University of
Maryland University College....................................
31.............................................................
Prepared Statement of James H. Selbe.........................
33.........................................................
University of Maryland University College's Long and Rich History
Educating Our Nation's Military................................
33.............................................................
University of Maryland University College Today..................
34.............................................................
Students in Uniform: A Look at the University of Maryland
University College Military Student Experience.................
35.............................................................
Tracking and Reporting Military Student Outcomes.................
38.............................................................
U.S. Military Tuition Assistance Program--Too Important to the
Nation to Cut..................................................
38.............................................................
Educational Attainment: Tracking the Academic Success of
Servicemembers and Veterans....................................
39.............................................................
Executive Summary................................................
39.............................................................
Purpose of the Paper.............................................
40.............................................................
History/Background of the Working Group..........................
40.............................................................
Environmental Considerations.....................................
41.............................................................
Introduction to the Military Student.............................
41.............................................................
Methodology......................................................
42.............................................................
Institutional Inclusion..........................................
43.............................................................
Proposed Cohort Parameters.......................................
44.............................................................
Reporting Variables..............................................
45.............................................................
Summary Recommendations..........................................
45.............................................................
Issues Outside the Scope of this Working Group...................
46.............................................................
Appendix A: Environmental Scan...................................
46.............................................................
Appendix B: Bibliography.........................................
47.............................................................
Appendix C: Working Group Membership.............................
48.............................................................
Statement of Christopher Neiweem, Iraqi Freedom Veteran..........
49.............................................................
Prepared Statement of Christopher Neiweem....................
51.........................................................
Targeting Military Students......................................
52.............................................................
Internal Management Strategy.....................................
52.............................................................
Military Culture Training Lacking................................
53.............................................................
Emphasis of Tuition Assistance Benefit Over Tuition Assistance
User...........................................................
53.............................................................
Additional Committee Questions...................................
66.............................................................
Questions Submitted to Hon. Frederick Vollrath...................
66.............................................................
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin.................
66.............................................................
Quality Outcomes:
Advertising Versus Educating.................................
66.........................................................
Data Tracking................................................
66.........................................................
Transparency.................................................
67.........................................................
Questionable Third-Party Review/Oversight........................
68.............................................................
Education Conference in Las Vegas, July 2012.....................
70.............................................................
DOD Response to SEC Investigation of Corinthian Colleges, Inc....
72.............................................................
Question Submitted by Senator Lamar Alexander....................
73.............................................................
VOLUNTARY MILITARY EDUCATION PROGRAMS
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 12, 2013
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Department of Defense,
Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:01 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard J. Durbin (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Durbin, Reed, and Cochran.
opening statement of senator richard j. durbin
Senator Durbin. Good morning.
The subcommittee meets this morning to receive testimony on
Voluntary Military Education Programs as part of its
consideration of the fiscal year 2014 request for the
Department of Defense (DOD) appropriation.
We will consider the issue with two panels. The first is
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Readiness and Force
Management, Mr. Frederick Vollrath. Thank you for being with
us.
The second panel will be Mr. Terry Hartle, Senior Vice
President of the American Council on Education (ACE); Mr. Steve
Gunderson, President of the Association of Private Sector
Colleges and Universities (APSCU); James Selbe, Senior Vice
President for Partnership Marketing and Enrollment Management
at the University of Maryland University College (UMUC); and
Mr. Christopher Neiweem, a former DeVry recruiter and Iraqi
Freedom Veteran. Thanks to all the witnesses for being here.
Now, we are aware of the important role that is played by
the Voluntary Military Education programs for the men and women
in uniform and their spouses. We also know these are extremely
popular programs.
In fiscal year 2012, more than half a million individuals
participated in these programs. In March, when the services
proposed limiting the benefits because of the sequester,
Congress heard immediately and clearly that education benefits
are very important to our service men and women and their
spouses.
The cost of the program to the Department and taxpayers is
increasing because of its popularity. In fiscal year 2002, the
Department spent $243 million on voluntary education. By 2012,
10 years later, the number had doubled to $568 million.
Our servicemembers sign-up to serve the Nation, they put
their lives at-risk, and they protect our Nation and its
interests. They endure the chaos of multiple deployments and
the stress of the challenge that they and their families face.
When they can find a few precious hours amid those demands to
further their education, servicemembers deserve the opportunity
for that experience. But they deserve an educational experience
that is worth their time and the taxpayers' money.
This subcommittee is concerned that for all its popularity,
the Department has not been--and may not be--sufficiently
focused on assuring that program dollars are going to high-
quality, high-value education programs.
A study last year by the Senate Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions (HELP) Committee, led by Senator Tom Harkin, found
that for-profit colleges dominate the military's voluntary
education programs to an extent not seen anywhere else. His
investigation found that 50 percent of tuition assistance, and
a remarkable 60 percent of the spousal My Career Advancement
Account (MyCAA) program, went to for-profit colleges. Just six
for-profit schools received an astounding 41 percent of all
tuition assistance money from the Department of Defense.
So what difference does it make? Well, this subcommittee is
focused on assuring the American people know their taxpayers'
dollars are being well-spent. And from what we know in general
about for-profit colleges, I cannot, in good conscience, make
that assertion generally about these programs.
Look at the numbers. Remember three numbers about for-
profit schools: 12, 25, and 47. That will be on the final, and
here is what they mean. Twelve percent of all college students
attend for-profit schools. For-profit schools receive 25
percent of all Federal aid to education, and for-profit schools
account for 47 percent of student loan defaults. For-profit
colleges have a 3-year student loan cohort default rate of 22.7
percent compare that to public colleges: 11 percent. Private
nonprofit colleges: 7.5 percent.
We also know that for-profits, on average, spend 22.7
percent of their revenue on marketing, advertising, recruiting,
and admission staffing, and 19.4 percent for profit. Well, how
much goes to instruction if 22 percent goes to marketing and 19
percent goes to profit? Seventeen percent goes to instruction,
even though that is supposed to be their mission. We will get
into some of these dynamics with the witnesses.
The President has shown leadership on this issue. In April
2012, he signed an Executive order on Principles of Excellence
for Educational Institutions Serving Service Members and
Veterans. It outlined a number of steps the Department and
other agencies must take to protect servicemembers from
exploitive practices and providing them the information they
need to make good decisions. A little over a year from signing
that order, I look forward to hearing from the Department on
the progress that is being made.
Let me emphasize: Online learning can be a tremendous
advantage for military families. In fact, it may be the only
way that many servicemembers can go to school.
The subcommittee will have the opportunity to hear from a
veteran performer in this particular theater, and that is the
University of Maryland, an institution serving some 58,000
military and veteran students, which was also ranked by the
``Military Times'' as ``a best for vets college.'' They aren't
alone.
Earlier this year, I was surprised at visiting Northern
Illinois University to learn that they are also offering
programs for veterans and servicemembers. The Military Student
Services program has received numerous awards at Northern
Illinois, including one of the top 50 best for vets 4-year
colleges in the country according to ``Military Times'' in
2013. ``G.I. Jobs'' ranks Northern Illinois University programs
among the top 15 percent nationwide.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about these
programs, how they are working, what we can do to improve them.
Since the beginning of this year, I have been raising with
senior military leaders the basic question on how to deliver
high quality education to men and women in uniform, and their
spouses. To a person--to a person--every single leader in the
military that I have spoken to has expressed concern about this
program. Let me give you an example.
General Odierno said, and I quote, ``Many of these for-
profit organizations are taking advantage of maximizing the
dollars they can get from tuition assistance. So they are
driving the costs up and it is almost making it unaffordable
for us.'' General Odierno said, ``So we have to go after this
problem.''
Everyone else has pledged to work with this subcommittee to
ensure the Department delivers quality education. I hope this
hearing will help further our understanding of the steps now
being taken and what more we need to do. I have some questions
today, as I am sure my colleague, Senator Cochran, does.
Senator Durbin. And at this point, I would like to turn it
over to my colleague for his statement.
statement of senator thad cochran
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join you in
welcoming our witnesses to this hearing on Voluntary Military
Education programs in the Department of Defense.
The Department's support of off-duty education
opportunities has improved the quality of life and the
capability of our defense forces and members of our defense
team. Important changes, we understand, have been made in
oversight of Voluntary Military Education programs to help
ensure that both traditional and for-profit institutions have
opportunities for service to servicemembers. Also, concomitant
with that is the flexibility that they need and at a cost the
servicemembers can afford.
I look forward to joining my colleague in reviewing these
reforms and learning more about what educators are doing to
help meet the needs of our servicemembers.
Thank you.
Senator Durbin. Thank you very much, Senator Cochran.
Mr. Vollrath, from the Department of Defense, you are our
first witness. Your written statement will be made part of the
record. If you would summarize for it and open to questions, I
would appreciate it very much.
STATEMENT OF HON. FREDERICK VOLLRATH, ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Mr. Vollrath. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Durbin,
Vice Chairman Cochran, and distinguished members of the
subcommittee, should they arrive.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to
discuss the efforts of the Department to provide lifelong
learning opportunities through our off-duty, voluntary
education programs.
Each year, a third of our servicemembers enroll in
postsecondary education courses leading to associates, and
bachelors, and advanced degrees. This past year alone, that is
fiscal year 2012, there were more than 286,000 servicemembers
enrolled in nearly 875,000 courses. And over 50,000
servicemembers earned degrees or certifications; a success.
All servicemembers enrolled in the voluntary education
programs are nontraditional students. They attend school part
time while they are off duty taking, on average, only three
courses per year. Military missions, deployments, and transfers
frequently impinge on the soldier's, or airman's ability to
continue their education, which often results in breaks of
months, or in some cases, years between taking courses and
completing their degree.
To facilitate education in today's high paced environment,
colleges and universities are delivering more classroom
instruction online, as well as on military installations around
the world. There are no geographical confines. In fact, courses
are offered aboard ships, submarines, and at deployed locations
such as Afghanistan. This is the kind of instruction our
servicemembers want. Over 76 percent of the courses taken last
year were delivered through distance learning.
To ensure that our education dollars are well-spent,
whether at public or private schools, and that our
servicemembers have a positive educational experience, DOD has
developed a multifaceted, quality assurance program.
Underpinning this effort is the requirement that all
postsecondary education participating in the tuition assistance
program, or TA, must be accredited by an accrediting body
recognized by the U.S. Department of Education.
Additionally, it is DOD policy that all participating
institutions sign a memorandum of understanding, an MOU, that
requires them to adhere to the principles of excellence as
enumerated by the President. This will help end fraudulent
recruitment on our military installations and address other
predatory practices by bad academic actors and provide students
with personalized, standardized forms outlining costs,
financial aid, and outcome measures.
The MOU also requires military students to be provided a
streamlined tool to compare educational institutions using key
measures of affordability and value through the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) eBenefits portal. I am pleased to report
that over 3,100 institutions with more than 1,050 sub-campuses
have signed this MOU.
DOD is also part of an interagency team which is finalizing
the development and implementation of a centralized complaint
system to resolve concerns raised by students receiving Federal
education benefits; in our case, tuition assistance. This team,
which includes the Department of Veterans Affairs, the
Department of Education in collaboration with the Department of
Justice, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will have
access to all complaints and their resolution through the
Consumer Sentinel Network.
In addition to holding schools accountable, we also have
strict requirements for our participating servicemembers. Prior
to enrolling in courses using tuition assistance,
servicemembers must establish an educational goal and a degree
plan. When a servicemember subsequently requests tuition
assistance for a course, outlined in their approved degree
plan, an educational counselor reviews that request and must
approve it.
Servicemembers who either fail, or do not complete the
course, must reimburse the Department for the tuition
assistance received for that course. Servicemembers failing to
maintain a 2.0 undergraduate grade point average (GPA), or a
3.0 graduate grade point average, must pay for all courses
until they raise their GPA sufficiently.
Our voluntary education program is a key component of the
recruitment, readiness, and retention of the total force, an
All-Volunteer Force.
prepared statement
Retired Air Force Senior Sgt. Eric Combs is an excellent
example of the value of the voluntary education program for
servicemembers. He entered the military with a General
Educational Development (GED) and earned his community college
degree at the Air Force, and then his bachelor's degree with
tuition assistance while on Active Duty. Upon his retirement,
he participated in the Troops to Teachers program, was
subsequently selected as the Ohio Teacher of the Year, and now
serves as a principal in the public school system. The skills
he learned, and the education he received while serving in the
Air Force ultimately benefitted both him, the Air Force, and
the Nation.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. And I thank you,
and the other members of the subcommittee for the opportunity
to appear before you today.
I look forward to your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Frederick Vollrath
Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Cochran and distinguished members
of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today to discuss the management of the Department of Defense's (DOD)
Voluntary Education Tuition Assistance (TA) Program and the steps we
take to protect this taxpayer-funded benefit which greatly facilitates
our servicemembers receiving a quality education.
The Department's Voluntary Education Program provides lifelong
learning opportunities for servicemembers, contributing to enhanced
readiness of our forces. Education helps our servicemembers be better
Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines; through education and
experience we get better leaders, who will sustain our Force Readiness
and continue to make valuable contributions in support of our Nation.
Our programs are designed to meet the unique needs of the military off-
duty student and, therefore, attract a large percentage of the eligible
military population where approximately one-third of our servicemembers
enroll in post-secondary courses leading to undergraduate and graduate
degrees or other credentials each year. Colleges and universities,
through an extensive network, deliver classroom instruction at hundreds
of military installations around the world and on-line, to an ever
increasing percentage of our servicemember students. Additionally,
servicemembers can also earn college credits for learning that takes
place outside the traditional classroom through College Level
Examination Program (CLEP) testing and assessment of their military
training.
Military students have unique needs: They attend school during off-
duty hours, in a part-time capacity, and average three courses per
year. As expected of military service, the military mission,
deployments, and transfers often take precedence over their education
so they may have breaks of months or even years between courses.
Completion of their degrees or other credentials normally takes much
longer than for the traditional student; in some cases up to 10 years
or more. DOD provides servicemembers with assistance in meeting these
challenges through its Voluntary Education programs and services,
ensuring that opportunities for learning continue to exist for
servicemembers throughout their military careers and preparing them for
lifelong learning after they leave the military.
the military tuition assistance program
A key portion of the Department's Voluntary Education Program is
Tuition Assistance (TA), which supports servicemembers by helping to
defray the rising cost of tuition. Military TA often is the determining
factor in whether or not a servicemember can afford to take a class.
DOD is cognizant of this fact and has set a system in place for the
management and oversight of the TA program. As part of this system, DOD
has established uniform TA funding for voluntary off-duty college
courses and degree or other credentialing programs. Under the current
uniform TA policy, which commenced in fiscal year 2003, all
servicemember participants may receive up to $250 per semester hour
with a $4,500 maximum per fiscal year. Due to high participation in the
TA program and rising costs per credit hour, the Services have
experienced difficulty funding fiscal year 2013 requests for TA, which
cost $568.2 million DOD-wide in fiscal year 2012. This funding
difficulty was further exacerbated by the continuing resolution and
sequestration, and resulted in three of the four Services temporarily
suspending new TA enrollments. However, with the passing of the
Department of Defense, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and
Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013, the Services are able to
fully fund TA through fiscal year 2013.
Concern has been expressed that a significant portion of TA
expenditures go the approximately 25 percent of approved schools that
are for-profit; currently for-profit schools were among the first to
emphasize on-line education, a model that best fits the needs of our
highly mobile servicemembers. In fact, 76 percent of courses taken
through the TA program in fiscal year 2012 were conducted on-line. DOD
has developed a multifaceted management system requiring oversight from
multiple stakeholders, to include the Office of the Secretary of
Defense, the Services, installation commanders, education officers, and
the installation education center staff, to ensure both a positive
experience for our servicemembers and that our education dollars are
well spent whether at public, private nonprofit, or private for-profit
schools.
oversight of military tuition assistance--dod facilitating
servicemember success
Participation in DOD-supported Voluntary Education requires
servicemembers to visit an education center, either in person or on-
line through their Service education portal. There are approximately
200 DOD education sites worldwide, to include contingency areas in
Afghanistan. At these centers, professional education counselors
present servicemembers with an extensive menu of options, provide
details about specific programs, recommend tailored courses of study
that meet servicemembers' goals, and provide information on education
financing to include information on the TA program, grants, loans and
other available funding options. Prior to using military TA,
servicemembers must establish an education goal and education plan.
Servicemembers, via their Service's education portal, request TA for a
course(s) outlined in their approved education plan, and an education
counselor reviews the servicemembers' education record and education
plan prior to granting approval.
In addition to the counseling support they receive, our
servicemembers are also incentivized by having a financial stake in
their success. In this regard, even with the financial support DOD
provides, nearly all servicemembers, and especially those taking
graduate level courses, incur out-of-pocket expenses. Also,
servicemembers failing to complete or receiving an ``F'' in a course
must reimburse DOD for the TA received for the course, and
servicemembers' failing to maintain a 2.0 undergraduate or 3.0 graduate
grade point average (GPA), must pay for all courses until they raise
their GPA sufficiently.
oversight of military tuition assistance--ensuring quality education
programs
Ensuring the quality of education provided to our servicemembers is
essential to the Department, and underpinning this effort is DOD's
requirement that all post-secondary institutions participating in the
TA program, whether they are physically located on our installations or
elsewhere, must be accredited by an accrediting body recognized by the
U.S. Department of Education. Additionally, on March 1, 2013, DOD
implemented a policy requiring an institution to have a signed DOD
memorandum of understanding (MOU) in order to be eligible to
participate in the DOD TA program. Currently, over 3,100 institutions
with more than 4,150 sub-campuses, have signed the DOD MOU. The current
MOU and its revision, which is in coordination as part of Change 2 to
Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 1322.25, will require all
participating institutions to adhere to the Principles of Excellence as
enumerated in Presidential Executive Order 13607:
--Provides students with an Education Plan;
--Informs students of the availability and eligibility of Federal
financial aid before arranging private student loans;
--Ensures new course or program offerings are approved by the
institution's accrediting agency before student enrollment;
--Allows servicemembers to be readmitted to a program if they are
temporarily unable to attend class or have to suspend their
studies due to military requirements;
--Provides a refund policy for military students consistent with the
refund policy for students using Department of Education
Federal student aid (title IV); and
--Designates a point of contact for academic and financial advising.
dod oversight of military tuition assistance--preventing predatory
practices
DOD is strengthening its control on installation access to our
servicemembers. All Military Services have recently provided updated
guidance to their bases and recent changes to DOD policy provides
guidance that limits institutions' access to military installations,
only to provide education, guidance, and training opportunities, and to
participate in education fairs. However, marketing firms or companies
that own and operate higher-learning institutions will not have access.
Institutions requesting access to military bases in order to provide
education guidance to their students must meet the following
requirements and gain access only through the base education officer
via a written proposal:
--Have a signed MOU with DOD;
--Be chartered or licensed by the State government in which the
services will be rendered;
--Be State-approved for the use of veteran's education benefits;
--Participate in Title IV programs (eligible and participating under
Department of Education rules, students are eligible for
Federal support);
--Be accredited by an accrediting body recognized by the U.S.
Department of Education; and
--Have an on-base student population of at least 20 military
students.
As directed in Presidential Executive Order 13607, DOD is also part
of an inter-agency team that includes the Departments of Veterans
Affairs and Education and, in collaboration with the Department of
Justice and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, are finalizing the
development and implementation of a centralized complaint system to
register, track, and to respond to concerns raised by students
receiving Federal military and veterans educational benefits. This
complaint system and related processes are intended to provide each
agency with a standardized approach to capturing a complaint. All
complaints and their resolution will be contained within a centralized
repository, the Consumer Sentinel Network, thereby making the
information accessible both to the components at the Departments of
Veterans Affairs, Defense, and Education, all of whom review schools
for compliance and program eligibility, as well as the law enforcement
agencies that would prosecute any illegal practices. The inter-agency
team is also engaged in establishing servicemember and Veteran Outcome
Measures directed by Presidential Executive Order 13607 that will
assist in assuring continued quality at both the program and
institution level. Measures will attempt to determine performance
through metrics such as retention rate, persistence rates, and time-to-
degree (or credential) completion.
dod oversight of military tuition assistance--improving management
In addition to setting the above standards, DOD continues to
evaluate the education programs that utilize TA dollars to help ensure
our servicemembers are receiving the highest caliber education
programs. The DOD Third Party Education Assessment program assesses the
quality of off-duty postsecondary educational programs and services
used by servicemembers and to assist in their improvement. These
assessments help ensure the education programs provided to
servicemembers funded by TA are of the same high quality and meet the
same academic criteria as those experienced by traditional students. In
the past, DOD only reviewed schools operating on bases. Per the DOD
MOU, all schools now agree to participate in the review. The Office of
the Under Secretary of Defense reviews all findings and recommendations
and tracks the progress of corrective actions taken by the Services.
DOD's contract with the American Association of State Colleges and
Universities (AASCU) establishes the Servicemembers' Opportunity
College (SOC) which includes 1,900 post-secondary institutions SOC
members. SOC advocates for and communicates the needs of the military
community to the higher education community. SOC also ensures
institutions are responsive to the special needs of servicemembers,
assists the higher education community to understand the requirements
of the military, and serves as the DOD liaison with institutions to
resolve concerns and share program information to strengthen school
relationships with DOD.
conclusion
Servicemembers greatly rely on these programs. In fiscal year 2012,
286,665 servicemembers enrolled in 874,094 postsecondary courses, and
50,497 of them earned degrees or other credentials. Our programs assist
servicemembers in gaining the knowledge they need for their chosen
education and military career paths; ensuring they acquire the skills
necessary to operate in a dynamic national security environment; and in
returning to civilian life, that they are prepared to be successful in
their chosen careers, leading contributors to their communities, and
productive citizens in the 21st century. DOD is committed to
effectively delivering voluntary education programs that meet the
changing needs of the military.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. On behalf of the men and
women in the military today and their families, I thank you and the
members of this subcommittee for your steadfast support.
EDUCATION
Senator Durbin. Thank you very much, Secretary Vollrath.
It would strike me that the purpose of these educational
opportunities is to offer to servicemembers and their families
two or three things.
First, it is my understanding that this looks pretty good
when it comes time for a promotion, that someone has taken some
courses. I take it from that, that you believe that one of the
effective elements of leadership is education. And if a
servicemember shows the initiative to improve their education,
that will be viewed in a positive context.
Second, I would assume that some servicemembers view this
as after their service opportunity that when they finally leave
the military, they will have another pursuit in their lives, a
career that they have been prepared for by this.
And third, it is just could be for the sake of education,
just to learn something that you did not know, whether it is
yourself, your spouse, or whomever.
So let's go to the first point. As I have gone into this
subject for a long time, it appears it all starts in the same
place: the accreditation by the Department of Education. It is
sort of the basic standard by which, I understand from your
testimony, you decide whether a school should offer courses for
those serving in the military.
Is that correct?
Mr. Vollrath. Correct.
Senator Durbin. And you say there are more than 3,000
institutions that offer courses to any number of members of the
military.
Mr. Vollrath. That have signed the MOU.
Senator Durbin. Signed the MOU. How long have you been
involved in this program or supervising this program?
Mr. Vollrath. That's a good question, Chairman. The answer
is probably about 36 years in various different forms. I served
in the Army in uniform for 35.
Senator Durbin. Okay.
Mr. Vollrath. And then in this position for about 14
months.
Senator Durbin. So during that, let's just say in the last
several years, how many of these 3,000 institutions have been
disqualified from the program?
Mr. Vollrath. Mr. Chairman, I don't know, but I will
certainly try to get you an answer for the record. I don't know
how many have been disqualified.
Senator Durbin. If it were a sizeable number, you would
probably know, wouldn't you?
Mr. Vollrath. Yes, I would think so.
Senator Durbin. So is it fair to say it is not a sizeable
number?
Mr. Vollrath. I don't know. I will try to get that number
for you. I just don't know.
[The information follows:]
For the approximately 3-year period prior to implementation of the
Department of Defense (DOD) Military Tuition Assistance (TA) Program
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in March 2013, there were 104
incidents of school removal from participating in Military TA. Reasons
for removal included school closure, loss of accreditation, bundling of
tuition and fees (violation of DOD Uniform TA Policy), and/or school's
refusal to accept Military TA.
Senator Durbin. Is it within the power of your office, or
the military, to disqualify an institution?
Mr. Vollrath. The disqualification would be based on them,
number one, not signing the MOU; two, violating the provisions
of the MOU; and three, losing their accreditation. Any
combination would stop the train.
Senator Durbin. And if the Department received complaints
from military servicemembers about the quality of education
that was being offered at a school, would that be taken into
consideration?
Mr. Vollrath. Yes.
Senator Durbin. Has it been?
Mr. Vollrath. Yes.
COMPLAINTS
Senator Durbin. Do you recall whether there were any
schools which have been chronic in terms of complaints?
Mr. Vollrath. Not to my knowledge, no. I know that we have
received complaints. I know that we have run the complaints to
ground. I do know that as we develop this complaint system in a
more automated and centralized form, we will start sharing that
information between the VA, the Department of Education, and
us. And if we find the bad apples----
And I think that is a good course of action, by the way,
because you could have just one from one incident on our part
from DOD servicemember attending. You might have a variety from
veterans also, and the Department of Education might also get
complaints. And so, putting them all together, I think, will
give us a better side picture of what is really going on.
Senator Durbin. Have you put them all together?
Mr. Vollrath. We will be able to do that with certainty
about 1 September.
Senator Durbin. That's not being done now.
Mr. Vollrath. It is being done, but in a hand method.
We are testing the automated system with the Air Force. We
started 3 June for 30 days. If it works, we will roll it out
across DOD by 1 September. It feeds into the other systems, to
the Sentinel Network and then we will start using that.
The benefit, some of the benefits to that is that we will
share problems, we will also loop back to the institution, and
we will make sure that we can follow up with the student. That
is critical.
FOR-PROFIT SCHOOLS
Senator Durbin. So let me ask you this. In recent years,
this has been going on for some years, but in recent years,
for-profit schools have become a major part of this program.
Have they not?
Mr. Vollrath. Yes.
Senator Durbin. And have you noticed any changes in
recruiting and marketing when the for-profit schools became
part of it?
Mr. Vollrath. In terms of their recruiting?
Senator Durbin. Yes.
Mr. Vollrath. Certainly. Over the years, they have stepped
up ads on television, et cetera. That begs another issue is:
what do we do about institutions recruiting on base?
Senator Durbin. I am going to get to that.
Mr. Vollrath. All right.
Senator Durbin. But I just want to start with----
Mr. Vollrath. Okay.
Senator Durbin [continuing]. This basic question about the
for-profits and their marketing. The numbers I read suggest
that out of the substantial Federal revenues going to for-
profit schools, 22 percent, on average, is used for marketing
purposes.
Have you seen that when it comes to marketing to our troops
to convince them to go to, for example, the American Military
University as opposed to the University of Maryland?
Mr. Vollrath. I am not sure I could single them out. I know
that the ads for postsecondary education have been more
prolific than in the past.
Senator Durbin. Primarily for for-profit schools?
Mr. Vollrath. From my personal experience, I have not
noticed the for-profits versus somebody else, frankly.
Senator Durbin. Really? Well, here is what the President
said with his Executive order, ``Aggressive and deceptive
targeting of servicemembers, veterans, and their families by
some educational institutions.''
Have you seen evidence of that--``aggressive and deceptive
targeting of servicemembers''?
Mr. Vollrath. I would certainly say ``aggressive.'' I
cannot talk to the ``deceptive''.
Senator Durbin. So these are commercial ventures, these
for-profit schools and what access do they have to the
military?
Mr. Vollrath. They can have a variety of access; on-post is
one.
Senator Durbin. How?
Mr. Vollrath. The other----
Senator Durbin. How would they get on-post?
Mr. Vollrath. Well, they can get on-post if they are
offering courses, but given the MOU and the changes thereto,
that is not going to happen or cannot happen in the future.
The only way they can be, anybody, any institution, will be
on-post is if they are offering a course or specifically
offering counseling. And they have to have written permission
from the Education Office just to do that.
Senator Durbin. So why have you drawn that line or why do
you think that line has been drawn?
Mr. Vollrath. To make sure that we don't have these
problems that are reported.
Senator Durbin. Okay. Senator Cochran.
Senator Cochran. I was just thinking back over my
experience serving on a heavy cruiser in the U.S. Navy for
almost 2 years. Our sailors and officers on the ship were busy
all of the time. If they weren't busy, we found a place that
needed to be re-chipped. Chipping paint was an avocation; at
least for some members of our crew. But the whole point was
there was a lot of downtime on that ship with not anything to
do.
Now, a lot of reading; I think I read more in the 2 years I
was, almost 2 years aboard ship, than I had in any other
recreational reading, but intellectually----
Mr. Vollrath. Right.
Senator Cochran [continuing]. Satisfying reading as well.
Isn't this an area that might be threatened and may have an
effect on moral and discipline, particularly in the seagoing
Navy?
Mr. Vollrath. Absolutely. I mean, if we in any way
significantly would reduce the access to this type of learning?
Yes, that would have an effect because it affects them
personally, it affects their long-term goals. But as the
Chairman pointed out quite correctly, it can affect them
immediately in terms of their promotion potential while on
Active service.
Senator Cochran. Right.
Mr. Vollrath. So yes, it is key to attracting and retaining
the quality servicemembers that we need.
Senator Cochran. Yes. I would think so, too, and I think it
would contribute to the intellectual growth and development of
our sailors, our officers, and men onboard ships and onshore as
well.
Well, thank you for being here and helping set the stage
for our review.
Mr. Vollrath. Thank you, sir.
Senator Cochran. Thank you.
Senator Durbin. Thanks, Senator Cochran.
Senator Reed.
FINANCIAL AID COUNSELING
Senator Reed. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here.
I want to ask a few questions. What kind of financial aid
counseling do the military personnel get? You mentioned they do
get some counseling before they are enrolled in any of these
programs. Does that include financial aid? And specifically, I
understand the MOU requires the institution to inform them of
their access to Federal student loans before they take private
loans.
So, are you providing confidential financial advice to
these students before they sign-up?
Mr. Vollrath. Senator, the answer is yes and yes. Yes, we
are. When they go through the educational office and talk to
one of the DOD education counselors and layout their plan,
their goals, they are counseled about the finances, of course,
starting with what we do in tuition assistance. And then the
other forms, because out there is also the G.I. Bill, although
taking it while on Active Duty is probably not the financially
best decision----
Senator Reed. Right.
Mr. Vollrath [continuing]. That you could make. But we
advise them of that also. We also, then, advise them about
other student loans. So yes, we do it at the very front end.
And yes, Senator, through the MOU, we require now in a
standard format and way that all of the institutions advise and
counsel that student about other financial aid available
starting with Federal, and last but not least, the commercial
loans out there so they can make informed decisions.
Senator Reed. It strikes me that the most reliable and
independent advisor would be the educational advisor in the
military, and that they could go so far as telling them,
essentially, what is the best way. Do they go that far, or is
it just simply, you know, ``I must inform you, you agree to
pay--I must inform you that you are eligible for Pell grants,
Stafford Loans, PLUS Loans, et cetera. Thank you very much''?
Mr. Vollrath. No, it is a personal counseling.
Senator Reed. So, you----
Mr. Vollrath. It is a pro forma exercise.
Senator Reed. So you are confident that they would actually
be able to help them pick out the lowest cost to them.
Mr. Vollrath. Certainly, and also help them modify their
expectations. If they are hell-bent to go to one of the
prestige schools----
Senator Reed. Right.
Mr. Vollrath [continuing]. We tell them what that cost is
going to be and the pitfalls in getting to that effective, but
we advise them.
Senator Reed. Right. In this context, do you know the
percentage of the students that are taking the private student
loans? I mean, I would think with the panoply of DOD support,
Pell, Stafford, PLUS, et cetera that the need for some of these
private loans which, in some cases, carry a much higher rate
would be de minimis.
Are you tracking that?
Mr. Vollrath. Senator, we are not tracking that
specifically in terms of the private loans that they take out.
Senator Reed. I would suggest that you might consider it. I
know you have got lots of things to do, but not only the
individual volume, but also if it is specific to individual
institutions because then, I think, you might find that they
are just simply, at least the institutions, are paying perhaps
lip service to the--we are telling them about these public
loans, but then we are telling them, ``Hey, win a free vacation
cruise if you just signup for our loan.'' So I think that is
something important. It goes to another issue, too, which I
think is important.
To what extent do you actively audit these institutions,
private or public, with respect to the MOU's?
Mr. Vollrath. We have--we employ a third partyto do a
review of the institutions and with 3,100 we do not get to all
of them.
What we have changed, however, okay, is we have
strengthened the audit so that it follows now the MOU and the
principles of excellence. We also have them visit classrooms or
instruction, or it may be online. And we have expanded, and
this is the key point, we have expanded beyond those that are
given on the installations to all installations. Okay? So their
practices are now more public to us as we take a look at them.
Senator Reed. And let me ask the follow-on questions. How
public are these audits, i.e., if you find a consistently poor
performing institution, is that public domain or do you simply
put it in your files?
Mr. Vollrath. It certainly is public domain----
Senator Reed. Do you----
Mr. Vollrath [continuing]. As anything else is, yes.
Senator Reed. So do you, but I guess I am being--let me
redirect--do you periodically publish the results of these
audits so that you can essentially say, ``This school does just
remarkably well,'' you know, ``A-plus''? It did green, yellow,
red, I think you remember.
Mr. Vollrath. Yes.
Senator Reed. These are green, these are yellow, these are
red.
Mr. Vollrath. No, Senator, we have not published that.
Senator Reed. Wouldn't that be helpful?
Mr. Vollrath. Because we are not necessarily qualified to
really give a learned opinion about their academic excellence
or lack thereof, so----
Senator Reed. I am just simply, their consistency with the
MOU, that you should be the experts on.
Mr. Vollrath. Yes. Correct. If they are following it or not
following it, we record that and keep track of it.
Senator Reed. But that is not publicly, routinely
published.
Mr. Vollrath. We do not publish an annual report.
EDUCATIONAL ADVISOR
Senator Reed. You should, I think, consider that because I
think that would draw attention to those institutions which are
meeting and exceeding your expectations and those that aren't.
Let me go back to the educational advisor, one final
question there. Can they essentially tell the servicemember,
``No, you are not going to enroll in a course like--
cosmetology--which is going to cost you $75,000 to $100,000 in
tuition at this particular school, and we know already that the
average salary is $25,000.''
The bottom line is, do your educational counselors have the
ability to say, ``You're making a terrible mistake, and we are
not going to support you in this''?
Mr. Vollrath. They certainly are going to say, ``We think
that's ill-advised.''
Senator Reed. But that is as far as they will go.
Mr. Vollrath. That's as far as it goes because it is a
personal choice. If they want to go out and get a loan, and
take it upon themselves to do it, we don't have the authority.
TUITION ASSISTANCE
Senator Reed. We are providing the money.
Mr. Vollrath. Well, tuition assistance is another thing. I
mean, if they want to persist, that is different and take it
out of their own pocket. If their course of action does not
meet the stipulations that we have both on ourselves and on the
institutions----
Senator Reed. Right.
Mr. Vollrath [continuing]. Then the answer absolutely would
be, ``Sorry, we can't support you with tuition assistance.''
Senator Reed. A final question and my colleagues are very
gracious.
Is the requirement for servicemembers, in some cases, to
refund payments to the tuitions assistance program? Do you have
a rough percentage of how many servicemembers are refunding,
i.e., they have not made the standards or is that so small?
Mr. Vollrath. It is small. With your permission, I will
take it for the record.
Senator Reed. Absolutely.
[The information follows:]
The following information is included by Service in the following
chart for fiscal year 2012:
--Successfully completed course work
--Did not complete successfully: failing grades, withdrawals or drops
--Had to repay TA due to non-completions
--Government waived recoupment because non-completion was due to
military related issues
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army Air Force Navy Marine
------------------------------------------------------------------------
92 percent completion 91 percent 91.6 90.3
completion percent percent
completion completion
8 percent non-completion 9 percent 8.4 percent 9.7 percent
non- non- non-
completion completion completion
(7.2 percent recouped and 0.8 (7 percent (8.0 (8.8
percent waived) recouped percent percent
and 2 recouped recouped
percent and 0.4 and 0.9
waived) percent percent
waived) waived)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Vollrath. But let me give you a statistic that is the
reverse of that: 96 percent in fiscal year 2012, of all courses
started, were completed by servicemembers, so some of them
might not have completed that because they had to move for
military necessity, et cetera. So I cannot answer it
specifically because of the failure.
TUITION CHARGES
Senator Reed. And I have a final question. Again, I thank
my colleagues.
Do you do any analysis of the correlation between the
tuition charged to the servicemember and the full cost of
instruction?
It seems to me that now given the technology, particularly
the distance learning, that the marginal cost of a military
student is very close to zero, but that the tuition might be as
close--might be set by all available public and private
support, which means that these are very lucrative programs,
potentially. And that there is, I think, at least for the
public policy, an interest, to ensure that if we are providing
public resources for the benefit of service men and women, that
we are subsidizing them, not private enterprise necessarily.
Mr. Vollrath. The best statistic that I can give you is
that for undergraduate courses in fiscal year 2012, the average
payment or cost was about $628 for a course; that is 3 semester
hours.
Senator Reed. Yes, sir.
Mr. Vollrath. By our policy, which has been in existence
for a number of years now, we pay no more than $250 per credit
hour. So the max would be $750. And so, on average, it is $628,
which means some are below and some are above. That is for
undergraduate.
For graduate, it is pegged out at $750, but that is
understandable because graduate schools have always cost more.
Senator Reed. And how do you pick out that number, $750? Is
that----
Mr. Vollrath. Just because that is the max that we can pay,
so----
Senator Reed. Okay, so that is the max you can pay.
Mr. Vollrath. That's right.
Senator Reed. So we could come in and say, ``There is a new
max.'' Or, we could come in and say, ``There has to be a
correlation.'' All right.
Again, and I thank you very much and thank my colleagues,
but we are very interested in some of the measurements and some
of the statistics that you have that might help us determine
what we do going forward. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Vollrath. Certainly.
AUDIT
Senator Durbin. Thanks, Senator Reed.
Mr. Vollrath, when you talked about the third-party audit.
Mr. Vollrath. Right.
Senator Durbin. Would that be an audit by this Management
and Training Consultants, Incorporated?
Mr. Vollrath. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Durbin. That is the current third-party group that
audits----
Mr. Vollrath. The current.
Senator Durbin [continuing]. Those who are providing the
educational courses?
Mr. Vollrath. Correct.
Senator Durbin. And you said, ``We don't get to all of
them.'' It is my understanding that they get to 20 to 30
schools a year out of 3,127.
Mr. Vollrath. When we are doing it on-post, that is
correct. We will have to ramp it up, clearly.
Senator Durbin. We sure do.
Let me ask you about the 96 percent completion rate.
Mr. Vollrath. Right.
Senator Durbin. In the world--the nonmilitary world--when
it comes to these schools being paid, for example, Pell grants,
Government loans, there is a certain period of time that the
student has to stay enrolled for them to qualify to get that
payment. Is that true as well when it comes to the TA program?
Mr. Vollrath. No, Senator. There is not a period of time
they have to stay enrolled. If they have a plan approved and
are going to go to an institution that meets all of those--the
MOU and principles of excellence requirements, then they
qualify for that course on their plan.
Senator Durbin. And if they take two classes and stop, does
the school get paid anyway?
Mr. Vollrath. Yes. And again, you have to define ``stop''.
In some cases, ``stop'' means they got deployed----
Senator Durbin. No, I understand.
Mr. Vollrath [continuing]. And couldn't do it. And in some
cases, people just determine that it is not in their interest
any more.
Senator Durbin. It seems to me to be a problem there, that
if we are just going to pay, even if they don't complete the
course or a portion of the course----
Mr. Vollrath. Well, if they don't complete the course, then
they have to repay unless----
Senator Durbin. The student.
Mr. Vollrath. The student has to repay.
Senator Durbin. But the Government is paying the school
regardless. That is what you just said, I believe.
Mr. Vollrath. Yes.
Senator Durbin. Let me ask a few more questions, and I
thank you for your patience here.
COURSES
If you believe that this educational opportunity is
important to improve the quality of leadership in the military
to lead to promotions, do you believe that certain schools
offer courses that have been proven over time to be more
valuable than other schools?
Mr. Vollrath. I don't know. I don't know. The only way that
I can think to answer that is if they were taking a leadership
course or a management course, maybe that makes them a better
leader, but I am not sure that the sheer rigor and perseverance
doesn't help in that respect. And some of the courses, frankly,
are geared toward what they do in the military.
Senator Durbin. I understand that part. But the point I am
getting to is just kind of normal, human experience. We know
that if a person has graduated from this university, that they
have more rigorous educational standards, higher admission
standards. A degree from this place is kind of viewed as being
more valuable than a degree from this place.
Is that the same when it comes to the TA program?
Mr. Vollrath. We don't look at it that way, Senator.
Senator Durbin. Why?
Mr. Vollrath. Because it is a personal choice as to where
they want to go and what their goals are.
Senator Durbin. That's what I was afraid of. Let me ask you
this question.
When it comes to accreditation, in 2011, unlike the
Department of Education, the Defense Department did not require
participating institutions to get approval from an accrediting
agency for new courses or programs or offerings before offering
them to enrolling students. That seems to be a significant
loophole that could undermine the quality of a servicemember's
education. The subcommittee has been informed that the DOD
plans to close this loophole as part of its third revision of
the MOU sometime later this year.
Why has this taken 2 years to address?
Mr. Vollrath. In part, to try to cope with the bureaucracy
to get it in there and get it done, but we will have it done.
Senator Durbin. So what we are dealing with here is courses
being offered and compensated by the Government without
approval from the accrediting agency. That's currently the
case.
Mr. Vollrath. That's possible, yes.
Senator Durbin. There is a longstanding frustration with
students participating in TA program can't compare the cost,
financial and aid opportunities, and school performance--going
back to part of Senator Reed's question.
The President's Executive order and the Department of
Education's launch of the college scorecard suggests that we
are moving in a different direction to give more information to
students about the quality of courses and their outcomes.
So what is the status of this initiative when it comes to
the TA courses?
Mr. Vollrath. Again, it should be, and is, in the MOU.
I do go back to the fact that we have education counselors
and they have been dispensing good advice and counsel to our
servicemembers for a number of years now.
Senator Durbin. Are these counselors members of the
military or representing the institutions?
Mr. Vollrath. They are members of the Department of
Defense. They do not represent the institutions.
Senator Durbin. But in terms of an objective scorecard for
members of the military to look at the various schools to see--
for example, if I took a course from the American Military
University, would my hours be transferable to a community
college in my home State? It seems like a reasonable question
to ask.
Is that sort of information available to the members of the
military now?
Mr. Vollrath. Yes, through the--something called the SOC,
Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges consortium of 1,900-and-
some institutions that have agreed to come together and assess
the transferability of those credits.
Senator Durbin. And how does an individual servicemember
learn that?
Mr. Vollrath. Through the education counselor and their
education plan.
Senator Durbin. How many counselors do we have working?
Mr. Vollrath. Slightly over 200.
Senator Durbin. And how many service men are taking
courses?
Mr. Vollrath. About 200,000.
Senator Durbin. Let me talk about the MyCAA program, which
is a spousal education program.
Mr. Vollrath. Yes.
Senator Durbin. Many of the schools participating in that
program are not accredited schools. Are you aware of that?
Mr. Vollrath. I am.
Senator Durbin. What is the Department's position on that?
In other words, courses are being offered to the
servicemember's spouses at taxpayers' expense through for-
profit schools that are not accredited.
What is your thinking about that?
Mr. Vollrath. If they are an institution that is
postsecondary education, then they have to be accredited and
meet standards. If they are technical schools, if you are
learning a trade, they are not accredited in the sense that we
use that term for postsecondary.
MILITARY SPOUSE CAREER ADVANCEMENT ACCOUNTS PROGRAMS
Senator Durbin. So we pay up to $4,000, is that correct,
for the MyCAA programs?
Mr. Vollrath. Over 3 years, correct, a max of $4,000.
Senator Durbin. And schools like Animal Behavior College is
one of the schools offering courses to the spouses under the
MyCAA program?
Mr. Vollrath. I am not familiar with that one.
Senator Durbin. I think it is. Tell me about Top-Up so we
can make that a matter of record. Do you understand Top-Up?
Mr. Vollrath. I do not.
Senator Durbin. Okay. Let me, my understanding is that
servicemembers can use some of their GI bill benefits while
still on Active Duty for education. Are you aware of that?
Mr. Vollrath. Yes.
Senator Durbin. Okay. And because those GI bill benefits
are limited for the servicemember and their families, they may
be using up what they could otherwise use after they have been
separated from the service.
Mr. Vollrath. Correct.
Senator Durbin. My concern is that servicemembers enrolled
in for-profit colleges may not only be using tuition assistance
for some courses that may not be valuable, but they may also be
using up their personal one-time future VA educational benefits
at the same time. Do you share that concern?
Mr. Vollrath. Yes, that would not be a wise decision.
Senator Durbin. And how would we counsel a member of the
military about that unwise decision?
Mr. Vollrath. As I mentioned earlier, in their desire to
use tuition assistance, we wouldn't so advise them in that
counseling session. But equally important, the education
counselor is not there on that installation just to handle
tuition assistance. They are to reach out and provide advice to
servicemembers on education, period.
Senator Durbin. There are 200 counselors, 200,000 students.
Mr. Vollrath. Correct.
Senator Durbin. Is there a centralized complaint system
that has been established for members of the military who are
unhappy with the experience they are having in the TA program?
Mr. Vollrath. There has been a manual system, but as
mentioned, that will be an automated system and far more
efficient come September.
Senator Durbin. We talked about the recruiting on some of
the military bases.
Senator Hagan of North Carolina sent a letter to the
Department in 2011 involving a Marine Corps corporal with
severe traumatic brain injury (TBI), who was recuperating at
Camp Lejeune in Wounded Warrior barracks. While he was still in
his barracks in recovery, a recruiter from Ashford College,
which is based out of Iowa, if I am not mistaken, a for-profit
school signed up this Marine for college courses. When the
Marine was interviewed later, he could not even remember
signing up for the course.
Can you tell me what kind of access recruiters have to
our--let's start with wounded veterans who are recuperating in
military hospitals?
Mr. Vollrath. As it stands today, they have no access.
Senator Durbin. So it has been changed since this
situation?
Mr. Vollrath. Absolutely. Absolutely. If they are----
The only way that any institution now can get on an
installation--read that hospitals, it does not make much
difference--is either to teach a course or to provide
counseling to their students that are servicemembers at that
installation. And by invite to an education symposium or
something, but----
And by the way, if somebody tries that, we will escort them
off the installation.
Senator Durbin. Do you have any jurisdiction over National
Guard units?
Mr. Vollrath. Not in my particular position, no, but I will
certainly take the question.
Senator Durbin. Well, here is what happened in my State.
The for-profit schools were actually going onto the camps in
Illinois, meeting with National Guard units, and trying to
recruit them to signup for their schools because, of course,
service in the National Guard qualifies----
Mr. Vollrath. Right.
Senator Durbin [continuing]. Some of the military for
educational benefits. And when it was brought to my attention,
it seemed to me that this was a commercial venture and much the
same as if Ford Motor Company decided to send a salesman in and
say, ``You need to buy a Fusion. Every National Guard member
ought to have one.'' There comes a point where you say, ``I
think that may be a misuse of a military facility.''
So are you familiar with National Guard units and whether
there is that sort of activity going on?
Mr. Vollrath. I am familiar with National Guard units. No,
I am not familiar with activity such as you describe.
Senator Durbin. Does it seem appropriate or inappropriate?
Mr. Vollrath. It seems inappropriate.
Senator Durbin. I think so too. Any other question,
Senator?
Senator Cochran. No.
Senator Durbin. Senator Reed.
Senator Reed. No, sir.
Senator Durbin. Thank you very much, Mr. Vollrath.
Appreciate you being here.
Mr. Vollrath. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Durbin. We have a second panel coming up, but I
invite them to come to the table. They include Mr. Terry
Hartle, Senior Vice President of the American Council on
Education; Steve Gunderson, former congressman from Wisconsin,
currently President and CEO of the Association of Private
Sector Colleges and Universities; Mr. James Selbe, Senior Vice
President for Partnerships, Marketing, and Enrollment
Management at the University of Maryland's University College;
and Mr. Christopher Neiweem, an Army veteran and a former
college recruiter. Thank you all for being here today.
Mr. Hartle, I am going to let you kick off. Your full
statement will be made part of the record. If you would like to
give us a summary at this point, we would appreciate it.
STATEMENT OF TERRY HARTLE, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT,
AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION
Mr. Hartle. Thank you very much, Senator, and thank you for
inviting me to participate in this hearing.
I would like to begin by thanking you and the other
senators, Senator Cochran, Senator Reed, for the efforts to
ensure that tuition assistance benefits were continued to
military Active Duty members this year in light of their
possible elimination. I think given the effort that students,
Active Duty servicemembers make to be students, interrupting
those benefits would have had terrible consequences. So thank
you for that.
The Department of Defense has been moving fairly
aggressively in the last couple of years prompted by Congress
as well as by the Obama administration to tighten up the
management and oversight of the Tuition Assistance Program and,
in general, we are very supportive of the efforts that they
have made. They have reached out to us. They have sought our
counsel and advice, and we have and will continue to work with
them in this effort.
Senator Durbin. Could you describe your organization, the
American Council on Education?
Mr. Hartle. Yes, sir. The American Council on Education
(ACE) is a trade association representing approximately 2,000
2-year and 4-year public and private colleges and universities.
We represent from community colleges to small liberal arts
colleges to great research universities.
The other associations that have signed on to my testimony
at ACE, represent about 90 percent of the traditional colleges
and universities in the country.
I would like to make three basic points about the TA
program. First, I think it is very important to keep in mind
that the postsecondary education needs of servicemembers are
very different than the needs of student veterans and all other
students.
For most servicemembers, progress towards their educational
goals is not simple or straightforward. Servicemembers often
enroll in multiple institutions, experience frequent
interruptions in their education due to employment or other
military obligations, and getting a degree can take a long
time.
A colleague of mine at ACE told me that she first used her
TA benefits at University of Maryland University College (UMUC)
while stationed in Germany, but had to withdraw when she was
deployed to Iraq. Now, she then enrolled at Austin Peay State
University in Tennessee, but withdrew again when she was
redeployed. While in Iraq, she enrolled in Penn State's World
Campus--that is Penn State's online division--and completed
several courses.
Finally, after returning stateside, becoming a reservist,
she used a combination of tuition assistance and the Montgomery
GI bill to complete her B.A. at Penn State's State College
campus. Thanks to her tuition assistance and the training she
received in the military as a medic, for which she received
academic credit, she completed her B.A. in 2\1/2\ years.
Another colleague at ACE, however, told me that her husband
used TA to attend five different schools, and his B.A. was 22
years in the making. In both cases, we see extraordinary
commitment and persistence, but we see the enormous range of
paths servicemembers take to reach those goals.
Second point, we need to ensure that TA program
participation requirements remain manageable for institutions.
A TA is not a simple program to administer on-campus and it is
becoming more complex.
At present, each service has their own financial processing
system. Each of the services sets their own member eligibility
requirement and each of the services sets their own
institutional participation requirements.
Compare this to the Pell grant program. One processing
system, one set of student eligibility requirements, and one
set of institutional requirements. It is not that Pell grants
are simple, far from it. It is just that there is one, uniform
set of requirements. Ten million people receive Pell grants,
about 300,000 receive TA benefits. The task for campuses to
manage those can be extraordinary, unless the institution is
particularly set up to do that.
If you serve a very large number of servicemembers, it is
not a deal breaker. It is a headache, but it is not a deal
breaker. If you serve a small number, the administrative and
financial complications can be enormous.
Third point I would make is we know that Congress and DOD
are anxious to take action against unscrupulous schools and we
fully support those efforts. But as we improve oversight, we
need to take care that we don't make the program too complex,
and in doing so, undermine institutional willingness to
participate.
Again, for a school with a large military student
population, this is not a particular problem, but for schools
with a modest number of students, it can be quite a challenge.
Last year, the University of Illinois, for example, which
enrolls about 70,000 students, had only 25 students receiving
tuition assistance. That compares with 700 students at the
University of Illinois using Post-9/11 GI bill benefits.
So we must find oversight mechanisms that identify and root
out the bad actors. No excuses, no alternative, but we need to
be mindful in doing so of the burden on institutions that are
serving relatively few recipients and trying very hard to be a
part of this program.
We think there are a number of steps the committee and DOD
could consider in this regard, and we would be happy to work
with you, and the agency, to develop meaningful and appropriate
measures.
In conclusion, we strongly support the TA program. It has
changed the lives of millions of Active Duty servicemembers
over the years, and we believe it is a very important
educational and recruitment device for the military.
PREPARED STATEMENT
But at the same time, as we tighten the program up, we need
to be mindful about the complexity that we are adding because,
in general, complexity is nobody's friend. It simply
complicates the efforts that institutions and servicemembers
will have to contend with.
Thank you for inviting me to testify on this important
program. I would, obviously, be happy to answer any questions
you may have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Terry W. Hartle
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Terry W. Hartle,
senior vice president at the American Council on Education (ACE),
representing 2,000 public and private, 2-year and 4-year colleges and
research universities. I am testifying today on behalf of ACE, the
American Association of Community Colleges (AACC), the American
Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU), the Association
of American Universities (AAU), the Association of Public and Land-
grant Universities (APLU), and the National Association of Independent
Colleges and Universities (NAICU).
The Department of Defense's (DOD) Military Tuition Assistance (TA)
program provides important educational assistance to active duty
servicemembers. In fiscal year 2012, the TA program provided benefits
of $568.2 million to more than 286,000 servicemembers. These education
benefits were used at more than 3,100 institutions--nearly 1,900 of
which are public or nonprofit institutions. While the total number of
students using the TA program is relatively small compared to the Post-
9/11 GI bill (approximately 600,000) or the Pell program (approximately
9 million), it is important to remember that not all servicemembers are
eligible for GI bill benefits, or may not be eligible at the 100-
percent benefit level, and many servicemembers do not qualify for Pell
grants. TA plays an important role in helping provide access to higher
education for all the men and women in our armed forces.
This March, the Army, Air Force, and Marines announced that, due to
the sequester, they would suspend the TA program. We were very
appreciative of the efforts by Congress and DOD to minimize the impact
of the sequester on this program, which was able to resume in April.
Secretary Hagel has been a strong supporter of maintaining the current
benefit levels--generally, $250 a credit hour with a $4,500 per year
maximum--even in the face of other funding challenges at DOD.
Unfortunately, we understand that DOD employees responsible for
administering this program will face furloughs this summer.
In my testimony today, I'd like to make four points about the TA
program.
First, the postsecondary education needs of servicemembers are
often quite distinct from the needs of student veterans and other
nontraditional and traditional student populations. For example, many
active duty servicemembers will place a premium on flexibility in
scheduling courses, or on taking courses via distance learning,
especially if they are on a tour or stationed overseas. While some
servicemembers join the military precisely because of the great
educational benefits, others may join the military precisely because
they didn't have success in high school or didn't think college was for
them. TA provides these servicemembers with an opportunity to test the
water, to try a college level course and gain confidence and progress
at their own pace towards earning a degree. TA can also support them in
their military careers--such as using the benefit to increase their
technical training in their field, study foreign languages important to
our national security, or to gain civilian education needed to advance
their careers in the service.
Second, for most servicemembers, progress toward their educational
goals is not always direct or straightforward. Servicemembers often
enroll in multiple institutions and experience frequent interruptions
in their education due to deployment or other military obligations. A
colleague at ACE told me that she first used TA to enroll at UMUC while
stationed in Germany, but had to withdraw after she was called up to
serve in Iraq. She then enrolled in Austin Peay State University (TN)
while stationed at Fort Campbell on the Kentucky-Tennessee border, but
withdrew again when she was redeployed. While in Iraq, she enrolled in
Penn State's World Campus--its online program--and was able to complete
two courses thanks to the flexibility of their staff. Finally, after
returning stateside and becoming a reservist, she used a combination of
TA and Montgomery GI bill benefits to complete her B.A. at Penn State's
campus in State College, Pennsylvania. Another colleague at ACE told me
that her husband used TA to attend 5 different schools and his B.A. was
``22 years in the making.''
The unique needs of servicemembers and the complex path they take
in pursuit of their education goals, as demonstrated by these examples,
greatly complicates efforts to develop outcome measures to evaluate
students and institutions. Usual standards, like retention, graduation
and time to degree may not work very well. Make no mistake: Outcome
measures are critical. But these measures need to be carefully thought
out and well-designed to work for the servicemember population. There
are no ``off the shelf'' solutions.
Third, we need to ensure that TA program participation requirements
remain manageable for institutions. TA is not a simple program to
administer on campus and it is becoming more complex.
We have seen a proliferation of Service-specific requirements in
recent years. Each of the Services has their own processing systems:
The Army has the GoArmyEd portal; the Air Force has AIPortal; and the
Marines, Coast Guard and Navy use the Navy processing portal. Each of
the Services sets its own servicemember eligibility requirements. For
example, the Navy does not provide TA benefits to servicemembers on
their first military assignment, and requires sailors to request TA
within 2 weeks of the course start date. Each of the Services has
different sets of institutional participation requirements. For
example, the Army sets different requirements for its Letter of
Instruction (LOI) and non-LOI institutions. One of the country's
largest public research institutions was recently told by the Army that
because they had 150 TA participants, they will now need to comply with
more detailed and extensive LOI requirements. The Service-specific
differences do not make sense and add a level of complexity to the
program that is unnecessary and can discourage institutional
participation. We urge DOD to move toward one common and uniform set of
program requirements and a single processing portal.
Fourth, we need to ensure appropriate oversight and protections for
TA funds. We strongly support proper oversight of the TA program and
efforts to ensure that the program is providing value to servicemembers
and taxpayers. We know that Congress and DOD are anxious to take action
against unscrupulous actors in this area and we fully support these
efforts.
The Memorandum of Understanding and the Principles of Excellence
take important steps in this direction, even though some requirements
could benefit from further clarification. While these efforts have
undoubtedly improved the oversight of the program, they have also made
it more complex, requiring institutions to invest greater resources in
order to participate. For schools with large military populations,
economies of scale help this investment make sense. But for schools
with relatively few TA participants, the administrative and compliance
burden often looms large. Last year, the University of Illinois, which
enrolls approximately 70,000 students, had only 25 students receiving
TA, compared with 700 Post-9/11 GI bill recipients and nearly 18,000
Pell recipients. We need to find oversight mechanisms that will find
and root out the bad actors, while being mindful of the burdens on
institutions that serve relatively few TA recipients. We think there
are a number of steps the committee and DOD could consider in this
regard and we would be happy to work with you to develop meaningful and
appropriate measures.
In conclusion, the TA program supports the unique postsecondary
education needs of our servicemembers. At the same time, TA program
requirements need to reflect a balance between providing necessary
protections for servicemembers and taxpayers and ensuring that a wide
array of institutions continue to participate in the program. The
servicemember population and their education needs are as diverse as
the nearly 4,700 degree-granting institutions that make up our system
of higher education. We encourage DOD to continue its outreach to
institutions about TA program participation requirements, including
those that serve a relatively small number of TA beneficiaries. We need
to ensure that servicemembers have access to a wide array of quality
institutions and can choose to use their benefits at the institution
that best meets their individual needs.
Thank you for inviting me to testify today on this important
program. I would be happy to answer any questions.
Senator Durbin. Thanks a lot, Mr. Hartle.
Mr. Gunderson.
STATEMENT OF STEVE GUNDERSON, PRESIDENT AND CEO,
ASSOCIATION OF PRIVATE SECTOR COLLEGES AND
UNIVERSITIES
Mr. Gunderson. Mr. Chair, Ranking Member Cochran, I was
going to say Senator Reed, but he is not here.
On behalf of the Association of Private Sector Colleges and
Universities, thank you for the opportunity to appear before
your committee. We represent nearly 4 million students enrolled
in our schools annually. Our schools provide the full range of
higher education programs to students looking for postsecondary
education with a career focus.
I believe the last time that I was in a meeting with both
of you senators would have been a farm bill conference
committee. And at that time, just like today, we had a
difficult challenge: determining the return on investment for
Government programs because we simply lacked the data to know
what is, and is not, effective programs.
Whether it is a farm support program or a higher education
for members of the military, we must work together--in this
case with the Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and
Education--to develop relevant measures that can evaluate
success. We need to be thoughtful and make sure measures of
success accurately reflect the real world environment in which
our servicemembers seek education, career skills, real jobs
with real incomes.
Tuition assistance is an important recruitment and
retention tool, which significantly contributes to our
military's morale, their immediate and future skills. Over 60
percent of our servicemembers stated that the increased ability
to pursue higher education was an important factor in deciding
to join the military.
According to the Department of Defense, 762 private sector
colleges and universities are currently qualified and
participating in the Tuition Assistance program, and have been
approved to offer courses to Active Duty military.
Educating our Active Duty military is as important as
fulfilling our commitment to veterans. According to the
Department of Veterans Affairs, more than 325,000 veterans,
and/or their families, have been served by our institutions
representing 28 percent of all veterans using the Post-9/11 GI
benefits. Although veterans make up less than 10 percent of our
total student enrollment, we are proud to serve those who
choose our institutions. More than 1,200 of our schools
participate in the Yellow Ribbon program.
You might logically ask why we serve 13 percent of all
postsecondary students, but 28 percent of all veterans in the
Post-9/11 GI bill. The answer lies in our service to veterans.
Returning from duty, most veterans do not want to live in a
dorm and take five different three-credit courses at a time.
They want focused and accelerated delivery of academic programs
that can support their transition from the frontlines to full
time employment as soon as possible. Because of our longer
school days and year round academic programming, our students
can often complete an associate degree in 18 months, or a B.A.
degree in 3 years.
We work with the Active Duty military and the veteran in
the management of their academic experience to meet the
tensions between daily life, jobs, and academic. Many private
sector colleges and universities offer a reduced military
tuition rate to minimize out-of-pocket student expenses beyond
what tuition assistance benefits cover. Many also maintain
deployment policies which allow the military students to
withdraw and return to school at any time when they are
deployed.
In November of 2010, the Rand Corporation and ACE study
entitled, ``Military Veterans' Experiences Using the Post-9/11
GI Bill in Pursuing Postsecondary Education,'' reported
findings which support the view that our institutions are
working to support these students' basic needs. The report
noted the rate of satisfaction with credit transfer experience
was 60 percent among students who had attempted to transfer
military credits to our institutions versus 27 percent for
community colleges, 40 percent for 4-year colleges. Only
participants from private, nonprofit colleges reported higher
credit transfer satisfaction rate.
Students from our institutions reported fewer challenges in
accessing required courses than all other institutions except
4-year public institutions. Students from our institutions
reported higher than average satisfaction rate with academic
advising at 67 percent satisfaction versus 50 percent for all
other institutions.
In closing, though, my primary message to this committee
and to the Congress, is that if we really care about outcomes,
and I believe we all do, then we need to revise the
Government's data collection systems in ways that will enable
all of us to fully evaluate such outcomes.
Currently, the IPED System at the Department of Education
only counts first-time full-time college students; no veteran
or Active Duty military is included in such data. Currently,
neither the Department of Defense nor Veterans Affairs collects
such data.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I believe that we all would like one set of consistent,
credible data for all college students, evaluating their
outcomes based on similar and fair metrics.
We look forward to working with you and this committee, the
Congress and the administration, to develop such a system.
Thank you for your time. I look forward to answering your
questions and discussing these important issues today.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Steve Gunderson
Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Cochran, and members of the
committee, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to appear
before this committee and for holding this important hearing on
Voluntary Military Education Programs.
I am here to represent the member institutions of The Association
of Private Sector Colleges and Universities, their faculty and the
millions of students who attend our institutions. Our institutions
provide a full range of higher education programs to students seeking
career-focused education. We provide short-term certificate and diploma
programs, 2- and 4-year associate and baccalaureate degree programs, as
well as a small number of master's and doctorate programs. We educate
students for careers in over 200 occupational fields including
information technology; allied health; automotive repair; business
administration; commercial art; and culinary and hospitality
management.
Sixty-four percent of our students are low-income. Sixty-seven
percent have delayed postsecondary education making them older than the
18-22 traditional college demographic. Single parents make up 31
percent of our students and 76 percent are from a minority population.
It goes without saying that our students are considered ``non-
traditional,'' but they are more and more the face of higher education
in this country, so we should think of them as the new traditional.
Most of our students juggle work, family and school. Most cannot attend
a traditional institution of higher education because of scheduling,
location or admissions criteria. Yet, these are the students who need
the opportunity to pursue higher education if we are going to succeed
in filling jobs that require skilled workers. Our institutions offer
that opportunity and have and will continue to play a vital role in
providing skills-based education.
During the recent economic downturn when States and local
communities reduced education budgets, many of our colleagues at public
institutions had to endure budget cuts resulting in limited access and
service for students. But our institutions continued to invest in their
schools to offer students industry-leading innovation while expanding
capacity and meeting the evolving demands of employers. Because we are
not dependent on brick-and-mortar facilities to expand access, we are
able to meet the growing demand for postsecondary education through
vastly expanding online technology offerings, and perhaps our most
successful academic delivery--a blend of online and on-site programs.
Even while investing in education programs, our schools have been
successful in reducing the cost of attendance for our students.
Recently, the U.S. Department of Education released an analysis that
compares the average costs at 4-year institutions between 2010-2011 and
2012-2013. Only our institutions experienced a reduction in the average
costs--2.2 percent; other sectors experienced an increase in costs,
with public in-State cost increasing 6.7 percent, public out-of-State
increasing 4.1 percent and private nonprofit rising 3.1 percent. For 2-
year institutions, our schools were able to reduce costs to students by
0.2 percent, while public in-State cost increased 6.4 percent, public
out-of-State increased 3.9 percent and private nonprofit rose 1.8
percent.
We've expanded educational opportunities for many people, as
evidenced by the increasing number of degrees our institutions have
awarded. Yes, much of this is the simple result that our sector of
postsecondary education is probably the newest with new campuses and
new forms of academic delivery. But in an era when we expect 65 percent
of all jobs and 85 percent of all new jobs to require some level of
postsecondary education this growth in access is important. From 1999
to 2009, degrees awarded by our institutions have soared. Associate's
degrees increased by 132 percent (compared with just 43 percent at
public and 1 percent at private nonprofit institutions), bachelor's
degrees increased by 387 percent (compared with just 29 percent at
public and 24 percent at private nonprofit institutions), master's
degrees increased by 588 percent (compared to 33 percent at public and
43 percent at private nonprofit institutions), and doctorate degrees
increased by over 300 percent (compared to 30 percent at public and 32
percent at private nonprofit institutions). Looking at the recession
years between 2008 and 2012, our institutions prepared 3.5 million
adults with the education and skills essential for real jobs, real
incomes and a real chance at America's middle class. We conferred 1.5
million degrees and 1.85 million certificates.
Finally, our institutions experienced a higher growth in degrees
than all others between 2010/2011 and 2011/2012. Degrees conferred by
our institutions increased 8.6 percent compared to 5.2 percent by
public and 3.2 percent by private nonprofits. According to Bureau of
Labor Statistics data, the degrees and certificates awarded by our
institutions are in some of the fastest growing occupations nationwide.
For example, in 2010/2011, we awarded 52 percent of all Dental
Assistant Certificates, 50 percent of all Veterinary Technologists and
Technicians Associate Degrees and 40 percent of all Diagnostic Medical
Sonographers Associates Degrees. Without our students, employers in
these fields would be unable to find the well-trained staff they need
to deliver services to patients and customers.
We share your commitment to ensuring that every postsecondary
institution provides the highest level of service to each and every
student, especially active duty military, veterans and their families.
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
military and veteran student. We strive to ensure that all students
receive the education they deserve.
APSCU and our member institutions want to ensure that our students
are well-prepared to enter the workforce and that every institution of
higher education lives up to the high standards expected by our
students. Private sector colleges and universities have a long and
important relationship with our Nation's military and veteran students.
We celebrate who they are and what they do. Our actions, as educators
of hundreds of thousands of military and veteran students, honor this
partnership by providing our military and veteran students with the
best possible education experience at our institutions.
According to the latest data obtained by APSCU from the Department
of Defense, 762 PSCUs are participating in the Tuition Assistance (TA)
program and have been approved to offer courses to active duty
military.
Earlier this year, when the various services announced that they
would eliminate TA as a result of the sequester, Senators Hagan and
Inhofe noted in their letter to Secretary of Defense Hagel that tuition
assistance is an important recruitment and retention tool, which
significantly contributes to our military's morale. As an all-volunteer
force, during a period of prolonged conflict, effective recruitment,
retention and morale initiatives are essential to attracting and
retaining professional personnel. Over 60 percent of our servicemembers
stated that the increased ability to pursue higher education was an
important factor in deciding to join the military. More importantly,
servicemembers have taken their ambitions and turned them into reality
by taking classes and earning degrees, diplomas and certificates. These
are truly extraordinary accomplishments achieved in stressful
situations with time and our institutions are proud to be a part of the
TA program and serve these dedicated men and women of the military.
The need for TA is confirmed in the words of Sergeant First Class
James Wallace who is stationed at Fort Knox Kentucky and using TA to
attend Sullivan University. In a recent letter to me, he said, ``I
believe that the Tuition Assistance program for soldiers is a great
tool to help those people serving their country to help prepare for the
future. It doesn't matter if that person is going to make a whole 20
year career or just complete one enlistment, there is life past the
military.'' Sergeant Wallace went on to describe the value of TA for
himself and his family saying, ``Like many other soldiers I use the
whole $4,500 TA benefit every year. For the last 2 years, I have had to
pay out of my own pocket so that I could take three classes per
semester. Thanks to TA, I only have one quarter remaining before I
receive my associate's degree. My associate's degree has helped me in
applying to become a Warrant Officer. The TA program is about $1,000
short depending on the college or university that you are attending.
Even though I do come up short every year, it beats having to come out
of pocket for the whole amount. Soldiers and their families already
sacrifice enough to serve their country. Anything that the Government
can do to help assist the quality of life for soldiers and families is
greatly appreciated by them.''
Another student, Staff Sergeant Thomas M. Windley wrote that he
began attending ECPI University in the summer of 2004 as a veteran
recently discharged from service in the U.S. Navy.
``Several months after enrolling with ECPI, I enlisted in the U.S.
Army. During my attendance at ECPI, I was appointed System
Administrator for my unit because of my knowledge of computer systems.
I utilized my Tuition Assistance and I was able to complete my degree
program and obtain an associate's degree in Network Security within 18
months. In 2007, I earned another associate's degree in electrical
engineering; it was at this point in my military career that my
civilian education assisted me in being promoted over my peers. In
2010, I worked on a network installation team and within 3 months I
earned my CompTIA A+, Network+, and Security+ certifications due
largely to my education, experience, and opportunity that ECPI provided
me. In 2010 my military assignment took me overseas to Afghanistan.
While deployed I earned my bachelor's degree in Computer Information
Science with a concentration in Network Security. Earning my degree led
to another promotion, which was due to the tools and benefits ECPI
provided in the areas of leadership, professionalism, and core
curriculum content. I have been tasked, since my promotion, with
training others in my unit both below and above me in rank, to sit for
certifications, thus far those I have trained have a 100-percent pass
record. I would highly recommend this program to fellow servicemembers,
I believe ECPI to have the best customer service of any online school
and I have attended several. Further the curriculum is very precise and
concentrated in the areas most needed to perform the job at maximum
proficiency.''
Whether we are talking about Sergeant First Class James Wallace,
Staff Sergeant Thomas M. Windley or an Army Major working on her
master's degree for career advancement, these men and women know what
they want and are committed to getting it. In our active duty military
this might involve taking online classes on a computer at a far away
posting or on a ship at sea. Their service coupled with their
commitment to getting an education is truly extraordinary.
To ensure that all institutions of higher education are
appropriately recruiting, enrolling, and educating military students,
only institutions of higher education that have a signed DOD Voluntary
Education Partnership Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and are on the
``List of Participating Institutions'' are eligible to receive DOD TA
from a service branch. Today, over 700 of our institutions proudly
participate and have signed the MOU.
It is important to note that military installations are empowered
to enforce the established rules and procedures with respect to
misconduct by an institution of higher education, and the current MOU
and Executive order 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.
If problems or concerns arise, they should be addressed through the
existing processes, and by engaging institutions in ways that achieve
appropriate solutions as soon as possible.
Educating our active duty military, is as important as fulfilling
our commitment to veterans. According to the Veterans Administration
data, more than 325,000 veterans and their families have been served by
our institutions or 28 percent of all veterans using their post-9/11 GI
benefits. Although veterans make up less than 10 percent of our
students, we are proud to serve those who choose our institutions. More
than 1,200 of our institutions participate in the Yellow Ribbon Program
and a majority of those impose no limits on the number of eligible
students while providing the maximum institutional contribution.
You might ask why we serve 13 percent of all postsecondary students
but 28 percent of all veterans on the Post-9/11 GI bill? Quite simply,
the answer lies in our customer service to the veterans. Returning from
duty in Afghanistan or Iraq, most veterans do not want to live in a
dorm and take five different 3-credit courses at a time. Rather, they
want a focused and accelerated academic delivery that can transition
them from the front lines to full-time employment as soon as possible.
Because of our longer school days and year-round academic programming,
our students can often complete an associate degree in 18 months or a
B.A. degree in just over 3 years.
We know that challenges arise when our military men and women
transition back to civilian life and enter into postsecondary
education. Often, traditional institutions of higher education are not
the best fit. Our military and veteran students are not the fresh-out-
of-high school, first-time, full-time student living on campus and
attending thanks to the generosity of family. Our military and veteran
students are like many of our new traditional students--working, with a
spouse and children and paying for education with money they have
saved. Servicemembers and veterans attend our institutions because of
many of the institutional qualities that are inherently ingrained into
the framework of our institutions, such as geographic proximity to home
or work, institutional emphasis on the adult learner, and flexible
class schedules. This is why for over 65 years our schools have been
providing education and training services to members of the armed
services and their families.
We know that military students want career-focused education that
is delivered in a flexible academic setting, which best meets their
unique needs. Our courses are designed to be relevant, concentrated,
and suited to the personal goals of our students; this educational
foundation particularly benefits servicemembers who utilize TA to
achieve a promotion, advance in rank, or supplement the skills attained
during their service. This type of purposeful, tailored education
ensures that military students nimbly move from the classroom onto
their next academic or professional goal. The ability to offer courses
on-base, online, and on the servicemember's schedule, likewise, is of
tremendous value, providing a full range of educational opportunities
that enable military students to maximize their education in order to
achieve his or her academic goals.
In recognition of the growing numbers of military and veteran
students enrolling at our institutions, APSCU adopted Five Tenets of
Veteran Education that included the creation of a Blue Ribbon Taskforce
for Military and Veteran Education. The Taskforce was comprised of a
broad group of individuals who share a common commitment towards the
education of servicemembers and veterans representing a diverse range
of institutions, including non-APSCU members, as well as
representatives of nationally recognized leadership organizations in
the area of military and veteran postsecondary education. The Taskforce
was specifically charged with identifying, collecting, and documenting
practices and programs that meet the unique needs of military and
veteran students, foster persistence, and enable them to meet their
academic and professional goals.
I have attached a copy of the Best Practices to this testimony, so
I won't discuss them in detail, but I would just highlight the four
major topic areas addressed by the Taskforce:
--Consumer information, enrollment and recruitment makes clear that
information should be provided in clear and understandable
language and that no student should be subjected to aggressive
or misleading recruiting practices.
--Institutional commitment to provide military and veteran student
support identifies initiatives related to personnel and faculty
designed to help employees understand the special needs of
military and veteran students. It also identifies institutional
policies aimed at assisting military and veteran students such
as participating in the Yellow Ribbon program, offering a
reduced military tuition rate, maximizing the use of military
training credit recommended by ACE, or exceeding the standards
of the Uniformed Services Employment and Re-Employment Act for
deployed employees.
--Promising practices for ensuring military and veteran student
success through student services discusses the need for student
centers and partnerships, such as establishing a Student
Veterans of America chapter or having a military and veterans
lounge where students can meet and find peer to peer support.
--Establish institutional research guidelines for tracking military
and veteran student success encourages the collection and use
of data to improve programs and evaluate program effectiveness.
We are encouraging all our institutions and our colleagues at
other institutions of higher education to look at these Best
Practices and find opportunities to implement them where
appropriate in order to best serve our military and veteran
students.
A 2010 study by the Rand Corporation and ACE entitled ``Military
Veterans' Experiences Using the Post-9/11 GI Bill and Pursing
Postsecondary Education'' reported findings which support the view that
our institutions are working to support these students. The report
noted the following:
--Rate of satisfaction with the credit transfer experience was 60
percent among survey respondents who had attempted to transfer
military credits to our institutions, versus only 27 percent
among those from community colleges and 40 percent among
respondents from public 4-year colleges. Only participants from
private nonprofit colleges reported higher credit transfer
satisfaction rates, at 82 percent;
--Respondents from our institutions reported fewer challenges to
accessing required courses than all other institutions except
for 4-year publics (33 percent of respondents at public 2-year
colleges, 26 percent at private nonprofits, 22 percent at our
institutions and 18 percent at public colleges).
Survey respondents in private sector colleges and universities
reported higher than average satisfaction rates with academic advising,
at 67 percent, versus about 50 percent satisfaction among respondents
at other institution types.
Reasons for choosing our institutions included: Career oriented
programs with flexible schedules, like-minded adult students, flexible
credit transfer rules and same institution in multiple locations.
Many PSCUs offer a reduced military tuition rate for active duty,
National Guard, and reserve servicemembers and their spouses to
minimize out-of-pocket student expenses beyond what TA benefits cover
and offer scholarships to wounded servicemembers and their spouses as
they recover from their injuries and prepare for new career
opportunities. Some also maintain a military-friendly deployment
policy, which allows military students to withdraw and return to school
at any time if they are deployed and provide specialized military
student advisors to evaluate past military training and experience and
assess eligible academic transfer of credit based on American Council
of Education (ACE) recommendations. The generous awarding of credit for
military skills and experience and fair transfer of credit policies
exemplify how PSCUs strive to be responsible stewards of this
educational benefit, as exiting servicemembers are not forced to take
duplicative or extraneous classes.
We look forward to working with the Department of Defense, as well
as the Department of Education to develop relevant outcome measures.
Active duty military students are often deployed or transferred,
interrupting their education. As we develop outcome measures and
metrics, we need to be thoughtful and make sure they accurately reflect
the real world environment our servicemembers operate.
Military students utilize TA as a means to career advancement or
skills attainment; however, the benefit also assists servicemembers as
they transition from soldier to civilian by providing the skills
necessary for attaining employment in a tough job market. Recent Bureau
of Labor Statistics (BLS) data suggest that the unemployment situation
of our Nation's veterans is improving, this population, particularly in
the age 18-24 category, has historically experienced higher
unemployment than civilians. The Administration, veteran advocates, and
veteran service organizations (VSOs) have responded by developing and
implementing initiatives to put veterans in jobs.
The American Legion has partnered with DOD to educate State
legislators and governors on the actual value of military skills and
experience and how they translate into a civilian employment
environment. Additionally, the American Legion is serving as an
advocate for changing current State laws to enable credentialing and/or
licensing boards to consider military skills and experience when
evaluating a candidate for a license or certification. The American
Legion has also partnered with the Administration and the Departments
of Defense, Energy, Labor, and Veterans Affairs to evaluate the current
job-task analysis (JTA), identify any gaps in the JTA, and work with
the private sector and postsecondary education to the best address how
to fill the gaps through higher education, on-the-job-training, or
apprenticeships. This initiative relies on the symbiotic relationship
between credentialing, higher education, public and private entities to
proactively work together to reduce veteran unemployment.
Tuition assistance is valuable because it not only helps maintain
the readiness of our Nation's military, but it provides active duty
servicemembers with career ready training for life after they leave
military service. When members of the armed forces leave, they enter a
pivotal transition period that is often wrought with challenges, and as
a result, the potential for failure is high. As we have discussed, our
institutions are fully committed to helping veterans achieve success in
higher education. This commitment and focus on educating members of the
military, as well as veterans and their families is critical because
according to the Defense Activity for Non-Traditional Education Support
(DANTES) over 80 percent of members only have a high school diploma.
Our Nation currently faces twin crises--stubbornly high
unemployment and a skills gap where employers all across the country
cannot find trained and job-ready workers. The key to narrowing the
skills gap and reducing civilian and veteran unemployment is an ``all-
hands-on-deck'' approach to postsecondary education. All sectors of
higher education must be part of the solution and accountable for the
educational experience and outcomes of all students, especially
military and veteran-students.
We want to work with you to provide our servicemembers and
veterans, particularly young combat veterans, with the tools and
resources to make an informed, thoughtful decision about which
educational opportunity will best prepare them for the workforce.
The facts are simple: Career-oriented schools are educating
America's next generation and helping secure our Nation's economic
vitality. We all agree that a higher education degree greatly improves
employment opportunities and income. And at a time of extended, high
unemployment and economic hardship, we should be supporting anyone
seeking access to skills and training that will allow them to better
their own future.
President Obama has made it his goal to have the highest proportion
of college graduates in the world by 2020. To meet President Obama's
challenge we will have to ensure that people who historically have not
pursued higher education or succeeded in completing their postsecondary
education must attend and complete their education. From both a jobs
and a global competitiveness standpoint, our institutions can help fill
the existing education and skills gap and meet capacity demands that
cannot be satisfied by public and private nonprofit colleges alone.
Increasing the number of educated people is essential. Research shows
that raising the college graduate rate just a single point will unleash
$124 billion per year in economic impact on the 51 largest metropolitan
areas in the United States.
Private sector colleges and universities have demonstrated a unique
capability to confront the challenges of educating America's middle
class. We have been at the forefront of the effort to close the skills
gap by offering career-focused training aiding business owners seeking
workers with specific training and expertise. We have made it our
mission to close this gap and are working every day to achieve that
end.
Private sector colleges and universities are able to accommodate
the needs of nontraditional students in ways that traditional 4-year
universities cannot. Whether its veterans' transitioning from war zones
to the workplace or single parents with family responsibilities seeking
a way to earn more for the future, career-oriented schools understand
the rigorous demands that these individuals face and tailor course
schedules, offer focused curriculum and provide academic delivery
mechanisms that fit their needs. We are also investing in our students
and expanding facilities to meet the growing demand for higher
education, which includes returning veterans, their spouses and
families.
We share President Obama's commitment and passion for education,
and look forward to working with him and the Congress to ensure that
all Americans can attain the skills they need to access meaningful
opportunities.
We take seriously the charge to work with active duty and military
student populations and prepare America's students to succeed in the
workforce. Private sector schools look forward to helping these
students achieve their dreams, maintain military readiness and prepare
them for life after the military.
Thank you for your time. I look forward to answering your questions
and discussing these important issues with you today.
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Gunderson.
Mr. Selbe from the University of Maryland.
STATEMENT OF JAMES H. SELBE, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT,
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
Mr. Selbe. Chairman Durbin, Member Cochran, thank you for
the opportunity to appear today.
As you mentioned, I am with the University of Maryland
University College relevant to today's testimony. I am also a
20-year veteran of the United State Marine Corps.
On behalf of our President, Javier Miyares, who is
participating in our overseas commencements this week, I would
also like to express UMUC's appreciation to Appropriations
Committee Chairwoman, Barbara Mikulski, for her longstanding
support of our commitment to the military, and for her critical
role in reinstating military tuition assistance through the
Senate's continuing resolution. We have no better friend, and
we thank her.
At UMUC, we say with pride that serving the military is a
part of our DNA. In 1949, the Pentagon asked American
universities for proposals on how best to educate Active Duty
military personnel in Europe. The University of Maryland was
the only school to respond.
That year, classes began in Europe to overwhelming demand
and in 1956, the programs expanded to Asia. More recently, we
have sent faculty and staff to Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa, and
locations throughout the Far East.
Today, we serve approximately 97,000 students in 28
countries and all 50 States, about 50,000 of whom are Active
Duty military servicemembers, veterans, and their families.
These remarkable men and women take classes onsite at more than
150 locations including military bases throughout the world,
and online through our award winning virtual campus.
From a personal perspective, I came into the Marine Corps
having never given any serious thought to going to college. But
before I retired, I earned both an undergraduate and graduate
degree. I am convinced that I would never have taken that first
step if it were not for three major elements of the voluntary
education program.
As a first time, first generation student, I benefitted
greatly from easy and convenient access to highly qualified
counselors at the military base education centers.
Second, as a part-time student, what seemed unachievable
was made realistic by the opportunity to earn college credit
for my military training and other life experiences.
Finally, as an enlisted servicemember, I had very little
disposable income and would not have been able to afford the
cost of college had it not been for military tuition
assistance.
I benefitted greatly from receiving my Masters of Education
from the University of Maryland College Park prior to my
retirement. My educational credentials have opened doors that
otherwise might have been closed. As such, I have had the
opportunity to pay it forward by serving those who have
followed behind me.
Today's returning veterans are coming home to a highly
competitive job market, and as the numbers indicate, far too
many are unemployed and countless others are underemployed.
When competing against nonveterans, the key differentiator is
often a college degree.
The military services have made a significant investment in
narrowing this gap by funding the cost of college through the
tuition assistance program. As we saw, the response to the
abrupt elimination of military tuition assistance in March of
this year by branches of the military provided a clear example
of the importance Americans place on higher education benefits
for servicemembers.
As you know, the outcry from military students, veterans,
military support organizations, educators, economists, and the
general public was swift and powerful. They made clear that
this program is a key element of the basic compact between our
Government and the thousands of Americans who agree to enlist
and risk their lives to protect the United States. We commend
this committee and your colleagues in the U.S. Senate and the
House of Representatives who came together in bipartisan
support to reverse these decisions.
The University of Maryland University College strongly
supports the work of this committee in exploring proven
practices in improving and assessing the Department of
Defense's voluntary education program. Those who have
volunteered to support and defend America deserve nothing less
than the best we have to offer.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Mr. Chairman, education is the best investment we can make
in the future of those who put their lives on the line for our
country. As we have done for more than 60 years, UMUC stands
ready to provide that education anywhere in the world that our
military needs to go.
I thank you for allowing me this time. I am happy to answer
any questions, and welcome the opportunity to work with this
committee moving forward.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of James H. Selbe
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, on behalf of our
president, Javier Miyares, who is participating in our overseas
commencements this week, I thank you for this opportunity to share
University of Maryland University College's (UMUC) proud history of
more than 60 years of service to our Nation's military around the world
as an open access, public university and a member institution of the
University System of Maryland (USM).
My name is James Selbe, and I am Senior Vice President for
Partnerships, Marketing and Enrollment Management at UMUC. I am also a
proud veteran, having served for 20 years in the U.S. Marine Corps.
I would like to begin by expressing UMUC's appreciation to Defense
Appropriations Committee Chairwoman, Senator Barbara Mikulski, for her
long-standing support of UMUC's commitment to the military and for her
critical role in including reinstatement of the Military Tuition
Assistance Program in the U.S. Senate Continuing Resolution. The
Military Tuition Assistance Program, a critical component of the
Voluntary Education Program, serves three vital purposes:
1. It assures recruits that they can enlist right out of high
school and still receive a college education.
2. It trains personnel in the skills needed to ensure a
professional military as those skills become more complex.
3. It provides for an educated workforce as veterans return to
civilian life and seek full-time employment.
The abrupt elimination of Military Tuition Assistance in March of
this year by several branches of the military proved a dramatic example
of the importance Americans place on higher education benefits for
servicemembers.
As you know, the outcry from military students, veterans groups,
military support organizations, educators, economists, and the general
public was swift and powerful. They made clear that this program is a
key element of the basic compact between the U.S. Government and the
thousands of young Americans who agree to enlist and risk their lives
to protect the United States.
We could have no greater champion than Senator Mikulski and we
thank her--and you--for the bipartisan support this committee has
demonstrated for higher education opportunities for our active duty
military forces and their families.
UMUC commends this committee for holding this hearing to draw
attention to the important role of the Voluntary Education Program and
Military Tuition Assistance. Currently, UMUC has some 50,000 military
personnel, veterans and their families--more than half of our overall
student body--enrolled in our courses. These men and women take classes
on site at more than 150 locations--including military bases in
Afghanistan--as well as online through our award-winning virtual
campus.
We are committed to providing high-quality, low-cost, state-of-the-
art, comprehensive, academically challenging course work for our
service men and women. And we are committed to helping them succeed in
their studies and their careers. In the past 3 years, we have created
groundbreaking new undergraduate and graduate programs in cybersecurity
in order to train students for this rapidly growing job market that
demands specialized skills, an area vital to the defense of our
country.
university of maryland university college's long and rich history
educating our nation's military
At UMUC, we say with pride that serving the military is in our DNA.
It all began in 1949 after the Defense Department decreed that all
military officers must have at least 2 years of college education.
While military personnel stationed in the United States could attend
local colleges, those in war-ravaged Europe were not afforded the same
opportunity. Among those advocating that the Pentagon provide higher
education to troops stationed in Europe was Air Force Col. William C.
Bentley. While serving at the Pentagon, he already was taking classes
at the University of Maryland's College of Special and Continuation
Studies--the forerunner of UMUC. The Pentagon issued a call to the
Nation's universities, asking for proposals on how to educate active-
service personnel in Europe.
Only the University of Maryland responded.
With just 1 week to organize a program, George Kabat, dean of
Maryland's College of Special and Continuation Studies, gathered seven
professors willing to turn their lives upside down to travel to war-
ravaged Germany and establish the first classes at a U.S. military
base. In the first month, more than 1,800 military personnel signed up,
overwhelming the seven professors.
By that time assigned to Germany, Col. Bentley was among those
students. In our very first graduation ceremony at Heidelberg in 1951,
he was awarded a bachelor's degree in military science. And in one of
life's amazing coincidences, just 1 month ago, William C. Bentley's
great-granddaughter, Lauren Bentley, earned her bachelor's degree in
psychology in what will be our last graduation ceremony before the
Heidelberg campus closes. In total, four generations of this single
family have served their country and experienced the education benefits
that William C. Bentley helped launch.
During the Cold War, UMUC's education program quickly expanded
wherever American troops were needed--in Europe, Africa, the Middle
East and, beginning in 1956, in Asia and the Pacific Islands--Japan,
Okinawa, and South Korea.
Dwight Eisenhower was the first of seven presidents who have
commended UMUC's work when he wrote a letter in 1959 saying, ``The fact
that more than twenty thousand members of our Armed Forces are now
enrolled in the overseas education program is most heartening. This is
further proof of Americans' respect for higher learning, and, in
particular, the eagerness of the men and women of the Army, Navy, Air
Force and Marine Corps to take advantage of their educational
opportunities.''
During the Vietnam War, UMUC for the first time--but certainly not
the last--sent professors into combat zones by establishing classrooms
at 24 military bases across South Vietnam. In the late 1960s, a
revolution against the King of Libya spilled over into the UMUC campus
serving Wheeling Air Force Base. Water pipes were blown up, bombs
thrown and the center had to be abandoned. But classes were up and
running again by the next term.
UMUC adjusted to the all-volunteer military where education became
more critical to military morale than ever. Instructors traveled by
plane, train and sometimes sam loe, a three-wheeled pedicab, to reach
service men seeking an education. They earned the reputation as the
``Academic Foreign Legion'' with the motto, ``Have syllabus, will
travel.''
Time and again, UMUC faculty known as ``downrangers'' have ventured
into remote parts of war zones, traveling dangerous routes to reach
accommodations that sometimes were little better than cobweb-filled
garden shacks. In Afghanistan, the schools have come under attack.
During a May 2012 graduation ceremony at Kandahar, graduates
interrupted their reception to dive into bunkers as enemy rockets fell
nearby. As one participant said, ``It was a ceremony where you don't
just hear a speaker talk about heroes, but one where they surround
you.''
We have no trouble finding professors who want to volunteer for
this duty. They have a commitment to military education. Some of them
are veterans. There is a sense of adventure that speaks to them. But
most important, they know how important what they are doing is to the
success of our military and to the country.
UMUC is used to pulling up stakes and pulling out whenever the
American military mission ends in one place. And we are just as
prepared to deploy our professors wherever the new combat zone or
military outpost may be. All that we can predict is that conditions
will change and they will change overnight. Our troops will continue to
be a military support power. And we will be right there. We just don't
know when and where.
university of maryland university college today
Today, UMUC offers 130 undergraduate and graduate degree and
certificate programs and serves over 92,000 students in 28 countries
and all 50 States. UMUC's principal aim--and, correspondingly, our
online service model--are centered on providing high quality, low-cost
postsecondary education to working adults in Maryland, and around the
world, with a particular focus on serving active duty military
personnel. Our students seek the rigor and quality characteristic of
the University System of Maryland, delivered through an open,
affordable, and easily accessible format aligned with adult learners'
busy lives and work schedules.
UMUC is a proud recipient of the highest honor in distance
education, the ``Sloan Consortium Award for Excellence in Institution-
Wide Asynchronous Learning Network Programming.'' In 2010, UMUC
received three IMS Global Learning Consortium awards: Learning Impact
Award; Best in Category, Faculty Development Network for the UMUC
faculty e-zine; and Best in Category, Online Laboratory for UMUC's
online hands-on labs in information assurance. Also of note, UMUC
received the 2011 Institution Award from the Council of College and
Military Educators (CCME) in recognition of its quality education
programs that are provided to the armed services.
As an open access university, UMUC also attracts an exceptionally
diverse student body, representing myriad ages and abilities, cultural
traditions, and socioeconomic circumstances. UMUC enrolls a substantial
number of the State of Maryland's non-traditional and underserved
student populations and graduates a significant portion of the State's
minority degree recipients.
A snapshot of our students reflects that:
--Many UMUC students are in their 30s and 40s (with an average age of
31);
--Four out of five of our students work full time;
--Nearly half of our students are married, with children;
--More than half of our students are women; and
--Of our current students:
--17 percent were new to higher education;
--26 percent were new to UMUC;
--30 percent are overseas students;
--49 percent were transfer students;
--56 percent are in the military or affiliated with the military
(28 percent active duty); and
--76 percent are undergraduate students.
UMUC is committed to ensuring our students' success and
satisfaction, just as we remain committed to continually improving our
programs and practices to meet the evolving needs of working adults and
other nontraditional learners. This includes a recent transition (fall
2011) to an outcomes-based curriculum designed to better meet the
current needs of undergraduate students. That redesigned curriculum
involved:
--Redefining academic program objectives based on employer feedback,
and cascading the redefined program objectives into course
objectives.
--A year-long research program to compare student learning achieved
by the same online courses in different lengths.
--The work of more than 600 full- and part-time faculty.
Our commitment to quality and student success is validated in
numerous ways, including through an examination of our student
retention rates. The retention rate for new students admitted in fall
2010 is 70 percent. UMUC understands that adult students often stop
working toward their educational goals (i.e., ``stop out'') because of
deployments and family and work considerations; therefore, we are very
proud of this retention rate and seek to increase it every year. UMUC's
commitment to transparency in its performance is reflected in many
different types of data points on our Web site, so that prospective and
current students and employers can meaningfully evaluate the quality of
our offerings. This material includes information about our employees
and students, degrees awarded, graduation rates, and much more. In this
context, it bears noting that UMUC's student loan default rates for
fiscal year 2006-2009 range between 3.1 percent and 4 percent. These
rates place UMUC in the middle of the USM degree granting institutions
and lower than national data.
students in uniform: a look at the university of maryland university
college military student experience
There has recently been a steady decline in undergraduate
enrollments across higher education. This has led a growing number of
institutions to begin targeting military students and veterans to
replace lost revenue. Educating active duty military students is not
like educating any other kind of student and those institutions that
decide to embark on this path need to understand this. These students
are also our Nation's protectors. They stand on the front lines so that
we can be safe. They bear a heavy responsibility for their country and
we who endeavor to educate them bear a heavy responsibility to them.
Military students face extraordinary challenges that require
dedicated resources and highly skilled advisors. UMUC has created a
successful military learner framework based on early, embedded, tiered
interventions and sustained, differentiated support at strategic points
along the student journey.
Every day UMUC Military Advisors answer on average 480 calls and
600 e-mails from military students who are at various stages in their
degree progression and who are stationed around the world. UMUC's
dedicated team of advisors and support personnel ensure that today's
military members are equipped to transition from combat to classroom to
career.
Prospective students hear about UMUC from a variety of sources,
including television and radio media, AFN and Stars and Stripes ads, as
well as by word of mouth from any one of the tens of thousands of other
military students and alumni of UMUC. UMUC's presence on 150+ military
bases around the world also contributes to the number of prospective
students that come through our doors every day.
Here is how our military student support works through the eyes of
a hypothetical NCO I call Sgt. Smith.
Sgt. Smith is called by a military advisor after he attends an Ed
Fair at Fort Meade and requests more information on a cybersecurity
degree. The advisor engages in a dialogue with Sgt. Smith that focuses
on:
--MAPPS (Motivation, Admissibility, Program, Payment, Start Date).
--Sgt. Smith's advisor also discusses his schedule (military
trainings, possible deployments, family) and what he has done
while in the military (Military Occupation Specialty duties) to
begin formulating a plan.
--Sgt. Smith's advisor creates a record in the University's student
information system in order to provide accurate and timely
follow up.
--If Sgt. Smith hasn't taken an online class before he will be
encouraged to test drive UMUC 411, an online classroom where he
can develop his confidence and talk to faculty, advisors and
potential classmates who understand the demands of military
life.
Information is shared with prospective students in a variety of
ways. Telephone and e-mail communication are routinely used by military
members, but UMUC also has online guides and tools to help these
students navigate the often unfamiliar path in higher education. Once a
decision has been made to attend UMUC, the military advisor works with
the student to identify the most appropriate pathway.
Sgt. Smith decides his work, deployment schedule and home life will
currently allow him to pursue his goal of obtaining his degree. He has
a discussion with his advisor to review his next steps:
--Sgt. Smith gathers his unofficial transcripts and his advisor
begins the tentative evaluation process in his chosen field of
Cybersecurity to see his potential transfer credit.
--Sgt. Smith's advisor ensures maximum use of his military credit as
well as any credits that he is transferring from other
institutions.
--A discussion now occurs regarding the application process; Sgt.
Smith is made aware of the application fee and UMUC's military
tuition rate and he receives a ``Welcome Packet'' as an
introduction to UMUC and the resources UMUC has available to
military students.
--Sgt. Smith's advisor provides him with recommendations for his
first and second semester course planning in order to provide
an extended path to follow.
--Sgt. Smith's advisor looks at credit by exam options in order to
maximize efficiency in degree completion.
--The military advisor also revisits Sgt. Smith's transfer credit and
experience in higher education to determine if EDCP 100 should
be suggested as a potential first course.
--EDCP 100: Principles and Strategies of Successful Learning: A
military specific section of the standard UMUC class that
serves as an introduction to knowledge and strategies
designed to promote success in the university environment.
Once the decision to enroll has been made, students register for
classes in a variety of ways. Some register on their own via the MyUMUC
student portal; those using Army Tuition Assistance register via the
GoArmyEd portal; and others call or e-mail into advising to request
assistance with the steps to register. In all cases, an immediate
message goes out to students upon registration with follow-up
instructions such as logging into the learning platform; purchasing
course materials, making payment, and noting add/drop deadlines.
Advisors check in at key moments during this critical first term of
enrollment.
Sgt. Smith is granted support and tuition assistance approval from
his Education Center to enroll into six credits for the current term.
He registers for the two courses recommended by his advisor. The
classes begin next week:
--Sgt. Smith's advisor contacts him on the first day of class to
ensure he has logged in to the virtual classroom, reviewed the
syllabus, gathered his course materials and posted an
introduction in the classrooms.
--If Sgt. Smith has not completed any of the steps, the advisor
troubleshoots potential barriers--time & schedule, technology,
personal--and makes recommendations as appropriate.
--Sgt. Smith's advisor sets a short-term next action to check and
confirm steps have been taken and a long-term next action to
make sure Sgt. Smith stayed on track.
--Sgt. Smith is offered participation in Successful Beginnings, an
online orientation guide that helps tackle all administrative,
academic, and financial issues a new student faces.
The first term can be a challenge for students despite preparation
efforts, as they are still learning to navigate through their academic
careers. Many have been out of education for a significant length of
time and some may stumble before gaining solid footing. UMUC has in
place several layers of ``safety nets'' to catch problems early and
cushion the experience for students.
Sgt. Smith has been logging in and participating in classes, but
feels he is struggling. He feels underprepared compared to his
classmates in the area of writing and math. He is unsure about his
choice of major. His workload has unexpectedly increased adding to his
stress.
--Sgt. Smith's advisor calls to check in and hears ``trigger words''
that indicate he is having difficulty. The advisor begins
problem solving the source of struggle and offers UMUC
resources (Accessibility Services, Effective Writing Center,
Center for Student Success, and Tutoring) as appropriate.
(Within the semester, the student may be contacted based on
external factors pertaining to that student--for example, if
the student has an outstanding balance, if his or her Official
Evaluation has been completed, or if transcripts/mil docs have
come in or are still missing; communication is tailored as
needed)
--Because Sgt. Smith's Official Transfer Evaluation is completed
within this first semester, his advisor maps the entire degree
to plan out prerequisites, potential pitfall courses, and
preparedness of each semester's enrollment. The advisor also
negotiates a realistic graduation deadline that works with Sgt.
Smith's eventual goals.
--During the Degree Map discussion, the advisor also opens the door
to next semester's registration by offering classes from the
Degree Map and highlights possible opportunities for outside
professional certifications.
--The advisor periodically touches base with Sgt. Smith to ensure
continued success and mentions registration for the next
semester as appropriate--in addition, advisor will be listening
in these conversations for concerns or frustrations that may
need to be addressed, such as potential reasons for withdraw
and exception process information.
Every military student is unique and most are traveling on a
nonlinear journey with multiple start and stop points. Military
students' multi-institutional attendance and discontinuous enrollment
can be broken down into several different ``swirls'' that affect their
retention. Whether the swirl includes a trial enrollment to see if the
school ``fits,'' a supplemental enrollment at another institution to
expedite degree completion at the home school, or a serial transfer
student, UMUC seeks to mitigate the repercussions of these student-made
decisions and in fact, encourages continued progression.
Sgt. Smith eventually found his footing and with support from UMUC
services and faculty, he was able to pass his first courses. He feels
more confident with six credits under his belt but still feels
trepidation about taking math courses online. He also wonders if he can
accelerate his degree progress by testing to earn additional credit.
--Sgt. Smith's advisor prepares and gains approval for Sgt. Smith's
``Letter of Permission'' which allows him to take his math
class face-to-face at a local community college near his base.
The credit will reverse transfer back to UMUC upon his
successful completion of the math course.
--Together, Sgt. Smith and his advisor explore him taking American
Government and Introductory Sociology through a College Level
Examination Program (CLEP) credit by examination test. This
testing option saves Sgt. Smith time as well as Tuition
Assistance funds. Credit by exam is also an excellent option
for Sgt. Smith when he is on temporary assignment and unable to
take classes during a term. Credit by exam allows Sgt. Smith to
stay on schedule.
The path to degree completion for a military learner--whether it be
an associate's, bachelor's or advanced degree--is a long one. Competing
time demands, changes in duty locations, commander support and family
responsibilities all contribute to the need to delay goals, both short
and long term. With the appropriate framework and a scaffolding of
support for the military student, success is achievable.
UMUC's relationship with the student doesn't end when the military
student makes the transition from the classroom to career upon
graduation or upon separation from the military. At UMUC, the student's
academic journey follows a parallel path that coincides with the
transition to civilian status. A team of veteran advisors have a tool
box that allow the veteran military student to continue his/her path to
academic success or to that coveted career in cybersecurity.
Sgt. Smith self identifies to his advisor that he is separating
from Active Duty in 12 months and is excited to be completing his final
15 credits.
--Sgt. Smith's advisor discusses his ``after degree'' plans.
--The advisor promotes transitional information, may revisit
professional certification where applicable, and highlights
deadlines for graduation application and details of the
graduation checklist and Commencement.
--The advisor engages Sgt. Smith in UMUC's Career Services as a
resource. Resume writing, job fair preparation and strategies
for Federal job searching are all topics to be discussed with
Sgt. Smith.
--Where appropriate, Sgt. Smith's advisor would also introduce
potential graduate programs and discuss the graduate school
admissions criteria and process.
--As a cybersecurity major, Sgt. Smith qualifies for the articulation
agreement between UMUC's Undergraduate School and Graduate
School which allows eligible students who complete their
undergraduate degree at UMUC with a major in cybersecurity to
reduce their total coursework for the M.S. in cybersecurity or
cybersecurity policy by 18 credits (three courses).
tracking and reporting military student outcomes
The difficulties in tracking and reporting student outcomes for
military students are many and complex. Despite these challenges, UMUC
is firmly committed to transparency in reporting student outcomes for
our military students. Furthermore, we applaud recent efforts by the
Department of Defense and the Department of Education to develop
measures more appropriate to military students and other nontraditional
cohorts.
The challenges in measuring student outcomes start with the need to
agree on definitions and to then identify key measures that are
appropriate to the enrollment behaviors and desired outcomes of
military students. The Department of Defense has taken a major step
toward addressing these issues by requesting that the Servicemembers
Opportunity Colleges (SOC) convene a working group to assist colleges
and universities to more consistently define military students and
establish data collection parameters. A white paper, Educational
Attainment: Tracking the Academic Success of Servicemembers and
Veterans, was published by SOC and includes background information and
recommendations.
UMUC has adopted many of the recommendations of the aforementioned
working group. These recommendations include:
--Define military students as Active-Duty, Reserve, and National
Guard servicemembers receiving Military Tuition Assistance.
--Track and report military students who:
--have successfully completed three courses/nine semester hours in
a 2-year period, and
--have a cumulative GPA > 2.0, and
--who have transferred in and have had accepted at least nine
credit hours.
--Track the cohort at a rate 200 percent that of ``normal'' time--8
years for bachelor's and 4 years for associate's programs.
Based on this methodology, UMUC is now tracking military students
beginning with the 2006 cohort. The graduation rate for students who
have completed their degrees within 5 years after starting is 53
percent. This compares favorably with our overall student population
(56 percent) and even more favorable when benchmarked against national
rates for undergraduate students attending public institutions (50.6
percent).
(Educational Attainment: Tracking the Academic Success of
Servicemembers and Veterans--by Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges--is
attached to written testimony.)
u.s. military tuition assistance program--too important to the nation
to cut
As our fictitious Sgt. Smith shows, UMUC has developed an extensive
support system that is aimed at our military students and their unique
problems in completing an education. UMUC is, in fact, uniquely
qualified to help military personnel based on our proud history, our
track record of success and our continuing efforts in the 21st century
to provide high-quality, low-cost higher education to our Nation's
servicemembers.
Just how valuable military education is to the participants and to
the Nation became starkly clear when, on March 5, 2013, the U.S. Marine
Corps became the first branch of the services to eliminate the Military
Tuition Assistance Programs--not cut it back, but eliminate it
altogether. In rapid succession, other branches followed.
As mentioned, the outcry from across America was immediate.
Students, veterans, educators and employers made clear to Congress that
the Military Tuition Assistance Program is not a frill and is too
important to the country to cut. It is a key element of the basic
compact between the U.S. Government and all Americans who enlist to
protect the United States. Many of them are right out of high school,
and they agree to serve with the understanding that the military will
provide them with a good education. The promise is right there on the
recruiting Web sites.
As everyone in this hearing room knows, the uproar was so intense
that Congress acted with lightning speed and bi-partisanship not seen
in many years. On March 20, the U.S. Senate passed a continuing
resolution including a provision directing the military services to
reinstate the Military Tuition Assistance Program. The next day, the
U.S. House passed the same bill. And on March 27, the President signed
the bill into law. It took only 22 days from start to finish for the
country to speak and for Congress to hear and act to reinstate one of
the most popular and essential programs the Nation can provide to those
who defend our country.
During the controversy, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Washington, DC, audience that ``there is
nothing more important in a democracy than education.'' He called
himself ``the military's highest ranking student,'' and education ``a
national strategic resource.''
Education is key to the very ability to function in the military.
Our ever-more-sophisticated defense systems depend on highly educated
personnel working in complex environments. Or as Gen. Dempsey said,
``We ask these young men and women to solve some of the world's hardest
problems in its hardest places.''
Education is also key to the ability of our veterans to function in
civilian life. When servicemembers return home, the best predictor of
how well they will fare in finding employment and successfully
readjusting to life after the military is the level of education and
professional training they have when they separate from the service.
Military personnel who leave the service without this education will
have a harder time finding civilian employment, adding to the already
high unemployment rate for veterans and hurting our economic recovery.
We at UMUC were pleased and proud that Gen. Dempsey understood the
value of this education and that so many of you on this committee came
together in a bipartisan effort to reverse the decisions of the Armed
Forces. That was a ringing endorsement of what matters most in the
defense of this Nation--an all-volunteer force, well educated and with
high morale.
Mr. Chairman, education is the best investment we can make in the
future of those who put their lives on the line for our country. And as
we have done for more than 60 years, UMUC stands ready to provide it
anywhere in the world that our military needs to go.
Thank you.
______
Educational Attainment: Tracking the Academic Success of Servicemembers
and Veterans
July 2012
Disclaimer: Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges (SOC) is a
Department of Defense contract managed for the department by DANTES
(Defense Activity for Non-Traditional Education Support). The
statements and recommendations contained in this white paper were
formulated by members of a working group and do not necessarily reflect
the views or policies of the Department of Defense.
executive summary
The increased concern over program accountability for student
success across the spectrum of higher education has called attention to
the need for consistent, relevant, and reliable definitions and
measures of student progression and student outcomes. Current sources
of data are inadequate to the task of establishing common measures of
military student outcomes. Databases that would permit Voluntary
Education policymakers to track military student outcomes and permit
comparisons across institutions that serve them are not available. The
problems are compounded by the mission-defined mobility of active-duty
servicemembers. This paper is a collaborative approach toward
developing common definitions and common measures of success for this
sub-population of adult learners.
The findings of this report are, at this time, only
recommendations.
introduction
The multimillion-dollar investment by the U.S. Department of
Defense (DOD) \1\ and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) \2\
in providing higher education access to our servicemembers has
understandably raised key questions related to the outcomes derived
from this investment. In April 2012, President Obama signed an
executive order requiring institutions receiving payments from military
or veteran education benefits to produce outcomes data on
servicemembers and veterans as well as provide them additional
educational assistance. In addition, DOD, VA, and congressional
committees are actively questioning the return on investment of the
military Tuition Assistance (TA) program. The current federal budget
situation has added urgency to these demands for accountability. This
paper is the product of a working group convened by Servicemembers
Opportunity Colleges (SOC) to propose specific parameters for
addressing the accountability issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For FY 2010, DOD spent approximately $641 million dollars on
active-duty and Reserve component TA funding.
\2\ For FY 2013, VA estimates more than $8 billion dollars in
educational expenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In defining the parameters of the charge, the working group limited
itself to identifying the need for metrics, and how to define the
participants in data collection. The report certainly does not dismiss
the importance of other questions, such as the extent to which TA/VA-
supported education contributes to job performance or how Voluntary
Education participation impacts military retention. Similarly, the
paper does not duplicate the research of the Council for Adult and
Experiential Learning (CAEL) and others about the relationship between
earned prior learning credit and persistence and time to degree
completion. The report appreciates that the cohort definition may not
be easy for some institutions to currently implement, and how this
might be managed as a policy matter is an important question. Finally,
the paper does not recommend any benchmarks nor identify any standard
measurements of success.
purpose of the paper
This paper focuses on providing a set of common definitions and a
common methodology that will permit comparisons of institutional-level
metrics. At the request of military-serving institutions, the working
group has provided a consistent and measurable definition of a military
student, data collection parameters, and next steps.
----------------------------------------------------------------
This paper is a collaborative approach toward developing common
definitions and common measures of success for this sub-population of
adult learners.
----------------------------------------------------------------
history/background of the working group
In February 2010, SOC conducted a pre-conference Burning Issues
Summit at the annual meeting of the Council of College and Military
Educators (CCME). The Summit generated considerable discussion on the
diverse practices, policies, and metrics that colleges employ to assess
persistence and degree completion of adult learners. There was no
consensus, however, on what definitions and metrics could most
effectively capture the military student population. It was recommended
that SOC provide leadership to bring together a working group of key
stakeholders in the voluntary education community to focus on
persistence (progress to degree completion), and degree completion
metrics for this group of adult learners.
In December 2010, a working group of higher education and military
education strategic thinkers and data analysts began to identify a
common set of definitions of persistence and degree completion as well
as to propose a common set of variables that would allow comparisons
across the Voluntary Education community.
The working group was charged with:
--Making recommendations on possible metrics and variables for
evaluation
--Improving the data collection process by which military students
are measured, including their success and nonsuccess (as
defined both by the military and by institutions, since these
definitions differ)
--Defining what is a military and veteran student for data collection
purposes.
This focus on metrics sought to inform and shape policy decisions
and institutional program accountability. The initial focus was on
active-duty servicemembers but was later expanded to include veteran
students.
In an effort to avoid redundancy, the working group sought to
incorporate research already completed by military-serving
institutions. The group also explored how certain existing
methodologies for collecting, analyzing, and reporting data could be
adapted to better reflect the experience of military students and
veterans in postsecondary education. That analysis produced the
recommended framework and definitions.
In constructing this paper, the working group collaborated with
stakeholders and constituents of Voluntary Education including
Transparency By Design (TBD), the Council of College and Military
Educators (CCME), the National Association of Institutions for Military
Education Services (NAIMES), the SOC Advisory Board, and others.
A full membership list is found in Appendix C.
environmental considerations
As of the printing of this report, the political environment
regarding accountability of Tuition Assistance dollars spent and the
desire to research and dictate success measures is complex. President
Obama's April 27, 2012 signing of an executive order mandating data
collection from institutions as well as (among other requirements) the
establishment of a federal, centralized complaint database for
servicemembers and veterans about colleges and universities at which
they study is the most recent political development.
Previously, studies by the Lumina Foundation, the Bill and Melinda
Gates Foundation, and other organizations have proposed various
methodologies and determined findings related to military or veteran
student education. Tuition Assistance and the future of the Voluntary
Education community has been the subject of Congressional hearings and
white papers. Where possible, the findings and suggestions of these
reviews have been incorporated into this paper. For additional
information, please reference Appendix A.
introduction to the military student
It is rare for a servicemember to be both active-duty military and
a full-time, first-time student.\3\ Data from some of the largest
providers of higher education to the military indicate that the average
military student currently takes less than three courses a year. This
means that military students are not included in the Department of
Education's first-time, full-time completion calculation, and they will
not complete their degrees within the 150% time line (normally 6 years
from beginning to completion of a B.A. or B.S. degree).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ A full-time student, as defined by the Department of Education,
is an undergraduate student enrolled in at least 12 semester hours or
quarter hours, or more than 24 contact hours a week each term. An
undergraduate part-time student as one who is enrolled either less than
12 semester hours or quarter hours or less than 24 contact hours a week
each term. For graduate students, part time is defined as less than 9
semester or quarter hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The military force is increasingly mobile and prefers the
flexibility and portability of online courses. The FY 11 DOD Voluntary
Education Fact Sheet reported that 73% of all servicemembers
participating in the military Tuition Assistance program enrolled in
online classes.
Even with a DOD 100% Tuition Assistance reimbursement program (with
limitations), the most lucrative GI Bill program in history, and
development of service-specific virtual education portals, educational
achievement remains relatively low and stable among the military force.
Data from the FY 2011 DOD Voluntary Education Levels Report indicate
that approximately 85% of the enlisted force do not possess at least an
associates' degree, nearly 95% of the enlisted force do not possess a
bachelor's degree or higher, and approximately 58% of the officer corps
do not possess a master's degree.
Military students behave differently than other non-traditional
adult populations. Because of deployments and the rapid pace in theater
in recent times, it is often difficult for students to predict when is
a good time to start a course or if they will be able to complete it on
time. For this reason, institutions that serve the military have to
have very liberal withdrawal and leave of absence policies that will
not punish servicemembers for work conditions that are beyond their
control. In addition, some military students are under-prepared for
college because they did not complete a college preparatory track in
high school.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Military students behave differently than other nontraditional
adult populations. adult learners.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Data from some of the larger institutions that serve the military
indicate that the average military student attends three or more
colleges before earning an undergraduate degree. Military students
often stop out which means they stop attending college and resume
later.
Even when an institution is able to offer an online program to meet
the frequently reassigned military member's needs, sometimes there may
be connectivity issues. While connectivity may be limited for troops in
a remote war zone such as Afghanistan, it may also occur when members
of our navy are at sea, assigned to ships and submarines. Additionally,
some of the psychological stresses (PTSD, etc.) experienced by many
members of our modern military may impact all course-based learning as
well as extend the time required for degree completion.
methodology
The widely accepted methodology used to monitor persistence and
graduation rates is the cohort tracking approach. This methodology is
central to IPEDS \4\ and provides tracking over a period of time for a
cohort of students, with metrics at key milestones (enrollment in Fall
terms) and a final metric on graduation (six years after first
enrollment): Of X students, A% returned for a second year and B%
graduated after six years. The cohort tracking methodology has also
been endorsed by the American Association of Community Colleges and by
the Transparency by Design Initiative.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System--the federal
reporting system required of all institutions that receive federal
student financial assistance (Title IV) funds.
\5\ American Association of Community Colleges (Voluntary Framework
for Accountability, Metrics Manual Version 1.0, November 2011).
Transparency by Design Initiative (Learners Progress Metrics, http://
collegechoicesforadults.com/, August 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The key issue, however, becomes how to appropriately define the
cohort for military-serving institutions. The IPEDS definition is
wholly inadequate for this purpose because it tracks only first-
time,\6\ full-time, degree-seeking freshmen. Acknowledging the growing
interest in data collection on military and veteran students who do not
fit this IPEDS definition, the National Center for Education Statistics
(NCES)--which is responsible for IPEDS--held a Technical Review Panel
in November 2011 titled ``Collecting Data on Veterans.'' The Technical
Review Panel's suggestions included collecting basic data through IPEDS
on the number of military and veteran undergraduates and graduates as
well as limited data on military- and veteran-serving programs
available at the institution and the amount of DOD and Post-9/11 GI
Bill benefits awarded to students through the institution. However, the
panel acknowledged multiple difficulties of collecting data on military
and veteran students, including that IPEDS does not currently capture
any data on them. It thus ``determined that collecting additional data
on completions, persistence, and graduation rates of veterans and
military servicemembers in IPEDS is not feasible at this time and needs
further study'' due to ``the limitations in data systems and available
data'' but that further examination of other federal data sources
should be done.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ First-time here refers to first enrollment ever in any higher
education institution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military students typically do not start their college education as
full-time freshmen or necessarily with the goal of pursuing a degree.
While the Voluntary Framework of Accountability and the Transparency by
Design Initiative have broadened the IPEDS definition of cohort by
adding first-time, full- and part-time, degree-seeking freshmen, even
this broadened IPEDS definition (e.g., including part-time students) is
not appropriate for military students. Defining a cohort appropriate to
the measurement of persistence and graduation of military students must
take into account several factors that are unique to military students:
--There is a fundamental difference between persistence and
graduation rates of online/distance education programs and of
traditional delivery methods, paralleling the differences
between all types of institutions.
--Military training and Service School credit may be accepted (via
voluntary participation in the SOC Consortium and agreement to
the SOC Principles and Criteria) as college credits based on
the American Council on Education's Guide to the Evaluation of
Educational Experiences in the Armed Services.
--Like adult students in general, many military students enroll in a
course offered through distance education institutions ``to try
out'' online education, only to find out that they prefer to
take their early courses face-to-face at a nearby
institution.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Based on analysis and findings from American Public University
System and University of Maryland, University College.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Military deployments throughout the nation and the world expose
servicemembers to many military-serving institutions,
increasing the likelihood of their attending multiple
institutions en route to graduation.
--The increased use of government-sponsored online websites that
facilitate enrollment, registration, Tuition Assistance
disbursement, and degree planning, such as the GoArmyEd portal,
allow students to determine time to degree and allows the
military Services to maximize Tuition Assistance.
--A good number of students enrolled in non-selective colleges and
universities (i.e., institutions that provide universal access
to higher education) face significant educational challenges
derived from inadequate primary and secondary educational
preparation.
--The outcome of these and other factors is that military students,
by the time they graduate, are likely to have attended 5+
institutions.
This ``swirling'' is not necessarily bad--it is actually a fact of
life for military students as a result of their increased educational
options. So the key question to answer concerns the point at which it
is reasonable to expect that it is the intention of the student to
complete a degree at a given institution.\8\ Any proposed definition
must also take into account the large diversity of military-serving
institutions: term- and non-term, multiple starts within a term,
competence-based, etc. The definition recommended by the working group
aims to address both the ``swirl'' factor and the diversity of
institutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The problems facing any definition of degree-seeking students
for tracking purposes was addressed by the U.S. Department of
Education's Committee on Measures of Student Success (Draft Report,
November 15, 2011). The Committee's draft includes a recommendation for
ED to clarify the definition of degree-seeking student.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
institutional inclusion
Given the high level of expense and time needed to identify and
track unique sub-populations of post-secondary students, the working
group recommends that only institutions with a ``large'' number of
military and veteran students should be expected to track this
subpopulation of adult learners. In an attempt to define and quantify
what constitutes as a sufficiently large pool of military students and
to help determine what an appropriate minimum threshold might be for
tracking military students, members of the working group reviewed FY 11
Tuition Assistance course enrollment data to examine enrollment
patterns. Comparable data on veteran enrollment behavior and patterns
were not available from the Department of Veterans Affairs at this
point in time.
The Department of Defense military Tuition Assistance data showed
that 312,760 individual servicemembers use TA to fund their course
enrollments from 2153 distinct campuses.\9\ When enrollment data was
aggregated by academic institution across the military Services
(including Coast Guard), student enrollments ranged from 1-50,000
students. This wide range of military student enrollments by
institution reinforced the need to proceed cautiously in making
universal recommendations about postsecondary educational institutions
tracking military students; it would be burdensome to require academic
institutions with extremely low enrollments of military students to
track student success metrics for them. More than 70% (1534) of the
institutions that participate in the military Tuition Assistance
program have 25 or fewer military students enrolled. Conversely, only
9% (176) of the academic institutions each enroll more than 100
servicemembers. See figure A for the distribution of Tuition Assistance
enrollment by institution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ As per DOD reporting, individual campuses/locations were listed
separately for select institutions.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure A
To produce an ``n'' large enough for future analysis and
institutional cost efficiency, the working group recommends that
institutions that enroll 100 or more servicemembers and veteran
students (using Tuition Assistance and/or GI Bill education benefits)
should participate in reporting. Institutions with fewer than 99
enrolled students may choose to voluntarily participate.
proposed cohort parameters
The working group recommends that two separate cohorts be
established for tracking purposes. The use of two cohorts will allow
the differences in servicemembers currently serving in the Uniformed
Services and veteran students to be integrated into the analysis of the
persistence and graduation rates. The cohorts are identified as:
Military Students:
--Define military students for purposes of this analysis to include
active-duty, Reserve, and National Guard servicemembers
receiving military Tuition Assistance.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The National Survey of Veterans (2010) documents that roughly
8% of active-duty members use their VA educational benefits to pursue a
degree. As such, these students should not be included in the cohort.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Include all military students who:
--have successfully completed three courses/nine credit hours in a
two-year period, and
--have a cumulative GPA > or = 2.0, and
--who have transferred and had accepted at least nine credit hours.
Completing three courses and requesting that a transcript
is sent to the institution should constitute enough
evidence that the student intends to graduate from a given
institution. How the nine credits are earned (e.g., by
transfer, MOS/Rating, or exam) is irrelevant.
--Track the cohort at a rate 200% that of ``normal'' time, as adult
and military students attend on a part-time basis--eight years
for bachelor's and four years for associate programs.
--Keep a student in the cohort once captured regardless of military
status in further enrollments.
--Cohort should be measured on a calendar year, so to include various
start dates across multiple months.
Veteran Students:
The cohort for veteran students, which should be tracked separately
from the military student cohort, remains largely unchanged, with the
following adaptation:
--Define veteran students as those receiving education benefits from
the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ In most cases, dependents and spouses receiving transferred
benefits would also be included in this cohort.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Include all veteran students who have successfully completed five
courses/15 credit hours in a two-year period with a cumulative
GPA > or = 2.0 and who have transferred and had accepted at
least nine credit hours. How the transfer credits are earned
(e.g., by transfer, MOS/Rating, or exam) is irrelevant.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Course limits and time were determined based on discussions
and feedback provided which indicated that veteran students are more
likely to attend full time and/or at quicker rate than active-duty
members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Constructing data metrics for veteran student data and collecting
accurate veteran student educational data is in some ways more
difficult than doing so for military students. There are multiple
education benefit programs for veterans and their families as compared
to the single Military Tuition Assistance benefit program for
servicemembers. In FY 2010, VA reported there were over 800,000
beneficiaries of the education programs funded by the VA, with the
Post-9/11 GI Bill and Montgomery GI Bill Active Duty programs having
the highest numbers of beneficiaries.
To add to the complexity, the population of students using Post-9/
11 GI Bill benefits in particular both overlaps with and differs from
the population of students using Tuition Assistance benefits. Military
students can choose to use their Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits, if
eligible, instead of Tuition Assistance. However, students on Post-9/11
GI Bill benefits can either be veterans themselves or eligible family
members of veterans with transferred Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits. Thus,
accurately assessing the progress and success of veterans using Post-9/
11 GI Bill benefits in particular--as opposed to family members or
servicemembers using Post-9/11 GI Bill instead of Tuition Assistance
benefits--is highly dependent on institutions' individual student
information systems and the granularity of data available within those
systems.
reporting variables
The working group further suggests that institutions track standard
variables for the cohort, thereby providing a clear framework for data
collection and analysis. These variables might include:
----------------------------------------------------------------
reporting variables
--Gender
--Age
--Race (approved IPEDS race categories)
--Enrollment Status (full-time vs. part-time and degree-seeking vs.
non-degree-seeking)
--Branch of Service (Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Air
Force)
--Duty Type (Active, Reserve, National Guard, Veteran, family)
--Rank or Rating (Active-duty personnel only)
--Degree Level (undergraduate certificate, associate, baccalaureate,
master's, post-baccalaureate certificate, post-master's
certificate, and doctoral)
----------------------------------------------------------------
summary recommendations
As next steps, the working group offers these
recommendations, for conversation only:
1. The working group supports the ``concept'' of a
comprehensive strategy on outcomes measures as reflected in the
April 27, 2012 Presidential Executive Order on Veterans
Education (Section 3.c).
2. The working group recommends that the Departments of
Defense, Veterans Affairs, and Education, along with the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), should collaborate
with Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges (SOC) and other higher
education stakeholders as much as possible in developing future
outcomes measures and institutional reporting requirements.
Where possible, community consensus should be achieved on data
collection, analysis, and usage.
The working group suggests that the Departments of Defense,
Veterans Affairs, and Education should--in collaboration with
other stakeholders whose expertise and interests overlap with
DOD and ED--continue to examine the current availability of
data on military and veteran students at the federal level.
3. Consistent with this paper, the working group offers its
recommendation for the future construction of a common,
measurable persistence rate (from year one to year two) and
graduation rate for both the military student and veteran
cohorts.
4. For these metrics, the working group also offers the
variables and definitions proposed in this paper to be used or
adapted for national metrics for servicemembers and veterans.
5. The working group recognizes the recommendations from
the Department of Education's Technical Review Panel 37,
Selected Outcomes of the Advisory Committee on Student Success,
as an important step toward recognizing the changing character
of the nation's college-going population.
issues outside the scope of this working group
Since military and veteran student research is a growing field and
the Post-9/11 GI Bill in particular has created new questions about
metrics used to measure veteran and military students' educational
progress and success, many issues related to data metrics and data
collection were not within the province of this working group. The
working group's charge was to propose a common cohort definition of
military students and common measures by which to track their
persistence and academic success. No existing data analysis was
requested. Nor was the group asked to construct military/veteran-
student-specific data metrics on other topics such as placement and
graduate salary metrics. In addition, the working group was not
requested to link these proposed metrics to any kind of ``military-
friendly'' definition.
conclusion
The increasing complexities of higher education options available
to an increasingly diverse student population render the use of any
one-success metric as the universal metric inadequate and misleading.
Such a metric would mask the many different paths that very different
students take through higher education. The metrics proposed in this
paper are applicable to military students. As has been suggested,\13\
success metrics are needed for different student cohorts (e.g., those
who are under-prepared for college). And the need continues for a macro
or systemic analysis of student journeys across institutions--an
analysis that can be provided only by state or federal entities. This
paper is a contribution to the national conversation about the success
metrics most appropriate to different types of students.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See ED's Committee on Measures of Student Success Draft
Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
appendix a: environmental scan
1. Completing the Mission: A Pilot Study of Veteran Students' Progress
Toward Degree Attainment in the Post-9/11 Era.
Available at: www.operationpromiseforservicemembers.com/
Completing_the_ Mission_Nov2011.pdf
2. Improving Educational Outcomes for Our Military and Veterans.
Available at www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/Federal-financial
management/hearings/improving-educational-outcomes-for-our-
military-and-veterans
3. Military Service Members and Veterans: A Profile of Those Enrolled
in Undergraduate and Graduate Education in 2007-08.
Available at: http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/
pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2011163
4. Transfer and Mobility: A National View of Pre-degree Student
Movement in Postsecondary Institutions.
Available at: http://www.studentclearinghouse.info/signature/
5. White House Press Office. (April 27, 2012). Executive order--
Establishing principles of excellence for educational
institutions serving service members, veterans, spouses, and
other family members.
Retrieved April 30, 2012 from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-
office/2012/04/27/executive-order-establishing-principles-
excellence-educational-instituti
6. Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) Redesign of
Retention, Graduation and Time-to-Degree. Retrieved July 12,
2012.
Available at: http://www.wascsenior.org/redesign/
ugretentionandgraduation
appendix b: bibliography
Ackerman, R. & DiRamio, D. (2009). Creating a veteran-friendly
campus: Strategies for transition and success. New Directions for
Student Services, 126. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Alvarez, L. (2008, November 2). Continuing an education: Combat to
college. The New York Times. Retrieved January 30, 2012 from http://
query.nytimes.com/gst/
fullpage.html?res=980DE7DD1438F931A35752C1A96E9C8B63&ref=
lizettealvarez.
American Council on Education (ACE). (2003). MIVER principles of
good practice for institutions providing voluntary education programs
on military installations with review questions and other self study
requirements. Washington, DC: Author.
American Council on Education (ACE). (2008). Serving those who
serve: Higher education and America's veterans. Washington, DC: Author.
Angrist, J. (July 1993). The effect of veterans benefits on
education and earnings. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 46(4),
637-652.
Astin, A. (1996). Involvement in learning revisited: Lessons we
have learned. Journal of College Student Development, 37(2), 123-34.
Aud, S., Hussar, W., Planty, M., Snyder, T., Bianco, K., Fox, M.,
Frohlich, L., Kemp, J., & Drake, L. (2010). The Condition of Education
2010 (NCES 2010-028). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education
Sciences.
Bertoni, D. (2010). VA education benefits: Actions taken but
outreach and oversight can be improved. Report to the Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Military Personnel, Committee of Armed Services, House
of Representatives (GAO 11-2256). Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Accountability Office.
Bray, N. J., Braxton J. M., & Sullivan, A. S. (Nov-Dec 1999). The
influence of stress-related coping strategies on college student
departure decisions. Journal of College Student Development, 40(6),
645-657.
Breedin, B. (1972). Veterans in college. Washington, DC: American
Association for Higher Education.
Brown, P. & Gross C. (2011). Serving those who have served--
Managing veteran and military best student practices. The Journal of
Continuing Higher Education, 59(1), 45-49.
Cohen, J., Warner, R., & Segal, D. (1995). Military service and
educational attainment in the all-volunteer force. Social Science
Quarterly, 76(1), 88-104.
Cohen, J. (1992). The impact of education on Vietnam-era veterans'
occupational attainment. Social Science Quarterly, 73(2), 397-409.
Cook, B. & Kim, Y. (2009). From soldier to student: Easing the
transition of service members on campus. Washington, DC: American
Council on Education.
DiRamio, D., Ackerman, R., & Mitchell, R. (2008). From combat to
campus: Voices of student-veterans. NASPA Journal of Student Affairs
Research and Practice, 45(1), 73-102.
DiRamio, D. & Spires, M. (2009). Partnering to assist disabled
veterans in transition. New Directions for Student Services, 126. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Field, K. (2008, June 9). As Congress prepares to expand GI bill,
colleges reach out to veterans. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Johnson, J. L. (2000-1). Learning communities and special efforts
at the retention of university students: What works, what doesn't and
is the return worth the investment? Journal of College Student
Retention: Research, Theory, and Practice, 2(1), 219-238.
Klein-Collins, R., Sherman, A., & Soares, L. (2010). Degree
completion beyond institutional borders. Responding to the new reality
of mobile and nontraditional learners. Washington, DC: Center for
American Progress & CAEL: The Council for Adult & Experiential
Learning.
Kolowich, S. (2010, November 9). Technology and the completion
agenda. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved January 30, 2012 from http://
www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/11/09/completion.
Kuh, G. (2001-2). Organizational culture and student persistence:
Prospects and puzzles. Journal of College Student Retention: Research,
Theory, and Practice, 3(1), 23-39.
Lang, W. & Powers, J. (2011). Completing the mission: A pilot study
of veteran students' progress toward degree attainment in the post 9/11
era. Tempe, AZ: Pat Tillman Foundation.
McBain, L. (2010). Proposed legislative changes to the Post-9/11 GI
Bill: Potential implications for veterans and colleges. Policy Matters:
A Higher Education Policy Brief Series. Washington, DC: American
Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU).
McCormick, A. C. (2003). Swirling and double-dipping: New patterns
of student attendance and their implications for higher education. New
Directions in Higher Education 2003 (121), 13-24.
Mian, M. Z. (2011). Hiring heroes: Employer perceptions,
preferences, and hiring practices related to U.S. military personnel.
Phoenix, AZ: Apollo Research Institute (formerly University of Phoenix
Research Institute).
National Survey of Student Engagement. (2011). Fostering student
engagement campuswide: Annual results 2011. Bloomington, IN: Indiana
University Center for Postsecondary Research.
Offenstein, J., Moore, C., & Shulock, N. (2010). Advancing by
degrees: A framework for increasing college completion. Sacramento, CA
& Washington, DC: Institute for Higher Education Leadership & Policy
(IHEP) and The Education Trust.
Radford, A. W., Berkner, L., Wheeless, S. C., & Shepherd, B.
(2010). Persistence and attainment of 2003-04 beginning postsecondary
students: After 6 years (NCES 2011-151). Washington, DC: National
Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences.
Radford, A. W., Wun, J., & Weko, T. (2009). Issue tables: A profile
of military servicemembers and veterans enrolled in postsecondary
education in 2007-08 (NCES 2009-182). Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of
Education Sciences.
Radford, A. W. (2009). Military service members and veterans in
higher education: What the new GI Bill may mean for postsecondary
institutions (ACE #311930). Washington, DC: American Council on
Education.
Reyna, R. (2010). Complete to compete: Common college completion
metrics. Washington, DC: National Governors Association (NGA) Center
for Best Practices Education Division.
Scott, G. (2011). Veterans education benefits: Enhanced guidance
and collaboration could improve administration of the Post 9/11 GI Bill
program (GAO 11-356-R). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Accountability
Office.
Spiro, R. & Hill, R. (2010). Military veterans face challenges in
accessing educational benefits at a Florida community college. Visions:
The Journal of Applied Research for the Florida Association of
Community Colleges 6(1), 14-17.
St. John, E. P., Hu, S., Simmons, A. B., & Musoba, G. D. (2001).
Aptitude vs. merit: What matters in persistence. The Review of Higher
Education, 24, 131-152.
Tinto, V. (1997). Classrooms as communities: Exploring the
educational character of student persistence. Journal of Higher
Education, 68, 599-623.
Tinto, V. (2000). Linking learning and leaving: Exploring the role
of the college classroom in student departure. In J. M. Braxton (Ed.),
Reworking the student departure puzzle (pp. 81-94). Nashville, TN:
Vanderbilt University Press.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2007). VA student financial
aid: Actions needed to reduce overlap in approval activities (GAO-07-
775T). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Accountability Office.
U.S. Department of Education. (2011). Military service members and
veterans: A profile of those enrolled in undergraduate and graduate
education in 2007-2008. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Wiedeman, R. (2008, September 24). Government, colleges work to
cater to veterans under new GI Bill. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Whikehart, J. (2010). Mission Graduation: A student military and
veteran organization. Community College Journal of Research and
Practice, 34(11), 920-922.
The Winston Group. (2008). GI Bill focus group analysis for
American Council on Education. Washington, DC: Author.
Winston, R. (August/September 2010). Closing the gap: Helping
California's veterans get an equal share of the benefits pie. Community
College Journal, 81(1), 34-37.
Woodard, D., Mallory, S., & DeLuca, A. M. (2001). Retention and
institutional effort: A self study framework. NASPA Journal of Student
Affairs Research and Practice 39(1), 53-83.
appendix c: working group membership
Ms. Rozanne Capoccia-White
Manager, Contract & Military Education Program Operations
Coastline Community College (CA)
Dr. Laurie Dodge
Associate Vice Chancellor Institutional Assessment and Planning
Brandman University (CA)
Ms. Joycelyn Groot
Dean, Military/Corporate Contract Education Programs
Coastline Community College (CA)
Ms. Ann Hunter (retired)
Former Voluntary Education Service Chief, Navy
OPNAV Education Branch
Mr. Seth Marc Kamen
SOCCOAST Project Director
Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges
Ms. Lesley McBain
Senior Research and Policy Analyst
Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges Special Project Associate American
Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU)
Dr. Frank McCluskey
Scholar in Residence
American Public University System (WV)
Dr. Javier Miyares
Acting President and Senior Vice President, Institutional Effectiveness
University of Maryland University College (MD)
Ms. Cali Morrison
Project Director, Transparency By Design
WICHE Cooperative for Education Technologies
Dr. Karen Paulson
Senior Associate
National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS)
Ms. Elise Scanlon
Principal
Elise Scanlon Law Group
Dr. Kathryn Snead
Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges Consortium President and SOC
Director
Vice President for Military and Veteran Partnerships
American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU)
Dr. Greg Von Lehmen
Senior Vice President for External Affairs and Initiatives
University of Maryland University College (MD)
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Selbe.
Okay, Mr. Neiweem, how do I pronounce your name?
Mr. Neiweem. It is pretty close, Mr. Chairman. It's
Neiweem.
Senator Durbin. Neiweem.
Mr. Neiweem. Yes, sir.
Senator Cochran. Say it fast.
Senator Durbin. I will say it fast.
Mr. Neiweem. It is Dutch.
Senator Durbin. Proceed.
STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER NEIWEEM, IRAQI FREEDOM VETERAN
Mr. Neiweem. Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Cochran, and
members of the subcommittee.
Thank you for inviting me to appear this morning. My
testimony focuses on my experiences as a military recruiter at
DeVry University online from February 2008 until I left the
company in August 2009. Prior to that, I served in the Army in
Iraq, and subsequently completed graduate study at the
University of Illinois at Springfield under the Post-9/11 GI
bill. I earned my undergraduate at Northern Illinois University
in DeKalb.
In my experience, the tuition assistance benefit is
valuable to servicemembers, and many find an online program to
be an attractive option. The for-profit recruiting practices I
experienced, however, were aggressive and far more focused on
bottom line profits than on military students.
Let me highlight my principle concerns: a business culture
that emphasized hasty enrollment over individual student needs.
A management strategy of having those who recruited military
personnel present themselves as military advisers when, in
fact, they were sales professionals. Recruiters being pressured
to enroll military students who had already failed an
admission's test once or had expressed reservations about their
readiness for postsecondary study. And management forbidding
recruiters from encouraging military students who were serving
in combat zones to take off an academic session.
In my experience as an employee for a for-profit school,
there was a strong emphasis on recruiting military students
because TA would cover the cost of the program. In fact, my
managers referred to Tuition Assistance as the military gravy
train.
With access to databases that identify those who are
military personnel, recruiters can complete the admissions
process for a military student using Tuition Assistance in as
quickly as 1 week. With the very fast-paced, 8-week recruiting
cycle my company employed at the time, management set
aggressive deadlines for enrollment.
The recruiters with military backgrounds like me were
routinely able to build trust and rapport with Tuition
Assistance users. And servicemembers signed on at nearly twice
the rate as their civilian counterpart students. For a time, I
found this work rewarding.
In 2009, however, the leaders at my company began to
increase the focus and pressure to enroll military members.
They formed a special team in which I was assigned that was
specifically recruiting military students. Management pressured
this team to increase the rate of military enrollees while
ignoring our concerns for servicemembers.
To illustrate, some military students were serving in
hazardous locations including Iraq and Afghanistan, and due to
troop movements or relocations, found it difficult to complete
homework after the duty day ended. My colleagues and I on this
military sales team would routinely support the students need
to sit out a session and return to class at a future date. But
management scolded me for doing that insisting, ``DOD does not
pay your paycheck any more, we do, and we need to remain
competitive.'' That insistence on producing metrics rather than
meeting the needs of military students I was charged to enroll
led me to leave the company.
The most memorable internal management mantra was, pardon
my French, Mr. Chairman, ``Get asses in classes.'' And at one
time been in these servicemembers' boots, and I would have
expected that same reinforcement from them if I was trying to
balance operational requirements overseas with my studies.
My company's seeming lack of concern with the
servicemembers had actually been evident early on. Recruiters
were given 2-week training sessions on the degree programs the
University offered and we were charged with promoting. However,
training on military culture was cursory. The training did not
give recruiters a picture of the stressors a servicemember
might deal with while trying to attend school. Nor did the
training provide any insight into daily military life or into
the mental health stressors servicemembers may experience.
Another concern I had was that some recruiters who
contacted military personnel would say they were calling from
the military admissions department or identify themselves as
military advisors including having that title in their
electronic signature block, military admissions advisor, in the
emails that went to the students. This was simply a fictional
tactic to make the military servicemember think the recruiter
was in the military.
My coworkers and I reported this concern to senior
management, only to be assured it deeply concerned them and
they would address it. Yet, these were the same leaders who had
reminded us that DOD no longer paid our salary. In my
experience, the critical performance metrics were numbers of
servicemembers, those who applied, tested, cleared, and then
registered.
Because students using tuition assistance are more quickly
cleared for class, it made these reports look strong and
managers became even more ambitious to hit their targets, the
earnings of midlevel managers, known as assistant directors of
admissions, were based on their team's performance. It was
clear that tuition assistance benefit and sales reports trumped
the concerns that I had voiced to management.
For example, some military members had failed the basic
admissions test, a key step in the admissions process designed
to show the readiness of the applicant for postsecondary study.
The management response was to send them online study links,
encourage them to find a study buddy, and take the test again
as quickly as possible.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Additionally, even after I explained to some of my military
tuitions approved students were not going to start their
classes in the current academic session, management encouraged
me to do something to keep them in. While I believe online
education is a good option for some military students, these
practices were untenable to me.
I hope my experiences are helpful for the committee's work
on this subject, and I am happy to answer any questions you may
have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Christopher Neiweem
Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Cochran, and members of the
subcommittee: Thank you for providing me the opportunity to share my
insights and experience as a former student veteran and for-profit
university recruiter. I am a U.S. Army veteran of Operation Iraqi
Freedom. I also benefited from using the Post-9/11 GI bill to complete
graduate study at the University of Illinois at Springfield. In my
experience, the Tuition Assistance (TA) benefit is valuable to
servicemembers because the cost of schooling is covered, allowing them
to focus on selecting an academic program. I was a military recruiter
(admissions adviser) at DeVry University Online from February 2008-
August 2009, and left the for-profit industry because I felt the
company's managing principles no longer provided an understanding of
military student's needs using Tuition Assistance.
In general, servicemembers may find an online program an attractive
option because of their limited ability to attend a residential program
or because of the accelerated format. But as I saw it in operation, the
for-profit recruiting practices were aggressive and focused far more on
the bottom line profits than on the military student.
In short, the biggest problems I experienced were:
--The DeVry business culture which emphasized hasty enrollment over
individual military student needs;
--The management strategy to have recruiters contacting military
leads purporting to be ``military advisers'' when they were
really sales professionals;
--Recruiters being pressured to enroll military students who had
already failed to pass an admissions test once or expressed
verbal reservation about their readiness for post-secondary
study; and
--Management not allowing recruiters to encourage military students
serving in combat zones to take off an academic session (some
serving in locations such as Iraq) because of a concern they
would not resume their academic program with DeVry in the
future.
targeting military students
In my experience as an employee of a for-profit school, there was a
strong emphasis on recruiting military students because TA would cover
the cost of the program. In fact, the managers to whom I reported
referred to TA as the ``military gravy train''. In contrast, one of the
most challenging aspects to enrolling a civilian student applicant in
an online program is convincing them the cost is worth the degree.
Servicemembers are less difficult to enroll because the recruiters
(known as admissions advisers) do not need to overcome what the
industry calls ``financial objections'', or concerns about the cost.
Recruiters are trained to focus on the benefit and enroll military
students as quickly as possible. Military students are easily
identified before the initial phone contact by lead databases such as
Oracle, which conduct brief questionnaires as to whether a student is
currently serving. The admissions process for a military student using
TA can be completed in as quick as 1 week. Students must apply,
complete a basic admissions exam online, and get their TA signed and
approved. The recruiting sessions during my tenure in the industry were
8-weeks long. This promoted a very fast-paced recruiting cycle where
management expected aggressive deadlines for enrollment. The recruiters
with operational military backgrounds like me were routinely able to
build trust and rapport with TA users. This resulted in strong sales
profits for the school and high military enrollment numbers. Recruiters
who were contacting civilian leads were starting on average 8 students
per 8-week recruiting cycle, whereas some former military recruiters
were starting on average 15. ``Starts'' is the for-profit term for when
a student begins class. The average cost of an accelerated 3-year
bachelor's degree program online was $60,000. The benefit of being
enrolled in an online program provided convenience for many students.
This was a rewarding way for me to advise fellow servicemembers of
their benefits. I was satisfied in the work I was doing until the
internal management strategy began to part ways with supporting the
military students I was working with.
internal management strategy
In 2009, the leaders at DeVry began to significantly increase the
expectations for recruiters who were former military members and
increased the number of military leads we were assigned. They formed a
special team that I was assigned to that was to specifically recruit
military students while non-military recruiters were left to
traditional non-military leads. The management strategy meetings that
followed in the coming weeks were aimed at pressuring my team to
increase our TA user start rate, while ignoring our concerns for
servicemembers. To illustrate, some military students were serving in
hazardous locations such as Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Germany and
due to troop movements or relocations found it difficult to complete
homework after the duty day ended. My colleagues and I, assigned to
this military sales team, would routinely support the students need to
``sit out'' a session and return to class at a future date. I thought
it would be untenable to suggest a military student try to fit class
into their schedule while their unit transferred locations in places
such as Iraq. From a soldier's perspective, serving in a war zone like
Iraq can require a significant amount of emotional energy and studying
can become difficult. Management scolded me insisting ``DOD does not
pay your paycheck anymore, we do and we must remain competitive''. I
certainly understood the need to be competitive and know some military
students that benefited and succeeded in online programs, but I
couldn't accept the stern rebuke I received for encouraging some
students to temporarily suspend class to serve our country in hazardous
areas. The management relied heavily on the military recruiters, they
often praised our sales numbers while promoting their internal mantra
of (pardon my French) ``get asses in classes''. I left the company when
I felt I was being pressured to produce a metric over a quality
relationship with the military students I was charged to enroll. I had
been in their boots at one time and I would expect the same
reinforcement from them if I was balancing, for example, active duty
requirements overseas with my academic studies.
military culture training lacking
The seeming lack of concern at DeVry with the servicemembers had
actually been evident early on. Recruiters were given a 2-week training
session on the degree programs the school offered and charged us with
promoting. However, training on military culture was cursory. Training
was not conducted to give recruiters a robust picture of the stressors
a servicemember may deal with while trying to attend school. There was
no description provided of the military rank structure, no illustration
of daily military life, or awareness of mental health stressors they
may experience due to separation from family or PTSD, as is the case of
for some OIF/OEF veterans serving in combat. Ironically, training on
the TA benefit was extensive. The recruiters were trained to identify
the proper forms that needed to be filled out and on occasion would
even call Commanders of units to expedite their signature so TA users
could be cleared for class quickly. Had the emphasis on understanding
military culture matched the aggressiveness of the recruitment strategy
to get TA approved as quickly as possible, I may have stayed in the
industry. However, I was not comfortable putting a sales report ahead
of making sure each military student was enrolled in the proper program
and at the right time.
In my experience as a veteran and college graduate, many non-
military recruiters had a hard time relating with their military
students, many of whom had to balance the stressors of military life
with their adjustment to meet the demands of higher education.
Additionally, some recruiters that contacted military leads would say
they were calling from the department of ``military admissions'', in a
ploy to develop a rapport with the student. This was simply a fictional
tactic to make the military servicemember think the recruiter was in
the military. Though my team was comprised of former military
recruiters, we were all part of the same team and a military admissions
department did not exist at the company. The special military sales
team I worked on reported this concern to senior management to be
assured it ``deeply concerned'' them and they would address it. I doubt
these matters were addressed as the same leaders that offered
assurances were the same ones reminding us DOD no longer paid our
salary.
emphasis of tuition assistance benefit over tuition assistance user
In my experience, the for-profit school numbers and performance
were the drivers. Each week recruiters had to report their progress on
a sales report. These reports do not contain the names of students,
their backgrounds, their selected program, or personal details, only a
number. These numbers are listed on graphs with such business
performance metrics as: Applied, Tested, Cleared, Registered, Start
Date. This was the nature of the industry and these reports drive the
forecasting projections for the profit margin. Because students using
TA are more quickly cleared for class, it makes these reports look
strong and managers become even more ambitious to hit their
``targets''. The earnings of mid-level managers, known as Assistant
Directors of Admissions, were based on their team's performance. When I
began seeing the TA benefit and sales reports trumping the concerns I
had voiced to management, I left the industry. For example, some
military students failed the basic admissions test, a key step in the
admissions process designed to show the readiness of the applicant for
post-secondary study. The management response was to send them online
study links, have them seek a ``study buddy'' and take the test again
as quickly as possible. Additionally, even after I explained that some
of my military TA approved students were not going to start their
classes for the current academic session because of active duty
military requirements, they asked if I could ``do something to keep
them in''. I was not comfortable convincing a servicemember to put
education ahead of operational requirements after they already cited
their inability to handle class workloads while serving in theatre. The
TA benefit was the focus of the recruiting strategy, while
understanding unique military student needs were often ignored.
In conclusion, I believe online education is a good option for some
military students using the TA benefit. I understand there are
nonprofit online options, like the gentleman here today from University
of Maryland's online campus. However, I do have concerns about how for-
profit colleges are targeting military students. I hope my experiences
I have shared this morning are helpful for the committee's work on this
subject and I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you. I am
happy to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Durbin. Thanks a lot.
So Mr. Gunderson, why do the for-profit schools, is there
an incentive for them? Why would they want to have more
military students?
Mr. Gunderson. I don't think our schools want to have more
military students. I think----
Senator Durbin. Is there any financial incentive for for-
profit schools to have military students under TA or GI bill?
Mr. Gunderson. No.
Senator Durbin. Oh, Mr. Gunderson, that's not true.
Mr. Gunderson. Just a second. No.
Senator Durbin. That's not true. Explain the 90-10 rule.
Mr. Gunderson. The 90-10 rule.
Senator Durbin. Yes, please, explain that.
Mr. Gunderson. I'd be happy to do that. The 90-10 rule says
that 90 percent----
Senator Durbin. No more than.
Mr. Gunderson. No more than 90 percent of your revenues can
come from the Federal Government.
Senator Durbin. Are there exceptions to the 90-10 rule?
Mr. Gunderson. Yes, there are exceptions to the----
Senator Durbin. Like the TA Program? Is that an exception?
Mr. Gunderson. Well, you could look at the GI bill and you
can look at the TA, but most people, I think even members of
Congress believe that those are not Government funds. Those are
benefits earned by Active Duty or retired military.
Senator Durbin. Excuse me.
Mr. Gunderson. It is their money, not the Government's
money that would----
Senator Durbin. Excuse me. I am on the Defense
Appropriations Subcommittee and I could swear that the TA
program is in our appropriation bill with Government funds. You
are saying these are not Government funds?
Mr. Gunderson. I am saying they are looked upon as a
benefit for the Active Duty military, not a direct line item
from the program.
Senator Durbin. Of course they are, and the Pell grant is
the benefit for poor students seeking college admission, but
the point is the 90-10 rule does not apply to TA money or GI
bill money.
So if your for-profit school can bring in more military
students like Mr. Neiweem was trying to recruit, then it
doesn't count against the 90-10 rule, which means that you
don't have to come up with 10 cents out of every dollar that
you receive from the Federal Government if the money is coming
in from TA or GI bill. That is the financial incentive.
Do you deny that?
Mr. Gunderson. No, I don't disagree at all----
Senator Durbin. Okay.
Mr. Gunderson [continuing]. That that is the reality of the
math, but I do think you need to answer the rest of the
question.
The reality is, as I said earlier, we serve a very
different student body. Approximately 94 to 96 percent of our
students are eligible for title IV. Approximately 70 percent of
the students attending private nonprofits are eligible for
title IV. Approximately 49 percent of the student attending our
2-year and 4-year public schools----
Senator Durbin. Could you explain title IV?
Mr. Gunderson [continuing]. Are eligible for title IV.
Senator Durbin. For the record, explain title IV.
Mr. Gunderson. Title IV is the Federal Department of
Education loan and grant programs.
Senator Durbin. And who would be eligible for those
programs, low income students?
Mr. Gunderson. Primarily low-income students. That is who
we serve. It is a very different consistency.
Senator Durbin. Mr. Selbe, at University of Maryland, I am
sure they have been at it now for how many years, since World
War II? Is that when the University started offering courses to
the military?
Mr. Selbe. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Durbin. And do you serve low income students there
as well?
Mr. Selbe. We do, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Durbin. Do you have the benefit of a 90-10 rule
that 90 percent of the revenue at the University of Maryland
comes from the Federal Government?
Mr. Selbe. No, we do not.
Senator Durbin. Do you have any idea what percentage of the
revenue at the University of Maryland comes through the Federal
Government?
Mr. Selbe. It is less than 50 percent, to include military
TA and veteran's benefits, yes.
Senator Durbin. And so, Mr. Gunderson, you are not in a
unique position. Other schools are facing exactly the same
thing.
Mr. Gunderson. No, they are not, Mr. Chairman, and I love
all my other schools. When I took this job, I said to my board
in the interview, I said, ``If you want me to beat up on the
rest of higher ed, you are hiring the wrong guy.''
Senator Durbin. I am not asking you to----
Mr. Gunderson. I believe in the critical need of
postsecondary education opportunity for everybody in today's
world.
But what you have to look at, Senator, is the fact of the
total public support for the different types of postsecondary
education today. A 4-year public college, Federal, State, local
support is $15,500 per student.
Senator Durbin. Well----
Mr. Gunderson. At a nonprofit 4-year----
Senator Durbin. Mr. Gunderson, I understand that. What you
are saying is that----
Mr. Gunderson [continuing]. For us it is only $2,000.
Senator Durbin. Public colleges----
Mr. Gunderson. Look at the numbers.
Senator Durbin [continuing]. Get some public support,
though in most States it is diminishing at this point. Students
are paying more in tuition and the State is giving less support
in each of these. But that is beside the point.
Really what goes to the point is, what is the value of the
education coming out of school? After I hear Mr. Neiweem, let
me ask you, Mr. Neiweem.
What you are telling me is having been through this
personally with this tuition assistance, you were in a position
where you were talking to soldiers and airmen and sailors
trying to get them into these for-profit schools. And what you
are being told is, I think by your employer, in this case
DeVry, is really to look beyond some of the necessities of life
that these military individuals were facing: deployments and
interruption.
What was the motive for ``keeping their fannies in
classes?''
Mr. Neiweem. Well, it is a profit-driven industry. There
are boards that record the status of all the sales floor, but
there is no student stories. There's no program. There's no
information on the student.
So to answer you question, I would say the challenge was
management instructed us to, in this industry, don't create
objections. Objections are reservations that people have and a
sales professional, you know, it is their job to overcome those
objections, but management would say, ``Don't create
objections.'' So if they had an objection, we were supposed to
work through it.
Those of us with military backgrounds refused to work
through some objections with some students and then we were
scolded for it.
Senator Durbin. Mr. Selbe, after more than 20 years in the
Marine Corps, is that correct?
Mr. Selbe. Yes.
Senator Durbin. And you listened to his testimony about
some of the problems these students are facing. How does the
University of Maryland deal with those issues?
Mr. Selbe. Well, I am held responsible for our enrollment
numbers, but I am held accountable for the students' success of
those military students. So we are incentivized by a rich
tradition of serving military students, and we are held
accountable to how well we serve them. So it is not the numbers
that is important, it is how well we do in assuring that we are
putting them in the right program, providing them with support
throughout, or helping them transfer to another institution
that may be a better fit for them. I don't know if that answers
your question.
Senator Durbin. Let me ask you this. In the last 10 years
or so, there has been a dramatic shift in this Tuition
Assistance program with some 40 percent of the money going to a
handful of for-profit schools. Have you noticed that change?
Mr. Selbe. We have seen a moderate decline in our own
enrollments, and I can only look at the data of the top 15 to
20, and we know that many of those enrollments appear to have
shifted over to some of the for-profit schools.
Senator Durbin. Do they have any advantage when it comes to
recruiting and marketing?
Mr. Selbe. I really cannot speak to that. I mean, my
perspective is really limited to my work at UMUC and Old
Dominion University where I worked.
Senator Durbin. For the record, the marketing efforts at
the University of Maryland comprise about 7 percent of the
budget of the University.
Mr. Selbe. That is correct.
Senator Durbin. And it is about 22 percent for the for-
profit schools, which received 90 percent of their funds from
the Federal Government. So the Federal taxpayers are basically
subsidizing the marketing effort, which is a pretty healthy
thing for the for-profit sector, as we send 90 cents out of
every $1 and more when it comes to the veterans in that regard.
Mr. Hartle, at one point wasn't the American Council of
Education responsible for auditing these courses being offered
through TA?
Mr. Hartle. Yes, Mr. Chairman. This is the so-called
Military Installation Voluntary Education Review (MIVER)
contract that came up in the testimony of Mr. Vollrath. ACE had
the MIVER contract with DOD for a number of years and, indeed,
when he was a colleague of mine at ACE, Jim Selbe, actually ran
the MIVER contract.
Senator Durbin. And so that contract was to audit the
schools that were offering courses through the TA program.
Mr. Hartle. Yes, sir. It was to review the schools
identified by the Department of Defense that they wanted
reviewed.
Senator Durbin. Were you aware of what they found in their
audits?
Mr. Hartle. I was not personally involved with the MIVER
contract. As I indicated, Jim Selbe really ran the program and
would know.
We had the contract for many years. It was re-competed in
2010. We did not win when it was re-competed. It went to
another organization.
Senator Durbin. Mr. Selbe, are you the Jim Selbe he is
referring to?
Mr. Selbe. Yes, I am, Senator.
Senator Durbin. Well, that works out. So could you--could
you tell me what your experience was when you were involved in
this audit?
Mr. Selbe. At that particular time, we were looking at 8 to
16 schools a year. It was limited to those schools that had an
MOU to operate on a military installation.
Another key difference was at the time, we also looked at
the deficiencies in the effectiveness of the base education
centers themselves. What would occur is we would then come
forth with findings that were categorized as recommendations or
commendations. Recommendations usually pointed to areas of
needed improvements.
The one point that we would make consistently is that it
didn't have a lot of teeth because there was no obligation on
behalf of the colleges and the universalities or the ed centers
to address those particular recommendations that would come out
of the findings.
Senator Durbin. One last question. I have run too long. I
will give it to Senator Cochran.
If you take courses through the University of Maryland's
University College in the TA program and don't complete your
degree, what is the likelihood that those course credits can be
transferred to another institution when you come back home?
Mr. Selbe. I believe it was mentioned earlier today,
because of the transfer resources that are provided by the
Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges, it assures a high degree
of confidence that those credits will transfer from one
institution to another.
Senator Durbin. Okay.
Senator Cochran.
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
I was thinking back on my personal experience of getting
ready to decide where to go to college, and how we were going
to pay for it. My parents were school teachers and it was just
a given that we were going to--my brother and I as we were
growing up--we were going to college somewhere.
And we discovered the Navy ROTC program was an attractive
option. You could get a scholarship if you scored well enough
on entrance exams and you could serve in the Navy ROTC at
member universities. So anyway, that is how I ended up being a
naval officer by going through the Navy ROTC program.
My interest now is how do we continue to make the beginning
educational experience and military experience attractive
enough without required military service, mandatory military
service? And use the resources of qualified young men and women
coming into all of the services as a way to ensure that we have
an All-Volunteer Force--one that has people who are serious
minded about education as well as defending the security of our
country.
What do we do now to take the place of these programs that
we used to have available to us to aid in recruiting and
encouraging people to become members of Active Duty services
and at the same time, get a college education, with part, at
least, of the resources being paid for by the Federal
Government?
Mr. Gunderson. I cannot speak for myself, but I can share
with you a quote of someone that you may know. Last week,
actually, I was having a conversation with Louis Caldera, who
was the Secretary of the Army for President Clinton. He was
also the president, I believe, of New Mexico State and he has
just recently been appointed to the board of Career College,
which is in Senator Durbin's home State.
And I was talking to him about the fact that I was going to
come and testify today. And he said, ``Steve.'' He said, ``The
thing you need to understand is that tuition assistance is the
best vehicle we have to retain good, Active Duty military in
the military. Without that program, we will lose them and lose
them quickly because they will move on to try to benefit from
the Post-9/11 GI bill.'' He said, ``Whatever you can do to
maintain that program is in the best interests of our Active
military.''
Senator Cochran. Yes. Are there others with views on that
issue? Mr. Neiweem.
Mr. Neiweem. Senator, I think that just one point I was
going to make was I don't think I heard any disagreement about
Tuition Assistance being a benefit and being a good thing. I
think we were concerned about the use of Tuition Assistance,
and the outcome of the students and some of their concerns. And
I would just voice one recommendation.
I think that for-profit schools should encourage their
recruiters to keep in touch with their students going forward
because once they are enrolled in class, there is no further
contact with them. If you wanted to call them, I am sure you
could, but unless you are generating referrals, your
responsibility for them ends the day they start classes.
So I think it is more important to have a--encourage a
relationship that goes beyond the first day of class, maybe the
second day of class too, or their future as they are enrolled.
Senator Cochran. Mr. Selbe.
Mr. Selbe. What I found from this current generation of
students is while they have told their mothers and their
fathers that they joined because they want to go to college,
deep down, they joined because they wanted to serve this
country. And it is not until after they become engaged, acquire
their skills that they start thinking about what happens after
their service.
So the military tuition assistance is still a critical
element to attracting high level enlistees into the services,
but we can never dismiss the patriotism that drives many of
these men and women to sign up to wear the uniform.
Senator Cochran. Yes, that is good to hear.
Mr. Hartle.
Mr. Hartle. I agree with what Jim Selbe just said. I think
a fair number of servicemembers join because there are
educational and training benefits available. Many of these
young people have not done--who have joined the service out of
high school--did not necessarily do well in high school. The
educational benefits, the job training they get in the
military, the military occupational specialties, often show
them just how capable they are and how much they can do. And
the availability of tuition assistance and GI bill benefits
enables them to see that they can continue their education
going forward.
I think the challenge that we face, particularly with the
tuition assistance benefits, is for many years it was fairly
easy to have the program in place. It seemed to be working
pretty well, and the money just simply went out the door.
In the process, I think, all of us have come to realize
over the last few years, that there was not the attention for
the outcomes and the impact on the individual servicemember
that, perhaps, we should have. And I think DOD is moving pretty
quickly to try and get their arms around this. I think there
are some other things that they should be looking at and
thinking about doing.
But there is no question but that tuition assistance and GI
bill benefits are an enormous benefit for individuals who go
into the military and an enormous incentive to enlist in the
first place.
Senator Cochran. Well, thank you very much for your
testimony before the committee today. We appreciate it.
Senator Durbin. Senator Reed.
Senator Reed. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Neiweem, were you in the practice of making cold calls,
just calling people up and saying, ``Have I got a deal for
you?''
Mr. Neiweem. Senator, absolutely.
Senator Reed. Was there any guidance given to you about who
to call in terms of, ``Well, this is somebody that already has
a year?'' Was there any guidance? Or was it just, ``Here's a
list of names. Call them and tell them to enroll.''
Mr. Neiweem. Sure. So Senator, technically, every call was
a cold call because we had no contact with them previously and
it was in a lead database through Oracle. But we knew which
leads as called potential applicants were military by the
coding.
Senator Reed. Right.
Mr. Neiweem. So we were given training specific to their
military so, here's----
Senator Reed. And so essentially you were giving--and I
don't want to be disrespectful--but you were giving a pitch to
people who may or may not have been interested in going to any
school or your school in particular.
Is that fair?
Mr. Neiweem. That is absolutely true, Senator. One caveat--
--
Senator Reed. All right.
Mr. Neiweem [continuing]. For the tuition assistance, for
the military students----
Senator Reed. I am only interested in the military students
at this point.
Mr. Neiweem. The military students. The pitch wasn't as
difficult because they tended to be young, at the beginning of
their career, so you could kind of bond and, you know, ``This
benefit would pay for general education,'' which I thought was
a good option for them. So that was useful, but there wasn't as
much of the pitch because they had the benefit. The pitch was
more for civilian students who I also recruited who--there were
financial concerns.
Senator Reed. Right, but there you had Pell grants,
Stafford Loans, and other tools in your toolkit, which you made
clear to them.
Mr. Neiweem. Correct.
Senator Reed. In your conversations with military students,
did you stress the fact that there were public programs
available before any private loans that would be available to
them?
Mr. Neiweem. Can you ask that one more time?
Senator Reed. Yes. We just had the assistant secretary
here. Their new approach--and this might postdate your
experience--is that they instruct the soldiers, sailors, airmen
that there is public financing before they have to take a
private loan, which typically could be more expensive. And they
have told us in the testimony that, in their MOU, that is what
the institution has to tell them, stress them. Were you doing
that?
Mr. Neiweem. No, not in my experience because tuition
assistance would pay for the program, it wasn't a necessity.
Senator Reed. So essentially, again, and I don't want to be
too glib, but you were able to call them and say, ``I've got a
deal for you. It's not going to cost you anything. Signup right
now, we'll make it real easy for you.'' And did you have any
obligation to determine the suitability of this program for
them or the program they chose?
Mr. Neiweem. First of all, that's correct. That's exactly
what it was. I never--I didn't talk on the phone like that, you
know, but the focus was on getting them enrolled.
As I told the Chairman, if they had objections, we were to
get them through those objections. So in theory, you are
supposed to evaluate their suitability, and as my statement
indicates, I did do that. I said, ``You're moving locations in
Iraq and your unit is moving around, and you're not going to
have access to your laptop consistently. Why don't you sit this
session out?'' And then I was scolded for that, so.
Senator Reed. Okay. Thank you for your service, by the way,
as well as for your testimony today.
One of the issues--and I am going to ask all the panelists
to comment from different perspectives--is the obligation of
the institution or somebody, the service, to make sure that
these programs are suitable to the individual, which would seem
also to keep records of who finishes. Who is successfully moved
from this educational experience into productive employment?
So Mr. Hartle, what are your organizations doing to assure
that these programs are suitable and lead to productive use of
our resources and the time of these men and women?
Mr. Hartle. I think what we would do is rely on the
experience that we have working with individual bases and
individual students to measure their experience and their
success.
Some schools, as I indicated like UMUC, have a very large
number of Active Duty military servicemembers using their
tuition assistance benefits. Other schools, even very large
schools, have a relatively small number of individuals doing
that.
I think one area where we have not done as much as we
could, and where the Department of Defense is looking to make
some changes is keeping track of the outcomes from the
educational programs. As I have indicated, this can be a little
challenging because military servicemembers, particularly
Active Duty, move around so much that they often suddenly have
to withdraw for military reasons right in the middle of a
course.
So it is not that there is any opposition to doing this. We
should be looking at outcome measures. It is very important. We
need to do a better job. It is just that it is hard to figure
out exactly what the best measures will be. But I have
indicated and will recommit ourselves to working with DOD to
moving in this direction.
I think one thing DOD could do, and Senator Durbin
mentioned it a little bit in his questions with Mr. Vollrath,
is the DOD could reach out more to accrediting agencies.
Accrediting agencies are private, nongovernmental organizations
that are in danger of becoming a regulatory extension of the
Department of Education, but the fact is that they are there
and they are looking at institutions in great depth.
And I think where the Department of Education is doing
things that can help DOD identify schools that may be
problematic. DOD ought to work with the Department of Education
in that direction. Obviously, cross-department collaboration is
often talked about and sometimes difficult to achieve, but I
think that there is an enormous resource available to DOD and
VA, for that matter, in terms of what the Department of
Education has spent the last 40 years pioneering.
Senator Reed. Mr. Gunderson. Steve.
Mr. Gunderson. Thank you, Senator. First of all, in
response to your earlier question, I don't know if you have
seen the set of best practice recommendations that we have
developed for veterans in military education.
And I want you to know that in here, on the recruitment
side, is a three calls and you're out policy. That if you make
three cold calls and there is no response, you have to stop. It
is the kind of lifting of this sector and commitment that we
are trying to respond to in that regard. The second----
Senator Reed. Can I just, again----
Mr. Gunderson. Go ahead.
Senator Reed [continuing]. Because we had the opportunity
to serve together and I----
Mr. Gunderson. Yeah.
Senator Reed [continuing]. Respect your service immensely.
I just have a problem of being honest with cold calls anyway.
You know, you've got to advertize. You've got to make students,
the military students aware of these options. However, in
reality, I think that we all understand who serves.
If you've got 18 or 20 year olds who get a call, or get an
email, or get a message, and they are just back from
deployment, the whole life is unsettled, et cetera. And someone
says, ``Hey, just signup.'' ``You know, that's good. That will
help me get promoted,'' et cetera. It is a different audience
than someone picking up the phone and calling you and saying,
``Hey, I heard about your organization.''
So I am pleased that you are limiting it to three cold
calls, but I will just be honest----
Mr. Gunderson. Yeah.
Senator Reed [continuing]. This looks like a, you know, I
forget the David Mamet play that the guy in the boiler room
saying, you know----
Mr. Gunderson. One thing to understand, Senator, is that
the majority of our students are not high school graduates
going directly into college. The majority of our students are
adults. You don't reach them through the high school guidance
counselor. You don't reach them----
Senator Reed. Right.
Mr. Gunderson [continuing]. Through a college affair in the
high school gymnasium. You've got to reach them a different
way, and so, it is a very different business model. And I think
it is important to understand those differences as we try to
figure out what are the appropriate standards and
recommendations?
One of the second things we have done, which fits into the
question you were asking. Our sector used to pride itself on
open access because the Congress, the media, and others have
said, ``What about outcomes?'' We stopped that.
You could talk to almost any of our schools today, they are
focused on retention. You are seeing significant declines in
our enrollment. Some of that is because of the economy, and
some of it is because our schools are now making sure that
students who enroll will complete their courses. Retention,
graduation, completion, and placement, and payment of those
loans today is far more important than the question of open
access. That is a question that is going to have to now be
dealt with someplace else at some point in time.
One of the other things that we are trying to do gets to
this issue of area of study. Many of our schools now are
posting what are within their State or region, either State or
Bureau of Labor statistics on placement rates and even incomes
for the occupational areas of study that they are looking at.
We think that is important.
I mean, we are a sector that believes everybody in higher
education ought to be held to outcomes. And frankly, one of
those outcomes ought to be placement in your areas of study.
National creditors require over 60 percent of your students are
placed in their area of study. Our regional accreditors don't
do that.
Now, I don't want to suggest you guys want to engage in
that because it would be a difficult political conversation,
but the reality is, we are trying to deal with that issue of
placement in the area of study. We hear you.
Senator Reed. I want to give everybody a chance to respond.
Mr. Selbe a chance to respond, and then I will recognize you,
and then I will yield back because my colleague who has been
very gracious.
Mr. Selbe, quickly, your comments about the notion of
basically matching the student with the program, for want of a
better term, sort of underwriting the student before you sort
of bring them into the program.
Mr. Selbe. I do want to go to the conversation around
inputs and outputs, and we want to commend the Department of
Defense because they have taken a very positive step forward.
They asked the Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges to
convene a group to look at how we can better measure and track
students' success for military veterans, as Mr. Gunderson
mentioned earlier. We cannot rely on current Integrated
Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) data to do that.
And we have included in our written testimony the white paper
that came out of the report from that working group, and we now
track our military students based on those recommendations.
But going back to something Mr. Hartle talked about
earlier. I strongly encourage the Department of Defense,
members of this committee to not use quantitative data to be
the sole measure of determining the success of these programs.
As Mr. Hartle mentioned, many of the servicemembers,
especially enlisted, had no thoughts at all of going to college
when they joined the service. But if they take the time to talk
to an education counselor, stir up the courage to enroll in a
course, register a course, and complete a course regardless of
whether or not they ever take another course, they are now
confident that they have what it takes to go to college, and
college is, indeed, possible. And that is going to have an
impact on following generations as well as the larger
community.
So as this committee and as the Department of Defense look
at metrics to assess the value of this particular program, we
strongly encourage you to look at both the quantitative and
qualitative measures.
Senator Reed. I think you make a lot of sense. Thank you.
And you had one point to make, sir.
Mr. Hartle. I just wanted to follow up on your question
about cold calls and high pressure sales tactics.
The MOU that institutions now have to sign very explicitly
prohibits high pressure sales tactics. And one of the ones that
is explicitly prohibited is multiple unsolicited phone calls.
So I think the DOD is moving in that direction.
The question for the committee, really, and DOD is: Okay,
you have prohibited, what do you do now to monitor compliance?
And I think this is where the fact that they are looking at
roughly 1 percent of the schools per year that are
participating in TA.
And I think the second point is: What happens when you find
a violation? Do you say, ``Don't do it again,'' or do you throw
them out of the program? Those are sort of the two ends.
The Department of Education has a very clear set of
policies to limit, suspend, or terminate institutions' ability
to participate. They have the authority to fine institutions
and it is not clear to me what the DOD will do when they find
these violations in the future.
Senator Reed. I think those are excellent points.
Just to comment, I think what Mr. Selbe said about sort of
the ideal path is soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines going to,
you know, getting the notion and going to the educational
counselors, getting some advice. Then going to whatever school
is on the approved list or several schools, making contact, and
then listening is, to me, sort of the ideal approach.
Now, I think this hearing has been extraordinarily
insightful and helpful, and I thank the Chairman for that. And
I thank your testimony, all you gentlemen have helped us
understand the issue. Thank you.
Senator Durbin. Thanks a lot, Senator Reed.
I would just echo your comment, Mr. Hartle, and say even
though Mr. Gunderson and I have a disagreement about whether
this is Government money, we are now up to over $568 million a
year that we are putting into this program. I think it is
Government money. It is in our appropriation bill. That is just
my loose definition of Government money.
And I would say that, Mr. Selbe, you put your finger on it.
You really did, as far as I am concerned. Your life experience
is what I am thinking about. A person who had no intention of
going to college, but went into our military willing to serve
and risk his life and along the way thought, ``Here's a chance
for me to do something after I finish my military.'' And you
made the right choices. It had to be a tough decision. You
weren't thinking about that at the outset. You probably weren't
sure you could do it, pull it off.
What I worry about is someone just like you who signs up
for a worthless school, something where the diploma, if it ever
happens, does not take you anywhere. We haven't done our
military any favors if that happens.
And as I listen to the testimony from the Assistant
Secretary on the audits, 1 percent of these folks are being
audited; counselors--advisors, 218; non-counseling, information
providers/education technicians, 239--counselors for 200,000
students. Mr. Vollrath couldn't think of a school that had been
unaccredited for bad conduct out of 3,100 schools offering
these courses; unaccredited schools offering these courses at
Government expense.
The recruiting techniques that Mr. Neiweem mentioned, I
wouldn't want that to happen to anybody let alone a soldier who
is being deployed, for God's sake. You know, we ought to give
them a break in life. They are doing what we ask them to do.
They don't need to make a pressured decision to signup for
something so some school can make some money off of them.
This program needs to be improved, and I think it can be.
We have got to step back and take a hard look, starting with
accreditation. Every time I get into this subject, all roads
lead back to the Department of Education accrediting your
schools, Mr. Gunderson. Some of these schools should not be
accredited. They accredit themselves, I know that. But it
really is, there ought to be some policing within your own
industry.
At the HELP hearing, Senator Harkin, you talked about the
question about retention and placement. We found was the
largest--the single largest for-profit school in America, the
University of Phoenix: 8,000 recruiters, no one in placement
when he had his hearing, zero. So it was ``Recruit the
students,'' but placing them was not the case, at least when he
had his hearing. That is 2 years ago maybe, so I hope things
have changed for the better.
Mr. Gunderson. I wasn't there 2 years ago and Phoenix is
not a member of Association of Private Sector Colleges and
Universities (APSCU), but no school that is not accredited can
be a member of APSCU either.
Senator Durbin. No, I understand that, and let me tell you,
that doesn't go anywhere with me because you accredit yourself.
You have an organization that accredits for-profit schools and
they accredit one another.
And even when one of your major schools, Career Education,
ended up being found having defrauded the Government, they
ended up giving their CEO in Chicago a multimillion dollar
parachute to leave after he defrauded the Government, and then
the accrediting board said, ``Please, never do that again.''
That was the extent of the punishment that they suffered. It
really is not a credible accreditation process for most of your
schools.
Mr. Gunderson. But when I took this job----
Senator Durbin. They take care of one another.
Mr. Gunderson [continuing]. Senator, I was given advice by
one person who had been serving both in the public sector and
the private sector, and one person who serves exclusively in
the public sector. And they said, ``Steve, understand one
thing. There are good and bad schools in every element of
higher education.''
If you will listen to me carefully, Senator, you will find
that I lift up this sector. There is an individual school that
is in trouble, I tell that school, ``That's your problem and
you've got to defend it.'' You will never heard Steve Gunderson
defend a school for bad actions. You will always hear me lift
up this sector in its ability to give opportunity to students
who otherwise wouldn't have that opportunity.
Senator Durbin. And what it boils down to is this, Mr.
Gunderson, if your industry does not establish credible
standards of excellence and quality, you are covering up for
the bad guys. That is what it boils down to. So if you really
believe that, for goodness sakes, set a standard that changes
this miserable record of 12, 25, and 47. That, to me, is the
problem.
I can't tell you how members of your Association call me
and say, ``We want to meet with you, Senator. We're the good
ones.'' I have heard that over and over again. I say, ``Prove
it. Do something and prove it.''
When I hear about the recruiting techniques that Mr.
Neiweem, that's got to bother you, doesn't it? I mean, he is
talking about a Chicago school that I know the folks involved
in. I mean, it just breaks my heart that they would do that to
these military families.
Mr. Gunderson. One of the things I don't ever do is try to
speak for an individual school, but your constituent and my
board chair is the President of DeVry University. I invite you
and encourage you to have a conversation----
Senator Durbin. I have many times.
Mr. Gunderson [continuing]. With him because I think as
Paul Harvey said, ``You'll hear the rest of the story.''
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Durbin. No, I have heard it many times and I am
still waiting for a change in practices.
Mr. Gunderson. Well, we will----
Senator Durbin. Thank you very much for attending today.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Hon. Frederick Vollrath
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin
quality outcomes--advertising versus educating
Question. I support an effort by Senator Harkin and Senator Hagan
to focus Federal education assistance on educating, rather than
marketing. American taxpayers cannot afford and should not be asked to
subsidize massive marketing and recruiting machines.
At a time when Federal dollars are tight, and these schools are
getting up to 90 or in some cases close to 100 percent of their revenue
from the Federal Government, and outcomes for these schools so poor.
Why should the Federal Government let for-profits spend so many Federal
dollars on deceptive advertising?
Answer. Institutions engaging in fraudulent, abusive and/or
deceptive advertising will not be allowed to participate in the
military Tuition Assistance (TA) program. The Department of Defense
(DOD) requires institutions participating in the TA program to sign the
DOD Voluntary Education Partnership Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
The MOU requires institutions to be in compliance with the Principles
of Excellence (established in Executive Order 13607). Among these
principles is a prohibition against fraudulent and aggressive
marketing. In addition, DOD is adopting policy that all schools
receiving TA must be Department of Education (ED) Higher Education Act
Title IV participants. ED regulations specifically provide for sharing
of information pertaining to an institution's eligibility for or
participation in the title IV program, including information on fraud,
abuse and deceptive advertising.
quality outcomes--data tracking
Question. This subcommittee was provided basic data on the number
of courses, number of degrees; amount spent each year and the like--but
nothing that would measure quality. Without better data, it could
appear that we are willing to let servicemembers throw good money after
bad to almost any institution they choose.
What data does DOD track to ensure a quality education?
Answer. On April 27, 2012, President Obama signed Executive Order
(EO) 13607 Establishing Principles of Excellence for Educational
Institutions Serving Service Members, Veterans, Spouses, and Other
Family Members to address reports of misleading or predatory behavior
toward Veterans, servicemembers, and their families pursuing higher
education, and to ensure students are better equipped with
comprehensive information to make school and program choices that best
meet their educational goals. The EO tasked the Departments of
Education (ED), Veterans Affairs (VA), and Defense (DOD) to develop
military and Veteran student outcome measures.
The outcome measures will focus on data that will elicit more
information about how servicemembers and Veteran students complete
their studies and education programs. The outcome measures will serve
as new tools that will enable prospective students to more easily
compare educational institutions based on how well they serve Veterans
and servicemembers.
An interagency working group is finalizing ``comparable'' metrics
that will support comparison of outcomes across Federal education
programs and across institutions. The working group has met with
Veterans Service Organizations and Institutions of Higher Learning to
discuss data collection and reporting.
DOD is currently coordinating draft Outcome Measures with the
Services and interagency working group. Metrics being reviewed are:
Student retention rate, persistence rate, transfer rate, course
completion, graduation rate, degree/certification completion rate,
number of years to completion, number of institutions attended to
complete the degree, and the average student loan/debt.
Question. I understand the Department has started interagency
conversations with the Department of Veterans Affairs and the
Department of Education in an effort to ensure higher standards. When
can this subcommittee expect a conclusion to those conversations?
Answer. In accordance with Executive Order (EO) 13607 signed by the
President on April 27, 2012, the Department of Defense (DOD),
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Department of Education (ED) ,
Department of Justice (DOJ) and in consultation with the Consume
Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) began immediate implementation of
the policy directives through these interagency working groups which
have varying report-out dates depending on the specific action being
worked:
--Information Group:
--Development of streamlined tools to compare educational
institutions using key measures of affordability and value
for prospective military and veteran students with through
the VA's eBenefits portal.--VA lead (Implementation April
2014).
--Development of student outcome measures, such as: retention,
completion/graduation rates, average student loan/debt
default to be made available on ED's College Navigator Web
site.--ED lead (Fall 2013).
--Improving data collection regarding which schools veterans are
selecting to use their education benefits.--ED lead (Fall
2013).
--EO Enforcement Working Group:
--Strengthening of on institution on base access rules: DOD has
established new uniform rules and strengthened existing
procedures for access to military installations by
educational institutions. (Implementation: 2013-2014 school
year.)
--Developing a Centralized Complaint System: ED, DOD, and VA, in
consultation with CFPB and DoJ, will launch an automated
centralized complaint system for students receiving Federal
military and Veterans' educational benefits. The VA will
also institute uniform procedures for receiving and
processing complaints across the State Approving Agencies.
(Implementation: 2013-2014 school year.)
--Analysis of 90/10 Rule: The DOD, VA, and Ed will compile a list
of schools at risk of overstepping the 90/10 rule due to
military and veteran educational benefits and
recommendations for consideration to amend the 90/10 rule.
(Due following 2013-2014 school year.)
--School compliance with the EO: DOD will require all schools who
participate in the military Tuition Assistance program to
comply with the EO requirements by requiring all schools to
sign an revised DOD Memorandum of Understanding between DOD
and Education Institutions participating in the TA program.
(Implementation 2013-2014 school year.)
quality outcomes--transparency
Question. As a result of the President's Executive order from April
2012--and building on the Department of Education's launch of the
College Scorecard--the Department is in the process of implementing
such a scorecard through the VA's eBenefits portal.
What is the status of this initiative? When will it go online for
student servicemembers?
Answer. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is developing a
Comparison Tool/GI Bill Benefit Estimator that will enable prospective
students to compare educational institutions using key measures of
affordability and value through access to school performance
information, and consumer protection information.
VA placed a link to the Department of Education's (ED) College
Navigator on the eBenefits Web site in November 2012. VA subsequently
embedded ED's College Navigator into the GI bill Web site in March
2013. As a long-term plan, VA will integrate data from ED's College
Navigator with data from VA's Web-Enabled Approval Management System
(WEAMS) to calculate tuition and fees, monthly housing allowance, and
books and supplies estimates. The tool will include indicators on
graduation rates, retention rates, loan default rates, average student
loan debts, Veterans population, Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program
and Principles of Excellence participation, as well an estimated cost
of attendance. The VA anticipates this tool will be available on the GI
bill Web site and www.eBenefits.va.gov by April 2014.
The Department of Defense currently has links to eBenefits.va.gov
as well as to ED's College Navigator on its Voluntary Education Web
pages.
Question. What type of information will the servicemember be able
to access for each institution?
Answer. Institutions participating in the military Tuition
Assistance (TA) program must provide the following information to all
servicemembers prior to enrolling them into their institutions:
--Disclose transfer credit policies prior to enrollment.
--Disclose policies regarding award of academic credit for prior
learning experiences.
--Disclose any academic residency requirements.
--Disclose the institution's programs and costs, including tuition,
fees, and other charges.
--Provide access to an institutional financial aid advisor.
--Provide information on institutional ``drop/add,'' withdrawal, and
readmission policies, especially as they apply to the potential
impact on a servicemember's military duties.
--Conduct academic screening/competency testing; make placement based
on student readiness.
--Designate a point of contact to provide appropriate academic and
financial aid counseling and student support services.
Additionally, all institutions will provide prospective students,
Veterans and servicemembers, with a personalized and standardized form
(Department of Education College Scorecard and Financial Aid Shopping
Sheet) to help the student understand the total cost of the educational
program, including:
--Tuition and fees and the amount that will be covered by Federal
educational benefits.
--Type and amount of financial aid for which they may qualify; and
their estimated student loan debt upon graduation.
--Information about student outcomes.
--Information to facilitate comparison of aid packages offered by
different educational institutions.
--Information about the availability of Federal financial aid and
policies to alert students of their potential eligibility for
aid before arranging private student loans or alternative
financing programs.
questionable third-party review/oversight
Question. Assistant Secretary Vollrath, DOD contracts with a third
party to assess the quality of schools participating in the TA program
and to help improve the program through recommendations to the
institutions, DOD and the military services. The American Council on
Education performed this contract for many years. In October 2011,
Management and Training Consultants, Inc. (MTCI) was awarded the
contract. MTCI remains the current third-party reviewer for this
process--what the Department calls MVERS (``my-vers'') process--
Military Voluntary Education Review Systems.
What were DOD's criteria for awarding this contract?
Answer. The solicitation was issued for full and open competition.
The contract officer advises that the evaluation criteria included four
factors: Management approach, corporate experience, past performance,
and socio-economic plan. The company awarded the contract was the
highest rated overall on the four factors.
Question. What is MTCI's record of excellence in education
oversight? The company is virtually unknown within education circles.
It is not clear that they have education oversight experience.
Answer. The solicitation was issued publically for full and open
competition. The evaluation criteria included four factors: management
approach, corporate experience, past performance, and socio-economic
plan. MTCI was the highest rated overall on the four factors.
Question. How did the Department settle on review of 20-30 schools
per year? This seems inadequate given 3,127 institutions participating
in Tuition Assistance in more than 4,100 sub-campuses.
Answer. The number of 20-30 schools per year is based on the amount
of funding available to support this portion of our Tuition Assistance
(TA) program. Though a small number, it is only one part of the quality
control program. The Services nominate institutions for review based on
the number of servicemembers attending the institution, tuition
assistance expended, compliance factors listed in the Department of
Defense Voluntary Education Partnership Memorandum of Understanding
(DOD MOU), and complaints received. As the inter-departmental automated
complaint system comes on line, ``complaints received'' will become an
increasingly important part of the ``risk'' criteria.
Question. Has the Department considered multiple contracts for this
third-party review? It would permit oversight specialization in online
courses versus classroom programs . . . or experts in for-profit
schools versus public institutions? I am looking for assurance that
MTCI has the relevant expertise in all these areas to ensure high
quality.
Answer. Additional contracts for the third-party review are not
being considered at this time due to fiscal constraints. The request
for proposal (RFP) submitted by MTCI demonstrated the company had
relevant experience based on four evaluation factors: management
approach, corporate experience, past performance, and socio-economic
plan, and were highly qualified to perform the required work.
The MTCI assessment teams, as a requirement of the contract, are
comprised of individuals who have expertise in the various areas under
review to include as a minimum: experience in post-secondary education;
familiarity and knowledge of post-secondary accreditation; knowledge of
voluntary education programs in the military; adult continuing
education; non-traditional education to include distance learning;
instructional delivery; counseling services; experience with online
programs and institutional status (public/private/nonprofit).
The third-party assessment is not the only oversight tool that the
Department of Defense (DOD) relies on to monitor institutions. Other
tools include:
--The Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges (SOC) has over 1,900
institutional members bound by the principles of good practice.
The most important of these principles were incorporated into
the DOD Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
--DOD refers to the list of schools assembled by the Department of
Education as the first source to ensure the institution is in
good standing when vetting for the admission into the DOD MOU
program.
--Regional and national accrediting bodies post data on their Web
sites regarding institutional status (probation, show cause,
etc). The Defense Activity for Non-Traditional Education
Support (DANTES) MOU team reviews this data quarterly and posts
any noted discrepancies to the DOD MOU database, and notifies
DOD personnel as needed.
--Education offices staffed with education professionals work
directly with institutions and servicemembers who also notify
DOD via their respective Service Chain of Command regarding
concerns with specific institutions.
--All Services have existing complaint systems. These are in the
final stages of being centralized into a DOD Postsecondary
Education Complaint System.
Question. What risk factors has the Department identified as
grounds for increased scrutiny? How are they folded into third-party
review?
Answer. DOD uses the following risk factors to help identify which
schools are selected for third-party review:
--Complaints received from servicemembers or educational
professionals.
--Critical indicators of institutions found to be out of compliance
with governmental policies and procedures as provided by the
Departments of Defense (DOD), Education (ED), Justice (DoJ),
and Veterans Affairs (VA), as well as the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau (CFPB).
--Information posted by regional and national accrediting bodies
regarding institutional status (probation, show cause, etc).
--Amount of Tuition Assistance funding going to a particular
institution.
In August 2013, DOD will roll out its automated Postsecondary
Education Complaint System and in the fall of 2013 start receiving
information from the complaint systems of other agencies (ED, DOJ, VA
and CFPB). This will further enhance DOD's ability to identify
institutions for potential review.
Question. How does DOD factor in violations uncovered by the
Department of Education? How do student complaints factor into the
system?
Answer. Complaints and concerns generated by servicemembers,
Department of Education (ED), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) regarding institutions are
part of the Department of Defense (DOD) risk-based approach for
determining the selection of institutions to be reviewed. Complaints or
alerts received from ED, VA and CFPB regarding potential significant
areas of noncompliance or identified in ongoing oversight activities
about a particular institution are provided to the Third-Party Review
team to use during that institution's review. In addition, the Third-
Party Review team conducts surveys and student sensing groups as part
of its review. All findings are included in an after-action report to
DOD. Recommendations for improvements as part of the Third-Party Review
are tracked by DOD, and schools must report to DOD within 6 months all
completed corrective actions.
In fall of 2013, when the DOD Postsecondary Education Complaint
System is fully operational, all complaints by students will be
consolidated into the Federal Trade Commission's Consumer Sentinel
Network for Department of Justice review and access by the Departments
of Education (ED) and Veterans Affairs (VA), and the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau. Similarly, DOD will have access to all complaints
posted by ED and VA.
education conference in las vegas, july 2012
Question. Assistant Secretary Vollrath, the Department of Defense
put on a ``Worldwide Education Symposium'' at the MGM Grand in Las
Vegas on July 23-27, 2012. The description on the registration Web site
reads, ``The theme is 'Educating the Force--Joint Effort Joint Success'
and will explore strategies to effectively deliver voluntary education
programs that enhance the servicemember's capacity to serve while
enabling them to improve their quality of life. This highly anticipated
event is the most-attended conference focused on military education
programs, and for some, the only conference they will attend in 2012.''
How much does DOD spend on this conference? How many DOD employees
attended, and in what capacities?
Answer. The Government's direct cost for the conference management
services, to include logistics, facilities and audio visual, was $0.00.
The Government awarded a no-cost contract to Events by Design Inc.,
Potomac Falls, Virginia. The no-cost contract vehicle was selected as
the most effective way to conduct the symposium. (U.S. GAO-B-308968,
No-Cost Contracts for Event Planning Services, November 27, 2007.)
--The contractor assumed all liability for costs related to the
symposium.
--The contractor was entitled to all registration, exhibits fees,
sponsorship and/or other fees collected as payment for
performance.
There were 517 DOD employees in attendance at the conference
(consistent with Under Secretary Carter's approved estimate of fewer
than 590).
--Registration fees were approximately $248,500.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Costs are based on 497 attendees charged registration fees
(those only speaking (7) were waived; some claimed passes included in
exhibit packages).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Travel and per diem is estimated $721,500.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Airfares were averaged; travel figures assumed 75 percent of
attendees stayed 5 nights and 25 percent only 4 nights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--DOD employees attended as participants and presenters.
DOD undertook extensive efforts to balance the important purpose of
the conference with its cost, including efforts to ensure that only
those employees with a strong and legitimate need to attend the
conference were permitted to do so. It is also important to remember
that this conference only takes place every 3 years, which is another
way that its benefit is balanced with its cost.
education conference in las vegas, july 2012
Question. Does it concern you that the sponsors of the event are
heavily for-profit colleges? Or that the exhibitors are overwhelmingly
for-profit colleges?
Answer. Neither the sponsors of the event nor the exhibitors were
overwhelmingly for-profit colleges. The contractor, Events by Design
Inc., Potomac Falls, Virginia, as part of the ``no cost contract'' was
the point of contact for institutions or other groups desiring to
sponsor events and provide exhibits held on conference premises during
Symposium dates.
--There were a total of 47 sponsors (36 nonprofit and 11 for-profit).
These sponsorship sales amounted to 22 percent of the total
collected by the contractor.
--There were 258 exhibitors in the exhibit hall, only 15 percent of
which were for-profit institutions:
--Public institutions of higher learning: 63
--Private institutions of higher learning (100 total)
--For-profit: 40
--Nonprofit: 60
--Government agencies (8 total)
--DOD: 6
--Non-DOD: 2
--Industry partners: 55
--Private sector businesses and industries that offer education-
related products and services such as: Pearson VUE,
Peterson's, Kuder Inc., MBS Service Company Inc., and
Tutor.com for Military Families
--Nonprofit organizations: 32
--Examples of nonprofit organizations: Accrediting agencies,
American Council on Education, Council of College and
Military Educators, Dallas County Community College
District, College Board
Question. What is the purpose? It looks like it is simply an
opportunity to dominate the market even more, and get access to DOD
officials.
Answer. The purpose of the ``Educating the Force, Joint Effort, and
Joint Success'' Symposium was to explore strategies to effectively
deliver voluntary education programs which meet the needs of the
military student. A goal was to enhance collaboration between DOD
education professionals and academic institutions in order to increase
the delivery of quality education programs and stimulate creative
thoughts concerning the current educational needs and issues of
servicemembers.
The Symposium's program was selected to expose Service education
professionals to issues of concern when providing education
opportunities to servicemembers. Topics of the concurrent sessions
included:
--Delivery of distance learning programs;
--Transfer of military credits;
--Accreditation issues; delivery of non-traditional education;
current issues in the Department of Education;
--Credentialing and licensure leading to employment;
--Transitioning military members to school; military to civilian
career transitions;
--Education partnering; Student Veterans of America; Troops to
Teachers;
--Improving student success; understanding and assessing traumatic
brain injury when delivering education;
--Services' instructional portals; Community College of the Air
Force;
--Veterans Affairs updates; 9/11 GI bill;
--Military Spouses and My Career Advancement Accounts (MyCAA);
--Presidential Executive Order 13607; legislative issues in Voluntary
Education; DOD MOU.
A major focus of the Symposium was predatory schools, and several
speakers engaged in this issue were featured in the program:
--Deputy Secretary of Education Martha Kanter addressed the general
session providing the Department of Education's perspective on
current issues in Higher Education, emphasizing strategies for
ensuring value in education.
--Ms. Holly Petraeus and Mr. Rohit Chopra, Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau presented ``Dollar Signs in Uniform?''
--Provided information every servicemember or veteran needs to know
before deciding where to go to school or ``signing on the
dotted line.''
--Identified consumer protection issues facing our military
community, and the newest tools and resources available to
empower them to make wise financial decisions.
--Representatives from the Dept. of Justice presented ``How to
Identify Fraud in Higher Education.''
--The session explored fraud in higher education and discussed how
to identify fraud. The theme of their presentation was ``if
schools engage in fraud or misrepresentation in the
recruiting or educating of servicemembers, not only are the
servicemembers themselves harmed but the G.I. Bill and TA
funds designed to help them are also not well-spent. So,
military, educational, and law enforcement institutions
have a common interest in identifying and protecting
against any such deceptive practices.''
--Ms. Michele S. Jones, Director of External Veterans/Military
Affairs & Community Outreach, President`s Veterans Employment
Initiative addressed a general session on the importance of
seeking education counseling and remaining committed to one's
educational goals.
dod response to sec investigation of corinthian colleges, inc.
Question. This illustrates my concern perfectly. This was one of
the many schools who were able to sign the revised MOU from December
2012 with no problem.
What actions is DOD taking in light of the SEC investigation?
Answer. When the Department of Defense (DOD) learned of the SEC
investigation of Corinthian Colleges, Inc., we immediately informed the
Services and determined how many military students were attending
schools owned by Corinthian Colleges, Inc. Currently there are 121
military students attending Corinthian Colleges, (Wyo-Tech, Everest and
Heald College).
--At the time Corinthian Colleges, Inc., signed the DOD MOU, it was
fully accredited and there was no indication of any problems
with its schools.
--DOD is working closely with the Department of Education and
Veterans Affairs in monitoring the SEC investigation and will
take appropriate action as the investigation unfolds.
Question. As a general matter, what actions does DOD take, and on
what time line, for an SEC investigation? What about other potential
infractions or violations from Department of Education, the Department
of Veterans Affairs, or the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau?
Answer. The Department of Defense (DOD) does not have a specified
timeline for a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation
that differs from any other potential infraction. DOD has developed a
strong partnership with the Departments of Education (ED) and Veterans
Affairs (VA) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to
meet and share information. One purpose of the partnership is to
exchange emerging information among the partners such as:
--requirements reports from accrediting agencies;
--school monitoring reviews; and
--requirements for VA and State authorization of schools.
Sharing this information allows the agencies to work together in a
coordinated fashion to take the appropriate action. In addition, DOD
participates in quarterly, information-sharing meetings with the
partners to focus on common issues concerning administration of Federal
education benefit programs as they relate to the agencies involved and
the benefits provided to servicemembers and Veterans.
Question. Does it bother you that the Federal Government is paying
for Tuition Assistance to a school that has 36 percent of its students
defaulting on their loans within 3 years?
Answer. The Department of Defense (DOD) is not aware of a current
standard used by either the Departments of Education or Veteran Affairs
regarding unacceptable loan default rates. Until one is developed, the
most we can do is to ensure all servicemembers have the maximum
information available to them as they select their personal `best fit'
from among the fully accredited institutions participating in the
Tuition Assistance (TA) program.
The Department of Defense Voluntary Education Partnership
Memorandum of Understanding (DOD MOU) strengthens institutions'
transparency requirements. Prior to enrolling a student using (TA), an
institution must do the following:
1. Provide each student with specific information on locating,
understanding, and, where appropriate, completing the following
personalized standard forms:
--Department of Education Financial Aid Shopping Sheet, which may
supplement or replace an institution's existing award letter
and may be used for any student. The template is located at
http://www.collegecost.ed.gov/shopping_sheet.pdf.
--The College Scorecard from the College Affordability and
Transparency Center within the Department of Education, located
at http://www.collegecost.ed.gov/catc. The College Scorecard is
a planning tool and resource for prospective students and
families to compare college costs.
--The Financial Aid Comparison Shopper worksheet from the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau, located at
http:www.consumerfinance.gov/paying-for-college/compare-
financial-aid-and-college-cost, is a cost comparison worksheet
tool. The Web site allows prospective students to enter the
names of three schools and receive detailed financial
information on each one. The site also provides the first-year
sticker price for each school as well as the average grants and
scholarships packages and the total borrowing per year based on
these figures. Once the prospective student enters additional
financial aid award information or personal contributions, the
program calculates the student's projected financial burden,
along with an estimate of any possible monthly student loan
payments once the student has graduated.
2. Designate a point of contact or office for academic and
financial advising, including access to disability counseling, to
assist servicemembers with completion of studies and with job search
activities.
--The designated person or office will serve as a point of contact
for servicemembers seeking information about available,
appropriate academic counseling, financial aid counseling, and
student support services at the institution;
--Point of contact shall have a basic understanding of the military
tuition assistance program, Department of Education Title IV,
education benefits offered by the VA, and familiarity with
institutional services available to assist servicemembers; and
3. Provide servicemembers access to an institutional financial aid
advisor who will provide a clear and complete explanation of available
financial aid, to include Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965,
as amended, and appropriate loan counseling before offering,
recommending, or signing up a student for a loan.
4. Refrain from automatic program renewals, bundling courses or
enrollments. The student and Military Service must approve all course
enrollments prior to the start date of the class.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Lamar Alexander
Question. Finally, all institutions are governed by State and
Federal laws, in addition to oversight by the U.S. Department of
Education. And only institutions of higher education accredited by an
accrediting body recognized by the U.S. Department of Education may be
approved for TA receipt.
Please explain, in detail, your thoughts on each of these layers of
oversight and how they work to ensure quality. Please also describe in
detail where each or any of these existing layers are deficient in
ensuring quality and recommendations you may have for improving these
existing layers instead of simply adding more layers of bureaucracy.
Answer. The quality of education received by our servicemembers is
very important to the Department of Defense (DOD). DOD relies on all of
these layers, the Department of Education (ED), Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA), and State governments to ensure oversight protections are
in place at all levels. The requirement that all post-secondary
institutions participating in the military Tuition Assistance Program
(TA) must be accredited by an accrediting body recognized by ED
underpins all of our quality control efforts and serves as the
essential filter for quality assurance. DOD also requires institutions
to sign the DOD Voluntary Education Partnership Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU), which outlines DOD's requirements for
participation in the TA program. In addition, DOD is implementing new
policy during the 2013-2014 school year that requires all schools to
participating in the TA program be:
--Higher Education Act Title IV participants;
--VA approved for the use of VA education benefits; and
--In compliance with State requirements for approval to operate and
offer postsecondary education in the State where the services
are rendered.
CONCLUSION OF HEARING
Senator Durbin. Our next hearing is going to be on another
interesting topic. It will be the Joint Strike Fighter, F-35,
the most expensive acquisition project in the Federal
Government. So stay tuned.
We will be resuming on Wednesday, June 19 at 10 a.m., for
that and the subcommittee stands in recess.
[Whereupon, at 11:46 a.m., Wednesday, June 12, the hearing
was concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
subject to the call of the Chair.]
-