DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION 

PRISON EDUCATION PROGRAMS SUBCOMMITTEE 

 SESSION 2, DAY 2, MORNING 

November 9, 2021 

 

 

 

 

 

1 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

On the 9th 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 - 11/09/21 

P R O C E E D I N G S 

MR. WASHINGTON: Good morning, everyone, and 

welcome back to the second day of the second session and 

final session of the Prison Education Program 

Subcommittee. We are gathered here today to develop, 

develop regulations that the subcommittee can recommend 

to the main committee in regards to implementing the 

statutory the statute regarding prison education programs 

and provide a framework through regulation. I'm going to 

jump right into introductions because I really want to 

start this out this morning, diving right back into the 

language as quickly as possible. And so with that said, 

let's start with in no specific order. Belinda Wheeler. 

DR. WHEELER: Good morning, everyone. I'm 

Dr. Belinda Wheeler. Feel free to call me Belinda. I'm a 

senior program associate at the Vera Institute of 

Justice, and I'm representing consumer advocacy groups 

today. Thank you. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Kim Cary. 

MS. CARY: Good morning, everyone. Kim Cary, 

I'm the college director for financial aid at Ozarks 

Technical Community College in Springfield, Missouri. And 

I'm representing the financial aid administrators on this 

committee and feel free to call me Kim and my apologies, 

I'll be in and out today, so I'll catch up when I can. 
3 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you, Kim. Stanley 

Andrisse. 

DR. ANDRISSE: Morning, everyone. Stan 

Andrisse, I'm an assistant professor at Howard University 

College of Medicine and the executive director of 

Prisons-to-Professionals . And I am here representing 

formerly incarcerated students. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you, Stan. Terrell 

Blount. 

MR. BLOUNT: Good morning, everyone. My name 

is Terrell Blount, I am the director of the Formerly 

Incarcerated College Graduates network and serving on the 

subcommittee representing groups that represent 

incarcerated people. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. Terrence McTier. 

MS. WILSON: Aaron, he hasn't logged in yet, 

but I'm monitoring it and we'll let him in as soon as he 

is. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay, thank you. Marisa 

Britton-Bostwick. 

MS. BRITTON-BOSTWICK: Good morning, 

everyone. My name is Marisa Britton-Bostwick. I'm the 

education director for the Montana Department of 

Corrections. 

MR. WASHINGTON: And Angie Paccione. 
 

 

4 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

DR. PACCIONE: Yes, good morning, everyone. 

Angie Paccione, the executive director of the Colorado 

Department of Higher Education representing SHEEO, the 

State Hired Executive Officers Organization. I also will 

be in and out for two 30 minute meetings. One happens, 

unfortunately at the bottom of this hour, but I'll be 

back at the top of the hour. So good to be with you all. 

Call me, Angie. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you for the update, 

Angie. And we have our new subcommittee member here with 

us. So I want to open up the floor for Anne Precythe to 

introduce herself and provide us a little information on 

her background. 

MS. PRECYTHE: Thank you, Aaron. Can you 

hear me? 

MR. WASHINGTON: Yes, we can hear you. 

MS. PRECYTHE: Okay, good. So I'm Anne 

Precythe, I'm the director of corrections for the state 

of Missouri. So it's nice to see some of my fellow 

Missourians here, and I am also the president for the 

Correctional Leaders Association. So I'm very excited to 

be here, incredibly supportive of the Pell Grant, the 

higher education opportunities for the people we serve, 

not only as director of corrections in Missouri, but also 

for the United States. My colleagues across the United 
5 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

States are very appreciative for this opportunity, so I'm 

excited to be here and be able to represent them as we 

work through this legislation. So is that good, Aaron? 

MR. WASHINGTON: That's great. Thank you so 

much. 

MS. PRECYTHE: And you all can call me Anne, 

I am a very simple girl. You can look at Dr. Andrisse see 

and see that. So I'm just here to do good business and 

get to know you all and see if we can work through and 

make this a great product for for all of us. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. So just for the 

entire subcommittee sake, I'm going to just run through 

some of the protocols very quickly. I'm not going to read 

them all like I did yesterday, just but we hope that 

cameras will remain on and active during all sessions and 

you can turn them off during breaks, of course. I think 

we, as we said yesterday, I think we will take maybe a 10 

minute break at 2:00 p.m. as well. We haven't done that 

in the past. We hope that subcommittee members remain 

engaged throughout the entire time that they are with us. 

And if you wish to speak, please raise your hands. And 

Sophia McArdle, do you want to come on camera, Sophia, 

and say hello to everybody, so everybody's. 

MS. MCARDLE: Hello, I think I'm on. Am I 

not on? 
6 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

MR. WASHINGTON: Sophia will determine the 

order and and call on subcommittee members. She will also 

hold subcommittee members to about three minutes. And of 

course, if you want to, if you want to continue your 

statement, just raise your hands so you can speak again. 

It's just to allow everybody enough time, time to speak. 

The subcommittee does not vote. We're a working group and 

our goal is to submit a recommendation, hopefully one 

recommendations to the main committee. I think you know 

what? We probably should I think we already decided that 

Belinda and Stan are going to present out. Did anybody 

else have time to think about whether they wanted to also 

be a part of that group? The main committee is December 

6th through the 10th. I still do not have a specific time 

that the subcommittee will report out, but it will be a 

more extensive report out. It will be amendatory language 

accompanied by a higher level report, PowerPoint 

presentation. Sophia, I think we have a I'll pause there 

for questions, Sophia. 

MS. MCARDLE: I think I put myself on mute. 

Kim, please. 

MS. CARY: Thank you. Linda and Stan, I just 

want to let you know that if if the final product you're 

submitting. I completely agreeyou guys should do that. 

You did an awesome job last time. But if there's any 
7 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

financial aid pieces technical that you need assistance 

with, please call on me to help with that because that's 

what I'm here for. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you for that, Kim. It 

actually might really come in handy when we're talking 

about the the the reductions with Pell Grant if it 

exceeds cost of attendance and it might be helpful to 

have a financial aid administrator’s voice to kind of, 

you know, allay the main committee's concerns about that, 

you know. And I will also be doing temperature checks. I 

know, you know, there were some requests not to do 

temperature checks for certain sections of the subpart P. 

So let me know if you don't want to do a temperature 

check for a certain subset for a certain subsection of 

subpart P, but I do want to pick up doing temperature 

checks, though after hour after we conclude our 

discussion today on the definition of a prison education 

program. I would at least like to take a temperature 

check on that. I know, of course, a lot of different 

parts play into different parts in subpart P and it is 

different. It is difficult to do. It is difficult to take 

a temperature check on like just one specific part that 

may impact another part, but I think it would it would 

help to see how much disagreement we have. And Vanessa, 

Vanessa, do you want to say hello? I just for the sake of 
 

8 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

the public that maybe joining in and our new subcommittee 

member, Anne. 

MS. GOMEZ: Hi everyone. Good morning, I'm 

Vanessa. You'll be seeing my screen throughout the day. 

Happy to be here. 

MR. WASHINGTON: So Vanessa will be sharing 

her screen. And so what I've done, so what, and she'll be 

making real time edits throughout the day whenever you 

have any language suggestions. I what I tried to do 

yesterday is I've gone back through based on a 

subcommittee member's recommendation, and I put in the 

comment bubbles from the first subcommittee. And so I 

hope that you will see places where the Department has 

amended or changed or updated language based on a 

recommendation made by the subcommittee. So you'll see, 

as Vanessa screen sharing, you will actually see I think 

you'll see some like 10/20 Stan or 10/20 Belinda or 10/20 

Dr. McTier or Terrell or Marisa. So you can see see where 

the changes were made. I think that'll be more clear 

today. And Vanessa is going to continue highlighting any 

any agreed upon changes in blue. The only change that we 

had that was really agreed to yesterday was in the well 

that the Department kind of weighed in on was the in the 

student eligibility section. I know there wasn't an 

agreement on the student eligibility section in general, 
 

9 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

but we were able to talk to our General Counsel's Office 

over the lunch period and combine two paragraphs, the is 

not incarcerated and is enrolled in the prison education 

program into one paragraph. But again, I still I do 

realize that there was not total agreement on that 

section, but that was just something that the Department 

was able to update based on a recommendation made by the 

subcommittee, made by a subcommittee member. So today 

we're going to dive back intothe prohibition on licensure 

employment text. But I did before we do that, I want to 

just say one thing, I think that I just really wanted to 

clarify that this is the subcommittee's recommendation. 

You can all recommend whatever you want. We have we have 

had in the past. Well, the subcommittee that I've been a 

part of in the past, mainly from what I recall have 

really strives to present one recommendation to the main 

committee. We have seen multiple recommendations provided 

to the main committee. I think it's really important to 

keep in mind and that you all are aware that there are 

nine topics on the main committee's agenda. And so 

providing multiple recommendations to the to the main 

committee will require the main committee to, you know, 

go through the text and really determine which 

recommendation they want to they would like to adopt and 

vote on. I think what we're trying to do here is just 
 

 

10 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

collaborate. And when I say when, if you don't see 

something that was reflected in this language that you 

had proposed, what I don't want to do is recommend 

something to you all that we know that the Department 

cannot agree to. And I can give a specific example, So in 

668.32, we believe that the law is clear that a student, 

a confined or incarcerated individual is required must 

enroll in a prison education program to access Pell. So 

if there is a recommendation to the main committee that 

that we offer, that Pell is offered to students to enroll 

in one course not not not an eligible for an education 

program, which is one course because because of interest 

or because that one course that they, the student feels 

that they need the Department I my goal here is to let 

you know that the Department likely could not agree to 

that, because that is that is not aligned with statutory 

framework about student eligibility, students having to 

enroll in prison education in an eligible program in 

general or if the subcommittee, for instance. Well, we'll 

get into we'll get into the licensure piece in a moment. 

But I just wanted to give provide just one quick example 

of an area because I know there was a lot of discussion 

about 668.32 yesterday. And so my goal is just to really 

let you all know areas where the Department likely would 

not be able to agree to on the main committee. And that 
 

11 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

is one of the areas where we see that as a technical 

change. And we did strive to adopt a recommendation to 

make that paragraph clearer to readers about what the 

statute says. But we cannot deviate from the statute. But 

that does not mean that you can't recommend that to the 

main committee. But that does mean that the that the that 

during the main committee sessions the Department may 

weigh in and say that is something that we're required to 

enforce and can't agree to. So I'll pause there for 

questions. 

MS. MCARDLE: We have Terrell. 

MR. BLOUNT: Good morning, Aaron. And thank 

you for that piece you just shared. My question is around 

like when this process is done, will any of the notes or 

recommendations that wasn't accepted or approved, would 

that be made to the public? Because I think in the 

previous meetings, especially like yesterday, I think and 

Stan you can correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think 

Dr. Andrisse did recognize that in previous meetings, you 

said that, you know, certain language cannot be changed. 

And I think we even discussed like us possibly having to 

go through other means to try to challenge some of those 

the wording that's in the language right now. But I think 

Dr. Andrisse yesterday and I'm also speaking for myself, 

I just want this to be recorded that we are identifying 
12 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

some of these things as barriers in the event that 

they're not accepted. So again, my question is, will 

these recommendations that the subcommittee makes be 

public knowledge so that I can go on record, that we 

tried to make change in the, or recommend change, in the 

ways we see fit? But there are things that we disagree 

with and we just tried to work within our means. 

MS. MCARDLE: Stan? 

DR. ANDRISSE: Good morning, everyone, and 

welcome, welcome back. Excited to be here with you. Yeah, 

I would. I would want to point to what Terrell mentioned 

as well. And I mean, I think Terrell to, you know, if if 

the Department doesn't make it public, maybe it becomes 

upon us to make it public. And of course, this is public. 

So you know, it's public in that sense. But you know, 

something more clearly stating that this is not Pell for 

All this is, there's still more work to be done. We 

restricted the idea that it has to be a prison education 

program, advocates such as Terrell and I and others on 

the call. You know, this is this is not where, we wanted 

a more inclusive and equitable version of Pell. And that 

was what my comment was made. And I, you know, I made 

that, I made the comment so that it can be included in 

the references of the notes so that that is not, doesn't 

disappear from the reference of the notes. Of course, 
13 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

it's in the public knowledge of this being recorded, but 

I think it's important to note that, you know, advocates 

and people that we represent you know, Terrell and I are 

not satisfied with the way that this is this may 

potentially, you know, not increase Pell the way that we 

even hope for it to to increase Pell because of all the 

restrictions that would make the difficulty that we're 

putting in place to even create a prison education 

program. So, you know, we are disappointed, our 

collective constituencies are disappointed that this is 

not Pell for All. 

MS. MCARDLE: Arron and then Kim. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you for those 

comments Stan and Terrell. I just, Stan you already you 

already touched upon some of the things I was going to 

say, but we this is a recorded session. And I believe and 

Amy will just say it's not there yet, but I'm pretty sure 

that the recordings are already posted to our ed.gov 

website. I watched one of these as one of them yesterday 

just to hear how I sounded on a on a recording. So never, 

I probably won't do that again. But, but yeah, so the 

videos are already there, so it's public record. Of 

course, the public can view right now. And then we're 

also going to be posting transcripts to our website of 

everything that was said. Keep in mind, I also sent the 
14 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

bubble comments to you all from the last session. I will 

do that again this time. So I remember Stan, Stan, you 

had said yesterday, you know, put my comment in the 

document, Aaron, just put it in the document. I'm trying 

to tell you what I'm trying to say. And so, you know, 

then Vanessa put it in the document. And so that this 

document that we're all looking at right now that Vanessa 

is sharing will also be sent to you all. And finally, in 

the report out. So when you report to the main committee, 

there is, you know, you can you can say that this is what 

you disagree with. I think what would be helpful is if 

you know, if we can come to one recommendation to say, 

you know, and we can say, well, I wasn't totally sold on 

everything that happened at the subcommittee, every 

single line and every single provision. But I do 

generally agree with the direction, but I still had 

concerns, you know, and I these are places I had concerns 

and I didn't like this, I didn't like this, I didn't like 

this. But that doesn't stop me from, you know, providing 

that doesn't stop the subcommittee from providing this 

one recommendation to the to the main committee. I think 

that would be very helpful if you told the main committee 

areas that you didn't necessarily agree with, but also 

that for the for the sake of, I guess, compromise and the 

benefit of taking everybody's perspective into account, 
15 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

the subcommittee members, the constituencies and the 

departments, I would agree to this one recommendation. 

Still, with not agreeing with like everything, every 

single piece of the regulatory framework. I'll pause 

there. 

MS. MCARDLE: Kim and then Stan. 

MS. CARY: Thanks, Aaron. So you just hit on 

what I was going to ask about on the transcript. So it is 

recorded, but the transcriptions that are being done, 

when will when we'll be able to see those and access 

those? 

MS. WILSON: Aaron, this is Amy, do you want 

me to answer that? It does, it does take a little bit of 

time to process all of this and to get it onto our 

website. We do have a official transcriber looking at the 

information and then doing the transcription. So we do 

have all the information from the first session up, if 

I'm not mistaken, the videos, the transcripts. This, I 

would imagine, will be up in a week or two because it 

does take that time to get everything done and ready and 

also 508 compliant, so we get them up as soon as we 

possibly can. They're already working on the information 

from yesterday. 

MS. CARY: Okay. Well, thank you, Amy. So, 

Stanley, I mean, you know, I look at it as a door is 
16 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

opened. This is an opportunity. It may not be as open as 

we want, but it has started opening. And so it's just 

going to be a matter of us taking those transcripts and 

recordings and following back up with our legislators and 

saying what we how far we want it to remain open. 

MS. MCARDLE: Stan, please. 

DR. ANDRISSE: Yes. Thank you, Kim. I agree. 

I mean, from the onset, I was kind of aware that this was 

not Pell for All and that there's additional advocacy to 

be done. You know, this is one of the, you know, I was we 

all discussed last time bringing on someone in at the 

director level of DOC and that was why I recommended, you 

know, Anne Precythe to join us to me being on the full 

committee and recommended that so Director Precythe was, 

of course, one of the directors of many that joined us in 

the advocacy for Pell Restoration On The Hill. So, you 

know, some of us, you know, all of us on this call are 

related and tied to this work. And then there are, you 

know, there's there's some of us like myself, Terrell and 

others, Anne Precythe, Belinda, I know that have been 

spending years and there's others that were representing 

that have been spending decades, you know, advocating for 

this change. So, you know, we're coming at it, you know, 

to our Department of ED colleagues, you know that work to 

implement these changes. You know, we're you know, we're 
17 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

sitting at a different perspective, you know, at this 

table than where you're sitting at, of course. I mean, 

you probably can't even advocate for I don't know what 

your ability to advocate for things like that is being on 

the Department of ED but you know, we are individuals 

that have been spending years trying to make these 

changes come into place. And so again, I stress the fact 

that, you know, our advocacy, we were one of the leading 

groups, my organization, Terrell's organization that he's 

representing and others, you know, some of the leading 

groups that were pushing for Pell restoration Director 

Precythe was again one of the leading groups. That's why, 

again, I mentioned that I think is valuable for her to be 

here at the table that we're pushing for Pell for All. 

This is not Pell for All. And I agree Kim, you know, I'm 

definitely here trying to get everyone at the table to 

think about how we can make the language the most 

inclusive. And you know, I think that, you know, you 

know, I clearly understand, you know, the restriction of 

what it says that you have to be in a prison education 

program. Then let's look to make the definition of a 

prison education program as inclusive as possible, if 

that is the requirement, right? So Kim, I'm with you. I 

want to try to make this work the way, the best way that 

we can. And again, excited to be here with you all today. 
 

 

18 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

MS. MCARDLE: Aaron. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you for that, Stan, 

and I think with that, we should dive into the language. 

We are, let's see, we're going to go back to paragraph 8 

of section 668.236. 

MS. MCARDLE: Stan, do you have a comment? 

DR. ANDRISSE: Yes, I did. I don't know if I 

missed it before, like we went live publicly as I joined 

right at that moment, but did we mention how we were 

going to myself and Belinda sent some language 

recommendations to the committee. Did we mention how 

we're going to address those recommendations that we 

sent? 

MR. WASHINGTON: I didn't, you know, I we 

got them, I think we got the first one, we did get a 

recommendation on the 25% waiver. I think 6 p.m. 

yesterday. So we're still reviewing that and we think, I 

had a lot of e-mails this morning. So we I think we got 

some, we got some, we got some, I Stan, I saw yours. I 

didn't open it yet, but we saw yours. And then we, I 

think, but but they will all be addressed. They'll all be 

addressed and I but it's today they likely won't be 

addressed. We still have a bit to get through. And for, 

you know, we have accreditation, application requirements 

to the Department, reporting requirements, best interest, 
 

19 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

and wind down. And so I think that that probably will 

take some time. And then I was hoping that if we can get 

through everything today, we can start going back through 

today, going and starting back, you know, where we had 

like areas of disagreement to try and resolve those. So 

over lunch, I can talk with my colleagues about how more 

specifically, we're going to address all those language 

proposals. But they have been received. It's and I was 

hoping that tomorrow we could go back through the entire 

documents and and add in all that information. And if the 

department doesn't recommend to add, it, provides you 

with the rationale on why we didn't propose to add it. 

But we did. But I did have a chance to look at Belinda's 

documents specifically about the scaffolding for the 

600%. 

DR. ANDRISSE: If that might add a 

suggestion. I mean, some of the, so Belinda's document 

didn't only and Belinda correct me if I'm wrong, like all 

of the green areas were recommendations. So what was the 

number of you had like, there was there was like eight 

green there was eight suggested language suggestions. So 

it's not just, you know, it's not just one. There was 

multiple of them. And I added one this morning. That is a 

collective document that was worked on by several of us 

on the subcommittee. So I mean, it is a document that is 
20 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

kind of already in agreeance with a good portion of the 

subcommittee. And then my suggestion was going to be that 

some of those haven't yet come up yet. So I mean, when 

they come up, we can we can recommend the text right 

there to you because they're in that document. So and 

then the others that we've already passed, as you 

mentioned, when we go back, we can add that 

recommendation in. 

MR. WASHINGTON: I think that's a good idea, 

so yeah, if there's yeah, I mean, that's a great idea. 

Just recommend it at that point. Yeah. 

MS. MCARDLE: No other comments at this 

time. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Alright. So we're going to 

go back to paragraph 8 and Vanessa, has it pulled up now. 

So as you can see on your screen, what I've done is I've 

added Terrell's language well, Terrell's proposal from 

October 20th back into the document, so you can all see 

it. I've also added Kim's comments on, you know, if we do 

allow students to acknowledge there's a prohibition on 

licensure employment and still enroll in the program that 

could have an impact on job placement rates if students 

aren't able to get jobs in those fields or be licensed in 

those in those in the field of education was preparing 

them for. And then you can also see the comment bubble 
 

21 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

that we've added language here that Kim recommended on 

10/20 about the postsecondary institution making that 

determination. Where students are most likely to return 

to or was was that upon release from a federal 

correctional facility. And that recommendation has to be 

made at least annually to ensure that the programs are in 

compliance with any state prohibitions on licensure 

employment. So yesterday we did receive some thumbs down, 

which I kind of walked through yesterday, but for this 

discussion, the Department cannot override the provision, 

this provision in the statute. So we acknowledge 

Terrell's suggestion to allow students to acknowledge 

that the program that they or they acknowledge that the 

program, there's a prohibition on licensure and that's 

upon enrollment, so that would be the student upon 

enrolling in the program, we would know that the student, 

you know, there was a state law or federal law banning 

borrower, prohibiting the student from obtaining 

employment in that, you know, a licensor. But but the 

Department that cannot the Department's position is that 

we cannot override the statutory provision, and I will 

pause there for comment. 

MS. MCARDLE: Belinda. 

DR. WHEELER: Great, thank you very much. 

Yeah, this is one of those ones that's going to deflect 
22 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

to that bigger bubble that was sent to the to the 

subcommittee last night. With with the advice, the great 

advice that the Department had given us about the 

potential framework that we could, the recommendation 

that the Department had given, for example, the 

subcommittee could consider whether recommendations 

should be made about how an institution would make those 

determinations. The subcommittee could also make 

recommendations on programs to ensure they're keeping 

track of rapidly changing laws in this space and things 

of that nature. Now, the bubble that I have, I'm not sure 

if you want to document it now, you could potentially 

just say, you know, see, you know, Belinda's 6:30pm email 

to the subcommittee there. But I've got a I've got three 

different recommendations for the subcommittee to 

consider. You know, this is certainly not me dictating to 

the subcommittee, but some, some possible ways to work 

within the recommendations that the Department had 

provided were, for example, A, in the case where a person 

who is currently incarcerated is planning to to return to 

a state post-release where there are no licensure 

restrictions, the student working with the educational 

partner should not be restricted from taking classes in 

that discipline so that this way it's I've got in 

parentheses the previous recommendation about students 
 

 

23 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

having programing and or licensure information at least 

five business days before the institutions drop/add 

period would be highly beneficial here. I know I'm 

sending a lot of information your way verbally, but it is 

in the document sent last night. B, educational 

institutions wishing to offer a program that currently 

has typical prohibition, licensure or employment 

restrictions in their state are encouraged to work with 

employers and other community stakeholders to remove 

those prohibitions. So trying to kind of, you know, 

motivate educational partners to, you know, kind of look 

into, you know, perhaps advocating for some of this 

programing, you know, restrictions to be modified so that 

they can provide more opportunities for students and 

then, C, educational institutions encourage to work with 

state employment offices and state education offices such 

as SHEEO, for example, to help keep track of rapidly 

changing licensure laws statewide and nationally. So I 

just mentioned them as a small caveat here. I don't 

expect necessarily for you all to kind of transcribe that 

now, but just read kind of verbatim with potential 

subcommittee, you know, for the subcommittee to consider 

for this particular point. Thank you. 

MS. MCARDLE: Stan. 

DR. ANDRISSE: Belinda, could you also 
 

24 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

recommend that. What was the number of that particular 

within your bubble comments? Which which number was it? 

To help direct us to that more specifically in the 

document. I don't know if that would be helpful. 

DR. WHEELER: I I I hope it's okay to speak. 

So it's on page 6 there's not actually an actual, let me 

check on the PDF really quick here, Stan. On the PDF, 

it's comment A9R7 on page 6. But on the PDF, you'll see 

it's a long bubble so there's that there's those ellipses 

there that show that, you know, the PDF can't capture 

everything. So on the Word document, which was what I was 

reading from. It's also on page 6, but on the Word 

document, there's no actual reference point there, but it 

is it is connected to this exact moment that the 

Department is showing up on the screen right now. So the 

bubble does correspond with this exact paragraph number 

number 8 in the in the document. I hope that helps Stan. 

DR. ANDRISSE: Yes. And I would just add to 

what was mentioned because this is again Belinda and I 

had conversation around what she just mentioned and I am 

in agreeance with with what you just mentioned. So 

that's, you know, I'm a plus one to that. But I would 

also just ask to the my question is what is your 

interpretation what is the Department's interpretation of 

the use of “typically” that would say that this, you 
25 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

know, how do you define “typically involves prohibition”? 

MS. MCARDLE: Aaron, did you want to respond 

to that question? 

MR. WASHINGTON: Oh, sure, we have not 

defined typically involves prohibition, but. I think if 

you wanted to offer a proposal, you can you can either 

state that now or provide it in writing later. 

DR. ANDRISSE: Well, my my understanding of 

the use of “typically” I mean, I mean, you open with that 

the Department's interpretation of this is that it is a 

denial. But my interpretation of “typically” is that it's 

case by case. Right. I mean, to say that it's a blanket 

denial. You know, so I guess explain to me further how 

the Department sees that it is a blanket denial of, you 

know, what, let's let's I think there needs to be a 

better explanation of what you what your statement was 

that you opened with on this particular piece. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Well, I think that we're 

trying in in one and two under the one and two. So this 

is the number, H is the statutory language, right? And so 

we've added, of course we've added Kim's recommendation 

and we tried to expand on our rationale or our 

interpretation of the statute in numbers one and two. And 

so that's this is the framework for how the Department 

has interpreted through or proposes to interpret the 
 

26 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

regulation, the statutory framework. And so I don't want 

to read it verbatim to you because you can see it on your 

screen. But I this is these those two the paragraph one 

and two the paragraph one corresponds to a state 

correctional facility. Paragraph two is about a federal 

correctional facility. Those are the ways in which the 

department has interpreted the statutory text. And so 

that would be a student could not enroll in a programif 

there's a federal or state law in that state, that would 

prohibit if it's a if it's a facility other than a 

federal correctional facility. And then then also the 

same would apply for federal facility based on where the 

state in which most of us are likely to return. So that 

is the current proposed recommendation from the 

Department. And again, there's no there's no definition 

in the regulation right now of “typically involves 

prohibition”. We had not proposed or recommended that. 

And so that's why I was trying to say, if you have a 

definition, you could propose. One more thing Stan, just 

one more thing, Vanessa, if you can scroll down just a 

little bit to have the blue all in the, yeah, so Belinda, 

if you could do a thumbs up or a yes or that is, this is 

Belinda's recommendation. So I put this into the 

document, so I'll try and do that as we go along so the 

subcommittee can see it in a way in on it. And I think I 
27 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

think you sent this to the entire subcommittee as well, 

Belinda, so you probably have this in the document as 

well, but it's there for the public to see as well. 

MS. MCARDLE: Kim. 

MR. WASHINGTON: I think Stan wanted to say 

something else, Sophia. I'm sorry, sorry, Kim, I cut Stan 

off to say what I wanted to say and so if we could let 

Stan finish? 

MS. MCARDLE: Go ahead, Stan. 

DR. ANDRISSE: I feel like and I feel like 

adding the additional definition just further discourages 

the the the creation of programs that that may require 

licensures. So if I am a, you know, if I am, for 

instance, many, you know, I'm very familiar being in the 

medical field with this particular scenario in the 

medical field. It doesn't, there is no ban on it, 

specifically. It is you know, it is, the wording is 

looking at whether there's a character fit. And I'm I'm 

forgetting the exact wording that they're that they use. 

But it's essentially that the that it's based on 

character, right? And it's in it's case by case and this 

is for, you know, medical licensure and health health 

care licensing. But you know, to the program director who 

is, you know, seeing this, most people think that there 

are specific bans and adding that language says that 
 

28 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

gives you no further gives people the belief that there 

are specific bans and particular areas that there really 

aren't specific bans. They are case by case scenarios. 

Even with with law degrees and getting barred, there's 

usually not a definite if you have a criminal conviction 

of this particular type you can't get in. It's mostly the 

way that it's written is that it's case by case, and they 

they will take a case by case. So I think further adding 

that definition, just it's going to it's going to create 

less access, right? It's going to create less is going to 

give less access to people getting into programs because 

program directors will shy away from, for instance, 

creating a pre-law degree program, right? So an 

undergraduate or associate's degree program that is 

preparing people to move into a graduate degree for law, 

right? They will see this in like, oh, I bet our state 

has a bar on people can't get into being a lawyer like 

you're you have a criminal conviction and they won't even 

look to see if that's possible. So I just don't like that 

language and I would I would say just to if that is the 

the first part is statutory I don't think we even need to 

add that additional part. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. So, I mean, just to 

follow up. Is there a state or would there be, in what 

you just described, upon so like so you're so upon 
 

29 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

enrollment into a program, what would the student have 

been prohibited from obtaining licensure employment? Was 

there a state law that specifically said the student 

cannot the student cannot get licensure employment in I 

don't know, to be a pharmaceutical tech or to be a 

teacher or to be an electrical engineer. That's the the 

regulation is saying that if there is a actual law on the 

book that specifically says that the student would be 

prohibited from sitting for a licensure exam, then they 

could not do that. If there is a case by case review for 

each student that there may not be a state law 

specifically banning that student from obtaining 

licensure or sitting for the licensure exam, but the 

state is saying we will see right later on. But what 

we're talking about here is at the time that the student 

enrolls in the program. Is there a state or federal 

prohibition on the students entering, sitting for 

licensure or being employed? You know, and trying to 

trying to provide a student actually a consumer 

protection so that schools are not enrolling students in 

programs that they know upon enrollment, the student 

would not be able to obtain licensure employment. And if 

the law does change, if the law changes, the student 

would be able to enroll in that enroll in that program. 

It's just that upon enrollment, we don't want to promote 
 

 

30 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

the promote offerings to students where they could not 

sit for licensure where we know they couldn't sit for 

licensure employment. And then keep in mind the student, 

their Pell Grant is limited, right? So like they are 

limited to six scheduled awards, which we talked about 

yesterday. And so while we could have the case where 

there are students that you know, you could press forward 

and could have state law. 

DR. ANDRISSE: If I might add in, I get it. 

I, I agree. And if there is documented, what I'm saying 

is this is misleading in a way and not not necessary 

because if there is, instead of creating text that will 

mislead or dis encourage program directors from starting 

particular programs, I mean, I'm I'm against adding this. 

I would if we were to add any clarifications, I would 

prefer to add clarifications that would look to 

incentivize the starting of of programs that fall into 

this gray area. There's not very many, I mean, there's 

the amount of actual bans in place is less than what 

people perceive them to be. So it's it's, I think, just 

there certain fields that people think that there's bans 

on if you actually look in, there's not. I don't think 

that you need to add this clarification here because it 

just makes it more discouraging for a program director to 

try and implement a pre law program, for instance. I 
 

31 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

think that if we add language instead to what Belinda 

pointed to, it can incentivize that the program has 

flexibility to potentially offer these types of programs 

even if they, you know, and then leave it up to the 

Department of ED to, you know, approve it or disapprove 

it. 

MR. WASHINGTON: So can we add so maybe Stan 

so can we add a comment bubble then to the document? 

Maybe Vanessa can add a comment bubble to the document to 

say. Is your recommendation to remove? 

DR. ANDRISSE: My recommendation would be to 

remove one and two. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah, okay. And then focus 

more on Belinda's recommendations. And so. 

DR. ANDRISSE: And I might add that to, you 

know, Dr. Noel Vest gave a compelling testimony to this 

very point in the main committee to the main committee, 

he was a public comment, and you know, he mentioned how 

this will, there's a number of people such as Shon 

Hopwood and Tarra Simmons and Dwayne Betts and a number 

of individuals who have broken through the barrier of 

becoming lawyers who got, you know, barred. This would 

would not give the opportunity to create Shon's, Tarra's 

and Dwayne's, you know, I don't think we want language 

that would disincentivize that because, you know, who are 
32 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

the predatory institutions? What are what examples, I 

don't know this, this is I think we you know, my 

recommendation would be to remove that. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay, I think Vanessa has 

captured that. 

MS. MCARDLE: Should we move on to Kim then? 

Kim, please. 

MS. CARY: Thank you. So I have a question, 

Aaron, about thirty four or the 668.237. Which part of 

that is statute that we can't change? 

MR. WASHINGTON: Under the accreditation 

requirements? 

MS. CARY: Yes. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Oh, we will move to that 

section next. I just wanted to make sure our conversation 

was done. 

MS. CARY: Well, the reason I ask is part of 

the bubble and the and the I think it it works with both 

is in the one that we're in, if you scroll up just a 

little bit, it talks about within the state. Okay, so, 

and then we're saying that the school is going to 

determine which state that most of their most of them 

will reside and upon release, right? So but then 

Melinda's bubble is saying that if the student wants to 

go is going to reside somewhere else that we need to 
33 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

incorporate them into a program if there is no hindrance 

to them getting a licensure. So I agree with that but, I 

mean, both of the one and two are talking about, I mean, 

the statute here is talking about in the state in which 

the correctional facility is located. So it doesn't allow 

us to go to another state and look at it. Does that make 

sense what I'm saying? 

MR. WASHINGTON: So the set so yeah, the 

statute for the State Correctional Facility is about oh 

sorry, anything other than a federal facility the, 

anything other than a federal facility, it it's it's 

about the state in which the facility is the correctional 

facility located. So for the juvenile justice facilities, 

the work farms, the reformatories, local jails. It would 

this paragraph H would be applicable to the state. And 

then then for the federal facility, it would be wherever 

that most students students are most likely to return to. 

So, Belinda, if you if you wanted to describe your, we 

have your recommendations up there now. I don't know if 

you wanted to go into further detail about how each of 

them would. How each of them would how how how you would 

see each of them playing out, that would probably be 

helpful with the subcommittee. 

MS. MCARDLE: Belinda. 

DR. WHEELER: Let me just check in super 
34 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

quick. I see Dave has his hand up and I just wanted to 

check if he wanted to add something about the Department 

in general before I respond to this. 

MS. MCARDLE: Dave? Dave? 

MR. MUSSER: Sure. Yeah, I can talk for a 

second. So I wanted to give at least a little bit of 

background as to why the Department is suggesting these 

two clarifying paragraphs one and two here. It's partly 

an operational consideration. And it was it was, you 

know, we had been thinking about how challenging it would 

be for institutions to be aware of restrictions on 

potential employment when restrictions, as as has been 

pointed out here in multiple cases are sometimes applied 

at the local level, sometimes they're applied in really 

nuanced cases. And we've we've heard discussions about, 

you know, restrictions based on moral character that 

could include restrictions here. So part of what we were 

attempting to do with this language was to ensure that 

there was a clear delineation about what needs to be 

considered and what doesn't. And I don't want that to be 

to to to be lost in this discussion. And we're certainly 

open to suggestions about how to improve on that idea. 

But what we what we have in one and two essentially says 

that when a school is deciding whether it needs to limit 

enrollment in accordance with this statutory requirement, 
35 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

it doesn't need to look at things like the moral 

character considerations that are very fuzzy and sort of 

on a case-by-case basis. It's not if those things are not 

clearly enshrined in law, and it also doesn't need to 

consider local prohibitions that it might be aware of 

that that might otherwise prohibit individuals in a very 

specific area. We wanted to ensure that there was a 

simple, clear way for schools to comply with the 

statutory requirement, and that's part of the main reason 

for for this, the way that we explained it here. Now I 

certainly hear the concerns about where this takes 

schools and how they might want they might if they if 

they act conservatively, they might limit enrollment 

based on this. But the Department's intent was to ensure 

that they didn't go even further than this to limit 

enrollment in cases where potentially individuals could 

have been employed in the state and deny them the 

opportunity on that basis. So whatever we decide to do, I 

just want to be sure that that that particular issue is 

addressed in the language that that we end up with. 

MS. MCARDLE: Belinda. 

DR. WHEELER: Great, thank you very much. So 

just to get back to Kim's question, Kim, if I was hearing 

your comments from October correctly and please correct 

me if I'm wrong, like the original language had said that 
36 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

corrections, you know, like corrections would determine, 

you know, what potential courses, for example, could be 

offered to students because of licensure. And if I 

remember your your comment correctly, just from that 

little bit from the bubble you were saying as part of the 

onboarding process, you know, when students are, meet 

with their academic advisor, for example, the students 

could then let the academic advisor know, you know, look, 

this is the program that I wanted to do, and therefore 

the educational institution would have a bit more of like 

they would have the current data available from that kind 

of initial onboarding. So what I was thinking with this 

particular sub point recommendation was that say, for 

example, a student wanted to do electrical engineering 

and they come to, you know, advisor and say, look, this 

is what I what I'm planning on doing. And because the 

school offers electrical, sorry, I even forgot what I was 

talking about electrical engineering. I hope that was the 

example. You know that that then the advisor could say, 

look, you know, given, you know, given your current 

position as a student who's applying for for Pell in a 

carceral setting, you know you need to know that in this 

particular state, you know, there's these restrictions, 

but that would give the opportunity for a student to 

then, you know, hopefully with the advisor to say, look, 
37 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

you know, in the state of, you know, another state like 

right next to next door, there isn't that restriction so 

that, you know, the student then informed, you know, like 

would be saying, might may indeed say, oh, look, you 

know, I, you know, I was planning on actually going to 

that state, you know, anyway, so that then that student 

is letting the educational institution know so that then 

the advisor knows that look okay we can, you know, sign 

the student up for these courses because the student has 

an understanding of that particular state that that was 

the kind of flexibility that I was thinking of. But 

please correct me if I'm wrong, if I misinterpreted what 

you'd said in October, because that's what I was thinking 

of where, you know, if the school is currently located in 

state X and there is a restriction in state X but then 

the student actually wants to go to state Y when they're 

actually released that the student can be empowered to 

sign up for that knowing that information. So let me, is 

that correct, Kim? Is that what you were thinking, my 

friend? Okay. 

MS. CARY: It is correct. What I'm, with 

that comment, though I want to make sure that we're not 

restricted in the statute itself by saying in the state 

that the correctional facility is located is what you're 

you're you have to abide by. That that was what I was 
 

38 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

wondering. 

DR. WHEELER: Yeah and I see Aaron nodding, 

nodding his head there in agreement. So is that something 

that I might need to relook at then? 

MR. WASHINGTON: I think we can definitely 

take it back, but I think that the statute is saying that 

the state that you know it has to, you know, it's in 

accordance with what the state, you know, the state 

prohibitions are in the state of the correctional 

facilities located in. And so it's kind of along the same 

lines of kind of allowing a student to sign an 

acknowledgment that I know that, you know, the program 

itself, you know, I've been prohibited from obtaining a 

licensure employment in the state in which the 

correctional facility is located in. But I want to go, 

but I'm going to return to another state. I don't know 

how that would apply to something other than a federal 

facility because the state facilities the law is pretty 

clear that you can't offer education that a student would 

be prohibited from licensure employment in that state in 

the state. The correctional facility located in. So it 

sounds to me like the student would still have to sign 

some sort of like acknowledgment or waiver of the statute 

of the actual statutory text in order to still enroll in 

that program. 
 

39 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

MS. CARY: Okay. Okay. So another thing with 

that is, this may be coming up in the accreditation piece 

too, but part of the as I mentioned yesterday, a lot of 

this is going to get back to the institution level. And 

Stan I think you heavily agreed with me yesterday on 

this. Institutions have to be encouraged to not be 

fearful of opening these programs for fear of not being 

able to place them in jobs, which will impact negatively 

impact the institution's numbers to where the then the 

accreditation that they have to report to then says, 

Well, you're not meeting your numbers, so you can no 

longer offer this program. It's like a step by step 

process that you don't want to lose your accreditation. 

So where in this piece are we asking accreditors to 

rethink their process and their view on this at 

encouraging, I mean, institutions will go out and we will 

encourage and assist and work with businesses and 

legislators and push for this. But if we can't get the 

accreditors on board, then I think that's where your 

hiccup is going to happen and things will you won't see 

at this open up like it should. So I think we need to ask 

ourselves who's going to be talking to the accreditation 

teams and about this? 

MS. MCARDLE: Well, let's see, we have 

several people. We have Stan, we have Anne we also have 
40 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

Elizabeth Daggett from our accreditation team who would 

like to speak. Aaron, do you want Elizabeth to go and 

address the accreditation? 

MR. WASHINGTON: Well, I mean, it depends if 

everybody else is okay with Elizabeth jumping ahead. 

Okay, I see a thumbs up from Stan. I can't see the other 

thumbs up, but I think I think it would be beneficial to 

have Elizabeth jump in. 

MS. MCARDLE: Yes. Okay, Elizabeth, please. 

MS. DAGGETT: It looks like Anne is wanting 

to say something first. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Let's let Anne speak first. 

DR. PRECYTHE: I'm sorry, thank you for 

letting me jump ahead, Elizabeth. I do have to jump to 

another meeting, but I think I understand why I'm here 

and Marisa can probably talk to this as well. But I think 

it's important for you to understand operationally what 

happens when this kind of conversation is coming up. So 

there's case managers in our institutions, and this is 

part of case planning and helping this the individuals in 

our care understand what's your plan for when you get out 

of here and if education is part of that where are you 

going to go where you can actually use this skill or 

obtain this licensure? And so there are processes to get 

people from one state to another state. So I mean, there 
41 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

are I do hate to see it limited because I can also tell 

you from the legislative side, somebody's got to go 

first. And if a legislator is going to say, well, we 

don't even allow that kind of licensure here, they can't 

even get that kind of education why would they be 

inclined to change statute to allow for particular 

licensure? Different states are now being much more open 

minded, and they're starting to remove some of the 

barriers to obtaining licensure. I just throw that out 

there as food for thought for this committee, because as 

long as you have statute that prohibits them from even 

pursuing the possibility of having the opportunity, then 

that makes it that much more challenging to change the 

statute. So if the statute gets changed, now I got to go 

in and work to change this statute to be able to allow 

these people to even get into the program. So for 

whatever that's worth. This is amazing conversation and 

I'm excited to be part of this group. Thank you very 

much, and I'll be in tomorrow morning for a little bit. 

This was kind of short notice for me knowing about the 

meeting, but I will certainly do what I can to clear my 

schedule for future meetings. So thank you all so much. I 

really appreciate the work you're doing. It's very 

important from my perspective and from the correctional 

leaders across America. So thank you so much and I'll see 
42 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

you in the morning. 

MS. WILSON: Okay, thank you. Elizabeth then 

and then Stan, does that work? 

MS. DAGGETT: Okay. I'm not sure I totally 

understand the issue that Kim has brought up. My 

understanding is that you are questioning whether or not 

the accrediting agencies would participate in allowing 

for substantive changes in this area, such as adding 

prison education programs. And whenever there are 

regulations added to Title IV eligibility requirements or 

opening up new programsaccrediting agencies, just like 

there's an accrediting agency representative on the main 

committee, are involved in the discussions related to 

that language, so they'll be fully aware of the 

discussions that this committee has had. As far as the 

ability to change the way that they look at prison 

education programs that would be up to the agencies 

themselves. Any regulatory requirements we have for 

recognition are included in a separate section. This is 

related this section here as related to the accreditation 

requirements for the actual prison education programs. 

But there's nothing to prevent an accrediting agency from 

having different standards of review, depending on for 

student achievement that's what we refer to the review of 

outcomes such as graduation or employment or licensure 
43 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

pass rates. There's nothing to prevent an accrediting 

agency from having different standards for different 

types of programs, as long as they could demonstrate why 

they did that and if there's a reason that they did that, 

which I think does different population would probably 

would definitely serve as a rationale for doing so. So I 

hope I answered your question if I didn't Kim, please or 

if you wanted to talk more about it, please let me know 

and I'm happy to do so. 

MS. CARY: No. Thank you very much, and it's 

just more of making an awareness that though the 

institution may choose to do a program, it may not be 

supported all the way around for the student to have full 

access to what they need. 

MS. MCARDLE: Stan. 

DR. ANDRISSE: So thank you, Kim, Belinda, 

for your comments, I just want to acknowledge that I, you 

know, I plus one their comments and thoughts. But so I 

want to get my comment goes back to this “typically 

prohibits” and I appreciate the clarification of why the 

additional language was added. But I just want to kind of 

put together a scenario of how the “typically” could be 

used. So say, for instance, one program director who is 

looking to start a particular type of program, such as 

the pre law program, I'm going to go with that example 
44 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

again could make the argument that their particular state 

I'm going to make the state suggestion, Washington state, 

that their particular state has, you know, theoretically 

say that their state has a ban, I'm not sure that 

Washington state has a ban, but let's say that their 

state has a ban, but I can tell you what I do know that 

despite the state having a ban that the previous two 

formerly incarcerated people that went before the state 

board were accepted. So if we look in the past 5 to 10 

years of what typically takes place regarding this 

board's decision on formerly incarcerated people, 

typically the formerly incarcerated person has been 

barred. So I would, you know, the argument could be made 

that there's typically not a prohibition despite there 

being a ban in their state because despite there being a 

ban in the state, the actual formerly incarcerated people 

that came before that board were indeed granted licensure 

or certification. So typically what has happened is not a 

ban. So that's that's my argument to why if we include 

the language that the additional definition of the 

language, we then specifically say that if it has a ban, 

you cannot proceed forward. But if we leave it, as is the 

scenario that I just presented in the state of 

Washington, where two formerly incarcerated lawyers have 

beat the decision of you can't be here, have broken that 
 

45 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

ceiling, that typically is the case in that particular 

state. So I would prefer to leave the language open for 

that scenario in that, you know, you know, advocates like 

myself can help encourage program directors of these 

types of situations where they would be encouraged to 

start these types of programs. 

MS. MCARDLE: Aaron. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you for those 

comments, Stan. I so when when the when the individuals 

that you're referring to wrote, I think you said broke 

through the ceiling, was those the words you used, was 

that, I mean, I hear what you're saying. I think that 

what the Department is saying is that, you know, when 

those students enrolled in a program, there was, it 

sounds to me, like there was some sort of state law, 

correct me if I'm wrong, please correct me, there may 

have been a state law that would prohibit that student 

from obtaining licensure employment in that field. And I 

think it's definitely a positive thing, a great thing 

that the students were able to push through and, you 

know, obtain licensure employment in that field. But upon 

enrollment, it sounds like there was a state law that 

would have prohibited the student from doing so and 

through the student's own efforts, they were able to be 

licensed and I think we're trying to make sure that. 
 

46 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

DR. ANDRISSE: My clarification is there's a 

loophole by your additional language. You remove that 

loophole, so you thus create more, you create less access 

with the without your additional definition there is a 

tiny loophole that someone could potentially pursue, but 

by adding your language, you remove that loophole. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Alright, and I think 

Vanessa has noted your comment. And I think we probably 

need to move to the next section unless there's any more 

comments on this section. You know, so, I'll pause there. 

MS. MCARDLE: There is there's a comment 

from Terrell, Terrell, please. 

MR. BLOUNT: Thank you. I thank everyone for 

their comments. Stan and what he mentioned absolutely 

understand and agree with where he's coming from. And to 

use a more like concrete example in California, for 

years, incarcerated people have been trained to fight 

fires and have gone out to fight wildfires while 

incarcerated, and they get whatever experience, 

certification or licensure they would need, but on the 

outside, they were not able to be hired as firefighters. 

And to the director's comments shortly before she left I 

think what she was pointing to was that it is difficult 

to create an argument on why a law needs to be changed if 

you cannot demonstrate the need, because that is the game 
 

47 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

that is usually played because if we can't make a 

demonstrate a reason why this law should be changed, i.e. 

there are people that have this experience, knowledge and 

expertise, and yet there's a barrier in place that 

argument in this kind of shot down. And I think, you 

know, I just wanted to add that piece in addition to what 

Stan saying which you know is about kind of blocking the 

opportunities for people to, you know, exceed those 

limits and challenge those, you know, those typically 

those typical situations where there's like a blanket 

law, but people can kind of get past it. I think allowing 

programs to create this and his example, pre law program, 

even though in that state, typically people cannot 

practice or, you know, that licensure is ultimately going 

to be prohibited because of someone's conviction history. 

I think, you know, put in that barrier in place is kind 

of reflected in the language as it currently stands. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Sophia, if I could just 

jump in really quickly, I just. You know, we expect I 

think the Department does expect that there will be 

changes in in in laws and and we've seen rapid changes in 

recent years. And if a law changes and an occupation 

becomes newly opened to formerly incarcerated students, 

the school would be able to add those programs at that 

time. So we I think what we're seeking feedback on 
48 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

language is to ensure institutions would reflect updated 

state, state and federal laws as soon as possible, I 

think. So that was just a response to not only Anne but 

also Terrell. 

MS. MCARDLE: Okay, we have Stan and then 

Kim. 

DR. ANDRISSE: I just wanted to make another 

reference to the point of the conflict of having, Aaron, 

you be our facilitator. In the, we are the ones that 

should be saying what the recommended language is, but 

what you're what you and David are telling me is that we 

can't, you know, if the committee you're basically say, 

you're going to keep it here because that's what that's 

what the Department wants. And you know, that's that's 

the whole point of what we made the point to that it's a 

conflict of interest to you, for you to be our 

facilitator because you have an interest of being on the 

Department of ED and then you're trying to facilitate 

this conversation. The subcommittee wants one thing, but 

then you're also part of Department of ED and so you're 

wanting something else. Like that is a conflict of 

interest that we brought up in the main committee, and 

it's matriculating and showing itself right here right 

now. 

MS. WILSON: Kim. 
 

49 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

MS. CARY: So from an institutional 

perspective and a financial aid, when I would be sitting 

down with my academic partners, they would ask me, what 

do the regulations say? And If I had just the initial 

language without one and two, then I would say you have 

the ability to offer a program if you choose to as long 

as you disclose that an individual could not receive 

licensure and that would be up to this to the institution 

to take that risk. However, it also opens the door for 

bad actors to come in and do offer those programs knowing 

students can't get licensure just to have the students. 

So I can see how one and two would protect against the 

bad actor part. But at the same time, if one and two is 

left in there, I would then read down and say, well, we 

have an option here that kind of left the door open a 

little bit, but one and two are saying very specifically, 

we can't. And so schools are going to read that one and 

two and say we can't even go down that road until the 

state changes their changes their their ways and their 

laws. So and it be up to the institution to make sure 

that they're staying on track of what ones have changed. 

So I hear what Stan and everyone is saying, in the end, 

the institution is going to ask me to read the 

regulations, and that's the recommendation I would push 

back at them as you can't at this point offer it. Because 
50 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

you don't want to take that risk. Thank you. 

MS. MCARDLE: Terrell. 

MR. BLOUNT: Apologies, I didn't take my 

hand down. 

MS. MCARDLE: Aaron and then Stan. 

MR. WASHINGTON: I’ll let Stan go first, 

because I think we I think I need to have to I'll let 

Stan go first. Thank you, Sophia. 

DR. ANDRISSE: I would just again plus one 

Kim and add to what so what Kim explained very nicely of 

both sides is the reason why I feel that that language 

should be removed. And then it would be more beneficial 

to have Belinda's suggested language because Belinda’s 

suggested language could keep some of the bad actors from 

going in because the bad actors would be required to tell 

the students that there's going to be challenges if the 

student didn't already know that they were going to be 

challenges. So by removing it, adding what Belinda said, 

it can address what Kim said, creating the opportunity 

for the loophole for a program director to pursue it, but 

also creating a bit of a guardrail for bad actors to come 

in. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you for those 

comments, Stan. I think we've noted we've noted the 

comments, I think we had some recommendations to remove 
51 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

one and two. And I and then we have Belinda's 

recommendations noted here. So I think with that, I think 

we can move into accreditation. We do have the comments 

noted there on record video comment bubble transcript. So 

let's see, we're going to move into 668.237 you've 

already heard Elizabeth Daggett, our our expert from 

accreditation, weigh in on a piece already, but she is 

here for technical support on all things accreditation. 

So there were some, under 668.237, there are some 

technical changes and cross-referenced edits that we made 

to this part. The main substantive change we made here is 

that, well, you'll see, let's see, I don't know if you 

can see it, on in small (b) number two, Belinda had made 

a proposal that if a program offered through a new method 

of delivery, if a program was offered through a new 

method of delivery that was already evaluated and 

approved by the accreditor were to be started or 

established, then that program would also have to be 

evaluated by the accreditor. And that meaning if the 

accreditor already has to evaluate fully the first prison 

education program at the first two additional locations. 

And so if there was a change in method of delivery for 

the third prison education program, that would also have 

to be reviewed. And that's like, for instance, if they 

changed from in-person to their third offering was a a 
 

52 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

correspondence program or distance education program. So 

we added that language, changed some cross references 

there. So I will pause for comment. 

MS. MCARDLE: Kim. 

MS. CARY: Thank you. This is mainly just a 

statement for those of you who will be advocating out. So 

it says state approval agency or state approval agencies, 

so it seems to me that the one we just worked on, might 

conflict with this one if the state approval agency is, 

you know, override the opportunity for us to even offer 

it. So just letting you know that we might want to start 

looking at our state approval agencies for their type of 

language that they have to see where it could contradict 

what we're trying to do here and make sure that we get 

those items changed as well so that there's no conflict. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Beth, would you mind, oh, I 

see Beth is going to weigh in. 

MS. DAGGETT: Hi. I believe that this 

language for state approval language is referring to the 

state approval languages that we recognize the Department 

recognizes and not separate state approval like what you 

might call an entity at each particular state. So I 

understand that there could be some confusion, obviously 

in the language, but we actually do recognize certain 

state approval agencies. And so I'm 95% sure of those 
 

53 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

references to that and not to the separate state approval 

agencies. I think you might be thinking of. 

MS. CARY: Yes, that is what I'm thinking 

of, at Missouri Department of Higher Education we have to 

go through and get different approvals there, so just 

making sure that if it's referring to that, that we're 

all each working with our own state to make those 

appropriate changes as well. Thank you. 

MS. MCARDLE: I'm not seeing any other 

comments. 

MR. WASHINGTON: I have a few, I have a few 

other examples that just so the subcommittee is fully 

aware of the Department's interpretation of this new 

added language. So if an institution's first two 

additional locations offer exclusively in-person 

instruction, if it starts additional location offers 

exclusively distance education and its fourth additional 

location offers exclusive correspondence courses, the 

accrediting agency will be required to evaluate under 

evaluate all four prison education programs. So another 

example would be if an institution's first two locations, 

if an institution first two additional locations, first 

PEP offers in person up the first two additional 

locations are offered in person and then one of the 

previously evaluated locations launches a second PEP via 
54 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

distance education the accrediting agency is required to 

evaluate the PEP offered through the new method of 

delivery. So that's how that that's how I would end up 

playing those within just a few examples of how that 

language would play out when implemented operationally 

when implemented. So. 

MS. MCARDLE: Still no comments. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Alright, so let's take a I 

didn't take a temperature check on the last section, but 

let's start taking so let's take a temperature check on 

this new language and see how the subcommittee's feeling 

about it. So I remember we don't want to ask Vanessa to 

take the screen down from yesterday because there was 

some technical issues. And so if you would be a thumbs 

down or disagree or would like to see certain language 

changes, please raise your hand and state why. 

MS. MCARDLE: Nothing. 

MR. WASHINGTON: I, Vanessa, could you add a 

comment bubble that there are no thumbs down for this 

section? Thank you. Alright, well, let's move down to 

668.238 that is the application requirements. So this is 

the application to the Department of Education itself. 

Here we've made some technical updates there to, you 

know, the changing the Bureau of Prisons and State 

Department of Corrections to the oversight entity and 
55 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

some cross reference updates. There are two substantive 

two substantive changes here to highlight. We've 

responded to Dr. McTier's comment and you actually see it 

there. I've added it back to this document. So we have 

responded to Dr. McTier's comment, clarifying that the 

postsecondary institution is not required to provide 

reentry services if there's already a stakeholder, 

expert, or community based organization collaborating 

with the Prison Education Program for entry services. And 

we also added a clause to allow the Secretary to gather 

more information so that the more information is is 

number (8). So you would see such other information as 

the Secretary deems necessary. And so hopefully there we 

have responded to the subcommittee's concerns. 

MS. MCARDLE: I have a comment from Stan. 

DR. ANDRISSE: I am just trying to go 

through the document Belinda sent. I thought we had some 

language suggestion here? Belinda might be able to more 

appropriately answer that as I'm looking through the 

document. 

MS. MCARDLE: Belinda. 

DR. WHEELER: Yep, thank you. Stan, I've got 

it for the very next section, the best interest 

determination, the 668.241 and that's where a bunch of, I 

don't see anything here on my notes for application 
 

56 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

requirements. Did I miss something, my friend and 

apologies if I did? But I'm not seeing it on my document, 

but if I did miss something, please definitely let me let 

me know I will say on the next section and I'm using it 

to definitely reach immediately back to this one. There's 

another language where it says, if applicable, other 

indicators pertinent to program success as determined by 

oversight entity. And I did flag that one, for example, 

where I'd said, you know, this seems a little too 

general, but I understand the Department's need to 

provide some flexibility. Could we offer some language 

that provides, you know, protections? I could see that 

potentially being a comment bubble for B(8) such other 

information as Secretary deems necessary. Just because it 

is so vague but on the document that I set last night, 

there was nothing in this section, Stan. But again, 

please feel free to correct me if I miss something, my 

friend. 

MS. MCARDLE: No other comments. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Belinda, I looked through 

your document as well, I didn't see any I didn't see any 

language change proposals here. 

MS. MCARDLE: Terrell. 

MR. BLOUNT: Yeah, in regard to what is a 

number (5) around the reentry counseling, unless I'm 
57 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

reading it in the wrong tone, I'm not sure what the “If” 

at the beginning of the sentence indicates because I 

don't think it like follows through with a then or 

anything like that. Am I reading that wrong? 

MR. WASHINGTON: Terrell, can you repeat 

that? I apologize. 

MR. BLOUNT: For the reentry counseling, 

where Dr. McTier's suggestions are. I was saying that the 

second sentence says if reentry reentry counseling is 

provided by a community based organization that is 

partnered with the eligible PEP institution or 

correctional facility to provide reentry services 

information about the types of services that the 

community based organization offers. I was indicating 

that I don't think that the “If” is necessary unless I'm 

reading it wrong. 

DR. ANDRISSE: There is no then, there 

should be an if then. I mean, the sentence doesn't, is 

not complete, I think is what Terrell is mentioning. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay, so maybe we can just 

say then provide information after so facilities provide 

reentry services comma then provide information about the 

types of So we had then or we can just totally 

restructure the sentence. Essentially, we were just 

saying in the application to the Department of Education, 
58 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

you'll have to provide information about reentry 

services. And then, you know, we got the comment that not 

all postsecondary institutions or even correctional 

facilities offer reentry services. Sometimes they decide 

to partner. And so I think that the comment was that 

they, the subcommittee member, felt as though the 

department was essentially requiring the postsecondary 

institution to offer reentry services, and they may not 

be experts in reentry services. So we were just saying 

that if you do partner with somebody else, you'll still 

have to still have to provide us with information about 

those services. It's just more so that that we're 

recognizing that we don't want to we don't want to make 

it appear as though we're saying that the postsecondary 

institution is required to offer reentry services they 

can partner, but they still have to provide the 

Department with information about, you know, about those 

you know about what that community organizations are 

going to do. And so perhaps we can put a put a comment in 

there about fixing the. 

MR. BLOUNT: Yeah, just the grammatical fix. 

MR. WASHINGTON: And also, I I'm going to 

propose a two minute break, just just a two minute break. 

And and we will reconvene at 11:32. 

DR. ANDRISSE: Can we just make that a solid 
59 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

five minute? 

MR. WASHINGTON: Oh, okay, yeah, we can make 

it a solid five minutes until11:35. And that would be the 

subcommittee would turn off their cameras. I see Kim and 

Stan's hands up. I apologize for breaking. But we will 

reconvene at 11:35 and then we will take our lunch break 

at 12:30. So if you can turn off your cameras and your 

microphones will return in 5 minutes. 

MS. MCARDLE: 12:30 or 12:00 for lunch? 

MR. WASHINGTON: We'll do 12:00 for lunch 

and then we'll return, I think I probably said we'll do 

12:00 for lunch and return at 11:35. Thank you. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Alright, and thank you all 

for allowing us to take a 5 minute break if we could 

return to the table, turn your cameras back on, please. I 

think I see well, people may have stepped away. I think 

it's just me, Belinda,Sophia right now. Dr. Dr. Paccione, 

hello. Do we have Terrell, Kim, Marisa? 

MS. MCARDLE: I don't see them yet. Their 

hands are still up, though. 

DR. PACCIONE: You see two, it would have 

been five and now five is going to be seven. 

MR. WASHINGTON: I see Stan. 

MS. MCARDLE: And Stan would be our first 

speaker, followed by Kim. 
60 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

MR. WASHINGTON: I think Terrell has joined, 

yep. Maybe if I expand I can see other folks. 

MS. MCARDLE: Aaron, let us know when you're 

ready and Stan can go. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah, let's give it one 

more minute. Has Marisa rejoined? I'm just looking for I 

don't see Marisa in. I don't see Terrell I thought I saw 

Terrell. 

MR. BLOUNT: I'm here. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Oh, Terrell's here. 

Alright, Terrell can you turn your camera on, please? 

MR. BLOUNT: I believe it is. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Oh, okay. Kim is here. 

Okay. Alright, we have Marisa. Alright, let's go ahead 

and start back. So I think we left off with Terrell, oh, 

sorry, sorry, I was just saying the last comment, Sophia. 

It was just that Terrell was recommending a language 

change to that reentry piece or a grammatical effects but 

yes, sorry, it is Stan. 

MS. MCARDLE: Stan and then Kim. Stan? 

DR. ANDRISSE: Sorry about that. So this 

language is in relation to the institution's prison 

education program, application must provide information 

satisfactory to the Secretary that includes so this is 

for information that must be provided by the PEP to the 
61 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

Department of ED. I was wondering if there could be, so I 

appreciate Dr. McTier's suggestion and inclusion here, 

but being that reentry counseling is such a important 

part of helping individuals come back into society I just 

would want language, you know, to include that important. 

So, you know, somehow if we could and I'm trying to look 

through all my documents, which is getting really jumbled 

at this point but I had made a comment earlier I believe 

in our first time with each other back in October that 

there should be some type of language that encourages 

that if there isn't an existing partnership, you know, if 

we're not going to make it, you know, I would personally 

be for trying to make it required. I understand Dr. 

McTier's, you know, from a program leader himself, you 

know, the challenge that could present. And I also 

understand the challenge it could present. And if a if a 

program doesn't have that already in existence, then it 

may take them longer to get the program up and running 

because they have to go find that partnership. But it is 

an important partnership to the true success of, you know 

what, we're what we're looking for. So how do we reflect 

that in our language? And I think that maybe there could 

still keep Dr. McTier's but add somewhere that it is 

encouraged that they build that and maybe even, you know, 

say and I think maybe, Belinda, it's in our what we have 
62 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

coming up, but give a time limit to you can you can start 

the program, but you have two years to build this 

partnership, but it is a necessary partnership to have. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Vanessa, can you add a 

comment bubble to that? Stan, what what exactly would 

you. 

DR. ANDRISSE: Well, I think there needs to 

be encouraging language that says encourage PEPs to build 

partnerships with reentry organizations by a set time, 

and I, you know, throughout the proposed time of two 

years. I believe just from the framework of the time that 

we're asking for a report on. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay, that alright, just 

just to not this is not to push back at all what she said 

Stan, I think under in the best interest piece under (7) 

there is some language there about determining whether 

the programs offer relevant academic and career services 

and that includes reentry. Perhaps we can talk about what 

we can talk about if it would be best to be included in 

the encouraging language to be included in application 

that the school had to submit to the department, or maybe 

it could also be appropriate, or maybe it would be more 

appropriate in the best interest in the best interest 

section. But I mean, we can we can have the discussion 

maybe when we get to that peace, would that be okay? 
63 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

Okay. 

MS. MCARDLE: Kim. 

MS. CARY: Well, thank you. So the way I 

would see that playing out is kind of like our thirdparty partnerships that we have to place on our 

participation agreement and report out that who are we 

who we're working with. And so, like Stan said, if we put 

a requirement on that, they have to have that 

relationship built within two years, for instance, then 

that would be a way for the Department to be able to 

control and make and confirm that the institutions are 

following through on that requirement. If we were 

required to list them as a third-party agency that we’re 

that we've partnered with. And just I know on the best 

interests of students area in your community colleges, we 

are for the community, so we've built those relationships 

and we've created programs within our own walls that have 

started addressing this as a Second Chance Pell school. 

So I think we not only have that in our policies and 

procedures of what we're doing under this program, but 

that would so we would be doing that. But the piece 

within the application, I think, is important because 

that would confirm that schools are actually doing that 

piece. So that's where I would recommend that it be 

placed. 
64 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

MR. WASHINGTON: I'm sorry. It would be 

placed here or in the best interest section? 

MS. CARY: Well, I think it should be in 

both. As far as the application piece, that's where you 

can be assured that schools would be required to place it 

into their program participation agreement as a thirdparty partnership. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Ok, thank you. 

MS. MCARDLE: Belinda. 

DR. WHEELER: Thank you. I'll just mention 

it here briefly, there is language coming up, and I 

appreciate both what Stanley and Kim have said here 

because it does seem that the subcommittee has put some 

good value in why making a point that was which was 

currently placed in the section below to also be placed 

here. So I'll just reference it here just for everyone's 

context. But in the PDF that was sent last night to the 

subcommittee, it's actually box comment, A 29, excuse me 

A 27, my apologies. A 27 and I'll just verbally say it 

here. But of course, we can then reference it back later. 

But the the language is the same or substantially similar 

academic and career advising services to students who are 

not incarcerated must be offered to students who are 

currently confined or incarcerated. If an educational 

institution needs additional resources for students in 
65 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

advance of reentry and upon release, the institution is 

strongly encouraged to create a partnership with their 

applicable corrections agency and community 

partner/partners to provide comprehensive programing to 

this student body. Excuse me, let's see here, through 

documented collaborations, the educational institution 

would not be responsible for support in areas they may 

not have existing expertise. That, of course, should not 

prevent them from expanding their own programing in the 

future. But at least in the short term, students are 100% 

covered. So I just kind of verbally mention this again. 

It is something that I've got on the record for comment A 

27 on page 6 of 12 of the Word document. But I just 

mention it here. Thank you. 

MS. MCARDLE: Kim. Oh, alright, then, Stan. 

DR. ANDRISSE: Yes, and thank you, Belinda. 

That's where, again, my apologies, I am struggling 

through the many documents, but so that is what Belinda 

mentioned what I wanted to point out. But additionally, 

instead of encourage, I think we should add the piece of 

required by a certain time limit. So that gives the 

flexibility to address Dr. McTier's concern about the 

challenge of starting the program for a program director. 

But then I think, you know, we not only I think making it 

required is something that that needs to be needs to be 
66 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

done. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Vanessa, did you capture 

the time putting a time limit in there yet? If not, you 

can just add it. I've added Belinda's. You can add it to 

the, Vanessa, if you can add it to the blue part? Well, 

it's fine right there. It's good there. You can do it 

there. It's fine. The time limit. And Stan, I think I 

think for your suggestion, it would be helpful if you 

could provide specific language that you like to see. Not 

now but. 

DR. ANDRISSE: The specific language would 

be what Belinda has, but instead of, Belinda says in 

Belinda's language, it says, “strongly encouraged”. I 

think we should, and you know, Belinda and I talked about 

this and I, you know, Belinda added it in one of our 

subsequent revisions. But you know, my point would be to 

instead of “strongly encouraged” to say “required by a 

time limit”. It would, my language suggestion is exactly 

what Belinda has but instead of the “strongly encouraged” 

part to say required by X time limit and you know, I 

think two years is just a proposed time limit. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay, thank you. 

MS. MCARDLE: I see no other hands. Aaron? 

Aaron, you're on. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Sorry, I was on mute. 
67 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

Alright, I apologize. So let's go to let's keep scrolling 

down to paragraph I think it's (c). Yeah, there's fine, 

Vanessa. And so for the remainder of the section we've 

made some technical changes and cross references and then 

on your screen, Vanessa if you can scroll down a little 

more. We've added so after the first prison education 

program is approved by the Department, the first two 

additional locations, the postsecondary institution will 

still be required to report subsequent prison education 

programs to the Department under 600.21, which we already 

talked about. And so we've added some clarifying language 

to to to outline what an institution would have to submit 

to the Department, and they'd have to submit that 

documentation with a accreditor in the state but we had 

to add in the highlights that the documentation had to 

indicate that there were no final accrediting adverse 

final accrediting adverse actions that were accrediting 

actions that were adverse the last five years to A 

because the statute is has a five year look back period 

on all negative actions for the Department. If you all 

remember for the accreditor and for the state. And so we 

added that they have to provide the documentation that 

there were no adverse actions within the last five years 

from the accreditor. And we do need to make one technical 

change. Vanessa, if you wouldn't mind to the end of 
68 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

number (2) documentation from the institution, noting 

that the institution was not subject to any action by the 

state to revoke a license or other authority to operate. 

If you can just add there also in the last five years. 

And if you could highlight that in yellow, then the 

reason I'm highlighting the yellow is because it's just a 

change that that we just we just missed that change. So I 

stop there for comment. 

MS. MCARDLE: And I don't see any comments. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. So I see we only have 

10 minutes until until lunch, but I did want to I keep 

going because we're almost through subpart P with the 

exception of best interest. And I think, you know, we're 

going to spend the majority of the afternoon on the best 

interest discussion. And so I hope that, you know, for 

the next ten minutes, we can still continue going on and 

talking about other sections outside of that section. And 

so this is about the if the Secretary decides to limit or 

terminate approval of a postsecondary institution to 

offer a prison education program. And in the previous, we 

had some thumbs down here so we've added requirements for 

a teach-out plan and also an agreement, if applicable. 

And that was one of the recommendations, I believe, from 

Belinda. I don't have that comment bubble in here, I 

apologize, but I will I will add it. So we have added 
 

69 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

that language that's highlighted the Secretary limits or 

terminates and institutions approval to operate the 

institution has to submit a teach-out plan and, if 

practicable, practicable teach out agreement. And we do 

not have the wind down language in here that Belinda had 

also proposed to add. And that's because under our 

current regulations at 668.26, if the Secretary 

withdraws, limits, terminates a program for 

participation, then for Pell purposes, the student can 

only receive aid until the end of that payment period 

that the Secretary withdraw that approval. So we already 

have long standing regulations that would limit that so 

consequently, we can't add a longer wind down period 

there. 

MS. MCARDLE: I have a comment from Steve. 

MR. FINLEY: Since Aaron was summarizing 

this just now to point out that we had added the 

reference to the teach-out plan, I guess we should ask 

for feedback on whether the teach-out plan should be 

required if the when the Department would just initiate 

such an action because in a lot of cases, a substantial 

amount of time could go by if an institution requested an 

administrative hearing on a termination action that could 

take several months to resolve. And so it's one question 

I would ask is whether we should consider that the teach-
70 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

out plan should be provided when such an action was 

initiated rather than when it takes place. 

MS. MCARDLE: I see no hands. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Well, I think that's 

something that we can probably think about over the lunch 

break, Steve, and maybe maybe we can circle back to it. 

MS. MCARDLE: Belinda? 

DR. WHEELER: Sorry, Aaron. So just for 

clarification. Yes, so that's a good point, so the 

Department is recommending that, just could you just 

please reiterate that the Department is recommending that 

that teach-out plan be available in the short term so 

that the students because of the time frame? Sorry. Could 

you just restate that? I apologize. 

MR. FINLEY: Sure. I think the only change 

to the language it would be the teach-out plan would be 

provided if the Department initiated an action to limit 

or terminate a program. 

DR. WHEELER: Yeah, no. That makes sense 

because I think, you know, thank you for mentioning about 

that time period because again, we want to make sure that 

the students in best interests are always served. So I 

think that that certainly, at least from my positionality 

here on the subcommittee, seems good because it is kind 

of having the student's best interests. I'm not sure if 
71 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

other colleagues disagree or agree, but yeah. 

MS. MCARDLE: No additional hands at this 

point. Aaron, you're on mute. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. Yeah, I think looking 

at paragraph seven, sorry paragraph the new paragraph F 

under section 668.236, we say it's offered by an 

institution that is not subject to a current initiated 

adverse action. And we say, if the institutions, yeah, so 

we do say we do say in seven we do have in regulation 

right now, if offered by an institution that is subject 

to a current initiative, adverse action if the 

institution currently offers one or more prison education 

program, it is subject to an initiated adverse action. 

The institution must submit a teach-out plan as defined 

under 34 CFR 600.2. So I wonder, Steve, can you comment 

on whether that language gets us there? 

MR. FINLEY: Yeah, I think we just need 

something in 668.240 B. Maybe as a cross reference there, 

I mean, that's the only place where it looks like the 

teach out plan might not have to be provided until the 

limitation or termination action was complete. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Gotcha. Vanessa, I see I 

see Elizabeth wants to weigh in. 

MS. MCARDLE: Elizabeth, yes. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Vanessa, can you add a 
72 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

comment bubble to, well, let's add the comment bubble 

after Elizabeth is able to weigh in? 

MS. MCARDLE: Elizabeth? 

MS. DAGGETT: No, I just wanted to say that 

that was the exact reason you brought up Steve that we 

brought in the initiated adverse action with regard to 

accrediting agency is that when they initiate it to when 

it becomes final can sometimes take longer than anyone 

would want based on appeals processes and due process. So 

I would say that if the subcommittee wanted to mirror the 

language from the accrediting agency approval 

requirements, that that was the exact intent and 

including that there. 

MS. MCARDLE: Steve, did you have anything 

else? 

MR. FINLEY: Thanks, I just forgot my hand 

was still raised. 

MR. WASHINGTON: So, Vanessa, you can add a 

comment bubble to maybe add a cross reference here to our 

initiated adverse action regulations proposed 

regulations. Add a cross reference to initiate an adverse 

action part. Thank you, Vanessa. Let's see. I think we 

have gotten through, so the next part is best interest. 

We do have one final part in subpart P about about the 

wind down. Yeah, we have one final part in subpart P. So 
73 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

when we come back from lunch, it's 11:57 now. So when we 

come back from lunch, what we'll do is we'll spend the 

majority of the afternoon, of course, on the best 

interests of students. And but before we do that, we'll 

just hop. We'll just jump to 668.241. So when we come 

back from lunch, we'll do the transition to a prison 

education program. That's a really short section. We 

actually didn't get any thumbs down there. I don't think 

it'll take much time at all and then we'll dive right 

into the best interests determination for the remainder 

of the day. 

MS. MCARDLE: We have a comment from Kim. 

MS. CARY: And just a statement to my 

colleagues here, I'm going to be out for the afternoon 

unexpectedly and I'll do my best to make sure I'm here 

tomorrow, if at all possible. So I know you'll keep up 

the conversation and go in the right direction. Belinda 

has some notes for me that she's aware of. So thank you 

all, and I'll do my best to get back to you tomorrow. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you so much, Kim. 

MS. CARY: Thanks. 

MR. WASHINGTON: So with that said, I don't 

want to open up 668.241 and I definitely want to open up 

the best interest piece before lunch to provide the 

amount of time and attention that it needs. So let's end 
 

74 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

here and we will reconvene at 1:00 p.m. I didn't take a 

temperature check there, I think we should do that, too. 

Alright. 
75 

Subcommittee Meetings -11/09/21