- TXT
-
PDF
(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.)
Tip
?
113th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 113-529
======================================================================
ADVANCING COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION DEMONSTRATION PROJECT ACT OF 2014
_______
July 17, 2014.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Kline, from the Committee on Education and the Workforce, submitted
the following
R E P O R T
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 3136]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Education and the Workforce, to whom was
referred the bill (H.R. 3136) to establish a demonstration
program for competency-based education, having considered the
same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend
that the bill as amended do pass.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Advancing Competency-Based Education
Demonstration Project Act of 2014''.
SEC. 2. COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.
(a) Projects.--Part G of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 1088 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 486A the
following:
``SEC. 486B. COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.
``(a) Demonstration Projects Authorized.--The Secretary shall select,
in accordance with subsection (c), eligible entities to voluntarily
carry out competency-based education demonstration projects and receive
waivers described in subsection (d) to carry out such projects.
``(b) Application.--
``(1) In general.--Each eligible entity desiring to carry out
a demonstration project under this section shall submit an
application to the Secretary, at such time and in such manner
as the Secretary may require.
``(2) Amendments.--An eligible entity may submit to the
Secretary amendments to the eligible entity's application under
paragraph (1), at such time and in such manner as the Secretary
may require, which the Secretary shall approve or deny within
15 days of receipt.
``(3) Contents.--Each application shall include--
``(A) a description of the competency-based education
to be offered by the eligible entity under the
demonstration project;
``(B) a description of the proposed academic
delivery, business, and financial models for the
demonstration project, including explanations of how
competency-based education offered under the
demonstration project would--
``(i) result in the achievement of
competencies;
``(ii) differ from standard credit hour
approaches, in whole or in part; and
``(iii) result in lower costs or shortened
time to degree, certificate, or credential
completion;
``(C) a description of how the competency-based
education offered under the demonstration project will
progress a student toward completion of a degree,
certificate, or credential;
``(D) a description of how the eligible entity will
articulate the transcript from the competency-based
education demonstration project to another program
within an institution of higher education that is part
of the eligible entity or to another institution of
higher education;
``(E) a description of the statutory and regulatory
requirements described in subsection (d) for which the
eligible entity is seeking a waiver, and why such
waiver is necessary to carry out the demonstration
project;
``(F) a description of how the eligible entity will
develop and evaluate the competencies and assessments
of student knowledge (which may include prior-learning
assessments) administered as part of the demonstration
project, including how such competencies and
assessments are aligned with workforce needs;
``(G) a description of the proposal for determining a
student's Federal student aid eligibility under this
title for participating in the demonstration project,
the award and distribution of such aid, and safeguards
to ensure that students are making satisfactory
progress that warrants disbursement of such aid;
``(H) a description of the students to whom
competency-based education will be offered, including
an assurance that the demonstration project will enroll
a minimum of 50 and a maximum of 3,000 students;
``(I) an assurance that students participating in the
demonstration project will not be eligible for more
Federal assistance under this title than such students
would have been eligible for under a traditional
program; and
``(J) an assurance the eligible entity will identify
and disseminate best practices with respect to the
demonstration project to other eligible entities
carrying out a demonstration project under this
section.
``(c) Selection.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 6 months after the date of
enactment of this section, the Secretary shall select not more
than 20 eligible entities to carry out a competency-based
education demonstration project under this section.
``(2) Considerations.--In selecting eligible entities under
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall--
``(A) prioritize projects which show promise in
reducing the time or cost required to complete a
degree, certificate, or credential;
``(B) consider the number and quality of applications
received;
``(C) consider an eligible entity's--
``(i) ability to successfully execute the
demonstration project as described in the
eligible entity's application under subsection
(b);
``(ii) commitment and ability to effectively
finance the demonstration project;
``(iii) ability to provide administrative
capability and the expertise to evaluate
student progress based on measures other than
credit hours or clock hours; and
``(iv) commitment to work with the Secretary
to evaluate the demonstration project and the
impact of the demonstration project;
``(D) ensure the selection of a diverse group of
eligible entities with respect to size, mission, and
geographic distribution of the eligible entities;
``(E) not limit the types of programs of study or
courses of study approved for participation in a
demonstration project; and
``(F) not select an eligible entity that has had, for
1 of the preceding 2 fiscal years--
``(i) a cohort default rate (defined in
section 435(m)) that is 30 percent or greater;
and
``(ii) a borrowing rate of loans under this
title of more than 50 percent of the students
enrolled at institutions of higher education of
the eligible entity.
``(d) Waivers.--The Secretary may waive for any eligible entity
selected to carry out a demonstration project under this section any
requirements of the following provisions of law (including any
regulations promulgated under such provisions) or regulations and for
which the eligible entity has provided a reason for waiving under
subsection (b)(3)(E):
``(1) Subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 102(a)(3).
``(2) Subsections (a) and (b) of section 481, as such
subsections relate to requirements for a minimum number of
weeks of instruction.
``(3) Section 484(l)(1).
``(4) Section 668.32(a)(1)(iii) of title 34, Code of Federal
Regulations.
``(5) Any of the requirements under provisions in title I,
part F of this title, or this part, that inhibit the operation
of competency-based education, including requirements with
respect to--
``(A) documenting attendance;
``(B) weekly academic activity;
``(C) minimum weeks of instructional time;
``(D) requirements for credit hour or clock hour
equivalencies;
``(E) requirements for substantive interaction with
faculty; and
``(F) definitions of the terms `academic year',
`full-time student', `term' (including `standard term',
`non-term', and `non-standard term'), `satisfactory
academic progress', `educational activity', `project of
study', and `payment period'.
``(e) Notification.--Not later than 6 months after the date of
enactment of this section, the Secretary shall make available to the
authorizing committees and the public a list of eligible entities
selected to carry out a demonstration project under this section, which
shall include for each such eligible entity--
``(1) the specific statutory and regulatory requirements
being waived under subsection (d); and
``(2) a description of the competency-based education
programs of study or courses of study to be offered under the
project.
``(f) Information and Evaluation.--
``(1) Information.--
``(A) In general.--Each eligible entity that carries
out a demonstration project under this section shall
provide to the Director of the Institution of Education
Sciences with respect to the students participating in
the competency-based education project carried out by
the eligible entity the following information:
``(i) The average number of credit hours the
students earned prior to enrollment in the
demonstration project, if applicable.
``(ii) The number and percentage of students
participating in the demonstration project that
are also enrolled in programs of study or
courses of study offered in credit hours or
clock hours, disaggregated by student status as
a first-year, second-year, third-year, fourth-
year, or other student.
``(iii) The average period of time between
the enrollment of a student in the
demonstration project and the first assessment
of student knowledge of such student.
``(iv) The average time to 25 percent, 50
percent, 75 percent, and 100 percent of the
completion of a degree, certificate, or
credential by a student who participated in the
demonstration project.
``(v) The percentage of assessments of
student knowledge that students passed on the
first attempt, during the period of the
participation in the demonstration project by
the students.
``(vi) The percentage of assessments of
student knowledge that students passed on the
second attempt and the average period of time
between the first and second attempts by
students, during the period of the
participation in the demonstration project by
the students.
``(vii) The average number of competencies a
student acquired while participating in the
demonstration project and the period of time
during which the student acquired such
competencies.
``(viii) Such other information as the
Director may reasonably require.
``(B) Disaggregation.--Each eligible entity shall
provide the information required under subparagraph (A)
disaggregated by age, race, gender, disability status,
and status as a recipient of a Federal Pell Grant,
provided that the disaggregation of the information
does not identify any individual student participating
in the demonstration project.
``(2) Evaluation.--The Director of the Institute of Education
Sciences, in consultation with the Secretary, shall annually
evaluate each demonstration project under this section. Each
evaluation shall include--
``(A) the extent to which the eligible entity has met
the goals set forth in its application to the
Secretary;
``(B) the number and types of students participating
in the competency-based education offered under the
project, including the progress of participating
students toward completion of a degree, certificate, or
credential, and the extent to which participation and
retention in such project increased;
``(C) whether the project led to reduced cost or time
to completion of a degree, certificate, or credential,
and the amount of cost or time reduced for such
completion;
``(D) obstacles related to student financial
assistance for competency-based education;
``(E) the extent to which statutory or regulatory
requirements not waived under subsection (d) present
difficulties for students or institutions of higher
education;
``(F) degree, certificate, or credential completion
rates;
``(G) retention rates;
``(H) total cost and net cost to the student of the
competency-based education offered under the project;
``(I) a description of the assessments of student
knowledge and the corresponding competencies; and
``(J) outcomes of the assessments of student
knowledge.
``(3) Annual report.--The Director of the Institute of
Education Sciences shall annually provide to the authorizing
committees a report on--
``(A) the evaluations of the demonstration projects
required under paragraph (2);
``(B) the number and types of students receiving
assistance under this title for competency-based
education under such projects;
``(C) the retention and completion rates of students
participating in such projects;
``(D) any proposed statutory or regulatory changes
designed to support and enhance the expansion of
competency-based education, which may be independent of
or combined with traditional credit hour or clock hour
projects;
``(E) the most effective means of delivering
competency-based education through demonstration
projects; and
``(F) the appropriate level and distribution
methodology of Federal assistance under this title for
students enrolled in competency-based education.
``(g) Oversight.--In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall,
on a continuing basis--
``(1) assure compliance of eligible entities with the
requirements of this title (other than the provisions of law
and regulations that are waived under subsection (d));
``(2) provide technical assistance;
``(3) monitor fluctuations in the student population enrolled
in the eligible entities carrying out the demonstration
projects under this section; and
``(4) consult with appropriate accrediting agencies or
associations and appropriate State regulatory authorities for
additional ways of improving the delivery of competency-based
education.
``(h) Definitions.--For the purpose of this section:
``(1) Competency-based education.--The term `competency-based
education' means an educational process or program that
measures knowledge, skills, and experience through assessments
of such knowledge, skills, or experience in place of or in
addition to the use of credit hours or clock hours.
``(2) Eligible entity.--The term `eligible entity' means--
``(A) an institution of higher education;
``(B) a system of institutions of higher education;
or
``(C) a consortium of institutions of higher
education.
``(3) Institution of higher education.--The term `institution
of higher education' has the meaning given the term in section
102, except that such term does not include institutions
described in section 102(a)(1)(C).''.
(b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this Act or the amendments made
by this Act shall be construed to alter the authority of the Secretary
of Education to establish experimental sites under any other provision
of law.
(c) Funding.--
(1) Use of existing funds.--Of the amount authorized to be
appropriated for salaries and expenses of the Department of
Education, $1,000,000 shall be available to carry out this Act
and the amendments made by this Act.
(2) No additional funds authorized.--No funds are authorized
to be appropriated by this Act to carry out this Act or the
amendments made by this Act.
Purpose
H.R. 3136, the Advancing Competency-Based Education
Demonstration Act of 2014, directs the secretary of education
to select eligible entities to participate in demonstration
projects receiving waivers from statutory and regulatory
requirements that impede the delivery of competency-based
education.
Committee Action
As the Committee on Education and the Workforce begins the
Higher Education Act reauthorization process, increasing
transparency and usefulness of higher education data;
simplifying and improving the federal student aid programs; and
promoting innovation, access, and completion remain top
priorities.
112TH CONGRESS
Hearings--First session
On March 1, 2011, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce held a hearing in Washington, D.C., on ``Education
Regulations: Weighing the Burden on Schools and Students.'' The
hearing was the first in a series examining the burden of
federal, state, and local regulations on the nation's education
system. The purpose of the hearing was to uncover the damaging
effects of federal regulations on schools and institutions.
These rules increasingly stifle growth and innovation, raise
operating costs, and limit student access to affordable
colleges and universities throughout the nation. Testifying
before the committee were Dr. Edgar Hatrick, Superintendent,
Loudon County Public Schools, Ashburn, Virginia; Ms. Kati
Haycock, President, The Education Trust, Washington, D.C.; Mr.
Gene Wilhoit, Executive Director, Council of Chief State School
Officers, Washington, D.C.; and Mr. Christopher B. Nelson,
President, St. John's College, Annapolis, Maryland.
On March 11, 2011, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce
Training held a hearing in Washington, D.C., on ``Education
Regulations: Federal Overreach into Academic Affairs.'' The
purpose of the hearing was to discuss the most egregious and
intrusive pieces of the program integrity regulations issued by
the U.S. Department of Education, specifically, the state
authorization regulation and the credit hour regulation, and to
uncover the unintended consequences of the regulations to
states and institutions of higher education. Testifying before
the subcommittee were Mr. John Ebersole, President, Excelsior
College, Albany, New York; Dr. G. Blair Dowden, President,
Huntington University, Huntington, Indiana; The Honorable
Kathleen Tighe, Inspector General, U.S. Department of
Education, Washington, D.C.; and Mr. Ralph Wolff, President,
Western Association of Schools and Colleges, Alameda,
California.
On March 17, 2011, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce held a hearing in Washington, D.C., on ``Education
Regulations: Roadblocks to Student Choice in Higher
Education.'' The purpose of the hearing was to explore the
harmful consequences of the gainful employment regulation
issued by the U.S. Department of Education. Testifying before
the committee were Ms. Catherine Barreto, Graduate, Monroe
College, and Senior Sales Associate, Doubletree Hotels,
Brooklyn, New York; Mr. Travis Jennings, Electrical Supervisor
of the Manufacturing Launch Systems Group, Orbital Sciences
Corporation, Chandler, Arizona; Dr. Arnold Mitchem, President,
Council for Opportunity in Education, Washington, D.C.; and Ms.
Jeanne Herrmann, Chief Operating Officer, Globe University/
Minnesota School of Business, Woodbury, Minnesota.
On March 21, 2011, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce held a hearing in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, on
``Reviving our Economy: The Role of Higher Education in Job
Growth and Development.'' The purpose of the hearing was to
highlight work by local colleges and universities to respond to
local and state economic needs. Testifying before the committee
were Mr. James Perry, President, Hazelton City Council,
Hazelton, Pennsylvania; Mr. Jeffrey Alesson, Vice President of
Strategic Planning and Quality Assurance, Diamond
Manufacturing, Exeter, Pennsylvania; Dr. Reynold Verret,
Provost, Wilkes University, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania; Mr.
Raymond Angeli, President, Lackawanna College, Scranton,
Pennsylvania; Ms. Joan Seaman, Executive Director, Empire
Beauty School, Moosic, Pennsylvania; and Mr. Thomas P. Leary,
President, Luzerne County Community College, Nanticoke,
Pennsylvania.
On March 22, 2011, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce held a hearing in Utica, New York, on ``Reviving our
Economy: The Role of Higher Education in Job Growth and
Development.'' The purpose of the hearing was to highlight work
by local colleges and universities to respond to local and
state economic needs. Testifying before the committee were Mr.
Anthony J. Picente, Jr., County Executive, Oneida County,
Utica, New York; Mr. Dave Mathis, Director, Oneida County
Workforce Development, Utica, New York; Dr. John Bay, Vice
President and Chief Scientist, Assured Information Security,
Inc., Rome, New York; Dr. Bjong Wolf Yeigh, President, State
University of New York Institute of Technology, Utica, New
York; Dr. Ann Marie Murray, President, Herkimer County
Community College, Herkimer, New York; Dr. Judith Kirkpatrick,
Provost, Utica College, Utica, New York; and Mr. Phil Williams,
President, Utica School of Commerce, The Business College,
Utica, New York.
On April 21, 2011, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce held a hearing in Columbia, Tennessee, on ``Reviving
our Economy: The Role of Higher Education in Job Growth and
Development.'' The purpose of the hearing was to highlight the
work by local colleges and universities to respond to local and
state economic needs. Testifying before the committee were Dr.
Janet Smith, President, Columbia State Community College,
Columbia, Tennessee; Dr. Ted Brown, President, Martin-Methodist
College, Pulaski, Tennessee; Mr. Jim Coakley, President,
Nashville Auto-Diesel College, Nashville, Tennessee; The
Honorable Dean Dickey, Mayor, City of Columbia, Tennessee; Ms.
Susan Marlow, President and Chief Executive Officer, Smart Data
Strategies, Franklin, Tennessee; Ms. Jan McKeel, Executive
Director, South Central Tennessee Workforce Board, Columbia,
Tennessee; and Ms. Margaret Prater, Executive Director,
Northwest Tennessee Workforce Board, Dyersburg, Tennessee.
On July 8, 2011, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce
Training, together with the House Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus
Oversight, and Government Spending, held a hearing in
Washington, D.C., on ``The Gainful Employment Regulation:
Limiting Job Growth and Student Choice.'' The purpose of the
hearing was to explore the harmful consequences of the gainful
employment regulation issued by the U.S. Department of
Education. Testifying before the subcommittees were Dr. Dario
A. Cortes, President, Berkeley College, New York City, New
York; Dr. Anthony P. Carnevale, Director, Georgetown University
Center on Education and the Workforce, Washington, D.C.; Ms.
Karla Carpenter, Graduate, Herzing University and Program
Manager, Quest Software, Madison, Wisconsin; and Mr. Harry C.
Alford, President and Chief Executive Officer, National Black
Chamber of Commerce, Washington, D.C.
On August 16, 2011, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce
Training held a hearing in Greenville, South Carolina, on
``Reviving Our Economy: The Role of Higher Education in Job
Growth and Development.'' The purpose of the hearing was to
highlight the work by local colleges and universities to
respond to local and state economic needs. Testifying before
the subcommittee were The Honorable Knox White, Mayor, City of
Greenville, South Carolina; Mr. Werner Eikenbusch, Section
Manager, Associate Development and Training, BMW Manufacturing
Co., Spartanburg, South Carolina; Ms. Laura Harmon, Project
Director, Greenville Works, Greenville, South Carolina; Dr.
Brenda Thames, Vice President of Academic Development,
Greenville Health System, Greenville, South Carolina; Mr. James
F. Barker, President, Clemson University, Clemson, South
Carolina; Dr. Thomas F. Moore, Chancellor, University of South
Carolina Upstate, Spartanburg, South Carolina; Dr. Keith
Miller, President, Greenville Technical College, Greenville,
South Carolina; and Ms. Amy Hickman, Campus President, ECPI
College of Technology, Greenville, South Carolina.
On October 25, 2011, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce
Training held a hearing in Washington, D.C., on ``Government-
Run Student Loans: Ensuring the Direct Loan Program is
Accountable to Students and Taxpayers.'' The purpose of the
hearing was to examine the switch to and implementation of the
Direct Loan program. Testifying before the subcommittee were
Mr. James W. Runcie, Chief Operating Officer, Office of Federal
Student Aid, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C.;
Mr. Ron H. Day, Director of Financial Aid, Kennesaw State
University, Kennesaw, Georgia; Ms. Nancy Hoover, Director of
Financial Aid, Denison University, Granville, Ohio; and Mr.
Mark. A. Bandre, Vice President for Enrollment Management and
Student Affairs, Baker University, Baldwin City, Kansas.
On November 30, 2011, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce
Training held a hearing in Washington, D.C., on ``Keeping
College Within Reach: Discussing Ways Institutions Can
Streamline Costs and Reduce Tuition.'' The purpose of the
hearing was to highlight innovative practices institutions of
higher education are implementing to reduce their costs to
limit tuition increases for students. Testifying before the
subcommittee were Ms. Jane V. Wellman, Executive Director,
Delta Project on Postsecondary Costs, Productivity, and
Accountability, Washington, D.C.; Dr. Ronald E. Manahan,
President, Grace College and Seminary, Winona Lake, Indiana;
Mr. Jamie P. Merisotis, President and Chief Executive Officer,
Lumina Foundation for Education, Indianapolis, Indiana; and Mr.
Tim Foster, President, Colorado Mesa University, Grand
Junction, Colorado.
Legislative action--First session
On February 17, 2011, the House of Representatives
considered an amendment offered by Chairman John Kline (R-MN),
Higher Education and Workforce Training Subcommittee Chairwoman
Virginia Foxx (R-NC), and Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) to H.R. 1,
the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013. The amendment
prohibited the use of funds by the U.S. Department of Education
to implement and enforce the gainful employment regulation. The
amendment was agreed to by a bipartisan vote of 289 to 136.
On February 19, 2011, the House of Representatives passed
H.R. 1 by a vote of 235 to 189. The amendment was not included
in the bill at final passage.
On June 3, 2011, Chairman John Kline (R-MN) and Higher
Education and Workforce Training Subcommittee Chairwoman
Virginia Foxx (R-NC) introduced H.R. 2117, the Protecting
Academic Freedom in Higher Education Act. The bill repealed the
state authorization regulation, one piece of the credit hour
regulation, and prohibited the secretary of education from
defining credit hour for any purpose under the Higher Education
Act of 1965.
On June 15, 2011, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce considered H.R. 2117 in legislative session and
reported it favorably, as amended, to the House of
Representatives by a bipartisan vote of 27 to 11.
The committee considered and adopted the following
amendment to H.R. 2117:
Subcommittee Chairwoman Virginia Foxx (R-NC)
offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute to add a
short title to the legislation. The amendment was adopted by
voice vote.
The committee further considered the following amendments
to H.R. 2117, which were not adopted:
Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) offered an amendment to
maintain pieces of the state authorization regulation,
including the complaint process. The amendment failed by a vote
of 17 to 22.
Ranking Member George Miller (D-CA) offered an
amendment to prohibit implementation until the U.S. Department
of Education Inspector General certifies there are equal or
greater protections in place related to program integrity under
Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965. The amendment
failed by a vote of 17 to 22.
Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) offered an amendment to
stipulate the act will be effective only if the maximum Pell
Grant award is at least $5,550 for the 2012-2013 school year.
The amendment was ruled out of order.
Rep. Tim Bishop (D-NY) offered an amendment to
strike the repeal of the credit hour regulation that
establishes a federal definition of a ``credit hour.'' The
amendment failed by a vote of 11 to 27.
Rep. Tim Bishop (D-NY) offered an amendment to
strike the prohibition on the secretary of education from
defining credit hour in the future. The amendment failed by a
vote of 16 to 22.
Hearings--Second session
On July 18, 2012, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce
Training held a hearing in Washington, D.C., on ``Keeping
College Within Reach: Exploring State Efforts to Curb Costs.''
The purpose of the hearing was to highlight innovative
practices at the state level to assist postsecondary
institutions in keeping costs affordable and to promote
accountability of public funds. Testifying before the
subcommittee were Mr. Scott Pattison, Executive Director,
National Association of State Budget Officers, Washington,
D.C.; Ms. Teresa Lubbers, Commissioner for Higher Education,
State of Indiana, Indianapolis, Indiana; Mr. Stan Jones,
President, Complete College America, Zionsville, Indiana; and
Dr. Joe May, President, Louisiana Community and Technical
College System, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
On September 20, 2012, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce
Training held a hearing in Washington, D.C., on ``Assessing
College Data: Helping to Provide Valuable Information to
Students, Institutions, and Taxpayers.'' The purpose of the
hearing was to examine data collected by the federal government
from institutions of higher education, including data
requirements established during the last reauthorization of the
Higher Education Act. Testifying before the subcommittee were
Dr. Mark Schneider, Vice President, American Institutes for
Research, Washington, D.C.; Dr. James Hallmark, Vice Chancellor
for Academic Affairs, Texas A&M System, College Station, Texas;
Dr. Jose Cruz, Vice President for Higher Education Policy and
Practice, The Education Trust, Washington, D.C.; and Dr. Tracy
Fitzsimmons, President, Shenandoah University, Winchester,
Virginia.
Legislative action--Second session
On February 28, 2012, the House of Representatives passed
H.R. 2117 by a bipartisan vote of 303 to 114. The bill was sent
to the Senate and referred to the Senate Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
On April 25, 2012, Rep. Judy Biggert (R-IL) introduced H.R.
4628, the Interest Rate Reduction Act. The bill reduced the
interest rate on subsidized Stafford loans made to
undergraduate students from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent for one
year, from July 1, 2012, through June 30, 2013. To offset the
increase in mandatory spending, the bill repealed the
Prevention and Public Health Fund authorized under Section 4002
of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and rescinded
the balance of unobligated monies made available for the fund.
On April 27, 2012, the House of Representatives passed H.R.
4628 by a vote of 215 to 195.
While H.R. 4628 was never considered by the Senate, its
provisions were included in the Conference Report for H.R.
4348, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act
(MAP-21), sponsored by Rep. John Mica (R-FL). To partially
offset the increase in mandatory spending that resulted from
the temporary reduction in interest rates on subsidized
Stafford loans, the bill permanently restricted the period of
eligibility to borrow subsidized Stafford loans to 150 percent
of the published length of a student's educational program.
On June 29, 2012, the House of Representatives passed the
Conference Report to H.R. 4348 by a bipartisan vote of 373 to
52.
On June 29, 2012, the Senate passed the Conference Report
to H.R. 4348 by a bipartisan vote of 74 to 19.
On July 6, 2012, the President of the United States signed
H.R. 4348 into law (P.L. 112-141).
113TH CONGRESS
Hearings--First session
On March 13, 2013, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce held a hearing in Washington, D.C., on ``Keeping
College Within Reach: Examining Opportunities to Strengthen
Federal Student Loan Programs.'' The purpose of the hearing was
to examine ways to strengthen federal student loans, as well as
how moving to a market-based or variable interest rate on all
federal student loans could benefit both students and
taxpayers. Testifying before the committee were Dr. Deborah J.
Lucas, Sloan Distinguished Professor of Finance, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts; Mr. Jason
Delisle, Director, Federal Education Budget Project, The New
America Foundation, Washington, D.C.; Mr. Justin Draeger,
President and Chief Executive Officer, National Association of
Student Financial Aid Administrators, Washington, D.C.; and Dr.
Charmaine Mercer, Vice President of Policy, Alliance for
Excellent Education, Washington, D.C.
On April 9, 2013, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce
Training held a hearing in Monroe, Michigan, entitled
``Reviving Our Economy: The Role of Higher Education in Job
Growth and Development.'' The purpose of the hearing was to
highlight work being done by local colleges and universities to
respond to local and state economic needs. Testifying before
the subcommittee were Mr. Henry Lievens, Commissioner, Monroe
County, Monroe, Michigan; Ms. Lynette Dowler, Plant Director,
Fossil Generation, DTE Energy, Detroit, Michigan; Ms. Susan
Smith, Executive Director, Economic Development Partnership of
Hillsdale County, Jonesville, Michigan; Mr. Dan Fairbanks,
United Auto Workers International Representative, UAW-GM Skill
Development and Training Department, Detroit, Michigan; Dr.
David E. Nixon, President, Monroe County Community College,
Monroe, Michigan; Sister Peg Albert, OP, Ph.D., President,
Siena Heights University, Adrian, Michigan; Dr. Michelle
Shields, Career Coach/Workforce Development Director, Jackson
Community College, Jackson, Michigan; and Mr. Douglas A. Levy,
Director of Financial Aid, Macomb Community College, Warren,
Michigan.
On April 16, 2013, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce
Training held a hearing in Washington, D.C., entitled ``Keeping
College Within Reach: The Role of Federal Student Aid
Programs.'' The purpose of the hearing was to examine shifting
the focus of federal student aid programs from enhancing access
to improving student outcomes. Testifying before the
subcommittee were Mr. Terry W. Hartle, Senior Vice President,
Division of Government and Public Affairs, American Council on
Education, Washington, D.C.; Ms. Moriah Miles, State Chair,
Minnesota State University Student Association, Mankato,
Minnesota; Ms. Patricia McGuire, President, Trinity Washington
University, Washington, D.C.; and Mr. Dan Madzelan, Former
Employee (Retired), U.S. Department of Education, University
Park, Maryland.
On April 24, 2013, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce held a
hearing in Washington, D.C., entitled ``Keeping College Within
Reach: Enhancing Transparency for Students, Families, and
Taxpayers.'' The purpose of the hearing was to examine ways to
improve the information provided by the federal government to
inform students and families about their postsecondary
education options. Testifying before the subcommittee were Dr.
Donald E. Heller, Dean, College of Education, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, Michigan; Mr. Alex Garrido, Student,
Keiser University, Miami, Florida; Dr. Nicole Farmer Hurd,
Founder and Executive Director, National College Advising
Corps, Carrboro, North Carolina; and Mr. Travis Reindl, Program
Director, Postsecondary Education, National Governors
Association Center for Best Practices, Washington, D.C.
On June 13, 2013, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce
Training held a hearing in Washington, D.C., entitled ``Keeping
College Within Reach: Discussing Program Quality through
Accreditation.'' The purpose of the hearing was to examine the
historical role of accreditation, discuss the role of regional
and national accreditors in measuring institutional quality,
and contemplate areas for reform. Testifying before the
subcommittee were Dr. Elizabeth H. Sibolski, President, Middle
States Commission on Higher Education, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania; Dr. Michale McComis, Executive Director,
Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges,
Arlington, Virginia; Ms. Anne D. Neal, President, American
Council of Trustees and Alumni, Washington, D.C.; and Mr. Kevin
Carey, Director of the Education Policy Program, The New
America Foundation, Washington, D.C.
On July 9, 2013, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce held a hearing in Washington, D.C., entitled
``Keeping College Within Reach: Improving Higher Education
through Innovation.'' The purpose of the hearing was to
highlight innovation in higher education occurring at the state
and institutional level and in the private sector. Testifying
before the committee were Mr. Scott Jenkins, Director of
External Relations, Western Governors University, Salt Lake
City, Utah; Dr. Pamela J. Tate, President and Chief Executive
Officer, Council for Adult and Experiential Learning, Chicago,
Illinois; Dr. Joann A. Boughman, Senior Vice Chancellor for
Academic Affairs, University System of Maryland, Adelphi,
Maryland; and Mr. Burck Smith, Chief Executive Officer and
Founder, StraighterLine, Baltimore, Maryland.
On September 11, 2013, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce
Training held a hearing in Washington, D.C., entitled ``Keeping
College Within Reach: Supporting Higher Education Opportunities
for America's Servicemembers and Veterans.'' The purpose of the
hearing was to examine the efforts of higher education to
improve postsecondary education opportunities for
servicemembers and veterans. Testifying before the subcommittee
were Mrs. Kimrey W. Rhinehardt, Vice President for Federal and
Military Affairs, The University of North Carolina, Chapel
Hill, North Carolina; Dr. Arthur F. Kirk, Jr., President, Saint
Leo University, Saint Leo, Florida; Dr. Russell S. Kitchner,
Vice President for Regulatory and Governmental Relations,
American Public University System, Charles Town, West Virginia;
and Dr. Ken Sauer, Senior Associate Commissioner for Research
and Academic Affairs, Indiana Commission for Higher Education,
Indianapolis, Indiana.
On September 18, 2013, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce
Training held a hearing in Washington, D.C., entitled ``Keeping
College Within Reach: Improving Access and Affordability
through Innovative Partnerships.'' The purpose of the hearing
was to examine the efforts of higher education institutions to
expand access and reduce costs by partnering with local
employers, other colleges, or online course providers.
Testifying before the subcommittee were Dr. Jeffrey Docking,
President, Adrian College, Adrian, Michigan; Ms. Paula R.
Singer, President and Chief Executive Officer, Laureate Global
Products and Services, Baltimore, Maryland; Dr. Rich Baraniuk,
Professor, Rice University, and Founder, Connexions, Houston,
Texas; and Dr. Charles Lee Isbell, Jr., Professor and Senior
Associate Dean, College of Computing, Georgia Institute of
Technology, Atlanta, Georgia.
On November 13, 2013, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce held a hearing in Washington, D.C., entitled
``Keeping College Within Reach: Simplifying Federal Student
Aid.'' The purpose of the hearing was to examine the need to
streamline, consolidate, and simplify federal student aid
programs. Testifying before the committee were Ms. Kristin D.
Conklin, Founding Partner, HCM Strategies, LLC, Washington,
D.C.; Dr. Sandy Baum, Research Professor of Education Policy,
George Washington University Graduate School of Education and
Human Development, and Senior Fellow, Urban Institute,
Washington, D.C.; Ms. Jennifer Mishory, J.D., Deputy Director,
Young Invincibles, Washington, D.C.; and Mr. Jason Delisle,
Director, Federal Education Budget Project, New America
Foundation, Washington, D.C.
On December 3, 2013, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce
Training held a hearing in Washington, D.C., entitled ``Keeping
College Within Reach: Strengthening Pell Grants for Future
Generations.'' The purpose of the hearing was to examine Pell
Grant program reform proposals to better target funds to the
neediest students and put the program on a fiscally responsible
and sustainable path. Testifying before the subcommittee were
Mr. Justin Draeger, President and Chief Executive Officer,
National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators,
Washington, D.C.; Dr. Jenna Ashley Robinson, Director of
Outreach, John W. Pope Center for Higher Education Policy,
Raleigh, North Carolina; Mr. Michael Dannenberg, Director of
Higher Education and Education Finance Policy, The Education
Trust, Washington, D.C.; and Mr. Richard C. Heath, Director of
Student Financial Services, Anne Arundel Community College,
Arnold, Maryland.
Legislative action--First session
On May 9, 2013, Chairman John Kline (R-MN) and Higher
Education and Workforce Training Subcommittee Chairwoman
Virginia Foxx (R-NC) introduced H.R. 1911, the Smarter
Solutions for Students Act. The bill moved all federal student
loans (except Perkins loans) to a market-based interest rate.
On May 16, 2013, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce considered H.R. 1911 in legislative session and
reported it favorably, as amended, to the House of
Representatives by a bipartisan vote of 24 to 13.
The committee considered and adopted the following
amendment to H.R. 1911:
Subcommittee Chairwoman Virginia Foxx (R-NC)
offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute to make a
technical change to the bill. The amendment was adopted by
voice vote.
The committee further considered the following amendments
to H.R. 1911, which were not adopted:
Rep. Joe Heck (R-NV) offered an amendment to
allocate a portion of the savings generated under the bill to
Pell Grants. The amendment was withdrawn.
Rep. Joe Heck (R-NV) offered an amendment to
provide the secretary of education with authority to reduce the
interest rate on student loans if a borrower makes the first 48
payments on time. The amendment was withdrawn.
Rep. John Tierney (D-MA) offered an amendment to
set the federal student loan interest rates at the same rate
the Federal Reserve charges to banks for two years. The
amendment failed by a vote of 14 to 23.
Rep. Joe Courtney (D-CT) offered an amendment to
extend the 3.4 percent interest rate on subsidized Stafford
loans for two years. The amendment failed by a vote of 15 to
21.
On May 23, 2013, the House of Representatives passed H.R.
1911 by a bipartisan vote of 221 to 198.
On July 24, 2013, the Senate passed a substitute version of
H.R. 1911, the Bipartisan Student Loan Certainty Act, by a
bipartisan vote of 81 to 18. The legislation allowed student
loan interest rates to reset once a year by the market, but
lock into a fixed rate once the loan is disbursed to the
student. Interest rates would be set using the following
formulas:
Undergraduate Stafford loans (subsidized and
unsubsidized): 10-year Treasury Note plus 2.05 percent, capped
at 8.25 percent.
Graduate Stafford loans: 10-year Treasury Note
plus 3.6 percent, capped at 9.5 percent
PLUS loans (graduate and parent): 10-year Treasury
Note plus 4.6 percent, capped at 10.5 percent.
On July 31, 2013, the House of Representatives agreed to
suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendment to H.R.
1911 by a bipartisan vote of 392 to 31.
On August 9, 2013, the President of the United States
signed H.R. 1911 into law (P.L. 113-28).
On May 13, 2013, Rep. Luke Messer (R-IN) introduced H.R.
1949, the Improving Postsecondary Education Data for Students
Act. The bill directed the secretary of education to convene an
Advisory Committee on Improving Postsecondary Education Data to
conduct a study on the factors students and families want,
need, and already consider when choosing a higher education
institution.
On May 16, 2013, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce considered H.R. 1949 in legislative session and
reported it favorably, as amended, to the House of
Representatives by a voice vote. The committee considered and
adopted the following amendment to H.R. 1949:
Rep. Luke Messer (R-IN) offered an amendment in
the nature of a substitute to H.R. 1949 to (1) include
individuals who represent undergraduate and graduate education;
college and career counselors at secondary schools; experts in
data policy, collection, and use; and experts in labor markets
on the list of individuals required to be represented on the
Advisory Committee on Improving Postsecondary Education Data;
(2) ensure individuals on the advisory committee represent
economic, racial, and geographically diverse populations; (3)
require the advisory committee to examine information related
to the sources of financial assistance, including federal
student loans, as part of the required aspects of the study;
(4) require the advisory committee to examine how information
regarding student outcomes should be disaggregated for first-
generation students; and (5) provide other conforming and
technical changes to the bill. The amendment was adopted by
voice vote.
On May 23, 2013, the House of Representatives agreed to
suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1949 by voice vote. The bill
was sent to the Senate and referred to the Senate Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
On July 10, 2013, Chairman John Kline (R-MN), Higher
Education and Workforce Training Subcommittee Chairwoman
Virginia Foxx (R-NC), and Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) introduced
H.R. 2637, the Supporting Academic Freedom through Regulatory
Relief Act. The bill, which included the text of the Protecting
Academic Freedom in Higher Education Act (H.R. 2117) and the
Kline/Foxx/Hastings amendment to H.R. 1 from the 112th
Congress, repealed the credit hour, state authorization, and
gainful employment regulations and amended the statute to
clarify the incentive compensation regulation. Additionally,
the bill prohibited the U.S. Department of Education from
issuing related regulations until after Congress reauthorizes
the Higher Education Act.
On July 24, 2013, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce considered H.R. 2637 in legislative session and
reported it favorably, as amended, to the House of
Representatives by a bipartisan vote of 22 to 13.
The committee considered and adopted the following
amendment to H.R. 2637:
Subcommittee Chairwoman Virginia Foxx (R-NC)
offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute to change a
subsection title in the legislation. The amendment was adopted
by voice vote.
The committee further considered the following amendment to
H.R. 2637, which was not adopted:
Rep. Tim Bishop (D-NY) offered an amendment to
strike the prohibition on the U.S. Department of Education from
issuing regulations related to state authorization, gainful
employment, and credit hour. The amendment failed by a vote of
13 to 22.
Hearings--Second session
On January 28, 2014, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce
Training held a hearing in Washington, D.C., entitled ``Keeping
College Within Reach: Sharing Best Practices for Serving Low-
Income and First Generation Students.'' The purpose of the
hearing was to highlight best practices at institutions of
higher education for serving low-income and first generation
students. Testifying before the subcommittee were Dr. James
Anderson, Chancellor, Fayetteville State University,
Fayetteville, North Carolina; Mrs. Mary Beth Del Balzo, Senior
Executive Vice President and Chief Executive Officer, The
College of Westchester, White Plains, New York; Mr. Josse Alex
Garrido, Graduate Student, University of Texas--Pan American,
Edinburg, Texas; and Rev. Dennis H. Holtschneider, President,
DePaul University, Chicago, Illinois.
On February 27, 2013, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and
Secondary Education and Subcommittee on Higher Education and
Workforce Training held a joint hearing in Washington, D.C.,
entitled ``Exploring Efforts to Strengthen the Teaching
Profession.'' The purpose of the hearing was to discuss the
state of teacher preparation nationwide. Testifying before the
subcommittees were Dr. Deborah A. Gist, Commissioner, Rhode
Island Department of Elementary and Secondary Education,
Providence, Rhode Island; Dr. Marcy Singer-Gabella, Professor
of the Practice of Education, Vanderbilt University, Nashville,
Tennessee; Dr. Heather Peske, Associate Commissioner for
Educator Quality, Massachusetts Department of Elementary and
Secondary Education, Malden, Massachusetts; and Ms. Christina
Hall, Co-Founder and Co-Director, Urban Teacher Center,
Baltimore, Maryland.
On March 12, 2014, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce
Training held a hearing in Washington, D.C., entitled
``Examining the Mismanagement of the Student Loan
Rehabilitation Process.'' The purpose of the hearing was to
examine the U.S. Department of Education's ability to oversee
the processing of rehabilitated loans issued under the Direct
Loan program. Testifying before the subcommittee were Ms.
Melissa Emrey-Arras, Director of Education, Workforce, and
Income Security Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office,
Boston, Massachusetts; The Honorable Kathleen Tighe, Inspector
General, Department of Education, Washington, D.C.; Mr. James
Runcie, Chief Operating Officer, Federal Student Aid, U.S.
Department of Education, Washington, D.C.; and Ms. Peg Julius,
Executive Director of Enrollment Management, Kirkwood Community
College, Cedar Rapids, Iowa.
On March 20, 2014, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce held a hearing in Mesa, Arizona, entitled ``Reviving
our Economy: Supporting a 21st Century Workforce.'' The purpose
of the hearing was to explore the role of local higher
education institutions in fostering job creation and growth
through innovative partnerships with the business community and
new modes of teaching delivery. Testifying before the committee
were The Honorable Rick Heumann, Vice Mayor, City of Chandler,
Arizona; Ms. Cathleen Barton, Education Manager, Intel
Corporate Affairs, Southwestern United States, Intel
Corporation, Chandler, Arizona; Mr. Lee D. Lambert, J.D.,
Chancellor, Pima Community College, Tucson, Arizona; Dr.
William Pepicello, President, University of Phoenix, Tempe,
Arizona; Dr. Michael Crow, President, Arizona State University,
Tempe, Arizona; Dr. Ann Weaver Hart, President, The University
of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona; Dr. Ernest A. Lara, President,
Estrella Mountain Community College, Avondale, Arizona; and Ms.
Christy Farley, Vice President of Government Affairs and
Business Partnerships, Northern Arizona University, Phoenix,
Arizona.
On April 2, 2014, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce held a hearing in Washington, D.C., entitled
``Keeping College Within Reach: Meeting the Needs of
Contemporary Students.'' The purpose of the hearing was to
examine how institutions, states, and other entities assist
contemporary college students in accessing and completing
postsecondary education. Testifying before the committee were
Dr. George A. Pruitt, President, Thomas Edison State College,
Trenton, New Jersey; Dr. Kevin Gilligan, Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer, Capella Education Company, Minneapolis,
Minnesota; Mr. David Moldoff, Chief Executive Officer and
Founder, AcademyOne, Inc., West Chester, Pennsylvania; Dr.
Joann A. Boughman, Senior Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs,
University System of Maryland, Adelphi, Maryland; Mr. Stan
Jones, President, Complete College America, Indianapolis,
Indiana; and Dr. Brooks A. Keel, President, Georgia Southern
University, Statesboro, Georgia.
Legislative action--Second session
On September 19, 2013, Rep. Matt Salmon (R-AZ), Rep. Susan
Brooks (R-IN), and Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) introduced H.R.
3136, the Advancing Competency-Based Education Demonstration
Project Act of 2013. The bill directs the secretary of
education to select institutions or consortia of institutions
for voluntary participation in competency-based education
demonstration projects that provide participating entities with
the ability to offer competency-based education programs that
do not meet certain statutory and regulatory requirements which
would otherwise prevent them from participating in federal
student aid programs.
On July 10, 2014, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce considered H.R. 3136 in legislative session and
reported it favorably, as amended, to the House of
Representatives by a voice vote. The committee considered and
adopted the following amendment to H.R. 3136:
Rep. Matt Salmon (R-AZ) and Rep. Jared Polis (D-
CO) offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute to add
certain requirements to the applications to participate in a
competency-based education project, allow eligible entities to
submit amendments to their previously-approved applications,
set requirements for the entities the secretary must choose to
participate in the programs, require institutions to provide
student information to the director of the Institute of
Education Sciences (IES), require the director of IES to
annually evaluate each project and provide a report with
specified information to the authorizing committees, authorize
funds to be available from the amount appropriated for salaries
and expenses of the Department of Education, and make
conforming and technical changes to the introduced bill. The
amendment was adopted by voice vote.
The committee further considered the following amendment to
H.R. 2637, which was not adopted:
Rep. Tierney (D-MA) offered an amendment that
would allow students with federal student loans and private
student loans issued prior to 2013 to refinance those loans
into new federal loans at the interest rate set for the 2013-
2014 academic year. The amendment was ruled non-germane. Rep.
George Miller (D-CA) appealed the ruling of the chair. Rep.
Glenn Thompson (R-PA) offered a motion to table the appeal of
the ruling of the chair, which was adopted by a vote of 22 to
16.
On June 26, 2014, Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) and Rep. Luke
Messer (R-IN) introduced H.R. 4983, the Strengthening
Transparency in Higher Education Act. The bill simplifies and
streamlines the information made publicly available by the
Secretary of Education regarding institutions of higher
education.
On July 10, 2014, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce considered H.R. 4983 in legislative session and
reported it favorably, as amended, to the House of
Representatives by a voice vote. The committee considered and
adopted the following amendment to H.R. 4983:
Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) offered an amendment in
the nature of a substitute to require additional information on
the College Dashboard, require the secretary of education to
conduct consumer testing in consultation with appropriate
federal departments and agencies, ensure consumer testing
addresses whether the College Dashboard provides useful and
relevant information to students and families, require the
secretary of education to submit to the authorizing committees
recommendations based on the results of consumer testing, set
new minimum requirements for net price calculators, require
funding to come from funds already appropriated to maintain the
College Navigator, and make other conforming and technical
changes. The amendment was adopted by voice vote.
The committee further considered the following amendment to
H.R. 4983, which was not adopted:
Rep. George Miller (D-CA) offered an amendment
that would require the commissioner of education statistics to
establish a formula for determining the percentage of student
borrowers who have completed their course of study and who are
in repayment or in an authorized deferment period at three,
five and 10 years after completion of a program of study. The
amendment failed by a vote of 13 to 21.
On June 26, 2014, Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-KY) and Rep.
Richard Hudson (R-NC) introduced H.R. 4984, the Empowering
Students through Enhanced Financial Counseling Act. The bill
amends the loan counseling requirements under the Higher
Education Act and requires counseling for Federal Pell Grant
recipients.
On July 10, 2014, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce considered H.R. 4984 in legislative session and
reported it favorably, as amended, to the House of
Representatives by voice vote. The committee considered and
adopted the following amendment to H.R. 4984:
Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-KY) and Rep. Suzanne
Bonamici (D-OR) offered an amendment in the nature of a
substitute to remove the requirement that annual counseling for
Pell Grant recipients be tied to disbursement of the grant,
require additional information be disclosed to borrowers during
annual counseling and exit counseling sessions, require
institutions to provide annual counseling to borrowers
receiving Parent PLUS loans, require any funds used to carry
out the act to come from funds already appropriated to maintain
the Financial Awareness Counseling Tool, and make conforming
and technical changes. The amendment was adopted by voice vote.
The committee further considered the following amendment to
H.R. 4984, which was not adopted:
Rep. Susan Davis (D-CA) offered an amendment to
modify the rule requiring for-profit colleges to receive at
least 10 percent of their revenue from sources other than the
Department of Education to remain eligible for federal student
aid to include all federal aid, including veterans' educational
benefits and some Workforce Investment Act funds, in the 90
percent portion of the calculation and only private funds in
the 10 percent portion of the calculation. The amendment was
ruled non-germane. Rep. George Miller (D-CA) appealed the
ruling of the chair. Rep. Glenn Thompson (R-PA) offered a
motion to table the appeal of the ruling of the chair, which
was adopted by a vote of 20 to 13.
Summary
The Advancing Competency-Based Education Demonstration
Project Act would direct the secretary of education to select
up to 20 eligible entities to voluntarily carry out competency-
based education demonstration projects receiving statutory and
regulatory waivers in order to identify ways to reduce the time
it takes to earn a college degree and reduce college costs.
Application
Eligible entities, including institutions of higher
education or consortiums of institutions, wishing to carry out
a demonstration project must submit an application to the
secretary of education that includes, but is not limited to,
descriptions of the competency-based education to be offered;
how the demonstration project would be implemented financially
and logistically; how student advancement through competencies
would differ from standard credit hour approaches; and how the
project would develop and evaluate the competencies and
assessments administered, including how such competencies and
assessments are aligned with workforce needs. Further, the
applications would include a description of the students to
whom competency-based education would be offered and a
description of the proposal for determining and awarding
students' financial aid. Finally, the application would include
a description of the specific statutory and regulatory
requirements for which the applicant is seeking a waiver, as
well as the reasons for seeking such waiver.
Selection, waivers granted, and notification
The secretary of education is required to select no more
than 20 eligible entities to carry out competency-based
education demonstration projects. Eligible entities are
permitted to submit multiple applications for multiple projects
for which they are seeking approval. In selecting entities, the
secretary of education must prioritize projects that show
promise in reducing the time required to obtain a degree or in
reducing college costs. The secretary of education also must
consider the number and quality of applications received and an
eligible entity's ability to successfully execute a competency-
based project, commitment and ability to effectively finance a
project, and commitment to work with the secretary of education
to evaluate the project and its impact. The secretary cannot
select an eligible entity where more than 50 percent of the
students take out loans and the entity has had a cohort default
rate of 30 percent or greater in one of the two preceding
years. Finally, the secretary of education must ensure the
selection of a diverse group of institutions or consortia and
cannot limit the courses of study approved for participation in
a project.
The legislation would allow the secretary of education to
waive the statutory or regulatory requirements listed on the
application. These waivers may address certain requirements in
the Higher Education Act and Title 34 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, and any regulations promulgated under such
provisions, that inhibit the operation of competency-based
education.
The secretary of education is required to make available to
the public, and separately to the authorizing committees of the
House of Representatives and the Senate, a list of selected
institutions and consortia, the statutory and regulatory
requirements being waived, and a description of the courses
being offered under the project.
Information and evaluation
Each institution or consortium that carries out a
demonstration project would be required to provide to the
director of the Institute of Education Sciences (IES)
information including, but not limited to, the average number
of credit hours students earned prior to enrollment in the
project; the number and percentage of students participating in
the competency-based education project who are also enrolled in
credit or clock hour courses; the average period of time
between admission to the project and the first assessment, as
well as other markers of progression. Entities also must
provide other indicators of student success, including, but not
limited to, course completion rates and success rates on
administered assessments. This reported information must be
disaggregated by age, race, gender, disability status, and
status as a recipient of a Pell grant, provided the
disaggregation does not identify individual students.
The legislation would require the director of IES, in
consultation with the secretary of education, to evaluate
annually each demonstration project to determine the extent to
which the eligible entity has met the goals set forth in its
application. Evaluations must include the number and types of
students participating in competency-based education, the
progress of participating students towards degrees and other
indicators of success, obstacles related to student financial
assistance, and the extent to which remaining statutory and
regulatory requirements present difficulties for students or
institutions of higher education.
The director of IES would be required to provide annually
to the authorizing committees of the House of Representatives
and the Senate a report on the evaluations of the demonstration
projects, the number and types of students receiving
assistance, and the retention and completion rates of
participating students. The reports also must include any
proposed statutory or regulatory changes designed to support
and enhance the expansion of competency-based education, the
most effective means of delivering competency-based education,
and the appropriate level and distribution methodology of
federal assistance. The secretary of education is also tasked
with conducting oversight of the demonstration projects on a
continuing basis.
Committee Views
Introduction
Federal, state, and local budgetary challenges, as well as
skyrocketing college costs, have encouraged institutions of
higher education and students to seek low-cost alternatives to
the traditional higher education model. Different modes of
teaching delivery, such as competency-based education, may help
students learn and graduate more quickly. These innovations in
higher education could benefit both traditional students as
well as the growing population of contemporary students.
Traditionally, regulators and institutions of higher
education used ``credit hours'' to measure student progress.
This was an understandable metric when technological and
physical limitations meant ``seat time'' was the best proxy for
learning. Today, however, many experts question the value of
measuring time rather than actual learning gains. Competency-
based models of education reverse the traditional learning
equation, holding learning constant and allowing time to vary.
Such programs define a collection of competencies or skills for
a given field of study; create assessments; and provide
students with course materials, instructional mentors, tutors,
and proctored exams aligned with the competencies.
Federal student aid programs have not kept pace with
advances in technology or the latest models of education. While
some institutions of higher education are pursuing competency-
based education programs, current statutory and regulatory
requirements could be updated to enhance innovation, allowing
for deeper experimentation with competency-based education.
Most notably, federal student aid is disbursed based on the
traditional ``credit hour'' calculation, which does not
translate to the competency-based education model.
Encouraging institutions to reduce college costs
The cost of attending college has risen dramatically over
the past decade. Between the 2003-2004 and 2013-2014 academic
years, in-state tuition and fees at public four-year colleges
and universities have increased by approximately 51 percent.
During the same period, tuition and fees at public two-year
institutions and private four-year colleges and universities
also have increased by approximately 35 percent and 25 percent,
respectively. In the last year alone, the annual cost of
attending the average private, non-profit institution rose to
more than $30,000.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Trends in College Pricing, The CollegeBoard, 2013, p. 10,
available at http://trends.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/
college-pricing-2013-full-report-140108.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The federal government now disburses over $130 billion in
federal student financial assistance each year, which should
incentivize the creation of federal laws that encourage
innovation to realize lower college costs. During a July 9,
2013, hearing entitled ``Keeping College Within Reach:
Improving Higher Education through Innovation,'' the Committee
on Education and the Workforce examined what may prevent
institutions from providing less costly degrees. Mr. Burck
Smith, chief executive officer and founder of StraighterLine,
said:
Despite massive investments in technology, higher
education prices are rising and quality is declining.
In every other industry, technology investments yield
cost savings which translate to lower prices and higher
quality--productivity increases. Why not in higher
education? My conclusion was, and is, that the problem
is an outdated regulatory structure.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\http://edworkforce.house.gov/calendar/
eventsingle.aspx?EventID=341174.
The current statutory and regulatory system must be updated to
ensure colleges can pursue low-cost delivery models.
Creating competency-based education demonstration projects
To allow for experimentation across the nation's college
campuses and move beyond the antiquated federal student aid
disbursement structure, Reps. Matt Salmon (R-AZ), Susan Brooks
(R-IN), and Jared Polis (D-CO) introduced H.R. 3136, the
Advancing Competency-Based Education Demonstration Project Act.
H.R. 3136 would direct the secretary of education to
support competency-based education demonstration projects to
serve as incubators of innovation for institutions pursuing
this delivery model. H.R. 3136 would authorize the secretary of
education to administer statutory and regulatory waivers
allowing participating entities to distribute federal financial
aid in ways that do not conform to traditional credit or clock
hour disbursement.
Individual institutions of higher education or consortiums
of institutions wishing to carry out a demonstration project
must submit an application to the secretary of education. The
eligible entities' applications must include, but are not
limited to, a description of how a demonstration project would
be implemented financially and logistically; how the student
advancement through competencies would differ from traditional
credit hour approaches; and how the project would develop and
evaluate the competencies and assessments administered,
including how such competencies and assessments are aligned
with workforce needs.
Existing competency-based education programs are tailored
to help adult learners progress through their course of study
quickly and re-enter the workforce equipped with in-demand
skills. At the July 9, 2013, hearing, the Committee on
Education and the Workforce explored aligning competencies with
workforce needs. Mr. Scott Jenkins, director of external
relations for Western Governors University (WGU)--a prominent
provider of competency-based education--explained the
importance of workforce alignment for their students:
Required competencies for each degree program are
defined in collaboration with external program councils
that are composed of representatives from industry and
higher education. By working with these councils, we
ensure that our students graduate with the knowledge
and skills employers need.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Ibid.
Additionally, H.R. 3136 would require the participant's
application to include a description of the specific statutory
and regulatory requirements for which the institution or
consortium is seeking a waiver and the reasoning for seeking
each waiver. Even though WGU has provided competency-based
education since their launch in 1997, they have not been able
to disburse federal student aid to their students based on
competencies. Instead, WGU developed a complicated method for
converting competencies into credit hour units, which hampers
their students' ability to progress at their own pace. At the
July 9, 2013, hearing, Mr. Jenkins urged Congress to create an
environment where institutions can explore new ways of
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
delivering aid:
Specifically, I recommend that Congress support
legislation creating a ``Demonstration Project'' for
competency-based education, similar to the 1998
demonstration project for distance learning. This
project would allow, on a selected basis, waivers of
current financial aid statutes and rules that would
allow innovative colleges and universities to explore
ways of delivering education, measuring quality, and
disbursing financial aid based on learning, rather than
time. This project could also help determine the
specific statutory and regulatory requirements which
should be altered to encourage the development of high
quality, competency-based degree programs.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\Ibid.
Capella University, another leader in competency-based
education, echoed Mr. Jenkins's opinion. At an April 2, 2014,
Committee on Education and the Workforce hearing entitled
``Keeping College Within Reach: Meeting the Needs of
Contemporary Students,'' Mr. Kevin Gilligan, chairman and chief
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
executive officer of Capella Education Company, said:
Adhering to a traditional credit hour model as an
indirect indication of learning presents a potential
barrier to educational access and attainment, as course
participation and the constraints of the credit hour
requirements are often not tailored to the self-paced
learning needs of the adult student . . . Decisions
about how best to transform federal student financial
aid requirements must include safe space for schools to
innovate and evaluate what may work best for this non-
traditional population. This includes supporting the
development of a congressionally sponsored
demonstration project mentioned above--[H.R.] 3136, the
Advancing Competency-Based Education Demonstration
Project Act.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\http://edworkforce.house.gov/calendar/
eventsingle.aspx?EventID=374799.
H.R. 3136 would direct the secretary of education to select
up to 20 eligible entities that have the most promising
application according to specific criteria. The criteria would
prioritize projects that show promise in reducing the time
required to obtain a degree or in reducing college costs, the
commitment and ability to effectively finance a competency-
based education demonstration project, and represent a diverse
group of eligible entities with respect to size, mission, and
geographic distribution. The committee intends for the
secretary of education to include a variety of institutions,
including those from both the non-profit and for-profit sector,
to ensure diversity. The secretary cannot select an eligible
entity where more than 50 percent of the students take out
loans and the entity has had a cohort default rate of 30
percent or greater in one of the two preceding years. These
selection criteria would ensure the highest integrity in the
demonstration projects and promote successful experimentation
with ways to more effectively deliver financial aid to students
participating in innovative programs.
Evaluating projects to promote success and accountability
In addition to supporting innovation, it is important to
ensure accountability to the taxpayer. H.R. 3136 would require
participating institutions and consortiums to deliver key
evaluative information to the director of the IES. In exchange
for the waiver provided by the secretary of education,
institutions and consortiums must report information including,
but not limited to, the number of students participating in the
competency-based education projects that are also enrolled in
credit or clock hour programs; the average periods of time
between the students' initial enrollment to several important
markers of progression, including completion of the project;
and students' success rates on administered assessments. H.R.
3136 would require the information reported be disaggregated by
age, race, gender, disability status, and status as a recipient
of a Pell Grant, provided the disaggregation does not identify
any individual student participating in the projects.
H.R. 3136 would require the director of IES, in
consultation with the secretary of education, to rigorously
evaluate each demonstration project annually to ensure
participating institutions and consortiums are meeting the
goals stated in their application. Additionally, the director
of IES would be tasked with determining the extent to which
statutory and regulatory requirements not waived by the
secretary of education are creating federal roadblocks for
institutions pursuing innovative delivery models of higher
education.
At a March 20, 2014, field hearing in Mesa, Arizona,
entitled ``Reviving the Economy: Supporting a 21st Century
Workforce,'' the Committee on Education and the Workforce
examined the value and policy implications of rigorous
evaluations of demonstration projects. Ms. Christy Farley, vice
president of government affairs and business partnerships at
Northern Arizona University, said, ``I think that with adequate
accountability measures, [demonstration projects] certainly
offer an opportunity for innovation to occur more quickly for
us to gather data on that and then to provide demonstration of
success.''\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\http://edworkforce.house.gov/calendar/
eventsingle.aspx?EventID=373197.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 3136 would require the director of IES to deliver an
annual report to Congress based on the findings of the thorough
evaluations. The reports would help Congress identify
additional statutory and regulatory requirements impeding more
flexible disbursement of federal student aid, while also
providing insight into what techniques and delivery methods are
the most effective in competency-based education. Based on this
information, Congress would be able to craft policies that
allow for scalability of competency-based education that helps
learners of all ages attain a less-costly higher education.
Conclusion
The Advancing Competency-Based Education Demonstration
Project Act would take an important step toward promoting
innovation and encouraging lower-cost higher education for
millions of Americans. By removing the traditional federal
student aid constraints in a controlled test environment, H.R.
3136 would allow institutions to experiment with and
policymakers to accurately assess what practices are most
effective. This legislation would serve as an important
starting point as the Committee on Education and the Workforce
continues its structured approach to reauthorizing the Higher
Education Act of 1965.
Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 1. Short title
States the short title is the Advancing Competency-Based
Education Demonstration Project Act of 2014.
Section 2. Competency-based education demonstration projects
Requires eligible entities wishing to voluntarily carry out
a demonstration project to submit an application to the
secretary of education for approval, including specific
evaluation criteria.
Authorizes the secretary of education to select up to 20
eligible entities from the applicant pool to carry out
competency-based education demonstration projects and to waive
for such entities requirements that inhibit the operation of
competency-based education.
Requires each entity that carries out a demonstration
project under this section to provide information with respect
to the students participating in the competency-based education
project to the director of the IES.
Requires the director of the IES, in consultation with the
secretary of education of education, to evaluate annually each
demonstration project under this section to assess whether the
eligible entity has met the goals set forth in its application;
the progress of participating students toward degrees;
obstacles related to student financial assistance and program
costs; and the extent to which remaining statutory or
regulatory requirements present difficulties for students or
institutions.
Requires the director of IES to provide annually a report
to Congress on the results of the evaluations, information on
the types of students participating in the projects, retention
and completion rates, and any proposed statutory or regulatory
changes designed to support and enhance the expansion of
competency-based education.
Requires the secretary of education, on a continuing basis,
to oversee compliance of the eligible entities with the
requirements of this title, provide technical assistance, and
consult with the appropriate accrediting agencies.
Specifies that nothing in this act shall be construed to
alter the authority of the secretary of education to establish
experimental sites under any other provision of the law.
Authorizes $1,000,000 to be used from the existing
authorization for salaries and expenses of the Department of
Education to carry out this act. No additional funds are
authorized to be appropriated by this act.
Explanation of Amendments
The amendments, including the amendment in the nature of a
substitute, are explained in the body of this report.
Application of Law to the Legislative Branch
Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104-1 requires a
description of the application of this bill to the legislative
branch. H.R. 3136 directs the secretary of education to select
eligible entities to participate in demonstration projects
receiving waivers from statutory and regulatory requirements
that impede the delivery of competency-based education.
Unfunded Mandate Statement
Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act (as amended by Section 101(a)(2) of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act, P.L. 104-4) requires a statement of
whether the provisions of the reported bill include unfunded
mandates. This issue is addressed in the CBO letter.
Earmark Statement
H.R. 3136 does not contain any congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in
clause 9 of House Rule XXI.
Roll Call Votes
Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires the Committee Report to include for
each record vote on a motion to report the measure or matter
and on any amendments offered to the measure or matter the
total number of votes for and against and the names of the
Members voting for and against.
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives
In accordance with clause (3)(c) of House Rule XIII, the
goal of H.R. 3136 is to authorize the secretary of education to
select eligible entities to participate in demonstration
projects receiving waivers from statutory and regulatory
requirements that impede the delivery of competency-based
education. The committee expects the U.S. Department of
Education to comply with these provisions and implement the law
in accordance with the stated goal.
Duplication of Federal Programs
No provision of H.R. 3136 establishes or reauthorizes a
program of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of
another Federal program, a program that was included in any
report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress
pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program
related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of
Federal Domestic Assistance.
Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings
The committee estimates that enacting H.R. 3136 does not
specifically direct the completion of any specific rule makings
within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 551.
Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the Committee
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause
2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives,
the committee's oversight findings and recommendations are
reflected in the body of this report.
New Budget Authority and CBO Cost Estimate
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect
to requirements of clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives and section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the committee has received
the following estimate for H.R. 3136 from the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, July 15, 2014.
Hon. John Kline,
Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3136, the
Advancing Competency-Based Education Demonstration Project Act
of 2014.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Justin
Humphrey.
Sincerely,
Douglas W. Elmendorf.
Enclosure.
H.R. 3136--Advancing Competency-Based Education Demonstration Project
Act of 2014
H.R. 3136 would reserve $1 million from funding for the
Department of Education to authorize the Secretary to select up
to 20 eligible entities to participate in demonstration
projects related to competency-based education. Competency-
based education focuses on measuring student achievement
through an assessment of a student's knowledge and skills
rather than by the completion of clock or credit hours.
CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 3136 would require $1
million for administrative costs for the department over the
2015-2019 period, assuming the availability of appropriated
funds.
Additionally, CBO projects that enacting the bill could
affect direct spending for student loans and Pell grants;
therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. However, CBO
estimates that any direct spending effects would be
insignificant for each year and over the 2015-2024 period.
Enacting the bill would have no effect on revenues.
H.R. 3136 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and
would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Justin Humphrey.
This estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
Committee Cost Estimate
Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison of the
costs that would be incurred in carrying out H.R. 3136.
However, clause 3(d)(2)(B) of that rule provides that this
requirement does not apply when the committee has included in
its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill
prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office
under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is
printed in italic and existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF 1965
* * * * * * *
TITLE IV--STUDENT ASSISTANCE
* * * * * * *
Part G--General Provisions Relating to Student Assistance Programs
* * * * * * *
SEC. 486B. COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.
(a) Demonstration Projects Authorized.--The Secretary shall
select, in accordance with subsection (c), eligible entities to
voluntarily carry out competency-based education demonstration
projects and receive waivers described in subsection (d) to
carry out such projects.
(b) Application.--
(1) In general.--Each eligible entity desiring to
carry out a demonstration project under this section
shall submit an application to the Secretary, at such
time and in such manner as the Secretary may require.
(2) Amendments.--An eligible entity may submit to the
Secretary amendments to the eligible entity's
application under paragraph (1), at such time and in
such manner as the Secretary may require, which the
Secretary shall approve or deny within 15 days of
receipt.
(3) Contents.--Each application shall include--
(A) a description of the competency-based
education to be offered by the eligible entity
under the demonstration project;
(B) a description of the proposed academic
delivery, business, and financial models for
the demonstration project, including
explanations of how competency-based education
offered under the demonstration project would--
(i) result in the achievement of
competencies;
(ii) differ from standard credit hour
approaches, in whole or in part; and
(iii) result in lower costs or
shortened time to degree, certificate,
or credential completion;
(C) a description of how the competency-based
education offered under the demonstration
project will progress a student toward
completion of a degree, certificate, or
credential;
(D) a description of how the eligible entity
will articulate the transcript from the
competency-based education demonstration
project to another program within an
institution of higher education that is part of
the eligible entity or to another institution
of higher education;
(E) a description of the statutory and
regulatory requirements described in subsection
(d) for which the eligible entity is seeking a
waiver, and why such waiver is necessary to
carry out the demonstration project;
(F) a description of how the eligible entity
will develop and evaluate the competencies and
assessments of student knowledge (which may
include prior-learning assessments)
administered as part of the demonstration
project, including how such competencies and
assessments are aligned with workforce needs;
(G) a description of the proposal for
determining a student's Federal student aid
eligibility under this title for participating
in the demonstration project, the award and
distribution of such aid, and safeguards to
ensure that students are making satisfactory
progress that warrants disbursement of such
aid;
(H) a description of the students to whom
competency-based education will be offered,
including an assurance that the demonstration
project will enroll a minimum of 50 and a
maximum of 3,000 students;
(I) an assurance that students participating
in the demonstration project will not be
eligible for more Federal assistance under this
title than such students would have been
eligible for under a traditional program; and
(J) an assurance the eligible entity will
identify and disseminate best practices with
respect to the demonstration project to other
eligible entities carrying out a demonstration
project under this section.
(c) Selection.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 6 months after the
date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall
select not more than 20 eligible entities to carry out
a competency-based education demonstration project
under this section.
(2) Considerations.--In selecting eligible entities
under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall--
(A) prioritize projects which show promise in
reducing the time or cost required to complete
a degree, certificate, or credential;
(B) consider the number and quality of
applications received;
(C) consider an eligible entity's--
(i) ability to successfully execute
the demonstration project as described
in the eligible entity's application
under subsection (b);
(ii) commitment and ability to
effectively finance the demonstration
project;
(iii) ability to provide
administrative capability and the
expertise to evaluate student progress
based on measures other than credit
hours or clock hours; and
(iv) commitment to work with the
Secretary to evaluate the demonstration
project and the impact of the
demonstration project;
(D) ensure the selection of a diverse group
of eligible entities with respect to size,
mission, and geographic distribution of the
eligible entities;
(E) not limit the types of programs of study
or courses of study approved for participation
in a demonstration project; and
(F) not select an eligible entity that has
had, for 1 of the preceding 2 fiscal years--
(i) a cohort default rate (defined in
section 435(m)) that is 30 percent or
greater; and
(ii) a borrowing rate of loans under
this title of more than 50 percent of
the students enrolled at institutions
of higher education of the eligible
entity.
(d) Waivers.--The Secretary may waive for any eligible entity
selected to carry out a demonstration project under this
section any requirements of the following provisions of law
(including any regulations promulgated under such provisions)
or regulations and for which the eligible entity has provided a
reason for waiving under subsection (b)(3)(E):
(1) Subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 102(a)(3).
(2) Subsections (a) and (b) of section 481, as such
subsections relate to requirements for a minimum number
of weeks of instruction.
(3) Section 484(l)(1).
(4) Section 668.32(a)(1)(iii) of title 34, Code of
Federal Regulations.
(5) Any of the requirements under provisions in title
I, part F of this title, or this part, that inhibit the
operation of competency-based education, including
requirements with respect to--
(A) documenting attendance;
(B) weekly academic activity;
(C) minimum weeks of instructional time;
(D) requirements for credit hour or clock
hour equivalencies;
(E) requirements for substantive interaction
with faculty; and
(F) definitions of the terms ``academic
year'', ``full-time student'', ``term''
(including ``standard term'', ``non-term'', and
``non-standard term''), ``satisfactory academic
progress'', ``educational activity'', ``project
of study'', and ``payment period''.
(e) Notification.--Not later than 6 months after the date of
enactment of this section, the Secretary shall make available
to the authorizing committees and the public a list of eligible
entities selected to carry out a demonstration project under
this section, which shall include for each such eligible
entity--
(1) the specific statutory and regulatory
requirements being waived under subsection (d); and
(2) a description of the competency-based education
programs of study or courses of study to be offered
under the project.
(f) Information and Evaluation.--
(1) Information.--
(A) In general.--Each eligible entity that
carries out a demonstration project under this
section shall provide to the Director of the
Institution of Education Sciences with respect
to the students participating in the
competency-based education project carried out
by the eligible entity the following
information:
(i) The average number of credit
hours the students earned prior to
enrollment in the demonstration
project, if applicable.
(ii) The number and percentage of
students participating in the
demonstration project that are also
enrolled in programs of study or
courses of study offered in credit
hours or clock hours, disaggregated by
student status as a first-year, second-
year, third-year, fourth-year, or other
student.
(iii) The average period of time
between the enrollment of a student in
the demonstration project and the first
assessment of student knowledge of such
student.
(iv) The average time to 25 percent,
50 percent, 75 percent, and 100 percent
of the completion of a degree,
certificate, or credential by a student
who participated in the demonstration
project.
(v) The percentage of assessments of
student knowledge that students passed
on the first attempt, during the period
of the participation in the
demonstration project by the students.
(vi) The percentage of assessments of
student knowledge that students passed
on the second attempt and the average
period of time between the first and
second attempts by students, during the
period of the participation in the
demonstration project by the students.
(vii) The average number of
competencies a student acquired while
participating in the demonstration
project and the period of time during
which the student acquired such
competencies.
(viii) Such other information as the
Director may reasonably require.
(B) Disaggregation.--Each eligible entity
shall provide the information required under
subparagraph (A) disaggregated by age, race,
gender, disability status, and status as a
recipient of a Federal Pell Grant, provided
that the disaggregation of the information does
not identify any individual student
participating in the demonstration project.
(2) Evaluation.--The Director of the Institute of
Education Sciences, in consultation with the Secretary,
shall annually evaluate each demonstration project
under this section. Each evaluation shall include--
(A) the extent to which the eligible entity
has met the goals set forth in its application
to the Secretary;
(B) the number and types of students
participating in the competency-based education
offered under the project, including the
progress of participating students toward
completion of a degree, certificate, or
credential, and the extent to which
participation and retention in such project
increased;
(C) whether the project led to reduced cost
or time to completion of a degree, certificate,
or credential, and the amount of cost or time
reduced for such completion;
(D) obstacles related to student financial
assistance for competency-based education;
(E) the extent to which statutory or
regulatory requirements not waived under
subsection (d) present difficulties for
students or institutions of higher education;
(F) degree, certificate, or credential
completion rates;
(G) retention rates;
(H) total cost and net cost to the student of
the competency-based education offered under
the project;
(I) a description of the assessments of
student knowledge and the corresponding
competencies; and
(J) outcomes of the assessments of student
knowledge.
(3) Annual report.--The Director of the Institute of
Education Sciences shall annually provide to the
authorizing committees a report on--
(A) the evaluations of the demonstration
projects required under paragraph (2);
(B) the number and types of students
receiving assistance under this title for
competency-based education under such projects;
(C) the retention and completion rates of
students participating in such projects;
(D) any proposed statutory or regulatory
changes designed to support and enhance the
expansion of competency-based education, which
may be independent of or combined with
traditional credit hour or clock hour projects;
(E) the most effective means of delivering
competency-based education through
demonstration projects; and
(F) the appropriate level and distribution
methodology of Federal assistance under this
title for students enrolled in competency-based
education.
(g) Oversight.--In carrying out this section, the Secretary
shall, on a continuing basis--
(1) assure compliance of eligible entities with the
requirements of this title (other than the provisions
of law and regulations that are waived under subsection
(d));
(2) provide technical assistance;
(3) monitor fluctuations in the student population
enrolled in the eligible entities carrying out the
demonstration projects under this section; and
(4) consult with appropriate accrediting agencies or
associations and appropriate State regulatory
authorities for additional ways of improving the
delivery of competency-based education.
(h) Definitions.--For the purpose of this section:
(1) Competency-based education.--The term
``competency-based education'' means an educational
process or program that measures knowledge, skills, and
experience through assessments of such knowledge,
skills, or experience in place of or in addition to the
use of credit hours or clock hours.
(2) Eligible entity.--The term ``eligible entity''
means--
(A) an institution of higher education;
(B) a system of institutions of higher
education; or
(C) a consortium of institutions of higher
education.
(3) Institution of higher education.--The term
``institution of higher education'' has the meaning
given the term in section 102, except that such term
does not include institutions described in section
102(a)(1)(C).
* * * * * * *
MINORITY VIEWS
We support and concur with the Majority views on H.R. 3136.
However, student loan debt and skyrocketing college costs are
one of the nation's top domestic concerns and the bill fails to
address the needs of students and families already facing a
mountain of student debt. Democrats believe college cost and
affordability should be at the top of the Higher Education Act
reauthorization agenda. That is why Democrats offered an
amendment, which was rejected by the Majority, to allow
millions of borrowers to refinance their private and federal
student loans to today's current low rates.
Today, some 40 million borrowers are working to repay $1.2
trillion in student loans. The average student loan debt for a
borrower graduating today is nearly $30,000, and graduates are
struggling to pay this back: one third of all student loan
dollars issued through the Federal Direct program are currently
in default, forbearance, or deferment.
Making repayment even more difficult, some college
graduates are stuck with interest rates at 8 percent, 12
percent, or even higher. Congress should take advantage of low
cost of capital and offer these Americans the same historically
low interest rates that home and auto loan borrowers can
already access today.
The amendment, offered by Congressman Tierney, would save
American families over $50 billion, which they can then
reinvest in their local economy. A typical participating
borrower would save $2,000 over the life of his or her loan.
The student debt crisis isn't just a borrower's problem, it
is also affecting our nation's economy. The Federal Reserve has
reported crushing student loan debt may be undermining the
ability of families to buy their first home, purchase their
first car, or otherwise invest in our economy.
Democrats will continue to work to make college more
affordable and accessible, increase oversight and quality
assurance of colleges and loan servicers, and to promote new
and innovative practices that can reduce student loan debt.
George Miller.
Jared Polis.
Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott.
Mark Takano.
Timothy H. Bishop.
Rush Holt.
Raul M. Grijalva.
Mark Pocan.
Suzanne Bonamici.
Frederica S. Wilson.
Joe Courtney.
Gregorio Kilili Sablan.
Susan A. Davis.
Ruben Hinojosa.
David Loebsack.
Marcia L. Fudge.
Carolyn McCarthy.
John Tierney.
