Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 1 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION

INSTITUTIONAL AND PROGRAMMATIC

ELIGIBILITY COMMITTEE

SESSION 2, DAY 1, MORNING

February 14, 2022 

On the 14th day of February 2022, the following 

meeting was held virtually, from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.,

before Jamie Young, Shorthand Reporter in the state of New 

Jersey.
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 2 

PROCEEDINGS 

MS. JEFFRIES: Good morning, everyone, and welcome 

back to session two, day one of the negotiated rulemaking. I 

hope that you all had some time to relax and find some spare 

time in between sessions. I am Commissioner Cindy Jeffries 

and for today's session, Commissioner Brady Roberts will be 

facilitating for you, and I will be your tech support person 

on this end. I've placed my email in the chat box. If you 

have any difficulties, please feel free to get a hold of me. 

With that, Brady?

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, ma'am, good morning and happy 

Valentine's Day, everyone. Just a few very, very brief 

housekeeping items and then we'll go into a roll call and 

then jump right into discussion of issue paper number one, 

Ability to Benefit. So first off, thank you everyone who 

took the time to suggest amended regulatory text for the 

Department's consideration in between weeks one and two. 

Just as a reminder and moving forward into week three, the

Department has a fairly lengthy process of review and 

editing for these proposals, and we do need to distribute 

and publish those revised issue papers a week ahead of time. 

So as much as possible, we do ask that folks try to submit 

those proposed to regulatory text documents as early as 

possible to give time for the Department to give them fair 

consideration for review. Greg, is there anything that the 

Department wanted to add on that note or anything else you 

want to speak on on that item?

MR. MARTIN: No, not really. I would say, though, 

that if people have, you know, had raised issues or 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 3 

submitted papers to us that we did not get to reference in 

this in these latest issue papers, you can feel free to 

bring those up those points up during our discussions.

MR. ROBERTS: Great. Thank you. And again, just 

moving forward into week three, it becomes very important 

just because obviously that's the last week that we have and 

we're going to move folks hopefully towards consensus in 

that third week. So as much as humanly possible, we do ask 

folks to be as proactive as they can with those with those 

papers. Just in terms of time. Oh wait, Johnson, I see your 

hand. Please go ahead.

MR. TYLER: I would like to ask a question to the 

committee and the Department of Education regarding 

transcript withholding. I don't know if now's the time to 

bring it up, but I had raised this issue in one of my my 

issue papers submission and I feel like it's worthy of 

discussion at the beginning of the week.

MR. ROBERTS: Sure. Greg, do you do you have a 

preference? Do you want to respond to that now or do you 

want to get back to the committee on that issue?

MR. MARTIN: Do we want to do the introductions 

first? Do you want to do the roll call first?

MR. ROBERTS: Yeah, I think that makes sense. 

Johnson, if it's okay, I'll go back to you. Two other brief 

reminders just on timing for this week. Again, each speaker 

will have three minutes to address the committee for each 

comment. We do ask that folks try to withhold their comments 

for new information and just as a timing reminder, just 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 4 

because we do encourage and want to see the back and forth, 

but we don't want that to dominate the entire discussion. We 

do ask that these exchanges as a whole take about three 

minutes. And of course, you're always welcome to requeue if 

you have more to add. But just in terms of timely discussion 

and deliberation, we are going to be timing people to three 

minutes per remark and hand raise, if that makes sense. So,

I just want to make a brief note on that. And then number 

three, just for smooth flow in terms of the live stream and 

primaries and alternates. We do ask the primaries remain on 

camera and at the table, so to speak, as much as possible. 

Alternates are, of course, welcome to come to the table, but 

just please try to let us know ahead of time if it's a 

planned absence or in the chat just before you come on. Just 

so we can see and announce that and make sure everyone's 

aware of who's speaking on behalf of which constituency. So, 

thank you very much. That is really all I have in terms of 

housekeeping. And let's move into a brief roll call. So, if 

folks just want to come off from mute and say good morning 

and hello. Starting with accrediting agencies, we have Jamie 

Studley, our primary.

MS. STUDLEY: Good morning, everyone.

MR. ROBERTS: Good morning. And she is joined by her 

alternate Dr. Laura Rasar King.

DR. KING: Good morning, everybody.

MR. ROBERTS: Morning. For consumer advocacy 

organizations, we have Carolyn Fast.

MS. FAST: Good morning.
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 5 

MR. ROBERTS: Morning. And her alternate Mr. Jaylon 

Herbin.

MR. HERBIN: Good morning.

MR. ROBERTS: Good morning. Representing civil 

rights organizations, we are joined by Ms. Amanda Martinez.

MS. AMANDA MARTINEZ: Good morning. Happy 

Valentine's Day, everyone.

MR. ROBERTS: Good morning. Happy Valentine's Day. 

Representing financial aid administrators at postsecondary 

institutions, we have Ms. Samantha Veeder.

MS. VEEDER: Good morning, everyone.

MR. ROBERTS: And her alternate, Mr. David Peterson.

MR. PETERSON: Good morning.

MR. ROBERTS: Good morning. For four-year public 

institutions of higher education, we have our primary, Mr. 

Marvin Smith.

MR. SMITH: Morning.

MR. ROBERTS: And his alternate Dr. Deborah Stanley.

MS. STANLEY: Good morning. It's Deborah, not 

doctor.

MR. ROBERTS: Oh, sorry, my apologies. For legal 

assistance organizations, we have Mr. Johnson Tyler.

MR. TYLER: Good morning.
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 6 

MR. ROBERTS: And his alternate Ms. Jessica Ranucci.

MS. RANUCCI: Hi everyone.

MR. ROBERTS: Good morning. For minority serving 

institutions, we are joined by our primary Dr. Beverly 

Hogan.

DR. HOGAN: Good morning.

MR. ROBERTS: And her alternate Ms. Ashley 

Schofield.

MS. SCHOFIELD: Good morning, everyone.

MR. ROBERTS: Morning. For private nonprofit 

institutions of higher education, we have our primary, Ms. 

Kelli Perry.

MS. PERRY: Good morning, everyone.

MR. ROBERTS: And we are joined by her alternate Mr. 

Emmanual Guillory.

MR. GUILLORY: Good morning.

MR. ROBERTS: For proprietary institutions of higher 

education, we are joined by Mr. Bradley Adams.

MR. ADAMS: Good morning.

MR. ROBERTS: And his alternate, Mr. Michael 

Lanouette.

DR. LANOUETTE: Good morning.
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 7 

MR. ROBERTS: Good morning. And just as a note, 

Michael will be joining us as the negotiator for our 

proprietary institutions this morning. For state attorneys 

general, we have Mr. Adam Welle.

MR. WELLE: Morning.

MR. ROBERTS: Morning, Adam. And his alternate, Ms. 

Yael Shavit. Not seeing Yael, but we will circle back. 

MS. SHAVIT: I'm right here. Good morning.

MR. ROBERTS: Good morning. For state higher 

education executive officers, state authorizing agencies and 

state regulators of institutions of higher education, we 

have Ms. Debbie Cochrane.

MS. COCHRANE: Good morning.

MR. ROBERTS: And Mr. David Socolow.

MR. SOCOLOW: Good morning.

MR. ROBERTS: For students and student loan 

borrowers, we have Ernest Ezeugo.

MR. EZEUGO: Morning.

MR. ROBERTS: And Mr. Carney King.

MR. KING: Good morning.

MR. ROBERTS: Good morning. For two-year public 

institutions of higher education, we have Dr. Anne Kress.

DR. KRESS: Good morning. Happy Valentine's Day.
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 8 

MR. ROBERTS: Happy Valentine's Day. And Mr. William 

Durden.

MR. DURDEN: Good morning.

MR. ROBERTS: In our final constituency group for 

U.S. military service members, veterans or groups 

representing them, we have Mr. Travis Horr. Not seeing 

Travis, but we are joined by his alternate, Mr. Barmak 

Nassirian.

MR. NASSIRIAN: Good morning. Travis will be out 

today and tomorrow.

MR. ROBERTS: Oh great, got it, thank you. Joining 

us from the Department of Education, we have several members 

of the Office of General Counsel. We have Mr. Steve Finley.

MR. FINLEY: Hi, good morning.

MR. ROBERTS: Morning, Steve. We are also joined by 

Ms. Donna Mangold. And we are joined by Mr. Ron Sann as 

well.

MR. SANN: Good morning.

MR. ROBERTS: Good morning. And last but certainly 

not least, we are joined by our federal negotiator, Mr. 

Gregory Martin.

MR. MARTIN: Morning, everyone.

MR. ROBERTS: Good morning. I don't believe I forgot 

anyone, but feel free to come off from mute if did neglect 

to announce you, and I apologize if I did.
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 9 

MR. MCCLINTOCK: Good morning, good to see everybody 

again.

MR. ROBERTS: Great, David, and then I'm sorry. Dr. 

Adams Looney. I apologize.

DR. LOONEY: Morning.

MR. ROBERTS: Morning, apologies. So with that, if 

alternates wouldn't mind going off camera and then Johnson 

if it's okay, I'll turn it right back over to you just to 

readdress the issue. And then Greg, I'll ask if the 

Department would like to respond at this point.

MR. TYLER: Thanks, Brady. I hope you can hear me 

okay. My radiator is singing loudly in New Jersey. It's cold 

here. So, I put in the chat the memo I wrote in support of 

putting transcript withholding into this issue. It's an 

issue that I really feel passionately about because I deal 

with consumers every week on this issue, I would estimate 

that one out of six people who call me have this problem. 

And as a legal solution, their only solution is bankruptcy, 

which is a big deal. But, you know, besides the passion of 

seeing how this really cripples people because they can't go 

anywhere else, they can't go to another state to go to 

school, they can't go from a private school to a public 

school, they can't go from SUNY to CUNY, they can't go 

anywhere. They can't go to a proprietary school with the 

transcript being withheld. But the data actually shows this 

is not an effective tool and it affects people of color, 

which is really of no surprise. And we data mined a lot of 

information that was publicly available from SUNY. We did 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 10

FOIA requests to get information and I think one of the real 

key things is this does not help; 99.25 percent of SUNY 

students pay their tuition debts. They pay their debts to go 

to school, they want to go to school, they want to get 

educated, they want to stay with their friends, they want to 

reenroll. It's this small percentage who cannot and those

who cannot, when you look at the size of the average debts, 

they're very low $6000 for a four-year school and in the 

hundreds for a community college. And then when you look at 

the Federal Reserve data, which shows that people of color 

have no assets essentially compared to white families, you 

can understand when we looked at the zip codes where these 

people were being sued for the debts, that 9 out of 10 

people are people of color. So, the Secretary has convened 

us all here to try to make the outcomes more equitable in 

the United States regarding student loans and this just 

seems like an important issue that needs to be addressed. 

The final thing is, you know, only 7 percent of the SUNY 

related lawsuits end up getting paid off. So these 

transcripts are held forever, 93 percent of the people never 

go back to school because of this, when this happened. So, 

it came up in some of these negotiating rule papers. And the 

other thing is, you know, a consumer on their own raised 

this issue at the public hearing in June and basically spoke 

eloquently about how his dream of becoming an architect has 

been completely stymied by this and over a relatively small 

debt for him too, I think, 6 or 7 thousand dollars related 

to his name. So that's my thought about this. I was 

wondering if other people had other thoughts and whether the 

Department had some thoughts about this. Thank you.
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 11

MR. ROBERTS: Yeah, thanks, Johnson. I do see Adam;

I do see your hand. Please go ahead.

MR. WELLE: Sure, I just wanted to lend support to 

Johnson's proposal. We did put as state AGs the 

certification issue paper and certification regulations 

proposal around transcript withholding. It's an agreement to 

the comments that Johnson made based on the information 

we've gotten here at the Minnesota AGs office. I know other 

AGs have faced this as well. This is a particularly harmful 

debt collection practice to take the leverage that a school 

has in that the student has made this educational investment 

one of the biggest investments they'll make in their life 

and to be able to kind of hold it hostage until they pay 

that institutional debt. And it's a particularly harmful 

practice and we've heard of one case here in Minnesota. 

Often these institutional loans can be and have high 

interest rates. We had a case here in Minnesota where it 

went to trial, and we had testimony from several students 

about the hardship and the difficulty and the kind of 

predatory nature of this debt collection practice for some 

of these high interest institutional loans. And then just 

from the Department standpoint, I think this is important 

because this is an investment that the Department of 

Education has made in the student. So to have an institution 

be able to basically withhold the transcript, withhold the 

proof that the student has received the education seems to 

undermine the goals of the Higher Education Act. And also,

the practice will lead to defaults we saw in the testimony 

here in Minnesota and some of the complaints students have 

to face between repaying their federal loans or their other 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 12

personal expenses because they can't afford the payments and 

they have to make the payment on the institutional loan, 

which can lead to to default. So it seems like from the 

Department of Education's standpoint and the higher 

education goals that this is a practice that should be 

debated. I think it makes sense in the [inaudible] and then 

the certification procedures that I think it could be in 

other regulations for. Thanks.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Adam. Carolyn, I see your 

hand next.

MS. FAST: I just wanted to add my support for the 

idea of including a prohibition on transcript withholding 

either in this administrative capabilities section or in the 

certification language. I agree that this is extremely 

important and will affect an enormous amount of people and 

there's really a growing recognition of this as an issue. 

There are a number of states in which there either has now 

have been laws prohibiting this or that such laws are under 

consideration, and I think that it would be really helpful 

for this to be included.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. Ernest, please go ahead.

MR. EZEUGO: Joining the line of negotiators to add 

my support to this really important consideration. Quickly, 

I would add some context to a little bit of what Johnson 

mentioned on some studies done on transcript withholding. 

Young Invincibles, the organization we're part of, did 

research with the Student Borrower Protection Center and the 

Community Service Society of New York and found significant 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 13

disparities and who had issues and holds related to 

transcript withholding as part of the SUNY system. Our 

research found that zip codes with the most densely Latino 

populations had on average 8 times more transcript 

withholding cases than zip codes with the least densely 

populated Latino populations. We found that the zip codes 

with most densely black populations had on average 10 times 

more transcript withholding cases than codes with the least 

densely black populations. So I add that context and hope 

that the committee would think about and consider this as a 

significant racial equity issue. And then finally, I would 

add a little bit of an anecdote. I know that sometimes in 

these things, we don't necessarily like to talk about 

anecdotes and include personal stories because they're not 

always representative. I would ask you to consider mine real 

quickly. When I finished school after my mom got sick, I had 

thousands of dollars in debt to the university that I 

attended. I honestly was one of, I think, the lucky ones. I 

got an internship at the Department of Education shortly 

after I graduated. That turned into a job that turned into 

another job in D.C., way off the course the positive 

direction of what I thought I'd be doing after [inaudible] 

out, working and stringing together multiple part time jobs 

to try to pay off, as as Adam mentioned, both federal 

student debt and institutional student debt. It still took 

me years to pay off my debt and consideration of living 

costs, costs that home and trying to support family. And 

again, I landed multiple full-time jobs after that, and 

quite frankly, kick started my career at Higher Education 

Act policy, which is to say I can't even begin to imagine 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 14

the impact that transcript withholding is a practice that we 

could address in this rulemaking has on people who don't get 

as lucky. People with more significant hurdles and obstacles 

pursuing their careers and finishing college. So I would 

offer that also as a consideration. Hope we can address it 

in this rulemaking.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. Jessica, I see your hand.

MS. RANUCCI: Thanks. Unless Johnson objects, I'm 

just going to sub in very quickly to make one comment. You 

know, I just want to echo what everybody said, and I think 

my experience largely tracks Johnson's in terms of we see 

this at legal aid organizations all the time where people 

just want to go back to school and they aren't able to. And 

just to make a couple of other points in my experience. One 

is that these are often extremely low dollar value. We're 

talking five hundred dollars, a thousand dollars and because 

of that, it disproportionately affects the people who don't 

have the cash. And then I think that relates to my second 

point, which is these often, in my experience, arise from a 

disconnect between the withdrawal policy and the R2T4 rules. 

So there are people who are never going to pay for the 

semester out of pocket, they don't have money in a bank 

account. They went to a school, often in the schools the 

people we see either there where sort of life circumstances 

that happened or the schools themselves were not what the 

student expected so that they withdraw, they then end up 

with, you know, the difference between R2T4 and the 

withdrawal rules means that they have a credit balance. They 

never have cash to do that. There was never going to be 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 15

money there, and that's what they're going after. And just 

as a quick anecdote, I represented a client who we were 

trying to help her with a $2000 debt from 2004. This was 2 

years ago, and it's someone who couldn't pay it. Even when 

we negotiated to have it with someone who was employed, who 

got money from their employer to be able to go back to 

school, and it just was not able to. It was just such a 

waste. It was a waste of the federal money. It was a waste 

of the city money that could be on the table. And it was 

just someone who was just completely stuck over this very 

small dollar amount from, you know, 15 years ago. So I just 

want to emphasize, I think it's really important for the 

small dollar and for the people who just aren't able to 

access the cash to negotiate or pay these off.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Jessica. Gregory, does the 

Department have a response they'd like to share now?

MR. MARTIN: Sure. Well, obviously this is an area 

of great concern for four people at the table here and I 

think around the country. And you know, it is definitely an 

issue that we are aware of. Obviously, we had no proposed 

rules relative to that and these papers, but we can 

certainly consider it. Of course, you know, it's fine to 

hear these comments and that but I think we have a 

discussion of certification procedures scheduled for 

Wednesday and since any, if there were to be a regulation 

addressing this, that it would likely be in 668.14 Program 

participation agreement, it's best discussed within the 

context of certification procedures. So I will commit to 

having a discussion of that when we get to that topic, but I 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 16

would like to keep to the schedule that we have in front of 

us.

MR. ROBERTS: Okay, thank you. So with that guidance 

for the committee, Greg do you want to walk through the 

changes for issue paper number one, Ability to Benefit?

MR. MARTIN: Yeah, we can start with Ability to 

Benefit. We can bring up that paper and we will walk through 

the sections again. I think we'll do it by, we can do it by 

paragraph. Generally, I'll try to do it by paragraph. If 

it's a whole section that's relatively small, we can do it 

that way, too, so play that by ear, but I will try to go 

through, I will generally try to go through by paragraph as 

we look at Ability to Benefit. So we'll start with B,no real 

changes here. Just to review this is the definition of an

Eligible Career Pathways Program and this is in the 

definition section 668.2. And you can see here that the 

program combines rigorous and high-quality education 

training of the services that aligns with the skill needs of 

industries in the economy of a state or regional economy 

involved; prepares an individual to be successful in any 

range of secondary or postsecondary education options, 

including apprenticeships. Includes counseling to support an 

individual and achieving individual's education and career 

goals. Includes, as appropriate, education offered

concurrently with and in the same context as workforce 

preparation; organizes education training and other services 

to meet the particular needs of an individual in a manner 

that accelerates the educational and career achievement of 

the individual to the extent practicable and engages an 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 17

individual to attain a secondary school diploma or its 

recognized equivalents ,and at least one recognized 

postsecondary credential ; and helps the individual enter or 

advance within a specific occupation or occupational 

cluster. So that's our definition. And remember that we, I, 

just want to reiterate that that's simply the definition, 

the definition part, and we will talk later in 157 about the 

ways in which the institution demonstrates to the Secretary 

that it is meant that definition of an Eligible Career 

Pathways Program. So I'll open it up to any discussion 

people have about the about the definition.

MR. ROBERTS: Alright, thank you. Just before we 

[inaudible] in, I do want to make two brief notes. David, is 

in on behalf of state agencies and Will is on behalf of twoyear institutions. And conveniently, David, I see your hand 

first, so please go ahead.

MR. SOCOLOW: Thank you very much. And recognizing 

that this is the statutory definition and as you said, 157 

has the standards that the Department will be applying. And 

when we get there, we can talk about it more, but I would 

want to kick this off by respectfully asking the Department 

to respond to the suggestion I sent on February 1st that the 

new rules should reinforce the transformational policy in 

the 2014 revisions to ATB, which support the career and 

academic success of adults without a high school diploma. By 

aligning with integrated education and training, IET, the 

best practices to help these adult students. The 2014 

amendments to the Ability to Benefit provision of the Higher 

Education Act added a key requirement for students without a 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 18

high school diploma to participate in a career pathway 

program as a condition of receiving Title IV financial aid 

through all three ATB eligibility methods. And now 7 years 

plus after that law was enacted, commend the Department for 

proposing not just to put this statutory definition in the 

regs where it's pretty much identical to the law, but to 

actually verify the eligibility of career pathway programs 

that are going to offer Title IV aid to these students 

without high school diplomas. Why has the Department not 

taken the opportunity to align its standards for evaluating 

these career pathways to reinforce the curricular model that 

works best for adults without high school diplomas? Now, 

career pathways can have all kinds of forms. This general 

definition here can apply to lots of different career 

pathways, mostly for adults and others with high school 

diplomas. But for those who don't have high school diplomas, 

the ATB population, IET is the evidence based best practice 

that is noted in the Institute of Education Sciences, What 

Works Clearinghouse and in the Department's Office of Career 

Technical and Adult Education Toolkits. And finally, again, 

can the Department please clarify that it's going to apply 

the same standards in 157 A, 668.157 A, to all three methods 

for students to become eligible for ATB, whether it's 

passing a test, completing 6 credits of coursework or the 

equivalent through something paid for with other than Title 

IV or through a state process. Thank you.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, David. The Department might 

might need some time. Unless Greg, I'm happy to seed the 

floor to you, but if not, I can go to our next commenter.
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 19

MR. MARTIN: Yeah, I can. I'll address that we have 

considered the the position that David just advanced 

regarding IET. And I want to just say we, you know, we did 

consider that and as a response would say that, you know, we 

do not currently take the position that IET is the only way 

adult education services can be part of a career pathway. 

It's certainly one way the IET programs, for instance, like 

I-BEST, are important evidence-based models, but adult 

education can be part of a career pathway by offering other 

types of [inaudible] services as well. The recommendation 

here will be stricter, and we are concerned about 

participation in the overall participation in career 

pathways. So we're trying to tread a line between integrity 

here and also access to the programs and, you know, having a 

critical mass of of these programs in place to allow 

students to benefit from it. Career pathways are not 

required to use the IET as a sole implementation strategy

for IET so this would not be consistent with the definition. 

Other adult education strategies are often used to provide 

adult education services within a career pathways program, 

so we definitely share the desire to to make this as useful 

for students as possible but again, we're trying to balance 

that off with being overly restrictive. So we will take back 

the comment, but that's our response to to that assertion. 

But I will open it up for discussion.

MR. ROBERTS: Great. Will, please.

MR. DURDEN: Thanks. Also, when we get into this 

definition a little bit more and how it gets applied, I'll 

have a comment on that. Just to something general as well to 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 20

open the session, I believe last month it was actually also 

David who made a data request to the Department of ED so we 

could get more of a handle on just how much Ability to 

Benefit is being used nationwide, where, and how, and I was 

curious about the status of that request?

MR. ROBERTS: Okay. And again, just as a reminder, I 

mean, we all know this has been mentioned before, but any 

questions and reminders about data requests just talking in 

the chat if there's not a response immediately available 

from the Department for the committee. Jessica is at the 

table on behalf of legal aid organizations. And Jessica, 

your hand is next.

MS. RANUCCI: Thank you. Brady, I asked Cindy to 

screen share a picture, I don't know if that's possible on 

the tech end, but if it is, that'd be great if you could 

share it with the negotiators and the public. But I'll start 

while you're working on that. I just want to emphasize 

because of this conversation how important this is again, 

from a legal aid perspective, and I don't want to beat a 

dead horse here, but I think sometimes we see what happens 

when things go wrong in a way that other people at the table 

just don't see. And so just two brief points on that. One 

is, you know, my office was involved in a lawsuit two years 

ago regarding ATB fraud that resulted in over 4000 people 

calling us for help, whose school closed at the latest in 

1994. So these debts, like this is they hang out for 30 

years like anyone who is going into an ATB program that is 

not good for them. It's not a problem now. It's a problem 

now. And you know, we're talking now into the, I would say, 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 21

the 2050's that these debts are going to be hanging around. 

And so it's really, really important to get this right. And 

then my second point, which is on the picture, if you can 

get it, if not, that's okay.

MR. ROBERTS: Jessica, so, Vanessa, if you wouldn't 

mind bringing down your screen share of the document very 

briefly. And Jessica, you should have screen share ability. 

So you have the image queued feel free.

MS. JEFFRIES: Brady, I have it for the sake of 

time.

MR. ROBERTS: Okay.

MS. RANUCCI: Thank you, Cindy. You know, this is 

not just a problem from the 80's. I just wanted to share 

with you. This is a picture of an ad campaign that went out 

in the last couple of weeks. My colleagues took this last 

week on the New York City subway. This is a full subway car 

with ads from the same school. And this is one that 

particularly sticks out. This same school was put on 

probation from its regional creditor in December. And that 

letter stated that it was at risk of losing its 

accreditation and that it had submitted a teach out plan. So 

I think this is exactly what we're trying to avoid is and I 

think the way to do that is as David and others have said, 

to really strengthen the definition of ECPP so that we're 

making sure that people who are in these programs are in 

fact benefiting from them and they're not going to be 

saddled with debts that they can't repay through 2030, 2040, 

2050 and up.
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 22

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Jessica. And David, we'll 

go back to you.

MR. SOCOLOW: Thanks, and Greg, thank you so much 

for the for the response, so I want to clarify in rejoinder 

that I'm not suggesting that IET is the only way career 

pathway can work for adult education. I am suggesting that 

this Title IV regulation should have the most stringent 

possible. You said specifically, you're trying to balance 

integrity well, in light of what Jessica has just shown in 

light of the the original rescinding of ATB, you know, in 

2011 because of abuses and then the partial restoration of 

it for Title IV aid access. We have to air on the side of 

being very clear about what works and what makes sense. This 

is an exception to the general rule. Adults without high 

school diplomas, you know, probably aren't going to be able 

to succeed in college, but they can if we do it right and we 

know what doing it right looks like. And rather than 

investing this Title IV money in things that don't work or 

that are less likely to work, why not? Please, use this 

opportunity to make clear what all the science and all of 

the research on these dual enrollment partnerships between 

higher ed and adult ed have shown over the last two decades 

is what we know works. And so you can, yes, there are other 

places in the general adult ed landscape in which there's 

other modes for adult ed for individuals without high school 

diplomas. But this is the part about individuals that have 

high school diplomas getting this investment of financial 

aid and getting possibly student loans. And before we allow 

that to happen, let's cabinet closely with the IET 

definition, please. That's my fervent request.
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 23

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, David, and I just wanted to 

welcome back Johnson to the table on behalf of legal aid and 

Johnson, please.

MR. TYLER: Yeah, just a different a different issue 

relates related to it's just paragraphs subsection six about 

the secondary enabling the person to obtain a secondary 

school diploma. So in this memo that I've thrown in here, 

there's a person in California, Mr. Alvarez, who went to a 

for-profit school and basically their idea of getting your 

high school diploma was signing up to an online course where 

there's no assistance in helping. Mr. Alvarez try to 

understand the classes he's taking and the entity that they 

sign up with is a for-profit. He got passing grades from 

them, but he couldn't pass, he didn't learn anything. And so 

there's sort of this, there's a whole industry that's 

potentially out there to be abused to take advantage of this 

Title IV money by purporting to say that people are going to 

get a high school diploma. And you know, we saw this a lot 

prior to the amendments of ATB. I'm sorry, when it was 

banned in 2012, we would see these things all the time, but 

these mills are cropping up again. One beauty school created 

their own high school diploma mill. That was in 2015, there 

was a lot of litigation about that. The Department of 

Education is familiar with that. And just as recently as 

2021, Florida closed down a high school diploma mill. So, 

you know, I think we've proposed language here in paragraph 

section six here about how to how to define what a useful 

education is or a useful way of trying to pursue your high 

school education should be I think it's way too vague here. 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 24

It's going to lead to a lot more of these subway ads in New 

York City and other states.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. Greg, I'm not seeing any 

new hands on this first section. Do you want to go through 

the next section?

MR. MARTIN: Yes, we'll move on to student 

eligibility. Okay, we're going to go to 668.32, this is the 

discussion of student eligibility, and this is talking about 

the ways to establish eligibility here. Under (e)(1) has a 

high school diploma; has obtained a passing score specified 

by the Secretary on an independently administered test in 

accordance with subpart J, and either was enrolled in an 

eligible program before July 1, 2012; or is enrolled in the 

Eligible Career Pathways Program as defined in 668.2, which 

we just went over. And then before July 1, 2012, just 

references the grandfathering that was present in the 

statute when ATB was taken away. Is enrolled in an eligible 

institution that participates in a state process approved by 

the Secretary of the subpart J. And again, we referenced 

either being enrolled before July 1, 2012, or enrolled in a 

career in a career pathways program. The other ways in which 

students establish eligibility was home schooled. We're not 

discussing that today. Has been determined by the 

institutions who have the ability to benefit from the 

education or training offered by the institution based on 

the satisfactory completion of 6 semester hours, 6 trimester 

hours, 6 quarter hours or 225 clock hours that are 

applicable toward a degree or certificate offered by the 

institution again wasn't enrolled before July 1, 2012, or as 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 25

in Eligible Career Pathways Program. So I don't think 

there's that much there that we haven't seen before, but I 

do want to give the opportunity to anybody who would like to 

comment on that particular source. So [inaudible], but I do 

want to make give the opportunity.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. Vanessa, if you wouldn't 

mind bringing down the document just so we can see 

everyone's bright smiling faces. Any comments or new 

material for the Department to consider on what was just 

presented? Alright, Vanessa, sorry, I'm going to put you 

right back to work. Would you mind re sharing the document 

and then Greg, would you mind walking us through the next 

section?

MR. MARTIN: Sure. Let's move on to 668.156, and 

we're looking at the improved state process and some changes 

here. And we'll start with A, under approved state process. 

I'll wait for the document, come up. Okay, there we go. So 

the state that wishes the Secretary to consider its state 

process as an alternative to achieving the passing score an 

approved, independently administered test or satisfactory 

completion of at least 6 credit hours or it's recognized 

equivalent coursework for the purpose of determining a 

student's eligibility for title IV HEA funds must apply to 

the Secretary for approval of that process. And here we've 

stricken some language there, deleted this text, and instead 

it's been incorporated into paragraph (a)(2) romanette i. So 

the state's application, oh, here we've also updated 

paragraphs 2 romanette 3 to include across reference to the 

documentation requirements in the Eligible Career Pathways 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 26

Program, as suggested by the negotiators. So we have made 

some some changes here. A state's application for approval 

of its state process must include the institution is located 

in the state included in the proposed process, which need 

not be all of the institutions located in the state; the 

requirements that participating institutions must meet in 

order to offer Eligible Career Pathways Programs through the 

State process; a certification that, as of the date of the 

application, each process is proposed career pathways 

program intended for use through the State process 

constitutes an Eligible Career Pathways Program as defined 

in 668.2 and as documented through the standards outlined in 

34 CFR 668.157 at this part. And this was David's 

suggestion, we added a reference to the documentation 

requirements in 668.157 and for clarity sake we've also 

maintained the reference to the actual definition in 668.2. 

So we're trying to pull the two of those together. The 

criteria used to determine the student eligibility determine 

student eligibility for participation in the State process. 

And before approving the state process, the Secretary will 

verify that a sample of the proposed Eligible Career 

Pathways Programs comply with the definition of an Eligible 

Career Pathways Program as defined in 668.2 and documented 

through the standards and 668.157. Again, we see the 

reference to 157 there. Participating, in this, I want to 

move on to (b)(1) where we have added an accountability 

metric and again, just to put this into perspective, we're 

talking about career pathways programs coming in for which 

we don't have any data, any track record, in which to 

evaluate the outcomes of that program. So, during that 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 27

initial period impose some sort of an accountability 

standard here. So we do seek feedback as to whether this 

should be at the institutional level as is proposed here or 

only for fields of study that will be an Eligible Career 

Pathways Program. And we seek feedback on whether all new 

participating institutions should be required to meet the 

standard. So let's take a look at this standard and then 

we'll pause to discuss this, since this is new. So if a 

participating institution does not have more than 33 percent 

of its undergraduate regular students withdraw from the 

institution during the institution's latest completed award 

year, the institution must count all regular students who 

are enrolled during the latest completed award year, except 

those students who, during that period, withdrew from, 

dropped out or were expelled from the institution; and were 

entitled to and actually received in a timely manner, a 100 

percent refund of their tuition and fees. So I want to stop 

there and open the floor for discussion on this and just to 

say that this incorporates the withdrawal standard that is 

present in 668.16, that's administrative capability and that 

is currently applied to new institutions. So with that, I'll 

open for discussion.

MR. ROBERTS: Great. David, I see your hand first. 

And Vanessa, if you wouldn't mind bringing down the document 

just very briefly.

MR. SOCOLOW: Super thanks. First, I want to thank 

the Department, I think it's great to the way you've 

delineated this, that 668.2 is the definition ties back to 

the statute and then 157 is where the standards are for 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 28

evaluating a career pathway. I think that was well done and 

I appreciate that incorporation in both 2 and 3 here. As far 

as (b)(1), that you suggested, I think you're right and I 

agree with this language that it has to be at the 

institutional level because again, we're talking about the 

two year initial renewal of, excuse me, the two year initial 

approval of a state process for which the career pathways 

may be new and innovative ideas that the state is including 

that career pathway may not have a 33 percent withdrawal 

standard or any withdrawal standard. It may not yet exist. 

And so making it at the institution level and making sure 

that a quality institution is the only one that's allowed to 

be doing those career pathways strikes me as the right 

choice. So I applaud this language.

MR. ROBERTS: Great, thank you. And I just want to 

make a note that Emmanual is coming to the table on behalf 

of private nonprofits, but first, Will I see your hand.

MR. DURDEN: Thank you. I have questions about the 

standard and where it came from and what it's trying to 

accomplish. A state public education workforce development 

system is invested in getting its residents into good career 

pathway programs that are Title IV eligible that lead to 

high demand living wage work in the region that brings 

racial and economic justice to our residents, and it helps 

us meet workforce needs. This is about the state process and 

the state plan. So to my knowledge, I don't believe forprofit institutions are part of that. So this is something 

that gets coordinated by a state agency in concert with the 

colleges working out how to make sure that we have high 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 29

quality programs using all of our state's checks and 

balances that we do to accomplish that. When I look back at 

that advertisement, I think it's a great advertising and I 

think we should be encouraging students who don't have a 

high school credential to save time and money by enrolling 

in a career pathway program that allows them to do both at 

the same time. I think the problem with that advertisement 

for some folks was the institution behind it, not 

necessarily the message. And I think this is something that 

we're trying desperately to get more of our residents to do 

and for our colleges to feel comfortable doing, so 

implementation is key there. So from where I sit seeing this 

new standard, this 33 percent, that metric wasn't familiar 

to me. I'm not sure. I feel like that's one more thing 

that's going to make institutions say, maybe we don't want 

to offer this. There's too many requirements that are going 

to make us nervous about doing it. So I'm not in favor of 

what I'm seeing there.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Will. Emmanual, please.

MR. GUILLORY: So I had just two quick questions. 

The first one was actually on page two; it was in 

subparagraph (e) in paragraph 5. So 225 clock hours is still 

stated here and on May 25th, 2021, the Department did 

release an update with the clock to credit conversion, and 

it went into effect July 1st of last year. And basically, 

that changes in 37.5 clock hours equaling one semester 

trimester hour or 25 clock hours equaling one quarter. It's 

now 30 clock hours will equal one semester hour. So, with 

that being said, I think the 225 here should be 180. But I 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 30

just wanted to ask and see if the Department intentionally 

kept that in there. I just wouldn't want to make this more, 

I guess, not burdensome, not the best word, but I just want 

to make sure that it all aligns properly. So that's my first 

question. My second, I guess I have three, my second is 

later on in section 668.56, the approved state process, the 

term 6 credit hours is used, which is totally fine but I 

didn't know if the Department wanted to keep that language 

consistent and use the 6 semester, 6 trimester hours, 6th 

quarter hour language or just keep it with 6 credit hours. 

And then the very last thing that I have is in paragraph 3, 

where it says before approving the state process, the 

Secretary will verify that a sample of the proposed Eligible 

Career Pathways Programs comply, I was curious why it's just 

a sample and why you just wouldn't want to know that all of 

them apply? Thank you.

MR. MARTIN: I can address a couple of those. I 

don't, let me have our people check the math on the two 25 

clock hours. I believe that was done as a percentage of the 

academic year but let me just check on that. I don't want to 

make a commitment to that until I have someone check that 

for me. I don't want to do any math on the fly. Not a smart 

thing to do, but I believe 225 is correct because it is 

there as a percentage of the academic of the way the 

academic year is defined, the way the 6 is taking that 

statute only mention 6 credits. And it just was confirmed to 

me that that is correct. So these six credits as a 

percentage of the academic year as defined in statute. And 

since statute didn't address clock hours, we just did the 

similar percentage for for for clock hours as a percentage 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 31

of the academic year for for clocktower programs. As far as 

the, so no, we don't have any plans to change that from what 

it is as it's currently stated here. With respect to 

sometimes saying semester, trimester, or quarter hours or 

just credit hours, we'll make sure that we're consistent 

with that. I'm not sure which one we would use, but I think, 

well, credit hours are either it can only be quarter 

semester or trimester, so we'll take a look at that. As far 

as the sample goes, I think there is a workload issue that 

we'll look at looking at a sample of those as opposed to 

every single one of them. So just to align our capacity with 

wanting to take a look at what these programs, what these 

programs are, we decided to go with a sample as opposed to 

looking at everyone.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Greg. And Emmanual, 

anything that the Department notes, just feel free to pop in 

the chat so we don't lose track of it. And Greg, I'm not 

seeing any new hands or any additional feedback for the 

Department. So do you want to? Oh, Amanda, sorry, I spoke 

too soon.

MS. AMANDA MARTINEZ: Greg, can you repeat for me 

what the why there's no explanation or a kind of a bubble 

for the section B paragraph 1 or B paragraph 1, the the 

withdrawal rates. Can you repeat for me the the policy goal 

here, you said it was for accountability?

MR. MARTIN: So, the policy goal here, again, we 

have this two-year period before the general standards are 

applied. And, you know, there is the Department's needs that 

need to have something in place to account for those two 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 32

years as opposed to just saying, well, you know, you come in 

for the two year, you can have the program for the two year 

period and there's no accountability established for that 

period of time. We don't have any outcomes during that twoyear period where we can assess the program. So this is sort 

of [inaudible] understand that this is not measuring the 

outcome of the program, which we cannot do at that point. So 

it's introducing a standard to apply so that there are no 

standards. And you know, and it is, I disagree with an 

assertion that it doesn't have any applicability because 

we're looking at this with withdrawal rate and I think that 

it does extent to which students have withdrawn from those 

institutions generally just tell a story of sorts about 

tuition and does and does indicate sort of an upfront 

measure of what types of success the school is or the 

programs that the institution are or are seeing.

MS. AMANDA MARTINEZ: Okay, thank you. And then I 

have a follow up, or Will; Brady, I don't know if I should 

ask.

MR. ROBERTS: Is it okay if I jump to Will and then 

I'll just come right back to you?

MS. AMANDA MARTINEZ: Yeah, that's good.

MR. ROBERTS: Will, please go ahead.

MR. DURDEN: Just a quick clarification because I 

think it'll help. Gregory, can you say again, I think you 

did say where that 33 percent came from and I just kind of 

missed it because I wasn't aware of it before we started 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 33

this morning. Can you say again where that number comes 

from?

MR. MARTIN: Yes. Sure. It comes from the 

administrative capability provisions in 668.16. And I think 

it's in, let me just yes, it's applicable, it's been there 

for a while, it's applicable, it's been applicable to newly 

participating institutions.

MR. DURDEN: Thank you. That's the part that I 

needed. That's really helpful. Appreciate it.

MR. MARTIN: My pleasure.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. And then, Amanda, please 

pick it right back up.

MS. AMANDA MARTINEZ: Well, my follow up question 

was the reasoning behind the 33 percent. But this is a new 

question because you already answered my first question. Did 

the Department in deciding this 33 percent floor [phonetic], 

did it find utility that this would, you know, yes, while 

it's cross-referenced in other regulations is their utility 

in using this specific number, and was there a new analysis 

made about whether this would actually be helpful?

MR. MARTIN: Well, the utility of it is for this 

purpose is, I think, how I phrase this at this point sort of 

a philosophical determination that this would be a useful 

standard. It's never been applied this way before, so I 

don't know that I can address utility in terms of looking at 

what's occurred in the past because we we haven't done that. 

We find it that there's utility in it as as as it's applied 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 34

currently in the administrative capability standards for new 

institutions. It is a regulatory standard that we have in 

place, which which which means it's not arbitrary. We 

haven't just, you know, which, of course, we're not allowed 

to do without some sort of backup for why we're using it, 

either research as to why we're doing something or we're 

looking at another regulation that we have we have used. And 

the standard is one that we think will, you know, say 

something about the programs, about the institution in terms 

of what types of, it's certainly not a complete measure of 

an institution's success, but it is a measure when you're 

looking at with the withdrawal rates of of students. So we 

do feel that it will be a useful measure here. And again, 

there's no perfect way to to look at these first two years 

that we're going to permit participation before we have data 

and because there's nothing to gauge outcomes by, so we're 

stuck with having to introduce some some accountability 

standard. This isn't accountability standard; it just comes 

from administrative capability and is yet to be applied 

here. So I think that it would be disingenuous to say that 

we've applied it in this way before because we haven't and 

obviously it's a new thing, but we do believe it will be 

useful and will set put some parameters around this for 

those first.

MR. ROBERTS: Okay. David.

MR. SOCOLOW: So not to belabor this, but I mean, I 

do appreciate the idea of a two year initial thing because, 

you know, it's been very hard for states to try innovative 

career pathway initiatives to foster this particular 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 35

population of adults without a high school diploma to get 

something that really will help them with their career and 

academic success. And so this two-year initial thing, 

followed by a five-year renewal, the initial approval is a 

terrific change that the Department is proposing to make 

here. And you know, what the law says is you've got to take 

into account, the Secretary shall take into account the 

effectiveness of this state process in enabling students 

without high school diploma or equivalent to benefit from 

the instructions offered by the institutions that 

participate in the state process. So I mean, that's, you 

know, effectiveness is, you know, I mean, its outcomes data, 

which was the prior rule was impossible. It's a new program. 

How can there be outcomes data? So, effectiveness? I think 

this is a good proxy for effectiveness.

MR. ROBERTS: Great. Greg, I'm not seeing any new 

hands if you want to pick us back up with walking through 

modifications on issue paper number 1.

MR. MARTIN: And I just want to say before we move 

on, you know that I think that it's important to point out 

here that we're not, you know, we've put in this protocol 

for the first two years. Absent that, we would have to hold 

every institution to the 95 percent success rate, which 

would be impossible for anybody to demonstrate. So I think 

we need to view this in that context. Okay, let's move on 

then, we're looking at B and we just looked at B 1. And now 

I'd like to move to B 2 and and I'm sorry, I want to move on 

to B 3, rather. The state agrees that the total number of 

students that enroll in the initial period will total no 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 36

more than 1 percent of enrollment at each institution 

participating in the state.

MR. ROBERTS: Just to briefly pause, Greg, Vanessa 

will you just bring up the document just so we can keep 

track of where we are?

MR. MARTIN: Oh, sorry about that.

MR. ROBERTS: That's okay.

MR. MARTIN: I'll pause for that.

MR. ROBERTS: She might be having technical 

difficulties. Alright, there we go. Thank you, Renee.

MR. MARTIN: Okay. Thanks. Okay, there we are. 

Alright. Excellent. So here you see it on the screen again 

that the state agrees the total number of students that 

enroll in the initial period will total no more than 1 

percent of the enrollment at each institution participating 

in the state process. You can see here at each institution, 

the Department proposed the number of students that can 

enroll in the state process at each participating 

institution during this period be capped, the cap is not 

after the initial period, so I want to make that clear. The 

cap is only intended to apply to the students’ number of 

students that are enrolled under the state process and has 

no impact on total enrollment at the institution. Do point 

out again that as written, this cap is only applying to 

institutions who participate in the two year trial period, 

and we do entertain any comment where we would like to 

solicit any comments regarding whether or not this should 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 37

only apply during the two year period or whether it should 

extend beyond that indefinitely. So you see it as written, 

but we will take suggestions or comment on that or other 

ways people might see it.

MR. ROBERTS: Alright, thank you. Renee, if you 

wouldn't mind bringing down the document and then Will we'll 

turn it over to you.

MR. DURDEN: Thanks. So approve of the 1 percent 

cap, but I think that it should apply at the state level and 

not at the institutional level. I can imagine a small 

technical college with a really strong adult education 

program, they've got a lot of students enrolled, they hit 

1.1 percent, 1.2 percent. I would hate to say stop serving 

students in this effective process, whereas you might have a 

large, transfer oriented community college down the road 

that serves almost nobody in this process and it gets 

nowhere near 1 percent. So I would rather see the 1 percent 

applied at the state level for the state process as opposed 

to the institutional.

MR. MARTIN: Thank you.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. Anyone else on this 

section, otherwise I'll ask that we continue walking through 

the document. Okay. Greg and Renee, if you wouldn't mind 

picking us back up.

MR. MARTIN: Thank you. Wait for the document to 

come back up. Okay. Here we have just the addition of 

allowing only the participation of those students eligible 

under 668.32 (e)(3), that's the student eligibility and does 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 38

reference to state process that we mistakenly showed this 

text as current during the session one, but we've corrected 

to show its red line text here. So and it also we have some 

renumbering as a result, but this was just shown as being 

current previously, but it was an addition we should have 

shown at that time. And here under under 4, we have 

terminated the institution from the state process if the 

institution refuses or fails to comply with the state 

process requirements, including exceeding the total number 

of students referenced in paragraph B 3 of this section. And 

this is just to reference the the limitation that was 

imposed in B 3 that we just discussed. We move down to F and 

G. You see those as stricken. Now this language now appears 

in paragraph I so we will be looking at that. And then the 

language below that we've revised this language that now 

appears in J 1. So all the stricken language here moving 

down appears in paragraph J 2. Let's move down to to E. And 

here, okay, after the initial two year period described in 

paragraph B of this section, the state must reapply for 

continued participation and in its application demonstrate 

that the students it admits under the process have a success 

rate as determined under paragraph F of this section that is 

within 95 percent of the success rate of students with high 

school diplomas. Demonstrate that the state's process 

continues to satisfy the requirements of paragraphs A, C and 

D of the section. Report information to the Department on 

the enrollment and success of participating students by 

program, race, gender, age and educational attainment to the 

extent that that is possible. And the state must also 

calculate the success rates as referenced in paragraph 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 39

(e)(1) of the section by determining number of students with 

high school diplomas who during the applicable award year 

described in (g)(1) of this section enrolled in 

participating institutions as successfully completed their 

education or training, enrolled in education or training 

programs at the end of the award year, or successfully 

transferred and remained enrolled in another institution at 

the end of that enrolled year. So just some comments on 

this. We have corrected the cross-reference that mistakenly 

set paragraph G and that was appropriately identified as F. 

We've retained the requirement that a state demonstrate a 

success rate for its ATB students that is within 95 percent 

of the success rate of students with high school diplomas. 

And we do seek feedback as to whether or not this is an 

appropriate threshold. It's in current regulation. It's been 

there for a while, but we do ask the negotiators to consider 

whether or not this is the right threshold for success. And 

we note here that, we welcome, I'm sorry, David proposed 

adding Eligible Career Pathways Program before this before 

program, reasoning that the success rate metrics should be 

disregarded by ECPP. This will allow calculations on whether 

some Eligible Career Pathways Programs included in the state 

do achieve success of the success rate standard in (e)(1), 

even if other pathway programs do not meet the standard. And 

I will continue with these standards here under 2. And then 

we'll have a discussion over that when we get to the end of 

the paragraph. Determining the number of students with high 

school diplomas who enrolled in education or training 

programs in participating institutions during the award 

year. Determining the number of students calculated in 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 40

paragraph (f)(2) of the section who remained enrolled after 

subtracting the number of students who subsequently withdrew 

or expelled from the institution and received 100 percent of 

their tuition refund of their tuition under the institutions 

refund policy, then dividing the number of students 

determined the paragraph (f)(1) of this section by the 

number of students in (f)(3) of this section and making the 

calculations described in paragraph (f)(1) through (f)(4) 

for students without a high school diploma or its recognized 

equivalent who enrolled in participating institutions. So 

that's the calculation of the 95 percent rate. And we also 

seek feedback on whether the comparison population should 

include all other students that enrolled at participating 

institutions. So with that, I'll open it up for discussion 

before we move on to paragraph G.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. If we could bring down the 

document. Any questions, comments, or feedback for the 

Department? David.

MR. SOCOLOW: Okay, thanks. So you mentioned the 

idea of just clarifying on the success rate that we're 

talking about disaggregating it by program because now we're 

doing the 5 year renewal approval after the 2 year initial 

trial period. And it's very possible that some of the 

experiments that the state's proposed worked and some 

didn't. And it would seem like an ability for the Secretary 

to say you can have a 5 year renewal, but only with respect 

to those that worked would be an appropriate use of the 

Secretary's authority. The other point here is that the 

sample that was discussed back in (a)(3) with regard to the 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 41

initial trial period is essentially seemingly just repeated 

here, right? Because they've just got to continue to satisfy 

the requirements in paragraph A, which includes the sample. 

And so I guess the question for the Department is why not at 

this point for the more long term approval require the state 

to document that it has eligible career pathways for all of 

the programs in its state process going forward now that the 

two year trial is over? So those are just my first two 

comments.

MR. MARTIN: Thank you.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, David. Will.

MR. DURDEN: Thanks. I'm still a little unclear on I 

think the standard's been around for a while, but I don't 

mean, it's not clear to me where it really where it came 

from and why that 95 percent metric was settled on is 

meaningful. And as we're sitting here looking at this and 

thinking about this 1 percent statewide cap, remember that 

this is a state plan. This is something that's put together 

through a lot of collaboration between a coordinating entity 

and the colleges that would participate in it. It goes 

through an approval process. I think there's a lot of checks 

and balances, and I wonder if that 1 percent cap actually 

isn't a better way to have some controls over it while we 

implement it research to see how well it works. And I'm 

curious about actually just removing the success rate 

entirely and falling back on that 1 percent cap as a way to 

keep this in check as we implement it and study it. So I'm 

not sure I support the success rate at all.
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 42

MR. MARTIN: Thank you, we'll take that back. There 

are some statutory considerations with the success rate, so 

measuring success. So you would be suggesting applying the 1 

percent cap even after the two year period like 

indefinitely?

MR. DURDEN: I'd have to think about that, but I 

think I want to fine tune that a little bit more. But yeah, 

I do think that that's a possibility.

MR. ROBERTS: Okay. Greg, anything else to ask or 

else I'll turn it over to Johnson? Okay, Johnson, go ahead.

MR. TYLER: You know, I appreciate that states have 

the mission of educating people within their states and that 

it is a public service mission that they have. But I would 

be worried that students might be beyond trajectories where 

there's not enough self-analysis going on, and I think this 

provision here is useful for that. With all due respect to 

Will's comment. Thanks.

MR. ROBERTS: Any other questions or comments for 

the Department otherwise Greg, I'll turn it back over to 

you. Great. Alright. If we could re share the document. 

Greg, I think we're on section G, correct? Yeah.

MR. MARTIN: That's correct, section G. So I'll wait 

for her to pull that back up. And there it is very quickly. 

Okay, one second, please, oh, there we go. Okay, soG, let's 

take a look at that. For purposes of the paragraph F in this 

section, the applicable award year is the latest complete 

award year for which information is available that 

immediately precedes the date on which the state requests 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 43

the Secretary approve its state process accept that the 

award year selected must be one of the latest two completed 

award years preceding the application date. If no students 

are enrolled in an Eligible Career Pathway Program through a 

state process, then the success rate reporting will not be 

required in the subsequent application as described in 

paragraph F of this section. The state must submit reports 

on its State process in accordance with deadlines and 

procedures established and published by the Secretary in the 

Federal Register, with such information as a Secretary 

requires. And the Secretary approves the State process as 

described in paragraph E of this section for a period not to 

exceed 5 years. The Secretary withdraws approval of the 

State process if the Secretary determines the State process 

violated any terms of this section or that the information 

the state submitted as a basis for approval was inaccurate. 

And the Secretary provides the state with the opportunity to 

contest the finding that the state process violated any 

terms of this section or that the information that the state 

submitted as a basis for approval of the state process was 

inaccurate. A couple of notes here. We ask again a couple of 

questions here. Should institutions who cannot report 

success rates remain subject to the cap until they can 

report? Should new institutions remain subjected to all new 

institutions remain subjected to the withdrawal rate beyond 

the two year period? Should states remain in the trial 

period with extensions until the success rate can be 

reported? When should the Department withdraw approval of a 

state program? For example, if a State process does not 

remove repeat ineffective institutions after 3 years, the 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 44

State process loses approval and cannot reapply for 3 years. 

That's just a suggestion. We welcome feedback on how many 

years to allow a failing institution to come back into 

compliance. So with that, I'll open it up for comment on 

paragraph G.

MR. ROBERTS: Anything new for the Department to 

consider on section G? David, please.

MR. SOCOLOW: Well, just that list of things that 

you suggested we consider is that something the Department 

could provide in writing because that was a whole lot of 

things that I didn't take notes quickly enough. Those were 

not included in issue paper 1, revision.

MR. MARTIN: No, these are just questions that we 

ask, just directed questions, so I'll go over those again. 

Should all new institutions remain subject to the withdrawal 

rate? Should states remain in the trial period with 

extensions until a success rate can be reported? And when 

should the Department withdrawal approval of a state 

process? And that was just an example. It was not anything 

we were proposing. It was just, you know, for example, if a 

state, if a State process did not repeat, did not remove 

ineffective institutions after 3 years, would the state lose 

approval and cannot reapply? We currently don't have that 

stipulation here. We just throw that out and ask if there 

should be more of a definition of that process. And we are 

welcoming feedback as to how a failing institution could 

could come back into compliance. So there's nothing in here 

that we've proposed that you don't see. These are just just 

directed questions.
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 45

MR. ROBERTS: David, did you have a follow up?

MR. SOCOLOW: Yeah, I mean, I just either take that 

under advisement and not respond right in the moment or 

maybe have a caucus or something, but you know, don't have 

an immediate response to those interesting questions. Thank 

you, Greg.

MR. ROBERTS: Sounds good. Anyone else on section G?

MR. MARTIN: Yeah, and you may not, that's fine if 

you want to consider how to respond to that. That's fine. 

We, you know, obviously this is something people might want 

to think about and come up with.

MR. ROBERTS: And this is maybe relevant, but once 

we're done with issue paper number 1, we're going to take 

another consensus check section by section sort of in 

keeping with the pattern of week one. No, this is not an 

official consensus check because obviously there's still 

some unanswered questions. But that would be the time to 

raise potential responses or other issues you might have 

with the reg text as it currently stands, knowing that we 

have another another week to discuss Ability to Benefit, bt 

anything else on what's been outlined so far. Alright, Greg, 

do you want to walk us through the remainder of the 

document? I know we have section 668, what is it, 157.

MR. MARTIN: I'm sorry, I was on mute. Before we go 

on there, I just also want to say that when we, I don't know 

if in F, we're talking about the 95 percent, wanted to 

clarify that we do seek feedback on whether the comparison 

population should include all other students enrolled at 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 46

participating institutions. As opposed to what we currently 

have, those with high school diplomas enrolled in education 

or training programs and participating institutions, so we 

just throw it open for that, I want to reiterate that. So 

we're moving on to 668.157, the Eligible Career Pathways 

Program and here are the standards. So we'll look at these. 

An institution demonstrates the Secretary that a student is 

enrolled in an Eligible Career Pathways Program, as as 

required in 668.156 (a)(3) of this part, by documenting that 

the student has enrolled in or is receiving both an eligible 

postsecondary program as defined in 668.8 and coursework 

training or other supportive services that enable an 

individual to attain secondary school, a secondary school 

diploma or its equivalent. Program aligns with the skill 

needs of industries in the State or regional labor market in 

which the institution is located based on research the 

institution has conducted, including government reports 

identifying occupations with the greatest hiring demands in 

the State or regional regional labor market, and surveys, 

interviews, meetings or other information obtained by the 

institution regarding hiring needs of employers in the state 

or regional labor market. And we have revised this 

requirement so that institutions must evaluate both the 

government reports and other surveys, or research obtained 

by the institution regarding the state or regional labor 

market. We seek feedback from negotiators on how this 

language should be strengthened to ensure career pathways 

aligned with the labor market. Ideas to consider include 

requirement of direct engagement with industry, curriculum 

development with industry partners, or employment partners 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 47

for recruitment. And here we also ask whether it would be 

appropriate where we say that they must look at government 

reports, this is in 2 romanette 1, government reports 

identifying occupations with the greatest hiring demand. 

Would it be more appropriate to say in demand as opposed to 

the greatest hiring need? So we point that out as well, and 

that's a question for the committee to consider. And we did 

make a correction here in 4 a technical correction to say 

identifies instead of identifying. Okay, and so I'll move on 

here to 3. The skill needs described (a)(2) of this section 

align with specific coursework and postsecondary credential 

provided by the postsecondary program or other required 

training. The program provides career counseling services 

that assist students in obtaining jobs aligned with skill 

needs described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. And as 

we've said before, we changed identifying to identifies 

individuals providing the career counseling services. The 

education is offered concurrently with and in the same 

context as workforce preparation activities and training for 

specific occupational cluster. And the program is designed 

to lead to a valid of high school diploma as defined in 

668.16 (v) of this part or its recognized equivalent. And 

the Eligible Career Pathways Programs that do not enroll 

students through a state process as defined in 668.156, 

rather, for those programs, the Department will verify the 

eligibility of career pathways programs for Title IV HEA 

purposes, and the Secretary provides an institution with the 

opportunity to appeal any any adverse decision. We do ask, 

well, we do ask here for comments on whether the notion that 

it's better to synchronize HEA career pathways with WIOA 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 48

career pathways. However, under WIOA, we do not currently 

take the position that again, IET is the only way to to to 

do that. We mentioned that before. We do want to say though, 

we agree it is an important way. And that is it for the 

comments on G, I'm sorry, 157 rather. So we'll take that 

section in its entirety and open up for comments.

MR. ROBERTS: Alright, David, please.

MR. SOCOLOW: Yeah, so not to beat the dead horse. I 

appreciate your response that it is an important way, and I 

guess I would just suggest that, you know, the language of 

(a)(1) in general seems to sort of miss the particular idea 

of the career pathway not being something the postsecondary 

institution does on its own. Career pathways are, by 

definition, partnerships among multiple institutions and the 

sort of the idea that the higher ED institution is on its 

own running the career pathway that the student can just 

also be enrolled in something else isn't coordinated. I know 

that's possible now under ATB, but it shouldn't be. And the 

career pathways language makes it now possible for you to 

restrict that. That was the intention of Congress in doing 

so. And again, these are the standards by which you're going 

to evaluate not just any old career pathway, but whether a 

career pathways eligible for the specific purpose built idea 

of allowing individuals without a high school diploma to 

receive Title IV aid. And so you've got a chance here to add 

that they're not just documenting that the student has 

enrolled or is receiving both, you know, could be completely 

not even talking to one another. No, you could document that 

there was a true partnership here in one, a true partnership 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 49

between WIOA Title II adult education and services and the 

postsecondary institution to do it together. And so that's 

again, what I would urge that you do as it relates to the 

in-demand occupations. One of the reasons for, I mean, you 

mentioned government reports identifying occupations within 

demand. I think that's right. And I think that even better 

would be to specifically say, go talk to your partners, make 

a partnership real. This could be a way to have that 

partnership reified through the higher ed institution having 

to prove it's an eligible career pathway again for Title IV 

financial aid purposes. That it's done that in partnership 

with those government reports that were done as part of a 

WIOA State Plan or Perkin State Plan showing what industry 

is demanding in terms of skills and occupations. And then 

finally.

MR. WAGNER: You have 30seconds.

MR. SOCOLOW: Well, 30 seconds. So, on B if you 

could just please clarify, is it the Department's intent to 

apply these standards in subsection A to all of the other, 

to the other two methods of ATB eligibility, passing a test 

or completing the 6 credits or clock our equivalent?

MR. MARTIN: Oh, okay, I apologize my connection, I 

think, is not as good as it might be so some of that broke 

up. Yeah, and I thank you for your comments, David. I want 

to ask anybody else on the committee to comment on what you 

heard there or any of the other directed comments we have. 

We are interested in whether or not we should be looking at 

institutions documenting fields with the greatest demand or 

those that are in demand. And we welcome any comments 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 50

related to the IET requirements, whether or not we should be 

stricter about that. And these Eligible Career Pathways 

Program requirements here do apply to any way in which a 

student has demonstrated the ability to benefit because 

currently under current statute, the Eligible Career 

Pathways Program is the only Title IV aid. Ability to 

Benefit, so it's applicable, whether it's demonstrated, via 

test, the credits or the the state process. So I'll open it 

up for other comments.

MR. SOCOLOW: So just to follow up, though, on that 

response to my immediate question. In B, where it says that 

for things that are not a state process, the Department will 

verify the eligibility of career pathways. Can't you just 

say pursuant to the standards in A, 157 A, so that's crystal 

clear? Because without that, there are no standards for that 

Department verification.

MR. MARTIN: So okay, so we're saying for Eligible 

Career Pathways Programs that did not enroll students to a 

state process defined in 156, the Department will verify the 

eligibility of Eligible Career Pathways Programs for Title 

IV purposes. The Secretary provides an institution with the 

ability to appeal. I mean, so are you saying you want it 

noted specifically noted what the other means? 

MR. SOCOLOW: No, I want you to say.

MR. MARTIN: That Ability to Benefit are?

MR. SOCOLOW: No, that those others there said 

others so we know what they are. There are the other two. If 

you could just say they're to make it 100 percent clear. 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 51

What I think you just said is the Department's intent is 

that you will use the standards immediately above in 157 A, 

to make those evaluations.

MR. MARTIN: Okay, we'll take that back. Thank you.

MR. ROBERTS: Great, thank you. Will.

MR. DURDEN: Thanks. We do think that this Eligible 

Career Pathways Program section is a great place to really 

fine tune what it means to do Ability to Benefit well and to 

give institutions the guidance and the structure that they 

need to feel confident that they're meeting those 

requirements and to help states monitor this appropriately. 

So zeroing in on that counseling requirement, which I 

believe is mostly, I think according to the definition is 

career and education counseling, we are interested in a 

proposal. This is language we could send in later, 

interested in a proposal to really expand that to include 

information on financial assistance, specifically other 

public benefit programs that can help meet any component of 

the student's cost of attendance. So I think that as 

colleges have looked at implementing, you know, they don't 

think of themselves as offering Eligible Career Pathways 

Programs because that's a unique term. So when we work on 

Ability to Benefit, we're thinking about, okay, what do you 

already have and how do those components come together to 

create an Eligible Career Pathways Program? And the 

counseling requirement can feel ambiguous to some. How do we 

know that we're offering appropriate counseling? How do we 

know that that meets definition? And at the state level to 

make sure that we're counseling students not just on the 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 52

federal assistance that's available to them, but the whole 

range of public benefit programs that the student could draw 

from to support themselves. Staying enrolled and completing 

the program would be really beneficial, so we'd be 

interested in opening this up and clarifying it a little bit 

more to include that piece.

MR. MARTIN: Thank you for that. And, you know, we 

certainly would welcome any suggestions you have related to 

those counseling requirements, if you would provide those to 

us. Going back before I just wanted to clarify again for 

purposes of the previous discussion we had about about B, 

that just reiterate that we absolutely will apply all 

standards of A to where we say career pathway program is not 

participating through a state process, we will verify the 

eligibility of that for Title IV HEA program purposes by 

applying A. So we can take that back and see if we can 

reword that a little to make that more clear. But I just 

want to clarify that for our purposes here. Brady, do we 

have any other comments?

MR. ROBERTS: We do. Amanda, I see your hand next.

MS. AMANDA MARTINEZ: I just have a clarifying 

question. For programs that are approved through this 

process as outlined here in this paper going to the question 

of financial aid counseling, wouldn't the next issue paper, 

which deals with administrative capability, where outlines 

financial aid counseling, do those regulations not apply to 

those who go to the Ability to Benefit process?
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 53

MR. MARTIN: No. Those regulations absolutely apply 

to any institution that participates because admin 

capability requirements are ubiquitous unless it's 

specifically clarified that it's a certain group. There are 

some things that have been apply to, you know gainful 

employment programs, but you're the answer to your question 

is yes, across the board. And I think what was being 

discussed here is what requirements might be made in context 

with career pathways programs in particular. So I think if I 

don't want to speak for that individual, but I think that's 

what we're talking about here. So, but yes, to clarify what 

is an admin capability is broadly applicable.

MS. AMANDA MARTINEZ: Okay. Just clarifying, I do 

think it brings into question, right, I think Will's 

bringing up a problem is that clearly our current status 

quo, just financial aid counseling and what is required of 

the Department or what the Department often tries to give 

guidelines for when it comes to financial aid or 

understanding clear and adequate information of the 

difference between different age and how it's applicable to 

different programs or what students are eligible for is 

clearly the status quo is not really working and I think 

will bring up a problem. Even in this specific instance, 

when students are deciding on this specific pathway for 

additional education is still not really clear. So I think 

there are different ways to improve what is the clear 

guidance provided to institutions. I think if there's a way 

to improve that in Ability to Benefit great, but I think 

there's also clearly still a gap that is needed and a 

problem that's still needed in the next issue paper. But I 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 54

just wanted to bring that attention up to the education 

department. Clearly, there's a problem in multiple areas 

when it comes related to financial aid counseling. That's 

all.

MR. MARTIN: We appreciate that. I think you're 

right, certainly that oh, I'm sorry, there's a yeah, there 

we do recognize the need for, you know, for robust financial 

aid counseling [phonetic] and I don't want to downplay that 

at all. I do want to point out in the context of what is 

here that we're talking about, so we go back to 4, the 

program provides career counseling service that assist 

students in obtaining jobs aligned with the skills described 

in paragraph 2 of this section and identifies individuals 

providing the counseling. So what we have here, which is not 

to say that there couldn't be other requirements, but this 

is specific to career counseling. So we're very concerned 

about students in these programs. These are, what's the very 

definition of these programs, a career pathway program. So 

this is specifically a pathway to a specific career. Which 

is not to say that employment counseling isn't a very 

necessary part of any college or university or postsecondary 

education, but especially here where it's a career pathway. 

So we want to make certain that their students are really 

being assisted to obtain jobs that these institutions have 

basically attested that their educations provide. So I think 

that's a very direct tie in here, which is not in any way to 

downplay the need for other types of financial or 

specifically financial aid counseling. But I want to be 

clear that that was our intention here, to specifically 

focus on the career aspect of this and when this program is 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 55

complete, which is what we want students to successfully 

complete, that they go out and obtain a job and that the 

institution assists with that and more than just a cursory 

way of saying, you know, well, we provide, we provide 

counseling, and at least here we are requiring that they 

identify the individuals, you know, who actually are 

providing that counseling so that we can hold an institution 

to it being a tangible thing.

MR. ROBERTS: Great, thank you. And Johnson, I see 

your hand.

MR. TYLER: Yeah, I'm actually going to put my hand 

down, I can't articulate my question.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. Appreciate it. Greg, let me 

ask you this before I turn it back over to you to walk us 

through a sort of section by section temperature check to 

see where our committee is on issue paper 1, is there 

anything else the Department needs or would like more 

feedback on in the Ability to Benefit issue paper?

MR. MARTIN: Well, we had those directed questions, 

I mean, I think that if people have other opinions about, 

you know, I'm trying to, I don't want to go back and 

reiterate all of them. Certainly the cap. Do we want to 

apply that, you know, for institutions other than those or 

in the first two years of participation? We also asked about 

the success rate calculation of the 95 percent success rate 

calculation. Is that something that is I mean, somebody we 

did have one, we did have one individual ask, one negotiator 

asked about that rate. So I opened it up to people and said, 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 56

is there another rate that might be applicable that we can 

tie to or find a support for? So those are two areas that 

that we certainly seek feedback in. And obviously any other 

area of this that the negotiators want to address before we 

take the pulse of the committee.

MR. ROBERTS: Good, Johnson, your hands back up. Go 

for it.

MR. TYLER: Thanks. And now I can try to articulate 

this question. So looking at (a)(6) Greg, I'm just looking 

at the citation at the end, it says, the program is designed 

to lead to a valid high school diploma is defined and 668.16 

V, as in Victor. I'm not sure what that is, I think, but it 

doesn't exist now. And even in the proposal we didn't get as 

far as V in the news thing. So I'm just trying to understand 

what you're [inaudible]. Because a lot of that is designed 

to detect bogus high school diplomas when you're entering, 

trying to get into school, it seems to me. And this is all 

related to the trajectory you're trying to put the student 

on so that they will actually get a meaningful diploma. So, 

do you understand my question?

MR. MARTIN: I think so. You’re not, you didn't 

characterize what that is incorrectly, but I would say this 

when we reference a valid high school diploma as defined 

668.16, and we're going in I don't want to address that now 

because we'll be looking at that a little later. But we have 

attempted to clarify what a legitimate diploma is. And I 

think that by putting this reference in here in 6, that 

we're tying that back to here and we are making it clear 

that the, you know, the Department is aware of instances 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 57

where some unscrupulous institutions have made arrangements 

with what we would refer to as diploma mills, not real high 

schools to provide a bogus high school diploma and that 

certainly happened, we have documented instances of that. 

And I think this acknowledges that we are aware of that and 

that this needs to be a legitimate high school diploma as 

defined in in 668.16. So I feel that it's not obviously, 

it's not a silver bullet of any sort. But it does tie back 

to what we believe to be a legitimate diploma. And so a 

school that didn't do that would have problems with 

administrative capability, and they would have issues with 

their with eligible career pathways. We're very concerned. 

What we're trying to do here, I think you've seen that 

throughout this proposal is to make this something other 

than what I think I've heard it described as currently some 

school, it's possible to say, yeah, we have a career 

pathways program, sure we do. You know, it's we've talked to 

a couple of employers, you know, we've in a cursory way. 

We're trying to make sure that it's real and a real part of 

a career pathways program is that tie in between the the 

postsecondary education aspect of it and a student and 

making it, well we don't require that the student have 

obtained a high school diploma for the program to be 

eligible, that pathway has to be there for the student to 

get that. It has to be real and that credential has to be a 

real credential. So I think that's what we're getting at 

here.

MR. TYLER: Thank you.
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 58

MR. ROBERTS: Great. So just as we move into the 

temperature check, just two very brief notes. First is a 

very sincere thank you to the folks who've been utilizing 

the chat for us wanting comments they agree with, adding new 

proposals, asking questions of the Department for them to 

get back to you on. And then second, just to mean it bears 

repeating this is not an official final check on anything. 

This is just to see where the committee is on the document 

as it currently stands. And as always, anyone expressing 

serious reservations with the document will be invited to 

share their reservations for the benefit of the committee 

and the Department. So with that, Greg, do you want to, we 

can re share the document and then run through section by 

section and we'll use your discretion as to when you want to 

pause the run through to take a quick check?

MR. MARTIN: Well, we've pretty much run through 

each each one, I will go back and I can just, you know, we 

can do it by section and just ask people, I'm not going to 

read through them again. I think we've done that. I can go 

back through. We can give people one last opportunity to 

comment and then we can take the temperature check on each, 

on each, on each section as a whole. How's that sound?

MR. ROBERTS: Sounds good to me.

MR. MARTIN: Okay. So we'll just start, the first 

one we did was the the definitions we walked through those 

so as I said, we had a pretty exhaustive conversation about 

that, so I would say two things. Just briefly open it back 

up if anybody has any final thing they want to say. If not, 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 59

we can, take a temperature check on 668.2, general 

definitions definition of an eligible.

MR. ROBERTS: Alright, not seeing anything new, we 

could bring down the document, and then I know it's been a 

few weeks, but if you have those thumbs right in the center 

of the screen. And again, thumbs up, love it, sideways, you 

can live with it, thumbs down, serious reservation. If we 

could get all constituency groups voting.

MR. TYLER: I'm sorry, could you repeat what we're 

thumbing up for?

MR. ROBERTS: I think we're looking at 668.2, but 

only the Eligible Career Pathways Program, so 1 through 7. 

So on page 1 up until the section break. Okay. Thank you. I 

do see a thumb down. Johnson anything new you'd like to add 

for the committee's consideration in terms of your severe 

reservation?

MR. TYLER: No, I'll just say we've added in our 

comments what we think should be in subsection 6 on high 

school diplomas so that we can make sure it's meaningful.

MR. ROBERTS: Alright, much appreciated. Thank you. 

Greg, ready to go to the next section?

MR. MARTIN: Yes. So we'll move on to the next 

section would be 668.32. That's student eligibility general. 

And if nobody has any final comments on that, we can 

[inaudible] time.
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 60

MR. ROBERTS: So you'd like the committee to look at 

the entirety of 668.32 down to the section break for 156?

MR. MARTIN: Correct. Right. As we discussed under 

student eligibility.

MR. ROBERTS: Alright, thank you. Renee, if you 

could just bring down the document briefly. Committee's 

temperature on section 668.32, student eligibility general. 

Much appreciated, I'm not seeing any thumbs down. Thank you 

very much. And Greg and Renee, if you could re share the 

document for the approved state process.

MR. MARTIN: Thank you. The next one we're looking 

at is the approved state process, that's 668.156. And I'll 

open it up for anybody who has any final comments on 156.

MR. ROBERTS: If you could you bring that document 

up again. David, please.

MR. SOCOLOW: We did have this discussion about 

whether the success rate applies to programs or to, you 

know, to specifically to each disaggregated by each eligible 

program and whether the approval of the 5 year renewal could 

be partial based on which programs actually succeeded and 

which did not.

MR. MARTIN: Could you phrase that a little bit 

more, I didn't quite get all that. Some of it broke up in 

transmissions. I'm sort of having a few problems here. So 

you were suggesting that the renewal be partial?
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 61

MR. SOCOLOW: Yeah, you took notice of the question 

with the data right about the 95 percent. And that 

essentially the state process at that point considered for 

approval of renewal on a 5 year basis. And if you 

disaggregated those reports on the basis of each eligible 

career pathway program, which is not what it says now, it 

just says, the students, it admits under the process of a 

success rate, rather than splitting that out so that you 

could say to a state that has 10 career pathway programs in 

its state process and you're looking at renewal and 5 of 

them are terrific with great results and 5 or not to give 

partial approval. So that's a recommendation that I just 

would renew.

MR. MARTIN: Okay, thank you.

MR. ROBERTS: Okay, great. With that if we could 

bring down the document and just see the committee's thumbs 

on section 668.156, approved state process. Correct me if 

I'm wrong, but I'm not seeing any thumbs down. Much 

appreciated. And then moving right along, if you would like 

to briefly tee up the next section that we will be taking a 

temperature check on.

MR. MARTIN: The next and final section for this 

issue paper would be 668.157, the Eligible Career Pathways 

Program. And this is demonstrating to the Secretary that the 

student is enrolled in the career pathways program as 

required in 156. So this is the standard. So we'll take a 

check on 668.157.
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 62

MR. ROBERTS: Great. Once we're done scrolling 

through that.

MR. MARTIN: Oh, I'm sorry. Before we do that, I 

should have asked if anybody had any final comments. I 

wanted to do that before we move on.

MR. ROBERTS: Sure. If we could bring down the 

document. Any final feedback or comments for the Department? 

Not seeing anything, Greg, if I could, for the last time on 

issue paper 1 this week, see everyone's thumbs front and 

center? Alright, seeing a few thumbs down, so if folks want 

to just come off of mute and raise their hands for anything 

new for the Department to consider with regards to their 

opposition in the current state of section 668.157. Kelli, 

please.

MS. PERRY: And I put this in the chat, so I'm just 

kind of reiterating it, but my understanding of this section 

is that it applies to all Eligible Career Pathways Programs, 

not just state approved process. So the reference to 668.156 

(a)(3) is specifically in that state of group process. So I 

think that needs to come out of that section. Because this 

in my mind should be more generic to all of the 

requirements, not just specifically to the states, 

specifically.

MR. ROBERTS: Okay. Anyone else? I know there were 

several thumbs down, but I know we did have a robust 

discussion on this earlier. So anyone else have anything new 

for the Department to consider? Ok, great. Thank you so much 

for a productive early morning session. I didn't get any one 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 63

hearts for the holiday, but I did get you something better, 

which is about three minutes extra of lunch. Is there 

anything else the Department or my team would like to share 

before we transition into a lunch period? We'll pick right 

back up at one with issue paper number 2: admin capability. 

Excuse me. But Cindy, Greg, anything that you wanted to add 

before we head to lunch?

MS. JEFFRIES: No, but I just I want to thank Greg 

for and the Department for the hour worth of lunch this 

week. I'm sure the negotiators appreciate it and can use it.

MR. ROBERTS: Excellent. We will see everyone at 

1:00. And again, thank you very much for the morning 

discussion.

MR. MARTIN: Thank you.
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 64

Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education

Zoom Chat Transcript

Institutional and Programmatic Eligibility Committee

Session 2, Day 1, Morning, February 14, 2022

From Cindy-FMCS Facilitator to Everyone:

I will be doing tech today. cjeffries@fmcs.gov if you 

need assistance

From Bradley Adams (P - Proprietary Institutions) to Everyone:

Michael Lanouette will be on camera for me negotiating on 

ATB this morning.

From Debbie Cochrane to Everyone:

David Socolow will be the negotiator for state agencies 

for ability-to-benefit.

From Beverly Hogan Primary/MSI to Everyone:

I will leave the table at 12:30 at which time Ashley will 

come to the table. I will return at approximately 2:00 pm.

From Anne Kress (P) Comm Colleges to Everyone:

As noted previously, Will Durden will be at the “virtual” 

table for the discussions on ATB for community colleges.

From Barmak Nassirian (Alt - Servicemembers & Vets) to

Everyone:

I also strongly endorse Johnson's argument: withholding 

transcripts is not an appropriate debt collection tactic.
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 65

From Jamienne Studley (P) (Accrediting agencies) to Everyone:

+ agree with Johnson & others about adding these 

prohibitions on transcript withholding

From Debbie Cochrane to Everyone:

I too strongly support including a clear prohibition on 

transcript withholding in the rules under discussion. As 

mentioned, such a prohibition could be included in multiple 

places.

From David Socolow (A) State agencies to Everyone:

+1 to all the comments on prohibiting transcript 

withholding to collect students' institutional debt

From Beverly Hogan Primary/MSI to Everyone:

+1 to the comments of transcripts

From Amanda Martinez (P-Civil Rights) to Everyone:

+1 to all the comments in the chat and in this meeting on 

transcript withholdings

From Johnson (P) Legal Aid to Everyone:

Jessica is going to sub in to comment

From Will Durden (A) Comm Colleges to Everyone:

+1 to David -- I would like to hear the Department's 

response to David's proposal as well

From Mike Lanouette (A) Proprietary Institutions to Everyone:
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 66

+1 to David's Socolow's comments with respect to addition 

of IETs as a standard for an ECPP

From Barmak Nassirian (Alt - Servicemembers & Vets) to

Everyone:

+1 on David Socolow's comments

From Will Durden (A) Comm Colleges to Everyone:

I would like a status update on the request for data on 

ATB use nationally.

From Jessica Ranucci (A)- Legal Aid to Everyone:

Johnson will be subbing back in for this morning. Thanks.

From Mike Lanouette (A) Proprietary Institutions to Everyone:

+1 on Will Durden's data request for the Department to 

publish outcome data for all ATB Career Pathway programs.

From Beverly Hogan Primary/MSI to Everyone:

+1 to Jessica's comments. The intent is clarifying 

language that improves accountability, integrity and fairness 

for participating students. +1 also to David's comments.

From Cindy-FMCS Facilitator to Everyone:

For those of you that cannot find the issue papers that 

were sent out to all of you last Monday please look for an 

email from Brady with those as I was unavailable to send them.

From David Socolow (A) State agencies to Everyone:
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 67

+1 on request that the Department respond to our data 

request about ATB

From Carolyn Fast (P) Consumer advocates/Civil Rights to

Everyone:

+1 to Johnson, David, and Jessica's comments

From Cindy-FMCS Facilitator to Everyone:

A question was raised on the schedule this week. We are 

on the 10:00am-4:00pm schedule this week with public comment 

from 3:30-4:00 daily

From Kelli Perry - (P) Private Non-Profit Institutions to

Everyone:

Emmanual will be coming to the table for a question.

From Marvin Smith (P) 4 Year Publics to Everyone:

I would like to hear ED respond to Will Durden questions

From David Socolow (A) State agencies to Everyone:

agree that the 1% cap should only apply during the 2-year 

trial period

From Johnson (P) Legal Aid to Everyone:

I agree with Will too on 1% sate wide

From Mike Lanouette (A) Proprietary Institutions to Everyone:

+1 to Will's comment about 1% referenced to the "State."

From David Socolow (A) State agencies to Everyone:
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 68

+1 to Will's comment about applying the 1% cap to the 

State level

From Emmanual Guillory (A-PNPs) to Everyone:

I appreciate the Department's response regarding the 

question I raised about the new clock-to-credit conversion. I 

would like the suggest that the Department use consistent 

language in on page 2 of this issue paper so that there will 

be no confusion regarding the clock-to-credit conversion 

changes. as of now, 30 clock hours = 1 credit hour, which 

would mean that 180 clock hours = 6 credit hours.

From Mike Lanouette (A) Proprietary Institutions to Everyone:

+1 David's comments about "partnerships"

From Barmak Nassirian (Alt - Servicemembers & Vets) to

Everyone:

I strongly endorse David's argument

From Barmak Nassirian (Alt - Servicemembers & Vets) to

Everyone:

I also endorse the use of the term "reification" in the 

discussion of these regs

From Jamienne Studley (P) (Accrediting agencies) to Everyone:

Detail: the language "program aligns with the skill needs 

of industries.." seems ok. The phrase "greatest hiring demand" 

as written only describes the govt reports, not the state test 

for alignment.
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 69

From Beverly Hogan Primary/MSI to Everyone:

I also agree that the Depart needs to use clear and 

consistent language to avoid confusion in interpretation.

From Beverly Hogan Primary/MSI to Everyone:

I lean toward the use of "in demand" but not sure of the 

significant difference from "in greatest hiring demand".

From Jamienne Studley (P) (Accrediting agencies) to Everyone:

+1 to Beverly preferring in demand to greatest hiring 

demand

From Kelli Perry - (P) Private Non-Profit Institutions to

Everyone:

I think this point was already made but I believe the 

reference to 668.156(a)(3) needs to be removed from 

668.157(a). My understanding is that 668.157 applies to all 

ECPP

From Kelli Perry - (P) Private Non-Profit Institutions to

Everyone:

not just those approved by the states

From Jessica Ranucci (A)- Legal Aid to Everyone:

I agree with Kelli’s reading and that the cross-reference 

needs to be removed.

From David Socolow (A) State agencies to Everyone:
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 70

Agree with Kelli's point, given that the Department has 

agreed that the standards in 157(a) apply to all 3 ATB 

eligibility methods. The Department should add clarifying 

language to 157(b) that the Department will use the standards 

in 157(a) to verify the eligibility of career pathways 

programs that do NOT enroll students through a State process, 

too.

From Mike Lanouette (A) Proprietary Institutions to Everyone:

+1 David comments

From Beverly Hogan Primary/MSI to Everyone:

+1 to Keli's comments