September 8, 2010

Private Career School Advisory Board

State of OregonPrivate Career Schools

Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes

September 8, 2010

9:00-2:00

Oregon Department of Education (ODE)

Public Service Building

255 Capitol St NE

Rooms 251-A and 251-B

Members Present
Betty-Coe R. deBroekert / Sandy Japely / Linda Singley
Ki / Genna Southworth / Kevin Lambert
Mike Snook / Leanne Kesler
Staff
Teresa Greene / Lin Fleming / Karyn Chambers
Debby Ryan / Don Wildfang / Shirley Arvin

Preliminary Business

Chair Sandy Japely called the meeting to order at 9:12 a.m. In attendance: Betty-Coe R deBroekert, Sandy Japely, Leanne Kesler, Ki, Linda Singley, Mike Snook, Kevin Lambert, Genna Southworth. Oregon Department of Education (ODE) staff in attendance: Teresa Greene, Lin Fleming, Karyn Chambers, Debby Ryan, Don Wildfang, Shirley Arvin.

Welcome and Introduction of Guests

Chair Japely welcomed guests.

Election of Officers

Chair Japely thanked the group for being so great to work with. She stated that it is time to take nominations for the next chair person and then take a vote. The new chair will take over for the rest of the meeting. Betty-Coe deBroekert nominated Genna Southworth. Kevin Lambert seconded the nomination. Vote: unanimously approved. Genna accepted the nomination.

Announcements and Instruction for Public Comment

Teresa Greene explainedhow public comment for each topicwill be conducted. Audience members must sign in if they want to make public comment. There is a five minute limit for comments.

Chair Southworth introducedherself to audience.Chair Southworth asked ODE staff, Advisory Board,and audience to introduce themselves to each other.Chair Southworth asked for announcements. No announcements.

Minutes Approval from May 10, 2010 Meeting

Chair Southworth asked the board to review the minutes from the May 10 meeting. Correction to May 10, 2010 minutes to show that Kevin Lambert, Genna Southworth and Karyn Chambers were in attendance. Sandy Japely made a motion to approve the minutes with correction. Motion seconded by Betty-Coe deBroekert.Minutes from May 10, 2010 amended and approved unanimously.

TPF (Tuition Protection Fund)

Teresa Greene

One million was taken by legislature from Tuition Protection Fund (TPF).$72,189.64 went to students of John Roberts Powers School that closed last year. TPF report was mailed to all schools.

Discussion:

  • Are there concerns that remaining balance will be raided again? Because legislature took it in February, they probably will not take more – but, it is a possibility. Budget situation is dire. We are battening down the hatches and preparing for the worst.
  • Can we try to restructure funds so they are not raided?Department cannot initiate this. If some group has some interest in sponsoring a bill to do that, it would be great.Department would not oppose that. It will take legislative action. Need to make the statement to the legislature.
  • PCS Advisory Board thinks that some of that money (TPF) should be put back.

Review and Discussion of August 17, 2010 Letter Sent to all Schools

Teresa Greene

Teresa mailed a letter to all schools on August 17 that covered information on fingerprinting and background checks, resetting of renewal dates, Social Security Number data collection, Cohorts, Teacher/Employee Training Programs, September 2010 Advisory Board Meeting, new Instructional Design Framework, a Fall 2010 Summary Timeline, and Oregon Administrative Rule 591-045-0003. It also included the forms forWaiver of Requirements for Fingerprinting and Background Checks, and Renewal Date Reset Request Fall, 2010.Social Security Number Data Collection Fall 2010 instructions were also included in the letter. Teresa asked for questions or concerns.

Discussion:

  • Are all trainings for schools in the Public Service Building? Yes.
  • Who should attend trainings? School owners, curriculum directors, whoever is responsible for maintaining the curriculum, instructors.Trainings will be videotaped and be on website. The department may repeat these sessions next year. In the future we can look at regional trainings.
  • Economically, schools cannot send four or five people to Salem for trainings. Why are trainings not scheduled back to back? Department could not get meeting space. In the future, the department will try their best to schedule trainings back to back. If on video, one or two people could go to trainings as representatives and then go back and watch video with the rest of staff.
  • This is not a mandatory training. Department wanted to get initial set of trainings out there before the holidays.
  • What is the definition of a recruit in terms of fingerprinting requirements? If a 17 year old walks in the door and asks questions, is that considered a recruit? No.We don’t have formal definition. Applies to when you go out and actively seek people for enrollment. Staff at high school job fairsmustbe fingerprinted, even if they do not have contact with recruits. The department does not have way of monitoring. If someone was sick and there was a need for a substitute it would have to be someone that was already fingerprinted.
  • Genna Southworth onrecord that it is unfair to fingerprint everyone.
  • Leanne Kesler on record thatit is an error and wrong to require that every staff member be fingerprinted.Should only be for staff going into high schools.
  • Ki on record to being opposed to all staff and faculty being fingerprinted. Only recruiter should have background check done. Ki has eliminated all contact with high schools and career fairs in high schools.Too much money to have each staff fingerprinted.
  • This came out of 2009 legislature. That would have been the time tobring this up.
  • There was no indication that the entire staff had to be fingerprinted until the letter came out. We had previously talked about agent and what an agent was. Fingerprinting rule was drafted over a year ago.
  • Previous conversation pertained to not enrolling students under age of 18 – had nothing to do with recruitment. Conversation was not that staff had to be fingerprinted – only the agent.
  • We need definition of recruitment. What is a recruit? Are only agents able to make those kinds of outside contacts? Is it upon our initiation or student’s initiation? If registered agents only do outside recruitment, then does rest of staff have to be fingerprinted? Legislation or rule?
  • Teresa will send issue to Gary Cordy, DOJ, for review. HB 2108 is where the legislation was (last session). If enrolling students 18 or under, then staff has to be fingerprinted.
  • Ki has chosen not to do high school career fairs. She is hearing lots of things aboutcommunity colleges in their area that are exclusively dealing with high schools. That will give them a big advantage. This puts career colleges in position to have to make choicesabout expensesof fingerprinting. As business person, it made better sense not to go the money route.
  • Why are public schools not required to fingerprint? Somebody should ask that question.
  • Who should ask the questions? The advisory committee. The role of the agency walks a fine line between regulation and advocacy.Agency cannot advocate for a certain position.It would be helpful to have letter from advisory committee for Teresa to show state board.
  • Law intended to protect kids under 18. If that was the intent, why are community colleges not required to do the same? Chair Southworth asked if anyone would draft a letter and circulate among committee members when legal opinion comes back.

Rule Review, Discussion Procedure for Today and Pending Adoption by the State Board of Education

Teresa Greene

There are six rules scheduled to go to state board in October. There was a hearing on August 25, 2010. Three people attended the hearing. One testified out of three. Today we will finish the public comment process and make whatever further revisionsnecessary before rules go to state board for adoption.Discussion:

  • We have to streamline processes – have to start with rules. That is the first reason for looking at rules and revising them to outline what it is we need to do and how we are going to do it.
  • Department has to be consistent for all schools. We cannot regulate all schools with the structure that we’ve had. All schools will know, up front, what the expectations are.We get school renewals that need to be corrected, we go out and helpand then it happens again the following year. Hopefully we won’t have to start over every year, if there are explicit rules are in place.
  • For a small school, it is difficult. Few bad apples, so all are being penalized? There are schools that are not as good as the ones represented at this meeting. Schools open up, want to offer a service but don’t have anything that is a benefit to the students,nor do they provide any kind of evaluation of how the student is doing.
  • Groups will go through training and give feedback. First training is focused on standards for tattoo schools. Second session will focus on cosmetology and third session will focus on schools in general.
  • Concern is about process: feels like we are putting the approval of a rule before there is an agreement that is makes sense. What is the rush to put before state board in October before advisory committee is comfortable with it? Go through process, back off some of the stuff, and then go forward to the board – why the rush?
  • What is the State Board of Education going to do in October? Adopt or review the rules? The board will adopt the rules that we can put forward with confidence. Otherwise, they will be adopted in December. Have to have adopted before session. December is drop-dead date.
  • We are going into session under bad economic condition and a new governor.PCS statutes will be open for examination.The department has lost their legislative liaison, so Teresa will be at the Capitol building during session.Directors will be talking to legislators, do all the testifying.Private Career Schools have come to the attention of a lot of people.
  • We need to show that we are making the most of the resources we have; show that we are aware of the problems and working to correct them.

Pending Federal Legislation – Gainful Employment Metrics

Presentation and comment from guest speakers Karen Dieckman and Kristi Davis

Karen and Kristi presented information regarding two proposals having to do with re-payment rate and debt to income ration. Documents provided for this presentation are posted on the ODE’s website.

Discussion:

  • There are two proposals from US Department Education to be put on non-degree granting institutions. Program has to do with repayment rate and debt to income ratio.
  • They are not proposing this legislation for public universities unless they have a program that is non-degree granting. Targeted to for profit, private school sector.
  • It is the speaker’s opinion that the metrics they want to use will wipe out entire industries that cannot meet these ratios.
  • This has to do with gainful employmentand the entire education reauthorization act. Docket ID is ED-2010-0012.
  • There is new definition of gainful employment – before gainful employment meant getting someone ready to be employed in an employable field, a recognized occupation. In reauthorization act, there was no mention of redefining that. New administration came in; goal was to get everyone ready to go to college. It is the speaker’s opinion that what they really should have said is that they wanted everyone to go to traditional college, not a non-traditional college.
  • First metric is re-payment rate. Have to make some payments on principal, not just interest. If you only pay interest, that counts against you for your institutional program repayment rate.This has to do with Title IV school grants at this time. Not applied to public sector. There is some evidence to suggest that these metrics apply to the community colleges as well as the private sector.
  • About 8,400 universities offer Title IV – out of that 4,392 do not meet metric on an institutional basis.
  • New metrics will force schools to decrease their tuition and will force those schools to increase their education in program or delete program all together because it is not leading to gainful employment.
  • They have not studied how this will affect small businesses.
  • Are there a couple of organizations that are lobbying to keep this from going through? Yes. One of the things we can all do is talk to Senator Merkley. We are trying to fight this.
  • Other metric they want to propose is the debt to income ratio.
  • Not more than 8% of student’s income can be for student loan.
  • What action is being looked for? Main reason for coming is to inspire everyone to respond. Deadline is tomorrow by 5:00 p.m. Respond directly to US Department of Education. Write a letter stating why opposed to this and send to USDOE.
  • Would it make sense for advisory committee to respond? Yes. Kevin Lambert will write letter on advisory board’s behalf.
  • Get involved now, even if you are not a Title IV school.

Rule Review and Discussion

Teresa Greene

OAR 581-045-0014 Exceptions for School with Programs also Regulated by another State Agency

Discussion:

  • Changes are basically housekeeping.
  • As we are revising rules, we are trying to insert specific OAR numbers that list additional requirements when those requirements are being referenced in a rule.
  • There was a question about schools with advisory committees and whether the changes in the instructional rule would require additional changes to this rule. We can set this rule aside and can come back to it.

OAR 581-045-0032 Standards for Financial Reporting

Discussion:

  • Biggest change is that we raised threshold for requiring an audit and financial report up to two million.
  • Some schools’ accountants do not use GAAP method. GAAP is standard.
  • Concern about economic impact on small schools.
  • Teresa incorporated changes that had been sent to her.
  • Income tax form can be used. Rule reflects discussions from May meeting.

Public Comment:

Gena Wikstrom, Executive Director, Northwest Career Colleges Federation

  • Had supplied public comment in written form prior to the OAR hearing a couple of weeks ago.
  • Has concern with amount of work associated with refund issue. Their proposal remains as it was in written comments, which is that for those schools submitting reviewed statements, the proposal is that a refund attestation that includes a statement to the timeliness of those refunds should suffice since refunds are addressed in a reviewed statement.
  • For the accredited schools that are required to submit their audited financial statement, they have to have disclosure about refund practices of the institutions, late refunds and all those things that go along with compliance requirements for Title IV.
  • Asks that agency take into consideration their comments on refunds and consider the amount of work that goes into listing every refund that is made for the student throughout the year. Teresa stated that to address concern in submitted written statements, there was a change to 1(f).

Rule Review and Discussion

Teresa Greene

OAR 581-045-0019 School Catalogs

Discussion:

  • Concern about #10 – the maximum time allowed for completion of each program, which shall not exceed 150% of the stated program length.Not possible in many instances.
  • What is the intent behind this point on #10? The 150% is the financial aid requirement. Other piece is if school is screening students the way they should before they enroll them, they shouldn’t have any students who cannot complete the program in one and half times the program length. What we are trying to prevent is a school not doing what they should do to get a student through – the student gets a 150%, their financial aid has run out, and then the school is legally able to charge them per hour for additional instruction. That student just languishes, doesn’t complete the program and keeps paying the school. This is to set a point in time to state thatthere is a time to stop. Trying to get away from a school charging a student above and beyond the cost of a program without any limit.
  • We will take off the, “which will not exceed the 150% of the program length.”But,school has to state maximum amount of time for completion of each program.
  • If student has been terminated from school, do they re-enroll? Screen students well. Treat “life happens” on a leave of absence basis.
  • If someone qualifies for Title IV funding, they can enroll in program. There may be problems with screening.
  • Question on admission requirements – documentation requirements. Need clarification. What is the criterion used for a yes or no decision?
  • What if there are subjective components to this? How are they measured? Have to have some criteria. You can have subjective criteria, but you have to be able to articulate how you evaluated it.
  • Possible to get references from other people? Yes.
  • Question on “Ability to Benefit”policy? This originates with financial aid folks. If a school accepts someone into program that has substantial reading or writing to do and that student doesn’t have high school diploma, the school needs to be certain that this student will benefit from the instruction they are giving. There are “Ability to Benefit”tests(ATB’s) that are approved for use. An example: one school enrolled a student that had a traumatic brain injury – they did not give him an ATB.The student was not able to complete the program. The school had to give a full refund because they had not given the test when they knew he had a traumatic brain injury.
  • Career Program Assessment test (CPAt) is one test that is out there. There are several tests out there.
  • Department advocates that schools have ATB test. Gainful employment policy coming into being.Should have tools in toolbox to protect self.
  • Change rule to state “if” use ATB test.
  • Non-discrimination on basis of age – does not necessarilyapply to minors. Where age comes into play is at the other end of the spectrum – cannot discriminate against someone who is older on the basis of age.
  • Policies and procedures relating to attendance: Schools articulate how they are going to look at attendance. If the program is made up of several courses, the attendance will be an accumulative figure based on attendance throughout all the courses.
  • Identify what is being used for grading (A, B, C, etc.) or whatever is being used.
  • Progress report should be used to tell a student how they are doing, so if they are not doing well, they can make a corrective action. What’s happening in a lot of schools is that the school fills out the progress report and the student never sees it. This is first attempt to explain how to use that progress report in the right way. Some schools need this kind of detail.
  • Need clarified process on how to use probation. Need documentation.
  • Number 19(e), Description of verbal and written warning systems including number and timing of warnings issued of each type and how warnings trigger disciplinary action, should be at the front of the rule. Teresa will make change.
  • Regarding statement of rights of student to access their files and procedure for doing so – it is okay to have a separate file if documenting for disciplinary action. Can have an investigative file and keep separate from actual file.

Public Comment on OAR 581-045-0019