received less than $600 from his parents in either 1976 or 1977 and was not taken as a tax exemption by his parents for either year? Wouldn't the proposed new rule result in the same dependency status for students who got married even a year earlier? Figure 1 of Mr. Kornfeld's statement shows 140,000 veterans receiving BEOGS last year. Do you know how many of these are independent? Whether full-time or parttime students? How many are married? Do you feel our treatment of veterans under the GI Bill is fair? If not, what would you recommend? Several of your charts combine eligible and ineligible applicants. Can many valid conclusions be drawn on the numbers and percent of ineligible applicants? It would be easy to stimulate hundreds of thousands of ineligible applicants. What are you doing to inform ineligible applicants of their probable ineligibility before they go through the time consuming application process? Your cooperation by immediately responding to the questions relating to the BEOG proprietary school problem would be appreciated. I am particularly interested in your statement for the record as to whether the Office of Education intends to publish regulations limiting eligibility of proprietary schools for Basic Grants to those which enroll less than five percent non-high school graduates. Your reply to these questions and your subsequent response to the questions on other issues will become part of the hearing record. with kind regards, I am WDF thp Sincerely, WILLIAM D. FORD Thank you for your letter of September 16 in which you pose a number of questions with respect to proprietary schools and their eligibility under the Basic Educational Opportunity grant program, a subject which was discussed when Leo Kornfeld, Peter Voigt, and John Proffitt appeared before your Subcommittee on September 12. I am pleased to respond to your requests for clarification of Office of Education policy regarding the treatment of proprietary schools under the BEOG program relative to the admission of non-high school graduates. We have, on the basis of a review of the so-called "five percent rule," decided not to propose such a regulation. The reasoning behind that decision and the problems arising from certain relevant statutory provisions are discussed in detail in our responses to the first seven questions in your letter of September 16. In addition, I am enclosing responses to additional questions raised by I hope the information contained in our responses will be helpful to RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS RAISED IN CHAIRMAN FORD'S LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 16, 1977 1. What is the present policy with respect to eligibility of students attending proprietary schools to receive Basic Educational Opportunity Grants? Please explain by citing specific statutory language how this policy is consistent with the law. The Basic Grant Program was enacted in 1972 by the Education Amendments of 1972, Public Law 92-318. Under the program, students enrolled and attending institutions of higher education as undergraduates on at least a half-time basis are eligible to receive Basic Grants (20 U.S.C. 1070a). That statute also permitted students attending proprietary institutions of higher education to receive Basic Grants (see Section 491 (b) (1) of the Higher Education Act, 20 U.S.C. 1088 (b) (1)). Under Section 491 (b) (3) sets out the definition of a proprietary school. that provision a proprietary institution of higher education must (1) "provide not less than a six-month program of training to prepare students for gainful employment in a recognized occupation," (2) "admit as regular students only persons having a certificate of graduation from a school providing secondary education, or the recognized equivalent of such a certificate," (3) "be legally authorized within such State to provide a program of education beyond secondary school," (4) "not be a public or other nonprofit institution," (5) "be accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association approved by the Comissioner for this purpose," and (6) "have been in existence for two years (20 U.S.C. 1083 (b)(3). (Emphasis added.)" Section 131 of the Education 7: ints of 1976, P.L. 94-482, arendad the story Definition of a public or nonolit private institution of higher education set forth in Section 1201 (a) of the Higher Education This amendment added a separate provision that Act (20 U.S.C. 1141(a)). in the case of a public or nonprofit private educational institution, persons may be admitted as regular students if they are not high school graduates or the equivalent but are beyond the age of compulsory school attendance and have the ability to benefit from the training offered. Subsection (b) (7) of the first section of P.L. 95-43 provided, in essence, that any changes made to Section 1201 (a) of the Higher Education Act by Section 181 of P.L. 94-482 did not authorize the Commissioner to terminate the eligibility of an institution of higher education that was previously eligible under Section 1201 (a) before the enactment of Section 181. Thus, neither of these Acts changed the eligibility requirements for a proprietary institution of higher education. Under a strictly literal interpretation of Section 491 (b) (3), the only accredited proprietary schools which qualify as eligible institutions for purposes of the BEOG Program are those that restrict their admission of regular students to those persons having a certificate of high school graduation or its equivalent. However, the Office of Education did not believe that the Congress intended to hold a school ineligible if it admitted merely a de minimis number of non-high school graduates as regular students. Consequently, the Office of Education has taken the position that in such cases, eligibility would not be terminated. The number or percentage which constitutes "de mininis" has never been set. In order to be more specific as to what constitutes a "de minimis" number, the Office had considered proposing a regulation which would have allowed up to 5 percent non-high school graduates to be enrolled without affecting a school's eligibility. On the basis of further review, it appears that the "5% rule" would not provide relief in many cases. We have, consequently, decided not to propose such a regulation and announced that position in hearings before the Senate on September 21. Discussions will continue, however, as to the resolution of the problems that have arisen as a result of the statutory provision in question. 2. If the policy has not changed, please explain what you think may be the reason for the confusion and controversy which has arisen with respect to this matter during the past several weeks. The Office of Education policy and procedure, as outlined in the preceding paragraphs, has not changed recently. The matter surfaced last spring because program audits by the Basic Educational Opportunity Grant personnel began to find some institutions where the percentage of non-high school graduates, or holders of a recognized equivalency, enrolled in the institution and receiving Basic Grant funds was greater than forty percent (40%). Such percentages are clearly too high to meet the statutory requirement, and in the absence of a "de minimis" determination, the Office felt that it has to take positive action against schools found clearly to be in violation of the law. The publicity attendant on such action against one school in New York State has generated most of the widespread concern currently being expressed. |