1 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION 

PRISON EDUCATION PROGRAMS SUBCOMMITTEE 

SESSION 2, DAY 3, MORNING 

November 10, 2021 

On the 10th day of November, 2021, 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. 
2 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

P R O C E E D I N G S 

MR. WASHINGTON: Hello, everyone, and 

welcome back to our final day of the Prison Education 

Program subcommittee. My name is Aaron Washington and I 

will be the team lead today for walking the subcommittee 

through the recommendation that the amendatory language. 

And with that said, I really want to dive right in today 

because we have a pretty full agenda. So if we could do 

introductions of the subcommittee, that would be great. I 

see Marisa first on my screen. 

MS. BRITTON-BOSTWICK: Good morning, 

everyone. I'm Marisa Bostwick. I am the director of 

education for the Montana Department of Corrections. 

MR. WASHINGTON: I see Belinda Wheeler. 

DR. WHEELER: Good day, everyone, Dr. 

Belinda Wheeler, please feel free to call me Belinda. I'm 

a senior program associate at the Vera Institute of 

Justice, and I'm here today representing consumer 

advocacy groups. Good morning. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Dr. Paccione. 

DR. PACCIONE: Dr. Angie Paccione, I am the 

executive director of the Colorado Department of Higher 

Education, representing the SHEEO organization of other 

higher ED executives across the country. And call me 

Angie. Call me Angie. 
 

3 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

MR. WASHINGTON: Oh, thank you. Dr. McTier. 

DR. MCTIER: Good morning, I am Dr. Terrence 

McTier, I am the director of the Prison Education Project 

at Washington University in St. Louis, representing 

directors of Prison Education Programs. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Stan. 

MS. WILSON: He hasn't logged in yet. I'm 

keeping an eye out for him. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Terrell Blount. 

MS. WILSON: He hasn't logged in yet, and 

I'm keeping an eye out for him as well. 

MS. CARY: Stanley said that he would be he 

would miss the first hour of our meeting today. 

MS. WILSON: Okay, you got that, Aaron? 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. Alright, got that. 

Thank you. Kim, did I, I don't think I've asked you to 

introduce yourself yet, Kim. 

MS. CARY: Oh, okay, thank you. Kim Cary. 

I'm the college director for financial aid at Ozarks 

Technical Community College, and I'm here representing 

all financial aid administrators. Glad to be back today. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Happy to have you back. And 

last but not least, Anne Precythe. Amy, do we have Anne 

today? 

MS. WILSON: I do not see her. I will double 
4 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

check her availability and will send you a message. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay, thank you. Well, 

let's go ahead and get started. Yesterday, we left off 

still discussing the best interests. Vanessa, would you 

mind pulling up the amendatory language that we'll be 

going through today? You will see you'll see it as 

Vanessa scrolls through, you'll see a little bit of 

green. Those are updates that we made last night and this 

morning, but we will come back to those, so do not be 

alarmed. So, oh, yeah, Vanessa, right there, so there's 

no scrolling necessary. So we left off we we ended our 

discussion on I think we ended our discussion on 

recidivism unless that was the final discussion of the 

day that we had. So I didn't want to. If anybody has 

anything else on recidivism, we can certainly take that 

into account, but I think we can move into the input 

indicators. Alright, so these include experience, 

credentials, and rates of turnover for instructors, 

transferability of credits and provisions on academic 

counseling, we made very few changes to the input 

indicators, mainly just technical clarity, grammatical 

updates, but we do have some comment bubbles in the 

document that we wanted the Department's feedback on. And 

also, Belinda had some recommendations that we wanted to 

hear expanded on more. So the first comment bubble we had 
 

5 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

is that Vanessa has opened up is that for the 

subcommittee members, we invite feedback on whether the 

adjustments for geographic and other constraints of PEPs 

that we proposed in (5) through (7) are appropriate and 

whether other constraints should be further explained. I 

know Belinda had some points on the geographic. I believe 

you had some points on the geographic, the geographic 

constraints and other constraints issue. And then 

specifically, if we could just start on the experience, 

credentials, and teacher turnover rates. The Department 

has noted here that we believe that faculty credentials, 

experience, and turnover rates of instructors are 

important measures of educational quality to ensure that 

incarcerated individuals have comparable experience to on 

campus students. However, we propose to require that the 

oversight entity account for the unique constraints that 

present in Prison Education Programs to ensure that 

institutions are not unfairly judged, so I will pause 

there for comment. 

MS. MCARDLE: Belinda. 

DR. WHEELER: Thank you. I definitely 

appreciate how the Department is trying to be more 

inclusive of this space and the challenges, you know, 

even as someone who was a former director of a Prison 

Education Program, there are certainly challenges there. 
6 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

The only thing that I would want to make sure is that the 

from the accreditation standpoint, like, I want to make 

sure that if we do allow a little bit of flexibility for 

those challenges that we're still keeping within the 

accreditation standards because it is, you know, 

currently expected that there would be that level of 

comparability. So I don't necessarily see any red flags 

there, but I just wanted to make sure that if indeed, 

that extra bit is submitted in there, that we're just 

keeping that accreditation accountability in mind because 

I do think that that still is important. Thank you. 

MS. MCARDLE: Dr. McTier, 

DR. MCTIER: So are we on E(5) or E(6), is 

that an E or F? 

MR. WASHINGTON: E(5)? Yeah. 

DR. MCTIER: Okay, so so it looks like 

there's some changes that have been made to this 

particular. Was there any reason as to why we were why 

this information was being collected? And the reason why 

I ask that is because typically faculty who teach in the 

PEP programs, this is an on load or offload. Excuse me. 

So this is not a part of their standard teaching load. 

And oftentimes they're unable to teach on a consistent 

basis with the the Prison Education Program. And so 

therefore you will probably see an influx of faculty 
7 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

coming in and out of these programs. And so I'm wondering 

what was the reason for collecting this information and 

then two, knowing that information, is this going to make 

our programs look bad because we do have a high turnover 

rate because of that specific issue? 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you, I think. Let me 

take that one, and then I'll go back to Belinda's 

question. So I think here we're oh, that looks like 

Elizabeth Daggett wants to I will allow you to jump in. 

MS. DAGGETT: Good morning, everybody. Sorry 

about that. I just wanted to clarify what Belinda was 

asking about making sure that I was okay with 

accreditation or I wasn't quite sure what you meant by 

your comment of making sure that it's being reviewed for 

educational quality. I think that we had said that, other 

place that this would be reviewed by them. But, but so I 

guess I just need some clarification, maybe to understand 

your concern. 

MR. WASHINGTON: And Beth, I was going to 

Belinda's point too, I was going to say that we did have 

B(4) under the 668.237. It says that the accrediting 

agency has to review and approve the methodology for how 

the determinations are made under 668.241 (5) through (7) 

to ensure that the Prison Education Program meets the 

same standards or essentially similar programs so that 
8 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

that also we also have that language as well. Belinda, 

could you expand on whatMS. DAGGETT: I saw thumbs up from Belinda, 

so I assume that we're all okay. I just wanted to make I 

thought that that's where she wanted to make sure that 

connection was made, but I wasn't sure. So I think she's 

now confirmed that. So I think we're good here. So thank 

you. 

DR. WHEELER: Just so that you get it 

verbally on the transcript, yes. Yes. All in agreement. 

Yeah. We're all in agreement. It just again. Just wanting 

to make sure that accredited, you know, because that is 

so important. Thank you very much. 

MR. WASHINGTON: You know what? I'm just 

really excited that I was able to answer the 

accreditation question. I know we have our accreditation 

expert here, and so I held Beth is proud of me. To Dr. 

McTier's point, you asked, why are we collecting this 

information? I think I've forgotten the second part of 

your question, but we're what we're the this is one of 

the best interest indicators that was outlined by 

Congress in the statute. So it's just a statutory 

provision. And what we've done in the yellow is try to 

provide further clarity on the statutory provision. So it 

is a requirement in statute. But we have said that the 
9 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

oversight entity, which is currently defined as the 

Bureau of Prisons, State Department of Corrections or 

other oversight entity, will, you know, will be able to 

account for unique constraints present in Prison 

Education Programs. So when schools are submitting their 

applications to the Department for approval of the first 

program at the first two additional locations, they can 

certainly expand on any constraints that exist within 

their Prison Education Program with within their 

institutions that would affect teacher experience, 

credentials, or rates of turnover or departure. And you 

had another question as well. I forgot. I'm sorry. 

MS. MCARDLE: Dr. McTier. 

DR. MCTIER: I’m going to put a pin in that 

question. So with the Department of Corrections 

apparently being the oversight entity at this present 

time, they wouldn't know the inner workings of faculty 

teaching loads and all that of the stuff, unless we told 

them and they wouldn't necessarily know to ask those 

questions of the institution or what their turnover rates 

are going to look like. And so while I understand that 

it's a provision passed down from Congress, it doesn't 

make any sense. And this is where I this is why I'm 

saying that I don't think the Department of Corrections 

should be the sole entity making decisions on the best 
10 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

interests of programs because there are so many nuances 

that exist between these two types of institutions, and 

that's the higher education institution in and of itself. 

And then the DOC. The DOC is not an educational facility, 

and so they wouldn't understand the inner workings, so 

I'm just a little bit confused about. So again, like I 

mentioned previously about some of these best interest 

bench markers. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Vanessa, would you mind 

scrolling up just a bit like to where you see the first 

green? Uh, no, not the second second green keeps 

scrolling up, I'm sorry. There you go, please stop there. 

Thank you very much. So we say that, you know, we've 

added to the, I guess, the the introductory clause to all 

the best interest indicators that the oversight entity 

determination that a Prison Education Program is 

operating in the best interest of students must include 

an assessment with engagement from stakeholders who must 

include incarcerated students, organizations representing 

incarcerated students, and accrediting agencies, so we're 

saying here that it's not just the Bureau of Prisons, but 

their assessment must include engagement with relevant 

stakeholders. So hopefully that speaks to some of your 

concerns about the Bureau of Prisons solely being. Well, 

the statute says that the Bureau of Prisons and State 
11 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

Department of Corrections make the determination. But 

we're here, we're here, we're here saying that they're 

also going to be required to engage with relevant 

stakeholders in order to make those determinations. Thank 

you. 

MS. MCARDLE: Marisa. 

MS. BRITTON-BOSTWICK: Good morning, 

everyone. I think my question has been answered, but I'm 

kind of on the same page as Dr. McTier. So we would 

partner, DOC would partner with an educational 

institution and then we would ask them if their teachers 

are accredited? That, did I get that right? Because that 

that wouldn't be something that DOC educational directors 

would ask a university or a college. We would, or would 

we do that with the whole stakeholders? I'm just I'm 

getting a little lost in all this this morning and I want 

to make sure that I have that correct. 

MR. WASHINGTON: So as a part of program 

Prison Education Program eligibility, the Department of 

Corrections, if that is the oversight entity for like, 

let's say I and Marisa, you'll correct me because I want 

to get this right. It sounds like a state correctional 

facility would be overseen by the Department of 

Corrections. Is that correct? 

MS. BRITTON-BOSTWICK: Yes. 
12 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

MR. WASHINGTON: Alright, so the Department 

of Corrections, as per the statute, the Department of 

Corrections would have to make the determination that the 

Prison Education Program that the postsecondary 

institution wishes to provide is in the best interest of 

students based on these indicators, as outlined in 

statute. So all the indicators that we've been talking 

about yesterday and indicators we're talking about now, 

you the DOC, the state DOC would be required to for 

specifically for this one review. Analyze this review 

this in collaboration with the postsecondary institution, 

relevant stakeholders, formerly incarcerated students, to 

make the determination about, you know, whether whether 

the experience and credentials and rates of turnover are 

at a substantially similar to other programs offered by 

the postsecondary institution. And you can also account 

for unique geographic and other constraints for Prison 

Education Programs as well. So I think the Department is 

kind of acknowledging that there will be some unique 

circumstances that exist within correctional facilities 

that may not exist on main campuses at postsecondary 

institutions. So those all those things can be accounted 

for. 

MS. BRITTON-BOSTWICK: Okay, so the the 

state DOC will determine if those Prison Education 
13 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

Programs are the right fit for their incarcerated 

individuals? I mean, wouldn't that be something that the 

Prison Education Program and the university would also 

need to be part of? 

MR. WASHINGTON: I mean, the Prison 

Education Program and the university are the the entity 

that's actually offering the Prison Education Program. So 

I mean, they're a main collaborator in this, you know, 

the accreditor is a collaborator. The state tangentially 

is a collaborator in the fact that they can't have any 

adverse actions or revocation for for state authorization 

in the last five years. So there are a lot of people that 

are involved in this. But you know, essentially the 

postsecondary institution postsecondary institution has 

to be involved in it because that is going to be the 

entity that's providing education to the students. 

MS. BRITTON-BOSTWICK: Okay, thank you. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. 

MS. MCARDLE: Kim. 

MS. CARY: Thank you. So I think to address 

some of that Marisa had and expanded what Aaron was 

saying is it's a very big collaborative effort and a lot 

of conversations happen ahead of applying to the program. 

So you're you're deciding what programs can we offer and 

then you're connecting with your correctional facilities 
14 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

to see what are their, what's their availability to 

either have seated or virtual? What is their availability 

with virtual and what type of medium does the college 

will they need to interact with the students on what kind 

of platform. So there's a lot of that going on. So 

basically, these checklist letters is what I will call 

them is as an institution, we're going to be marking 

these off, making sure we have our ducks in a row and 

that we can talk with the correctional facilities and 

say, here's how we meet all of these best interest 

attributes. Also, when we apply for, to be a participant 

in these programs, we have to explain this out and then 

we have to prove this is what we're doing. We have to 

confirm that we are accredited, HLC, whoever it is, and 

then we work collaboratively with those prison education 

individuals to make sure that these programs will work 

for their students. And even in our instance, if 

educational entities have many campuses, and they would 

want to outline that so that if the individual is 

released, then they have, which campus would they most 

likely geographically be able to go to? So I do believe 

hopefully that explains some things for you, Marisa, that 

it is a very much a collaborative effort. And I think 

these are checklists that both individuals at those 

institutions in the correctional facility will have to 
15 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

check off together. Now, Aaron, I do have a quick 

question on the, kind of following up with what Dr. 

McTier said. We have a lot of adjunct instructors because 

we do have so many campuses. So those, as you know, the 

by the nature of an adjunct, they kind of come and go 

depending on what, there are other things that they are 

doing. Would that be seen as a negative or would we need 

to write that into our narrative in the beginning so that 

that's part of something that we would address? The 

credentials are still there. The knowledge is still 

there. Stability is really still there. I think that's 

just something we would have to identify in our request, 

correct? 

MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah. I mean, that's 

something we haven't specifically identified adjunct 

professors in the in the language here, but we have tried 

to identify in the language that we do realize there will 

be unique constraints for Prison Education Programs, so, 

you know, I think that because we have the because you do 

have application process for the first at the first two 

additional locations and all Prison Education Programs 

would be required to follow, you know, be required to be 

approved by the Bureau of Prisons, Department of 

Corrections regardless if you're submitting like that 

full application or not. I think you know that, you know, 
16 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

if that could be explained in the narrative. You know, I 

I can't answer that question specifically because, you 

know, you have to or definitively, I guess, because the 

accreditor will be evaluating and approving this as well. 

So I wouldn't want to just, I guess, get ahead of the 

accreditor, the accrediting agencies either by saying, 

Yeah, you know, a program with all adjunct professors is 

it's substantially similar if you know, a similar program 

on campus has all you know. I don't know associate 

professors, so. So I think that, you know, we do have a 

accreditor approval and then we do have Department 

approval. So once the postsecondary institution submits 

the application, I think that's when the Department can 

be able to provide more feedback or their accreditor will 

be able to provide more feedback on specific examples of 

similarity determinations. I'm sorry that doesn't answer 

your question directly, butMS. CARY: No, it does, it's very helpful. I 

think we would just have to go through the motions of the 

steps, and then we would need to make sure we have a good 

narrative, like you said, for the stakeholders to 

understand where we are coming from and the stability I 

think is the most important thing of the college and the 

academic side to present to them. Thank you. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. 
17 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

MS. MCARDLE: Dr. McTier. 

DR. MCTIER: Yes. So is it possible to get 

that statutory language? Because I want to make sure that 

this is 100% in the statutory language and if it's 100% a 

requirement. The other piece to that is so if you can 

send that to the group, that'd be great. The other piece 

of that is if we're starting the application process, 

this means that this is in the beginning or the start of 

the program, even before the program is offered at that 

institution we wouldn't know the turnover or departure of 

instructions from the Prison Education Program, so it 

doesn't make sense. We wouldn't know the rates of 

turnover because we haven't started the program. So that 

doesn't make any sense. The other piece is, again, we are 

really relying heavily on the DOC to do all of these 

things. And unfortunately, you know, the person that was 

invited for the DOC has not been here. So this is a clear 

indication that again, some of the things that we have 

been dealing with as directors trying to get, you know, 

just some of these things implemented working in 

collaboration with the DOC is not always peaches and 

cream. And so I caution against making the DOC the sole 

individual to make the decision on whether or not we can 

come into their agencies. But again, they're collecting 

all this data for what it doesn't make any sense. 
18 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

MR. WASHINGTON: So the statutory, I'm going 

to I'm going to just read the statutory language, and I 

will also ask my, Steve, I think Soren is on. But but 

statutory language is the experience, credentials, and 

rates of turnover or departure of instructors. I can send 

that to you. I believe I did send it to you about two 

weeks ago. 

DR. MCTIER: I have it. Okay, got it. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. Soren, did you want 

to add anything? 

MR. LAGAARD: No, just that what you wrote 

and our intention here, Dr. McTier, is to really track 

that statutory language. And then to just also 

reemphasize to that, the opening paragraph for the best 

interest determination clearly says that who is doing the 

determination is the appropriate State Department of 

Corrections or the Bureau of Prisons at the federal 

level. If helpful here in thinking about what what we've 

tried to build out here a little bit more. 

DR. MCTIER: So if I'm understanding 

correctly, you're saying, again, we're relying heavily on 

those two agencies to carry out all of these things for 

the best interest of the higher education and prison 

program in order for it to be offered. It hasn't been 

going very well. And so I just want to make sure or I 
19 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

just want to make sure that my my voice is and my dissent 

is captured. I disagree with this. It just doesn't make 

any sense, especially at the onset of the application 

being submitted. How can you calculate turnover rates? We 

haven't even started the program. 

MR. WASHINGTON: If I can answer Dr. McTier. 

So we will see, Vanessa, if you can scroll down just a 

little bit. Well, actually, let's not because I'm not 

exactly sure where the language is now that we 

restructured. But there is an initial two-year period 

that the Department of Correction, that the oversight 

entity can make the determination without the the robust 

set of data laid out here in the best and best in the 

best, best interest indicator in the best interest 

section. Now the bureau, the oversight entity still has 

to make that determination. So they're not. They still 

have to make the determination that the Prison Education 

Program can operate at that institution, and they still 

have to report to the Department and the postsecondary 

postsecondary institution how they made the 

determination. It still is a collaboration. However, 

there is a two year we know that we know that the that 

you'll need time to collect data or to, you know, to 

review, review or analyze these indicators. So the 

Department of Education has proposed, recommended to 
20 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

provide the oversight and entities with two years of for 

an initial startup so that you won't have to you know, 

you'll still have to tell us about these things, but 

it'll be more of a narrative like what what are you going 

to be providing? What type of instructors do you 

anticipate that you’ll be providing? What is your 

transfer credit transferability of credit policy? Do 

credits transfer to at least one postsecondary 

institution in the state or the state that most students 

are likely to return to? Are you planning? How are you 

planning to offer relevant career and counseling 

services? So, you know, I I also wanted to say that, you 

know, we as we dive more into this discussion, we do, I 

wanted to limit. I don't want to limit conversation, but 

I did want to try and limit the remainder of the best 

interest conversation to until 11:00. And that is because 

we do have to go back through and get temperature checks 

on some outstanding sections. And I did and the 

Department has revised language that you already saw some 

of it with the green text in the best interest lead-in. 

But we so I want to make sure that we are, you know, 

really keeping track of time today so that we can talk 

about some other areas that Department has moved on. Oh, 

and yeah, so I'll stop there and allow. I'll stop there. 

And we do have and Dr. McTier, we do have, you know, 
21 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

Marisa, who is, you know, you know, Marisa, you know, 

spoken up today. And I think that, you know, like we 

we're so happy that we have you to provide the Department 

of Corrections perspective. And, you know, so if you had 

any concerns with this, you can you can you can let us 

know as well. But as the statute stands, and I defer to 

Soren for this as well. But as the statute stands, 

currently, the the the oversight entity, the Bureau of 

Prisons and Department of Corrections or other entities 

are the entities that will make the decision of best 

interest. Determination of best interest. 

MS. MCARDLE: Soren. 

MR. LAGAARD: And thank you. Yeah, and just 

to underscore Aaron's point, it's we don't have any legal 

authority to to change that. And so we we feel like that 

Congress has has specified these entities are the 

oversight entities and that that's not something that we 

have any legal flexibility to change, add, modify with 

regards to the statutory language and what we're trying 

to do here. 

MS. MCARDLE: Kim. 

MS. CARY: Thank you, Aaron. Basically, what 

I was going to indicate was what you said was we had 

talked yesterday morning about the two two-year 

implementation area, and I wanted to make sure that that 
22 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

was involved with this as well. So what you said, thank 

you. That clarified a lot for me. 

MS. MCARDLE: Dr. McTier. 

DR. MCTIER: So I'm looking back at the 

statutory language, and I've been looking at this for a 

while as well. The language says may not must. So can you 

address that because if it says “may” and that's the 

language that Congress put in there, it's not a nail in 

the coffin final decision, so that may gives us a lot of 

flexibility. There's a lot of ambiguity with that “may”. 

It does not say must at all. And so I'm going to push 

back on that because of that. And I want to make sure 

that we, we're clear on that. 

MS. MCARDLE: Aaron. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you for your 

question,well statement, Dr. McTier, I we will talk about 

the may not must, and I think this may be an appropriate 

time to just clarify that. But I was hoping to just 

really focus in on the indicators for now and go back 

through the other language. But the Department proposes 

to retain the must from the PEP from PEP from yesterday's 

session. So we're proposing to retain the must requiring 

the oversight entity to assess whether a Prison Education 

Program is operating in the best interest of students 

across all elements that are included in the statute. And 
23 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

we do recognize that there are limitations to these data 

points, so some will be more relevant for certain types 

of programs and some will take years to collect and some 

will have less support from the community. But these are 

important measures of institutional success, and they 

were they were points that Congress outlined in statute. 

So we're really these points are to ensure that the 

programs can, are and continue to operate in the best 

interests of students. And the Department's position is 

that the Department recommends to retain the must. 

DR. MCTIER: Okay, maybe I'm looking at it 

different cause I see “may” and I don't see “must”, so 

that's that's the concern that I have. 

MR. WASHINGTON: So if we can note that, 

Vanessa, oh sorry, let's let's let Soren speak first. 

MR. LAGAARD: Yeah, yeah. And Dr. McTier, 

you're absolutely right. I just want to like bifurcate 

the two legal issues here. So the first one is, who is 

making the determination right? And that we don't feel we 

have any legal flexibility about about it being the 

oversight entity. The second issue is, we do have 

flexibility within regulations to to look at a “may” and 

to build out a “must”. And so that's what we're proposing 

to do here. 

DR. MCTIER: So I got that part. So and 
24 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

that. Right. 

MR. LAGAARD: OK, great. 

DR. MCTIER: And that's a very important 

point that you make in terms of the “may”. So I 

understand that we can't do anything because it's, you 

know, that's what the legislation has done with the 

Department of Corrections and the Federal Bureau of 

Prisons. Got that. But in terms of determining what's in 

the best interest and you know, the metrics of that, of 

what we're supposed to be collecting, that says “may” and 

because it says may, there are some of these things that 

I disagree with. And I'm going to push back, continue to 

push back because it says may, and so I want to make sure 

that we are not just passing these things and requiring 

higher education and prison programs to submit this 

information, one because it doesn't make any sense 

specifically on E(5). But two, you know, with recidivism 

rates and all those other, you know, there's so many 

factors that exist in, with that “may” we can make some 

changes here in these best interest pieces without making 

it a must. The word says may and with that “may” we have 

flexibility. And so what Aaron was stating is that the 

Department of Education is trying to retain a must. 

There's no must there, so if there is, point me to it 

because I don't see it. 
25 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

MS. MCARDLE: Aaron. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Soren, I don't I don't know 

if you want to follow up, I think I would just recommend 

to Vanessa to indicate that please, please, I'm asking, 

I'm not demanding. But Vanessa, would you please mind 

adding a comment bubble with Dr. McTier's concerns about. 

Well, was the concern here about this specific indicator, 

or was the concern just generally the theDR. MCTIER: So, so my concern here is with 

this specific indicator, if we're submitting an 

application at the forefront of starting a program, 

having rates of turnover or departure of the instructors, 

we we wouldn't know that. So how would we be able to 

submit that information? So essentially because of its 

because it says “may” early on, right before we get into 

these specific indicators, I would just do away with that 

or at least the turnover and departure part. I would do 

away with that, along with some of these other metrics 

that exist. Why are we recording recidivism rates that 

has nothing to do with higher education in prison or 

offering a college degree has nothing to do with it. And 

so I would remove that one, and I would add in some other 

metrics that would align better and showcase the good 

work that we're doing to provide educational resource or 

educational opportunities to the men and women on the 
26 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

inside. And so that's what I'm saying. So if I have a 

specific issue with E(5), I have a specific issue with 

it's it's saying “may” and not “must”. Because of that 

may we have flexibility to make some changes here. And I 

want you all to understand that, you know, it does not 

say must hear at all. It looks like the Department of Ed 

is trying to say they're trying to retain that word must. 

When must was from, my understanding was never in never 

in the document originally. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah, and so I think the 

whole goal was to get to, thank you for your comments, 

Dr. McTier. I think we've noted them here and the goal 

today was definitely to get to one recommendation to 

submit to the subcommittee. However, we did acknowledge 

in the beginning that there may be multiple 

recommendations submitted to the subcommittee. This is 

something that the “must” language is something that the 

Department feels comfortable supporting. However, if 

there is a alternate recommendation that a subcommittee 

member would like to make to the main committee, that is 

that is totally acceptable. This is your recommendation. 

I, my position here is to let to, I guess, kind of 

preemptively inform you on the, I guess, the the policy 

position in which the Department of Education would be 

comfortable with supporting what we try to do here is 
27 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

build in flexibility, the regulation, you know, you know, 

accounting for unique constraints. I think I just want to 

reiterate that the initial two-year period. So you would 

so the rates of turnover, if you are applying for the 

first time to offer Prison Education Program and you 

don't have rates to turnover, that could be something 

that you are that you're explaining in your narrative. We 

don't have rates of turnover yet. You know, I remember 

when I submitted, well, I won't talk about my personal 

story, but you know, if you if you have if that's 

something that you don't have yet because it's your first 

program, then you can indicate that in your application 

to the Department, I assume that any Prison Education 

Program that will be submitting an application would have 

information about the experience of their instructors, 

the credentialing of their instructors, and also whether 

there is a plan to offer this essentially substantially 

similar instructors with substantially similar experience 

or credentials to students on the on the main campus or 

students that are not incarcerated to those that are 

incarcerated. So I think a school, I think a school would 

have that information, and I think that is something that 

the Department will want to see. So we've we've noted 

that the distinction and again, I think that this may 

just be a place where you know, the subcommittee or a 
28 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

subcommittee member. I'm thinking back to the the 

previous subcommittees that we've had. There have been 

like, you know, one subcommittee member to make alternate 

proposal on one section. So we do have temperature check 

positive temperature checks on a lot of the sections. I 

think once we go back to the document, we will have more. 

And if there is one or two sections where there is 

multiple recommendations made to the main committee, 

that's fine because it's your recommendation. I just 

again, I just have to say one last time that this is the 

position that the Department is comfortable supporting 

the “must”. And so. So I just wanted to let you know what 

the the Department's policy position is and what the 

Department would feel comfortable supporting at the main 

table because the Department, you know, we there as a the 

Department does have a vote on the on the main committee, 

and I think we've tried to take into account many of the 

subcommittee members' suggestions. And keep in mind, it's 

when it's not really a majority vote on the main 

committee. It's all or nothing. It's everybody has to 

agree to consensus on the main committee. So I want I 

just wanted to make those those points at the at the 

onset. We do have about 22 minutes until 11:00 a.m. and I 

think I definitely want to circle back to this after, you 

know, the best interest piece after we've had a chance to 
 

29 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

go through the document in full to see the changes that 

we've made in other sections. But I think that hopefully 

we can continue talking about this until 11:00 and then 

and then transition. So I open it up back to Dr. McTier. 

DR. MCTIER: Opening back up for me to. 

MR. WASHINGTON: I didn't know if you wanted 

to respond, I wanted to make sure I didn't just cut off, 

cut off your points. 

DR. MCTIER: No, no, I made my my points. I 

really would love to hear why the Department is so hung 

up on the “must” piece. I think, you know, we do know 

that they have a voting rights. I don't know why that 

needs to be reiterated several times. But other than 

that, I think my points have been made. 

MS. MCARDLE: No other hands at this time. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you Sophia. Let's 

move to, Vanessa, if you could expand. So let's move to 

transferability of credit. Vanessa, if you could expand 

the yeah. So here we have just some statement from the 

Department that we believe that transfer of credit is 

important, an important measure of equitable educational 

experiences and a critical protection to ensure students 

are able to continue their education experiences after 

being released. However, we do propose to require that 

the oversight entity account for the unique constraints 
 

30 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

present in Prison Education Programs to ensure that 

institutions are not unfairly judged, and I I want to 

pause there. I know Belinda had some comments as well. 

MS. MCARDLE: Belinda. 

DR. WHEELER: Great, thank you very much. 

Yes, my recommendation that I sent in the email to the 

subcommittee for consideration is just piggybacking off 

the words that the Department has here about students are 

able to continue their educational experiences after 

being released. I have some language that you see 

highlighted on the screen there in, I think it's teal 

blue, just basically trying to make sure that there is a 

guarantee like basically that students who continue their 

studies post-release can do so either on the 

institution's main campus if they choose to, with no 

barriers related to their formal carceral status. You 

know, wearing former prison director, educational 

director hat at an institution and then also with my hat 

at Vera, we've seen we've seen situations where 

educational institutions and I'm talking broadly here, no 

specifics where they're very happy to have a student in 

the online environment while that student's incarcerated. 

But then when the student is then released, if that 

student has expressed interest in wanting to actually 

have, you know, a more traditional experience on the main 
31 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

campus that that student has been restricted and they're 

told, no, you can continue in that online space, but we 

don't want you on the on the main campus because of your 

carceral history and I think that that's highly 

problematic. I think if an institution you know, you 

know, wants to, you know, have a student, you know, as a 

student member in that carceral setting when they're 

doing the program, either face to face hybrid or online 

while they are incarcerated, that they should also have, 

you know, that there should be some understanding with 

that educational partner, whether it's the original one 

or that transferability to another campus, that the 

students have that right to enjoy whatever method of 

modality that they would like to continue once they are 

released. So I just submit to the subcommittee a 

recommendation that we put in a little, a few more kind 

of guardrails here to protect the students so that they 

have, you know, that they're not just told, look, you 

were an online student, you know, while you're 

incarcerated, we are going to make sure that you're 100% 

online once you're post post incarceration. I don't think 

that that's fair. We wouldn't do that to a quote unquote 

traditional student, and I don't think that we should. 

You know, I think we should protect the students so that 

they have that choice should they want to change their 
32 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

method of modality post-release. Thank you very much. 

MS. MCARDLE: Kim. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Sophia, can I just hop in 

there really quick because I probably will forget all the 

questions if I, three hands up. Belinda, we did have a 

chance to chat about this recommendation this morning and 

we can we will have more for you after after lunch. 

MS. MCARDLE: Back to Kim. 

MS. CARY: Okay, so Aaron and Belinda, just 

a few other things to think about on this. I would change 

the language for “institution's main campus” to 

“institutions locations” to include virtual so that there 

is no chance that at any geographical location or virtual 

that they could be barred from participating in. However, 

there's one I don't know how we would do the language. 

But for instance, if you have a student or individual who 

has been released and they have particular requirements 

attached to their release, you know, child endangerment, 

whatever that might be, that they can't be near within so 

many, so much of an area of children. Some college 

campuses do have childhood educational programs, and they 

have childcare on site, so I know that that's been 

something that we've worked worked through with some of 

our students for this campus and made offers for them to 

attend other locations that don't have that specific 
33 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

limitation. So the no barriers, though, I like that 

language, I think we need to add something there as a 

protection for schools to say unless there's specific 

barriers related to your post-release. Thank you. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Vanessa. Can you add that 

to the comment bubble first, Kim, I think you said 

instead of main campus, all locations, right? 

MS. CARY: All locations to include virtual. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay, to include virtual 

and then also your second point Kim was about, if 

they're, I guess, if they are taking take into account if 

there are any barriers to a student attending in person. 

Correct? 

MS. CARY: (Inaudible) 

MR. WASHINGTON: Correctional facility or 

their or their conditions of the release or. 

MS. CARY: Yes. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. Alright. Belinda, is 

that something is that something is that something that 

if you know that you that you're comfortable with by 

adding or just? 

DR. WHEELER: Yes. Thank you very much, yes. 

Kim, I just sent you an email. I did note your your 

comments earlier in another edition, but this one was the 

one that the Department had taken the cut and paste. So 
34 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

yes, I am in agreement with what you said about the the 

different locations, obviously. And I thank you for 

pointing out if there are certain conditions on someone's 

release, certainly that would potentially need to be in 

consideration with that. You gave a perfect example 

there. So I would definitely, I think the case that Kim 

has presented here makes a, I could see why the 

Department would be would be like, yes, in certain 

circumstances. So I definitely just want to make sure 

that there's not that blanket. You know, you were online 

in the carceral space once you're released, you know, you 

must be online again. And I do appreciate Kim kind of 

providing some certain clarity there as we move forward. 

If there are restrictions on someone's release than I 

think educators and I think the student, I think the 

student would understand that too. But we're just seeing 

some blanket. You were online there. You must be online 

on the outside. So thank you. 

MS. MCARDLE: Marisa. 

MS. BRITTON-BOSTWICK: So I think this is 

very crucial, however it's written, but I think one main 

thing is that a lot of times when incarcerated 

individuals move from the correctional facility into the 

same program in the community with this Prison Education 

Program, we don't always know the screening committee 
35 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

guidelines for them to go on campus. And so I think up 

front, that is very important. The other thing is, too, 

is that sometimes when incarcerated individuals leave the 

correctional facility, they have computer restrictions 

and it's hard for them to even be online when they leave, 

so I think all of that needs to be discussed upfront. And 

Belinda and Kim, you're exactly right. This has to be 

very clear and it needs to protect the university. But it 

also needs to protect the incarcerated individual that 

we're not dressing them up with no place to go. This has 

to be realistic. And I think the other one, I mean, we 

have to keep a lot of people safe in this process, but we 

have to have those screening guidelines before they 

leave. And we also need to know if they can even continue 

with online education when they leave. And it's just 

really important for me, and I know a lot of people on 

this committee that they can continue their education 

when they leave. And so that's something I really want to 

bring up, and I appreciate this Belinda and Kim, but this 

is crucial. So thank you very much. 

MS. MCARDLE: Angie. 

DR. PACCIONE: Yeah, thank you, I want to 

echo the comments that have been made, I don't know if 

you've seen me shaking my head, but I agree with the 

comments that have recently been made there. And I know 
 

36 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

that there are some institutions that do have 

restrictions based on the nature of the offense for which 

the person was incarcerated, not just what barriers might 

be after they are released. And so I'm just I just don't 

want to tie the institutions hands to say you must be 

able to come on campus. I think there are some screening 

that questions perhaps, we do in Colorado, we did ban the 

box and so. So there's a lot of, I think, maybe 

conflicting initiatives. And I just want to make sure 

that the institution is not bound to do something that 

they have already stated for for all students that if 

they have a particular offense and they would not be able 

to be on campus. So it's it's hard to find the precise 

nuance and the language, but I think it's worth the try. 

Thank you. 

MS. MCARDLE: Belinda. 

DR. WHEELER: Yeah, thank you, everyone for 

that, I think this is important because I know a lot of 

us, we definitely want to ban that box. We want 

inclusivity. We want equity, perhaps. And I know that 

again, there isn't language here that we could 

potentially put in this space. But I think, you know, by 

trying to capture part of it here, the Department, you 

know, as as we make a recommendation to the main 

committee, I think, you know, this is certainly something 
37 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

that I know Kim and others have mentioned about the 

onboarding process to, you know, hopefully in a utopian 

society where we have multiple, at least one really good, 

if not one or two different educational programs at each 

prison facility, you know, in the future that students 

will have that choice and they will understand if they 

want to choose University X or if they want to choose 

University Y. You know, there's this understanding with 

onboarding that you know, a student knows if they go to 

this institution, you know, these are the you know this 

this institution perhaps has banned the box. And you 

know, there's this kind of like further disclosures for 

students so that they can make this informed decision 

about, you know, which institution that they want to, you 

know, that they want to work with. And there's one other 

thing I was going to mention, and it slipped my mind, so 

I'll end there. Sorry. 

MS. MCARDLE: No other hands at this point. 

Wait, Marisa. 

MS. BRITTON-BOSTWICK: Is it possible to 

have the screening guidelines or the disclosures up 

front? Could that be a recommendation that the 

correctional facilities will be provided those before 

they go into a partnership with a Prison Education 

Program, 
38 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

MS. MCARDLE: Kim. Or Aaron, do you want to 

respond first? 

MR. WASHINGTON: Oh, I can't. I don't. I 

don't know if I can answer. So can you? Can you explain 

that a little more? I'm sorry. 

MS. BRITTON-BOSTWICK: Okay, so like I said 

before, and this could be like Belinda said the utopian 

society. But if a Department of Corrections goes into a 

partnership with the university and they say, oh yeah, 

when your guys or women are done, they're more than 

welcome to come. And these are, you know, we're happy to 

have them. But when they are, when these incarcerated 

individuals do leave the correctional facility, the 

brakes go on, you know, that we would have something up 

front that said, these are our screening guidelines. 

These are our disclosures. And when they leave, these are 

what we expect when they come on campus or these are the 

offenses that we don't allow? Because that's important, 

that's important for incarcerated individuals when they 

leave to know if they're going to be able to go onto a 

main campus or to finish their degree or move forward. 

And sometimes correctional facilities aren't always 

provided with a very clear and concise screening 

guidelines. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Understood. So it sounds 
39 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

like you're proposing a disclosure to students? 

MS. BRITTON-BOSTWICK: Right. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. Vanessa, can you add 

underneath Kim's, Marisa potentially added disclosure 

forMS. BRITTON-BOSTWICK: And to add, oh, I'm 

sorry. 

MR. WASHINGTON: No, go ahead. Go ahead, no, 

go ahead. It's your it's your idea. 

MS. BRITTON-BOSTWICK: And to add something 

also, I mean, the Department of Corrections would know if 

they had computer restrictions, we would. You know, the 

State Department of Corrections would know that. But we 

don't always have the clear guidelines from universities 

and colleges and Kim, this might be something for you 

that you would know more about if they can go on to the 

campus and we want everyone to be safe wherever they are. 

But I think it's important to have those disclosures and 

screening guidelines up front because a lot of times we 

hear they have to go before a committee and then they'll 

make a decision. Well, that's pretty far down the road by 

the time they see a committee. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. 

MS. BRITTON-BOSTWICK: So something very 

black and white. 
40 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

MR. WASHINGTON: So (inaudible) prison 

would. So the correctional facility would provide theMS. BRITTON-BOSTWICK: No, the university 

would provide the correctional facility with disclosures. 

MR. WASHINGTON: About what they would 

allow. Okay. Alright. Okay, thank you very much for the 

clarification. 

MS. BRITTON-BOSTWICK: Thank you, Aaron. 

MS. MCARDLE: Kim. 

MS. CARY: Thank you. Marisa, that's a good 

point, so again, back to the utopian society of 

everything up front and it comes back to the partnership 

with the institution and the correctional facility. To 

know before we even get down that road of enrolling 

students or talking to students is to know what the 

institution you're partnering with, restrictions, what 

they have, and then once the students are identified 

within a questionnaire or whatever, like, for instance, 

we we have, we will go in and say, here's a questionnaire 

for the potential student to fill out so we can know if 

there's any barriers up front that they might run into 

that we could assist with. At that point, we would be 

talking with the correctional facility and finding out 

additional concerns upon post release of that individual 

that we could address at that time. And it may be that 
41 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

they're not a fit for that partnership just by virtue of 

what those restrictions might be and what the institution 

has put into place and maybe another institution need to 

be partnered with it that was different. So I think it's 

up front. I think it's part of the participation 

partnership that you get, comes together, I don't know 

where we could put that into the language. But again, 

that might be part of the oversight committee to make 

sure that those kinds of questions are addressed. Thank 

you. 

MS. MCARDLE: Belinda. 

DR. WHEELER: Great, thank you. I'll be 

really brief because I know about time. I just wanted to, 

I picked up that last thread. This, I think, also 

potentially speaks to provide support to educational 

entities, corrections, stakeholders. If an educational 

institution wants to seek a waiver, for example, to go 

beyond their 25 and, you know, say they're wanting to go 

to 49, 100%, 1000%, you know, with students this this 

provides, I think, another level of, hey, if you want to 

go from 500 traditional on campus students to 50,000, you 

know, online students who are incarcerated, you know, 

again, it gets to those disclosures of, you know, are you 

seeing these students as a member of your student body 

with all the rights and privileges of a student member, 
42 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

you know? Or is it you’re Pell dollars? You know, we want 

you for the online courses and you know, once you once 

you're released, you know, we, you know, stay in that 

online thing. So I think that this provides an extra 

level of clarity for everyone, especially the students, 

when they're making this choice as to which educational 

institution that they may wish to partner with because it 

does provide those kind of disclosures of, you know, this 

is, you know, this is how we're seeing you as a as a 

member of our student body while you're currently 

incarcerated and this is how we're planning on, you know, 

serving you as a member of our student body post-release 

and what that kind of looks looks like. And I think that 

provides students with a little bit more choice and full 

disclosures up front that really lets them know that the 

true value that that educational partner sees in them 

because we are seeing a lot of educational institutions 

that do a fabulous job in this space, whether they're 

Second Chance Pell or not Second Chance Pell. And it's 

clear that they see those students as a true member of 

their community in all sorts of ways, whether they're 

traditionally on on campus afterwards or not. But it's 

that relationship that the educational institution, you 

know, builds with that student, kind of protects the 

student, lets them know up front. And I think that's 
43 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

really important because in the in the couple of examples 

where we're seeing some bad actors in this space in 

general, we're seeing that it's like, yes, we're happy 

to, you know, have you as a student while you're, you 

know, distanced from us here, but post-release? Not so 

much. And that really, it's devastating for the students, 

and that's a problem. So I appreciate the Department kind 

of thinking through this. Thank you. 

MS. MCARDLE: Marisa. 

MS. BRITTON-BOSTWICK: Okay, one another 

quick aspect I like added to the bubble if possible, 

Aaron. Could we put at the end of that bubble prior to 

the incarcerated individuals starting the Prison 

Education Program? Because this would need to be done 

before they started with a program. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah. Thank you, Vanessa. 

MS. BRITTON-BOSTWICK: Thank you, everyone. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah, we have Vanessa doing 

our real-time edits. Huge thank you to Vanessa for all of 

the work she's done over the last six days. 

MS. MCARDLE: Kim. 

MS. CARY: Really quick. Just a note to add 

to it. If the subcommittee agrees, I think because we 

have to show we're partnering with at least one other 

institution for transferability, I think we need to show 
44 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

their disclosures for their institution as well. It could 

make a difference in which program the student decides 

that they're eligible to finish if they're not able to 

transfer out. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Kim, that's a disclosure to 

made directly to the student on which institution credits 

transfer to? 

MS. CARY: That is correct and any 

limitations they may have for attending their 

institution. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. Vanessa, can you add 

another? Kim recommends a disclosure to students on which 

institutions their credits can. Now do we want to keep, 

so it's so, so is it just the state? If it's for the 

Federal Correctional Facility, it would be the state that 

students are most likely to return to, right? Or do you 

want it? And then it would be for the for any other 

correctional facility, it would be for the state that the 

facility is located. And is that is is that something 

that you had in mind or or would institutions be required 

to determine across, you know? 

MS. CARY: I didn't think that through 

really, did I? 

MR. WASHINGTON: Neighboring states orMS. CARY: Maybe within their community, the 
45 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

closest, maybe transferability within the community that 

they plan to like if they're in my city, then there's 

probably going to be another institution. There is 

another institution within my proximity that most of our 

students transfer or that we would provide. Make them 

aware that they would need to think about where they're 

transferring and what institutions we could probably help 

them with in the onboarding process on transferring, I'm 

not sure how we would do that, but we'll have to think 

through that. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah, we do have a 

provision in the statute and Soren can correct me if I'm 

wrong. But I think we have a provision in the statute 

that says that it has to offer transferability of credits 

at least one institution in the state or if it's a 

federal facility in the state that most students will 

reside upon release. So with that, I think we can just 

take that recommendation and talk about it more over 

lunch and get back to you. Soren, did you have anything 

you want to say? 

MR. LAGAARD: I didn't. That's exactly 

right, Aaron. Thank you. 

MS. MCARDLE: Dr. McTier. 

DR. MCTIER: Yes, I have to jump off for a 

little bit, but I wanted to make this comment before I 
46 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

did. I'll be back at session two, but we're getting in 

the weeds here. We're trying to add and make this even 

more difficult than it needs to be. We're trying again. 

We've got to keep in mind that the DOC and the Federal 

Bureau of Prisons are going to be the ones handling this 

because of that's what Congress has passed. And so we're 

stuck with the recommendations that have been made just 

now. It's making this even more confusing and 

unnecessary, I think based off of what we need to work 

with, what we have here. Any screening requirements from 

a specific institution that's just going to get into the 

weeds. And I disagree with those recommendations that are 

being made. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you, Dr. McTier. 

Vanessa, can you note that in another another, oh, you 

can just even put it all in the same kind of bubble. So I 

just I don't want to misinterpret your words. So I think 

I would just summarize it as Dr. McTier disagrees with 

theDR. MCTIER: Yeah, I don't think we need to 

add those additions to, for my colleague. So I I do 

disagree here. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you for that, Dr. 

McTier. We'll see you in the afternoon. Alright. If the 

subcommittee wouldn't mind, let's move on to now, I will 
47 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

say it's going to be a little difficult to vote, not 

vote. I shouldn't say vote. I'm not saying vote 

temperature should still be a little difficult to take 

temperature checks because I think we are missing Anne, 

Stan, Terrell. Has Terrell joined, Amy? Amy, has Terrell 

joined? 

MS. WILSON: Yes, I thought he had. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Oh, Terrell, are you there? 

MS. WILSON: I don't see him now, though. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. Alright. I think 

we're missing Anne, Stan, Terrell, and Dr. McTier. The 

subcommittee will let me know if I've missed anybody, so 

we'll still do our temperature checks. But of course, you 

know, we'll have to work with what we have. Okay, so 

let's move. Move to the academic counseling. Vanessa, if 

you could open up that comment bubble. So we believe that 

high quality academic and career counseling are advising 

our important services that institutions must provide to 

their incarcerated students comparable to their campusbased students. However, we proposed to require that the 

oversight entity account for the unique constraints 

present in the Prison Education Programs to ensure that 

institutions are not unfairly judged. And then I'm going 

to pause there for Belinda. And if you could open up 

Belinda's comment, Vanessa, that'd be helpful. Thank you 
48 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

very much. 

DR. WHEELER: Thank you very much. Yes, this 

just got back to a previous comment that was made in 

October when we were together just about who is able to 

provide those additions that some of my colleagues were 

concerned about those reentry services. So in my language 

that I'd proposed to the subcommittee to consider was 

that whoever is determined to be that reentry services, 

whether it's a community support, community based agency, 

whether it's, you know, corrections, whether it's a 

combination of the two, whatever that was, that. Because 

right now I think the language was perhaps kind of put 

more on the educational program itself. And while I 

certainly would hope that as an educational institution 

kind of wants to work more with community-based partners 

and others to kind of really understand reentry services 

that we need to make sure that there's that space there 

where community support, you know, can be can be placed 

there. So I just kind of put that in as a caveat to kind 

of, well not as a caveat, as a as a recommendation for 

the subcommittee to just make sure that, you know, we are 

keeping community-based partners in mind here when it 

comes to reentry, to be working in collaboration, you 

know, with corrections, with, you know, educational 

partners. Now I know that since I wrote this on Monday 
49 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

and emailed it to colleagues, or maybe it was late 

Sunday, I forget, apologies, that we have talked about 

that definition of that entity, and I know community 

based partners are now there. So I just wanted to make 

sure that it was kind of stipulated. And I do see that 

the Department has since put in that unique geographic 

and other constraints. But I just really wanted to make 

sure that when it came to reentry services, that no 

students are falling through the cracks here, that there 

is a partnership kind of created that makes sure that 

students best interests are taken care of. Thank you. 

MR. WASHINGTON: So the proposal is to 

include your recommended blue language, I just want to 

make sure that we're capturing your proposal right. 

DR. WHEELER: Yes, sir, that's correct. 

Thank you just for consideration. Yes, thank you. 

MS. MCARDLE: I see no hands. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you, Sophia. Vanessa, 

can we go to the next indicator and open the comment 

bubble? This is about completion rates. The Department is 

currently exploring the feasibility of ensuring that we 

can calculate completion rates. One challenge would be 

actually, we have a solution for this. So let's so we. So 

yesterday we discussed The Bureau of Prisons, the State 

Department of Corrections reporting to reporting the 
50 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

release date, and that's what that comment bubble is 

regarding, so we will see some information. We will see 

some green highlighted text as we go back to the sections 

about how we're going to require the Bureau of Prisons or 

Department of Corrections or other entities to report 

that to the Department. And so unless we have any 

questions here about this specific indicator, we will 

see. And if I don't, I'll go over it. But if I for some 

reason don't, you know, check me on it, we can move to 

the next one, Vanessa. And I think we just have a 

recommendation from Belinda for the last one, and this 

the last indicator is any other indicator, any other 

indicators pertinent to program success. So we're looking 

at number (9) as determined by the oversight entity. So, 

so the Bureau Prison Department of Corrections would have 

the authority to evaluate other indicators of program 

success outside of the eight listed above. I'll I'll turn 

it over to Belinda. 

DR. WHEELER: Yep. Great, thank you. Yes, 

and I understand that. Thank you. I understand that the 

Department wants that level of flexibility. I also just 

wanted to make sure the protections guardrails are in 

place for everyone in this space. So one of the things 

that I'd potentially propose for my colleagues to 

consider is that if there were going to be some new, 
51 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

potential indicators put in there that there's a time 

period allowed that kind of gives everyone a heads up. 

So, you know, if applicable, an advance notification, for 

example, of at least six months so that all parties are 

involved. You know, I definitely understand the need for 

kind of a catchall, but I also want to make sure that 

the, you know, the programs, the students are protected 

and no one is just kind of throwing something at the last 

minute and says, aha, you've got 24 hours to give us this 

data because that's not going to help any of us. So I 

just ask that if any other indicators, as we move forward 

in this space are proposed that there is a fair timeline 

and a fair heads up given to all the entities so that 

they understand. Thank you very much. 

MR. WASHINGTON: And so the Bureau of 

Prisons, so in this case, the Bureau of Prisons would be 

providing those indicators to the postsecondary 

institution that would like to offer a program there, I 

mean, because these indicators are not defined by we're 

not the Department is not proposing to define more 

indicators. It's the Bureau of Prisons and State 

Department corrections that could evaluate more things. 

So. 

DR. WHEELER: Yeah, and I and I do think 

that gets back to that, you know, potentially new 
52 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

variation of who that entity is with community-based 

partners and whatever. And again, it's just making sure 

that if corrections et al. you know, perhaps can, 

including community-based partners, that again, if any 

new kind of mandates come down or a new kind of data 

tracking or anything comes down that there is this 

timeframe advance notice given to people, you know, so 

that it's just fair, you know, just want to make sure 

everyone is protected as we move forward. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay, yeah. And I think 

we'll see later what the Department's proposal for for 

the for the well, we'll see later that we're proposing to 

maintain the definition of oversight entity. So 

essentially, this would end up being the Bureau of 

Prison’s authority unique authority to add more 

indicators. So I guess they would be giving in that in 

that example, they would be giving. I just I just I just 

don't know who they will be giving the advance notice to. 

If it's just the Bureau Prisons, State Department of 

Corrections providing the advance notice, and I'm sorry 

that I'm sorry, I'm asking you questions that probably 

aren't clear, but. 

DR. WHEELER: Well, I guess I just want to 

be clear, because, you know, again, the this all of these 

indicators are under that banner that says, you know, if 
53 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

an educational institution wants to kind of be in this 

space that, you know, we've got to make sure that we're 

tracking this, we're tracking this and tracking this. And 

then at the very end, we've got this. There could also be 

other things, and I definitely understand that there can 

be other things. But you know, I just want to make sure 

that everyone, because any educational institution that 

wants to come into this space, they will be looking at A 

through. I forget what the alphabet is, you know, and 

they will prepare for that as they get ready for their 

two year or however long, you know. But I just wanted to 

make sure that if that one does come into play as another 

indicator as things are moving forward, that there's just 

given that notice that there can't be this whole, you 

know? Yeah, I just I hope that makes sense. Aaron, I'm 

sorry. I just really want to make sureMR. WASHINGTON: (Inaudible) I didn't mean 

to talk over you. I mean, there are a lot of people 

listening in and, you know, from the Department 

perspective. And so I think you've provided really, you 

know, significant explanation. So is this it was just my 

misunderstanding, but I think that somebody at the 

Department of Education got it and we will get back to 

you after lunch on that as well. 

MS. MCARDLE: Kim. 
54 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

MS. CARY: Thank you. Could this be an area 

where the language we put in there so that if that entity 

sees something that's going wrong or questionable, where 

they would be able to address it? It's different than the 

ones above, the best interest pieces, and they just see 

something that's odd and maybe can catch something that 

an institution is doing that they were not aware of, is 

that maybe a piece where they could kind of ask for 

clarification on it on something. Is that why that may be 

in there? 

MR. WASHINGTON: Well, we will see just 

momentarily that we are. I think we provided authority 

and regulation. Vanessa, if you could scroll down a 

little bit. I don't want to misspeak. We are, we say in 

the green here, Kim let's see. So we're saying that they 

have to make the subsequent determinations prior to the 

expiration of the institution's PPA, except that the 

oversight entity, the Bureau of Prisons, State Department 

of Corrections can make the determination between 

subsequent evaluations so they can go back in and look to 

see if anything is not going well, you know? And so they 

can make those determinations more frequently than 

between the PPA between the expiration of the PPA. Does 

that answer your question? 

MS. CARY: Yes, so. So there's not real 
55 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

clear reasons, what would what kind of things would fall 

in that space? On the one above. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay, Vanessa, can you go 

back up a little bit? 

MS. CARY: It seems to be a catchall, is it 

a catchall for something else? 

MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah, it's just it's really 

anything else that the, you know, the Bureau of Prisons 

and the State Department of Corrections are, you know, 

they were provided the (inaudible) determination and they 

are in a unique position to understand their populations 

the best. And of course, the Department here and this 

regulation is trying to provide some some guidelines or 

clarification around what Congress has laid out in 

statute. But we also didn't want to prohibit the the 

oversight entity from being able to, you know, take into 

account other other areas that are relevant to their 

unique population, that unique correctional facility that 

may impact the best interests of their students that will 

be attending these Prison Education Programs and so. 

MS. CARY: That makes sense to me, Aaron. 

Thank you. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. So I think we're 

I think we should mute their. Vanessa, can you scroll, 

well, yeah, scroll down just a little bit. So we have all 
56 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

the green on the screen. Yep. So, so all the green 

highlights is text that has been added. The only reason 

I'm talking about this green highlight right now because 

it's still in the same section is as best interest. But 

here we had to make a technical correction by removing 

the “two years following this determination” because we 

already have language for the initial determination that 

is that is that remains two years. But we're just 

clarifying the Department is proposed to revise the 

language and now allows for the two-year initial 

approval, followed by the determination by the oversight 

entity and reevaluation just prior to the expiration of 

the school's PPA. And we hope that this will better align 

with subsequent evaluations to give institutions more 

certainty about their prison education, Prison Education 

Program. And like, like I just discussed with you, Kim, 

we're also we're also providing the opportunity for the 

Bureau of Prisons to reevaluate more often within that, I 

think a PPA, David just came off of a off of he just came 

on screen, so I think a PPA lasts for about six years, 

David. Correct me if I'm wrong for most institutions. And 

so between that six years, the institution would be able 

to the oversight entity would be able to reevaluate. 

MS. MCARDLE: Dave. 

MR. MUSSER: Yeah, I just wanted to clarify, 
57 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

Aaron Aaron is correct that most institutions, if they 

are fully certified, have a program participation 

agreement that lasts approximately six years. They are 

required to apply for recertification shortly before the 

expiration of that timeframe, and that's that roughly the 

same timeframe that's been set here. We're essentially 

asking for information to be provided to the Department 

shortly before they need to reapply for recertification 

so that the Department can include that information when 

it looks at the institution as a whole as part of that 

application. But as Aaron mentioned, in the meantime, the 

oversight entities can make a determination based on 

their own monitoring of program outcomes. 

MR. WASHINGTON: And we've also updated the 

thank you, David, we've also updated the 90 calendar days 

prior to one hundred and twenty days. And David, did you 

want to speak to that? We've just we've just modified it, 

and I think that was because we are requiring that 

information to be submitted to the Secretary 30 days 

prior to the sorry, 30 days, no later than 30 days 

following the completion of the evaluation. And it has to 

be done prior to the expiration of the PPA. So we wanted 

to make sure that there was ample amount of time that the 

Bureau of Prisons was doing these evaluations are 

starting to do these evaluations way before, an ample 
58 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

amount of time before the end of the program 

participation agreement. 

MR. MUSSER: That's all correct, Aaron. 

Thank you. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you, David. 

MS. MCARDLE: Belinda. 

DR. WHEELER: Thank you. Just a quick 

question here with the oversight entity, with the renewal 

processes and things of that nature, I just wanted to 

clarify. Will there be a appeals process, for example, if 

a educational institution is is denied? And I guess it 

depends on that definition of the oversight entity. But I 

just wanted to make sure just similar again to what 

educational institutions are familiar with. For example, 

accreditation. If an educational institution gets into 

some kind of hot water with their accreditation agency, 

they're normally, you know, mandated something, and there 

is that appeals process kind of built in. I was just 

curious, was the Department considering and a potential 

appeals process for an educational entity if it was 

deemed not to be working in the best interests of 

students? I certainly don't want to allow predators in 

this space, but I also wanted to make sure that there's a 

kind of process of which educational spaces are familiar 

with, not unlike accreditation, but obviously in this 
59 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

circumstance, very removed from accreditation. I just 

wanted to check that. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Soren or David will correct 

me if I'm wrong, we had I don't believe that we have 

considered that in these regulations. I'll stop there 

before I continue. I don't the the I'm not seeing hands 

raised by David or Soren, so I'll continue. This this 

decision is made by the Bureau of Prisons, Department of 

Corrections. I am maybe you can provide more information, 

Belinda, on what you would see as an appeals process. I 

guess I'm I just I'm not seeing how the Department of 

Education how if a school appeal to the Bureau of Prisons 

and Department of Corrections or the Department of 

Education itself, I'm not seeing a path forward for 

either entity being able to require that the Bureau of 

Prisons allow the postsecondary institution to provide 

education in that in that correctional facility that they 

oversee. 

DR. WHEELER: Yeah, I'll I'll think about 

that, and if I have a recommendation, I'll certainly let 

the subcommittee know during that lunch break. Thank you 

very much. 

MR. WASHINGTON: And Soren, did you want to 

add anything? I, I did I interpret what you, first of 

all, Belinda, did I interpret that correctly? Like an 
60 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

appeals process for the Bureau of Prison, Department of 

Corrections determination? I probably didn't inter- I 

yes. 

DR. WHEELER: Yeah, so I just want to 

clarification that if an educational institution is 

denied access because they're deemed as not working in 

the best interests, that there would potentially be an 

appeals process for consideration now it does deter, does 

depend on what that entity as defined is and if there is 

that community-based partners and others beyond 

corrections. But just that fair kind of situation of what 

we see similar to, you know, accreditation. But I see 

your colleague has his hand up. 

MS. MCARDLE: Soren. 

MR. LAGAARD: Thank you, Belinda. Thank you, 

Aaron. I think, well this is an interesting idea. I don't 

know if that we've considered it, and we'll we'll take it 

back. So really appreciate your comments. 

MR. WASHINGTON: I think Vanessa is adding 

that, so, Vanessa, could you add a comment bubble to an 

appeals process if if BOP, DOC denies access of a Prison 

Education Program. Yep. Thank you, Vanessa. Any other 

comments on that, I think we're almost done and then we 

can actually kind of circle back to some of the updates 

that we've made. Well, we've already seen a couple of 
61 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

them. But Vanessa, if you could scroll down, I. I almost 

think that might be it. Let's see. So here in Paragraph 

(d), we've said we've let's see, we said. We've said the 

institution must mean so we've changed that, that we 

changed the reference to oversight entity and we've 

changed some cross references, and we've also added the 

length of time an institution must maintain 

documentation. So we specifically stated that the 

institution must maintain documentation on the the best 

interest determination on the on the methodology behind 

which that the oversight entity made the best initial 

determination for as long as the Prison Education Program 

is active or if the Prison Education Program is 

discontinued three years following the date of 

discontinuance. So we've added that to make it clear how 

long records have to be maintained. Do we have any 

comments on that? Alright. 

MS. MCARDLE: Not seeing any. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Great, so I'm not going to 

do a temperature check there because I know we do have 

some things that we have to follow up. A lot of comments 

by Belinda, Kim, and Marisa, and Dr. McTier, you know, 

and also Dr. Paccione. So. So I don't think it's the best 

idea to take a temperature check until after we circle 

back after lunch to respond to all those comments. So, 
62 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

Vanessa, if we could go to 600.2 all the way at the top 

and scroll down to confined or incarcerated individuals 

right there. Alright. Well, unfortunately I don't. I 

don't know if Stan has joined us yet, if he if he has, 

say hello, but if he has not, I would like to turn it 

over to Soren to provide more information on individuals 

who are subject or subject to or serving involuntary 

civil commitment commitments. 

MS. WILSON: Aaron, this is Amy. I don't see 

Stanley yet. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you, Amy. 

MR. LAGAARD: Yes. Thank you, Aaron. I'll 

just take a quick moment here to address the subcommittee 

about this, this really important issue that was raised 

earlier. First off, we just wanted to say thank you to 

the members of the subcommittee who raised this issue. 

And, you know, really thank you again for your patience 

as we, you know, reviewed it internally and wanted to 

make sure that any answer we were giving you, it was 

fully vetted by our by our legal office so that we have 

confirmed that the law that Congress passed in December 

2020 struck the prior ban on Pell Grant access for 

incarcerated students and replaced it. The new statutory 

definition of a confined or incarcerated individual does 

not include students subject to or serving in involuntary 
63 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

civil commitment for any reason. Therefore, such students 

are eligible for Pell Grants outside of this new Prison 

Education Program framework. This is not a policy, to 

reemphasize, this is not a policy choice for this 

subcommittee to consider. It is simply the implementation 

of the law, as is written, and we believe that our 

language here that we've proposed reflects this, this 

reality and this this accurately. 

MS. MCARDLE: Kim. 

MS. CARY: Thank you. I was just curious if 

Anne has been able to join us this morning from Missouri 

Corrections. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Oh, you know what, I 

apologize for not giving you an update, I got an email 

that Anne, Anne would not be able to join due to some 

urgent matters that arose, so she will not be able to 

join today. 

MS. CARY: Okay, thank you. 

MS. MCARDLE: Kim, did you have any other 

comments or? That’s it for comments. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Oh, thank you, Sophia. With 

that, I am going to move us to a temperature check on 

600.2. So do we have any I think we can actually see 

everybody on the screen. Maybe not. But if I would like 

to move everybody to a temperature check. So if you have 
64 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

if you disagree, please raise your hand. Okay, so I'm 

going to. Alright, Vanessa, if we could move to 600.7 and 

again, if anybody is not on mute, make sure you're muted 

if you're not speaking. This is about the, 600.7 is about 

the waiver. Vanessa, if you could scroll down just a 

little bit. Alright. You keep scrolling. Keep scrolling 

scrolling. I think you could leave it. Leave it there for 

now. Let's see. So we agree with the interest in 

providing a scaffolding to ensure schools are expanding 

in ways that allow them to continually serve students 

well. We have incorporated a suggestion for this from 

subcommittee members to require programs that want to 

increase the beyond the 25% cap to have a probationary 

time period before being able to expand too rapidly. And 

we also include so if you could scroll down just well 

because I know you all don't have this, so actually you 

can go back. I'm sorry, Vanessa, you can go back up a 

little bit to give folks a chance to read it. And then 

when everybody's read it, maybe we can get a thumbs up or 

I can't see Dr. Paccione on my screen, but maybe Sophia 

can. 

MS. MCARDLE: I don't see Dr. Paccione. 

MR. WASHINGTON: I think I should read it 

for the public as well. This is a waiver on limitations. 

“For five years after the Secretary grants the waiver, 
 

65 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

the institution may enroll more than 50% of the 

institution’s regularly enroll students as incarcerated 

students; and for five years following the period 

described in subsection (A), the institution may not 

enroll more than 75% of those of the institution's 

regular enrolled students as incarcerated students and 

then two, romanette two, we've added that “the limitation 

in subsection (i) do not apply at the institution as a 

public institution chartered for the explicit purpose of 

educating incarcerated students as determined by the 

Secretary, and all students enrolled in a Prison 

Education Program for the institution are located in the 

state in which that institution is chartered to serve.” I 

there is currently a school, I believe, a postsecondary 

institution that has that charter. If David knows, maybe 

he can speak to that. But that's that's kind of we wanted 

to include that exception for public schools that are set 

up by the state specifically to serve incarcerated 

individuals. So we have tried there. I think, David 

(inaudible) something. 

MR. MUSSER: No, again, just clarifying that 

that's accurate. There is one institution in the Second 

Chance Pell Experiment that that is essentially chartered 

by the state for that exact reason. And they and they 

currently have a waiver of the limitation on enrollment 
66 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

of incarcerated individuals. 

MS. MCARDLE: Aaron, you're on mute. 

MR. WASHINGTON: With that said, if any of 

the subcommittee members have not had a chance to fully 

read or digest this information, or if if you wanted to 

accept my high level overview of it and the intent behind 

it, of course with all of this, there may be like 

numbering that we have to fix very minor technical issues 

if it just doesn't make sense at all. You know, it's 

supposed to be a five instead of a four. That might 

change, but generally the overall idea was to accept the 

subcommittee's recommendation here, and I would like to 

move to a temperature check on this. But I also want to 

acknowledge that, you know, this is your first time 

seeing it. So if if you wanted to wait a while, right, it 

looks like. Alright. So let's let's do a temperature 

check. 

MS. WILSON: Aaron, this is Amy. I'm sorry 

to interrupt. Angie had to step away and she'll be back 

after lunch. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you, Amy. So it'll be 

a temperature check with Kim, Belinda, and Marisa on 

adding the scaffolding approach that was recommended by 

the subcommittee for the waiver on exceeding 25% of your 

enrolled students as confined, incarcerated individuals. 
67 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

If you if you don't agree or have any dissension, then 

you just raise your hand. Actually, I don't think you 

have to raise your hand at this point, but you know, we 

can all see you, but just speak up, please. Sophia? 

MS. MCARDLE: No hands and no thumbs. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Alright. Vanessa, if you 

can move down to 668.32, that would be student’s 

eligibility. Oh, wait, no. Yeah, yes. Okay, yeah. So I'm 

sorry. So one second. One second. So 600.10 we got we we 

had a temperature check. We had general agreement there, 

so we don't have to go back through that. Scroll down. 

You stop there, Vanessa. Scroll back up to 600.21 for a 

second, please. Please thank you. We had general 

agreement there yesterday, so we're not going to take 

another temperature check on that. You can scroll down to 

668.8. We had general agreement there, so we're not going 

to take a temperature check there. So our next section 

would be 668.32. Thank you, Vanessa. I know I'm asking 

you to jump around a lot. I just want to, I guess, for 

anybody, any of the public joining in today. I wanted 

them to hear why we were just kind of passing over 

certain sections. So here. There was a lot of discussion, 

if you could scroll down a little bit, Vanessa to the 

yeah so there was a lot of discussion about this section, 

this is the section that essentially in where we, the 
68 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

Department views this as a technical change. A confined 

or incarcerated individual is it would be required to 

enroll in a Prison Education Program to access Pell. And 

there was some dissent on the main committee. But this is 

this is this is a statute. We view this as a statutory 

requirement that we are required to enforce, and we did 

take into account subcommittee members' recommendations 

to combine clauses. So I'd like to take a temperature 

check there. 

MS. MCARDLE: And no hands. 

MR. WASHINGTON: I guess it's kind of 

difficult to take a temperature check on something that 

we would consider statutory, but still we still want to 

know if there was any, any dissent. Alright. Can we go 

down to 668? We're really moving now. Can we go on to 

668.43, Vanessa? Actually, scroll back up for a second. I 

don't know if there was a green. Oh, Okay, that's that's 

a part of this. So we have some comment bubbles in there. 

And so we have proposed to make some changes to the 

disclosure piece that that first comment in green, that 

language just wasn't there. So that's the lead in 

language to what the disclosure is so that we just added 

(a) so you can all see it. That's not anything that we 

are proposing to amend. And it's just, you know, this is 

institutional information that an institution must make 
 

69 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

readily available to enrolled prospective students under 

the subpart. And so let's go down to the text, Vanessa, 

and then let's go back up to the comment bubble so you 

can see here we we've we've created one. We already had 

existing disclosure requirements around licensure, and so 

we thought they would any any further disclosure 

requirements around licensure would be best situated 

under what we already had as opposed to making an 

entirely new paragraph. And so right here, what we're 

proposing is if Prison Education Program as defined in 

668.236, is designed to meet educational requirements for 

specific professional licensure or certification that is 

required for employment and occupation, as described in 

(g) and (h). And those are the clauses and the definition 

of a Prison Education Program that speak to educational 

requirements and prohibitions on licensure employment. 

Information your they have to provide information upon 

request regarding whether, in fact, Vanessa, can you take 

out “upon request”, please? From where in that? 

Information regarding whether the occupation typically 

involves state or federal prohibitions of licensure or 

employment of formerly incarcerated individuals and any 

other state for which the institution has made a 

determination about state prohibitions on licensure or 

certification of formerly incarcerated individuals. And 
 

70 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

we do have a comment bubble for that, and I will just 

read it for the sake of the public and I see we have a 

hand raised. If that is somebody from the Department, 

maybe we should, maybe I should wait. If it's not 

somebody from the Department, I'll read it. Is that 

somebody from the Department, Sophia? I can't see who it 

is. 

MS. MCARDLE: It's Stan. He's in. Let me let 

him in. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Alright. Okay, so the 

Department has proposed to rework the disclosure 

requirements to be more streamlined and effective. The 

previous disclosure language required institutions to 

make disclosures about whether their programs designed to 

lead to licensure, do not meet licensing requirements in 

the state where this facility is located, or where half 

of the individuals will reside upon release for the 

federal facility for a federal facility, however, 

proposed 66 68 68.236 (g) and (h) already explicitly 

required programs to meet licensure requirements. So 

these disclosures would be relatively meaningless. 

Instead, we have aligned the language better with the 

current regulatory text and required disclosures upon 

request for from students as to whether the required 

disclosures take out upon request for students as to 
71 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

whether the programs need licensure requirements in 

another state. If such an institution has made a 

determination about licensure requirements in that state. 

This will provide more useful, actionable and actionable 

information for incarcerated students who may be 

considering moving away from a state after release. We 

have nested this requirement under existing regulatory 

the existing regulatory framework and eliminated our 

proposed regulations that you saw previously. I did see 

David came on camera. David, would you like to add 

something to that? 

MR. MUSSER: No, you covered it. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay, thank you. 

MR. MUSSER: Open to any questions, if 

anyone has any. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Oh, sure. Yeah. And and so 

I guess, Vanessa, I don't, I think that's the end. Yeah. 

So I wanted to make sure the entire green regulatory text 

that we're proposing was in the frame so that the 

subcommittee could read it, digest it and ask any 

questions before we move to a temperature check. 

MS. MCARDLE: Kim. 

MS. CARY: Can you scroll up just a little 

bit of that showing all of it there on the left? Okay, so 

where it talks about “from any other state”, formerly 
72 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

incarcerated individuals in any other state, I guess what 

I want to make sure is that at the student that the 

incarcerated individual has indicated where they will 

reside. Is that something we want to put in there? Or is 

this just leaving it pretty open, I mean, I think you 

could you could possibly have institutions say, well, 

we're in this state, and that's where we believe that 

most students will reside because we get to make that 

determination. And we don't want to mess with asking them 

where they think you're going to go and getting that 

information. Is that something we want to put in here as 

a protection that we actually ask the individual? 

MS. MCARDLE: Dave, did you want to speak to 

that? 

MR. MUSSER: So to respond to the specific 

question about whether that's included here. No, it's not 

something that's included in this in what we've proposed 

here. We've we've proposed essentially to ensure that all 

any information that the institution has obtained is 

provided to students and that they have that information 

at the outset, essentially to be sure that they 

understand everything that the at the institution 

understands about, about the states, that it's where it 

has information. I'd have to think about a requirement 

that the school ask the student where they plan to 
73 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

reside, because really the school is in most cases, the 

school is going to have information about obviously the 

state and where it's where it's located, if it's if it's 

a state, if it's providing education in a state prison 

facility and it will have information about the state 

where it's determined that most students reside if they 

were in a federal facility. And in all likelihood, the 

institution will have information about other states and 

the surrounding area, but may have to perform research on 

other states that the student might be might be going to. 

So. I'm not sure whether we want to include a requirement 

about where a student intends to reside, because 

effectively we would be saying that the school would 

would have to perform research essentially for any state 

that that they were asked about. And at this point, 

that's not what this is assuming. This is assuming that 

the institution has a certain amount of information and 

provides it to the student. And if they do, if they 

decide to expand the information that they are collecting 

about other states, that they also provide that 

information to the student. 

MS. MCARDLE: Kim. 

MS. CARY: Thank you for that clarification. 

MS. MCARDLE: I see no other hands. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay, we'd like to welcome 
74 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

Stan. Hi, Stan. Um, so, Stan, just you know, we are we 

finished our discussion on on the remainder of the best 

interest piece that the remainder of the discussion we 

had to finish from yesterday. And we have moved to 

temperature checks at this point. So we have temperature 

checked on 600.2, 600.7, and 668.32. I think it'll be 

just a little difficult today to keep everybody up to 

date and informed because we do have folks coming in and 

out throughout the day. But I just want to give you a 

high level overview on where we are. Did you have any 

questions before we took the temperature check, Stan? 

DR. ANDRISSE: So what I was going to 

suggest is, you know, my apologies for missing this 

morning. I had another commitment that I couldn't move 

around. Is that over the lunch break, I can, if you can 

pass along what we took temperature checks on and what 

was decided. I can just review it and then provide a 

comment on it once we return. And essentially, I can 

provide my thumbs up. And if it's a thumbs down, I will 

provide why I decided on the thumbs down, for the record. 

MS. MCARDLE: Aaron, you're on mute. 

MR. WASHINGTON: I can also talk to 

Department staff about how this will go because we do 

have an additional subcommittee member that will be 

joining in the afternoon as well. I I just want to make 
75 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

sure that we're not going back through each section. 

DR. ANDRISSE: Well, I'm not suggesting that 

we have additional discussion on it. I can just have my 

reasoning for my thumbs down on the record. And you know, 

again, I think it was decided that if there wasn't, if 

there was a thumbs down on any given point, Belinda and 

I, when we report it out, we would report out the 

reasoning for the thumbs down on a particular point. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. Thank you, Stan. 

MS. MCARDLE: Kim. 

MS. CARY: Just a quick update for Aaron and 

Vanessa in the green comment bubble, make sure you remove 

the “upon request” it was removed from the other. I just 

wanna make sure that Stan doesn't see that and wonder 

about that one. So. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah, thank you. Oh, Okay, 

so. How about a temperature check on this on this new 

disclosure language? 

MS. MCARDLE: Kim, did you want to say 

something more? 

MR. WASHINGTON: You know what, I didn't, 

Kim, so I guess I should ask to your to your suggestion 

about is, is that something that would you would be a 

thumbs down on without without without the addition of 

asking each student which state they're most likely to 
76 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

return to and then providing them information on that. 

Without that clause, would you be a thumbs-down? 

MS. CARY: No, I would not. I think we 

captured in another section that would point us in the 

direction of making sure, I just want to make sure that 

students are not left out, without information if they 

need it for where they might choose to go. But at the 

same time, I don't want schools to have to find out 50 

states of information either. If there's not a database 

for us to go to to gather information like that. So until 

that is out there, if it is someone, let me know. But I 

think this is all-encompassing and it's really part of 

the onboarding process that we talked about earlier. 

Thank you for asking. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. So I will take a 

temperature check for that. And I think I don't know if I 

think you all saw you. All may have had a chance to see 

like on the main committee, how the temperature checks 

went. It was like it was like, you know, if it was a 

sideways, it wasn't that, you know, you were like, head 

over heels in love with the language. It was that you 

could you could just really live with the language based 

on the totality of the regulation and based on the 

totality of everything that we're putting together. So a 

sideways thumbs doesn't mean that you totally are in 
77 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

agreement with everything that's written. But if anybody 

is in disagreement, please raise your hand and let us 

know why. 

MS. MCARDLE: I see no hands. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. Let us go. 

MS. MCARDLE: Nevermind, Stan has raised his 

hand, 

DR. ANDRISSE: So I I would like to abstain 

until I, you know, so as I mentioned, if you can send me 

the document up to the point of where we are at lunch in 

10 minutes and indicate, you know, all the thumbs up, 

thumbs down or and I can provide my thumbs up or thumbs 

down on the topics discussed at that point when we get 

back. So I am abstaining. It's not that I'm thumbs up or 

thumbs down on this. I wasn't here for the whole 

conversation. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay, I will send the 

document around during lunch and I will indicate to the 

entire subcommittee and I will indicate the sections that 

we have already already gone through and what the overall 

consensus check temperature check led to. We have 10 

minutes before lunch. So Vanessa, can we go to 668.235? 

We won't do 234 because we got we got consensus on that 

language. And so here in the def, you can scroll down a 

little bit, Vanessa. Here we are. I think that's the end. 
78 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

Yeah, I think that's good right there. Oversight entity. 

So here we are not proposing to amend the definition of 

oversight entity. This is probably going to be a 

conversation, so I can just provide you all with some 

information. So we do appreciate and share the 

subcommittee's interest in establishing a way to get 

stakeholder input. However, we have unresolved questions 

about how a formal federal formal advisory committee 

would be operationalized. We have learned that it would 

be required that it would require the Bureau of Prisons 

to be subject to the Federal Advisory Advisory Committee 

Advisory Committee Act, which creates a separate, 

separate set of operational considerations. And we have 

questions about how the fees, how feasible it is to stand 

up such a formal committee in every single state so 

quickly until we have an opportunity to fully explore 

those specific issues, it's not something that the 

Department could commit to in supporting at the main 

table, and then we have proposed instead to require a 

stakeholder engagement by oversight entities included, 

including mandated engagement with incarcerated 

incarcerated individuals and their representatives, which 

does not create the same legal or operational hurdles 

that establishing a formal advisory committee would 

create. And we do appreciate the work of the subcommittee 
79 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

that the subcommittee has done to encourage us to expand 

the role of stakeholders in the process, and we hope we 

can move forward with the language along these lines. I 

wanted to show the subcommittee we've already seen it, 

but I wanted to show the subcommittee what we had tried 

to do so, Vanessa, if you could scroll down just a little 

bit so people can see. Keep scrolling. It's probably in 

the best and it's probably in the best interest section. 

So I think it's I think it's 238 or 240, 241. Yeah, 

they're right there. Thank you, Vanessa. And so this is 

what we've tried to do to ensure that stakeholders would 

always be represented in in in the discussion, so thanks 

for scrolling down, Vanessa, if you could scroll back up 

to the oversight entity definition, that would be great 

andDR. ANDRISSE: I have my hand up. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah, no, I was just 

scrolling back up so we can begin conversation on on this 

on this piece. 

MS. MCARDLE: Go ahead, Stan. 

DR. ANDRISSE: So I need clarity on what you 

just mentioned, this is again the same, the same thing 

that I the conflict of interest, of having you as our 

facilitator for this. I mean, we we as a subcommittee are 

making recommendations and instead of incorporating them, 
80 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

the Department of Education is just deciding to do what 

they please with it. I mean, I don't who what are we here 

for? Why am I here? Did why did you need to get any of us 

to the table if you're just going to use the language 

that you wish to use? 

MS. MCARDLE: Aaron. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah, so I so, Stan,before 

you hopped on, I had had a similar conversation with Dr. 

McTier and I had I. I kind of just highlighted the fact 

that I was I am my role here was to first, just kind of 

present the language to you all and and just explain that 

I hope I've done a decent job with that. And just to 

provide you a little bit of background in the 

Department's rationale that you've seen a lot of the 

comment bubbles and also to let you know what the 

Department could support or would be likely to support at 

the main table. So while this is your recommendation, I 

just wanted to let you all know what the Department would 

likely support and what Department would likely not 

support at the main table when the actual main committee 

the primaryDR. ANDRISSE: What you just explained is a 

conflict. You just explained why it's a conflict. 

MR. WASHINGTON: I just I would just I just 

(inaudible). 
81 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

DR. ANDRISSE: Your last part of what you 

said is said that you're here to help give us the 

indication of what the Department may or may not like, we 

don't need that. That's not what we're here for. We are 

here to present what we feel is the recommendation and 

bring that to the main committee and let the main 

committee, which has a Department of Ed representative on 

it as one of the voting negotiators to express their 

feelings of what you're doing. We don't need that at this 

point. It should not be, and it should not be the 

Department's opinions and perspectives should not be a 

part of this part of the process. This should just be our 

voices and you've silenced that. I don't know. I mean, 

why are we here? Is this just some circus act to put us 

up and try to say that you really reached out to experts, 

but then you're not taking our expert opinions? 

MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah, Stan, I I think like 

when I when I'm trying to what I'm trying to give a 

response and I totally I hear you. Thank you for your 

comments. I and I am trying to give a response like I I 

would like to just get the entire thought out, and I 

sometimes maybe I'll run on and say the same thing over 

and over again. I do apologize if I do that, but I really 

would like to just get the entire thought out and then 

allow you the space to respond to it. So what I'm about 
82 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

to say it may take 30 seconds or a minute, but I just 

want to be able to get what I what I what I would like to 

say out and then open up the floor for you to respond. 

And I would absolutely do the same for you. You can 

present a different recommendation. And that's what I 

told Dr. McTier this morning. So you have a disagreement 

here you have, it is clear to me and the public and the 

Department of Education staff listening in that you have 

disagreement here. We have your proposed definition 

definition noted in the comment bubble that will not I 

won't remove it, and I'm in fact going to email this to 

you during lunch. And when you and Belinda are presenting 

to the main committee. And so when you and Belinda 

present this to the main committee, please present your 

recommendation. If you present your recommendation to the 

main committee on how you would like to see the 

definition of oversight entity in the regulation. 

MS. MCARDLE: Stan. 

DR. ANDRISSE: I appreciate that, and, you 

know, I I respect that, you know what you what you've 

just said. And it still doesn't address the fact that you 

here is a conflict of interest, you not having, you know, 

consistently having our recommendations changed is a 

conflict of interest. It should be simply our voice. I 

understand that I am also on the main committee and a 
83 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

voting member of the main committee, and I can express 

that it is in a bubble. But I don't want it to be in a 

bubble. I want it to be in the main text and I want my 

subcommittee members to decide whether it is included or 

not included. It should not be you that decides whether 

it is included. It should not be the Department that 

decides whether it's included or not included. It should 

be myself and my subcommittee members that decide that. 

MR. WASHINGTON: I think we're going to have 

a a member of our general counsel in the afternoon speak 

more to my role on the subcommittee. I don't want to put 

Soren on the spot right now because we only have one 

minute until lunch. So I think we will have further 

discussion because that has been brought up several 

times. And so I think we have, and Stan,again. I want to 

circle back to your comments because we have one minute 

until lunch time. I think I've tried to cover your 

concerns as much as I can. And again, we will. We will 

have a member of our general counsel describe my role and 

say, I repeat myself a lot, so I apologize. 

MS. MCARDLE: Stan, did you have another 

comment? 

DR. ANDRISSE: Yes, and Aaron, believe me, 

like I respect you to the highest, you know, I mean, I 

think we had a conversation off the record. And you know, 
84 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

I think I expressed that it's not you, it's the people 

that placed you here that that really that that really 

upsets me, that really frustrates me. I should say more 

than upsets me. It's not you. And I hope that you're not 

taking it as if I'm directing this at you. I'm saying the 

Department should not have placed you, whoever. If there 

was another person inside for you, I would have said the 

same thing that they shouldn't be in that role. And 

that's that's a conflict, and it's showing itself 

continuously how the Department is trying to place itself 

to do what the subcommittees were brought what the 

subcommittee was brought here to do. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you, Stan. I don't 

take it personally at all. Let's let's let's move to 

lunch and we'll come back at 1:00 p.m. and I will send 

everybody the document right now. Thank you all. 

MS. BRITTON-BOSTWICK: Thank you. 
85 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 
86 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21