---

January 31, 2004

Honorable Members
United States House of Representatives
Committee on Education and the Workplace
c/o John Boehner, Chairman
2181 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Honorable
United States Secretary of Education
Roderick R. Page

Sally L. Stroup
Assistant Secretary for
Postsecondary Education

c/o
Cheryl Leibovitz
United States Department of Education
Distance Education Demonstration Program
Office of Post Secondary Education
1990 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006

c/o
John W. Barth
United States Department of Education
Office of Post Secondary Education
1990 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006

RE: Open Letter

Dear All:

I. Background:

The first Report to Congress on the Distance Education
Demonstration Program (January 2001) notes that, with only a few
exceptions, smaller percentages of minorities were enrolled in
participating institutions' distance education programs than in their
onsite programs and this was true as well of students taking a mix of
onsite and distance education courses. The data for 2000-01 show a
similar pattern when examined institution by institution.
http://www.ed.gov/programs/disted/performance.html

II. Issue:

Although complaints against a parent corporation of a "Distance
Education Demonstration Program" participant were filed as early as
May 30, 2002, providing the United States Department of Education an
actual account of minority issues involving distance education,
discrimination, problems with enforecement Title VI issues and the
like, both the performance report(s) to Congress is/are devoid of any
information related to the issue discrimination.

III. Primary Purpose of Distance Education Demonstration Program:

The authorizing statute states that a primary purpose of the
Distance Education Demonstration Program is to provide increased
student access to higher education through distance education
programs. Access can be limited in a number of different ways,
including geography, student resources, time constraints, academic
programs structures, and institutional policies. The distance
education delivery modes and program structures used by demonstration
program participants address these constraints to greater and lesser
degrees.
http://www.ed.gov/programs/disted/performance.html

IV. Kaplan, Inc. A "Distance Education Demostration Program"
Participant:

Kaplan College ("Kaplan, Inc."), a proprietary institution
owned by Kaplan, Inc, previously known as both Quest Education
Corporation and the American Institution of Commerce and Quest College
is a participant of the Distance Education Demonstration Program.
http://www.ed.gov/programs/disted/descque.html

The Distance Education Program is not a grant program. It was
authorized in the 1998 Higher Education Amendments to determine the
statutory and regulatory requirements that should be altered to
provide greater access to distance education programs. Most of the
restrictions on the growth of distance education were placed in the
HEA in response to preceived abuses of Title IV Student Financial
Assistance, particularly abuses relating to program quality.
http://www.ed.gov/programs/disted/index.html

There is no dollar amounts associated with participating in
this program. Participating institutions receive statutory or
regulatory relief.
http://www.ed.gov/programs/disted/funding.html

Participants received waivers of certain statutory and
regulatory provisions governing the HEA Title IV student financial
assistance programs to enable them to provide Title IV aid to distance
education students more efficiently and, in some instances, to expand
their distance education programs beyond otherwise applicable
statutory limits. The waiver authority granted to the Secretary is
limited to:

(a) the requirements of section 472(5) as the section relates
to computer costs;

(b) sections 481(a) and 481(b) as they relate to requirements
for a minimum number of weeks of instruction;

(c) sections 102(a)(3)(A) and 102(a)(3)(B) - the 50%
institutional eligibility requirements;

(d) section 484(l)(1) as it relates to the definition of a
telecommunications student as a correspondence student; and

(e) one or more of the regulations prescribed under parts F and
G of Title IV of the HEA that inhibit the operation of quality
distance education programs.
http://www.ed.gov/programs/disted/performance.html

V. Observation:

It appears the Office of Post Secondary Education is providing
Kaplan, Inc. (Concord School of Law) preferential treatment related
its investigation of a tampering, perjury, fraud, and obstruction (a
discrimination complaint) allegations filed as early as May 30, 2002.

An example, originally, John Barth accepted the Distance
Education Training Council "DETC" use of Kaplan's May 2, 2002,
correspondence that "blatantly" misrepresentation material facts
related to the discrimination complaint.

The complaints against Kaplan, Inc. (Concord School of Law,
Kaplan Higher Education Corp. and/r Kaplan College) involves the
eligibility and certification process for institutions of higher
education under Title IV, of the HEA and apparent misrepresentation of
accreditation and related Title VI guarantees.

In addition, please note, on January 13, 2004, Mr. Ronald S.
Blumenthal, Vice President, Kaplan Higher Education Corporation, and a
United States Department of Education NACIQI board member, directly
involved himself in the subsequent litigation of the issue.

That is, it appears that while under oath (or in declaration,
certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as
permitted under section 1746 of Title 28, United States Code) in a
proceeding before or in ancillary to a court (and during the OCR
inquiry of Reference No. 09042040), Mr. Blumenthal knowingly deposed
and made apparent false material declarations and used an apparent
false affidavit (as Vice President of Operations for Kaplan, Inc. he
admitted having personal knowledge regarding facts set forth in the
affidavit) knowing the same contained false material declaration
subscribed as true in apparent violation of 18 U.S.C. Sections 1621
and 1623.1, and his "NACIQI" oath.

VI. Unequivocal Proof of 18 U.S.C. Sections 1621 and 1623.1
Violations:

(a) The Concord School of Law Online Campus Website has a
Kaplan Higher Education Corporation Copyright. Mr. Blumenthal in his
affidavit says Kaplan Higher Education is a shorthand group of
entities and a non legal entity that cannot be sued. That is, he
suggest a non legal entity Kaplan Higher Education has a copyright of
the Concord website;

(b) Jonathan Grayer, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Inc.
advised shareholders on November 15, 2002, in detail how Gary Kerber
runs Concord School of Law and Kaplan Higher Education Incorporated.

(c) A May 22, 2003, Kaplan, Inc. press release identifies Gary
Kerber as being named the Vice Chairman of Kaplan, Inc., "expanding
his current role as CEO of Kaplan's Higher Education division." In
this capacity, the press release says Mr. Kerber will provide guidance
to Kaplan's Chairman and CEO, Jonathan Grayer and President and COO,
Andrew Rosen, on a variety of Kaplan Business Issues. That is, the
press release supports the allegation that Kaplan, Inc. is directly
involve with the day-to-day operation of Concord School of Law and
Kaplan Higher Education Corporation.

(d) The Kaplan Higher Education website continues to identify
the following: "Kaplan Higher Education Corporation, headquartered in
Atlanta, Georgia, was founded in 1988 by Gary D. Kerber, the President
and CEO.

(e) As recent as October 7, 2003, the Kaplan Higher Education
Division listed as its address the following: 1400 Hembree Road, Suite
100, Roswell, GA 30076.

(f) Gerald Kosentos, Executive Vice President, Operations,
Kaplan Higher Education Corporation ("KHEC"), said in a sworn
affidavit that "KHEC is a Delaware Corporation and wholly owned
subsidiary of Kaplan, Inc., with a principal place of business in
Roswell, Georgia."

Exhibits were delivered to the United States Department of Education
by Facsimile on January 19, 2004.

VII. Kaplan Violated "50" Percent Rule:

Kaplan, Inc., Kaplan Higher Education, and/or Concord School of
Law knowing advertised as recent as December 5, 2003, that Concord
School of Law students are eligible for Title IV funding (Federal
Grants: Pell Grant Program, Supplement Education Opportunity Grant.
Federal Loans: Direct Stafford Student Loans and Direct Loan for
Dependent Students - Direct Plus).

VIII. Office of Civil Rights Avoided The Retaliation Allegations:

(a) It appears a participant of Kaplan's online distance
education law school during the 2001 academic year was denied
"signature" parts of the Concord School of Law Juris Doctorate
program, to keep a "black" from graduating with the frist group of
graduates.

(b) Complaints were filed beginning in January 2002 under the
online law schools grievance procedure. But the school failed to
provide a review under the grievance procedure.

(c) A complaint with the United States Department of Education
Office of Civil Rights "OCR" San Francisco Office on May 30, 2002.

(d) For unexplained reasons, the case was given to the OCR
Seattle office in June 2002. By email on June 11, 2002, Mr. Dunne of
the San Francisco office specifically explained to Ms. Shelton of the
San Francisco office that the Postsecondary Education Participant
System identified jurisdiction, i.e., "Kaplan, Inc.," Concord School
of Law's parent corporation, as a participant of programs authorized
by the Higher Education Act of 1965.

(e) Interestingly, the Seattle OCR office would almost
immediately closed the case advising saying it did not have
jurisdiction over Kaplan, Inc.

(f) In February 2003, the Seattle OCR office did finally issued
a letter "notice of four allegations" that attempted to limit the
scope of the allegations to things it appears they believed Kaplan,
Inc. could defend against.

(g) In April 2003, the Seattle OCR office issued another letter
announcing Kaplan's defense but refused to disclose any supporting
documentation (verified answer, sworn statements, etc.). The Seattle
OCR office even refused to disclose what information: witnesses,
documents, sworn statements, and the like was used to establish
Kaplan's response. The response the Seattle OCR office announced was
flawed and not supported by the information in the record (documents
the DOE had already obtained). The response appeared to suggest an
admission of the four allegations.

(h) Nonetheless, the Seattle office refused to issue a findings
based on the insufficient response.

(i) Thereafter, from June 2002 to April 2003, the Seattle
office refrained from calling the process "an investigation."

(j) In May 2003, the Seattle office finally decided to conduct
what it calls "an investigation" of the allegations. Because the
investigation file already supported a findings against Kaplan, Inc.,
in regard to the "four allegations" announced in February 2003, the
Seattle OCR office now said it wanted to investigate those things it
had excluded previously. It appears the Seattle office was now helping
to search for an alternative defense for Kaplan's online law school.

(k) The complaint charges "absentee" students, fraud,
obstruction, and the like. That is, responsible individuals and
entities have disobey the law attempting to "cover-up" their
disobedience through semantics and strained, unilateral, self-serving
interpretations of their own duties.

(l) It appears that various investigators have also committed
fraud on the Secretary of Education and others by failing to disclose
"apparent false information" it received from Kaplan, Inc. (Concord
School of Law) in defense of the complaint(s).

(m) It appears that those responsible are consciously
abdicating their enforcement duties to further political efforts to
relax distance education guidelines.

(n) On August 20, 2003, as per Steve Cramolini of the
Washington D.C. OCR office, a request for a review of the Seattle OCR
Office's handling of the complaints was filed. In particular, it
identified issues such as how the investigator had refused to accept
the January 11, 2002, letter Kaplan (Concord School of Law) wrote
identifying plain and clear retaliatory reasons for a 12 month non
academic suspension, as proof of retaliation.

(o) Interestingly, on September 16, 2003, Gary Jackson,
Director, Seattle OCR office, closed OCR No. 09022116.

(p) In Mr. Jackson's letter he fails to discuss the January 11,
2002, letter, the retaliation claim, and/or my August 2003, the
requests for review of the Seattle handling of the retaliation claim.

(q) There was a conversation with the Seattle OCR Office on
September 20, 2003, but the closure wasn't mentioned. That is, it
appears that the "closure letter" was rushed out after a new
retaliation complaint was filed on September 16, 2003. In short, there
was discussion about the new retaliation complaint but nothing
concerning an expect closing of the investigation of OCR No. 0902216.

IX. Kaplan, Inc. Vice President's NACIQI Member's Conflict of
Interest:

Ronald S. Blumenthal, Vice President, Operations, Kaplan, Inc,
serves as a member of the Department of Education's National Advisory
Committe on Institutional Quality and Integrity ("NACIQI'). In this
capacity he advises the Secretary of Education on matters related to
accreditation and to the eligibility and certification process for
institutions of higher education.

Secifically, Mr. Blumenthal as a member of "NACIQI" recommends
to the Secretary of Education the following:

(1) the establishment and enforcement of criteria for
recognition of accrediting agencies or associations under Subpart 2 of
Part H, Title IV, of the HEA;

(2) the recognition of specific accrediting agencies or
associations or a specific State approval agency;

(3) the preparation and publication of the list of nationally
recognized accrediting agencies and associations;

(4) the eligibility and certification process for institutions
of higher education under Title IV, of the HEA;

(5) the development of standards and criteria for specific
categories of vocational training institutions and institutions of
higher education for which there are no recognized accrediting
agencies, associations, or State agencies in order to establish the
interim eligibility of those institutions to participate in Federally
funded programs;

(6) the relationship between (a) accreditation of institutions
of higher education and the certification and eligibility of such
institutions, and (b) State licensing responsibilities with respect to
such institutions; and

(7) any other advisory functions relating to accreditation and
institutional eligibility that the Secretary may prescribe.

On January 13, 2004, Mr. Blumenthal directly involved himself
in the subsequent litigation of this issue.

That is, it appears that while under oath (or in declaration,
certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as
permitted under section 1746 of Title 28, United States Code) in a
proceeding before or in ancillary to a court (and during the OCR
inquiry of Reference No. 09042040), Mr. Blumenthal knowingly deposed
and made apparent false material declarations and used an apparent
false affidavit (as Vice President of Operations for Kaplan, Inc. he
admitted having personal knowledge regarding facts set forth in the
affidavit) knowing the same contained false material declaration
subscribed as true in apparent violation of 18 U.S.C. Sections 1621
and 1623.1, and his "NACIQI" oath.

Specifically, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sections 1621 and
1623.1 a member of "NACIQI" (Blumenthal) provided the following in his
affidavit concerning Kaplan, Inc. (Concord School of law) and the
eligibility and certification process for institutions of higher
education under Title IV, of the HEA:

(a) Kaplan Higher Education Corporation is a wholly separate
entity from Concord;

(b) Concord operates as a division of Kaplan, Inc. and is not a
part of Kaplan Higher Education Corporation ("KHEC"), which is an
incorporated subsidiary of Kaplan, Inc.;

(c) Kaplan does not have any involvement in the operation of
Concord, and thus has no involvement in any matters giving rise to
Plaintiff's allegations;

(d) Kaplan internally refers to a group of Kaplan entities
which relate to higher education as the "Kaplan Higher Education"
Division; and

(e) This operating division, which includes Concord Law School,
KHEC, and the College of Professional Studies, exists merely as a
shorthand title enabling Kaplan to refer easily to a group of separate
entities, and the division itself is neither a legal entity nor an
incorporated entity.

X. Open Letter Request

Please investigate the above information A.S.A.P.

Thank you