BeautyLink - Volume 6, Issue 3 - (Page 13)

THE WORKINGS OF WASHINGTON "In one 24-hour period, following up on our call to action, 867 AACS members generated 1,074 messages to 311 members of Congress! That's 72 percent of the U.S. House of Representatives! Phenomenal job!" BY TOM E. NETTING, AACS PUBLIC POLICY ADVISOR Gainful Employment 2.0-What's Next? OK, SO WE all submitted our Gainful Employment NPRM responses and now we're done with GE for a while, right? Wrong! We have just entered several new phases of the process. Picking up on the summation of Rep. Bobby Scott's remarks from the AACS Spring Operations Conference, another very important portion of Rep. Scott's speech focused on his personal view that the GE regulations are not the right way to seek to improve the quality of education. Halleluiah! It gets better. Rep. Scott provided his own anecdotes on some of the fallacies of the regulation, including an example he made between two institutions, Institution A and Institution B. Institution A would be serving a lower income, at-risk population, and Institution B would be serving a more affluent population. Rep. Scott stated that Institution A is going to have a harder time complying with the GE metrics, but that doesn't mean that Institution A is not providing students with a quality program and education, nor does it mean that Institution B is a better program or doing a better job. He went on to discuss several additional factors that could impact the potential outcome based upon the debt-to-earnings metrics, concluding that there may well be a better way- and even intimated that in his view that may well be accreditation. He gets it! And Rep. Scott is not alone. On March 27, 2014 (the deadline for public comment on the NPRM), a bipartisan group of 40 members of the U.S. House of Representatives sent Secretary of Education Arne Duncan a letter stating their belief that the regulation had the potential to "unduly affect students enrolled at proprietary institutions and non-degree programs at non-profit institutions, including community colleges." The letter went on to suggest that, based upon data provided by independent research conducted by Charles River Associates, implementation of the regulation could potentially "reduce postsecondary education options for as many as 3.9 million students by 2020, many of whom are minorities, veterans or low-income." Based upon the analysis and their concerns for students across the entire spectrum of higher education, the members questioned the merits of the debt-to-earnings and programmatic CDR metrics proposed to determine institutional program eligibility. They called upon the Department to withhold the regulations and work with Congress on more fair and equitable solutions during the upcoming reauthorization of the HEA. B E AUT YL I NK | C E L* E * BR AT E | 2 0 1 4 | 13

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of BeautyLink - Volume 6, Issue 3

Message From the Aacs President & CEA Chair
The Workings of Washington
The Art of the Consult
A Student’s Perspective
Celebrating Our Graduates
Access and Affordability
And Then There’s Compliance
Are You Ready to Thrive?
Navigating the Acquisition Path
Creating a Marketing Mixture
Multicultural Corner
Culture Trumps Strategy
Beauty Changes Lives
Engaged Learning
Superstar Graduate
20 Ways to Celebrate You
Battle of the Strands
Students Leaving the Beauty School “Nest''
Why Every Educator Needs to Be at CEA This Year
Step by Step
Voices From the Classroom
People & Places
Create a Recipe for the Future
New Products & Services
Associate Member Profiles: Furniture Manufacturers
New School Members
Upcoming 2014-15 Events
Index to Advertisers

BeautyLink - Volume 6, Issue 3