Forward

kevin kuzmaOnDifferentPagesThe Department of Education’s gainful employment negotiatedrulemaking process is an exercise in futilityBy Kevin Kuzma, EditorIn a variety of educational backgrounds. While it was widelyselecting a committee to rewrite its gainful employment rule,the Department of Education had its choice of applicants fromnoted throughout the career education sector that the final rulemakingcommittee was imbalanced with representatives from traditional highereducation, logic would say the final panelists would be on the same pageabout the concept of the gainful employment rule itself. But apparently thatwas a task too steep for the department.At times during the negotiated rulemaking sessions at the department’sK Street offices in Washington, D.C., Sept. 9-10, committee membersshowed they were at odds with the very notion of judging the success of aneducation program on the eventual earnings of recent graduates.The gainful employment committee, of course, has been challengedwith redrafting the gainful employment regulations. The department’scontroversial first attempt at writing the rules was nixed earlier this year bya federal judge. The rule would eliminate federal funds supporting careertraining programs if they don’t meet certain standards that measure theirgraduates’ earnings in relation to their student loan debt.Comprised of 28 negotiators, 14 primary and 14 alternates, thecommittee represented a number of constituencies. But the lonerepresentatives of career education were Brian Jones, General Counselat Strayer, and Marc Jerome, Monroe College.From the outset, it was made clear by the facilitator for the negotiations,Francis “Chip” Cameron, that while the committee was assembled todetermine the final language for the rule that would determine the fate ofhundreds of programs, the future of many schools and the educationalchoices of the students attending those schools, it was possible that thedepartment would disregard the committee's input and push forwardin drafting the rule’s language on its own. The committee also votednot to record the negotiations and to remove a stenographer who wasprovided by the department.One key exchange showing some discord concerning the rule’sfundamental premise came midway through the first day of negotiationswhen Belle Wheelan of the Southern Association of Colleges andSchools Commission on Colleges said that colleges “can't control theeconomy or availability of jobs. We need clarification on the purpose ofgainful employment formula.”NOVEMBER 2013 | 72