Support a Student Loan Borrowers’ Bill of Rights to regulate student loan companies Recover tuition for cheated students at for-profit institutions The urgency of these reforms continues to mount as Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos seeks to unravel accountability measures for colleges and loan companies, to embolden predatory for-profit colleges, and even to impede states from protecting their own citizens. We urge you to consider the following policy options to hold for-profit schools that engage in wrongdoing accountable and to protect current borrowers against student loan servicing misconduct. Support a student loan borrowers’ bill of rights to regulate student loan companies: Implementing borrowers’ bills of rights at the state level would help student loan borrowers navigate the repayment process in a way that allows them to pay down debt more sustainably and address servicing issues with a state advocate by their side. An effective student loan borrowers’ bill of rights has four key elements: The use of the state’s licensing authority to establish the regulation of student loan companies and servicers. The establishment of standards of loan servicing that enshrine consumer protections for borrowers and mandate minimum standards for timely payment processing, customer service, and repayment counseling. Regular reporting requirements for student loan data to appropriate state agencies, in order to generate crucial data that regulators can use to detect servicing issues early, and recommend proactive remedies. Establish a student loan ombudsman at the state level, housed in either a state agency or the attorney general’s office, and paid for with the licensing fees paid by student loan companies. This ombudsman could help settle disputes and advocate for borrowers when problems arise.Recover tuition for cheated students at for-profit institutions: In many states today, when a private for-profit college closes with no warning, students are left with few avenues of recourse for getting their money back. While students who attended a closed school may have their federal loans forgiven, there is no process in place to recover tuition money paid by students out of pocket. Similarly, if a college defrauds students it can be very difficult for them to get their money back. These challenges are disproportionately shouldered by the most vulnerable communities, including low-income African American and Latino students. States can ensure students are better protected in case of institutional closure or bad behavior by adopting more robust tuition recovery funds. These are special pools of money set aside to pay students back if their college rips them off or closes suddenly. Though many states currently have a tuition recovery fund, they may not have enough money to help students when needed so states should ensure adequate resources are allocated. If a recovery fund does not work, states could also consider requiring letters of credit from schools. Given the size and scope of the student debt burden in your state, we are hopeful that you will seriously consider these common sense proposals to defend students and borrowers against bad actors and a Department of Education working to dismantle student protections. The student loan borrowers that elected you range from 18-year-old first-time voters to the 3.4 million senior citizens still burdened by their college debt. We hope you will take this opportunity to get to know their struggles and be a champion for them. Signed, Americans for Financial Reform Association of Young Americans Center for American Progress Center for Postsecondary and Economic Success (CLASP) Consumer Action Hildreth Institute National Education Association One Wisconsin Now Public Higher Education Network of Massachusetts Student Action Student Debt Crisis Student Veterans of America The Institute for College Access and Success U.S. PIRG Arizona Public Interest Research Group (Arizona PIRG) California Public Interest Research Group (CalPIRG) Colorado Public Interest Research Group (CoPIRG) Connecticut Public Interest Research Group (ConnPIRG) Florida Public Interest Research Group (FloPIRG) Georgia Public Interest Research Group (Georgia PIRG) Iowa Public Interest Research Group (Iowa PIRG) Illinois Public Interest Research Group (Illinois PIRG) Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group (MassPIRG) Maryland Public Interest Research Group (MaryPIRG) Missouri Public Interest Research Group (MoPIRG) North Carolina Public Interest Research Group (NCPIRG) New Hampshire Public Interest Research Group (NHPIRG) New Jersey Public Interest Research Group (NJPIRG) New Mexico Public Interest Research Group (NMPIRG) Ohio Public Interest Research Group (Ohio PIRG) Oregon Public Interest Research Group (OSPIRG) Pennsylvania Public Interest Research Group (PennPIRG) Rhode Island Public Interest Research Group (RIPIRG) Texas Public Interest Research Group (TexPIRG) Washington Public Interest Research Group (WashPIRG) Wisconsin Public Interest Research Group (WisPIRG) Veterans Education Success Young Invincibles

Of the roughly 29,000 applications processed so far, 96 borrowers have had about $5.52 million in debt discharged under the program. Experts expect the number of approved applications to rise dramatically in the coming years. When the program launched in 2007, there was little publicity or clarity around it. What’s more, many of the repayment programs that borrowers can use if they want to qualify for the program weren’t yet available then. It’s likely few public servants took advantage of it right away and would already be eligible for forgiveness. Fall 2017 was the first time borrowers could apply to have their loans discharged under the program. But the high rate of rejections highlights the challenges of the program. Many who watch PSLF closely have been concerned for years that its complicated mix of requirements would make it difficult for borrowers to access... [ ... ] Still, Natalia Abrams, the executive director of Student Debt Crisis, an advocacy organization that conducts monthly webinars to help borrowers understand PSLF, said she regularly encounters relatively savvy borrowers — sometimes with advanced degrees — who believe they’re following the program’s requirements, but actually aren’t. “These are people who do think they’ve dotted all their ‘i’s or crossed their ‘t’s she said. Abrams recommends that borrowers hoping to avoid the shock of rejection after 10 years in public service file an Employment Certification Form every year.... Read the entire piece at MarketWatch...

Yet the stakes remain high. The first release of gainful employment data showed that more than 350,000 students graduated from the worst-performing programs with nearly $7.5 billion in unaffordable debt. Hundreds of these programs are still enrolling new students today. While only two-fifths of career education programs are at for-profit colleges, 95 percent of the worst- performing programs under the gainful employment rule are operated by for-profit colleges. Recent research confirms that many for-profit programs leave students worse off than before they enrolled at the school. One study found that the average graduate of for-profit college certificate programs experienced minimal or no earnings gains yet had sizeable debts to repay. The Rule Is Particularly Important for Women, Low-Income Students and Students of Color The Department’s proposal claims that the gainful employment rule “could significantly disadvantageinstitutions or programs that serve larger proportions of women and minority students and further reduce the educational options available to those students.” Yet such claims fly in the face of the Department’s own prior analyses and well-documented concerns about disproportionate enrollment of these groups at for-profit colleges, where costs and debt are high and outcomes poor. The Department explored the question of the gainful employment rule’s effect on educational opportunity for underrepresented students in great depth in its past rulemaking, concluding that “theregulations do not disproportionately negatively affect programs serving minorities, economically disadvantaged students, first-generation college students, women, and other underserved groups of students.” Courts upholding the rule have specifically recognized this analysis. In fact, women, low-income students and students of color are disproportionately targeted by for-profit colleges, making concerns about poor-quality programs in that sector acutely relevant to these communities. These are the students who will benefit most when colleges are compelled to either improve the value of poor-performing programs or stop using federal student loans. Recent research has confirmed that students can and do find better educational opportunities when low-performing programs and schools are not propped up with federal funds. Analysis of the Department’s gainfulemployment data further shows that programs with high costs and poor outcomes are often located near programs serving similar students with better outcomes at lower cost. The Department’s Proposal Would Repeal Disclosure Requirements, Not Strengthen Them The Department describes its intent to strengthen accountability by publishing program-level student outcomes at all colleges and universities. Yet instead of proposing concrete disclosure requirements, theDepartment’s proposal merely raises questions about whether it should require stronger disclosures, describing vague, non-binding concepts that are impossible to evaluate. For example, the Department fails to describe what data it plans to make available, when it will publish it, how it will verify it for accuracy, or how it will ensure the data gets into the hands of students in a manner that is effective in influencing their decisions. Instead of taking specific steps to strengthen disclosure, the proposal repeals existing disclosure requirements. In its cost-benefit analysis, the agency even claims as a benefit the time saved by students who will no longer have to be informed that their program has poor outcomes. In other words, theDepartment’s proposal is little more than lip-service, touting the importance of more disclosure while simultaneously counting as a benefit to students the time savings of eliminating disclosure. Designed with career education students in mind, and informed by consumer testing, the gainful employment disclosures provide information on program costs and the extent to which programs’graduates find employment and have debt to repay. Repealing them is in direct conflict with the Department’s stated goals of informing student choice. Ultimately, while clear and targeted disclosures are important, disclosures are no substitute for accountability. This is particularly true when students face the types of high-pressure and deceptive recruiting practices that are too frequently seen within the for-profit college industry. Repealing a strong accountability system in favor of any disclosure-only regime will put students and taxpayers at risk. The Department’s Proposal Ignores Its Own Prior Research and Distorts External Evidence The Department raises questions about the existing gainful employment rule without acknowledging the extensive public record on these topics, ignoring the reams of evidence compiled through its own years of careful analysis and study. In addition to the examples highlighted above, the agency does not acknowledge its own existing factual findings on the economic benefits of improved educational value created by the rule, the relationship between the debt-to-earnings ratios and the economic cycle, and many other topics explored by the Department in depth in 2009-11 and 2013-14. Even research that has long been central to the gainful employment policy debate is cited differently now, without explanation for the change. For example, the Department’s analysis of the centralquestion of the rule—what level of debt is affordable?—dismisses the 8 percent debt-to-earnings standard as not grounded in research, citing the work of Sandy Baum and Saul Schwartz. The Department never even acknowledges the tougher 20 percent debt-to-discretionary-earnings standard that Baum and Schwartz recommend and that is part of the existing rule, or the fact that they consider the 8 percent threshold to be too lenient. No wonder Baum calls the department’s application of her work “illogical.” She goes on to note that her research is actually in direct contradiction to theDepartment’s characterizations and that “he <2014> GE rules are, if anything, too permissive.” The Department Must Implement Existing Law While the Department may seek to rescind the gainful employment rule through the statutorily required rulemaking process, until such a rescission goes into effect it is obligated to enforce the law as it exists today. It has given no explanation for why it took more than a year to start a new collection of data to produce the next round of debt-to-earnings rates. Following a court ruling that held the rule could not be enforced as written under very narrow circumstances, the Department abandoned any standards for programs appealing their results, without soliciting any public comments or explaining that it went farbeyond the court’s instructions. It has repeatedly pushed back the timeline for required disclosureswithout any justification. These delays are illegal and must end. We urge you to abandon this unwise and ill-developed proposal and to instead implement the law immediately. Sincerely, Allied Progress American Association of University Women (AAUW) American Federation of Labor & Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) American Federation of Teachers Americans for Financial Reform Education Fund Association of the United States Navy Association of Young Americans (AYA) Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) Center for Public Interest Law Center for Responsible Lending Children's Advocacy Institute The College Access Consortium of New York, Inc. College Advising Corps Consumer Action Consumer Advocacy and Protection Society (CAPS) Consumer Federation of California Demos East Bay Community Law Center The Education Trust EMPath Empire Justice Center Generation Progress Goddard Riverside Community Center Government Accountability Project The Harvard Project on Predatory Student Lending Higher Ed Not Debt Higher Education Loan Coalition Hildreth Institute Housing and Economic Rights Advocates The Legal Aid Society of NYC Legal Services NYC Maryland Consumer Rights Coalition Mississippi Center for Justice NAACP National Association for College Admission Counseling National Association of Consumer Advocates National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys (NACBA) National Center for Law and Economic Justice National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its low-income clients) National Consumers League National Student Legal Defense Network National Urban League New America Education Policy Program New Settlement Apartments College Access Center New York Communities for Change New Yorkers for Responsible Lending NJ Citizen Action One Wisconsin Now PHENOM (Public Higher Education Network of Massachusetts) Public Citizen Public Counsel Public Good Law Center Public Law Center Service Employees International Union (SEIU) StreetSquash Student Action Student Debt Crisis Student Veterans of America The Institute for College Access and Success (TICAS) U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) UnidosUS United States Student Association University of San Diego Veterans Legal Clinic Veterans Education Success Veterans for Common Sense Vietnam Veterans of America Woodstock Institute Young Invincibles

The Honorable Betsy DeVos Secretary of Education U.S. Department of Education 400 Maryland Ave. SW Washington, DC 20202 Submitted electronically via: http://regulations.govRE: Docket ID ED-2018-OPE-0076 Dear Secretary DeVos: As 62 organizations and advocates for students, families, taxpayers, veterans and service members, we write to express grave concern that the Department of Education’s 2019 regulatory agenda will result inthe weakening of critical protections for students, while permitting abusive and low-quality educational providers to waste and abuse taxpayer dollars. We urge the Department to reject any changes that weaken accountability and consumer protection: Each year, the federal government invests more than $150 billion in student loans, scholarships and tax credits in higher and career education. We recognize that the federal government can play a role in supporting high-quality innovation, but also that the students most in need of higher education’sbenefits are instead harmed when federal money flows to “innovation” with too little accountability attached. One need only look at the recent collapse of two large systems that largely served working adults, Corinthian Colleges and ITT Technical Institutes, to underscore the need to strengthen safeguards and accountability for student outcomes. The Department’s regulatory agenda for 2019 would open up a slate of rules at the heart of defining higher education and the guidelines designed to protect students’ and taxpayers’ investments. Behind each of these rules, there is a history of harm to students that drove their creation; weakening or eliminating them will only invite the return of those abuses. For example: Student-teacher interaction: Online education can be a high-quality opportunity for students, but without some minimal expectation of teacher-student interaction, students and taxpayers would end up paying high costs for programs that amount to little more than online textbooks. The current requirement that distance education programs provide “regular and substantive” interactionbetween students and instructors was created to end a long history of fraud and abuse in correspondence education. It was recommended by President George H.W. Bush’s Department ofEducation and was enacted with bipartisan agreement in Congress. The rule already allows schools to use federal aid for entire courses without any student-teacher interaction as long as those courses make up no more than half of the program. Changes must not open the doors to allowing the operation of programs, at taxpayer expense, that are little more than online readings. Measuring education: A standard definition of a credit hour helps to ensure students and taxpayers are getting the education they pay for. The Department created the current credit hour definition in 2010 in response to findings from its independent inspector general that institutions were inflating the value of college courses, with little or no oversight from the accreditors. The rule clarified that the credit hour signified an amount of academic work by students roughly equivalent to the traditional lecture-plus-study-time standard, “verified by evidence of student achievement” andallowing for flexible, innovative approaches “completely consistent with innovative practices such as online education, learning-based credit, and academic activities that do not rely on ‘seat time.’”1Even the inspector general has said that the definition “does not mandate the classroom hours or seat time required for a course or program.” Outsourcing education to unproven entities: Only schools accredited by a recognized accrediting agency, authorized by a state and approved by the Department are eligible for federal student aid.The Department’s 2019 regulatory agenda includes opening up rules that cap institutions’ ability tooutsource their programming to outside organizations, including unaccredited and unaccountable entities. Weakening the limitations on schools’ ability to outsource educational programming wouldundermine the oversight system tasked with ensuring sufficient educational quality and could leave students and taxpayers confused or misled over who is providing the education they are buying. Narrowing oversight by states and accreditors: The Department now seeks to make changes to accreditation and state authorization rules that could ultimately reduce the rigor of oversight from both accreditors and states. Weakening protections for students and safeguards for taxpayer dollars through changes to state authorization or accreditation rules risks opening the floodgates to unscrupulous schools, undermining the quality of higher education and the integrity of federal spending.There is room to improve federal law in some of these areas to better achieve quality assurance and allow careful innovation and experimentation that will serve students better. Yet in order to craft thoughtful improvements in these areas, it is imperative that the problems be defined carefully and precisely, beyond unsubstantiated claims about stifled innovation. Furthermore, the Department’s recent actions provide little assurance that it will regulate responsibly, with a basic understanding of historical abuses and the risks of recreating them. Already, under your leadership, the Department has delayed a rule respecting state sovereignty and oversight of distance education, undermined states’ ability to protect student loan borrowers, ceased processing loan- discharge applications of borrowers who were lied to by their institutions, proposed weakening rules for future cheated students, and proposed gutting both disclosures and minimum required standards to prevent gainful employment programs leaving students with debts they cannot afford. We are deeply concerned that the result of the Department’s forthcoming rulemaking will only weakenaccess to high-quality higher education and key consumer protections for today’s students, underminingthe federal aid system through a new wave of abuses. The Department’s proposed 2019 regulatoryproposals must not serve to line the pockets of for-profit institutions, private companies and unscrupulous providers, with students’ and taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars. We must reverse course and head in a new direction, before the Department of Education puts the American higher education system on a collision course with failure. Sincerely, Allied Progress American Federation of Labor & Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) American Federation of Teachers Americans for Financial Reform Education Fund Association of the United States Navy Association of Young Americans (AYA) Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) Center for Public Interest Law Center for Responsible Lending Children's Advocacy Institute College Advising Corps Consumer Action Consumer Advocacy and Protection Society (CAPS) Consumer Federation of California Demos East Bay Community Law Center EMPath Empire Justice Center Generation Progress Goddard Riverside Community Center Government Accountability Project Higher Ed Not Debt Higher Education Loan Coalition Hildreth Institute Housing and Economic Rights Advocates Legal Services NYC Maryland Consumer Rights Coalition Mississippi Center for Justice NAACP National Association of Consumer Advocates National Center for Law and Economic Justice National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its low-income clients) National Consumers League National Student Legal Defense Network New America Education Policy Program New Settlement Apartments College Access Center New York Communities for Change NJ Citizen Action One Wisconsin Now PHENOM (Public Higher Education Network of Massachusetts) Public Counsel Public Good Law Center Public Law Center Service Employees International Union (SEIU) StreetSquash Student Action Student Debt Crisis Student Veterans of America The College Access Consortium of New York, Inc. The Education Trust The Harvard Project on Predatory Student Lending The Institute for College Access and Success (TICAS) The Legal Aid Society of NYC U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) UnidosUS United States Student Association University of San Diego Veterans Legal Clinic Veterans Education Success Veterans for Common Sense Vietnam Veterans of America Woodstock Institute Young Invincibles

Re: Docket ID ED-2018-OPE-0027-0001 Dear Secretary DeVos: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the critical borrower defense to repayment rule. Borrower defense rules, which protect students and taxpayers from fraud, deception, and other misconduct by unscrupulous colleges, both provide relief to students who have been cheated by illegal conduct and deter illegal conduct by colleges. As 80 organizations and advocates working on behalf of students, consumers, veterans, servicemembers, faculty and staff, civil rights, and college access, we emphatically support strong borrower defense rules that hold colleges accountable and help make students whole. The U.S. Department of Education claims to espouse similar goals.1 However, the proposed rule would do virtually nothing for the students who have been victimized by schools’ bad behavior. The Department’s own projections show that, under the proposed rule, it would discharge no more than 2 percent of loan volume made due to an illegal misrepresentation.2 Because the Department would collect only a fraction of that sum from colleges, the proposal also does little or nothing to hold unscrupulous colleges accountable and deter their illegal conduct. The proposal appears to be premised on a fundamental factual error: that a 2015 policy change triggered a flood of frivolous borrower defense applications. In fact, there was no such policy change: the Department has always allowed students to submit defense to repayment claims without regard to their repayment status.3 Moreover, as the Department itself admits, it has no evidence of large numbers of frivolous applications either before or after 2015.4 As a result, the rule’s extensive efforts to limit claims, raise the standard of proof, and impose new procedural requirements are unjustified, as well as punitive to students and lax to colleges. Students who are cheated by their colleges should not be left to struggle to repay their loans for years to come. We urge you to make the following changes in your final rule: 1. Create a fair process to provide relief to students who have been harmed. By narrowing the range of recognized illegal acts by colleges, creating new evidentiary burdens, and imposing new procedural obstacles, the vast majority of cheated students would be prevented from getting relief under the Department’s proposal. We urge the Department to instead adopt a process that will quickly and fairly identify students who have suffered from illegal conduct by their colleges, and to provide them the relief they are entitled to under the law. First, the 2016 regulations recognized borrower defense claims made based upon a substantial misrepresentation, a breach of contract, or a judgment against the school. By eliminating claims based upon a breach of contract or a judgment, the proposed rule would limit claims to those based on substantial misrepresentations, even when colleges were clearly in violation of other laws. Second, the proposal would require students to prove that the college “acted with an intent to deceive, knowledge of the falsity of a misrepresentation, or a reckless disregard for the truth.” As it is highly unlikely that borrowers have access to evidence that could prove such malintent on the part of the school -- particularly without the benefit of legal counsel or the process of discovery -- requiring them to prove as much would effectively deny relief to most applicants. Third, the Department is considering applying a clear and convincing standard of evidence. Such a standard would be out of step with consumer protection law and with ED's other administrative proceedings, without advancing the Department’s goal of limiting frivolous applications. Fourth, the Department’s proposal imposes strict timing limitations, leaving borrowers only a narrow window during which their applications could be considered. Its primary proposal allows only 30 to 65 days after notice of adverse actions being taken against the borrower such as wage garnishment. Its alternative contemplates allowing borrowers only three years from the date they left their school. Yet these narrow application windows are likely to shut out the most disadvantaged of borrowers who do not yet know of their right to seek relief or of the evidence that would be needed to prove their claim. Further, deceived borrowers may not understand the extent of the deceit or have the evidence to prove it until long after they enrolled, when promised jobs have failed to materialize despite the borrowers’ best efforts. Imposing strict time limitations for borrowers to apply is unnecessary and out-of-step with the realities harmed borrowers’ experience. Fifth, the proposal only recognizes financial harm suffered by borrowers, and requires them to show that their financial harm is not the result of their workplace performance, decision to work less than full-time, or a variety of other factors. The language in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seems designed to dissuade borrower applications and appears to blame borrowers for the failings of institutions. Suggesting that deceived borrowers are themselves to blame for their lack of employment or for believing an institution’s lies is out of touch with well-documented abuses of colleges. Finally, it would eliminate group applications, even in cases of clear, widespread fraud. Requiring that harmed borrowers apply individually even when there is convincing evidence that they were harmed as a group is both unfair to borrowers and unnecessarily onerous to the Department. Indeed, the Department states that the current, individualized process “has proven to be burdensome to borrowers, given the time it takes to adjudicate each claim, and costly to taxpayers.” This rationale would call for expanding access to group applications as a means of reducing borrower burden and the time needed to adjudicate, not eliminating them. The net effect of these changes would -- by the Department’s own estimates -- prevent the vast majority of students with loans connected to illegal misrepresentations from receiving loan relief. Correspondingly, the proposal would have little or no deterrent effect on illegal behavior by colleges. It would also substantially increase administrative burden on the Department by increasing the complexity of the standard and preventing the Department from considering claims together even in cases of widespread fraud. We recommend that the Department, at minimum, retains the 2016 borrower defense provisions. Any changes should make access to relief more accessible to borrowers who have been subject to misrepresentations and other unlawful school conduct. 2. Do not force harmed borrowers to default in order to apply for relief. Requiring borrowers to default before applying for borrower defense would add insult to injury, forcing harmed borrowers to suffer even greater damaging consequences with a long process and uncertain result. The Department itself recognized the dangers of default in 2016 by writing, “When borrowers default on their loans, everyday activities like signing up for utilities, obtaining insurance, or renting an apartment can become a challenge. Borrowers who default might also be denied a job due to poor credit, struggle to pay fees necessary to maintain professional licenses, or be unable open a new checking account.”6 Contrary to the claims in the Department’s notice, it has never previously interpreted the law to allow borrower defense claims only from borrowers who have defaulted.7 Nor has its decades of experience administering borrower defense provisions produced any evidence of a significant number of frivolous or abusive claims. We recommend that the Department continue to accept defense to repayment claims from borrowers in good standing and all other repayment statuses. 3. Protect borrowers' right to their day in court. The 2016 rule ensured that students can hold colleges accountable for wrongdoing in the courts, rather than being forced to pursue any claims in arbitration proceedings that often favor schools. In addition to denying students their right to a trial, the secrecy of the the arbitration process obscures problems from the Department, which could use such information in its oversight of schools, and from prospective students, who could use the information to guide their choice of school. Moreover, the secrecy of arbitration would further compound the challenges facing borrowers seeking to demonstrate that the school intended to deceive them, as required by the proposal. Simply requiring that colleges employing pre-dispute arbitration disclose as much to students, as the Department’s proposal would do, addresses none of these challenges. We recommend that the final rule retain the current prohibition against colleges participating in the Direct Loan Program from using or enforcing, with any of their students, a pre-dispute arbitration agreement or class-action waiver that shields schools from accountability related to federal loans or the school’s marketing or provision of educational services. Such a prohibition protects students’ right to choose the dispute resolution they deem most appropriate. 4. Retain students' ability to get a fresh start when their schools close. Current law allows students to obtain a student loan discharge if they are unable to complete their programs due to the closure of the institution and choose not to continue their studies at another institution. The proposal would require students to continue their education at a program chosen by the closing institution (a so-called “teach-out”). However, there is no guarantee that the new program will suit students’ needs. After the closure of Corinthian Colleges, for example, several of the colleges on the Department’s own list of transfer options were at colleges under investigation by federal or state agencies. Forcing students to move from one problematic institution to another is a disservice to both students and taxpayers. Even quality programs may vary in terms of their affordability, relevance, and location. It is unfair to deprive these vulnerable students of a reasonable choice in how and whether they wish to continue pursuing their education. Where closed school discharges are not foreclosed by a mandatory teach-out arrangement, the Department proposes to expand eligibility for students who withdrew prior to closure, from within 120 days of closure to within 180 days of closure. While we commend this change, which recognizes that some students who withdrew one semester prior to closure may deserve relief, it does not make up for the proposed elimination of automatic discharges to students who have not re-enrolled in the three years following their schools’ closure. We recommend that the Department reverse course on its proposed closed school discharge changes, except to expand eligibility to include students who withdrew within the 180 days prior to school closure. 5. Retain financial incentives designed to hold colleges accountable and protect taxpayers. Colleges -- not taxpayers -- should foot the bill for college misconduct. However, the proposal weakens standards requiring troubled colleges to set aside funds to cover potential taxpayer costs, making it more difficult to hold college accountable and reducing deterrence of illegal activity. We recommend retaining the scheme created by the 2016 regulation that identified early-warning signs for the potential costs of closure or unlawful behavior, and required institutions to put up financial protection before it is too late. The Department’s proposed changes would put taxpayers on the hook for colleges’ risky behavior -- an abandonment of the federal government’s obligation to serve as responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars. In conclusion, the borrower defense rule finalized in 2016 made substantial progress toward establishing a fair process for mistreated borrowers to have an opportunity for adequate recourse. The rule the Department proposes now would rob wronged borrowers of any realistic opportunity to recover from illegal actions, make it harder to hold colleges accountable for illegal actions, and unnecessarily increase burdens on both students and the Department. The changes outlined above are the minimum necessary to protect students and taxpayers. We urge you to include them in the final rule. Sincerely, American Association of University Professors American Association of University Women (AAUW) American Federation of Labor & Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) American Federation of TeachersAmericans for Financial Reform Education Fund Association of Young Americans (AYA) California Low-Income Consumer Coalition Center for Public Interest Law Center for Responsible Lending Children's Advocacy Institute CLASP Coalition of State University Aid Administrators (COSUAA) Coastal Enterprises, Inc. Consumer Action Consumer Advocacy and Protection Society ("CAPS") Consumer Federation of AmericaConsumer Federation of California Consumers Union Covenant House International Cypress Hills Local Development Corporation Democrats for Education Reform Demos East Bay Community Law Center The Education Trust EMPath Empire Justice Center Equal Justice Works Generation Progress Goddard Riverside Community Center Government Accountability Project The Harvard Project on Predatory Student Lending Higher Ed, Not Debt Higher Education Loan Coalition Hildreth Institute Housing and Economic Rights Advocates The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights Page 6 of 6 Legal Aid Society of San Bernardino Legal Services NYC Maine Center for Economic Policy Maine Equal Justice Partners Martin Luther King Jr. Fellows Maryland Consumer Rights Coalition NAACP NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. National Association for College Admission Counseling National Association of Consumer Advocates National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys (NACBA) National Center for Law and Economic Justice National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its low-income clients) National Consumers League National Student Legal Defense Network National Urban League New America Education Policy Program New Jersey Citizen Action New York Legal Assistance Group New Yorkers for Responsible Lending One Wisconsin Now PHENOM (Public Higher Education Network of Massachusetts) Public Citizen Public Counsel Public Good Law Center Public Law Center Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Student Action Student Debt Crisis Student Veterans of America The Institute for College Access & Success (TICAS) Third Way U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) UnidosUS United States Student Association University of San Diego Veterans Legal Clinic The Urban Assembly Veterans Education Success Veterans for Common Sense VetJobs.com Vietnam Veterans of America Woodstock Institute Young Invincibles

“How do we prepare a competitive workforce without a robust education system?”Let’s be honest; The Trump administration’s plan basically says we, as a nation, will not give education our full attention. It says that education is not a top priority. They miss the point. How do we prepare a competitive workforce without a robust education system? The proposal is vague about what it will do to help Americans pay for college. It says even less about plans to address the student debt crisis, protect loan forgiveness, or improve financial aid programs. The higher education component of this proposal dodges the number one factor preventing Americans from improving their lives through education - skyrocketing costs. The merged agency is supposedly dedicated to “strengthening the capacity of colleges and universities to promote reform, innovation, and improvement in postsecondary education,” but it lacks the vision of seriously addressing prohibitive costs and student loans. A separate Department of Education, as is the case today, has broader resources which allow it to work on a multitude of important issues. The proposal does not include a suggested budget or employment figures. Administration officials have gone out of their way to suggest that the proposal is “not an attempt to cut jobs.” However, consolidating the two agencies could lead to a dwindled staff and fewer resources dedicated to issues like investigating student loan fraud and improving financial aid programs. “The proposal is vague about what it will do to help Americans pay for college. It says even less about plans to address the student debt crisis”A diminished workforce could also mean the privatization of many current Department of Education services; a long-term goal for many within the administration, including Education Secretary Betsy DeVos. The announcement of this drastic restructuring follows a month of shocking developments that are sure to negatively impact students and borrowers. Earlier this month, Trump’s head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Mick Mulvaney, shut down the agency’s ‘Office of Students.’ The decision was made despite the fact that the little-known, but effective, office returned over $750 million in relief to people defrauded by their student loan company or for-profit school. Less than a week after Mr. Mulvaney’s blow to students, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos exercised her own oversight rollback. DeVos ordered the Department of Education to dismantle the team that investigates fraud at for-profit colleges. This decision came just weeks after DeVos hired controversial former for-profit college employees to fill top positions in the government.

The legal problems facing Navient, one of the nation’s largest student loan debt collectors, mounted on Thursday as California’s attorney general said he would file a lawsuit accusing the company of widespread deceptions and mistakes that cost borrowers millions of dollars. The accusations echo those in a major enforcement case against Navient that was started by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau last year, in the final days of President Obama’s administration. The bureau is still pursuing the case, but consumer advocates fear it will be dropped or settled by Mick Mulvaney, the bureau’s acting director, who has sharply reduced the agency’s powers and scrapped many of its lawsuits and investigations. The actions of Mr. Mulvaney, who is also President Trump’s budget director, have prompted states to more aggressively flex their own consumer protection authority. California would be the fourth and largest state to sue Navient, joining Illinois, Pennsylvania and Washington... Read the entire piece at "California Will Be Fourth State to Sue Navient Over Student Loans"

This piece was originally published at The Military Times. Veteran education advocates are continuing to fight a controversial bill that would sunset a student loan forgiveness benefit for public-sector employees, including service members, hoping their efforts — and the Pentagon’s opposition — can keep it from ever getting to a vote. “It’s a national security issue at this point, and that’s highly concerning to us,” said Tanya Ang, policy and outreach director for Veterans Education Success. The nonprofit is one of many veteran service organizations that have opposed the legislation since it was first introduced by Republican House lawmakers late last year. Among their chief concerns with the PROSPER Act is its proposal to eliminate the public service loan forgiveness program for nonprofit workers and employees of local, state and federal agencies, including the military. Despite the opposition, the bill’s proponents see PROSPER as a way to curb rising college costs and enable students to pursue careers without demonstrable student loan debt. A spokesman for the House Committee on Education and the Workforce told Military Times, “We have heard from many groups on provisions within the PROSPER Act, and believe the bill will provide veterans and active duty military the best opportunity to achieve a postsecondary education that they rightly deserve.” A Defense Department document released earlier this year states the loan forgiveness program, available to eligible borrowers after 10 years of qualifying student loan payments, is an “important recruitment and retention tool for the military to compete with the civilian sector,” particularly in specialty fields. The Navy has also raised concerns for the Navy Judge Advocate General’s Corps, which leans on this program as an incentive for new recruits. The House committee spokesman did not comment directly on the Pentagon’s position. Ang said, “When you’re dealing with issues as (loan forgiveness) and cutting a recruiting tool for our armed services when we’re in one of the longest wars we’ve ever been in, that to me is a national security issue.”... Continue Reading at Military Times...