DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION 

AFFORDABILITY AND STUDENT LOANS COMMITTEE 

 SESSION 2, DAY 1, MORNING 

November 1, 2021 

 

 

 

 

 

1 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

On the 1st 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 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

P R O C E E D I N G S 

MS. MACK: Thank you. Good morning, 

everyone. My name is Kayla Mack and I am a third party 

federal facilitator with FMCS. I want to welcome each 

and every one of you back to the Department of 

Education's negotiated rulemaking. Specifically, I am 

welcoming you to opening day of session two with the 

Affordability and Student Loans Committee. We are going 

to begin today with introductions of everyone, a few 

procedural and technological reminders, and then we're 

going to move you directly into our first agenda item, 

which is in fact the presentation today on one of our 

issues. First, let's begin with introductions. I would 

like to invite the Department of Education negotiator, 

Ms. Jennifer Hong, to introduce yourself, and please let 

us know, Jennifer, if you have any remarks that need to 

be shared this morning. 

MS. HONG: Thank you, Kayla, just. 

First of all, good morning. Welcome back to session 

number two of Negotiated Rulemaking for the 

Affordability and Student Loans table. My name is 

Jennifer Hong and I'm the federal negotiator 

representing the Department on these critical issues 

we're discussing this week in the student loan programs. 

I'd like to welcome back our esteemed committee members. 
 

3 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

We have received your data requests and proposals to us 

in the intervening weeks regarding our issue papers and 

proposed regulatory language. We have tried to review 

those proposals and provide feedback and look forward to 

discussing them further this week. I just want to 

emphasize that taking those proposed concepts and 

translating them into proposed regulatory text is the 

most effective way to move these discussions forward. So 

I plead this week in submitting proposals to us that 

they are in draft regulatory text form. Something about 

actually drafting the right text compels us to think and 

talk about such a proposal, how such a proposal may fit 

in the existing regulatory scheme and allows us to think 

about make conforming changes as necessary. In addition 

to getting us proposals in the form of draft regulatory 

text, we request that to the extent possible, we can 

receive that language timely. You are proposing some 

very helpful ideas and we want to be able to review and 

consider them for the next session. In thinking about 

this, just as a reminder, we aim to get the proposed 

language to you seven days prior to the next session, 

which means we start finalizing that language for 

distribution well in advance of the seven-day timeframe. 

That being said, if we could, if we could receive the 

draft language either during the session or shortly 
4 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

thereafter, it would be very helpful in moving our 

discussions forward. Again, I realize that some of these 

issues take time in deliberation and to the extent 

possible, if we could get those on earlier and we can 

incorporate them timely. As far as data requests go, 

we've received several. We are prioritizing those 

requests as best as we can and pulling those data as 

appropriate. The way some of these requests are framed 

has a bearing on the degree of relevancy to the 

particular issue we are negotiating. So please do keep 

that in mind as we will continue to prioritize given the 

volume of requests and the scope of this rulemaking. So 

thank you. I look forward to this week's discussion and 

I'll hand it back over to Kayla for introductions. 

MS. MACK: Thank you, Jennifer. I 

would also like to note that we have a couple of folks 

from the Department's Office of General Counsel. First, 

Brian Siegel, if you would like to say hello. 

MR. SIEGEL: Hello. Welcome back and I 

look forward to the discussions over the next week. 

MS. MACK: Thank you, Brian. And I 

also think that I saw Mr. Soren Lagaard check in. Soren, 

if you're here and would like to say hello to the group, 

please feel free to do so at this time. 

MR. LAGAARD: Thank you so much, yes, 
5 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

this is Soren Lagaard and I'll be participating in the 

PSLF portion of the program. 

MS. MACK: Perfect, thank you. In 

addition, from the Department, you have seen these folks 

before, they have worn a number of hats to support us. 

We have with us first Ms. Vanessa Gomez, who I think 

we'll be helping with some screen sharing today. 

Vanessa, would you like to check in? 

MS. GOMEZ: Hi, everyone, good 

morning. 

MS. MACK: Thanks, Vanessa. And we 

also have Mr. Aaron Washington, who will be 

participating in our first issue. He's been working on 

behalf of the Department with our Prison Education 

Program Subcommittee. Good morning, Aaron. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Good morning. Hello, 

everybody. 

MS. MACK: Alright. Next, I would like 

to introduce you all and our viewing public to our 

esteemed committee, both our primary and alternate 

members. So I'm just going to have you do a very brief 

check-in with us as I call your constituency and name. 

First, on behalf of accrediting agencies, we have our 

primary Dr. Heather Perfetti. 

DR. PERFETTI: Morning, everyone, 
6 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

great to be back with you all. 

MS. MACK: Thanks, Heather. We have 

our alternate, Dr. Michale McComis. 

DR. MCCOMIS: Good morning, Michale 

McComis. Good to see everyone. 

MS. MACK: Thank you, Michale, for our 

constituency group dependent students, we have our 

primary miss Dixie Samaniego. 

MS. SAMANIEGO: Good morning, 

everyone. Looking forward to this week and my pronouns 

are ella/she/hers in case you couldn't see my name. 

MS. MACK: Thank you, Dixie and our 

alternate, Mr. Greg Norwood. 

MR. NORWOOD: Morning. Good to be here 

again. Can't wait to see what this week looks like. 

MS. MACK: Alright. Thanks, Greg. For 

the constituency group, Federal Family Education Loan 

lenders and/or guarantee agencies, we have our primary, 

Ms. Jaye O'Connell. 

MS. O’CONNELL: Morning, nice to see 

everyone. 

MS. MACK: Thanks, Jaye. And our 

alternate, Mr. Will Shaffner. 

MR. SHAFFNER: Hi, Kayla, thanks. Hi, 

everyone. Good morning, and here's to a productive week. 
 

7 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

MS. MACK: Thanks, Will. For our 

constituency group, financial aid administrators at 

postsecondary institutions, we have our primary, doctor, 

I'm sorry, Mr. Daniel Barkowitz. 

MR. BARKOWITZ: Thank you for the 

promotion, Kayla, I appreciate it. I'm ABD, but that's 

fine. So good morning, everyone, happy to spend the week 

with you once again. 

MS. MACK: Thanks, Daniel, and we have 

our alternate Ms. Alyssa Dobson. 

MS. DOBSON: Hello, everybody. Glad to 

be here this Monday morning, Alyssa Dobson from Slippery 

Rock University. 

MS. MACK: Thanks, Alyssa. For fouryear public institutions, we have our primary, Dr. 

Marjorie Dorime-Williams. 

DR. DORIME-WILLIAMS: Good morning, 

everyone. Dr. Dorime-Williams here, excited for another 

session. 

MS. MACK: And we have our alternate, 

Ms. Rachelle Feldman. 

MS. FELDMAN: Hello everybody, happy 

to be here. 

MS. MACK: Thank you, ladies. For our 

constituency group, independent students, we have our 
8 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

primary Ms. Michaela Martin. 

MS. MARTIN: Good morning, Michaela 

Martin, with independent student. 

MS. MACK: Thanks, Michaela, and we 

have our alternate Dr. Stanley Andrisse. 

DR. ANDRISSE: Good morning, everyone. 

Pleasure to be here. 

MS. MACK: Thank you both. For our 

constituency group individuals with disabilities or 

groups representing them, we have our primary Ms. 

Bethany Lilly. 

MS. LILLY: Hello, everybody. 

MS. MACK: Welcome back, Bethany. And 

we have our alternate, Mr. John Whitelaw. 

MR. WHITELAW: Good morning. Glad to 

be back again (inaudible) productive week. 

MS. MACK: Good morning, John. 

Alright, for our constituency group legal assistance 

organizations that represent students and/or borrowers, 

we have our primary, Ms. Persis Yu. 

MS. YU: Good morning. Good to see 

everyone today. 

MS. MACK: Good morning, Persis. And 

we have our alternate, Mr. Joshua Rovenger. 

MR. ROVENGER: Good morning, everyone. 
9 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

MS. MACK: Good morning. For a 

constituency group, minority serving institutions, we 

have our alternate who sat in last session as primary 

and will continue to do so for session two, 

Ms. Noelia Gonzalez. 

MS. GONZALEZ: Good morning. Nice to 

see everyone. 

MS. MACK: Good morning, Noelia. For a 

constituency group, private nonprofit institutions, we 

have our primary, Ms. Misty Sabouneh. 

MS. SABOUNEH: Good morning, everyone. 

MS. MACK: Good morning, and we have 

our alternate Dr. Terrence McTier, Jr. 

DR. MCTIER: Good morning, everyone. 

MS. MACK: Morning. For proprietary 

institutions, we have our primary Ms. Jessica Barry. 

MS. BARRY: Good morning, everyone, 

Jessica Barry here with proprietary schools. 

MS. MACK: And we have our alternate 

Dr. Carol Colvin. 

DR. COLVIN: Good morning, everyone. 

MS. MACK: Good morning, Carol. For 

our constituency group, state attorneys general, we have 

our primary. Mr. Joseph Sanders. 

MR. SANDERS: Good morning, everyone. 
10 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

Glad to be back for another week. 

MS. MACK: And our alternate, Mr. Eric 

Apar. 

MR. APAR: Hi, everyone, good to see 

you again. Looking forward to this week. 

MS. MACK: Alright, for our 

constituency group state higher education executive 

officers, state authorizing agencies and/or state 

regulatory regulators, I believe our primary Dr. David 

Tandberg will be joining us momentarily. But for now, we 

have our alternate, Ms. Suzanne Martindale. 

MS. MARTINDALE: Yes, hi, good 

morning, everybody, happy to join the week with you. 

MS. MACK: Thanks, Suzanne. For our 

constituency group student loan borrowers primary, Ms. 

Jeri O'Bryan-Losee. 

MS. O'BRYAN-LOSEE: Hello, everybody. 

I'm going to fix my camera so I'm not staring off into 

the middle distance. I'm actually looking at you all, 

but I'm looking forward to this week. 

MS. MACK: Thanks, Jeri. And we have 

our alternate, Ms. Jennifer Cardenas. 

MS. CARDENAS: Buenos dias, good 

morning. Looking forward to this week. 

MS. MACK: Thanks, Jen. For two-year 
 

 

11 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

public institutions, we have our primary, Dr. Robert 

Ayala. 

MR. AYALA: Good morning, ladies and 

gentlemen. Excited to be here with you all this week. 

MS. MACK: Thanks, Robert, and we also 

have our alternate, Dr. Christina Tangalakis. 

MS. TANGALAKIS: Good morning, and 

from Southern California, I'm glad to be here again. 

MS. MACK: Early morning in Southern 

California right now. Alright, from our constituency 

group, United States service members, veterans or groups 

representing them, we have our primary Mr. Justin 

Hauschild. 

MR. HAUSCHILD: Good morning, 

everybody, looking forward to this week's conversation. 

MS. MACK: Thank you, Justin, and our 

alternate Ms. Emily DeVito. 

MS. DEVITO: Good morning, wonderful 

to see you all again. 

MS. MACK: Alright, thank you for your 

introductions and checking in with us this morning. It's 

now my pleasure to make a couple of additional 

introductions. We have two expert advisors with us who 

are not participating in our consensus checks, but they 

are in fact advising the committee in their important 
12 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

work based on experience and research-based information, 

data, and regulatory recommendations. First, I'd like to 

introduce you all and welcome back, advisor on economic 

and/or higher education data, Dr. Rajeev Darolia. 

MR. DAROLIA: Good to see you. 

MS. MACK: Thanks, Raj. And our 

advisor on qualifying employers on the topic of public 

service loan forgiveness, Ms. Heather Jarvis. 

MS. JARVIS: Good morning. Nice to see 

you. 

MS. MACK: Alright? Thank you, all. 

Lastly, I will reintroduce you all to your FMCS 

facilitation team. Keep in mind, the Federal Mediation 

and Conciliation Service here is working in the capacity 

of a third party neutral. We want to be able for your 

process to host the technology and the platform and 

assist you with any questions, concerns or issues that 

arise in that arena. We will be facilitating the 

discussion and the consensus for each issue. We will 

work with you to enforce the ground rules or the 

organizational protocols. We're going to work with the 

committee as appropriate in breakouts and caucuses. We 

will solicit and distribute information and documents as 

we have been during and since session one. And then we 

will try to capture the process and the progress in the 
13 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

drafting of those session summaries for you. So we are 

here to assist you in every step of the way. Before I 

move to introduce my colleagues, I want to refer back 

to, Mr. David Tandberg has now joined us. David, hello 

and welcome. We just went through introductions, so I 

wanted to take that moment to to mention that you had 

joined us. Alright. As for my colleagues, I'm going to 

ask them to briefly check in and say hello. Emil. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Hi, everyone. Emil 

Totonchi, happy to be here with you. 

MS. MACK: Thank you, Emil. Cindy. 

MS. JEFFRIES: Good morning, Cindy 

Jeffries also, happy to be here with you again. 

MS. MACK: And Brady. 

MR. ROBERTS: Hey, good morning, 

everyone. Brady Roberts, similarly, very happy to be 

here. 

MS. MACK: Alright. Perfect. In one 

moment, I'm going to have an additional introduction or 

two because we have guests who are joining us for the 

purpose of giving a presentation. But before I do those 

introductions and get into our first substantive issue, 

I have a few reminders. If you have not already done so, 

please conform your naming convention as we did last 

time. It should be first name and then a P or an A for 
 

14 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

primary or alternate, or you can place advisor and then 

an abbreviated reference to your constituency group. So 

if you haven't already done so, please do that so that 

we're consistent with last time and we will make it easy 

for each other and the public to identify us. While you 

are not speaking, please utilize your mute button. 

Everyone did an excellent job of that last time. We're 

going to continue to do so so that we can minimize any 

distractions or background noise. If you have something 

to share at any portion of our session together, please 

utilize that virtual hand. We will do so just as we did 

in session one. It worked well. We will call on folks in 

the order in which you raise your hand, deviating only 

in instances where it makes sense to do so for our 

process. For instance, if the Department has an 

immediate response to a question asked, otherwise we 

will go in order of those hands raised. Let's see if you 

have any technology questions or concerns today, please 

contact Brady, he's going to be our tech guru. I'm going 

to have him place his email in the chat. Feel free to 

email him directly or utilize the chat feature if you 

need any assistance throughout today's session. Note on 

the chat feature. You all shared an abundance of good 

information there last time. We also use the chat to 

show support for each other's comments and contributions 
15 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

so that we could cut down on duplicative dialog. I want 

to encourage you all to do so again in session two. Keep 

in mind whatever is shared in the group chat will be 

subject to an ongoing transcript. But if you send a 

direct message to someone not including the Department 

of Education, it will not be made part of that 

transcript. So if you send a direct message to one of 

your fellow committee members or to FMCS again, that 

will be separate from the transcript. Each day, the 

public is going to have the opportunity to log in and 

observe the session via livestreaming. The Department 

has posted a registration link on their website for 

that. We have that website. We shared it in the past in 

the chat. Brady, if we have that cued up, we can share 

that website's link again. Again, here you can register 

for committee and subcommittee viewing options, but also 

all of the documents that we have shared with you or 

that have been shared with the committee will be posted 

there if they have not already done so. In our first 

session, we had the primary stay on camera. We're going 

to do that again. So momentarily I will be asking our 

alternates and advisors to go off camera, remember 

advisors and alternates, you will come back on camera 

when you are substituting in for an issue or being asked 

to speak on a particular subtopic. You all did an 
16 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

amazing job last time of giving us advance notice when 

you wanted to invite an alternate to the table to either 

take your place or to speak on an issue. We're just 

going to ask that you continue to do so so that we can 

recognize folks and keep in mind who are our appropriate 

consensus folks at any given time when we are going to 

take an official consensus check or a temperature check. 

Again on consensus, last time we had you do a number of 

temperature checks. In session two, we may actually get 

to a an official consensus check on one or more of these 

issues. Either way, we will make it clear if we are 

asking for your thumbs, whether or not we are taking a 

temperature check for a tentative agreement or an 

official consensus check. Remember, in session one, we 

utilized a three thumb approach. I'm going to remind you 

what those are, and I want you to let me know if you 

have any questions or concerns. Up was an outright 

expression of agreement, which means you are in full 

agreement and support of what is being proposed. 

Sideways, this is also an expression of agreement, but 

it is in fact an indication that you may not feel as 

strongly favorable as you do on other things where you 

are in fact up. But sideways does in fact mean that you 

do not have any serious reservations as to what is being 

proposed and you are in agreement. If we do a consensus 
17 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

check and everyone is up and/or sideways, we have 

reached consensus. If you have a serious reservation 

about what is being proposed, that is when you would 

indicate a downward thumb. At that time, we will ask you 

to articulate for the facilitation team, the Department 

and your committee members why, in fact, you are down, 

what your serious reservations are. Okay? So that is the 

consensus check model that we are going to continue 

utilizing. And remember, we are going to be taking those 

consensus checks issue by issue. And just as we did in 

session one, we'll continue that. And last but not 

least, the last 30 minutes of our session will be for 

public comments. The Department has continued to solicit 

folks to sign up for those slots. Not only are we having 

those folks sign up for the 30 minutes, but we're taking 

a wait list of folks. That way we can make sure that we 

continue to have a full and robust 30 minutes of public 

comment at the end of each day. And that concludes my 

opening remarks. So at this time, I would love to invite 

our alternates and our advisors to turn their cameras 

off so that we can get into our agenda. Persis, I see 

your hand. 

MS. YU: Thank you. I wanted to raise 

a question about the public comment period, as I 

understand there were folks who were unable to speak, 
18 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

and I want to make sure that we do have enough time to 

hear all of the folks who want to provide public 

testimony. If we are again in a situation where folks 

are unable to get a slot, is the Department or the 

facilitators willing to build in extra time for public 

comment? 

MS. MACK: So we have not discussed 

with the Department building in extra time at the end of 

the day, it's something that we could perhaps visit with 

them on a break and talk about that. The one thing that 

I would say is anybody who is on that waiting list and 

we don't get please continue to sign up for subsequent 

days' slots so that we can try to get in as many folks 

as we possibly can within that time and again, we'll 

continue building out the wait list so that we can fit 

in as many folks. But I appreciate the question Persis, 

and we will visit with the Department on that inquiry. 

MS. YU: Thank you. 

MS. MACK: Okay. Any other questions 

or comments before we get into our agenda? 

MS. JEFFRIES: Kayla, I just want to 

call attention to I believe Carol is acting as primary 

for proprietary in place of Jessica, and Dr. McTier is 

in for private I can't tell, instead of Misty. Is that 

correct? Okay. 
 

19 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

MS. MACK: Alright, and we also have 

Mr. Stan Andrisse in for his constituency as well. 

Alright. Perfect. And Greg is in for dependent students. 

Thank you. Alright. So we have a number of alternates 

in, at least for this particular issue. If and when you 

you as alternates are going to sub out and the primaries 

are going to come back in, please give us a quick 

message in the chat so that we can call everyone's 

attention to that. Thanks for that, Cindy. Alright, last 

week, we emailed out all of you a tentative agenda for 

this session, and that is the order in which we intend 

to address issues. Keep in mind, it could be subject to 

change based on information that we receive. But if 

there are any changes to note, we will provide you with 

this early advance notice, as we can on that. With that 

said, our first agenda item is your issue number 12 Pell 

Grant Eligibility for Prison Education. As promised, I 

had another introduction or two to make, but today we 

are going to receive a presentation from representatives 

who are serving on that committee. So Stan Andrisse is 

on that committee, so he will be part of that 

presentation. But it's also my pleasure to invite an 

introduction from Ms. Belinda Wheeler, who is also a 

subcommittee member. Belinda, would you like to 

introduce yourself? 
20 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

DR. WHEELER: Thank you very much. 

Good day, everyone. I'm Dr. Belinda Wheeler. I am a 

senior program associate with the Vera Institute of 

Justice Unlocking Potential team, and I am on the 

subcommittee representing consumer advocacy 

organizations. I should mention, although I am a doctor, 

feel free to call me Belinda. That's totally fine. And I 

just wanted to also mention that Vera provides technical 

assistance to over 130 Second Chance Pell Experimental 

Site institutions, which is why we're really invested in 

this particular topic. And also, I just wanted to 

mention for the rest of the sub, excuse me, for the main 

committee, prior to joining Vera, I was also a professor 

and I was the founding director of a prison education 

program as well. So I'm bringing that experience to this 

discussion. So thank you very much for allowing me to 

speak today. 

MS. MACK: Perfect. Welcome, Belinda. 

Belinda and Stan, I'm going to turn it over to the two 

of you momentarily. Committee members keep in mind after 

their presentation, we will have an opportunity for Q&A. 

So if you have questions, please jot them down and we 

will invite those at the appropriate time. I will also 

mention, excuse me, that Mr. Aaron Washington, on behalf 

of the Department, has participated in this 
21 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

subcommittee. So if there is additional dialog that he'd 

like to add or questions for him to answer, he will be 

available to do so as well. Stan and Belinda, can I 

please turn it over to you? 

DR. ANDRISSE: Sure, and it looks like 

we have a screen share ability, soDR. WHEELER: I think Aaron was going 

to share his screen, my friend. Yep. 

DR. ANDRISSE: Thank you. 

MS. MACK: It is coming up now. And 

Aaron, if you click on from, we get, perfect. Alright, 

Stan and Belinda, the floor is yours. 

DR. ANDRISSE: So thank you. I just 

wanted to give an opportunity to reintroduce myself, so, 

you know, I mentioned to the committee last time of 

being a formerly incarcerated person who, you know, has 

gone through the hurdles and challenges of, you know, 

trying to continue education with criminal convictions 

on your record. So I, of course, come to this 

conversation with that experience. And having moved on 

to being a professor at Howard University as well as 

Johns Hopkins and the executive director of an 

organization called Prison to Professionals that works 

with we've about, we get about 400 applications per year 

from across the country and work with about 100 or so 
22 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

people, men and women who have criminal convictions per 

year to help them obtain higher education so both 

currently and formerly incarcerated. So that also brings 

me very close to this topic and conversation. So I am 

on, of course, the main committee representing 

independent students, as you all may remember from last 

time we were here. And I'm also on the subcommittee 

representing formerly incarcerated students. So, you 

know, as I just mentioned from my organization, which I 

am one of the co-founders and executive director of, we 

work very closely with currently and formerly 

incarcerated men and women to help them pursue higher 

education. I wanted to, Belinda and I were going to take 

some time to just mention some of the other 

constituencies represented in our subcommittee. And so, 

you know, I wanted to acknowledge Terrell Blount, who is 

the executive director for a group called the Formerly 

Incarcerated College Graduates Network, which represents 

thousands of people who are formerly incarcerated 

college graduates from across the country and also a few 

internationally. And he was joining the subcommittee as 

representing groups that represent formerly incarcerated 

people. And I was also going to take the time to 

acknowledge Dr. McTier, who's also a main committee 

member but also a subcommittee member who was 
23 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

representing as a person who runs a prison education 

program, which he runs a prison education program at 

Washington University in St. Louis. And I believe, 

Belinda, you were going to take some time to say a few 

words about our other subcommittee members. 

DR. WHEELER: Sure. Thank you very 

much, Stanley. So yes, of the seven subcommittee 

members, including Stan and myself and Terrell and 

Terrence, we've got just a couple of other members that 

I just wanted to lift up to the subcommittee so that you 

understand their positionality in this conversation that 

we've had with the subcommittee members. So financial 

aid administrators, we have Kim Cary from the Ozarks 

Technical Community College. We also have the State 

Higher Education Executive Offices, Angie Paccione from 

the Colorado Department of Higher Education and then the 

seventh member of the subcommittee is Marisa BrittonBostwick of Montana Correctional Enterprises. Just 

wanted to lift that up for the rest of the subcommittee. 

Thank you. 

DR. ANDRISSE: And so I believe we can 

go into the next slide if that's okay, Aaron. Belinda, 

did you want to jump in? 

MS. MACK: You're muted. 

DR. WHEELER: No, we're good. No 
24 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

worries, thank you. So, yes, this is just the brief 

overview of the law. There's a lot of statutory language 

in in the work that we're doing as you know, the FAFSA 

Simplification Act signed into law in December of 2020. 

So just to kind of put everyone with, provide everyone 

on the main committee with the context for everything 

here. And I don't usually like to read through slides, 

but because it is statutory, I think it's important that 

we lift up all those words. So please excuse me for 

reading this. But, you know, to be eligible for Pell 

Grants, prison education programs must be offered by an 

eligible public nonprofit or vocational institution. 

Must be approved to operate in a correctional facility. 

Must be determined by the State Department of 

Corrections or Federal Bureau of Prisons to be operating 

in the best interest of students, which is something 

that we're going to get back to with other slides. 

That's a big, big component of what we've been talking 

about on the subcommittee. Prison education programs 

must offer transferability of credits. They must be 

offered by an institution not subject to a loss of 

Title IV adverse accreditor action or revocation of 

State authorization in the past five years, must, if 

applicable, meet licensure certification requirements in 

the state where most students will reside after release. 
25 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

If applicable, not offer programs designed to lead to 

licensure if the occupation typically, I highlight 

typically because that's going to come up later 

prohibits licensure, employment or formerly incarcerated 

individuals in that state. So that's the the overview of 

that main component of prison education programs moving 

forward. And then the last point statute also includes a 

variety of reporting requirements for institutions and 

the Department and a requirement for an IES evaluation. 

Aaron, if we could take it to the next slide and 

Stanley's going to take that over. 

DR. ANDRISSE: So thank you, Belinda. 

Just as we only have five slides to show you and we 

really hope that you can, so we're going to have 

conversation after the slides, of course, but feel free 

if there is something that you really feel compelled to 

share or comment on, you know, feel free to do that 

while we're presenting, but we really hope to kind of go 

through the slides, lay it out and then open it up for 

discussion, is kind of the format that we were thinking, 

and it's only five slides. So of course, we're reporting 

out now. We just to give a quick schedule, as you know, 

refresh you to the schedule of the Prison Education 

Program Subcommittee. We met once in October. That's 

what we're reporting to you now about. We will meet next 
26 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

week and we will meet three days again next week and 

then we will give a final report out to this committee 

here with the final full recommendations. So what we're 

bringing to you now is the conversation that we had 

because we have not met, you know, a full recommendation 

yet we have not come to a full recommendation. So just 

keep that in mind that this is just where we were we are 

at. So the next couple of slides, we're going to show 

you some things. We did do the temperature check format 

within the subcommittee. So we're going to show you some 

things that we were in for the most part agreeance and 

then we're going to take you to the next slide after 

that, which is going to show you some things that we're 

still in conversation about. So with that, I will pass 

it back or I believe I, Aaron, if you could move to the 

next slide, please. So things that we are in agreeance 

with, which we took some, you know, some temperature 

checks and there were no thumbs down, some thumbs 

sideways on some of these. But the definition of an 

additional location to include prison facilities. So if 

a main college campus or, you know, institution that 

offers postsecondary education to have the prison 

education program, they have to submit for or add this 

additional location as it's termed, and the subcommittee 

was okay on that definition of what is considered to be 
 

 

27 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

an additional location, including the prison facility 

terminologies. We discussed and were in somewhat mostly 

agreeance on clarification of policies for allowing 

institutional waivers from statutory prohibition on 

enrolling more than twenty five percent of students as 

incarcerated. So, you know, that is referring to there 

needs to be a waiver if an institution is trying to, you 

know, their primary students are over 25 percent and the 

committee was mostly in agreeance with that. We spent a 

lot of time talking about the definition of a prison 

education program. So you'll see this both on the 

agreement slide and on the things still in discussion. 

So some of the components of a prison education program 

that we were in mostly agreeance of was technical 

changes to reflect statutory requirements, periodic 

reevaluations of the prison education program approval 

to operate, credit transfer requirements was something 

that was very much agreed upon that the credits need to 

be transferable to outside institutions once the person 

is released. Disapproval for institutions subject to 

initiative initiated adverse action. So pretty much all 

in agreeance that, you know, to keep institutions that 

already have adverse actions on their records from not 

being approved., Reporting requirements, this is both an 

agreeance, and we will also talk about some of the 
 

28 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

specifics of the reporting requirements. But it is, it 

was agreed that there should be reporting requirements. 

But as I mentioned, we'll talk about some of the things 

that we were still in conversation about within those 

reporting requirements. Wind-down of eligible programs. 

We thought this was a big point. If a if a correctional 

institution or a prison education program were to become 

not eligible anymore, there's a wind-down where they 

would still be able to support the students who are 

currently in the program to finish their programing, and 

there was pretty much agreeance on that wind-down 

period. Treatment of credit balances for incarcerated 

students was something that was also in in general 

agreeance. 

DR. WHEELER: If I could just add one 

thing there, my friend. With regards to the wind-down of 

eligible programs, we will talk a little bit about it on 

the next slide, but also just wanted to make sure that 

you all have the language that we're thinking of, 

particularly for our colleagues on the main committee 

who are with accreditation. With that, we're thinking of 

the teach-out plans, you know, making sure that there's 

documentation of how an institution if they decide 

either to not continue in a carceral space or for 

whatever reason, they're being asked to be removed from 
 

29 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

that space, that there will be those checks and balances 

which are already in place with accreditation agencies. 

So we're talking more of that teach-out kind of thing. I 

think we have a question. 

MS. YU: Yes, I have a question, I was 

wondering if you guys could speak a little bit more to 

the credit transfer requirement component and how that's 

determined since this came up in the closed school 

discharge conversation as well in terms of receiving 

institutions, some, you know, having the discretion to 

approve the transferability of credits or not. And so 

what is this if you can speak more to what this 

requirement would mean? 

DR. WHEELER: Is it okay if I take 

that, Stan? Okay, yes, so thank you for that question. 

Yes, this goes back to the FAFSA Simplification Act that 

was signed into law that it's mandated that any 

institution educational institution that enters the 

carceral space to offer prison education programs that 

they are mandated to have an existing relationship or a 

new relationship, an established relationship with at 

least one other educational entity within that state. So 

again, if something happens, whatever happens that those 

students are protected both from, you know, if an 

institution moves out, particularly for a DOC situation, 
30 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

if a student is moved to a different to a different 

space, you know, as a student is moved, then there's 

that transferability. So it's one of those things that 

we're talking a little bit more. We believe that, yes, 

that credit transfer, we agree with the statute that 

that must definitely be in place. But that's something 

that we're continuing to kind of talk through what that 

might look like, particularly with the Federal Bureau of 

Prisons, for example, if someone's in one state and then 

they get moved elsewhere. So it's there's still a little 

bit more meat on the bone, if I can use that reference. 

But does that make sense, ma'am? 

MS. YU: Yes, thank you. 

MS. MACK: I believe, per the chat, 

Aaron Washington from the Department has something to 

add as well. Aaron. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. I just 

wanted to add just a little bit to the wind-down that we 

were discussing. So that specific provision that the 

subcommittee agreed to was about eligible programs 

currently operating at correctional facilities that are 

not state or federal. So the current statute says that a 

student is not eligible eligible to receive Pell if they 

are incarcerated at a federal or state correctional 

facility. And so we know that right now there may be 
31 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

programs, eligible programs operating in local jails or 

juvenile justice facilities where students are receiving 

Pell Grants to enroll in any eligible program. And so 

what we've done in the regulation is we provided a 

framework for how those programs will wind down. And 

what we said was that they like if if a local program 

who chooses not, if an eligible program operating in a 

local jail or juvenile justice facility chooses not to 

convert to a prison education program, as we're 

proposing to define it here, they would have until, I 

don't have a language in front of me because I'm sharing 

my screen, but I believe if they will, they will. They 

can no longer enroll students in the program after July 

1, 2023, and they would have and the student would be 

eligible to receive Pell until 2029 or until the student 

reaches their max timeframe, or if the student exhausted 

Pell eligibility through the lifetime eligibility use. 

Thank you very much. 

MS. MACK: Thank you, Aaron. Belinda 

and Stan, it looks like we have another question. Do you 

prefer to take those as we go or would you like to hold 

them? I'm seeing a thumbs up. Joe, please go ahead. 

MR. SANDERS: Hi, thanks for the 

presentation, this is really informative. I just, as a 

baseline, wanted to know if you guys, it's really a two 
 

32 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

part question. One, can you give us some examples of 

institutions that are providing these programs 

currently? And then secondarily, follow-up from that, on 

the transfer of credits, I wanted to hear more about the 

single institution in the state that would take the 

transfer because, you know, I have some concern about, 

you know, what is that institution and so baseline, what 

institutions are providing programs in prisons? And then 

secondarily, have you guys talked about having more than 

a sort of a single access point for transfer? 

DR. ANDRISSE: Belinda, did you want 

to take that? 

DR. WHEELER: You can start, my 

friend, and I can follow up after you. 

DR. ANDRISSE: I mean, I was just 

going to refer to your organization in terms of Vera has 

a list of all the colleges and universities that are 

offering what is called Second Chance Pell. So, you 

know, when Pell was removed from when incarcerated 

people were no longer able to access Pell back in 1994 

after the Clinton Crime Bill, you know, most of the 25 

years after that was philanthropy funding prison 

education. And then, you know, several years back, 

Second Chance Pell came around, which was an initiative 

under the Obama Administration that provided access to 
 

33 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

Pell from a number of selected institutions. It was 60 

at first, around 60 or so at first, and then it doubled. 

They offered it again a couple of years later after. So 

I think the first time was in 2015. Then again, in like 

20, Belinda, you can correct that. But at the moment, 

Vera has a list. There's about 130 institutions that are 

offering Second Chance Pell for prison education 

programs. And that's not an exhaustive list because 

there are still institutions and entities that are 

offering it from philanthropic dollars. 

DR. WHEELER: Yeah, thank you very 

much for that, Stan. And so, yes, Joe, we have a list of 

the 100 and, I think it's approximately 131 Second 

Chance Pell Experimental Site Initiative institutions 

that are a part of this Pell program, and I can I'd be 

happy to give the committee a list of all those, if that 

is something that the committee would like. And just as 

Stanley said, there's a number of other educational 

institutions. I believe Dr. McTier's, you know, in in 

St. Louis, that's an example of one that's not actually 

in Second Chance Pell, but it is in this carceral space 

and they're using other other programs, excuse me, other 

funding to do that programing so. So I hope that answers 

your question. Joe, let me double check just with that 

particular part, and then I'll get to the second part. 
 

34 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

But did that help clarify Joe for that first part, sir? 

MR. SANDERS: Yeah, that's that's 

really that's a great baseline to start with. 

DR. WHEELER: Okay, great. Yep, yep. 

And let me know in the chat, if people do want that, I 

can definitely get that list to you. And then with 

regards to the the credit transfer, I believe that's 

also something that's going to come up on the next 

slide. I just kind of quoted the FAFSA Simplification 

Act how it says at least one transfer like one 

agreement, but that doesn't mean it has to just be one, 

I think in a, I think as we're thinking of prison 

education programs moving forward, I think that it would 

be great that if an educational institution goes into 

that carceral space, that they have multiple agreements, 

you know, with different educational institutions, with 

different modalities for students to choose and things 

of that, that nature. But the statute itself in the 

FAFSA Simplification Act mentions at least one. So but 

that's one of the great things with the subcommittee is 

that and you'll see on the next slide, while we do have 

statutory language, the Department has been very 

supportive of us kind of coming up with what those 

definitions of things might be. While the statute might 

say this, how is the subcommittee advising or suggesting 
35 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

what those actual definitions of things are? And I 

think, Joe, that that's one of those perfect examples 

where it does say transferability of credits. The 

statute says that, the subcommittee has the opportunity 

to really kind of define that in a really nice way. And 

I think I'm so grateful that we're having this 

conversation with you all today because there's a lot of 

you who obviously aren't in the subcommittee that I 

think you all bring a lot of experience to the table, 

which I think will be good in the Q&A and like what 

we're doing right now to potentially bring that back to 

the subcommittee. And also, I just wanted to mention 

too, Aaron, thank you very much for that, with that 

wind-down, my friend. I appreciate that because, yes, 

the 2029, and that's something, you know, again, it's 

one of those ones that probably came in more that way 

with the general areas of agreement. But we do recognize 

that there does need to be those institutions that are a 

part of the first round, the second round, or the third 

round of the Second Chance Pell Experimental Site 

Initiative need some kind of off boarding process to 

then come, you know, then decide after they complete 

that program to then decide whether or not they want to 

apply for this extended Pell. So thank you very much for 

that, adding that to Aaron. 
 

36 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

MS. MACK: Okay, first, I want to note 

that, Christina, I failed to mention this earlier, 

Christina is the alternate and she's in for two-year 

public institutions, so I have Daniel, then Christina 

and then David, and then I'm going to ask that we pause 

on questions so that we can allow Belinda and Stan to 

return to their presentation on the chance that those 

upcoming slides address some of the questions to come. I 

promise you there is a whole slide on Q&A. I got a sneak 

preview of that still coming. So, Daniel, take it away. 

MR. BARKOWITZ: And this may be one of 

those issues that you discussed, but I'm curious about 

the additional location question. So if you'd like me to 

hold it, I'm happy to. I recall seeing the original 

regulatory language a an issue where an additional 

location would not just be the physical location, but 

also in addition by program, so that each program an 

institution adds would have to be added as an additional 

location subject to Department approval. And I'm curious 

if that issue came up. Again, if you'd prefer to 

answer that later, I'm happy to wait. Does not have to 

be addressed now, but just wanted to make sure I had a 

chance to ask that in the conversation. 

DR. WHEELER: If we can hold it just 

for now, but I'm going to make that note. Daniel, thank 
37 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

you very much. 

MS. MACK: Okay, we'll get back to 

that. Christina, what was your comment? 

MS. TANGALAKIS: I have a comment 

about the implicit inequity in the treatment of credit 

balances for students, and I can certainly save my 

comments because they're they're rather lengthy. Or I 

can proceed whichever you prefer. 

MS. MACK: Belinda, Stan, does it make 

more sense for us to hear them now, or would you rather 

pause for the Q&A portion? 

DR. ANDRISSE: Maybe hear them and we 

can see if we could answer them quickly or answer them 

more fully in the Q&A? 

MS. TANGALAKIS: Okay. Well, I'm, 

would like to propose that you rethink the agreement on 

the treatment of credit balances, and I'll explain here 

the current proposed text without any edits would likely 

create a situation where an incarcerated student would 

be reported as having used 100 percent of their 

scheduled Pell in a payment period when 100 percent of 

their scheduled Pell was not accessible to the student. 

And here's an example using real life costs from the 

California Community College, a FAFSA applicant with a 

zero EFC for a full time schedule, Pell Grant is 
 

38 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

eligible for $6,495. That's $6,495 in the current 21-22 

academic year, or $3,247 per term if the school is a 

semester school. Under the currently proposed rules 

would have an annual cost of attendance of $2,394 and 

that would be for the tuition and books which is 

incarcerated students would be restricted to those two 

elements of the cost of attendance under current need 

analysis. The Pell Grant would be reduced per the 

Federal Pell Grant schedule, to $2,350 annually, or 

$1,175 per semester, and at a California community 

college, a student with a zero EFC would qualify for a 

fee waiver of registration fees, bringing our sample 

students cost to books and supplies at only $1,126 

annually, or $563 per semester. And after the waiver is 

applied to her scheduled Pell Grant totaling three 

$2,350 already reduced in the Pell calculation because 

of her lowest cost of attendance, would be further 

reduced to equal her remaining costs of $1,126 or the 

cost of books and supplies. So, this example assumes 

that full time attendance for both semesters and as a 

result of accessing her full schedule Pell Grant for the 

academic year, her LEU usage would be calculated at 100 

percent of her 600 percent lifetime Pell Grant 

eligibility. Her not incarcerated peer would have been 

able to access every dollar of his or her $6,495 
39 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

scheduled Pell Grant eligibility, while the incarcerated 

student would have access to only $1,126 in Pell Grant 

for that aid year, with the same financial circumstances 

and the same enrollment level and with the same LEU 

usage reported. So in short-. 

MR. TOTONCHI: I just want you to 

know, your 30 seconds left. 

MS. TANGALAKIS: Okay. In short, the 

incarcerated student in this example, access is less 

than 48 percent of her scheduled Pell Grant for full 

time students at the same cost of attendance as her 

incarcerated peer. And the disadvantage to the 

incarcerated student is expressed in the last red line 

on the most recently proposed document from the 

Department of Ed. And I do have some proposed remedy for 

this and the next time I have the opportunity to speak, 

I can share that. 

DR. ANDRISSE: So thank you, 

Christina. And I think Aaron just shared that, and 

Belinda or Aaron, I guess, you know, jump in, but that 

it won't count towards, so if the Pell Grant is required 

to be reduced, the reduction would not be counted 

towards LEU. 

MS. TANGALAKIS: And I don't I don't 

see that in the language, has it been added? 
 

40 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

DR. ANDRISSE: That is something that 

we discussed and Aaron, maybe you can clarify whether 

that was added into the what was provided. Is it in one 

of the bubbles possibly? 

MR. WASHINGTON: [Audio] 

DR. ANDRISSE: We hear you, but you're 

breaking up. 

MR. TANDBERG: We can't understand 

you, Aaron. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Oh, I'm sorry. Can 

you hear me now? 

MS. MACK: It is a bit better, yes, 

Aaron. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Ok, I'll speak 

slowly, I'm sorry. So it's not in the amendatory 

language because we're not proposing to make any changes 

to the way that the Department calculates eligibility 

use. If the student is not awarded 100 percent of their 

Pell Grant for the award year, 100 percent would not be 

reported as used. So if the student's award is required 

to be reduced because the Pell Award exceeds cost of 

attendance, only the only amount that would be reported 

to COD as or reported to the institution by COD that was 

used was the fact the amount that was awarded to the 

student. And so you won't have a situation where a 
41 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

student that's not incarcerated has a lower LEU than a 

student that is incarcerated that received their full 

scheduled award. I don't think that language needs to be 

added to for that, because that is just the way that we 

calculate LEU historically, however, I did hear you say 

that you do have some some proposals for language, and I 

think that it would be great if you could send those 

along and we can check those out. Were you all able to 

hear me? 

MS. MACK: Yes, thank you, Aaron, very 

clear. Thank you. Alright. Thank you for that, 

Christina. If we could go to one more person, Stan and 

Belinda, and then I'll turn it right back over to you. 

David, I had mentioned your or noted your hand. Did you 

have a question at this time? 

MR. TANDBERG: Oh, I'll hold it, you 

can continue. 

MS. MACK: Ok, thanks, David. Alright, 

Belinda and Stan, let me turn it back over to the two of 

you. 

DR. ANDRISSE: Belinda, if you wanted 

to move to the next slide, I think, or did, you can jump 

in. 

DR. WHEELER: Yes, Aaron, could we 

please go to the last final? Yeah, like the next slide, 
 

42 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

please. And Stan, I believe you were going to do the 

first three, my friend, and then I was going to, yeah. 

DR. ANDRISSE: So I wanted to drop 

that we're open to, we didn't, you know, I just realized 

with one of the first questions in my response to it for 

time-wise we didn't go into the history of why this bill 

even came to be, you know, why we're even talking about 

this bill. I talked very briefly about it and why Second 

Chance Pell is around. But you know, if anyone is 

interested, we can certainly get into that. But you 

know, we didn't include that within the presentation in 

terms of the history of how we even got to this bill. 

But so this next slide, that was a sidebar. So now to 

jump into this next slide, this was what we are 

continuing to discuss. We didn't we did some temperature 

checks and we need some continued discussion on it. So 

one of those first things is that the definition of 

confined or incarcerated individual this is, you know, 

we can certainly get into what it is that we're still in 

discussion about. It really pertains a little bit to the 

type of institution a person is in and and how 

sometimes, for instance, a person who is in jail is 

actually may be sentenced or may not be sentenced. So 

their classification under the State is a little bit 

different. Although they they are in jail, their 
43 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

classifications are different. Another nuance was the 

difference. Someone on home detention. So you might not 

think of that person being confined or incarcerated. But 

many times under Department of Corrections' definitions, 

that person is still under the supervision or still 

considered to be incarcerated by that Department of 

Corrections, even though they are at home on electronic 

monitoring. So there are some nuance there and also some 

nuance between halfway houses and things that are 

outside of a correctional facility, but by DOC standards 

still considered to be confined or incarcerated. So 

there was still some discussion on that. The next bullet 

point, the Department's approval of first eligible 

prison education program at the first two additional 

locations there was we can certainly talk a little bit 

more about what the nuances of that are. If if we if we 

choose to go in that direction and then the next bullet 

point of what we were have and continue discussion is 

particular language for reporting of additional 

locations. So that was I mean, we can, you know, 

Belinda, and then feel free Belinda if you wanted to add 

anything to those two bullet points. But I will kind of 

hold off on going into our nuance of them until we get 

through the rest of the bullet points here. So I'm going 

to pass it back to Belinda. 
44 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

DR. WHEELER: Yep, no worries. Thank 

you so much, Stan. Yes, so thank you for sharing that, 

Stan. The third bullet point that Stan just mentioned 

that gets back to a little bit of Daniel sorry, previous 

question. And again, we can certainly talk more about 

that. But one of the things with additional locations 

and I know we've got accreditation people on the main 

committee as well, this idea of just the language that's 

already approved by the Department, and it's also 

language that is used by accreditation agencies in this 

space. One of the things that we were talking about was 

potentially modalities, which I think gets back a little 

bit to Daniel's kind of point there. As you know, does 

it have to literally be a bricks and mortar space or 

could it, you know, perhaps entail distance education or 

things of that nature? So, so that's one of the things 

that we're continuing, you know, and that's why we put 

it here under the continued areas of work, because 

that's something that we're still trying to kind of 

determine as we try to move through things and then make 

recommendations for the main committee. I'll just move 

on to the next bullet point and then this kind of gets 

back to that previous one as well. You know, there's 

certain things in the statute of the FAFSA 

Simplification Act, which have this definition of a 
45 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

prison education program. And again, while the statute 

says, for example, you know, the transfer of credits as 

a subcommittee, we can come up with some definitions of 

what that potentially is to then take back to the main 

committee for your consideration and for your vote. So 

some of the areas that we're really kind of continuing 

to think through, but this isn't an exhaustive list here 

is, you know, opportunities to include key stakeholders 

with DOC and BOP reviews throughout, Bureau of Prisons 

and Department of Corrections. You know, this is a new 

space in like, Corrections has done education. I 

definitely understand that. This type of increased level 

of coming together between higher education institutions 

and corrections is a lot bigger than a lot of us have 

seen, you know, at least until prior to the 1994 Crime 

Act Bill. So so we understand that this coming together 

of these different groups, whether it be Corrections, 

educational institutions, accreditation agencies, we're 

coming together in a very unique way as we move forward 

from July of 2023 onwards. So so this idea of what kind 

of key stakeholders can come together again to better 

serve the students, which is what we're all trying to do 

here. Definition of programs operating in the best 

interests of students there is on the FAFSA 

Simplification Act and I think on your document, your 
46 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

your position paper 12 that you received, it goes like, 

I think it's A through I of those what what determines a 

best interest of students and that includes things like 

that transfer of credit. So those are, you know, we 

didn't we didn't make this PowerPoint really exhaustive 

and, you know, relist everything there. But that's what 

we're referring to was those those specific things in 

the statute and then us going and providing insight into 

what those definitions might be. Particular language for 

institutions that have experience of adverse actions in 

the previous five years, you know, this is one thing 

that myself and others have been talking with 

constituent groups outside of the subcommittee's work. 

You know, what does an adverse action mean across the 

board for accreditation agencies? You know, is it that 

removal fully is that, you know, some kind of warning or 

sanction? So so those are things that we're continuing 

to kind of think through particular language for 

satisfying the licensure certification requirements. And 

I'll jump straight into the next one, the requirement of 

not offering education that requires licensure if the 

occupation getting back to that word “typically” 

prohibits licensure of employment of formerly 

incarcerated individuals. You know, the subcommittee is 

really advocating for empowering students to make 
47 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

choices in meaningful ways, but also protecting those 

students. So these are some areas that we're trying to 

see whether or not we can make really positive change 

for students in this space while also fully protecting 

those students, but a way for them to potentially 

advocate for themselves in in ways that they haven't had 

a chance to with prison education programs in the past, 

particularly language for accreditor review of prison 

education programs. You know, unfortunately, we don't 

have accreditation sitting at the table with the 

subcommittee, but I've been very, you know, made great 

strides to reach out to middle states and other 

accreditation agencies, you know, because they are 

really important here. So trying to get feedback from, 

you know, the great different accreditation agencies 

around the country, they've reached out to me, I've 

reached out to them and kind of having this, what kind 

of particular language that we could, you know, 

recommend potentially for accreditation agencies. And 

again, this is why it's so important for us to be having 

this conversation with you today. Application 

requirements for the Department for approval of a first 

prison education at the first two additional locations. 

You know, the Department seems very purposeful on how 

they're going to allow educational institutions to come 
48 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

into this space for the first time or if they have been 

a part of Second Chance Pell or private like private 

philanthropic donations that have allowed educational 

institutions to be in this space. To then move into this 

post 2023 programing how we might provide 

recommendations, you know, to the Department to help you 

know everyone again, making sure that the students best 

interests are at the forefront of everything that we're 

doing there. And then student protections in the event 

of the Department's withdrawal of approval of a prison 

education program. If the Department does decide that 

Institution X educational institution X needs to be 

removed from this space, what kind of protections are 

going to be made available to students to make sure that 

they can continue their education you know, with an 

equally, you know, successful or even better program 

than perhaps what they had before? But making sure that 

those educational programs don't just, you know, are 

ripped from the students. We want to make sure that the 

students are protected there. And then two of the other 

main bullet points that we have here, particular 

language for the technical changes to the Pell 

definition is something that we're really thinking 

through as a as a group and then disclosure requirements 

to individuals who are incarcerated, trying to make sure 
 

 

 

49 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

that the the students have all the documents, not only 

just the documents given to them, but people actually 

explaining like making sure that they understand, you 

know what, what options available options that they have 

things of that nature. So making sure that the students 

again are protected. So unless my colleague Stan has 

anything we could, we could move. Let's check in with 

Stan, but otherwise we can move to the last slide, which 

is just questions there. Thank you. 

MS. MACK: Yes, go ahead. 

DR. ANDRISSE: I did want to just add 

really quickly to just just more so to highlight the 

importance of the bullet point, mentioning the 

opportunities to include key stakeholders was a 

significant part part of our conversation over the 

subcommittee. And also just to highlight the idea of 

operating in the best interest was also a significant 

part of the conversation. And I thought this might be, 

you know, Belinda and I both discussed the idea that, 

you know, we we intentionally, of course, you have 

access to it, but we wanted to name the subcommittee 

members and we wanted to point out that a lot of the 

things that we're discussing within the language, if you 

look at the, you know, the language is requiring DOC to 

do, the Department of Corrections to do certain things, 
50 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

a lot of things and you know, their language, they're 

included in the language often. But there was not a 

representative of Department of Corrections leadership 

on our subcommittee, nor in this larger committee. So 

we, you know, one of the things that we really wanted to 

propose was to to add that negotiator to the 

conversation. And so that, to add to that point of we 

really we really wanted to bring into the conversation 

and it was brought into the conversation that 

historically the, you know, using the language of 

acting, operating in the best interest of the students 

is something that you know the DO- is very questionable 

to. There's a lot of people that have different thoughts 

about whether the DOC, Department of Corrections, has, 

you know, should be given the sole responsibility of 

checking in on the operation of, you know, in the best 

interests of students. So just wanted to add that and I 

guess Belinda, if nothing else from that, we can open it 

to, I see there's several questions already. 

MS. MACK: Okay. First, I want to 

thank Belinda, Stan, and Aaron for the presentation and 

dialog. We will, in fact, open it up to questions. Our 

line is growing here, David. You are first up, please. 

MR. TANDBERG: A quick question for 

clarification. I noticed in the statutory language that 
 

51 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

was shared within the PowerPoint near the beginning, it 

said eligible programs were, I believe, public, 

nonprofit or vocational. What is the definition of 

vocational within the context of that statutory 

language? 

MS. MACK: Belinda, do you want to 

take that one? 

MS. WHEELER: Quick question, do we 

have a legal person on this call who can answer that, 

not being a legal person? I see Aaron's got his hand up, 

so I just wanted to double check because I could 

certainly give my Belinda Wheeler layman's term. But I 

think for this purpose, we need to make sure that. Thank 

you. 

MS. MACK: Yeah, please go ahead, 

Aaron, if you can answer that and feel free to come on 

camera if you'd like to to be part of this conversation. 

MR. WASHINGTON: I'm sorry. Sure. 

MS. MACK: Perfect. There you are. 

MR. WASHINGTON: To answer David's 

question, the definition of a vocational program is 

defined at 34 CFR 600.6. I won't read the whole thing, 

but I'll read the beginning, a postsecondary vocational 

institution is a public or private nonprofit educational 

institution that is in a state, admits as regular 
 

52 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

students only persons who have a high school diploma or 

equivalent, or are beyond the age of compulsory school 

attendance in the state in which the institution is 

physically located. So I don't want to read the whole 

thing, but that's that's where we define vocational. 

MR. TANDBERG: So it's actually 

somewhat repetitive then, because public or nonprofit 

would include the vocational. I was wondering whether or 

not that included things beyond public or nonprofit, but 

it sounds like it does not. 

DR. ANDRISSE: If I could jump in and 

I believe, you know, so a vocational school might be an 

institution that offers an electrician certificate, and 

it doesn't offer any type of associate's degree or 

bachelor's degree. It is just specifically focused on 

electrician certificates, and that would be eligible. 

That would be eligible vocational school. And so that's 

my that's my layman's version of Aaron's more legal 

version. 

MS. MACK: Okay, thank you, David, 

Aaron, and Stan. Joe, if I can go to you. 

MR. SANDERS: Yeah. Thanks. 

MS. MACK: Joe. We're having a hard 

time hearing you. 

MR. SANDERS: Sorry. Is that better? 
 

53 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

Okay, sorry. Yeah. So this goes to David's question and 

to Belinda's and Stan's discussion of what “typically” 

means. So I just want to, “typically” in terms of 

licensure. So my office has done some work on this issue 

and I just want to highlight the difficulties with this 

term “typically leading to licensure”. So in our 

litigation against Westwood College, we focused on their 

criminal justice program and one of the claims that we 

had against them was concerned misrepresentations around 

whether or not persons who have a felony conviction 

could get a job in the criminal justice field. There's a 

host of regulations around this, so particular 

departments have their own regulations. So, for example, 

Illinois State Police explicitly says you can't have a 

felony conviction and get a job here. Chicago, in their 

police department, it centers around the FOID card. You 

have to have a Firearm Owner's ID card in order to get a 

job with the Chicago Police Department and in order to 

get a Firearm Owner's ID card, you have to, you cannot 

have a felony conviction. To make the issue to 

complicate the issue further, Westwood did disclose on 

Page 183 of their catalog in fine print that having a 

felony conviction may affect your ability to get a job 

in the criminal justice arena. We're talking about a 

criminal justice program here that cost $70,000. Right, 
 

54 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

so I know we're, you know, this is the discussion of 

Pell, but to the extent that people are taking out loans 

or getting money from family or doing, you know, using 

other resources and even the loss of Pell eligibility 

would be, you know, not a good outcome to the extent 

that the person couldn't get a job, so. And this gets a 

little bit to David's question in the sense of are 

proprietary institutions going to be able to offer these 

programs? I don't think that all proprietary 

institutions, I'm not saying that that's like all bad 

because there are proprietary institutions that do what 

Stan was talking about, right? That just like focus on 

like electrician's work, right? I want to highlight, 

though, that this is a complex issue that that does 

warrant consideration by the further consideration by 

the subcommittee. 

DR. WHEELER: If I could just jump in 

to respond to that. I definitely hear you, Joe, and I 

think that the subcommittee is very, very careful here. 

Like obviously and you'll see like obviously, we've 

we're writing some possible language right now. And of 

course, the subcommittee has to review it all and then 

determine whether or not, you know, we think that that's 

even something it might just stick straight with the 

statute right now, which basically is saying it's almost 
 

55 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

like the typically is almost removed and it's saying, 

look, you have to restrict anyone for that, however, and 

I think it'll be good once you actually get to see if 

the subcommittee decides that this is something that we 

want to bring back to the main committee. I think you'll 

actually see that there's a lot of checks and balances 

with the potential, and it won't just be a student 

signing up for something. If a student does indeed sign 

up for something, there's there's different things that 

the educational institution is committing itself to 

reporting and making sure that they're being held 

accountable so. But you know, I definitely want to offer 

this up to my colleague Stanley as well because a number 

of our committee subcommittee members were very 

passionate about, you know, as we see in some states, 

some states are very progressive when it comes to 

relooking at their state licensure requirements and 

making it more open, you know, and looking at it 

periodically to decide, okay, well, this is something 

that we had back then. Is this something that we can we 

can possibly change? You know, there's multiple reports 

that I can share with you, too, that unfortunately, in 

some states, you know, the same 50-year restrictive law 

is still in, you know, so I'll use the example. I won't 

mention a state, but there's an example of, you know, a 
56 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

person who perhaps has a felony conviction, who wants to 

be a barber, for example, and and go to a technical 

school to get a barber's license and practice as a 

barber. And that person may have a perhaps a DUI felony 

conviction. That particular conviction, you know, has 

nothing to do with like how they would possibly be as a 

barber, for example. Obviously, there's other examples 

where you might want to hit the pause button on whether 

or not someone would perhaps want to go into particular 

field. But there's a lot of states out there where this 

seems like a potential positive moment where we could 

potentially open things up. But again, trust me, the 

subcommittee is very careful on the checks and balances 

and against Stanley and other colleagues who are on the 

subcommittee with me were able to provide other examples 

and and firsthand testimonies, you know, of how some of 

these how while there is a risk potentially, that we be 

very careful with putting checks and balances in so that 

we can potentially open it up, you know, for these 

individuals with support of their educational partners 

and others to try to have some states potentially 

rethink some of these restrictive kind of checks and 

balances in place. But let me stop there because I want 

to make sure that Stanley has an opportunity to speak 

here. 
57 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

DR. ANDRISSE: Yeah, just to not to 

add too much, but we we had a conversation about this 

and the “typically” part is, you know, I just want this 

part of this statute, so I don't think that could be 

removed. And so it really offers some flexibility. And 

one of the things that we mentioned was to Aaron 

mentioned on a number of occasions, the Department of 

Education will offer Dear Colleague Statements to advise 

on how to interpret and suggestions to interpret the 

language. And so it was, you know, you know, we were 

considering to come up with suggestive language around a 

Dear Colleague that could help inform that. But just to, 

you know, again, myself being a formerly incarcerated 

person who's now a college professor at a medical 

school, there are a number of things that I do that, you 

know, have policy regulatory language that says that I 

shouldn't be able to do it and I've broken that ceiling. 

And you know, there are there are a number of people 

within our network who are formerly incarcerated lawyers 

who were denied bar access. And then, you know, the 

community came around and help them fight to get access 

and they broke that ceiling. So what we were proposing 

is that there are so many of these stories that, you 

know, we proposed that the institution give clear 

information as to the barriers that are currently in 
58 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

place for that person. And if that person still wants to 

pursue knowing those barriers, because maybe they want 

to break that ceiling and be that person, they can 

knowingly make that decision as an informed, informed of 

the different barriers. 

MS. MACK: Thank you, Stan, thank you, 

Belinda. If I can, I'll move next to Bethany, your 

question. 

MS. LILLY: Hey, everybody. So given 

the overlapping rates of disability and incarceration, I 

felt like it was (inaudible) on me to say something 

about that, and it's thank you so much for this 

presentation. I felt like it was incredibly 

comprehensive and this is not something I know a lot 

about, so I found it very, very helpful. But I was a 

little bit surprised not to hear anything about 

accommodations, and I just want to flag that given the 

disproportionate rates of disability, I would be really. 

I think it would be very necessary to see as part of the 

accreditation process or part of whatever process we're 

creating for these programs, making sure that the 

disability status of students, the overlapping other 

minority statuses of students are taken into account 

there, especially for multiple marginalized people. I 

think the risk of getting not admitted to these programs 
59 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

or the risk of not being included in the reform efforts 

is very high and I I want to name that and I want to 

make sure that I'm sure the committee is talking about 

it, but I just felt like it was worth bringing up again. 

DR. WHEELER: Yeah, thank you very 

much for mentioning that, Bethany. Yes. And thank you to 

you and your team, you know, having met with you as well 

to kind of learn more myself. Yes, this is definitely 

something that the subcommittee is talking about. It is 

definitely coming into play more with that A through I 

kind of sub-list that again, we didn't put on that 

PowerPoint there. But I think when it comes to, you 

know, the access for students and those accommodations, 

those are things that we're looking to put in those 

further definitions there, which I think you'll actually 

see some of that language coming into play when we 

eventually do get those recommended documents to you. 

But yes, do know that it is definitely something that we 

are talking about and even in some of the other 

language. And I think this is another opportunity post 

the subcommittee and this main committee, there's 

there's a lot of other language in the FAFSA 

Simplification Act, where corrections and others like 

educational partners and everything everyone's having to 

determine and accreditation agencies are then being 
60 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

asked to make sure that these educational entities are 

doing what they're supposed to do where accreditation is 

already keep making sure that those checks and balances 

are definitely in place, like what a typical bricks and 

mortar traditional campus looks like, and then making 

sure that those same accommodations that are at that 

traditional campus again, you know, within the confines 

of, you know, this other this other space, but not only 

you know that physical space, but I think more 

importantly, you know, the admissions process, the 

services that are available to the students, their 

student support services and things of that of that 

nature. So with other things that are in the language, 

both at what we're looking at as the subcommittee, but I 

think also as the Department looks forward to 2023 and 

there's probably going to be other committees on other 

parts of this, I hope that there will be those other 

opportunities to help, you know, because a lot of us 

have to, you know, corrections is obviously doing its 

thing, but this subcommittee and main committee is there 

to help corrections in this prison education space. And 

you know, I think there'll be, you know, language and 

documents, you know, that could be recommended, you 

know, to everyone in that space, accreditation, 

education, corrections to again make sure that that 
 

 

61 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

accessibility is first and foremost because you're 100 

percent correct about the population demographics that 

we do see in carceral spaces. So yes, thank you very 

much, Bethany. 

MS. MACK: Thank you, Bethany, and 

thank you, Belinda, and thanks for those showing their 

support in the chat. Alright. I see a number of hands 

up, so I'm going to try to get to the next five folks 

and then we may need to hit the pause button on this to 

continue on with our agenda. But I have Persis up next, 

please, Persis. 

MS. YU: Thank you. I wanted to ask a 

question about the eligibility of students and 

particularly when it comes to students who come in, in 

incarcerated spaces with student loan debt existing and 

then default on the student loan debt. Currently, 

students are not eligible for Pell Grants if they do 

have a default on their student loans. And so I'm 

curious about what services are available to borrowers 

who have existing debt to ensure that they're able to 

take advantage of these programs. Also, you know, there 

is a subregulatory policy to to waive the debt of folks 

who are incarcerated for 10 or more years. But as I 

understand from a lot of our legal aid partners that 

that policy has been applied very inconsistently. And so 
 

 

 

62 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

I'm wondering if we can get more information about these 

programs and policies, both regulatory and subregulatory 

that are available to incarcerated or potentially 

incarcerated or potential students who are incarcerated, 

so that we make sure that student loan debt is not a 

barrier to people taking advantage of these programs. 

DR. ANDRISSE: And if I could jump in 

first to respond and thank you for that question. It was 

a topic of discussion in the subcommittee and we the 

regulatory language of, you know, the expansion of Pell 

to incarcerated students or incarcerated people, it 

didn't particularly have language around addressing 

that. And Aaron and Belinda, please jump in. But the 

conversation that we did have about it, we had David, 

who was the director of Student Aid, on the call. I 

don't know if he's on this call, but he is the director 

over, you know, the Student Aid department at the 

Department of Education, and he expressed how they he he 

went through a number through a number of initiatives 

that they do have in place to address this and that 

they're are already doing this as Second Chance Pell is 

something that's currently going on. And, you know, he 

mentioned that they are willing to look into 

partnerships with different organizations to help expand 

on those efforts. But Aaron or Belinda, you know, 
63 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

please, please add, you know, from that conversation. 

MS. MACK: Thanks, Stan. Aaron, I saw 

your hand go up. Did you want to speak to that, please? 

MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah. Stan, Stan and 

Stan is right. He did discuss the issue of students that 

had defaulted on loans, and FSA is currently working 

towards a resolution to that question. So we can take 

that back and provide you more information at a later 

time. Thank you. 

DR. WHEELER: And if I could just jump 

in too, I just wanted you to know that with our 

positionality with Vera, we went on the record when they 

did the open comments in June and July about the default 

situation with students and talked about the challenges 

that students face in this space and also put some 

recommendations together. So yes, it's our understanding 

exactly what Aaron said. Thank you. 

MS. MACK: Thank you all. Alright, 

Michaela has rejoined the table as primary for 

independent students. Michaela, can I have your 

question? 

MS. MARTIN: Yeah. I just wanted to 

acknowledge that I came in because Stanley is holding 

space on the subcommittee, so that's not in any way 

trying to bump him from that spot. My question is around 
64 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

the Department of Corrections having such a big role in 

this when like, you know, historically they haven't 

acted within the best interests of students and students 

gaining access to these kinds of programs, but also from 

my understanding, the subcommittee is operating without 

a representative from the Department of Corrections. So 

we're looking at making regulatory changes to another 

agency without their input for representation, which I 

have a lot of concerns around. Particularly, you know, 

stakeholders, you know, that could help make sure that 

the DOC throughout this process is able to efficiently 

effectuate these changes and then kind of building off 

of that from a procedural standpoint, how the 

subcommittee felt these sessions went and if there's any 

improvements that could be made to help get language to 

the full committee. So is there any way that this 

committee can assist in getting them somebody from this 

agency that we're asking to do these things, either in 

that advisory standpoint or like we have some advisors 

for other topics? So I guess my question is how that 

process went for the subcommittee and what we can do to 

help make sure that it's as efficient as possible? 

DR. WHEELER: Thank you. Oh, sorry, go 

ahead, Stan. 

DR. ANDRISSE: No, you can go first. 
65 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

DR. WHEELER: Ok, thank you, my 

friend. Thank you very much for that question, Michaela. 

I think your words reiterate Stan's point earlier when 

we were just doing the general introductions. I think 

for the subcommittee, particularly as you mentioned, you 

know, the FAFSA Simplification Act has laid out the 

language that, you know, there is a lot of 

responsibility on the hands of corrections in this space 

and the fact that we don't have a, you know, DOC leader 

like a warden or director, you know, CEA, for example, 

Corrections Educational Association or someone else, 

ACA, American Corrections Association, like at this 

table, I think it would be really good to get that kind 

of input there. I do think one and I'll say one other 

thing, and then I want to put it over to Stan. I think 

that this is an opportunity potentially to get another 

seat in the room there, if that is possible through 

process also. But I will say that I have been talking 

with others in that space, and I know Stanley and others 

have been talking with Corrections to try to get that 

input into the conversation, but certainly having a body 

there, and that would be very important. I will also say 

that one of the I definitely hear your concerns, and I 

think one of the other ways that we are well positioned 

to provide some input here is again, that whole idea of 
66 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

like while the statute may say this, you know, and that 

is, you know, is statutory, the Department is giving us 

the latitude to further define some of those particular 

things. So, you know, that is kind of helping with some 

positionality there. So I'll just kind of pause there 

and I want to take it over to my friend, Stan. Thanks. 

DR. ANDRISSE: Thank you, Belinda, and 

thank you, Michaela, for great points and question. I 

would, you know, to the point of the DOC representative, 

I would propose to this committee to to add a negotiator 

and that person and agency that Belinda just mentioned 

there's an agency called the Correctional Leaders 

Association, which is the agency, it's an association of 

all the top DOC officials in all the states, and Ann 

Precythe, Director Ann Precythe at the Missouri 

Department of Corrections, she is the head of Missouri 

prisons, and she's also the president of this 

Correctional Leaders Association. I would propose to to 

add her as a negotiator. To the stakeholders point of 

what Michaela was mentioning and the historical nature 

of the view of prisons towards incarcerated individuals. 

You know, one of the things that again, we didn't really 

get too much of the history. But you know, in 1994, the 

Clinton Crime Bill was one of many bills and policies 

that have been passed for a couple of decades that 
 

67 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

caused incarceration to rise 800 fold over 30, 40 years. 

And it, the '94 crime Clinton Crime Bill, took Pell 

Grants out and really essentially turned prisons into a 

place of punishment. So, you know, incarceration had 

been on the rise, and then you took out the ability of 

people inside to better themselves through education and 

getting vocational training even, so prisons really 

moved to being very much a place of just warehousing 

bodies and not offering opportunities for people to 

better themselves. So then now we move to here where 

we've reinstated Pell and we're giving so much into the 

hands of DOC, whereas a person who's entered DOC, for 

instance, in the past 20 years, which is very likely 

many of the leaders entered into DOC in this phase of 

DOC really just focusing on punishment. So now how do we 

expect this person who for their 20 plus year career, 

has really focused on warehousing and punishment to now 

revert their way of thinking to best interests of the 

people who are incarcerated? So for that reason, we 

really thought it was important to have a stakeholder 

advisory committee to the DOC that is made up of, we 

proposed a number of different stakeholders to be part 

of that. And, you know, to add to one of the particular 

stakeholders that we talked about is there's a piece 

within the legis- within the language that asks for 
68 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

reentry, that that ask for program programs to be 

thinking about how are you going to help the individual 

when they come out? Well, again, historically, DOC has 

not been as concerned with that and and education 

institutions have no idea about that. They've never 

they've never really they never had to nor are they 

designed to be thinking about what a person in prison 

needs once they leave prison. So why would we leave it 

in the hands of two institutions that historically have 

either not done well or not even been had the 

requirement to? So we propose bringing in stakeholders 

that do know how to do that to help advise in that 

process, and I'll stop there. 

MS. MACK: Thank you, Stan and 

Belinda. A couple of things first, Stan, if you could 

place the name and title of the individual that you 

noted in the chat, that might be helpful to everyone. 

And then I noticed Department, you have raised your 

hand, Aaron. Can I turn it over to you? 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. I did want 

to note that we do have a representative or a 

subcommittee member from the Department of Corrections. 

Her name is Marisa Britton-Bostwick and she worked for 

the Montana Correctional Enterprises and I think the 

idea was that, choosing the constituencies, we, the 
69 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

Department hopes that the representative will be able to 

go back to their constituency, get feedback and serve as 

kind of like serve as like the mouthpiece or serve as 

the voice of the constituency. And so that was the goal 

in choosing the constituencies for the subcommittees. So 

we we hear, you know, we hear what the concerns are, and 

we were hoping that the people that were represented 

that were chosen to represent different constituencies, 

for example, the Department of Corrections would be able 

to go back and get more information and bring it back to 

the subcommittee, and they would be the conduit through 

which we amended the regulatory proposals. 

MS. MACK: Ok. Thank you for that, 

Aaron. Any followup on on that, Stan or Belinda? 

DR. ANDRISSE: Yes. Yes. If I could 

just quickly follow up to Aaron, and so Marisa, our 

colleague on the subcommittee, is fantastic. And you 

know, she I think her perspectives need to be on the 

committee, but she is the, you know, her title and what 

she does is she works for the Correctional Enterprises, 

which makes things like a lot of people incarcerated are 

tasked with for very low wages, which is a completely 

different topic on making like license plates, for 

instance, and making soap and doing the laundry for 

local hospitals. So, you know, valuable, but and they do 
 

70 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

sometimes offer certifications, but she's not even a 

representative of a higher education program, one, and 

she is not a representative of leadership, which a lot 

of the things we're proposing within the language are 

things that need okays from leaders such as wardens of 

the prison of the particular prison or directors of the 

entire state. So we were missing that representation, 

and Marisa just doesn't fit that. I mean, her 

constituency and, you know, is not does not fit that 

particular qualification. 

MS. MACK: Stan, if I can ask for your 

clarification, are you making a motion that this 

individual that you've placed in the chat be added to 

the committee or to the subcommittee? 

DR. ANDRISSE: So I would ask that I 

would first propose that she should be added to the 

subcommittee and then, you know, subsequently, you know, 

also as a as a second thing added to the full committee 

too. So I think we can vote on two separate things. 

MS. MACK: Ok, so for the committee, I 

would say that that would be subjected to a consensus 

check here. If it's to the subcommittee, I would suggest 

that the subcommittee address that during their session. 

But Aaron and Jen, I see that your hands have come up on 

the part of the Department. So if you want to speak to 
 

71 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

that before I move to a consensus, happy to hear your 

thoughts. Aaron, and then to you Jen, 

MR. WASHINGTON: I'll let Jennifer go 

first. She's had her hand up. 

MS. HONG: I just I just had the same 

point of clarification that you just made, Kayla. Thank 

you. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Alright. So I just I 

just wanted to reiterate that we really hoped it was a 

hope of in selecting the constituencies that each member 

of the subcommittee would be able to reach out into 

their appropriate the appropriate field and even if and 

even if you're not reaching out to the the constituency 

that you represented, there's other people that you 

wanted to reach out to so anybody can reach out to 

representatives from the Department of Corrections or 

the Bureau of Prisons. And I know Belinda had mentioned 

earlier that Belinda was reaching out to accreditors. 

Belinda represents consumer advocacy agency Sorry to put 

you on the spot, Belinda. So we wanted we were hoping 

that the subcommittee members with their expertise could 

reach out to individuals or relevant stakeholders in the 

community. Any anybody that has something that they can 

bring back to the subcommittee and you can give them 

credit for the proposal. You can say this person, this 
72 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

specific person, this is not this is not my idea. This 

is this specific person's idea. They recommend that we 

add this language to the proposal and and that can be. 

And we also we also informed the subcommittee that we 

can bring in not advisors, but people to speak to the 

subcommittee that have relevant knowledge or experience 

when the subcommittee just wanted to be more informed on 

a certain topic. I think that it is that, you know, we 

are the second full committee session. So to bring 

somebody another individual onto the main committee with 

a number of issues that we still have to tackle. I think 

there's there's nine in total. I think, you know, I 

think we were just hoping that people can that that the 

subcommittee could go back into the community and and 

really bring those ideas and serve as the conduit. 

MS. MACK: Okay, thank you, Aaron. I 

see that a number of hands have gone up. However, I 

would like to take a consensus check at this time by the 

committee on adding these specific individual that's 

been placed in the chat to the main committee. That was 

the motion from Stan. 

DR. ANDRISSE: And I might add that 

I've already spoken to her as well. 

MS. MACK: Ok and Stan, just so that I 

get it correctly, can you pronounce her name for me one 
 

73 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

more time? 

DR. ANDRISSE: Ann Precythe. 

MS. MACK: Precythe. Thank you. 

Alright, committee members, one last question, Stan or 

Michaela, who is taking the lead in terms of this 

consensus check? 

MS. MARTIN: Stan. 

MS. MACK: Stan, okay. Michela, can I 

ask you to go off camera just momentarily so we narrow 

down the screens that we're looking for thumbs? So 

group, I'm going to ask for your consensus on adding Ms. 

Precythe to the main committee for the duration of this 

round of negotiated rulemaking. Please let me see your 

thumbs. And hold them up as we do a check. Still waiting 

on all thumbs. Alright. I do not see any downward 

thumbs, which I believe means that we are in consensus 

on adding Ms. Precythe to the committee. Stan, is she 

available to join us? 

MR. TANDBERG: Just just a point of 

clarification, you said that was a temperature check, 

not a consensus check. 

MS. MACK: I think I said a consensus 

check. If I misspoke, David, then we need to take an 

actual consensus. 

MR. TANDBERG: Maybe, maybe others 
 

74 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

could jump in and let me know if I misheard. 

MS. MACK: Again, it was my intent to 

say consensus check. Did anyone else believe I said 

temperature check? I'm seeing some no and some, yes, so 

let me let me just ask them for a absolute official 

consensus check on adding Ms. Precythe to this 

committee. My apologies for any confusion. This is an 

official consensus check. Please let me see your thumbs. 

Again, I believe that it has passed consensus, everyone 

is side or up. Okay. Then we need to go about adding Ms. 

Precythe To the committee and getting her access 

instructions. But I want to keep us moving in the 

meantime. So if you have any final questions at this 

point for the committee, please keep your hand raised. 

If you do not, please lower your hands so that we can 

continue on with our agenda. 

MS. MARTIN: Alright. Point of 

clarification. You also said that we would take an 

official consensus to make sure that she's on the 

subcommittee. 

MS. MACK: If she is being added to 

the committee, this group would decide that. This group 

is not going to decide additional folks to the 

subcommittee, I will let the subcommittee address that 

themselves. 
75 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

DR. ANDRISSE: We did need 

clarification. We were wondering if the same protocol 

rules apply to the subcommittee is one point of 

clarification that the subcommittee brought up on this 

topic. 

MS. MACK: So the protocols that we 

have provided out to you, Stan, govern the main 

committee, it's my understanding that there would be 

separate protocols for the subcommittee and I cannot 

speak to those as the FMCS team is not facilitating 

that. So technically the process, I can double check and 

we can return to that, though. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Kayla, if I could 

speak, there are in the protocols there are, there is 

language regarding subcommittee. The FMCS team will get 

back to you, Stan, on this topic. 

DR. ANDRISSE: Because the 

subcommittee was we didn't take an official check, but 

for the most part, we're in agreeance with that, but we 

just weren't sure of the protocol for it. So that's why 

we wanted to bring it to the full committee. So yes, if 

you can double check on that, that would be great. 

MS. MACK: Will do. Will do, thank 

you. Okay, there are a few remaining hands with 

lingering questions, Daniel, please. 
 

76 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

MR. BARKOWITZ: Thank you. So again, 

to the subcommittee, excellent job in addressing the 

issues. I do have a couple of further questions around 

location and these questions I will freely admit, are 

born of ignorance. Not no, I just don't know. And so 

these are questions to ask that I hope we can answer. So 

the the first thing, I'll ask them all and I'll let you 

respond. The first is, is there any limitation plan on 

on location or services delivered purely by electronic 

means? I'm imagining and I could be wrong that there are 

limitations to currently incarcerated individuals in 

terms of access rights to sites via Wi-Fi. I know one 

peer institution of mine is in the Second Chance Pell 

Program, as an example. Those students had a very 

difficult time even accessing the FAFSA site, so I 

wonder if a conversation has been had around limitations 

to electronic access. That's question number one. 

Question number two and there are three questions. 

Question number two is two institutions offering 

programs at the same location. So I know that the 

Department has had some maybe informal, if not formal 

limitations around multiple institutions operating from 

the same location. And again, where we're envisioning 

the potential of multiple institutions offering PEP 

programs in one location, there could be issues there 
 

77 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

using the same address. The third issue I would ask is, 

and again, this comes from my alternate's great 

question. What about Clery reporting? So since this is 

now an additional location, does it encompass is it part 

of campus statistics, campus crime statistics that is 

reported as part of an institution's annual safety 

report? And does that include the entirety of the 

incarc- incarceration facility as opposed to a 

particular location where the class is being housed? So 

those are my those are my three questions. 

MS. MACK: Do you want to speak to 

those questions, Stan, Belinda? 

DR. WHEELER: I can jump in on some of 

them, yes, and Stan, please feel free to jump in too, my 

friend. So thank you for those questions, Daniel. I 

think let's see here the accessibility with student 

services. That is definitely something that we've been 

talking about in the subcommittee. And that's regardless 

of whether an institution is offering like the modality 

is either face to face, a hybrid, or electronic. We're 

seeing and this is with Vera experience with providing 

technical assistance to the 130 plus institutions that 

are currently participating in the Second Chance Pell 

Experimental Site. We have seen some challenges even 

without COVID being added into the mix. We've seen some 
78 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

challenges with accessibility for students, so this is 

something that we're talking about as a subcommittee. 

Overall, your point about the particularly for the 

online, I think that that also the protections that 

we're thinking about are in general. But then we get to 

that idea of that waiver because a lot of the online 100 

percent online student programs that we've seen offered 

throughout the country, they are usually asking for that 

waiver of over 25 percent of their student populations. 

So there's a lot of different points within the language 

that the subcommittee is looking at right now, which 

does touch upon that waiver, which again comes into 

play, I would say in a larger capacity with those fully 

online, so I just wanted you to know, Daniel, that we 

are definitely looking at that for both, you know, 

traditional face to face, the hybrid, and the 100 

percent online because the the student access has been 

mixed. You know, some some educational institutions seem 

to be doing a great job even within the age of COVID 

with getting, you know, information to students and, you 

know, and things of that nature. But it is definitely 

something. And it's also in addition, I just want to 

highlight the accreditation side, and I know Heather has 

her hand up too, you know, that's a part of that extra 

layer of protection for students too. So that's 
79 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

something that, you know, myself and other members on 

the subcommittee, I think, have been reaching out to 

constituents such as accreditation agencies on what 

might that actually look like, you know, for students 

and protecting them. So let me do just a a temperature 

check really quick, Daniel. Does that help answer that? 

Yep? Okay, and Stan, did you want to add anything about 

that before I move on to Daniel's next question, my 

friend? I just want to double check. We're good? I just 

want to make sure I'm making sure I'm not cutting you 

off. 

DR. ANDRISSE: You can go ahead. 

Continue on. Nope. 

DR. WHEELER: Okay, great. Thank you. 

And with the same address, I think that's always 

something that we're thinking about, you know, again, 

making sure that students best interests are at in mind. 

I think as someone who used to direct a program and is 

now, you know, doing the work with Vera and others, I 

think one of the things that we all want to see, you 

know, and on the subcommittee is that access to students 

when it comes to actually range of programs, 

availability of programs. And I think that's one of the 

really nice things that we're hoping to see with the 

2023 onwards of prison education programs is, you know, 
80 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

educational institutions, you know, if there might be 

multiple within a correctional space, which again, would 

be great because a lot of a lot of parts of the country 

right now are educational deserts, where there's zero 

programing available to students. So if we do indeed see 

multiple educational institutions with the same address 

that you know, they are working, obviously they're 

working as their own separate entities, but they are 

working in collaboration with each other as well, but 

both educational institutions working together in 

collaboration. You know, we've talked about 2+2 degrees 

and things of that nature, but also working, obviously 

in collaboration with corrections and also the 

stakeholders outside, you know, community based partners 

and things of that nature. So I think from the 

positionality that we have right now, we're not 

necessarily seeing same address as an as a problem per 

say, if we're making sure that everyone is coming 

together again and that gets back to the Department's 

language in the best interests of students. And then 

finally, I saw you shake your head like, yes, or nod 

your head, I should say, so I'll continue on with the 

data points. I definitely want the Department to chime 

in on this because but I did want you to know from the 

subcommittee point, we have been talking about data, who 
81 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

will collect data. There's a lot of places where the 

Department has said that they believe that they're the 

best entity to potentially collect that data, but I 

certainly don't want to speak to the Department on that. 

But I just did want you to know that the subcommittee 

has been talking about data points and things of that 

nature. So I'll stop there because I definitely don't 

want to speak for the Department. 

MS. MACK: Yeah, Aaron, I saw your 

hand go up, please. 

MR. WASHINGTON: I just want to circle 

back to a question about Clery requirements, I believe 

that Daniel asked about Clery requirements and would 

institutions be subject to, would prisons have to comply 

with clear requirements, and we have discussed that 

internally and reporting, we believe that reporting 

would not be required because locations are not 

controlled by the postsecondary institution. 

MR. BARKOWITZ: Thank you, Aaron, and 

that was the question around, and it's not so much 

around a crime occurrence, it's more about control. So, 

you know, the issue with with campus locations is 

typically the institution includes them if they're under 

the institution's control. And that's really the the 

point of concern here is what kind of carve out 
82 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

exceptions would there be given that the institution 

doesn't control the location? 

MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah, reporting would 

not be required because locations are not controlled by 

the institution. Does that answer your question, or do 

you want me to get you take it back and get more 

clarification? 

MR. BARKOWITZ: Yeah, I mean, it does. 

It does. It does raise the logical question around if 

it's not in our control, how it how does it qualify as 

an additional location? But I'll leave that for another 

conversation. There's just a, you know, it raises 

concerns around the management of that location. But I 

get it. I get it. 

MS. MACK: Thank you, Daniel, thank 

you, Aaron and Belinda, on that. Heather, please. 

DR. PERFETTI: Thank you and thank 

you, Stan and Belinda and the work of the subcommittee 

for the exceptional work you brought forward for the 

main committee. I do also want to thank Belinda. You've 

heard her repeatedly say along with others, that she has 

outreach to accrediting agencies, and she certainly has. 

We have had the opportunity to have many conversations 

about the discussions of the subcommittee or some of the 

direction being taken. Obviously, the work of 
83 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

accrediting agencies as an important partner is 

something that we want to reiterate and stress. And I 

did just want to highlight that in terms of additional 

locations, accrediting agencies already are involved in 

that approval process. So a number of the issues and 

concerns that have been identified are part of the 

application and approval process for an institution, 

whether that program is at a prison or somewhere else, 

and that application process, at least for our 

commission and several others, is a peer-reviewed or 

staff-reviewed process where information about the 

student population and the student services, as well as 

how the institution will measure educational 

effectiveness at the facility, is provided prior to 

inclusion in the institution's statement of 

accreditation status. So it's a substantial review for 

institutions to undergo to add any additional location. 

And certainly some of the conversations with Belinda 

have been about the lens that an accreditor may need to 

look at a prison education program procedurally, that 

may be different than other kinds of programs, so we 

appreciate the conversations so far and look forward to 

contributing more to the work of the subcommittee. 

MS. MACK: Thank you, Heather. 

Alright. David, I saw your hand, I didn't lose track of 
84 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

it, I know you've went up and down. Did you have any 

final question or comment for-? 

MR. TANDBERG: I don't know. I I guess 

I was a little concerned about the last consensus check, 

but I felt like it was rushed. I don't mind rushing to a 

temperature check vote, but I think a call for questions 

before a consensus check where it's a final vote would 

have been appreciated. I had questions that I before we 

had a person and asked them to commit weeks of their 

time to negotiated rulemaking when most of the topics 

are probably outside of their interest and expertise. 

It's okay, that's why I was sideways, but I think a 

pause before a consensus check is important. A call for 

questions on the vote is important. Before we take an 

actual vote, it, temperature check rush all you want. 

Consensus check? That's that's policy making. That's a 

big deal, and I think a pause would have been 

appreciated. 

MS. MACK: Well in the future, here's 

what I want to encourage you. On the one hand, we do 

want to pause and make sure that you all have an 

appropriate amount of time so you can make informed 

decisions, on the other hand we don't want to belabor 

those things, so we don't continue to talk about process 

as well. If we, myself or my colleagues included, ever 
 

85 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

call for a consensus check and you need a moment, please 

indicate so. You can all also at the same time, give us 

a thumbs down and say that you have lingering questions 

or concerns so that we can address those at those times. 

You're all empowered, though, again to ask for the pause 

or a thumbs down. It's never our intent to make any of 

you feel rushed in the process. So thanks for speaking 

to that, David. And in the future, again, please don't 

hesitate to to raise your hand for the pause or put a 

thumbs down to indicate that you need additional time or 

have questions. Aaron, I saw your hand go up. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Yes, I just wanted to 

respond to Heather's statements, I don't know if it was 

a question or did you want the Department, I responded 

to other things so I didn't want to not respond to what 

you stated. I wanted to let you know that we do have a 

on the subcommittee, we do have a technical advisor, 

Elizabeth Daggett. She is on the accreditation team for 

the Department of Education, so she is there. She was 

there two days, in fact, providing us with her expertise 

and background as education accreditation program 

reviewer. Also, I, you stated that your your accrediting 

agency does do these really robust reviews of additional 

locations. But I think the conversation, at least from 

the Department's perspective, centered around 
86 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

regulations under 602.22C where there may be certain 

circumstances or instances when there are already 

additional locations approved, where in accreditation 

may not have to, an institution may not have to actually 

go to that full review anymore. They would just have to 

report that they're adding another additional location. 

And so if if there's if there are things that that you 

can propose that we would add to reg or places for 

clarification, that would be really helpful because I 

think 602.22C was what we were really trying to make 

sure that if the institution, if the institution only 

had to report an additional location as opposed to go 

through a full review of the substantive changes, then 

they we would make sure that at least the first prison 

education program in the first two additional locations 

was reviewed by the accrediting agency. 

MS. MACK: Okay, thank you. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. 

MS. MACK: Alright, we are right at 

our lunch hour. We're going to take our one-hour lunch 

break. We will resume on some of the things that we 

promised we would get back to you on. We will try to do 

that right at lunch, right after the lunch hour, and 

then we will pick up with our next issue, which is issue 

one TPD discharge. Alright, so we're going to resume 
87 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

again right at the top of the hour and we will see you 

all then. We can go offline now. 
88 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

Appendix 

Department of Education 

Office of Postsecondary Education 

Zoom Chat Transcript 

Affordability and Student Loans Committee 

Session 2, Day 1, Morning, November 1, 2021 

DISCLAIMER: 

Note: The following is the output of transcribing from a 

recording. Although the transcription is largely accurate; 

in some cases, it is incomplete or inaccurate due to 

inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as 

an aid to understanding the proceedings at the meeting, but 

should not be treated as an authoritative record. 

From Belinda Wheeler (Vera - Consumer Advocay Groups -

Subcommittee) to Everyone: 

Should I be on camera (Subcommittee member - reporting 

out) 

From Jessica (P), Proprietary Schools to Everyone: 

My alternate, Carol, will negotiate the first two 

topics this morning. 

From Misty (P) Priv. Non-Profit to Everyone: 

Dr. Mc Tier will be acting as primary for today's 

first Issue on prison education. 

From Brady - FMCS to Everyone: 

broberts@fmcs.gov 

From Brady - FMCS to Everyone: 

https://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/ 

2021/index.html 
89 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

From Dixie (P) Dependent Students (Ella/She) to 

Everyone: 

Greg will be on for Dependent Students for the first 

topic. 

From Bobby (P) Two-Year Public Colleges to Everyone: 

Christina will sub in for two-year colleges 

From Aaron, Department of Education to Everyone: 

Would you all mind if I added something about the 

winddown after Belinda finishes? 

From Aaron, Department of Education to Everyone: 

I'm not sure if I can raise my hand 

From Daniel (P), Fin Aid Admin (he/him) to Everyone: 

I have a question on eligible locations.... 

From Christina, she/her (A), 2-year Public to Everyone: 

I have a comment on credit balance refunds 

From Jeri (P) Student Borrower (she/her) to Everyone: 

Thank you, the list would be great. 

From Aaron, Department of Education to Everyone: 

Belinda I believe we discussed this in the first 

round. You can say "If the Pell Grant is required to 

be reduced the reduction would not be counted towards 

LEU" 

From Dr. McTier (A) Priv. Non-Profit to Everyone: 

I thought we discussed this issue. 

From Dr. McTier (A) Priv. Non-Profit to Everyone: 

I would like a break down because this is a lot of 

information to absorb from Christina . 
 

 

 

90 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

From Daniel (P), Fin Aid Admin (he/him) to Everyone: 

I did ask this during the first week. I thought it 

was addressed then. 

From Jeri (P) Student Borrower (she/her) to Everyone: 

BOCES.org - Boards of Cooperative Educational Service 

- vocational education in New York. 

From Joe; P, State AGs to Everyone: 

I am interested in changes in state law that can help 

support PEPs. If Belinda, Stan or others can put any 

resources in the chat, I would appreciate it. 

From Belinda - Subcommittee - Consumer Advocay Groups 

(Vera) to Everyone: 

Yes, we will definitely forward those documents to the 

main committee. 

From Jeri (P) Student Borrower (she/her) to Everyone: 

+1 Bethany 

From Michaela [P] Ind. Student to Everyone: 

+1 

From Dixie (P) Dependent Students (Ella/She) to 

Everyone: 

+1 

From Jeri (P) Student Borrower (she/her) to Everyone: 

+1 

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/her) to Everyone: 

+1 to Michaela 

From Marjorie (P), Four Yr Publics (she/her) to 

Everyone: 
 

91 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

+1 Michaela 

From Justin Hauschild (P) Veterans and Service Members to 

Everyone: 

+1 Michaela 

From Jeri (P) Student Borrower (she/her) to Everyone: 

+1 

From Dr. McTier (A) Priv. Non-Profit to Everyone: 

Michaela we definitely felt constrained! 

From Michaela [P] Ind. Student to Everyone: 

Can someone from ed speak on if they/we can bring on 

someone to be in that space? 

From Stan (A) Ind. Students to Everyone: 

Anne L. Precythe Missouri Dept. of Corections 

https://doc.mo.gov/director/anne-precythe 

From Dr. McTier (A) Priv. Non-Profit to Everyone: 

The current member is not a collective representative 

for prisons on the sub-committee. 

From Stan (A) Ind. Students to Everyone: 

Correctional Leaders Assoc. https://www.asca.net/ 

From Michaela [P] Ind. Student to Everyone: 

That is like saying 2-year rep would satisfy 

Accrediting agencies spot... Or in lieu of DoE. 

DoC is an Agency, there should be a rep from that 

agency for these discussions 

From Dr. McTier (A) Priv. Non-Profit to Everyone: 

We’ve already tried to address adding someone to the 

sub-committee to no avail. 
92 

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21 

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/her) to Everyone: 

I heard consensus check 

From Christina, she/her (A), 2-year Public to Everyone: 

Robert Ayala will return to the table as primary 

negotiator for 2-year publics. 

From Misty (P) Priv. Non-Profit to Everyone: 

I will be returning as primary after lunch