1

Committee Meetings - 03/14/22 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION

INSTITUTIONAL AND PROGRAMMATIC

ELIGIBILITY COMMITTEE

SESSION 3, DAY 1, MORNING

March 14, 2022 

On the 14th day of March, 2022, the following 

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

before Jamie Young, Shorthand Reporter in the state of New 

Jersey.
Committee Meetings - 03/14/22 2 

PROCEEDINGS

MS. JEFFRIES: Good morning, everyone. My name is 

Commissioner Cindy Jeffries, and I'm going to be the 

federal facilitator from FMCS for this morning’s session 

anyway. It's my distinct pleasure to welcome you all to 

session one of the final week of the United States 

Department of Education's negotiated rulemaking, through 

which the Institutional and Programmatic Eligibility 

Committee, where their goal this week is to reach 

consensus. I am joined by fellow FMCS commissioners Brady 

Roberts, Rozmyn Miller, and Kevin Wagner to assist them 

with their process. So with this, we just want to take a 

few minutes to review the procedure and protocols. For the 

protocols, the negotiators will have three minutes and 

those three minutes are to be used only to relay new 

concerns and offer any new proposals or language for change 

that would help get you to consensus status this week. We 

ask that the time not be used to restate previously stated 

concerns, revisit already discussed text or sections and 

items not on the table for this negotiated rulemaking or to 

express support for something already stated. We encourage 

you to continue to utilize the chat to express your 

support. We will be assisting you with the above focus to 

keep you moving through the changes in the text before you 

this week. The intent is not to limit your dialog, but is 

instead intended to help you best utilize the remaining 

time this week to enable a process following the protocols 

to reach consensus or concisely articulate concerns and 

proposed changes for the Department to hear and take into 
Committee Meetings - 03/14/22 3 

consideration. As previously stated, the goal, your goal 

this week is to reach consensus. We will be taking actual 

consensus checks this week instead of temperature checks. 

Consensus will be taken on the entire issue paper one by 

one issue, paper by issue paper. There will be no partial 

consensus checks on subsections, packaging of issues, 

trading or contingency of the issue papers. For the papers 

that you reach consensus on, the Department must use that 

language recognizing any grammatical changes needed in the 

final draft for the NPRM also, which is the acronym for the 

Notice of Public Rule Making. For those issue papers that 

you might not reach consensus on or is not reached, the 

Department may utilize any text in the final draft for the 

NPRM. They're not obligated to use any of the text that 

you've not reached consensus on. For issues where consensus 

is not reached, each person who is not in consensus will be 

asked to clearly articulate your serious concerns or deal 

breaker if you will, and ask you how you would change the 

language before you to get to consensus. We encourage you 

to look at that if your response is, well we submitted that 

in week one or week two, I just want to remind you that the 

Department has already looked at that language and has not 

at this point accepted it. So let's see if there's language 

that can be changed that might be able to help you get to 

consensus. There will be public comment from 3:30 to 4:00 

every day except Friday. The Department is not accepting 

written comments at this time from the public, as there 

will be at least 30 days to submit comments during the NPRM 

period. Over the weekend, specifically Friday, we sent out 
Committee Meetings - 03/14/22 4 

some data on ATB. We also sent out some GE data responses 

yesterday and plan to have and the Department plans to have 

a presentation tomorrow morning first thing to review the 

GE documents. Please put any questions about the data, 

either ATB or GE in the chat. Other questions may also be 

placed in the chat, as the Department may not be able to 

provide an immediate answer, but will consider them when 

they're drafting the language for the NPRM. With that in 

mind, we will move into roll call and then into the first 

agenda item on issue paper number one Ability to Benefit. 

Greg, before we do that, Greg, is there anything you want 

to add?

MR. MARTIN: Oh, no. I just thank everybody for all 

the hard work they've put in the past couple of two 

sessions and will on this one. And to reiterate what 

Cynthia said, we are trying to strive for consensus, so 

let's try to keep that in mind where you have disagreements 

with the text as it's written, try to keep your comments in 

line with what you would need to see to get to the point 

where you could vote consensus. Still, obviously willing to 

take anybody's questions. But I think at this point you see 

what the Department has here in our language and where 

there are disagreements. I think it's more important to 

talk about what would get you to the point where you could 

vote consensus on that issue. I think it's important to 

remember this is a negotiation, so it's unlikely anybody 

gets exactly what they want. But if I could, for those of 

us who are baby boomers, that old Rolling Stones song, you 

can't always get what you want, but you try sometimes you 
Committee Meetings - 03/14/22 5 

just might get what you need. With apologies to those who 

got tired of having to listen to their parent’s music day 

after day so that those songs, you know, I just thought I'd 

bring that up. So I hope that everybody can keep that in 

mind. And obviously not asking anybody to compromise their 

principles or anything along those lines. Obviously, we all 

have to remain true to that but you know where you think 

that there could be something that you can't live with as 

written, but would, but if change might move you towards 

consensus, let's try to keep the discussion oriented that 

way. So that's all I would say. Thank you, Cynthia.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thanks, Greg. I just want to 

remind the committee to please adjust your names to the 

naming protocol, and everyone should be on camera for the 

roll call. So with that, let's go ahead and start our roll 

call for accrediting agencies, we have Jamie Studley.

MS. STUDLEY: Good morning. I like the song lyrics, 

Greg.

MR. MARTIN: Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Great. And Dr. Laura Rasar King.

DR. KING: Good morning, everybody.

MS. JEFFRIES: Good morning. For civil rights 

organization and consumer advocacy organizations, primary 

is Carolyn Fast.

MS. FAST: Morning.
Committee Meetings - 03/14/22 6 

MS. JEFFRIES: Good morning. And her alternate is 

Jaylon Herbin.

MR. HERBIN: Good morning.

MS. JEFFRIES: Good morning. Financial aid 

administrators at postsecondary institutions, primary is 

Samantha Veeder.

MS. VEEDER: Good morning, everyone.

MS. JEFFRIES: Morning. And the alternate is David 

Peterson.

MR. PETERSON: Good morning.

MS. JEFFRIES: Morning. Four-year public 

institutions of higher education, Marvin Smith as primary.

MR. SMITH: Morning, everybody.

MS. JEFFRIES: And Deborah Stanley is the 

alternate.

MS. STANLEY: Good morning!

MS. JEFFRIES: Good morning, both of you. Legal 

assistance organizations that represent students and/or 

borrowers, we have Johnson Tyler as primary.

MR. TYLER: Hi, good morning.

MS. JEFFRIES: And Jessica Ranucci as alternate.

MS. RANUCCI: Good morning.
Committee Meetings - 03/14/22 7 

MS. JEFFRIES: Good morning to the both of you. 

Minority serving institutions, Dr. Beverly Hogan as 

primary.

DR. HOGAN: Good morning, everyone.

MS. JEFFRIES: Good morning. And Ashley Schofield 

is the alternate. Is Ashley with us this morning?

MR. ROBERTS: She hasn't logged in yet, Cindy.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, we can circle back if she logs 

in. Private nonprofit institutions of higher education, 

Kelli Perry is the primary.

MS. PERRY: Good morning.

MS. JEFFRIES: Good morning. And Emmanual Guillory 

is the alternate.

MR. GUILLORY: Good morning, everyone.

MS. JEFFRIES: Good morning, both of you. 

Proprietary institutions of higher education, Bradley Adams 

is the primary.

MR. ADAMS: Good morning.

MS. JEFFRIES: Morning. And Michael Lanouette is 

the alternate.

DR. LANOUETTE: Good morning.

MS. JEFFRIES: And I want to note that for this 

morning, for the ATB Michael Lanouette will be sitting in 
Committee Meetings - 03/14/22 8 

at the table in place of Bradley. States Attorney General 

State Attorneys General, Adam Welle.

MR. WELLE: Here this morning.

MS. JEFFRIES: Good morning, Adam. And Yael Shavit.

MS. SHAVIT: Morning.

MS. JEFFRIES: Good morning. State higher education 

executive officers, state authorizing agencies and/or state 

regulators of institutions of higher education and/or loan 

servicers, primary is Debbie Cochrane.

MS. COCHRANE: Good morning.

MS. JEFFRIES: And the alternate is Carney King.

MR. SOCOLOW: I'm David Socolow, good morning.

MS. JEFFRIES: Oh, I'm sorry. You know what, my I 

skipped down. I apologize, David, you were correct. For the 

record, David Socolow is the alternate. My apologies. Good 

morning, both of you. Student and student loan borrowers, 

Ernest Ezeugo is the primary.

MR. EZEUGO: Good morning, everyone.

MS. JEFFRIES: Good morning. And for real this 

time, Carney King is the alternate.

MR. KING: Hello, good morning.
Committee Meetings - 03/14/22 9 

MS. JEFFRIES: Good morning, both of you. Two-year 

public institutions of higher education, Dr. Anne Kress is 

the primary.

DR. KRESS: Good morning. Happy Monday.

MS. JEFFRIES: Good morning. Same to you. And 

William Durden is the alternate.

MR. DURDEN: Good morning.

MS. JEFFRIES: Good morning. And just to note, 

William Durden will be sitting in for Dr. Kress. U.S. 

military service members, veterans or groups representing 

them, Travis Horr is the primary.

MR. HORR: Morning everybody

MS. JEFFRIES: Morning. And Barmak Nassirian is the 

alternate.

MR. NASSIRIAN: Good morning.

MS. JEFFRIES: Good morning. Civil rights 

organization Amanda Martinez is the primary.

MS. AMANDA MARTINEZ: Morning.

MS. JEFFRIES: Good morning. They are joined by two 

esteemed advisers. Their advisers are non-voting members of 

the committee. Compliance auditor with experience in 

auditing institutions that participate in Title IV HEA 

programs, Mr. David McClintock.
Committee Meetings - 03/14/22 10

MR. MCCLINTOCK: Good morning, everyone.

MS. JEFFRIES: Good morning, Dave. Labor economist 

or an individual with experience in policy research, 

accountability and/or analysis of higher education data, we 

have Dr. Adam Looney. Perhaps Adam will be joining us 

later. And then last but certainly not least, we have Ron 

Sann, who will be sitting in as general counsel at the 

table for the Department this morning and the chief 

negotiator for the Department, Mr. Gregory Martin.

MR. MARTIN: Good morning.

MR. SANN: Good morning.

MS. JEFFRIES: Good morning, both of you. Did I 

miss anyone? Brady, I'm just checking back to see if Ashley 

has joined?

MR. ROBERTS: No, Ashley has not joined neither has 

Professor Looney. But I'll let you know if they do.

MS. JEFFRIES: Alright. Great, great. Are there any 

other substitutions this morning for the primaries other 

than the ones that I already mentioned?

MS. COCHRANE: David Socolow will be in for state 

agencies for ATB.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, great. David is in for ATB. 

Alright. So with that, those who are not going to be 

primary at the table, please turn your cameras off so we 
Committee Meetings - 03/14/22 11

have just the people at the table on screen for us. That 

would be great. Alright. Johnson, you have your hand up.

MR. TYLER: Yeah, thanks. I just had a question 

before we go into the first issue paper, if I can ask just 

a housekeeping thing? 

MS. JEFFRIES: Sure.

MR. TYLER: So Greg, if I remember correctly, you 

were going to go back to the Secretary on transcriptwithholding and just report back if there had been, I 

understand, you know, the lyric and we're not getting this 

as part of this. But was there anything you want to share 

about thoughts going forward if there was any anything to 

report?

MR. MARTIN: I don't have any report at this time. 

I'd rather I'd rather deal with that when the issue of 

paper comes up.

MR. TYLER: Okay.

MR. MARTIN: But we certainly at that point, would 

be open for discussion, we do have some points on that.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Alright. With that, I'm going 

to announce the Ability to Benefit issue paper number one. 

Greg, do you want to take us through the document?

MR. MARTIN: Sure. And again, good morning, 

everybody. And I don't know which parts of the country were 

shocked back into winter over the weekend, but certainly 
Committee Meetings - 03/14/22 12

mine was so very happy to see the return of spring today. 

So hopefully for the rest of you that that occurred to, I 

heard the Denver broke an all time low or something like 

that was really cold. So I hope those of you in the 

Mountain West are enjoying better weather. So first, I 

would like to look at in 668.32 (e)(5). We haven't made any 

changes there. I just want to point out something to you 

where we talk about, once we get down there, we'll wait for 

that to come up, right there in five, you can see, has been 

determined by the institution to have the Ability to 

Benefit from an education or training program offered by 

the institution based on satisfactory completion of six 

semester hours, six trimester hours, six quarter hours for 

two hundred twenty five hours. We had some questions at the 

last session about the two hundred and twenty-five clock 

hours and whether or not that needed to be revised given 

the changes during the previous negotiated rulemaking 

sessions. Not in this table, but when we did when we made 

changes to the clock credit hour conversion. If anything in 

here needs to be changed to reflect that. But those are two 

separate issues. So just note that the two hundred and 

twenty-five clock hours bears the same relationship to the 

number of clock hours in an academic year or 900, as does 

the six semester hours to the 24 credit hours in an 

academic year for a semester. I mean, I'm sorry for a 

credit-hour based program, so I just wanted to point that 

out that the two hundred twenty-five clock hours is correct 

and is unchanged by anything that occurred with respect to 

the clock to credit hour conversion rules. And as we go 
Committee Meetings - 03/14/22 13

through some of the stuff, I do want to say that again to 

reiterate what Cynthia said, we're not doing temperature 

checks and we're not voting by paragraphs or whatever. But 

I may for purposes of discussion. Even though we won't be 

taking temperature checks, I may, I think I will break this 

up a little bit so that we don't go through the whole paper 

and then have people have to go back and remember what they 

wanted to say. So we'll stop at a certain point and 

entertain, discussion, and comment, but there will be no 

temperature check or interim consensus check at that point. 

So now I would direct your attention to, if I can get the 

numbering right here, in 668.156 under the approved state 

process. And let's take a look at (a)(2) romanette four. 

I'm sorry, romanette five. So I'll wait to get there. There 

we go. So. Here, you see, for an institution listed for the 

first time on an application, an assurance that not more 

than thirty three percent of the institution's 

undergraduate regular students withdrew from the 

institution during the institution's latest completed award 

year. For the purposes of calculating this rate, the 

institution must count all regular students who enrolled 

during the latest completed award year, except those 

students who during that period withdrew from, dropped out 

or were expelled from the institution and were entitled to 

and actually received in a timely manner, a refund of 100 

percent of tuition and fees. So just pointing out here that 

we changed this paragraph moving it here. It initially 

applied only to the... or it did apply only to the initial 

application. So this previously only applied to 
Committee Meetings - 03/14/22 14

institutions who sought to participate in the initial trial 

period. And this change will require all institutions who 

are new to the state process to pass the threshold. After 

an institution has met the threshold one time, they will no 

longer be held accountable to this. And next, I want to go 

to B. And let's go to (b)(2). See that, I'll read that. The 

state agrees that the total number of students who enroll 

through the state process during the initial period will 

total no more than one percent of the enrollment at each 

institution participating in the state process. So we do 

understand that negotiators have raised concerns that this 

cap is too low and may be restrictive, given that the cap 

only applies for a limited number of years during the 

initial trial period. Expending the cap or applying the cap 

at the state level could enable one institution to enroll 

all the students and then the other institutions would not 

be able to enroll any during that period. So we do have 

concerns here that if we change this to overall to the 

state as opposed to each institution, that one institution 

with a considerably large number of students participating 

could skew it, such that other schools would not be able to 

participate. So I want to stop there and open the floor for 

comments on what we've discussed thus far before we move 

on. Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Will?

MR. DURDEN: Thank you. Good morning again, thanks 

for the rationale on the one percent at the institutional 

versus the state level, it's good to hear your thinking on 
Committee Meetings - 03/14/22 15

that. And I'm going to mull that over the next little bit. 

But my first reaction is still that I would worry that we 

would crimp off one institution's efforts because if that 

was an institution, it's a small, focused technical college 

and it has a lot of really great pathways and it's 

enrolling a lot of students, I would hate to shut that 

institution down, whereas maybe there's a college some 

miles down the road that's primarily a transfer liberal 

arts oriented institution, they're just not doing a lot of 

ATB. And so I think there's enough institutional 

differences in our state that the cap still makes more 

sense at the state level than at the institutional. But I 

do appreciate the rationale, I think.

MR. MARTIN: Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Will. Any other comments, 

questions? I know you're putting questions in the chat if 

you want to ask them. If the Department has an answer, they 

will, if not, they will certainly look at that as they move 

forward in drafting the language for the NPRM. Jamie?

MS. STUDLEY: Just a simple technical question. I 

didn't see a definition of the term regular students, and 

it seems like it would be simple enough to say that it 

wasn't students in these special programs, but I wondered 

if you thought about that.

MR. MARTIN: I'm sorry, Jamie, you wanted to add 

regular, you want to add something?
Committee Meetings - 03/14/22 16

MS. STUDLEY: You use the phrase in romanette five, 

regular students, but I didn't see a definition of it. I 

don't know if there's one somewhere way upstream that I 

missed. When doing the calculation.

MR. MARTIN: Right, there is a, hold on one second 

here. Are you talking about the definition for that with 

the.

MS. STUDLEY: Within 668.156, (a)(2), romanette 

five.

MR. MARTIN: Five, right. Oh, I see what you're 

saying for purposes of this calculation, the calculation of 

this rate, the institution must count all regular students 

who enrolled during the last. Yeah, we do have a definition 

of regular student.

MS. STUDLEY: Okay.

MR. MARTIN: It, it just, a regular student is just 

defined as a student who.

MS. STUDLEY: Was not admitted through one of these 

programs.

MR. MARTIN: Well, yeah, a regular students is just 

anybody who was admitted to the it's in I think it's in 

600.2. Oh yeah, someone's just confirming to me that that 

is indeed the case. So if you look at not to digress here.

MS. STUDLEY: I trust you if there is one, Greg.
Committee Meetings - 03/14/22 17

MR. MARTIN: Yeah, there is one and I and I know it 

is there and I will try to confirm that it is. Yes, it is. 

Here it is. I just found it. A person who is enrolled or 

accepted for enrollment at an institution for the purpose 

of obtaining a degree certificate or other recognized 

educational credential offered by that institution. So in 

other words, it just differentiates between someone who's 

at the school taking credits or actually in there actually 

in an eligible program for the purpose of obtaining the 

degree or certificate. The basic eligibility requirement 

for Title IV as most of you are probably aware.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you. David?

MR. MCCLINTOCK: There we go. Yes, hi, thanks. So 

as with Will, I appreciate the rationale on the distinction 

between a one percent cap statewide versus the one percent 

for each school. And I think as Mike has put in the chat, 

is there some way to maybe compromise on this? Because the

downside you've described of a statewide cap of one school 

soaking up the entire cap, great point, on the other hand, 

the downside of a school-by-school cap is a very small 

school, one percent is going to be a de minimis number of 

students. So small that it might not have the economies of 

scale even to run a cohort of 10 or 15 or 20 students that 

would make sense to run an ATB program. And so I guess the 

question is, is there any way to say, one percent of the 

school's enrollment but, you know, some number that you 

know that at least some de minimis number would be allowed, 

even if that ends up being higher than one percent. And I 
Committee Meetings - 03/14/22 18

associate myself with the comments to that effect that Mike 

put in the chat.

MR. MARTIN: That's interesting, I mean, I take 

that point, I mean, there absolutely is another side to 

that, as you point out that for small institution, that 

could be a small number of students. So we'll definitely 

take that back. Take a look at it today. I, if anybody has 

any comment, I mean any suggestions rather or as to what 

that might be or what language might work to accomplish 

both ends there, we will be glad to take a look at it. So 

by no means precluding take a look at what we might be able 

to do there.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, thank you. Mike. You're on

mute, Mike. There you go.

DR. LANOUETTE: Got it. One other thing I would 

like the Department to consider is if they were to stay 

with the one percent language. There's really no 

statistical significance that you're going to get with the 

different sectors to get a true evaluation of what we're 

looking for here. So and again, as referenced, I did put 

some language in the text that I hope the Department 

considers. Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you, Mike. Any other 

questions or comments? Alright, Greg, I'm not seeing any of 

other hands. Do you want to move on?
Committee Meetings - 03/14/22 19

MR. MARTIN: Sure. So we finished up with B, so now 

let's move into C and we're looking at (c)(2). So I'll wait 

for that to come up.

MS. JEFFRIES: While we wait for that, I should 

mention that Rene is sharing documents today, thank you 

very much, Rene.

MR. MARTIN: Let me add my thanks to Rene as well. 

There we go. So continuing, and again just for just for 

reference, we are still in 156, approved state process here 

in C and looking at (c)(2). And so here we have the monitor 

on an annual basis, the state's doing this. Each 

participating institutions, compliance with the 

requirements and standards contained in the state's 

process, including the success rate, is calculated in 

paragraph F in this section, which we'll look at 

momentarily. And this has been added to clarify that the 

states are expected to monitor the institution's compliance 

with the 95 percent success rate, which we'll discuss in a 

moment. And then moving down to 5, to (c)(5), just right 

below that. Terminate the institution from the state 

process if the institution refuses or fails to comply with 

the state process requirements, including exceeding the 

total number of students referenced in paragraph (b)(3) of 

this section, which we just discussed. And prohibit an 

institution from participating in the state process for at 

least five years after that termination. We've added this 

provision to ensure that institutions whose participation 

has been terminated cannot immediately rejoin the state
Committee Meetings - 03/14/22 20

process. And let's stop there because we're going to move 

on quite a ways after that, so I don't want to get too far 

behind. So even though there wasn't very much. Let me just 

ask before any comments on what I just what I just 

mentioned.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Will?

MR. DURDEN: Thank you. I think if I'm reading that 

correctly, that if an institution whenever they're capped 

they would just it seems punitive. They can't offer ATB at 

all for five years as part of that process. I wonder why 

they couldn't just be required to get back under the cap 

versus being terminated for five years. It seems like, 

unless I'm reading that wrong, that seems like a pretty 

strong reaction to somebody enrolling too many students.

MR. MARTIN: Yeah, I think you as written well 

where we say terminates the institution from the process, 

if the institution refuses to or fails to comply with the 

state process requirements, including exceeding. I would 

think that the spirit of it is that certainly I don't think 

that what is meant here is that the minute the state the 

school exceeds that, that they would be terminated for five 

years, I think there would be a process there by which the 

state would inform the institution they had exceeded the 

number and the school would have the opportunity to correct 

that. It's not the Department's intention that if the 

school, you know, is two students over that or that would 

result in termination. This is to deal with a situation 

where a school might refuse to adhere to the cap. And at 
Committee Meetings - 03/14/22 21

that point, the state would be required to terminate. But 

we'll go back and take a look at the language. But I I'm 

sure the way it's written that we certainly didn't intend 

the outcome that you're suggesting there just to slap a 

five-year bar from participating for what would be a slip 

up or. You know, I think it does it does absolutely 

reference an incidence where the school is refusing to 

comply.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, thank you, Greg. I don't see 

any other hands.

MR. MARTIN: Great. Let's move on to. So we were in 

C and our next destination is going to be in F. I'm sorry, 

E. So let's go to E. We should be looking at where it says 

after the initial two-year period. There we go. There it 

is. Let's read through that. After the initial two-year 

period described in paragraph B of this section, the state 

must reapply for continued participation and in its 

application demonstrate that the students it admits under 

that process at each participating institution have a 

success rate as determined under paragraph F of this 

section that is within ninety five percent of the success 

rate of students with high school diplomas. So here you see 

that the success rate is to be reported by each institution 

as opposed to statewide, and that update has been made 

throughout the document to reflect to reflect this change. 

Now I'd like to move down to F, if we may. And here, the 

state must calculate the success rate for each institution, 

each participating institution, as referenced in paragraph 
Committee Meetings - 03/14/22 22

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

with high school diplomas or equivalent who during the 

applicable award year described in paragraph (g)(1) of the 

section enrolled in the same program as students 

participating in the state process, at each participating 

institution and successfully completed the education and 

training program, remained enrolled in educational training 

programs at the end of that award year, or successfully 

transferred to and remains enrolled in another institution 

at the end of that award year. And this, changes have been 

made here to be more precise about the comparison 

populations of the success rate calculation. We note that 

only one success rate is required per institution, even if 

the institution has multiple Eligible Career Pathways 

Programs. If the institution does not enroll students in 

the same program as the ATB process students, then the 

institution can make the calculation based on all the 

students at the institution with high school diplomas or 

the equivalent. So what we're doing there is just cleaning 

up the making it more clear what the comparison population 

is. And then I'd like to move on to G. Where we say, and 

this is (g)(2), if no students are enrolled in an Eligible 

Career Pathway Program through a state process, then the 

state will receive a one year extension to its initial 

approval of its state process. And the change here is to 

reduce the burden on states that have not enrolled students 

in the initial trial period. And as a result of this 

change, states will not have to submit another application 

until students have enrolled through the state process. And 
Committee Meetings - 03/14/22 23

then I'd like to move down to H. And if you move down to, 

I'm sorry, I. So here, the Secretary withdraws approval of 

the stage process if the Secretary determines that the 

state process violated any terms of this section or that 

the information that the state submitted as a basis for 

approval of the state process was inaccurate. If the state 

is not terminated, an institution from the state process 

under paragraph (c)(5) of this section for failure to meet 

the success rate, the Secretary withdraws approval of the 

state process except in accordance with (j)(1) romanette 2 

of this section. At the Secretary's discretion. Under 

exceptional circumstances, the state process may be 

approved once for a two-year period and if 50 percent or 

more participating institutions across all states do not 

meet the success rate in a given year, the Secretary may 

lower the success rate to no less than seventy five percent 

for two years. And here we have added language in this 

subsection, clarifying that the state must terminate an 

institution from the state process if it fails to meet the 

success rate or if or the Secretary withdraws approval. 

However, if most institutions fail to meet the success rate 

across all states, the Secretary may lower the success rate 

to seventy five percent for two years at a time. 

Additionally, we have maintained the provision allowing 

states to contest the withdrawal of approval of the state 

process, adding another provision that if withdrawals 

upheld by the Department, then the state may not reapply 

for a process for at least for the state process for at 
Committee Meetings - 03/14/22 24

least five years. So I'll stop there and entertain any 

comments or discussion on what we've just gone over.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. I'll open the floor for any 

questions, comments. Okay. I don't see any hands, Greg.

MR. MARTIN: Okay. Alright, in that case, we're 

moving on to 668.157, which is Eligible Career Pathways 

Program. And I'd like to go to 157 (a)(1). Great. So here 

are the, we see under career pathways program, this is 

where an institution demonstrates to the Secretary that a 

student is enrolled in an Eligible Career Pathway Program 

by documenting that the student has enrolled in or is 

receiving three of the following elements simultaneously. 

And you can see, here are some changes to reference WIOA 

definitions. So an eligible postsecondary program as 

defined in 668.8, Adult education and literacy activities 

under the Workforce Investment and Opportunity Act, as 

described in 34 CFR 463.30 that assists adults in attaining 

a secondary school diploma or its recognized equivalent, 

and in the transition to postsecondary education and 

training and workforce preparation activities as described 

in 34 CFR 463.34. So these are changes intended to reflect 

key elements of integrated education and training programs. 

And in romanette 2 and 3, we referenced the definitions 

used by WIOA. So I think that's, oh, and I want to go down 

to, let's good down then to two. And here we have, this is 

where the program aligns with the skill needs of industries 

in the state or regional labor market in which the 

institution is located based on research the institution 
Committee Meetings - 03/14/22 25

has conducted, including government reports identifying indemand occupations in the state or regional labor market 

surveys, interviews, meetings or other information obtained 

by the institution regarding the hiring needs of employers 

in the state or regional labor market. And in addition, 

here, documentation that demonstrates direct engagement 

with the industry. And here is and you see that language is 

this documentation of demonstrating direct engagement meant 

to strengthen alignment with the labor market. In practice, 

direct engagement could be a meeting, as described in 2 

above. So you see where in romanette 2 it talks about 

meetings or other information obtained by the institution 

regarding hiring needs of employers. So in three, we're 

saying they've documented that direct engagement so it can 

be documentation of what's in romanette 2. Let's stop 

there, and I'll entertain discussion on that, because I 

think there's some pretty big changes there.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. David?

MR. SOCOLOW: Thank you, Cindy. Thank you, Greg. I 

want to applaud the Department for this very helpful 

revision to the language. I think this will guide the field 

in very helpful ways. I think this builds on the 

Department's guidance through Dear Colleague Letters such 

as 16-09 and others that have made this point that this 

particular population, adults without a high school 

diploma, the career pathway definition in the law leads 

naturally to these kinds of partnership. Concurrent, the 

word concurrent is in the career pathway definition. This 
Committee Meetings - 03/14/22 26

is unpacking what the word concurrent in the statute 

actually means concurrent and contextualize both of which, 

of course, part of the statute. But this helps make it 

clear. So I think that the field will be guided to defining 

what an Eligible Career Pathways Program for the purposes 

of ATB Title IV eligibility really means by this language. 

And in fact, it will prevent the, you know, by requiring 

documentation to the Department to be eligible for pathway 

for this purpose. It will prevent the kind of confusion and 

frankly abusive ATB practices where some schools are really 

doing just the higher ED institution on its own, calling 

something an eligible career pathway, but having absolutely 

no integration or, for that matter, communication with the 

other required components. The required elements of a 

career pathway for adults without a high school diploma, 

which by absolute necessity includes the other two aspects 

the adult ED aspect and the workforce prep aspect. So 

having all three of them required is a good idea, and I 

applaud the Department.

MR. MARTIN: Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, David. Any other 

questions, comments, anything you want to say before we 

move to consensus check on this.

MR. MARTIN: I want to add we don't specifically 

reference Title 2 providers here. Does anybody want to 

comment on that or feel that's necessary to do? Just a 

directed question.
Committee Meetings - 03/14/22 27

MS. JEFFRIES: David.

MR. SOCOLOW: Yes, so I've looked at that. In terms 

of defining a Title 2 provider versus saying Title 2 

services, I actually think that the language of the other 

reg that you're cross referencing refers to the services 

and what it takes to deliver those services. So I think to 

the extent you're cross referencing it, you're going to 

capture it that way. I don't think the entity delivering 

the adult education and literacy need at that moment, be 

actually signed up to be a Title 2 provider. Rather, they 

need to meet the definitions of what it takes to be a Title 

2 provider, because that's the only way you can deliver 

those services. So I think you've got it right here. But if 

I could direct the question back to you. What were you all 

weighing in your minds as you were thinking about that, 

that distinction?

MR. MARTIN: I think, Well, you know, I'm not 

saying that what we're thinking, we obviously thought this 

language was adequate and met the requirements without that 

specific reference, but just wanted to see if, if you know 

what people's thoughts were about that. We're pretty 

pleased with the language we have here.

MR. SOCOLOW: Yeah, I mean, an entity that has 

demonstrated effectiveness in providing adult education and 

literacy services is defined again by reg. Local adult 

education providers must be organizations with demonstrated 

effectiveness in providing adult education literacy and 

that it lists a variety of things they have to be able to 
Committee Meetings - 03/14/22 28

do. So it seems to me that if anyone's doing that, they 

have to meet that definition, whether they happen that year 

to have won the RFP to be the literacy provider from the 

state, it's not necessarily they could have applied. How 

about that? I think that's implicit in what you've said, 

and I think that works.

MR. MARTIN: Thank you. Okay back to you, Cynthia.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, thank you. Will.

MR. DURDEN: Thank you. So I just want to clarify, 

as I was understanding this, that a community college 

provided its own adult education services that met these 

criteria, they would not have to formally Title 2 

providers, for example, in a state where those 

relationships don't exist. And we might wish that they 

exist and we might want to promote that relationship. But 

where it doesn't currently, this would not, this would not 

prohibit a community college from moving forward with its 

efforts to serve those students in its region, which I 

think is really critical for the community colleges to be 

clear on. And also, I don't know if there's an answer to 

this, but I think in number five where it says the 

education is offered as appropriate. It just that seems to 

open up a lot of possibility for what is and isn't going to 

be done. And I'm not sure how that interacts with this new 

language in one, but that's more of a comment. I'm thinking 

about that, and it's not really a question unless you 

specifically want to address what that means as 
Committee Meetings - 03/14/22 29

appropriate, the level to which that adult education needs 

to happen and just kind of curious about that.

MR. MARTIN: Let me let me take that back to our 

people if you want. To your first point, you're right, it's 

not meant to preclude community colleges from offering 

that, who meet that definition. As far as with the 

education offered as appropriate concurrently with and in 

the same context as with workforce recreation activities 

and training for a specific occupation. I don't remember 

how else to characterize that, except as it is there, but I 

will take it back if you went some further clarification on 

that.

MR. DURDEN: Yes, thanks. Just I, if my reading of 

that is appropriate as it actually gives the institution 

quite a bit of latitude in what they offer. But I might be 

reading that wrong.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, both. Mike.

DR. LANOUETTE: Just a point of order, I was 

wondering, will the Department take a break and look at the 

some of the recommendations that we just sent before a 

final vote?

MR. MARTIN: Well, does yeah. If we feel that is 

necessary to I would love to achieve consensus here. I 

think that we seem to be very close. Before we do that, I 

just want to be clear, if everybody has just go back and 

briefly reiterate for me what language you want to see 
Committee Meetings - 03/14/22 30

reconsidered. Just so all of it's so the Department have 

that in our heads.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, so it looks like Greg is 

asking the negotiators to articulate clearly, concisely 

what areas you want them to consider. And based on that, it 

may take a break to look at that before the actual 

consensus is taken. Is that correct, Greg?

MR. MARTIN: Yes, we are moving quickly through 

this and I'm really pleased with the progress we've made. I 

definitely would love to try to get consensus this morning. 

So if there's an area that is sticking with you that you 

want us to think about, just like I'd just like to have you 

review that for me briefly.

MS. JEFFRIES: Mike, do you have, your hand is 

still up so do you want to go ahead?

DR. LANOUETTE: I'd be happy to do that. Basically 

in 668.156 (b)(2), the language around one percent I put in 

the chat would you consider the higher of one percent or 

twenty-five students.

MR. MARTIN: Percent or twenty-five students. Okay. 

Alright. Got that. I'm sorry. Just like on the haze of 

battle here, I shouldn't characterize it that way, in the 

haze of trying to reach consensus I forget where we are. So 

thank you very much for that, for refreshing my memory 

there. Is there any is there anything else?

MS. JEFFRIES: Yes, I see Kelli's hand is up.
Committee Meetings - 03/14/22 31

MS. PERRY: I think this is just a correction. In 

668.156 (c)(5), there's a reference to (b)(3) and I think 

that should be (b)(2).

MR. MARTIN: (c)(5). Let me find that. Okay. The 

reference to (b)(3) should. Were you saying that should be 

(b)(2)? Okay. Anything else?

MS. JEFFRIES: Kelli anything else for you? Okay. 

Alright, thank you. Will.

MR. DURDEN: We proposed just a 75 percent success 

rate overall period, it seems like you've got all these 

like a highly stratified set of regulations for something 

that's barely even happened, yet gives the colleges a 

chance to actually offer this, we've got what five states 

with the state plan offering incredibly small, enrolling 

incredibly small numbers of students so far. And now we've 

already got this option where if we don't meet the ninety 

five percent, we can go down to the seventy five percent. 

So why not just go down to the 75 percent? That's what we'd 

advocate for.

MR. MARTIN: Alright, I'll take that back.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Anything else, Will? Okay. 

Anything anyone else has?

MR. MARTIN: I just want to ask this question 

before we go back, I want to make certain that there's 

nobody, that we don't have any objections to these 

proposals from other individuals on this negotiating panel? 
Committee Meetings - 03/14/22 32

I mean, I still have to go back and see that the 

Department's position, but I just want to make certain that 

the rest of the people on this on this panel would be okay 

with those changes.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Great question, Greg. Johnson.

MR. TYLER: Mike, can you put in, can you reiterate 

what the site is for the one percent versus twenty-five

students where that language would go?

DR. LANOUETTE: It's 668.156 (b)(2). Found on page 

four.

MR. MARTIN: Up to page four.

MS. JEFFRIES: Did you find it Johnson?

MR. TYLER: Sorry, I'm still hunting, but I

MR. MARTIN: It says, Johnson, where the state the 

state agrees that the total number. Right before C.

MR. TYLER: I see it, thank you.

MR. MARTIN: Sure.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, thank you. Alright, any other 

comments, changes, or response to the changes that the 

Department has asked to take a minute and go look at. Any 

objections to those? Alright. Greg, I'm not seeing any of 

their hands.
Committee Meetings - 03/14/22 33

MR. MARTIN: In that case, I request a 15-minute

break.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Alright. So it is 10:55, you 

want to say 10, 15, Greg, just to?

MR. MARTIN: Yeah, let's do that.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Alright. So we will take a 

break till 10:15 and come back with that. Alright. Welcome 

back. I just want to update everyone, both the negotiators 

and the public, that the Department is still considering 

the changes that the negotiators put forth. And they have 

asked for an additional five minutes of time to wrap things 

up. So we're going to go off live stream again and we will 

pick back up in five minutes. Thank you. Okay, we are back 

in live main session and everyone is back. Greg, I'm going 

to turn it over to you.

MR. MARTIN: Thank you, Cynthia. Yeah, so we, the 

Department [inaudible] on the requested changes, and I'll 

go through them want to make sure I'm correct here, if we 

are looking, we're looking at again, B, in 156 (b)(2), the 

state agrees that the total number of students who enroll 

through the state process during the initial period will 

total no more than one percent of enrollment at each 

institution, and the requested change for the Department to 

make was one percent or 25 students. And the Department 

agrees to that change. And that will be reflected. And the 

other thing that we were asked about was a technical change 

in, let's make sure I have it here, this was in C in 
Committee Meetings - 03/14/22 34

(c)(5), which was a technical change to where it said 

including the including C in the total number of students 

referenced in paragraph (b)(3) that should actually be 

(b)(2) and we will make that change. And thank you for 

pointing that error out. The last matter for discussion, 

let me find it here, is in 156 J, this had to do with the 

well, this actually had to do with the ninety five, 

actually, we should start with the ninety five percent 

threshold requirement and we were asked if we would be 

willing to move the 95 percent threshold down to 75 percent 

overall. And in consideration of that request the 

Department doesn't believe that feel at this point that we 

can, that we can move the threshold that down we desire to 

stick with the original threshold as the target for 

institutions. We do point out, however, that in in J 

romanette three, where it indicates if 50 percent or more 

of institute, well, the Secretary withdraws approval of a 

state process under J, rather, where it talks about the 

Secretary withdraws approval of a state process if the 

Secretary determines the state process violated any terms 

of the section for as basis for approval of the state 

process wasn't accurate. And then down where it says if, in 

romanette three, if 50 percent or more participating 

institutions across all states did not meet the success 

rate in a given year, then the Secretary may lower the 

success rate to no less than seventy five percent for two 

years. We do point out that we're not limited to that 

initial two-year period so that that can certainly be 

extended if the situation continues that 50 percent or more 
Committee Meetings - 03/14/22 35

of the institutions across states don't meet the 95 percent 

success rate. So that is where we are with it. We could, 

given that one area, but feel here we have to we need to 

maintain that that 95 percent. But again, when it stressed 

that we do have flexibility with respect to the 50 percent.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, thank you, Greg. Any, okay, 

Mike.

DR. LANOUETTE: Thank you very much for your 

consideration on the revisions to 668.156 (b)(2). Would it 

be possible for you to put that potential revised language 

up on the screen for us, just so we could absolutely be 

certain where we're squared away with it.

MR. MARTIN: I will try. This might be a little bit 

awkward. I don't think. So our person who's showing the 

text is using the issue papers that we have. I can ask if 

it's possible for some of our people to get that text over 

to Rene so he can put it up. That might take that might 

take a few minutes if you want to see it. While we're 

thinking about that, I missed one thing as well. Another 

area that we're going to make a change in is in, just make 

sure you get this correct, in 157 (a)(5), where we talked 

about the education is offered comment as appropriate. 

Concurrently with add in the same context as workforce 

preparation activities and training for a specific 

occupation or educational cluster, et cetera. We understand 

that that might be somewhat confusing. So we are going to 

make a change to indicate that the take as appropriate. The 

as appropriate does come from statute. So that's what we 
Committee Meetings - 03/14/22 36

get that. But we understand that it could lead to some 

confusion, could lead to the erroneous conclusion that the 

concurrent aspect of this is not really required if it's 

not considered appropriate. And that's not what we want to 

convey. So what we will do revision will be the appropriate 

education is offered concurrently with the same with and in 

the same context, so it would go from the education is 

offered comma as appropriate comma to the appropriate 

education is offered. Still keeping the spirit of this, 

which is that the concurrent aspect of this is required,

but within the scope of the way the program functions. But 

understanding that might come at different times, but that 

can the concurrent that it being concurrent is necessary. 

And there's not that that's not optional. So we will make 

that change to make that clarification. And thank the 

negotiators for pointing that out. And I'll see if I can 

get this up on the screen. I'm not, this might be a little 

bit of a delay, so just bear with me to see if we can pull 

up to the revised document the revised the revised text.

MS. JEFFRIES: Mike, you have your hand up?

DR. LANOUETTE: I was just going to ask it if it's 

going to cause a delay, if you could just perhaps read the 

revision one more time for us. That might be that might be 

enough.

MR. MARTIN: Sure. So I just read the one revision 

and the other revision we would be making, the one was a 

technical correction. So I think that's. Rene is pulling it 

up I believe.
Committee Meetings - 03/14/22 37

MS. JEFFRIES: Yep, you have your text up.

MR. MARTIN: So Rene will be pulling it up for the 

revision that we made.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. He's got it in there.

MR. MARTIN: The first one here. Right. The state 

agrees that the total number of students who enroll through 

the state process during the initial period will be no more 

than the greater of 25 students or one percent of 

enrollment at each institution participating in the state 

process. So that would be the first. That's the first 

provision that we're making. Is everybody, I should just 

ask, is everybody okay with that or feels that's clear 

before we move on?

MS. JEFFRIES: David has his hand up.

MR. SOCOLOW: I mean, I just, I think everyone 

knows what you mean, but this is for the twenty-five and 

the one percent greater of those two numbers applies to 

each school, right? So each school is their own little cap 

of one percent or 25.

MR. MARTIN: Each one has their own little they 

have their own little cap.

MR. SOCOLOW: It's not twenty-five students per 

state.

MR. MARTIN: No, no, yeah, no, twenty five percent, 

yeah per state. The state can only have twenty-five
Committee Meetings - 03/14/22 38

students. No, you're correct. That would be rather 

restrictive, indeed.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you.

MR. MARTIN: Thank you.

MR. MARTIN: And now we'll move to, trying to think 

what the next one would be, drawing a blank, oh, yeah, 

there was a technical correction, there was the one we just 

did on the cap. We're not making any changes to J and we 

are going to make a slight change to F, that was F, no 

that's not correct. I'm sorry I'm trying to keep track 

everything here. The other, the technical change was in 156 

(c)(5), where we changed the reference from (b)(3) to 

(b)(2) and here's the other change right here. Thank you, 

Renee. This is where we have changed that from the 

education is offered as appropriate to the appropriate 

education is offered concurrently with in the same context. 

So you can see the revision that we made there. And I think 

that is it.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you, Greg.

MR. MARTIN: Thank you. And thank you, Rene, so 

much for getting that up.

MS. JEFFRIES: Alright. I'm not seeing any further 

hands up. So at this point, I think we'll go ahead and take 

consensus on this. As a quick reminder in consensus, a 

thumbs up means you are on board 100 percent with it, a 

sideways thumb means you can live with the proposed text 
Committee Meetings - 03/14/22 39

and a thumbs down is indicating you dissent and you will be 

asked the two questions that we talked about earlier in the 

opening statement of what is the deal breaker point for you 

or your serious reservation. And what language do you 

propose that could change you from a dissent to at least 

here [indicates sideways thumb]. Okay? We will be doing a 

roll call of thumbs, for the record, since this is 

consensus, so we ask you to hold your thumbs high so that 

we can see them and give us and let me run through it as I 

see it on my screen. Okay? So with that, negotiators, may I 

please see your thumbs? Alright, I am showing Jamie 

Studley, as a thumbs up. I am showing, I'm doing it in 

order of my screen here Carolyn Fast as a thumbs up. Sam 

Veeder thumbs up. David Socolow thumbs up. Will Durden 

thumbs down. Kelli Perry thumbs up. Amanda Martinez thumbs 

up. Travis Horr thumbs up. Adam Welle thumbs up. Marvin 

Smith thumbs up. Mike Lanouette thumb up. Beverly Hogan 

thumb up. Ernest Ezeugo thumb up. Johnson Tyler thumbs up 

and Gregory Martin thumbs up. So you have not reached 

consensus, there is one dissent that is Will Durden. Will 

we post the two questions to you?

MR. DURDEN: Will you post them again?

MS. JEFFRIES: Yep, sure will. What is it that is 

such a serious reservation for you that the issue paper in 

its totality, as written, is not acceptable? And what do 

you propose that would make it at least a sideways thumb 

for you so that the committee reaches consensus?
Committee Meetings - 03/14/22 40

MR. DURDEN: Thank you. It's down to the success 

rate, which is currently 95 percent with this plan that it 

could be 75 percent if people don't meet the ninety five 

percent, which for me is just a little bit of a logical 

[inaudible] why you wouldn't just start with the seventy 

five percent. When I analyzed the data that you sent out 

last week, which is really helpful and thanks so much for 

putting that out there. What we see is a really steep 

decline in the amount of public institutions offering 

Ability to Benefit and an increase in the proprietary 

institutions. At the state level, we're really invested in 

trying to encourage and incent our institutions to adopt 

ATB processes to use the state plan. In Washington state, 

our state plan incorporates all the best practices in the 

field it's an IET its I-BEST and High School Diploma 

program and one it's a fantastic plan, and I think that the 

success rate, which is I don't even know where that ninety 

five percent came from. I don't know that we ever got 

clarity on what research or what evidence that rate is 

grounded in. I'm not sure what the success rate is using 

for in the first place, considering this is brand new and 

untested. So in an attempt to try to get more public 

institutions to do this and for states to put high quality 

plans forward, we want states to feel confident and 

comfortable that they're not going to lose eligibility 

right out of the gate because they're not able to meet 

those success rates. And I think that if we're willing to 

go to seventy five percent, if we don't make the ninety 

five percent rate, then why don't we start there? So I 
Committee Meetings - 03/14/22 41

think in terms of what I would propose as a compromise, I 

think eighty five percent, I think, would go up to eighty 

five percent as a starting point. I think ninety five 

percent is not just as it's as much about perception as 

reality. Maybe ninety five percent isn't even a hard 

threshold for people to hit. I don't think we really know 

that, but I think ninety five percent is more likely to 

disincent and discourage states from doing this work rather 

than encourage them, which is what we would like to do. So 

I think a lower success rate for this calculation that 

exists nowhere else except for here with no other grounded 

in reality that I'm aware of. I think if we could lower 

that to encourage people to feel like they could give this 

a shot, I think that would be better for our efforts.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, thank you, Will. I see 

Johnson, your hand is up.

MR. TYLER: Yeah, thanks. I am by no means an

expert on this, and I appreciate Will's comments and how 

hard he's thought about this, and I may also defer to David 

on this, but I'm just concerned about the students and if 

the proprietary schools are entering this field and I mean, 

this is a very vulnerable population, as you know, if 

they're not doing as well because people aren't putting 

enough resources to make sure they succeed, you know, 

that's a problem for my constituents. They can't invest 

time and get nowhere with this. So that's why ninety five 

percent has always resonated with me is, you know, a 

comparable goal that you're trying to achieve. I understand 
Committee Meetings - 03/14/22 42

this is a educationally deprived population. There's a lot 

of financial and time needs and all that sort of stuff. But 

I do want this to be a successful program for students who 

enroll so.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Johnson. David?

MR. SOCOLOW: I just want to say one mitigating 

point on this. Will, just to think about and I want to 

applaud the Department's clarification in this latest issue 

paper that it's a real apples to apples. It's not just how 

are all the students at the school doing who, you know, are 

regular students like all the students that are taking 

classes there. But it's how the students are doing in the 

specific program that's included in the career pathway 

program. And so it is more of an apples to apples. And so I 

do think that is that makes it better.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, David. Greg.

MR. MARTIN: I just want to point out that, you 

know, as when we talk, the Department's being willing to 

let me see if I get the reference in (j)(1) romanette 

three, if 50 percent or more participating institutions 

across all states do not meet the success rate in a given 

year. We may lower that to 75, but we did that in response 

to negotiator concerns about the strict application of the 

95 percent threshold. So we the Department feels that's 

moved as far in that direction as it can go.
Committee Meetings - 03/14/22 43

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, thank you Greg. Alright, so 

the consensus was not reached. So with that, we are going 

to move on to. Oh, it's 11:40 we can go ahead, and Greg, 

you want to go ahead and start administrative capability 

or?

MR. MARTIN: Yes, I would like to do that. We may 

take advantage of this time and begin with the 

administrative capability. We'll still break for lunch 

wherever we are. But yeah, I don't want to scare anybody 

about that. But. And great Rene has that up. So we are in 

again, moving on to issue paper two standards of 

administrative capability. And we're going to start in 

668.16 and looking at (h)(1). So if you'll all go there 

with me, there we are. That's on your screen. So. This 

provides adequate financial counseling with clear accurate 

information to students who apply for Title IV HEA program 

assistance determining whether an institution provides 

adequate counseling. The Secretary considers whether its 

counseling includes information regarding in each one, the 

source and amount of each type of aid offered. The nature 

of the aid and whether it must be earned or repaid and 

instructions and deadlines for accepting, declining, or 

adjusting those amounts. We've added this language at the 

suggestion of negotiators to further clarify the baseline 

requirements institutions must meet in their financial aid 

and counseling of students. And then I like to go down to 

(h)(3) and no, I'm sorry, yes, (h)(3). No, I'm going to go 

to, let me get this correct, I'm going to go to (i)(4). 

Great. Right, that's correct, so starting there at (i)(4) 
Committee Meetings - 03/14/22 44

and where we say the presence of institutional partnerships 

with recruiters and institutions are regularly higher. No, 

I'm sorry, my mistake. I want to go to J. Every time I see 

a J for some reason it confuses me, so that's where I want 

to be. I want to be at 668.16 J. My error, I apologize for 

that. So this is provide students with acceptable clinical 

or externship opportunities related to and required for 

completion of the credential or licensure in a recognized 

occupation within 45 days of other required coursework. In 

response to negotiator's comments, we have added the word 

other before required coursework. This will help to ensure 

the institutions cannot evade the requirement that clinical 

that the clinical portion be provided within 45 days by 

treating it as part of the coursework, rather than as 

something that happens after the coursework. Instead, it 

will confirm that we mean students cannot be left sitting 

for more than forty five days. And let me oh, let me stop 

there, and we'll consider what we've just talked about so 

that we don't get too far before asking for comments.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, just a few announcements and 

changes of who's at the table. Greg while we move through 

this document Debbie Cochrane is back in for state higher 

education. Dr. Anne Kress is back at the table for two-year 

public institutions. Brad Adams is now at the table for 

proprietary institutions. Jessica Ranucci is in at the 

table for legal aid and Yael Shavit is in for state 

attorneys general. I don't think I missed anyone. Okay, 

just got a message that Barmak Nassirian will be in at the 
Committee Meetings - 03/14/22 45

table for service members and veterans. So with that, Sam, 

your hand is up first.

MS. VEEDER: Thank you. I'm curious about the 

addition of the deadlines in this section, each one and why 

that came about. It's worrisome to me because, you know, 

I'm a deadline person, but in this particular case, and for 

example, at our institution, we use passive award letter 

acceptance, so students only have to let us know if they're 

declining something and they really have as much time as 

they want to do that. As long as you know, it's within the 

time frame of the existing Title IV deadlines for us to be 

able to process or return Title IV aid. So I think this 

just adds an unnecessary hurdle. It adds opportunity for 

confusion and might discourage some students who might 

think they missed a deadline and not realize that that 

there could be some flexibility in the deadline. I'm just 

not sure what the purpose of this is.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay.

MR. MARTIN: Yeah. This is Greg, I'll come back, 

I'll address that. Remember, here we're talking about 

standards of administrative capability. So what, you know, 

what you required in this case to provide students with 

respect to their financial aid, that would mean that you 

are administratively capable. It's we're not imposing any, 

well, I'll read that again in (h)(1), the source of the 

amount of each type of aid offered the nature of the aid 

and whether it must be earned or repaid. Instructions for a 

deadlines for accepting, declining, or adjusting award 
Committee Meetings - 03/14/22 46

amounts. These elements are included, actually included in 

other areas of the regulations. But we're just referencing 

back to that as an indication of administrative capability. 

So I don't think that what is required here is will be 

different than what most institutions are already doing. 

You're already required to in 668.165 under notices inform 

students of the aid they're going to receive, when they can 

expect to receive it, whether it's loans or grants. So I 

think a lot of this is sort of redundant of that, but it 

pulls it over into a measure of the institution's 

administrative capability. We're just asking here for 

instructions and the deadlines, whatever institutional 

deadlines are in place for accepting or declining or 

adjusting award amounts such as those such as those exist 

at your institution. We're not requiring you to impose 

anything, anything additional, but we simply are saying 

here that students must be made aware of what those are. As 

and that will be looked at as part of an examination of 

whether an institution is administratively capable, so 

we're not really adding anything here, so much as making it 

clear that these elements, which are in other areas of the 

regulations, have to be adhered to in again, as part of our 

looking at whether the institution is administratively 

capable clarifies it somewhat. But we're not imposing any 

deadlines here or requiring the school to impose deadlines.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Greg. Amanda?

MS. AMANDA MARTINEZ: I just wanted to show my 

support and applaud the Department for taking the step in 
Committee Meetings - 03/14/22 47

the right direction and clarifying this in each one. I 

think it's a reasonable expansion here and it should be in 

institutions’ administrative capability to extend and 

address the additional lines here, especially making 

distinctions between the nature of the aid versus grants 

and loans, whether it should be earned or repaid, right? So 

I think I think it's a great improvement. I think it will 

help and directly addresses it shows the education 

Department's hearing of understanding that First-Generation 

students, black, Latino, Indigenous students who tend to be 

high recipients of Pell Grants have issues here, and this 

is a step in the right direction. I do have a question, but 

I'll step back in line once this after the others speak.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, thank you. Brad?

MR. ADAMS: Good morning. I'm going to go in order, 

I've got a few comments here, so I'm going to start with I 

and just really just in general all four romanettes. But 

adequate career services, you know, I'm still disappointed 

that the Department has not defined what this means, and 

this proposal still continues to be so vague. I don't know 

how any institution knows whether or not we're actually 

meeting the objectives here to be administratively capable. 

And at this point in time, I would like to Department to 

describe to us especially institutions at this table, what 

the definition of adequate career services really means to 

the Department. I proposed some language that I could drop 

back in the chat I proposed to two straight weeks, so I 

know the Department has considered it already. But it 
Committee Meetings - 03/14/22 48

basically says that institutions will make available career 

services to eligible students who receive Title IV HEA 

program assistance, consistent with how the institution has 

publicized its career services. So basically taking 

romanette three up into the main I sub point and then 

ending it at that. Because at least then we know what we 

publicize and how we follow it. But can the Department 

explain to me as an institution whether or not I'm 

providing adequate career services based on how this 

currently reads?

MR. MARTIN: I will say that we don't in this, in 

this provision give a strict definition of what adequate 

career services are. We do appreciate the concerns that we 

heard from negotiators, but we do continue to believe that 

institutions need some discretion in being able to identify 

what those services should be or and what is adequate. We 

also want to point out that we only would use this 

provision in instances where the school's provision of or 

schools providing of career services was a lack of that was 

in great was particularly egregious. So it's not something 

we want to put a formula in place for it. I don't think we 

can do that. With respect to it being linked to those 

services that this institution advertises, there is, I 

think, the possibility that in some cases those could be 

relatively thin. So I don't think that just linking that to 

what an institution advertises it provides gives the 

Department enough latitude to enforce in situations where 

there is very little, if any, career service. There are 
Committee Meetings - 03/14/22 49

very little, if any, career services being offered to 

students. I'll leave it at that.

MR. ADAMS: Can I just ask one other on sub point 

four under I a specific question and Greg, I'll refer to 

the folks in the chat that again, we've got to define this 

better, but on four, I just wanted to clarify is having one 

institutional partner with the recruiter and of someone who 

employs are graduates acceptable under this way this is 

currently written?

MR. MARTIN: So this is in?

MR. ADAMS: I romanette four so same section.

MR. MARTIN: Okay, I see it provides that the the 

Secretary considers the difference of institutional 

partnerships with recruiters and employers who regularly 

hire the graduates of the institution. So your question is 

would one with the presence of one such arrangement, be 

adequate, is that is that what you're asking?

MR. ADAMS: Yes, sir.

MR. MARTIN: I'm not going to say that, you know, 

if there is one that you've met that. We are looking at the 

presence of any partnership. These are things that in 

making this and determining whether these services are 

adequate, we will consider. There's a number of things 

here. None of these are defined, for instance, to the 

number of distribution of career services staff, we don't 

define the number, we don't give a ratio of students to 
Committee Meetings - 03/14/22 50

staff. It's just a consideration of what's there. The same 

is true for the partnership. I don't think if there is only 

one that that means that the services being provided are 

inadequate. And it might not be the case that if there were 

more than one that would necessarily mean that the service 

is being provided are adequate would depend on the nature 

of those agreements or how robust they are. It's just one 

element that the Department would consider in making this 

determination as to whether their services are adequate. So 

I don't, to answer straight out would the existence of only 

one necessarily mean that you were not providing adequate 

services? No, that would not be an automatic conclusion 

that your services were inadequate if only one such 

partnership with recruiters existed.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Greg. Kelli?

MS. PERRY: A couple different points on different 

sections, so we had talked about (h)(1), with the 

additional language, and I put this in the chat. I'd asked 

the Department to consider to remove the and deadline so 

where it says the nature of aid and whether it must be 

earned or repaid, and instructions take out and deadlines 

for accepting, declining and adjusting other award amounts 

because I think having and instructions will typically 

include deadlines. So I don't know that you need to call 

off the deadlines specifically. And I think that that would 

get some of the folks around the table feel more 

comfortable with this because deadlines is it's a very 

definitive word, and not all schools have deadlines. So I 
Committee Meetings - 03/14/22 51

would propose to just strike and deadlines. As it relates 

to career services I have I have the same concerns as Brad 

as it relates to the fact that this is very vague. I mean. 

I don't necessarily have an issue with the whole concept of 

an institution providing adequate career services because 

up in age, we're saying that the institution is going to 

provide adequate financial aid counseling services. But 

when we do that up in age, we say the fact that those 

services include where down below in the career services 

section we're talking about, you know, the number of staff 

and, you know, different things as it relates to specifics. 

So I think there's I think there's a lot of concern around 

this section, because it is so vague, so I think we need to 

we need to tighten this up somehow.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you, Kelli. It is, Greg, 

did you have a quick response? I saw your.

MR. MARTIN: If I can mention, I don't with all, 

with all respect, I understand where everybody's coming 

from here. With when we talk about the first of all, was in 

(h)(1) the source of the amount of each type of aid offered 

and we're talking about deadlines. I want to reiterate that 

nothing here requires a school to develop new deadlines or 

to impose any additional deadlines. What this is talking 

about is that if those deadlines exist at an institution, 

for example, I know where my daughter attends that there 

are deadlines for getting in application materials if you 

want to be considered for institutional aid. Those are 

institutional those are those are imposed by the 
Committee Meetings - 03/14/22 52

institution and they do exist. So I think it should, you 

know, it should be it should be incumbent upon the 

institution to let students know what those are. And that's 

all we're doing here. It's a matter of simply disclosing 

what the institution has decided on, not anything with the 

Department imposing anything additional. Remember that in 

these standards, we're not imposing anything here. We're 

simply saying that these things have to exist as a measure 

of the institution's admin capability. And with respect to 

going down to the provision of adequate career counseling, 

I would point out that it just may not assuage and may or 

may not assuage anybody but current admin capability rules 

say, for instance, this is not, for instance, this is 

exactly what we say, that the institution uses an adequate 

number of qualified persons to administer Title IV HEA 

programs in which the institution participates. And then we 

have a number of factors that we use to determine whether 

an institution uses an adequate number of qualified 

persons, but it's very similar to the language here. We 

don't indicate what that number is. And, you know, I mean, 

if somebody could ask, well, what if I have this many 

people, would that mean the Department what if we only have 

one financial aid professional? Does that mean we would be 

found not in compliance? And the answer that would be no, 

not necessarily. We have to look at each situation, and 

it's not a provision we normally use, but it is there an 

important tool in the unlikely event that the institution 

really did not have enough financial professionals to 

administer the programs properly. And I think that this 
Committee Meetings - 03/14/22 53

provision about career services needs to be looked at in 

the same in the same vein. And with that, I'll let Cynthia 

dismiss for lunch.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you, Greg. I have in 

speaking order after lunch. Amanda, you will be first, 

Jamie next, Barmak and followed by Debbie Cochrane and then 

Brad. So with that, we are going to adjourn for lunch and 

reconvene at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time. Have a great lunch.

MR. MARTIN: Thank you.
Committee Meetings - 03/14/22 54

Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education

Zoom Chat Transcript

Institutional and Programmatic Eligibility Committee Session 

3, Day 1, Morning, March 14, 2022

2

1

3

4

5 From Laura Rasar King (A) Accrediting Agencies to Everyone:

Do we know what time we'll break for lunch today? Trying 

to schedule something...

6

7

8 From Laura Rasar King (A) Accrediting Agencies to Everyone:

9 Thank you! Just making sure!

10 From Brady Facilitator FMCS to Everyone:

11 Feel free to send any tech hiccups to me today!

12 From Bradley Adams (P - Proprietary Institutions) to Everyone:

I play that rolling stones song for my kids whenever they 

complain they do not get their way.

13

14

From Jamienne Studley Accrediting Agencies (P) she/her to

Everyone:

15

16

Is it possible to put an issue paper aside to return to 

this week if it still seems possible to find a solution or ED 

needs to consider a proposed change?

17

18

19

From Ernest Ezeugo (P) Students and Student Loan Borrowers to

Everyone:

20

21

22 Thanks for keeping us sharp, Cindy!
Committee Meetings - 03/14/22 55

1 From David Socolow (A) State agencies to Everyone:

I will be at the table for State agencies for Issue Paper 

#1, ATB

2

3

From Jamienne Studley Accrediting Agencies (P) she/her to

Everyone:

4

5

I wondered if the term "regular students" in 

668.15(a)(1)(v) is defined anywhere?

6

7

8 From Anne Kress (P) Comm Colleges to Everyone:

9 +1 Jamie

10 From Mike Lanouette (A) Proprietary Institutions to Everyone:

11 What you consider "the higher of 1% or 25 students?"

From Jamienne Studley Accrediting Agencies (P) she/her to

Everyone:

12

13

14 + Mike and David re 1% or #

15 From Emmanual Guillory (A)-PNPs to Everyone:

16 Should the reference in (c)5) be (b)(2)?

From Ernest Ezeugo (P) Students and Student Loan Borrowers to

Everyone:

17

18

+1 David on the addition of adult education and literacy 

language in (1)

19

20

From Carolyn Fast (P) Consumer/Civil Rights organizations to

Everyone:

21

22
Committee Meetings - 03/14/22 56

1 +1 to David

2 From Anne Kress (P) Comm Colleges to Everyone:

3 I’ll be coming to the table for 2 Year Colleges.

4 From Bradley Adams (P - Proprietary Institutions) to Everyone:

5 I will be coming back to the table

6 From Debbie Cochrane (P), State Agencies to Everyone:

7 I'm back at the table as well.

8 From Johnson (P) Legal Aid to Everyone:

9 Jessica is switching in for legal aid thx

10 From Adam Welle, State AGs (P) to Everyone:

11 Yael is coming to the table for state AGs thanks.

12 From Travis Horr (P) Servicemembers & vets to Everyone:

Barmak will be coming to the table for servicemembers and 

vets

13

14

15 From Marvin Smith (P) 4 Year Publics to Everyone:

16 +1 Sam

17 From Kelli Perry - (P) Private Non-Profits to Everyone:

18 +1 Sam

19 From Anne Kress (P) Comm Colleges to Everyone:

20 +1 Sam
Committee Meetings - 03/14/22 57

1 From Beverly Hogan Primary/MSI to Everyone:

2 + 1 to Sam's comment

3 From Jessica Ranucci (A)- Legal Aid to Everyone:

4 What if it said, “instructions and applicable deadlines”?

5 From Sam Veeder (P) Fin Aid Administrators to Everyone:

6 +1 Jessica. That would be acceptable.

From Jamienne Studley Accrediting Agencies (P) she/her to

Everyone:

7

8

"applicable" per Jessica and Sam, or perhaps "any 

deadlines for.."

9

10

11 From Anne Kress (P) Comm Colleges to Everyone:

12 +1 Jessica

13 From Kelli Perry - (P) Private Non-Profits to Everyone:

What if "and deadlines" was removed because the 

instruction would in essence include the deadlines, if any

14

15

16 From Sam Veeder (P) Fin Aid Administrators to Everyone:

17 +1 Kelli, that solution works as well.

18 From Marvin Smith (P) 4 Year Publics to Everyone:

What if it said "and instructions for accepting, 

declining, and adjusting award amounts"

19

20

21 From Marvin Smith (P) 4 Year Publics to Everyone:
Committee Meetings - 03/14/22 58

1 same as Kelli suggestion

2 From Debbie Cochrane (P), State Agencies to Everyone:

3 I echo Amanda's support for (h)(1).

4 From Marvin Smith (P) 4 Year Publics to Everyone:

5 +1 to Brad concerns on career services regulation

6 From Barmak Nassirian (A) Servicemembers & Vets to Everyone:

I generally support Brad's point here: most of the 

language is too vague to be actionable, and holding 

institutions to what they have advertised would take care of 

actual abuses

7

8

9

10

From Jamienne Studley Accrediting Agencies (P) she/her to

Everyone:

11

12

13 agree with Barmak and Brad.

14 From Anne Kress (P) Comm Colleges to Everyone:

15 +1 to Brad, et al. on career services

16 From Kelli Perry - (P) Private Non-Profits to Everyone:

17 +1 Brad and Barmack

18 From Emmanual Guillory (A)-PNPs to Everyone:

19 +1 Barmak and Brad

20 From Sam Veeder (P) Fin Aid Administrators to Everyone:

21 +1 Kelli
Committee Meetings - 03/14/22 59

1 From Marvin Smith (P) 4 Year Publics to Everyone:

2 Deadlines hurt low income students.

3 From Bradley Adams (P - Proprietary Institutions) to Everyone:

Most accreditors (not a expert outside of SACS) already 

require and define that we provide adequate career services.

4

5

6 From Barmak Nassirian (A) Servicemembers & Vets to Everyone:

7 Add "deadlines, if any, . . . "

8 From Sam Veeder (P) Fin Aid Administrators to Everyone:

application deadlines are more definitive that 

accepting/declining awards

9

10

From Jamienne Studley Accrediting Agencies (P) she/her to

Everyone:

11

12

13 How about "any deadlines"?

14 From Sam Veeder (P) Fin Aid Administrators to Everyone:

15 *than

16 From Anne Kress (P) Comm Colleges to Everyone:

17 +1 Brad on accreditation and career services

18 From Emmanual Guillory (A)-PNPs to Everyone:

Perhaps you can say, “instructions, to include any 

deadlines if applicable, for accepting, declining, or 

adjusting award amounts.” 

19

20

21