Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

1

 

 

 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

 OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION

 AFFORDABILITY AND STUDENT LOANS COMMITTEE 

 NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING SESSION 3, DAY 3, AFTERNOON

December 8, 2021

On the 8th day of December, 2021, the

following meeting was held virtually, from 1:00 p.m.

to 4:00 p.m., before Jamie Young, Shorthand Reporter in

the state of New Jersey.
2

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

P R O C E E D I N G S

MS. MACK: Good afternoon or good 

morning, everyone, depending on where you're logging in 

from, welcome back from our lunch hour. Our plan is to 

pick up right where we left off. Prior to the lunch, we 

heard back from Belinda and Stan on behalf of the Prison

Education Program. We went through a number of questions 

and suggestions from the committee members and we were 

going to pick up right there where we left off. Aaron, 

if it's okay with you, I want to turn it over to the 

Department for some feedback or response, if you were 

able to review some of those suggestions over the lunch 

hour and share back with the committee.

MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah, in regard to 

the Clery Reporting, we are consulting internally on 

what could be possible, and we hope to have an update

within the next hour, but institutions would not be 

subject to Clery Reporting for correctional facilities 

because the facilities are not owned or controlled by 

the institution. So prisons and distance education 

prisons and distant education only additional locations 

are not campuses. And so we should have some feedback 

for you within the hour or so. And I know that Daniel 

sent language, I did not receive it, so perhaps my email 

may have been inadvertently left off of that. But if you 
3

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

could make sure to include FMCS so they can get it to 

the appropriate people, the facilitators, so they can 

get it to the appropriate people, that would be great.

MS. MACK: I did receive that, I can 

offer that to you right now, Aaron.

MR. ROBERTS: I just forwarded it 

Kayla. Don't worry about it.

MS. MACK: Thank you.

MR. ROBERTS: You should have that, 

Aaron. All the negotiators should have it.

MS. MACK: Perfect. Thank you, Daniel, 

for providing that and think you Brady for forwarding it 

on. Heather, I see your hand. Please.

DR. PERFETTI: Is it right that we are 

still at the question portion or have we moved on? I 

just wanted to check where we were with the 

subcommittee's presentation.

MS. MACK: If you have more questions, 

please let's have them.

DR. PERFETTI: Alright, great, thank 

you. So again, thank you to Belinda and Stan for 

sticking with us. So I did have a question about the 

advisory committee. I was trying to clarify if that was 

a mandatory body or an optional body within this 

framework?
4

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

MS. MACK: Belinda, did you want to 

respond to that?

MS. WHEELER: Yes, I will respond to 

that, and I just want it noted that I do want to mention 

something not related to Heather's question momentarily. 

I think the language does specifically say that, and I 

know momentarily the Department is going to kind of pull 

that document up there as well. I don't have that 

document exactly right in front of me and Stan, I see 

that your hand is up, my friend. I think it's under 

advisement that in, in every, in every possible place 

that that does happen. But I want to stop there because 

I don't have the language ahead of me in front of me and 

I know my colleague Stan has it in front of him, so I 

want to go to him. Thank you.

MS. MACK: Yeah, I'd like Stan to 

answer before we move on to your next point Belinda, 

please. Go ahead, Stan.

DR. ANDRISSE: So it is, that the 

review process is a requirement and stakeholders who are 

formerly incarcerated, there's a number of stakeholders 

that are required-- or that it states must be included 

and those relevant stakeholders are to be part of the 

feedback process that takes place. So I, I don't know if 

that...
5

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

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

Stan. Any follow up there, Heather. Did that answer your 

question?

DR. PERFETTI: I guess I'm trying to 

figure out if there if the advisory committee's 

required, it sounds like a review process is required 

and if there is a review when there is a review, it has 

to involve certain constituents. But is an advisory 

committee, the body that's required?

MS. MACK: The Department, do you have 

a response to Heather's question?

MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah, an advisory an 

advisory committee is not required. We will see when we 

go through the document that we have a definition of a 

feedback process. And as Stan stated the feedback 

process is required with participation from relevant 

stakeholders but the last sentence of the definition of 

the feedback process states that a feedback process must 

include an advisory committee.

MS. MACK: Okay. Thank you, Aaron, and 

Stan and Belinda for answering that. Belinda, please go 

ahead on your next point.

MS. WHEELER: Great, thank you very 

much. I just wanted to provide just a point of 

clarification for people listening in and then also the 
6

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

main the main committee as well with and we're really 

excited, Stan and I are very excited to continue this 

conversation with the main committee about the 

amendatory language that we do hope that the main 

committee will support us with that. Just prior to 

lunch, the mentioning of grandfathering was put in. I 

just want it noted, and as you see from the document, 

that the Department will be showing momentarily. There 

is no mentioning of grandfathering in for colleges that 

have existing waivers or things like that, so that was 

something that the subcommittee did not mention. We do 

have, you know, you do have the subcommittee's thoughts 

about waivers and the scaffolding of waivers. And I just 

wanted to mention that, you know, as the subcommittee, 

we believe strongly that any institution, whether they 

have an existing waiver or they are going to apply for 

waivers should be reviewed by the Department with this 

amendatory language in mind. Just wanted to have that 

note. Thank you very much.

MS. MACK: Thank you, Belinda. Persis, 

please go ahead.

MS. YU: Thank you, I. I wanted to 

kind of this maybe kind of a basic question, but as this 

as these regulations go into place and there are 

programs that are not yet programs like how does that 
7

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

work, how does this process happen? Can you kind of like 

walk us through like what would a program, a school, an 

education program look do and what would that look like 

for us? Because I think that would be really helpful for 

me.

MS. MACK: I saw several hands go up, 

so Stan, why don't you go ahead and then Belinda, I have 

you in the queue.

MR. WASHINGTON: Kayla, before, I'm 

sorry, I'm sorry. Is there a way for, if can ask Steve 

to clarify the grandfathering piece. I think before we 

before we hop to the entire process for how to start up 

a Prison Education Program.

MS. MACK: Sure, I'm amenable to that. 

Steve, please introduce yourself and go ahead.

MR. FINLEY: Sure, I'm Steve Finley. 

I'm in the General Counsel's Office at Education, and 

I've been working to support Aaron's work with the 

subcommittee. Yeah, I think there was just some 

confusion earlier because, as Stan noted correctly, 

there are a lot of existing programs providing 

instruction to incarcerated students, and those programs 

may or may not participate in the federal student aid 

programs. So any of those programs that were not in the 

federal student aid programs that come in to apply to 
8

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

participate in the federal student aid programs under 

these new regulations would have to qualify for waivers 

and they would be viewed as new programs. The list the 

Department had provided was for existing Title IV 

participating institutions that are already offering 

programs to incarcerated students, and they have been 

approved for waivers. That was the clarification.

MS. MACK: Thank you for that, Steve. 

Alright, back to Persis's question, Stan, I'll turn it 

over to you and then Belinda.

DR. ANDRISSE: Yeah, so just a quick 

point just to note that we this was a point of 

conversation, you know, we had a good amount of 

conversation about how these programs would come into 

origin, specifically those that are not existing. And 

there was mention of that taking place in a number of 

different ways. But it was mentioned I know David from 

federal student Aid, I don't know if he's on this call, 

but mentioned that the federal student aid office, you 

know, as the director, they were putting forth efforts 

to put out dear colleague notices and just had plans on 

different ways of communicating to institutions that 

this is available and how to access it. And that may 

include, you know, people and organizations outside of 

the federal student the federal student aid recruiting 
9

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

communities, you know, this this community to help in 

pushing forth those efforts. But the way that 

essentially it is, I mean, when you think of the nuts 

and bolts of how it would happen, a university or a 

person at a university or institution, place of higher 

education would need to have the interest. And if they 

have the interest put together the pieces that are 

required and then bring it to the Department of 

Corrections and essentially get the, you know, okay from 

the oversight entity and those relevant stakeholders. 

And then it would be brought to the Department of ED in 

terms of whether it satisfies those requirements. But, I 

mean, in the reverse of Department of a Department of 

Corrections could also approach a place of higher 

education and say, we are interested, would you be 

interested? Let's work together to put this together.

MS. MACK: Thank you, Stan, I want to 

welcome Emily to the table from the constituency group 

of U.S. military service members, veterans or groups 

representing them and then Belinda, I'd like to invite 

you to speak to Persis's question as well.

MS. WHEELER: Yeah. Excellent. Thank 

you very much. Thank you Stan for your great comments, 

that was wonderful and thanks Persis for your excellent 

question. I think that's one thing that, you know, as a 
10

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

subcommittee member, and then also, you know, someone 

who was a former prison education director and, you 

know, also someone working at Vera that I think we're 

all really excited about is these conversations coming 

together. And I think that's one of the great benefits, 

you know, of the Department of ED having those 

experimental sites, you know, for the first round, the 

second round and the third round will be announced 

shortly. So I think it's really good that we, you know, 

not only do we have this document with the amendatory 

language, which I think provides a good kind of 

potential roadmap for corrections, you know, and 

educational institutions to kind of again, make sure 

that they're putting these best interests of students in 

mind. But I think also this community that we have, you 

know, both of educational institutions, third parties 

and corrections who have already been doing a lot of 

work in this space so that if there is, for example, a 

new educational entity or a new corrections site that 

really wants to provide, you know, programing for 

students, I think that they have a really good number of 

different community groups, stakeholders that they can 

reach out to. In addition to this language that, you 

know, Stan has already talked about and the amendatory 

language as well. So I think we feel really confident 
11

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

and very excited, quite frankly, you know, to kind of 

make sure that, you know, those great actors who are

already in this space are, you know, continuing to do 

their great work while also kind of educating some of 

these other, you know, entities that may want to, you 

know, be a part of this great Pell expansion. So I'll 

kind of stop there, but let me know if you have any 

other kind of follow up questions.

MS. MACK: Persis follow up.

MS. YU: This is just kind of in the 

best interest of the students, and, you know, I know 

that you guys had concerns about that before and whether 

or not, you know, kind of the way that the advisory 

committee, whether or not that allays concerns that you 

guys previously raised. The other question that I have 

just about the best interest is how recidivism is 

treated differently and whether or not you can speak to 

why that is and your feelings about that as a 

subcommittee.

MS. MACK: Stan, Belinda, I welcome 

you both to respond.

DR. ANDRISSE: Belinda, would you like 

to go first? Or?

MS. WHEELER: Sure, sure, I can jump 

in and then you feel free to tag along Stan, this is 
12

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

great. Yeah, you're right, Persis. I think that as we 

were looking at a lot of those guardrails under the best 

interests of students, that was an area where the 

subcommittee really did spend a lot of time talking 

about it. And it was so great to have the experts in the 

room for that because, you know, if you go on to the 

Department's neg reg page, you'll see all those 

different versions of this document version one three 

through version five and you'll see that you know what 

became version five is very different in a lot of good 

ways because of that brain trust of the subcommittee. 

So, yes, I think I think we feel very comfortable again, 

like we mentioned at the first PowerPoint with the seven 

slides, you know, while we mightn't have gotten like 

everything that we wanted, you know, as happens, you 

know, with this kind of process, we do feel very, very 

comfortable with those guardrails in place and 

specifically with regards to the recidivism. You know, 

we really appreciated how the Department listened to us, 

you know, and kind of helping us put the recidivism as a 

may for some entities as a group, you know, corrections, 

third parties and in educational institution. It might 

be that that recidivism rate really is something that 

they want to kind of, you know, shout from the hills 

because it's such a great number and they really think 
13

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

that they've done a good job in making sure that that 

gets known about the big win with regards to recidivism. 

But we also noted that for a lot of Prison Education 

Programs, recidivism rates aren't usually something, as 

a former educator, you know, isn't usually something 

that we really think about when it comes to quality. So 

I think the subcommittee has been really great-- has 

been very pleased to hear the Department, you know, 

listen to us and that it has been placed in that may 

section so that, you know, as educational institutions 

and other entities are in this space, that they can kind 

of determine, you know, hey, is this really something 

that we want to track or things of that nature. So, 

thank you. Stan. I don't know if you want to add in my 

friend?

DR. ANDRISSE: I think you hit all the 

points that I would hit.

MS. YU: Thank you, that was very 

helpful.

MS. MACK: Alright, thank you. 

Heather, please go ahead.

DR. PERFETTI: Thank you. And I saw 

Anne's hand went up, so if I could defer to her first 

and then circle back for my comment.

MS. MACK: Sure. Anne, go ahead.
14

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

MS. PRECYTHE: Thank you. Persis I 

think that's a great question about the recidivism 

because I can tell you, as correctional leaders, we 

struggle with that measure in and of itself for us. And 

recidivism across the country means different things new 

arrests, new conviction, new incarceration. And so I 

appreciate the Department's flexibility in moving that 

to a may because it's not always the best indicator. We 

measure ourselves on failure rather than success. And 

even as a whole, the corrections community is really 

making it. What are better ways to define success? And I 

think completion of courses as well as higher education 

is certainly something that we should start looking at 

from our perspective. So I really appreciate the 

Department's willingness to move that to a may and not 

making it part of the best interest determination 

because it's really not a clear factor in this 

particular situation.

MS. MACK: Thank you, Anne. Heather, 

now, please go ahead.

DR. PERFETTI: Thank you. So I did 

have a question circling back to completion rates, and 

maybe Anne can speak a little bit to this. It appears 

that the Department of Corrections becomes the entity 

responsible for indicators versus the institution 
15

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

providing the program, and so are their concerns about 

different facilities considering and setting those 

indicators. I understand that there has to be input from 

stakeholders, but the advisory committee is not 

mandatory. And would there be the potential to revert to 

what is in the statutory language for simplicity or 

other reasons?

MS. MACK: I welcome responses from 

you Anne, Stan, and Belinda. And Stan, I saw your hand 

go up, did you want to speak to that first?

DR. ANDRISSE: Sure. Thank you for 

that question. And that was certainly something that was 

of great concern and discussed for a good bit of time in 

the subcommittee. And you know, and Anne maybe you can 

speak to this a little more, but we feel that the 

addition of there are certain relevant stakeholders that 

must be a part of the conversation and we feel that it 

in that way, the Department of Corrections and BOP 

Bureau of Prisons don't have to solely rely on 

themselves. They can lean on those relevant stakeholders 

to help determine what is most appropriate and also give 

that flexibility for determining what may be most 

appropriate by state, by Department of Correction. So 

that was our thinking on there and having those, you 

know, several different things play a role in terms of 
16

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

having the flexibility of what the actual best interests 

might be and then also having the flexibility or having 

that relevant stakeholder piece be a part of it.

MS. MACK: Thank you, Stan. Did anyone 

else want to speak on that point?

DR. TANDBERG: I did. Anne, go ahead.

MS. MACK: I'll come back to you, 

David. Please go ahead, Anne.

MS. PRECYTHE: Thank you. So I think 

that's a really great question and something I'd let me 

know, Heather, is that most corrections agencies across 

the country already have measures in place for how we 

evaluate the education programs that are currently in 

our systems. I think the one question that I would have 

when it comes to the best determination is making sure 

that the language is clearly stated that it's on the 

Prison Education Program that's required to gather that 

data and provide the information to the Department of 

Corrections so that collectively, with members from the 

advisory committee or the relevant stakeholders, we can 

make those decisions. Corrections leaders today, we're 

working very hard to be much more transparent than years 

past, and we know that we can't do all of this work 

ourselves. So we are dependent on other people to help 

us give us input and help us make some of the best 
17

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

decisions possible. So I just wanted to respond somewhat 

to your question.

MS. MACK: Thank you, I appreciate 

that, Anne. Daniel, if you're moving to another point, 

I'm inclined to have David comment on this one and then 

we'll move on. Okay, thank you. David, go ahead.

DR. TANDBERG: Okay, thank you. Yeah, 

I, you know, I kind of share Heather's question. It's I 

think as educators we're, you know, it's not that often 

that non education entities are establishing the outcome 

measures for an education entity. And I wonder if we 

might amend the language so that the education provider 

and the incarceration systems come up with the outcomes 

together. I think it would be unfortunate if the 

expertise of the education provider weren't utilized in 

establishing the outcomes. And then to add language 

around the education provider providing the data for the 

outcomes assessment themselves. I think a lot of the 

colleges and universities and education providers would 

love to have a formal, not just advisory role in 

establishing those outcome measures.

MS. MACK: Thank you, David. Aaron and 

Stan, I saw both of your hands go up. Aaron, did you 

want to respond or comment on this point?

MR. WASHINGTON: I'll let the 
18

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

subcommittee take it.

MS. MACK: Stan, go ahead, please.

DR. ANDRISSE: So I was just going to 

add to the first part. So, so thank you again for that 

question. Part of the relevant stakeholders are higher 

education executive offices as well as accrediting 

agencies as part of the must, you know, relevant 

stakeholders who are a must. And to, you know, to your 

point, I think maybe Aaron, to your second point of 

having higher education be the decider, if I heard 

correctly? Or?

DR. TANDBERG: I said that the 

corrections organizations and the higher ED providers 

collaboratively, that they come up with it together.

DR. ANDRISSE: So I believe that we 

have with the relevant stakeholders, that's what we 

intend in the language.

MR. WASHINGTON: If I could just add 

to what Stan had said. The statute specifically states 

that, it states that, you know, that it has been 

determined by the Bureau of the State Department's to be 

operating in the best interests. And so the statute 

clearly defines who makes the specific decision and as 

Stan mentioned, there is a requirement to reach out to 

relevant stakeholders. And there's no requirement and it 
19

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

actually says that it says they stakeholders must 

include what Stan just went over and may include 

additional stakeholders as determined by the oversight 

entity so they can reach out to even more people beyond 

what we've what we've listed in the proposed regulation. 

But the statute does clearly give the authority of the

BOP DOC to make the determination on whether a program 

is operating in the best interests of students.

MS. MACK: Thank you for that 

clarification. Anne, did you have a comment on this 

piece as well? I promise I'm getting to you Daniel.

MS. PRECYTHE: I'll just say very 

briefly. David, I think you make a great point, and I 

can tell you that correctional leaders are very 

dependent on our partners in our states. So there should 

be collaboration happening between the education people 

within the Department of Corrections and the Higher ED 

department within the States. But I think it's a great 

point and again, something I can take back to my 

colleagues when we present on the outcome of this in the 

early part of twenty two. So great point.

MS. MACK: Thank you, Anne. Daniel, 

the floor is yours.

MR. BARKOWITZ: Thank you. And that 

was, I'm absolutely fine, I exceeded my time before, so 
20

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

no worries at all, Kayla. Question for you again on 

location considerations. So the other piece that 

notwithstanding my earlier comments, the other piece I'm 

sort of wrestling with is the requirement for two 

additional locations the first two to be approved as 

opposed to each individual program. So going back to 

Persis's comment of what's the mechanic? So the mechanic 

is the Department of Corrections and the creditor would 

approve your location and your program, you would then 

submit the program for approval by the Department of 

Education that would be at your first location if I'm an 

institution. Any additional programs at that location 

would not be subject to preliminary approval. But once I 

get to a second location, I would have to again go 

through this pre-approval process before I could offer 

aid in that second location. If I move to a third 

location, no pre-approval is required as I understand 

the read, and no pre-approval is required for additional 

programs at the first location. This is different than 

any other type of program offered. Every other type of 

program, the location unless your institution that 

requires your pre-approval before you can fund, it's the 

first time you do something that requires that approval. 

And so I'm just I'm questioning and wondering what the 

logic is behind the second additional location being 
21

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

pre-approved before funding. Given that there's a triad 

here that is reviewing this right, it's the institution, 

the Bureau of Corrections and the accredited. You can't 

move forward without all of that approval. So what's the 

rationale for holding this these programs to a higher 

standard for pre-approval than any other programs in the 

portfolio?

MS. MACK: Anne the Belinda, I see 

both of your hands. Do you ladies want to speak to this 

question? Belinda, go ahead.

MS. WHEELER: I saw Anne's response. 

Yes, thank you very much for that question, Daniel. 

Speaking with, you know, for the subcommittee here, I 

think a lot of the it was clear that there was always 

going to be some kind of review process for these 

additional locations, including what I mentioned earlier 

before lunch about the fact that currently, you know, 

there is this 50% kind of, you know, if your program 

hasn't yet met the 50% with most accreditation agencies 

around the country, an educational institution is not 

necessarily being tasked with making sure that they, you 

know, start this process as soon as possible. And I 

think we've seen both with particularly with Second 

Chance Pell organizations like I'd mentioned situations 

where, again, you know, a program might be in this space 
22

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

for a number of years, and they've never actually had to 

reveal to their accreditation agency that they're in 

this space yet because again, they haven't gotten close 

to that 50%. So I think it's very it's definitely 

warranted that at least that first one definitely gets 

done in a timely fashion. We're seeing with a lot of 

different Prison Education Programs around the country 

that it's two phases, really. There's some current 

Prison Education Programs that they're staying within 

that one carceral space so that, you know, for them, 

they're like, yeah, this is no problem because we're not

expanding. There's another group, though, that usually 

it's either the one or two and then there's those that 

are the 10 or 15. And I think it's really important 

that, you know, for example, if an institution happens 

to be in state X and they decide that within their state 

X, they are going to offer a Prison Education Program 

that is in within like a 50 mile radius or something 

like that, something that's kind of very close to home. 

But then, for example, if they decide to then go to 

another state or, you know, the way that we know how 

corrections works and the geographic placement of a lot 

of these correctional sites, whether they be in really 

rural locations, it's quite rare to really have a whole 

bunch of correctional facilities right next to each 
23

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

other. They usually, you know, you have one in this 

location and then it tends to be quite a ways different, 

you know, from that. So, you know, for a traditional, 

you know, you know, like my former program, we were 

driving to that particular space, but had my former 

institution decided to go way across the state or then 

go to another state, this idea of that first site visit 

that was like close to home and, you know, all those 

resources were right there. You know, usually that 

second type of space ends up being there's a lot of 

other variables that kind of come into play, you know, 

like whether or not teachers, you know, then have to 

drive certain amounts of hours or if it is, you know, a 

tablet based system, you know what other supports wrap 

around services and things of that nature. So I think 

the subcommittee's reasoning was this, you know, that it 

really should be two for each modality moving forward so 

that again, if an educational institution is serving in 

a carceral that's close to home, yes, their 

accreditation agency takes a look at them and kind of 

sees, but in the likelihood that they then choose to 

expand that likelihood is that it won't be right next 

door to that to that traditional space, and that there's 

other kind of things that will likely come into play. So 

I think this is a good guardrail that you know, really 
24

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

again provides, makes sure that that quality really is 

available to, you know, to students. So let me stop 

there and let me know if you have any follow up 

questions, Daniel.

MR. BARKOWITZ: I do and want to hear 

from Heather on this too. But you know, my understanding 

is again, this wouldn't be able to be approved unless 

the creditor approves. So, so the Department approval, 

yet another blanket on top of what would be required 

before one can move traditional location. So just and I 

want to explain the reason for the concern about the 

burden to make sure everyone's clear. So I'm an 

institution that changes programs all the time, and it's 

part of the virtue of being workforce driven. So we're 

submitting, I'm regularly submitting updates to my, my, 

Ecard, my agreement, my PPA. And just to be clear, when 

it moves quickly, that is a 6-9 month approval process 

from the date that I submit that application before a 

response is received from the department. I have good, I 

have complete faith and understanding about the burden 

on the Department's side. This is not a slight to the 

Department but more recognition that this is not a 

timely process. So by adding this burden, we're adding 

actually a substantial delay to the approval of the 

program, which has already been approved in this 
25

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

condition by the Department of Correction and by the 

creditor, so I can firmly understand the first time an 

institution offers one. But my question is about the 

subsequent second location. And just another response 

Belinda I'm thinking about in Florida, the institution 

that I know who was in the pilot program was serving an 

institution a carceral institution that was state 

oriented that was right next door to a federal facility. 

So under that definition, it's a community college that 

would in fact be serving two additional locations should 

they choose to offer both of those side by side. I 

wonder how frequent it is for state and federal 

locations to be more or less co-located. And again, 

that's now two location. So I just I think the second 

location adds a burden that we just need to be careful 

to think through. And Heather maybe you have a response 

to my accreditor question?

MS. MACK: Go ahead, Heather.

DR. PERFETTI: Thank you, Kayla, thank 

you, Daniel. Well, I think that from our perspective, we 

share concerns that their regulatory actions could 

reduce opportunities for the very students that we're 

trying to benefit. And so I know Belinda and I have had 

opportunities to talk about our current processes for 

approving additional locations and for us, perhaps not 
26

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

for all accreditors, institutions do report to us also 

what we call other instructional sites. And so 

institutions that are delivering one or two courses in a 

prison location are reporting that to us, although that 

may not be broadly across all accreditors. So there 

could be some other ways and options to address some of 

the concerns. It's one of the reasons Daniel that I was 

asking what's the purpose of the visit? Because I think 

if we work backwards from the goal is quality and how 

does that visit how does that second application assure 

quality? That's where I launched my initial question. If 

all of these practices lend to heightened quality, then 

I think I can certainly understand why we're moving away 

from existing practices and protocols for other programs 

that are offered at other kinds of locations. But this 

is very different specifically for a prison site. And so 

I just wanted to be clear, and I appreciate Daniel you 

circling back to that. I did have another question as 

well, which relates to this best interest of the student 

category and the oversight entity, which is the 

Department of Corrections or Bureau of Prisons seemingly 

being the sole determiner of whether that program is 

operating in the best interest of students. And I 

understand there are stakeholders involved, but I'm 

curious as to what happens, again, practically an 
27

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

implementation for implementation purposes, what happens 

when that finding is reported by the facility?

MS. MACK: Does anyone want to speak 

to that question? Aaron, I know your hand was up to for 

maybe a previous point.

MR. WASHINGTON: Heather, can you 

repeat that question? There's a lot of questions coming 

in and it's hard to. Can you repeat that question, 

please?

DR. PERFETTI: I looking at page 11 

and I know we're going to walk through the language.

MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah, we're going to 

walk through the language, and I think we're because of 

the comments are specifically about language, and I 

think folks are starting to provide specific 

recommendations. I don't know if Daniel's was a 

recommendation to go to one, but it sounded like it was. 

So I kind of I definitely wanted to pause on that 

because we're going to walk through the document anyway.

So I wanted to wait to provide specific language changes 

until we until we did that. I also don't want to curtail 

any conversation that we're having here in general 

questions that you have about the regulatory package, 

but.

DR. PERFETTI: Aaron, I'm fine with 
28

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

waiting for when the Department walks through the 

language. I did have a sort of a procedural question. 

Does Belinda stay with the full committee as we do that 

or is that left to the others? I'm trying to get 

procedurally would she still be here if we had questions 

about the work of the subcommittee or is she not part of 

that walkthrough of the language?

MS. MACK: Is the Department and the 

committee at large comfortable with Belinda staying to 

answer questions about the subcommittee's work, knowing 

that Belinda will not be participating in the consensus 

check because the decision making is reserved for the 

committee? Any questions or concerns about that? Okay, 

great. I'm not seeing any objections to that, so I hope 

that addresses your question, Heather. Aaron, I'm 

inclined to have Vanessa project the document because 

that might be helpful as we go through remainder of 

questions. Persis did you have a question before we do 

that?

MS. YU: I just wanted to speak to the 

number of review processes points. And you know, from 

our perspective, we know that there is a wide array of 

quality between accreditors and some of the problems 

that have come up in the Borrower Defense context are 

related to, you know, some of the accreditors kind of 
29

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

rubber stamping programs. And so I think that I'm 

convinced by Belinda and the subcommittee's 

recommendation that a second review process would be

beneficial to ensure that we have the proper guardrails 

for these programs to have, you know, the best possible 

programs for students.

MS. MACK: Heather, do you have a 

comment on that?

DR. PERFETTI: I don't have a comment 

on that, but I would like to caucus with several groups 

at this point.

MS. MACK: Would you like to caucus 

before we review the language together?

DR. PERFETTI: Yes, because I think it 

will help as we go through the language.

MS. MACK: Stan, I see your hand.

MR. WASHINGTON: If that being the 

case, could I just make a comment to Heather to your 

point? So to your point of and I know we're going to go 

through the language, so I'll try to make it really 

quick on page 11, I believe you're referring to, A, 

which says that oversight entities determination that a 

prison education. So but if you scroll to page 12 B, 

states that the oversight entity makes the best 

interests determination through the feedback process 
30

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

that does include the relevant stakeholders. So I mean, 

I think, you know, it does have the language in there 

that process should include stakeholders, and we've had, 

you know, Anne as representing correctional leaders, you 

mentioned how the many correctional leaders lean on that 

type of support and making those decisions.

MS. MACK: Okay, we are now going to 

take a caucus. I'm going to ask that we go off live and 

then Heather I'll have you announce who will be joining 

the caucus so that we can sort that out with the 

technology? Alright, welcome back, committee members 

hope that was a productive caucus time, we're now back 

at the main table and going to pick up with our Prison 

Education Program discussion. I think at this time we'd 

like to invite the Department to bring up the language 

that the subcommittee is recommending to the committee 

and that we want to walk through for any points of 

clarification and ultimately, this language will be 

subject to a consensus check. So, Vanessa, if I could 

invite you to share the document, that would be very 

helpful. Aaron, please go ahead.

MR. WASHINGTON: And I did have a 

question for Daniel.

MS. MACK: Okay.

MR. WASHINGTON: Is Daniel, because I 
31

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

say they're on record with what's our policy on Clery 

Reporting. Would you be comfortable with the Department 

outlining that in subregulatory guidance?

MR. BARKOWITZ: I trust you and love 

you, Aaron, and I say that meaningfully. I just have 

concerns about ongoing pieces, so I would be more 

comfortable, I mean, I'd appreciate it, but I'd be more 

comfortable if that was specifically in the statute or 

the regulation in some way. So, I mean, I have faith in 

this administration and your institutional perspective, 

but the institutional knowledge and longevity questions 

a risk.

MS. MACK: Okay. Thanks for that, 

Aaron and Daniel. Are we ready to share the document the 

Department and walk through that?

MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah, yeah, I guess 

it's up to Vanessa.

MS. MACK: Alright, thank you, 

Vanessa.

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay, so it's about 

13 pages, and I guess what I can do, Kayla, is walk 

through the document and then we go for the consensus 

check, right?

MS. MACK: Yeah, let's walk through 

the documents. I know that we're waiting to hear from 
32

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

the Department on feedback on one piece. I think 

addressing Daniel's issue, if there's any other feedback 

from the Department on that. And when we have all that, 

I would love to move the committee to a consensus check 

on this particular issue.

MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah, I think the 

feedback at currently prior a consensus check would be 

including language about Clery in subregulatory 

guidance, as opposed to including in the regulations 

right now for the purposes of walking through this 

document and the consensus check, it would be 

subregulatory guidance.

MS. MACK: I appreciate that 

clarification, Aaron.

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. So we start 

with 600.2. Those are the definitions that we talked 

about the addition of location definition. And we're 

just trying to be clear here that these forms of 

correctional facilities, if a Prison Education Program 

is offered there, then they would be considered 

additional locations that have to be reported to the 

Department as such, even if they are through distance 

education or correspondence education. We can move down 

a little bit, Vanessa. I talk very fast, so if anybody, 

if I start talking way too fast, just raise your hand, 
33

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

Kayla will say Aaron, slow down. This definition is 

there was a definition of incarcerated student already 

in the regulations, and what we've done is we've just 

updated it to reflect how it's outlined in statute. 

We've also added there was a recommendation from a 

subcommittee member to add individuals that are not 

confined or incarcerated as being an individual subject 

who are serving involuntary civil commitment. So that 

would mean that an individual that was subject to or 

serving an involuntary civil commitment would be 

eligible to enroll in any eligible program, not just a 

Prison Education Program. So 600.7, if you scroll down a 

little bit, Vanessa. Here this is we talked to the 

pretty extensively about this this morning. This is 

about the 25% wage. So in the statute, it's the statute 

outlines in section 102 that institutions can't exceed 

more than 20% enrollment of incarcerated students or 

they wouldn't be considered an eligible institution. 

Vanessa, if you can scroll down a little bit. There was 

already a, to the red line, Thank you, Vanessa. There 

was already a process in regulation, but the department 

has sought through this regulation to clarify that you 

know that the Secretary will waive this prohibition as 

long as long as the institution maintains that 50% 

completion rate for programs that are less than two 
34

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

years, so that any program that that is not a two or 

four year program. Secretary also doesn't grant the 

waiver if the institution is not administratively 

capable or financially responsible financially 

responsible, or if they aren't compliant with the 

requirements under subpart P, subpart P being the prison 

education umbrella subpart. If you can scroll down a 

little bit, Vanessa. So we changed here, we've changed, 

we've added the Secretary may grant the waiver because 

prior to prior to the proposal for two and four year 

programs, the waivers were essentially automatic as long 

as they fulfill the requirements of the regulation. But 

now, because we have a more a more defined review 

process and regulation, we're giving the Secretary the 

discretion to not approve the waiver. Scroll down a 

little bit. So this is the piece that a subcommittee 

member recommended that we provide a scaffolding 

approach. Belinda discussed this this morning. It's 

about once the waiver is granted succeeds 25% the 

requirements around which institutions go to 50% and 

subsequently 75% of the institutions regularly enroll 

students as incarcerated. Scroll down a little bit, 

Vanessa, you can stop there. This section describes the 

process for the Secretary, either limiting or 

terminating the waiver, if we found if we find they no 
35

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

longer meet the conditions that I described above, like 

the institution becomes financially irresponsible or no 

longer is administratively capable. And there is a 

process to which we allow for a process for the 

institution to demonstrate that they have met the 

requirements. But if they don't meet the requirements, 

they can no longer enroll any additional students. And 

also they have to reduce enrollments to no more than 25% 

of regular enrolled students no more than regular 

students that are incarcerated. So you'll see, you'll 

see throughout this document that there are some 

highlighted areas, and just so the document that we sent 

you all on November 30th. There were a few technical 

errors in the document, so anything that's in highlight 

it is different than what you received on November 30th. 

It's what you received from Kayla this morning, but 

nothing substantive has changed. This is, it was just a 

technical update to reflect how the regulation will 

actually look if there is consensus, if there's 

consensus reached today. And so this section is just 

saying that you have that how institutions are the 

requirements around seeking approval. So if you could 

scroll down a little bit, Vanessa, in regulation right 

now there is the direct assessment language So I just 

had to add that back. And the redline language is the 
36

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

first Prison Education Program at the first two 

additional locations. And I know there was a lot of 

discussion about that, I'm sure, during the caucus as 

well. So that's the requirement for approval. They'd 

have to apply to the Secretary for the first Prison 

Education Program at the first two of these locations. 

You could scroll down Vanessa. So that this yellow is 

also this is a technical correction that the department 

is currently working to re put into the code of Federal 

Regulations. That was just a requirement that short term 

programs be approved by the Secretary. That is not up 

for negotiation. That is just that's just a technical 

amendment that one day will be put back into the code of 

Federal Regulations. So the next section is updating 

application information. And this is just to say that 

after the establishment addition of the of the first 

Prison Education Program at the first two different 

locations, an institution will still be required to 

report all subsequent Prison Education Programs to the 

Secretary. And there's like an attenuated or shortened 

application process, but we'll see that momentarily. 

Let's see. So this is the 668.8 is where we define 

eligible programs. So this is a technical update. We've 

just added that Prison Education Program is an eligible 

Prison Education Program, is eligible for Title IV aid 
37

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

under subpart P so that's just a technical amendment. 

668.32 student eligibility. Vanessa, you can scroll down 

to the redline. This also is a technical amendment, so

we were just so currently in regulation that says not 

incarcerated in a federal or state penal institution, 

and we have to update that due to the changes in the 

statute and to note that confined or incarcerated 

students are eligible if they enroll in an eligible 

Prison Education Program. Scroll down a little bit, 

Vanessa. So this was our disclosure requirement. So a 

Prison Education Program is required to meet educational 

requirements and within the state that they're located 

or if it's a federal institution in the state that most 

students are likely to return to upon release. And so 

here we're saying that the institution would be required 

to provide information regarding whether the the

education is meant to lead to--- typically involve the 

state or federal prohibition of a formerly incarcerated 

student in any other state, in which the institution has 

made a determination about state prohibitions on 

licensure or certification. And the reason is, any other 

state is because, again, they have to meet those 

requirements licensure, employment and educational 

requirements within the state that is located in or the 

state that most students are likely to return to. So now 
38

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

we're moving into subpart P, the scope and purpose was 

just the general definition most of our subparts start 

with a not a definition, but a general summary of what 

what's to come, what the reader has in store for them. 

The definition section, as we mentioned earlier, Stan 

discussed that we added, you know, a definition for an 

advisory committee. This is an optional advisory 

committee that can be established to by the oversight 

entity the Bureau of Prisons or State Department of 

Corrections. The feedback process, which is a 

requirement, is developed by the BOP DOC. I'm going to 

say Bureau of Prisons Department of Corrections. I'll 

just say BOP DOC for the going from here on. That so 

that they're required to develop a non-binding process 

and include relevant stakeholders. And that feedback 

process may include an advisory committee. We've also 

provided a definition of oversight entity, and the 

reason we did that is because the statute is the statute 

says that long definition right there, the appropriate 

State Department of Corrections, et cetera. And so 

instead of repeating that to the regulation, we thought 

that it would be beneficial to shorten it, to say 

oversight entities throughout subpart P. And then we 

have the relevant stakeholder definition in which Stan 

talked about as well, having to include accrediting 
39

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

agencies, SHEEOs, formerly incarcerated and 

representatives of organizations representing them. And 

also, there could be more individuals as determined by 

the oversight entity. So here we get into the definition 

of what a Prison Education Program is. A lot of this was 

taken directly from statutes, so A, is from statute. The 

statute says sections 101 and 102 of Higher Education 

Act. But you know, here we had to updated to reflect 

what the regulatory citation. So B, is taken directly 

from statute. Let's see. C is we're proposing to provide 

a two year initial approval period before the BOP DOC 

still has to approve the program to operate in the 

correctional facility. But we are going to provide them 

a two year start up in order to collect the data in 

order to be able to make those best interest best 

interest determinations as defined by the as outlined in 

the indicators. We'll get to in section 668.241. The 

transferability of credit is directly from statute. E is 

also the that essentially that has to the any, credits 

aren't in the program have to be able to be transferred 

to at least one institution of higher education in the 

state. And there are a lot of that clause of like or for 

federal institutions or the state that most individuals 

are most likely to return to for federal correctional 

facilities. E is taken essentially from the statute as 
40

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

well. We've added final accrediting action. And that's 

because you'll see an F, so, so essentially, E is just 

saying if there's any negative or adverse actions by the 

Department of Education, the accrediting agency or the 

state, then the postsecondary institution cannot offer a 

Prison Education Program. But the reason that we added 

final accrediting action is because an F, we say that if 

the institution is subject to an initiated adverse 

action, then they could not begin if they wanted to 

start if they wanted to initiate a Prison Education 

Program, they could not begin a prison program until 

that adverse action was rescinded or if they already 

offer Prison Education Programs than they would have to 

submit a teach out plan. Let's see. G, G, was taken 

directly from statute as well. And H, the H, the 

paragraph H was taken directly from statute. However, 

the Department has expanded their. Vanessa, if you could 

scroll down just a little bit more to have one, two and 

three. One and two is fine for now. So essentially, what 

we're saying here is that in the case of institution, in 

case of a state or local correctional facility, you 

know, any institution cannot the institute postsecondary 

institution cannot enroll a student in the Prison 

Education Program if there's any federal or state law in 

which the correctional facility is located that bans, 
41

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

bars, or that prohibits licensure employment based on 

any criminal conviction, any specific types of criminal 

convictions. We've got a lot of discussion about this 

during the subcommittee and the second clause is about 

federal institutions. And if you scroll down to number 

three, Vanessa. Because we got a lot of discussion about 

this and the subcommittee about, you know, institutions 

not being able to enroll students if there is a state or 

federal law that would prohibit them or ban them from 

obtaining licensure employment. We wanted to clarify and 

we have stated on the record, but we wanted to clarify

in regulation that this prohibition does not include 

local laws, screening requirements, good moral character 

or similar provisions, or federal or state laws that 

have been repealed, or even if the repeal hasn't taken 

effect yet. And I can expand on that more later. But 

just for the sake of getting through this documents, 

I'll just keep going. But I don't want to say that this 

piece is not very important. I was just holding on 

talking more about it in the case, we get more 

questions. The accrediting piece So, here we're saying 

that the first Prison Education Program of the first two 

additional locations has to be reviewed and evaluated by 

the accrediting by the institution's accrediting agency. 

And then paragraph two is saying if the program is 
42

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

offered by a new method of delivery, they would have the 

accrediting agency would also have to evaluate that 

program. So if you have, let's say, if you have to have 

a, you know, institute, like if you're offering a Prison 

Education Program at a correctional facility and that's 

been reviewed by the accrediting agency, then you want 

to expand it to a subsequent, oh in person, if you're 

offering in person, you want to expand it to another one 

in person, those who have to be evaluated, but after 

that, they don't have to be evaluated, right. But let's 

say you want to offer another program at another 

additional location through a different method of 

delivery like distance education that would have to be 

evaluated by the accreditor. And that's just to ensure 

that, you know, it's not well, we have an in person 

program and that's been approved, and now we can kind of 

like change that over to distance and rapidly expand our 

programing. So three is, performed a site visit, we 

talked a little bit about that this morning, so within 

one year, and that would be for the first person 

education program or the first two additional locations. 

And then the accreditor would also be required to review 

and approve the methodology for how the oversight entity 

made the determination. And those five through seven 

are-- those were the teacher credentials that was about 
43

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

the transferability of credit and the academic 

counseling. So you have to you'd have to review the 

methodology behind how the BOP DOC determined that the 

same or similar program offerings were offered to those 

confined or incarcerated individuals, as offered to 

individuals that are not enrolled in the institution 

that are not confined or incarcerated. If we can go down 

to application requirements, Vanessa. So here we're just 

outlining what the application requirements are, so you 

can scroll down just a little bit. So we have one so 

essentially, you know, a description of the educational 

program documentation from the institutions accrediting 

agency or state approval agency, the name of the 

correctional facility. I'm not reading this whole thing, 

but I think that you probably wouldn't want me to as 

well. We would like documentation, this is the 

application to the Department. We'd like documentation 

detailing the methodology, including thresholds and 

benchmarks. I think once we get to section 241, you'll 

see, you know, I think we've talked about it a little 

bit as well the Bureau of Prisons Department of 

Corrections will, the oversight authority will be 

setting a lot of these standards. A lot of these, will 

set standards. So the Department will want to see how 

they came to these determinations, that the programs are 
44

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

operating in the best interest of students. Information 

about reentry services and other orientation and 

tutoring that's offered. And also we requiring them to 

affirmatively acknowledge that the Secretary to limit or 

terminate approval of the Prison Education Program and 

also affirmative agreement to submit the report to the 

Secretary. There's an annual report is outlined in 

statute, we'll see that momentarily how the Department 

has proposed to do that. And the documentation that, oh, 

this one is, this one is about in order to provide the 

BOP, well the oversight entity with some of the 

information, for instance, information on enrollment 

post release, information on earnings or information on 

completion, the Department would need to know the 

release date. So you'll see this specific clause show up 

in multiple places throughout the regulation. So here, 

we're requiring that the documentation from the 

institution that the oversight entity provide 

information about the release date or transfer date of 

the incarcerated individual that's engaged in the Prison 

Education Program and then any such other information as 

the Secretary deems necessary. C, I think we're almost 

we're almost through. Thanks for hanging in there with 

me. C is this this so what I just went through is the 

application for the first Prison Education Program at 
45

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

the first two additional locations. After that, the 

postsecondary institution will still be required to 

submit information to the Department. But it won't be as 

extensive as the application. So it will be 

documentation from the accrediting agency that the 

institution was not subject to any final accrediting 

actions or in the last five years. Documentation from 

the state that the institution there was no action to 

revoke a license by the state in the last five years. 

And also, you'll see here again documentation that that 

the institution has entered into the agreement with the 

oversight entity to provide the information about 

transfer or release date. Let's go to the reporting 

requirements, Vanessa. And so here we're just saying 

that the institution must submit a report and instead, 

so there are reporting requirements outlined in statute. 

But here we are saying that instead of outlining the 

full process here, which I think that's kind of been 

like a kind of a theme like, you know, I think there has 

been already some suggestions by the, you know, to 

outline specific processes and regulation and what we 

were trying to avoid with outlining a process of 

regulation and getting stuck there. And so we are 

proposing to outline the report, the annual report, 

through a federal register notice. We do this for 
46

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

several things like I think one example is verification. 

We release the annual federal register notice with 

acceptable documentation, so it'll be similar to that. 

And then also here you see again, you see the 

information about transfer and release date, reporting 

that information about transfer release dates so that 

the Department can calculate the data that we have 

agreed to provide to the BOP DOC in their 

determinations. The highlight there is because that C 

was not bolded. That's the only reason for the highlight 

there, I just wanted to show you that. 668.240, this is 

this section is essentially about the Secretary limiting 

or terminating approval if an institution has violated 

any terms of the subpart or specifically if they 

submitted information that was materially inaccurate to 

get that approval from the Department to operate a 

Prison Education Program. And then we're also saying if 

the Secretary initiates the limitation of termination, 

the institution would have to submit a teach out plan 

and a teach out agreement if applicable. Go down to the 

best interest, Vanessa. This probably got the most 

discussion during the subcommittee, and I know Stan and 

Belinda can speak to this piece as well, the oversight 

entity determination that a Prison Education Program is 

operating in the best interests of students must include 
47

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

an assessment of. And these are all the indicators in 

statute. Vanessa, if you can scroll down, there were 

there was, stop there for a second, please. There was 

one that-- there was one that we added, let's see, I 

think you can scroll down a little more. Might have to 

scroll back up. I'm trying to read quickly. The 

institution. Okay, so we've added number seven and also 

number eight, so those don't appear in statute. But we 

felt as though they would be relevant to determining 

whether the programs are in the best interests of the

student. So the first was a recommendation by the 

subcommittee, and that was whether formerly incarcerated 

students are able to fully transfer their credits to 

continue their program at any location of the 

institution, including the same mode of delivery barring 

any exceptional circumstances surrounding the student's 

conviction. And then we've also proposed to add 

completion rates, let's see, whether the rates of 

completion meet the threshold set by the oversight 

entity. So those are two that Department has proposed to 

add to the indicators. And then we also saw may so that 

they may is you don't have to assess the BOP DOC would 

not have to assess recidivism or any other indicators. 

Now that the oversight entity can choose to do that, but 

they're not required to assess those elements. Let's 
48

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

see. Alright. So this is what we, this is language that 

we added between the final subcommittee and the session 

on November 10th and today essentially, and essentially 

the Department has moved the language about the feedback 

process here, but it'll apply to all the indicators that 

the Department has also added B 2 to clarify that not 

meeting one of the indicators is not disqualifying. It 

is an assessment of the totality of circumstances and 

the oversight entity must consider these indicators. And 

so that's where we decided to put in the totality of 

circumstance information and also the feedback, the 

requirement for the feedback process from relevant 

stakeholders. And then C, is the subcommittee 

recommended a formal appeals process, but the 

Department's wanted to just the Department wanted to 

clarify the regulation that programs or institutions 

specifically can reapply, even though we haven't put 

into regulation of formal appeals process. But the 

postsecondary institutions can always go back to the BOP 

DOC or oversight authority to reapply. Subsequent 

evaluations, so essentially, oh, so scroll back up a 

little bit, Vanessa , to D, so I already talked a little 

bit about the two year initial approval period. So we've 

restated that here and after the approval period, that's 

when the oversight entity will be required to evaluate 
49

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

all of the indicators under the may column or assess, 

I'm sorry, assess all the indicators under the may 

column, I mean, under the must column. And those 

evaluations have to take place not less than 120 days 

prior to the expiration of the institution's program 

participation agreement. For many institutions, this 

will be for many institutions and oversight entities, 

which will be every 6 years. Vanessa, you can scroll 

down a little bit, and that that those evaluations will 

have to be submitted to the Department 30 days following 

the completion of the evaluation. Let's see, record of 

retention, you have to maintain documentation on the 

methodology by which the oversight entity made these 

determinations under the and let's see, and also, let's 

see, so I think we put parameters of timeline around 

maintaining the documentation. And that will be 3 years 

either for the duration of the Prison Education Program 

active or at three years following the discontinuance of 

the Prison Education Program. I wanted to make sure 

before we move on I didn't miss anything in there, 

that's. Yeah, so it's just basically maintaining 

documentation about the overall prison education 

process. Alright, we're almost to the finish line. Let's 

see, Institution. Oh, this is about the transition to 

Prison Education Program. This is just essentially 
50

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

saying that if they're there may be some institutions 

that are currently offering Prison Education Programs at 

local correctional facilities or any correctional 

facility that's not a federal or state penal institution 

or correctional facility. And we're essentially saying 

that if you choose not to convert your programs over to 

a Prison Education Program, then you know that there's a 

wind down process that the student can continue 

receiving aid to engage in that eligible program for up 

to 6 years. And there are a few other caveats in there 

with or July 1st, 2029, but there's a few for and that 

was 6 years from July 1st, 2023, when the regulation 

will be in effect. Let's keep going, Vanessa. And this 

is the calculation of a Pell Grant, what we've done here 

is we got a lot of comments about questions about this. 

What we've done here is we have essentially just tried 

to highlight that Pell cannot exceed cost of attendance, 

and if it does, it has to be reduced in the 

circumstances for which under which it has to be 

reduced. So that that concludes that. So I think, I'll 

turn it back over to Kayla.

MS. MACK: Thank you very much, Aaron, 

for walking us through the document. Daniel, I see your 

hand.

MR. BARKOWITZ: Thank you, and thank 
51

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

you Aaron for walking through it as well. I have a 

question for you, you in the small group discussion that 

we had, there was a question raised and I don't see this 

specifically stated in the document. I think there's an 

assumption being made that private for-profit 

institutions would or would not be eligible to 

participate in these programs. I don't see a specific 

call out anywhere in the document. I see waiver language 

that allows someone with more than 25% of student, a 

public or private nonprofit, to be able to ask for the 

waiver. But I don't see any specific exclusion of 

private for-profit institutions in anything that we've 

reviewed to date.

MR. WASHINGTON: Under section 668. 

I'm sorry, Kayla am I allowed to?

MS. MACK: Please go ahead. Yeah, 

answer.

MR. WASHINGTON: Under 668.236, we say 

is, 668.236 A, is an eligible program under the subpar 

offered by an institution of higher education as defined 

under 600.4, which would be a public or private 

nonprofit institution or postsecondary vocational 

institution as defined 600.6.

MR. BARKOWITZ: So, 600, thank you, 

600.4, by definition, does not include private for-
52

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

profit. Is that is that the reference?

MR. WASHINGTON: Correct.

MR. BARKOWITZ: Okay. Thank you very 

much.

MS. MACK: Heather, please.

DR. PERFETTI: Thank you. So I'm going 

to go back to the beginning, and I tried to take notes 

as Aaron went through the 13 pages and thank you, Aaron, 

for walking us through that. I did want to ask about the 

scaffolding that Belinda had referenced earlier and then 

Aaron you reviewed with us around the waiver limitations 

on page two. Five years was selected, and I wondered if 

that five years was selected for a reason? Was it based 

on evidence that the subcommittee had just curious as to 

how we landed at five years?

MR. WASHINGTON: Belinda, did you want 

to speak to that? Belinda's recommendation, well, 

subcommittee made the recommendation for scaffolding, so 

I would like to allow Belinda to weigh in on it.

MS. WHEELER: Sure. Thank you very 

much, Aaron, and thank you Heather for that question. 

Yes, so in the language, this gets back a little bit to 

the things that we did get and the things that we didn't 

get. Aaron has mentioned a section where it talks about 

that two year kind of probationary like, well, not 
53

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

probationary, that two year kind of component in the 

subcommittee we had requested and it was not taken up. 

And that's totally fine. The subcommittee is okay with 

this, but our thinking with the five years, for example, 

is, you know, an educational institution that is 

providing a baccalaureate degree, for example, would 

typically run in that four year kind of timeframe. And 

we had that one year kind of listed. And in that longer 

PowerPoint, the 40 page one, you'll see bubbles that 

kind of talk about this too. But we had listed that one 

year as being a period for where educational 

institutions and others could kind of tabulate that 

data. So that kind of five years seem to be, you know, 

really a very good placeholder that kind of encompasses 

everyone, but particularly with the baccalaureate. So I 

hope that answers that question. That's where we were 

coming from with that Heather.

MS. MACK: Thank you, Aaron and 

Belinda for answering that. Heather, did you have 

something else?

DR. PERFETTI: I do, but I'll wait and 

get back in line.

MS. WHEELER: Not a problem. Joe, 

please go ahead.

MR. SANDERS: This is just a quick 
54

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

follow up on Daniel's question. Aaron, at the very end 

of your answer, you mentioned a separate section of the 

code that provided for vocational schools. And I'm 

wondering if you could just expand on how vocational 

school is defined there.

MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah. And so, we have 

a definition of a vocational school and regulation, and 

I hesitate to read the whole thing, it is it is it. So 

but I will say that a postsecondary vocational 

institution is a public or private nonprofit educational 

institution. So but yeah. 

MR. SANDERS: That answers my 

question. Thank you very much.

MS. MACK: Thank you, Joe. Thank you, 

Aaron. Heather, please.

DR. PERFETTI: Thank you. So I'm just 

circling back to my notes, and I think that took me to 

page 6. Where there is an indication about the initial 

two year approval. That approval is by whom and given to 

whom?

MR. WASHINGTON: We state that a

regulation, that's the, well, the approval is by the 

oversight entity. The approval is always by the Bureau 

of Prisons, the Department of Corrections, so that's the 

first part of the question. And also in the application 
55

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

process, we do say that the institution has to submit 

documentation detailing the methodology, including 

thresholds, benchmark standard, metric data or other 

information, the oversight entity make the determination 

that the program is in the best interest of students for 

all indicators under 668.241. So essentially in the 

application to Department's, so the BOP, the oversight 

committee would make the determination and they would 

you would submit that information to the Department in 

your application for your first program at the first two 

additional locations. We also say that the oversight 

entity has to submit information to the Department 

within 30 days of making a determination, so does that 

answer your question?

DR. PERFETTI: I'm not sure. I'm 

looking at 668.236, eligible Prison Education Program 

and in C, it indicates after an initial two year period. 

Is that offered by the Department to the correctional 

facility for two years, or is that something that's 

offered to the institution and by whom?

MR. WASHINGTON: That is a period by 

through which the oversight entity is able to approve 

the program operating in the correctional facility, but 

it does not have to assess each of the indicators, as 

outlined in section 668.241. It just has to provide that 
56

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

approval because the Department understands that there 

may not be data yet. There may not be enough information 

to make these best interest determinations based on the 

indicators. So to allow for time for these programs to 

initiate, gather relevant data, the Department is 

allowing for the BOP DOC oversight entities to make the 

determination based on information data that they have 

information that they have their best judgment. That 

information will still have to be reported to the 

Department how they did that, but it won't have to be an 

assessment of all of the indicators for the first two 

years.

MS. MACK: Stan, I'm sorry, Aaron. 

Stan, I saw you raise your hand, did you want to speak 

on this as well?

DR. ANDRISSE: Yes, and I just wanted 

to add that it sounds to me what I hear is, you know, 

that question of how these get started up. And it's a 

partnership. So there's kind of two phases of entry and 

the DOC is, you know, the oversight entity with these 

stakeholders are at both of them. So the first level of 

entry is the institution of higher education partnering 

with DOC to offer a program and the DOC or BOP has to 

accept them moving into that space. And there has to be 

that partnership for reasons that we we've kind of 
57

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

talked about. But then there's a two year period before 

you have to start providing the metrics. And that is 

again, if you know, if things aren't met by the two 

years, that's a potential point where the program would 

need to be stopped or the program has the ability to 

continue.

MS. MACK: Thank you, Stan.

MR. WASHINGTON: But keep in mind, 

Stan, we do say that we do offer the about, there isn't 

for some reason if there isn't data available, we still 

have that clause in there about that in light of the 

totality of circumstances. So we still have that as 

well.

MS. MACK: Okay. Thank you, Aaron, 

thank you. Stan. Heather did you have another question?

DR. PERFETTI: I do, and I just had a 

bit of follow up to that. It's less of a question. I 

certainly appreciate that an institution is partnering 

with a facility. I guess I was curious as to after an 

initial two year approval who gave that two year 

approval because accreditors have to do something at 

some point as well. So it was just not necessarily clear 

the pathway of the facility, the Department, the 

accreditor, because we don't offer two year approval. So 

I was just curious. I understand the data may not be 
58

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

available and that will come into being at some later 

date in time.

MS. MACK: Stan, I see your hand, did 

you want to speak to that?

MR. WASHINGTON: I was going to offer 

a comment, I don't know if it's helpful, but the 

accrediting agency is, you know, and the accrediting 

agency already approves the higher education program or 

the higher education entity through means outside of 

this process. So there that that's already kind of 

they're involved in that stage already. I think when you 

think about, that you know, we're coming into the house 

of DOC or, you know, higher education entities are 

coming into the house of DOC, they need to be--, the DOC 

needs to help them come into the house, right, to help 

them come into the space. And that's one way to look at 

it. And there are those two phases right at the 

beginning and then also at this two year point, where 

we're really gauging if things are operating in the best 

interest of students. And the accrediting agency is one 

of the stakeholder entities that can be part of that 

determination.

MS. MACK: Thank you, Stan. Heather, 

did you have an additional question?

DR. PERFETTI: I think the 
59

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

clarification is just in order for the institution to 

deliver a program at that location, they do have to get 

our approval, whether it's here or not. If they've not 

been operating at that facility, they are required to 

get accreditor approval to operate there to have an 

additional location. So I just wanted some clarity 

around who was approving what and when. And I think 

Stan's remarks were helpful. But I do have other 

questions, but I see Michaela has come on, so I 

certainly want to defer to others.

MS. MACK: Okay, let's go to you 

Michaela and then we'll come back to Heather.

MS. MARTIN: Cool, super quick. I just 

want to make sure that I'm tracking Heather's concerns 

and what's being said properly in my head. So the way 

that I'm understanding is that there's a concern because 

it specifically says there has to be a site visit from 

the accreditors, right? Which may or may not happen 

under their normal processes. But other than that, is 

the accreditor specific responsible under these? Because 

you know what Heather is asking like, is you asking us 

to now have a different process than our normal process 

for accrediting a site location? And if that is the 

case, how that is being addressed in here, or maybe I'm 

misunderstanding what that kind of conversation is 
60

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

that's occurring right now. If Heather and maybe wants 

to speak on that first, I don't know if that's helpful 

Heather, if that's what you're trying to ask.

MS. MACK: Go ahead, Heather.

DR. PERFETTI: Thank you, Michaela. I 

was just trying to get at, you're right, where it says 

that an approval after an initial approval. We have the 

facility involved. We have the creditor involved and we 

have the Department involved. And it wasn't clear to me 

which entity it is that's giving that initial two year 

approval.

MS. MACK: Thanks for that 

clarification, Heather. Aaron, I see your hand went up.

MR. WASHINGTON: The initial two year 

approval is provided by the oversight entity, the Bureau 

of Prisons or State Department of Corrections. And the 

accreditation piece, we out, we provide, I think we 

provide, you know, the outline for when the accreditor 

has to provide approval in 668.237. But the initial two 

year approval that under 668.236, C, is the Bureau of 

Prisons or State Department of Corrections. And then I 

think the accreditors have to look to 668.237 to 

determine the requirements for initiating Prison 

Education Program.

MS. MACK: Thank you, Aaron. Any 
61

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

further questions, Heather.

DR. PERFETTI: I do, and Aaron took us 

to 668.237 and that was my next question relating to, 

it's actually on page 8 number 4, that the creditor has 

reviewed and approved the methodology for how the 

oversight entity made the determination. And I won't 

read the whole thing, but we don't have obligations to 

the facility. Our obligation is to the institution. So I 

wondered if that could be clarified that that is the 

responsibility of the institution to provide to the 

accreditor the methodology for review, if that's 

required.

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. So you're

saying that the entity has to provide to the institution 

the methodology. I believe we have language in here, but 

we can go to the next question and I'll try and find 

that. I think there's something in here that actually 

speaks to that.

DR. PERFETTI: Yeah, I think that I'm 

looking at it from the lens of we don't accredit Bureaus

of Prisons or Departments of Corrections, we accredit 

institutions. So anything that the accreditor is 

expected to do should be with the institution. And then, 

Aaron, I had some questions I'm happy to send them to if 

I can get them in the chat quickly, but there are 
62

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

references to adverse action. And that's the withdraw of 

accreditation. So I just wondered, was that intended or 

did we mean institutions in a non-compliant status, 

which is something less than the loss of accreditation? 

Warning, probation, show cause very different than an 

adverse action of withdrawal of accreditation. So I 

don't know that we need to talk about that, but I did 

want to just raise that. And then there's language 

referencing a grant of accreditation or pre 

accreditation in terms of approval. And I wondered if 

scope of accreditation was more appropriate. Some of 

these institutions will already have accreditation, and 

will be looking to modify their scope of accreditation 

versus it's their initial time getting accreditation. So 

it's just terminology, and I'm happy to send you that on 

where the pages are. I think, the one area still that 

that I have some concerns relates to the best interest 

of students indicators. And I know the small group 

talked more about that and I certainly would ask them to 

add their comments here. But I think the reference to 

completion rates there and other typical kinds of 

indicators that are important may need to be viewed 

differently here. And I appreciate that you walked us 

through which are in the statute and which have been 

added because I think that's tremendously helpful at 
63

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

looking at what is here. But it does raise the question 

if other indicators that speak to quality for these 

programs should be considered here, and I will let 

others speak to that.

MS. MACK: I see a number of hands, 

Aaron, Stan, and Belinda, there were a number of 

questions there, so I'm happy to hear from all of you on 

all of them. Aaron, did you want to go first?

MR. WASHINGTON: I'll just dive in 

really quick and then I'll turn it over to Stan and 

Belinda. So there is a section on record retention in 

668.241, and it says the institution must obtain and 

maintain documents of the methodology by which the 

oversight entity made each determination for review by 

the institution's accrediting agency. So there is 

language in there already that requires institutions to 

get that information from the accrediting agency.

MS. MACK: Thank you, Aaron. Stan, 

please go ahead.

DR. ANDRISSE: Sorry. I was wanting to 

just I think I was wanting to speak to the best interest 

piece, but I'll speak to the accrediting requirements 

piece, which was the 668.237 number four, B 4, and so do 

you have, one, to Aaron to clarify, is this statute? 

Two, or Aaron do you want to clarify that?
64

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

MR. WASHINGTON: Is what statute Stan? 

The.

DR. ANDRISSE: So, 668.237, 

accreditation requirements, B 4. So the question that 

she had about the fact that they should, you know, the 

higher education institution that they should be 

interacting with, not the DOC or BOP. So just so is that 

statute? Is one question. And the other point that I do, 

you want to answer that part first?

MR. WASHINGTON: Not in statute. That 

is, number four is not in statute.

DR. ANDRISSE: Okay. And then Heather, 

would you have language that you would provide to, you 

know, suggest where you would, where you see or like it 

to be? And then my additional piece would just be to, I 

was trying to come up with an analogy of, you know, 

other instances where you know, universities trying to 

offer, you know, programing at inside the buildings of 

Facebook or, you know, some other place where there has 

to be the partnership, like you're coming into this 

persons or entities space, so you have to get there 

input into whether you can come into their space and 

offer educational programing. So they're like analogies 

or instances, I mean, there has to be that partnership. 

And how does accrediting agencies handle that type of 
65

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

scenario? I couldn't think of a good analogy. I'm sorry, 

but you know, could you give us examples of situations 

like that?

MS. MACK: Heather, did you want to 

respond to that?

DR. PERFETTI: I will. Thank you, 

Stan. So we do this all the time, and I think prison 

education is one example of our institutions being 

innovative and going out into different spaces to 

provide educational opportunities. We have a significant 

number of institutions that provide education programs 

and courses at K through 12 partners. We also have where 

they are going out into other kinds of work environments 

and providing specific academic credentials at those 

places of employment, specifically geared toward 

employees of those agencies or organizations. So this is 

not unusual for accreditors, and in fact, I believe we 

have 27 institutions right now delivering programs or 

courses at prison locations throughout our membership. 

So we're very familiar with managing this, which is why 

I'm raising some of the questions because what I'm 

seeing is slightly different than how we may be managing 

it now. And also maybe adding some additional pieces 

that are new and certainly worthy of consideration. And 

I'm not saying every accrediting agency handles those as 
66

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

we do, but we are all attuned to changes at our 

institutions. And then we have the statement of 

accreditation status for our institutions that is posted 

publicly. And all of those locations are posted at their 

statement of accreditation status, which is an indicator 

to the Department that we have reviewed those and that 

those have been approved as locations. And we recognize 

that sometimes getting through those agreements or to 

the point of agreement can take time. So we don't expect 

institutions to come to us right away because they have 

to be in a position to answer questions about the 

delivery of that program at that site, up against a 

number of measures that we ask them to speak to. So we 

are always concerned about quality on the front end. We 

want them to be in a position to answer questions about 

how they are prepared to support that program at that 

location.

MS. MACK: Belinda, did you want to 

speak to some of the questions that have been raised?

MS. WHEELER: Yes, ma'am, if that's 

okay? Thank you. Yeah, so I just wanted to thank 

everyone for their questions and their feedback thus 

far. I think Heather the one part of what you said that 

I really want to lift up. I really think you hit the 

nail on the head when you were talking about how things 
67

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

are very different throughout the United States when it 

comes to different accreditation standards. You know, 

and while we certainly hope that different accreditation 

agencies are at least kind of having this baseline, we 

have seen that current Prison Education Programs, 

whether they're Second Chance Pell or non-Second Chance 

Pell, it has been that level of quality or oversight has 

been all over the place. And I know that you and I have 

kind of talked about that with non neg reg kind of 

conversation. So I do want it to kind of lift up that. 

Before that, you had mentioned on page. page Eight about 

that methodology. I really like that second part, and I 

think the subcommittee really enjoyed that second part 

of that sentence that talks about ensuring that the 

Prison Education Program meets the same standards as 

substantially similar programs that are not Prison 

Education Programs. And I think that really speaks to

the strength of this kind of partnership that, you know, 

the neg reg language or, excuse me, the FAFSA 

Simplification Act, you know, language is kind of 

putting into play here is that we're really trying to 

make sure that, you know this, this partnership is 

really coming together so that, you know, if corrections 

is thinking a certain way, just as Director Precythe has 

pointed out, you know, being able to make sure that 
68

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

there's that kind of that checking in between different 

entities in this space to again, make sure that that 

same level of quality that students would expect on that 

traditional campus that, you know, we know is very 

heavily kind of monitored with traditional accreditation 

and stuff like that. With the experiment, we saw times 

where the experiment might have been taken a little bit 

a little bit too experimental and the question of 

whether and that's not to criticize any anyone you know, 

in this space. It was an experiment and we've all 

learned from that experiment. But you know, there really 

needs to be that, you know, that kind of conversation 

happening in place. So that again, not only can you 

know, very strong accreditation agencies in this space 

that are clearly already doing their due diligence and 

it's very obvious, you know, but then some of the ones 

that maybe are not, as, you know, careful and they've 

really kind of taken that experiment to interesting kind 

of ways. This kind of language really brings, you know, 

that kind of level of kind of continuity. So, you know, 

I just wanted to kind of lift that up, you know, from 

the subcommittee with regards to that particular 

language there. And then just briefly, I wanted to 

mention too your other question that you'd put out there 

with regards to those indicators, you know, and outcomes 
69

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

as we're kind of getting ready for the best interests of 

students. I think you're right. I think that there is 

certainly a level of generality in some of these kind of 

best interests of students that have been that have been 

listed there. I will say, you know, from the 

subcommittee, you know, we had, you know, the 

Department's guidance throughout this, this whole 

process. And you know, it was very clear to us that what 

we were working on here was indeed a general framework 

that Aaron has mentioned, you know, this afternoon, but 

then also mentioned earlier this morning as well that, 

you know, a lot of these specific processes, you know, 

are not expected at this point to be regulatory because 

I know that, you know, the Department and other 

entities, you know, really want to be talking about, you 

know, what will this outcome look like and what might 

work for this accreditation?

MS. MACK: I don't want to rudely 

interrupted you. I apologize, but we have a long list of 

public commenters. We are at our public comment hour. So 

we're going to pause the conversation here. We will pick 

up with this in the morning and move directly and as 

swiftly as possible into PSLF and IDR. Okay, so that'll 

be the agenda for tomorrow at AM.

MS. MARTIN: Super quickly on that. 
70

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

I'm so sorry. It sounds like, you know, just to echo 

things in the chat that people at home can't see is that 

we've asked if accreditation is a part of the 

subcommittee, and it looks like there's a presentation 

from the Department, but there wasn't an engagement like 

directly with accreditors. And I'm just wondering, I 

know that we're looking at picking this up tomorrow, but 

it looks like there's still some substantive issues that 

are creditors want to look at. And I was just wondering 

if there's going to be the opportunity, maybe even 

offline, for them to be able to put forward the 

suggestions before we continue and are asked to take a 

consensus check?

MS. MACK: I don't know if there are 

going to be suggestions in terms of language, if there 

are, those will be considered. My thought, though, is in 

the morning to begin with a consensus check on the 

language that's been presented by the Department and 

that is being supported and recommended by the 

subcommittee. If there are any blockers meaning they 

have serious reservations at that time, then they will 

have the opportunity to articulate what would get them 

from here to here, and we can consider those suggestions 

at that time. But again, I think what we're planning on 

is to begin with the consensus check on this issue and 
71

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

then move forward accordingly to that check. Okay. 

Alright, Brady, who do we have first for public 

comments?

MR. ROBERTS: I just submitted Cynthia 

Johnson, who is representing themselves.

MS. MACK: Welcome, Ms. Johnson, can 

you hear us?

MS. JOHNSON: Yes, I can you hear me?

MS. MACK: Yes, we can thank you for 

your patience, your three minutes begins now for public 

comment.

MS. JOHNSON: Thank you. So my name is 

Cynthia Johnson. I come from a welfare family and I am 

the first with a master's and not surprisingly, one with 

crippling debt. I guess that's what I deserve for trying 

to work myself out of poverty all these years, pulling 

myself up by my bootstraps, as some would say. I just 

celebrated 11 years of federal service, and this month 

marks 120 months since my payments started. I should be 

applying for forgiveness. However, when I first started 

working, I was unable to pay the payment and my servicer 

said, no worries, we'll just put you into forbearance no 

explanation of how this would affect my participation in 

the program. I eventually started paying on my loans in 

2013, almost two years behind. Coincidentally, I was 
72

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

rapidly being promoted to my full promotion potential in 

my position while living in D.C. with an outrageous cost 

of living, but having to be here because this is where 

my job is. I had very little choice, so I started paying 

even though I couldn't afford the payments because I 

needed my six figures gone. For years, I struggled in 

repayment, making nearly a thousand dollars a month 

payments. Looking back, I wish I had paid those super 

cheap payments back at the beginning of the repayment 

period. It wasn't until early 2019 that a friend told me 

about REPAYE, which came out three years before, so I 

suffered for three years in larger than I should have 

been paying payments. Thankfully, I remain unmarried. I 

couldn't afford the married payment under REPAYE and I 

don't qualify for pay because I have loans that were 

disbursed first before 2014. So I was never advised of 

the plan, I called for years complaining about it. So I 

finally switched. When I did switch, I was in 

forbearance for four months and I had also switched to 

the payment plan before and was in forbearance for a 

couple of months for paperwork. So between the 

forbearance and my delays for paperwork, I've been 

pushed back to the end of 2024, essentially three years 

for my forgiveness. That's going to put me at over 15 

years of federal service just to get my loans forgiven. 
73

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

So the forbearance has been or sorry, the CARES Act 

forbearance has been life changing. I've been able to 

have savings. I paid off my car, I've made improvements 

to my home. I've paid off credit card debt that I've 

been accruing because I couldn't afford the payments for 

all those years. So I'm here to advocate four things, 

very quickly. Continue the CARES Act forbearance while 

all of this renegotiation (inaudible). Two, allow 

financial hardship forbearance to count as qualifying 

months. Three, allow admin forbearance that we were put 

on during paperwork transitions to count for qualifying 

months. And four, to change some of the plans. So remove 

the new borrower stipulation on pay, allowing borrowers 

who have older loans to be able to qualify for it or 

remove the spousal income stipulation of REPAYE. Because 

regardless, older borrowers and who are married have no 

options. And then the last is creating new plan, where 

any borrower can get 10% of AGI but include a cost of 

living index. Because a thousand payment living in D.C. 

is a very different thousand dollar payment when you 

live in the middle of South Carolina. Thank you for your 

time.

MS. MACK: Thank you for your public 

comment today. Brady, who do we have next?

MR. ROBERTS: I'm admitting Kristina 
74

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

Boudreau, who's representing themselves.

MS. MACK: Kristina, can you hear us? 

We can hear you just fine, you have three minutes for 

public comment.

MS. BOUDREAU: Awesome. Thank you. 

Good afternoon and thank you for allowing me to speak 

today. My name is Kristina Boudreau and I am a child of 

a single parent. The first of my family to receive a 

bachelor's degree and, like many others, a victim of a 

fraudulent for-profit college. For the sake of 

expediency, I'll be condensing my story, but I ask that 

everyone attending please recognize that this brevity 

cannot even begin to allow us to express the sadness, 

anxiety and crushing stress our student loans placed 

upon us. In 2011, I graduated from Brooks Institute of 

Photography with what I thought was a beautiful path 

ahead of me. A very long story short. Despite 

overwhelming guarantees, my degree and experience at 

Brooks could not deliver on promises made. I was maxed 

out on student debt, so I did what I had to do. I taught 

myself web development, got a couple of side jobs and 

leaned into personal debt to make ends meet while I 

built my own resources. And I also gave up on my career 

dreams, unfortunately. Luckily for me and I've been able 

to keep my head above water and build a career I'm still 
75

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

proud of, but for countless others, this just isn't the 

case. Up until recently, my combined government and 

private student loans required monthly payments of about 

$1,400 per month. It previously used to be $1,800 a 

month, and due to my household losing half its income 

during the pandemic, I was able to fight to bring this 

number down to about $1,000 a month. But this is still 

just unsustainable. Between personal debt accrued, just 

trying to make ends meet over the years and these 

student loans, I am constantly in a state of financial 

anxiety, just living paycheck to paycheck. And 

unfortunately, I can't see a future where I own a home 

or feel secure in starting a family and horribly 

crushing feeling. I'm not unique. There are countless 

others like me who change (inaudible) true. Systematic 

solutions in the form. We really hope that you help us 

with that. Thank you for hearing me out. And thank you 

to the project on predatory student lending for all of 

your amazing hard work fighting for us, and we really 

look forward to a brighter future for ourselves and the 

generations that have yet to enter higher education. 

Sorry for crying. I didn't mean to.

MS. MACK: No worries. Thank you for 

your comment, Kristina. We appreciate it.

MS. BOUDREAU: Thank you.
76

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

MS. MACK: Brady, who do we have next 

for public comment?

MR. ROBERTS: I'm admitting Dru 

Macasieb, who is a veteran representing themselves.

MS. MACK: Dru, if you can hear us 

welcome to public comment, you have three minutes.

MR. MACASIEB: Alright. Hi, my name is 

Dru Macasieb. I am a U.S. Army combat veteran. I served 

one year in Afghanistan in 2003. I earned, using the GI 

Bill and Student Aid, I've earned three bachelors and 

two masters. I'm from San Diego, California. I have a 

decade's worth of experience in the industry, in higher 

education from both a student and an education 

management perspective from both the faculty all the way 

up to Associate Dean. I'm here today to discuss my 

experience in the industry from, by veterans, okay? I do 

believe that these schools have good intentions, but as 

far as veterans are concerned, they're treated like cash 

cows because of the cash that they bring in. I would 

argue that most veterans have some type of disability, 

yet special accommodations are mentioned only one time 

they're rarely ever mentioned again. And so when there's 

a stigma that I have heard it from in my education 

manager experience that when students fail, it's like, 

oh, they're just here for the money. Discounting the 
77

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

fact that they have may have underlying conditions. And 

another thing is, currently I'm actually enrolled in a 

program where (inaudible) that we're displaced around 

the pandemic, and I signed up as an on campus student. 

Now they just changed my contract without even me having 

any say in it. It's going to be fully online. How does 

that affect me and all the veterans in my school? Well, 

66% of them are going to lose out on $2,000 worth of 

their monthly housing allowance. And that's just 

injustice to me. And the thing is, the solutions that 

they have provided is for us to work for the money that 

we're supposed to be receiving anyways. I'm here to 

testify for all the students, all the veterans, and all 

the educators, I want the leaders, the decision makers 

of those organizations to be held accountable for the 

lives that they have disrupted. The school that I worked 

at previously was the Center for Excellence in Higher 

Education. I whistle blowed internally, I got retaliated 

discriminated and I still can't find justice because 

when I filed for EOC complaint, they closed, claimed 

bankruptcy and no lawyer wanted to take my case. Where 

is the accountability? And that's why I'm here. And I 

like my thing is I'm very passionate, I'm not a teacher, 

I'm a person who inspires people to learn and all I want 

for my school right now. The California Institute of 
78

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

Arts and Technology, I want them to just hold their end 

of the bargain. You can teach out students. They're 

giving us solutions where go to this college right next 

door, they're on ground and like, why can't you just 

hold your end? And these people need to be held 

accountable.

MS. JEFFRIES: Dru, I'm sorry, your 

time is up.

MS. MACK: Thank you for your public 

comment today, Dru. Brady, who are we admitting next for 

public comment?

MR. ROBERTS: I just submitted Jonny 

Greco, who is here as a graduate of Full Sail 

University.

MS. MACK: Welcome Jonny, if you can 

hear us, you're in public comment. You have three 

minutes.

MR. GRECO: Alright. Thank you very 

much for the time, everybody. Happy day to all of you. 

Hello. And I just want to say thank you for the time 

today to speak. My name is Jonny Greco, and I understand 

that schools like my alma mater, which happens to be a 

for-profit institution, have been under scrutiny 

recently. For my voice to be taken seriously, as much as 

it makes me uncomfortable, I recognize that I must 
79

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

legitimize that voice by sharing some of my experiences 

with you before I speak further. I was never going to go 

to school to learn how to cure cancer. My path was a 

different one. I graduated from Full Sail in 1998, and 

because of that unique, authentic style of education and 

specialty training, I had the opportunity to jump right 

in and be a part of some of sports entertainment's most 

exciting events around the world. I've collaborated 

through teams, I've worked with leagues, I've been a 

part of an events I've been commissioned to participate 

in with the likes of LeBron James, Hank Aaron, Imagine 

Dragons, John Cena, Jerry Bruckheimer, Gladys Knight, 

Ric Flair, Multiple Olympic Games, Madison Square 

Garden, Stanley Cup Finals, NBA Finals, Emmy Awards, two 

different expansion teams. The arena experience that we 

created in 2017 for the Vegas Golden Knights was written 

about in the New York Times. Through events and content, 

millions of people have shared this path with me. Today, 

I'm the senior vice president of entertainment 

experience and production for the Seattle Kraken and 

along with my right hand man here, Lamont Buford. He's 

also a full sail graduate and he's our vice president of 

that same group. I can safely say that this small town 

kid who has been blessed to create smiles around the 

world would not have had these doors open had it not 
80

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

been for the incredible spirit of lifelong education and 

family that my for-profit school had provided. Why was 

full Sail good then? Right out of college, I was able to 

start immediately into my passion. I was given the tools 

and the support to confidently go into this super 

difficult field and help me earn my opportunities the 

nature of arts. This is not a path for all. Not everyone 

is meant to succeed in this uber competitive field for 

me and thousands and thousands of others. We were able 

to find success and more importantly, found impact 

because we found belonging. We found a family with full 

sail that lives and breathes inclusion with a familial 

support system and belief that is never ending. We found 

a place where our dreams could come true. And on behalf 

of the artists and the people behind the artists like 

me, please don't underestimate the power of these 

dreams. I've come to learn that through my career I've 

come to learn that through my career, curing cancer was 

not going to be my thing. It was going to be someone 

else's path. I did, however, learn that through my 

incredible school and the opportunities, I got to find a 

path that lets me help others, if only for a few hours, 

forget that they do have cancer. So why is Full Sail 

good now? Because I think the power of making smiles can 

change the world, and Full Sail offered me this chance. 
81

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

And I want to say thanks to Full Sail, I want to say 

thank you to all of you for giving me. Thank you.

MS. MACK: Thank you for your public 

comments today. Brady, who are we admitting next?

MR. ROBERTS: I just admitted Jennifer 

Fenswick, who's here representing themselves.

MS. MACK: Welcome, Jennifer, if you 

can hear us, you're now in public comment and have three 

minutes.

MS. FENSWICK: Thank you so much. 

There my name is Jennifer Fenswick. And thank you for 

providing me with this time to speak. I'm a 60 year old, 

excuse me, a 64 year old woman who was in her final 

quarter at the University of Washington School of Law. 

I'm here today to talk about student loan debt because I 

have plenty of it. I returned to college in 2012 to 

undergraduate work. While there I accrued about $6,000 

worth of student loan debt. When I graduate from the law 

school, I will hold two master's degrees and my student 

loan debt will be approximately $130,000. The interest 

rate on most of that debt is 5.8 percent. I think that's 

high. My monthly payment is estimated to be $850 a 

month. I think that's high considering my first payment 

will be due before I even ever get a job. In 2013, 

Congress doubled the interest rate on student loans from 
82

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. It was really never made 

clear exactly why Congress thought that further 

endangering students was a good policy, but it 

definitely got my attention. I would like to point out 

that everything that impacts regular people is a result 

of some policy decision. Poverty, reproductive rights, 

climate change, racism, health care, the wealth gap, 

these are all policy choices. Each and every one of the 

egregious circumstances we're facing as a country today 

could be resolved with better policies, and that 

includes the student loan debt crisis. I'm sure I'm not 

the first person to draw your attention to the unfunded 

$1.3 trillion dollar gift Congress so generously 

bestowed upon the ultra-wealthy in 2018. No strings 

attached. While that policy, in my opinion, has criminal 

act written all over it, the bigger criminal or the 

bigger crime would be failing to unburden 45 million 

people of their crippling student debt student debt. 

Also freeing up an extra trillion dollars, would go a 

long way to bolster the economy. If you need proof, 

consider the positive economic impact of the $1,400 

COVID relief payments. Forcing average American citizens 

into high interest loans that they realistically can 

never repay is bad economic policy, it's a bad social 

policy, and it certainly reflects bad judgment. Your 
83

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

decision on how to handle student loan debt will impact 

forty five million Americans. I and millions of others 

facing the insurmountable challenge to repay this debt 

strongly urge you to forgive all student loan debt. 

Doing so will be better for the country, and it is the 

fair and just thing to do if fairness and justice are 

where you're headed with this decision. It is within 

your power to do the right thing. The question is, will 

you. Thank you and please wear a mask.

MS. MACK: Thank you, Jennifer, for 

your public comment. Brady, who are we admitting next?

MR. ROBERTS: I'm Amanda Dylan 

Katrino, who is a veteran representing themselves.

MS. MACK: Dylan, are you with us? 

Dylan, can you hear me? Why don't we move on as we reach 

out to Dylan to work on.

MR. ROBERTS: Sure, I'll message him. 

I'm admitting Carolyn Fast who's here representing the 

Century Foundation?

MS. MACK: Welcome, Carolyn, to public 

comment, you have three minutes.

MS. FAST: Hi, my name is Carolyn 

Fast. Thank you for providing the opportunity to provide 

comments today. I'm a senior fellow at the Century 

Foundation. My comments today relate to the Borrower 
84

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

Defense proposals. The Department's proposal regarding 

Borrower Defense would expand critical relief to victims 

of misconduct and help to increase school 

accountability. The Department's latest revisions to its 

proposal also rectify several issues with the initial 

proposal, by ensuring that legal services offices can 

bring group discharge claims. Eliminating language that 

permitted schools to immunize themselves from liability 

for manipulating job placement rates through use of 

disclosures. Acknowledging that borrowers may be

entitled to full relief even if the harm they suffered 

was not systemic and including a time frame for the 

Department's review process. These changes will 

significantly increase access to relief and increase 

fairness, speed and efficiency of the review process. 

However, the Department's revised proposal does not 

fully address concerns raised about the use of a federal 

rather than state last standard to review claims. 

Adoption of a federal standard limits eligibility for 

relief for borrowers in states that have strong consumer 

protection laws. For example, under a federal standards, 

borrowers would lack relief based on a school's unfair 

practices, which would give rise to claims under many 

states consumer protection laws. The Department's 

revised proposal permits group discharge applications to 
85

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

request considerations on a state law standard prior to 

trial. However, individual applicants, rather than 

people group applicants would not have that option. 

Moreover, the proposal does not provide that applicants 

can request that such individual applicants can request 

reconsideration under a state law standard even after 

it. At minimum, individual applicants must be able to 

request reconsideration standard after such a denial 

under a federal prosecutor. However, to ensure fairness, 

the Department should automatically review all 

individual borrower applications that are denied under a 

federal standard. Under a state law standard. Requiring 

individual applicants to file an appeal to obtain review 

puts a significant burden on such borrowers, who would 

have to grasp that there's a difference between a 

federal and state law standard. Understand what state 

law applies and resubmit their application. This would 

be challenging for borrowers who do not have access to 

legal representation. Automatic review under a state law 

standard would ensure that the new rule advances the 

Department's goals of expanding access to relief for 

victims of misconduct, increasing fairness and enhancing 

the integrity of the program. Thank you very much.

MS. MACK: Thank you for your public 

comment, Carolyn. Dylan, we have you ready for your 
86

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

public comment. If you can come off mute, you have three 

minutes.

MR. KATRINO: Yes, ma'am, here I am.

MS. MACK: There you go.

MR. KATRINO: Good afternoon. My name 

is Dylan Katrino, and I'm here to tell you about my 

experience at Lincoln Tech as a student veteran. Help 

sharing my story will prevent other veterans from going 

through the stress, confusion and heartache caused by 

for-profits like Lincoln Tech. My classmate Jesus Abarca 

and I got into the welding program at Lincoln Tech and 

told him we would be using our GI bills. The school 

quickly enrolled us and said we didn't need to provide 

our certificate of eligibility, just our DD 214s. This 

was the first red flag. We knew veterans using the GI 

Bill get a stipend for books, so we asked the school 

when we'd receive it. They said we get it once classes 

started. This was the second red flag. When classes 

started and our benefits still hadn't shown up, the 

school told us they were being audited by the VA, but we 

would receive our money at the end of the month. Around 

the two and a half month mark, the school said instead 

of waiting on the VA, they could give us a scholarship. 

We did get checks, but it only got us through one month. 

So every week we went back to the administrators. They 
87

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

brushed us off, telling us they were too busy to help 

us. They didn't take our situation very seriously. Then 

they said, we get our money by November 14. I am certain 

this was never the case and that they told us what we 

wanted to hear so we can leave them alone. Excuse me. 

Needless to say, the money never arrived. The school 

said they'd take out loans on our behalf. They said our 

VA benefits would arrive before any interest accrued on 

the loans at this point, what choice do we have? The 

school told us our loans totaled to $4,700, but this was 

another lie. The total was really $9,500 almost doubled 

what they said. Worse, the head of the school denied 

knowing we were counting our GI bills to put us through 

the program when we asked for the paperwork providing, 

or excuse me, proving we enrolled under the GI Bill. 

They said, and this is a direct quote, we shredded it, I 

think we shredded it. We learned that the welding 

program had never been accredited by the VA, and the 

school enrolled us under false pretenses. When I 

enrolled, I didn't know Lincoln Tech was a for-profit 

school, but now it's clear that the school just wanted 

to get paid. They didn't care that they put us in debt 

and decimated our savings, waiting for benefits when we 

earned through our service. That would never come. I 

hoping this panel can make changes to rules and 
88

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

regulations governing these schools so that no other 

veteran has to go through this. Thank you.

MS. MACK: Thank you, Dylan, for your 

public comment today. Brady, who are we admitting next?

MR. ROBERTS: I just admitted Joe 

Gray, who is here representing themselves.

MS. MACK: Joe, can you hear us? Joe 

Gray, can you hear us?

MR. ROBERTS: Why don't we move to the 

next speaker and I can message them. Okay, the next 

speaker is going to be Megan Challender, who is here 

representing themselves.

MS. MACK: Welcome, Megan.

MS. CHALLENDER: Hello.

MS. MACK: Hi, Megan, welcome to the 

public comment. You can turn on your camera if you want 

to, either way, you have three minutes. Please proceed.

MS. CHALLENDER: Good afternoon and 

thank you. My name is Megan Challender, and for the past 

8 years, I have worked as a public interest attorney, 

providing free legal services to hundreds of individuals 

in DC and Maryland, including assisting domestic 

violence and sexual assault survivors, tenants, 

consumers and many others. I am committed to serving the 

public good. That's why I went to law school. I am here 
89

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

today to tell you my story and to advocate for several 

changes on behalf of borrowers like myself. First, I 

want to encourage you to eliminate or greatly reduce 

interest on student loans, including for graduate 

student borrowers. Second, I want to encourage you to 

count periods of forbearance that were caused by 

graduate fellowships. Third, I want to encourage you to 

allow borrowers to make back payments for previous 

forbearances or deferment that would not otherwise be 

counted. And fourth, I encourage you to revise the rules 

for Income Driven Repayment plans to count not only the 

borrower's income or to count only the borrower's 

income, not their spouses. I attended a public law 

school, the University of the District of Columbia. I 

took out $64,765 in student loans to cover three years 

of school and bar study. My interest rate was set at an 

absolutely exorbitant 7.9%. Two years after graduation, 

I took a graduate teaching fellowship position in the 

domestic violence clinic at Georgetown University Law 

School. A semester into my fellowship, I called my 

servicer Great Lakes, who told me that because I was 

classified as a student, that my student loan payments 

would not count toward Public Service Loan Forgiveness. 

Making only $50,000 per year, believing that my $145 

payments would not count, and I also recently finding 
90

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

out I was pregnant, facing down exorbitant childcare 

costs. I agreed to Great Lakes suggestion that I take a 

forbearance on my loans during the time I was performing 

qualifying employment in the domestic violence clinic. 

Due to the high interest rates and daily compounded 

interest, my loan balance increased substantially 

because of this forbearance. When I graduated from law 

school 8 years ago, I owed $64,765. Now, 8 years of 

public interest practice, later, 6 years of payments 

later, I've paid $29,152 to my loan servicer. Because of 

the extremely high interest, that is compounded daily, I 

currently owe $67,400. That is three thousand more than 

I originally borrowed, despite paying $29,000. 

Furthermore, at this point, there is no way for my 

qualifying employment during my time in the domestic 

violence clinic to count. If I were allowed to make back 

payments to cover those months those months would be a 

total of $3,500 based on my salary at the time. Instead, 

currently I will be required to work for a total of 12 

years in public interest work, and my final 2 years of 

payments will be based on a higher salary. So I'll pay 

approximately $10,000 in those final 2 years.

MS. MACK: Thank you for your public 

comment today, Megan, we appreciate it. Joe Gray, we are 

ready for you to participate in public comment. If you 
91

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

can come off mute, you have three minutes.

MS. GRAY: Thanks so much for your 

attention to a generation crushed by debt, administered 

for profit with little regard to the purpose of student 

loans for a vibrant, strong nation or to the value of 

public and essential service. Thanks also to borrowers 

providing free labor and who, as some of the nation's 

most ambitious, motivated and creative people, have had 

to waste millions of hours to navigate unnecessary 

complexity and to make life decisions with generational 

impact based on crushing debt. These requests are from 

my friends, family and colleagues. One, retirement 

relief. For five years, starting 15 years prior to a 

borrower's full SSA retirement age until 10 years prior, 

phase interest rates down to zero in increments of 20% 

each year on birth dates or fixed calendar dates. For 

loans over 5 years into repayment, immediately cancel 

new interest for borrowers 10 or less years to their SSA 

full retirement age. Two, capitalized interest 

visibility. Require servicers to show principal balances 

and payments on principal with a breakdown of 

capitalized interest versus original loan amount, so 

borrowers can plan their IRS interest deduction during a 

tax year rather than only learn how much accrued plus 

capitalized interest they paid after a tax year's over. 
92

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

Three, interest cap. Cap total accrued and capitalized 

interest at a low percent of the original loan amount 

because the priority isn't equitably educated nation. 

Four, public service. Contract work for public service, 

including by sole proprietors and single member LLCs, 

must count for FSLF, including when also working part 

time at another public service employer. Volunteer work 

must also count, including nonprofit founders who create 

jobs for others and caregiving. Five, partial and 

temporary disability. Workers injured on the job in 

public service, in public service, face job and 

financial disruption while recovering and navigating 

other complex and equally unhelpful systems. Please 

count the months and injured workers on workers comp 

from a public service job towards their PSLF. Six, 

Borrower Defense for international attendance. Any 

institution eligible to receive aid must be held to 

standards, including colleges abroad, in Canada and 

Mexico. Seven, PSLF waiver. Please ensure that after 

October 22, a path remains open to the waiver for unique 

cases like borrowers and able to consolidate due to 

their being stuck by circumstances out of their control 

in other administrative and institutional systems. 

Pandemic relief. Sorry, I lost my numbers. Pandemic 

relief. Borrowers not eligible for COVID relief are more 
93

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

desperate than ever. Please provide equivalent catch up 

relief for private borrowers. Thanks.

MS. MACK: Thank you, Joe, for your 

public comment today. I am going to ask that we hear 

from our final confirmed public commenter today. Brady, 

please admit Michelle.

MR. ROBERTS: Michelle S. has just 

been admitted representing themselves.

MS. MACK: Michelle you are a final 

public commenter today, you have three minutes. 

Michelle, can you hear us?

MS. SHIRLEY: Sorry, I can hear you 

now.

MS. MACK: No problem. Please proceed, 

you have three minutes.

MS. SHIRLEY: Alright. Hello and thank 

you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you. My 

name is Michelle Shirley, and I'm here to respectfully 

request that as you consider modifying any IDR plans or 

creating any new ones such as EICR, they consider 

including graduate loans and allowing borrowers to lower 

their interest rates 0% percent, preferably or no more 

than 1%. My story is similar to those many graduate 

school borrower's. I went to law school as a mom of 

three and as the sole supporter of my family in hopes of 
94

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

making a better life for my children. I was not born to 

a wealthy family. On the contrary, I'm a first 

generation American to Latino immigrants who did not 

even graduate high school. I had to borrow $130,000 to 

put myself through law school. I graduated in 2010, and 

fast forward to today, my current debt is over $297,000. 

With an interest rate of over 7%, my original debt 

ballooned to almost $300,000. Just because you went to 

graduate school, this does not mean you start off with a 

six figure salary. It often takes years before you cross 

that threshold. I have been in an IDR plan for the past 

10 years, but the truth is, I will likely die before I 

can pay this debt off. I want to pay it. I borrowed it. 

I owe it. So please give me and others like me the 

chance to pay this off. You're able to refinance your 

mortgage, but I cannot refinance my student loan. If I 

look to a private loan, no lender is going to lend me 

$300,000, I have tried. I'm not the only one in this 

predicament. Scour the internet and you will find 

similar stories. One such story was recently featured on 

NPR, a chiropractor from Minnesota, my home state, also 

a first generation to go to college and grad school 

started out with $139,000 federal school loan debt, 

which today is over $600,000. I urge you to please 

consider getting graduate school borrowers the 
95

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

opportunity to participate in any modifications to the 

IDR plans or any newly created EICR. And to consider 

lowering the interest rate on existing loans. The future 

of America is based on education success of its 

citizens. Please let us have the opportunity to repay 

what we have borrowed and to continue adding value to 

our country and its economy. Thank you.

MS. MACK: Thank you for your public 

comment today, Michelle. Committee, I appreciate your 

willingness to allow me to hold you over for a few 

minutes so that we could get to all of our confirmed 

speakers. We will begin promptly at 10 a.m. today. Thank 

you for your efforts today, we'll see you in the 

morning.

Appendix
96

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

Department of Education

Office of Postsecondary Education

Zoom Chat Transcript

Affordability and Student Loans Committee

Session 3 Day 3, Afternoon, December 8, 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 Michaela Martin to Everyone:

sorry I'm in twice. having some tech difficulties in 

trying to work out... 

From Stan (A) Ind. Students to Everyone:

Good afternoon, everyone!

From Stan (A) Ind. Students to Everyone:

Or morning to our west coast.

From Justin (P) Servicemembers and Veterans to Everyone:

Emily is taking the table for me

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

Amendatory language for PEP.

 

As requested I would propose adding the following 

language to the current proposed regulations.

 

On page 1 under definition of Additional 

Locations, add the following to the end of the 2nd 

paragraph. “Additional locations as defined under this 
97

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

clause, however, would not be subject to reporting and 

disclosure requirements under 668.46 (Clery Act)”

On page 5, at the end of the definition of 

additional location, add the following “Locations 

offering these programs, however, are exempt from 

reporting or inclusion under 668.46 (Clery Act).”

From Michaela Martin to Everyone:

yes please head to the language :)

From Michaela Martin to Everyone:

yes please

From Dixie (P) Dependent Students (ella/she) to 

Everyone:

Yes

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone:

Added scrutiny over additional locations may be 

warranted given that incarcerated individuals are a 

vulnerable population with constrained options.

From Persis (P) - Legal Aid (she/her) to Everyone:

swapping with josh for a moment

From Persis (P) - Legal Aid (she/her) to Everyone:

I am back at the table

From Anne, P, State DOCs to Everyone:

Thank you for asking Will. Yes, we have over 625 

incarcerated students actively enrolled.

From Anne, P, State DOCs to Everyone:

in post-secondary education classes.

From Michaela [P] Ind. Students to Everyone:
98

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

The point of contact for accreditors is the 

institution right?

From Emily (A) Servicemembers and Veterans to Everyone:

An analogy could be universities with MOU's with 

military bases to teach on base

From Bethany (P) - Disability (she/hers) to Everyone:

Question: Were Accrediting Agencies part of the 

subcommittee?

From Bethany (P) - Disability (she/hers) to Everyone:

I'm very confused why we're discussing this at this 

point in the negotiations?

From Heather (P) - Accrediting Agencies to Everyone:

No, accrediting agencies were not part of the 

subcommittee.

From Jennifer - ED negotiator to Everyone:

No, but we had someone from the Department that works 

on accreditation present.

From Stan (A) Ind. Students to Everyone:

The Dept of Ed had their accrediting team rep present

From Bethany (P) - Disability (she/hers) to Everyone:

I'd like to recommend to ED that Accrediting Agencies 

be added as a required negotiator for any neg regs on 

this issue in the future.

From Bethany (P) - Disability (she/hers) to Everyone:

Because it's obvious that they have an important and 

different perspective than those in the Department 

that work on accreditation.

From Bethany (P) - Disability (she/hers) to Everyone:
99

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/08/21

Thanks!