1 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION 

PRISON EDUCATION PROGRAMS SUBCOMMITTEE 

SESSION 2, DAY 1, MORNING 

November 8, 2021 

On the 8th day of November, 2021, the 

following meeting was held virtually, from 10:00 a.m. 

to 12:00 p.m., before Jamie Young, Shorthand Reporter 

in the state of New Jersey. 
 

 

 

 

2 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

P R O C E E D I N G S 

MR. WASHINGTON: Good morning, and 

welcome to all of you joining us today and to the 

subcommittee members seated around our virtual table. My 

name is Aaron Washington and it is my pleasure to welcome 

you back to the Prison Education Program Subcommittee. 

First, I want to express our appreciation for the 

communities that have worked hard for this change and 

that are now at the table helping to write the rules. We 

want to hear their voices representing impacted students 

and we want to ensure that the committee hears their 

voices. Language developed and recommended by this 

subcommittee will inform the work of the affordability 

and student loans main table, and I'd like to welcome 

everyone from the subcommittee to the virtual table 

representing various constituencies. You've been 

nominated by your peers and selected by the Department to 

discuss important issues concerning Federal Student Aid 

programs authorized under Title IV of the Higher 

Education Act of 1965 as amended. So we kicked off our 

subcommittee process from October 18th through the 20th 

and we appreciate all of the subcommittee members who 

engaged with us through that process, shared your 

concerns and provided suggestions. Based on your 

feedback, we have provided the subcommittee with amended 
 

 

3 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

text. My goal for this final session is to develop one 

strong recommendation to send to the main committee. And 

with that said, let's jump into introductions, so I'll 

start. My name is Aaron Washington, and I will be the 

team lead for the Department during the next three days, 

and I will turn it to my colleague, David Musser to 

introduce himself. 

MR. MUSSER: Good morning, everyone. 

My name is David Musser. I'm with the Office of Federal 

Student Aid as the director of the Policy, Innovation and 

Dissemination Group. We are responsible for publishing 

the Federal Student Aid Handbook and for overseeing the 

Experimental Sites initiative, which includes the Second 

Chance Pell experiment. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you, David. We 

have Steve Finley with us. 

MR. FINLEY: Hi, good morning, 

everyone. I'm Steve Finley. I work in the office of the 

general counsel at the Department of Education and 

concentrate on postsecondary education issues and 

institutional compliance. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you, Steve. We 

have Elizabeth Daggett with us. 

MS. DAGGETT: Good morning, everybody, 

my name is Elizabeth Daggett, I'm an analyst with the 
 

 

4 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

accreditation group. Our role is to review accrediting 

agencies to ensure that they meet the requirements for 

recognition by the Department. And so obviously there are 

always additional items that they are going to include, 

reviewing programs for Federal Student Aid purposes. So 

thank you. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Vanessa Gomez. 

Vanessa, screen sharing, right, well, she's preparing to 

screen share so she may be multitasking. 

MS. GOMEZ: Do you see me? Okay, hi, 

everyone. Good morning. Sorry about that. I am going to 

be screen sharing as Aaron said, I work with the Policy 

Development Group with Aaron and happy to be here this 

morning. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you, Vanessa 

and Sophia McArdle. 

MS. MCARDLE: Hi, everybody. Good 

morning, welcome back. I'm Sophia McArdle. I'm also with 

the Policy Development Group and I will once again be 

calling on subcommittee members when it is their turn to 

speak and also tracking the three minute time limit. 

Looking forward to a great session. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you, Sophia. So 

now I want to turn it to the subcommittee. So if you 

would state your name, the constituents, your 
 

 

 

 

5 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

constituency. You can talk a little bit about your 

background and also let the subcommittee know how you 

would like to be addressed throughout the duration of the 

three days. And so I wanted to give folks about two 

minutes each to provide those items. So we'll start with 

Belinda Wheeler. 

MS. WHEELER: And good morning, 

everyone. I'm Dr. Belinda Wheeler. Please feel free just 

to call me Belinda. I'm a senior program associate at the 

Vera Institute of Justice. We do many different things, 

but the one area of which I'm a part of unlocking 

potential provides technical assistance to the 130 Second 

Chance Pell experimental sites around the country. So 

that's some of the great work that we do in that space, 

and I am representing consumer advocacy groups. So thank 

you very much. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you, Belinda. 

We will go to Kim Cary next, please. 

MS. CARY: Good morning, everyone. Kim 

is fine, to go by that. I am representing the financial 

aid administrators. I have been in the financial aid 

industry for approximately twenty one years, so thank you 

for allowing me to be on this committee. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you, Kim. 

Stanley Andrisse. 
 

 

 

 

6 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

DR. ANDRISSE: Good morning. Good 

morning, everyone. Stan Andrisse. I am a formerly 

incarcerated person who was sentenced to 10 years in 

prison. I was told that I was going to be a career 

criminal, actually labeled as a career criminal in my 

sentencing. Fast forward some time I'm now Dr. Stan 

Andrisse Professor, an assistant professor at Howard 

University College of Medicine, a former faculty member 

at Johns Hopkins Medicine, a visiting faculty at 

Georgetown Medicine and Imperial College of London, as 

well as the executive director and co-founder of Prisons 

to Professionals, which is how I sit here with you today. 

Prison to Professionals is a nonprofit organization that 

works nationally. We connect with about 400 plus 

currently and formerly incarcerated people per year to 

help them pursue higher education and gainful employment. 

And I am representing here today with you formerly 

incarcerated students. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you, Stanley. 

Terrell Blount. 

MR. BLOUNT: Good morning, everyone. 

Terrell Blount, I serve as the director of the Formerly 

Incarcerated College Graduates Network and I am 

representing groups that represent incarcerated students. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you, Terrell. 
 

 

 

7 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

Terrence McTier. 

DR. MCTIER: Good morning, I am Dr. 

Terrence McTier, I am the director of the Prison 

Education Project at Washington University in St. Louis. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you, Dr. 

McTier. Marisa Britton-Bostwick. 

MS. BRITTON-BOSTWICK: Good morning, 

everyone. My name is Marisa Britton-Bostwick, I am the 

director of education for the Montana Department of 

Corrections. I am so thankful to be on this committee and 

honored, and I am representing correctional education. 

I've been in public school education and correctional 

education for the last twenty four years and I'm thankful 

to be here today. Thank you. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you, Marisa. 

Angie Paccione. 

DR. PACCIONE: Yes, hi, I'm Dr. Angie 

Paccione, you can call me Angie, and I am representing 

SHEEO, the State Higher Ed Executive Organization, and I 

reside in Colorado, where I am the executive director of 

the Colorado Department of Higher Education. It's a 

governor appointed position and I have enjoyed these last 

sessions and I look forward to these as well. I do have 

some pretty unstable internet connection in my house, so 

I'll be on and off video. Thank you. 
 

 

 

8 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. On Monday, 

November 1st, Anne Precythe was nominated and approved by 

the main committee to become a member of the 

subcommittee. And so I would like to extend a welcome to 

Ms. Precythe. We are happy that she will be able to join 

us. However, she will not be able to join until the 

afternoon session, so we will allow Ms. Precythe to 

introduce herself in the afternoon. So I just wanted to 

run through a few protocols, the same protocols we had 

last time. So cameras should remain on during active 

negotiations at all sessions and cameras should be turned 

off during breaks and may also be turned off during brief 

absences. Subcommittee members will remain engaged in the 

work of the subcommittee and refrain from other 

activities, including posting on social media during the 

time that subcommittee meetings are in session. I will 

introduce each new topic and the subcommittee member who 

wishes to speak on that topic should virtually raise 

their hand, and Sophia will determine speaking order and 

call upon subcommittee members when it is their turn to 

speak. Subcommittee members must wait their turn and 

follow the Department staff instructions. The Department 

staff, including myself, David and Steve, intend to do 

the same unless asked a specific targeted question by the 

subcommittee or Elizabeth, I'm sorry, as well. Only one 
 

 

 

 

 

 

9 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

subcommittee member may speak at a time. All other 

subcommittee members' microphones are to remain muted. 

For today, we will limit comments to three minutes to 

ensure that we're moving at a pace to get through our 

agenda on time and to ensure we're hearing from everyone 

that wants to speak, so Sophia will let you know when 

you've reached two minutes and 30 seconds, and also when 

you've reached your final three minutes. If you would 

like to speak again, please just raise your hand. Also, 

please note the subcommittee does not vote. The 

subcommittee is structured more like a working group. 

There's been a lot of discussion about this in the main 

committee. It was constituted and approved under the main 

committee protocols, as announced in the Federal Register 

and the Department has been purposeful in distinguishing 

between the main and the subcommittee. The subcommittee 

will provide timely recommendations to the main 

committee, then the primary negotiators from the main 

committee and the federal negotiator will vote on the 

package. The committee may also request additional 

information from the subcommittee as needed, and we do 

need to decide who will take notes just like we did last 

time and present the subcommittee's recommendation to the 

main committee. It could be more than one person. Last 

time it was Belinda and Stan. It doesn't have to be the 
 

 

 

 

 

10 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

same people. The presentation will include proposed 

regulatory language that we will develop here over the 

next three days. And also it should have something 

accompanying it, like a PowerPoint or a high level report 

or more high level overview. So I want to pause here and 

establish with the subcommittee, who the subcommittee 

nominates or proposes or wants to volunteer to do the 

report, the final report to the main committee in 

December. So that was a question for the subcommittee. 

MS. MCARDLE: Belinda. Go ahead, 

Belinda. 

MS. WHEELER: Thank you very much. I 

was just going to say that I'm happy to continue in this 

role with Stan, as we did the last time if he and the 

subcommittee members would like. But I'm also happy to, 

you know, default to other people too. So I'm very happy 

to, just wanted to put myself out there. I want to double 

check with Stan, though too, and then also check in with 

the other subcommittee members. Thank you very much. 

MS. MCARDLE: Stan. 

DR. ANDRISSE: I was just going to 

mention the same. 

MR. WASHINGTON: So it also can be a 

collaboration among Stan and Belinda. So if any other 

subcommittee member is interested in reporting out with 
 

 

 

 

11 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

Stan and Belinda on the final recommendation to the main 

committee, you are more than welcome to join Stan and 

Belinda. I do remember from previous negotiations that 

one of the subcommittees had three people reporting out, 

so it doesn't have to be limited to just two. So if you 

if you're unsure right now whether you would like to 

report out with Belinda and Stan, you can let us know 

throughout the day. It would be helpful to let us know as 

soon as possible so that you can all coordinate and also 

actively taking notes during the meeting. So you know, 

you can be prepared to report what transpired during the 

meetings. So I will periodically askMS. MCARDLE: There is a comment from 

Kim. Sorry. Kim? 

MS. CARY: Sorry for that late hand 

there, Aaron. Could you explain what December will look 

like for us and what goes on with that timeframe? 

MR. WASHINGTON: So just like the last 

time, we didn't get a specific date until a little bit 

later that we would actually be presenting to the main 

committee, so the main committee in collaboration with 

the Department of Education, will decide the day on which 

they would like the subcommittee to make the final 

recommendation. So that is still to be determined. We 

hope to get that date to you as soon as possible—and 
 

 

 

 

 

 

12 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

before you actually have to report out. But if for some 

reason we can't tell you if there's a short amount of 

time between that, we will help. We will help, the 

Department is here to lend a helping hand. For the last 

report out, we did take the first stab at drafting the 

PowerPoint that Belinda and Stan used to report out. 

Belinda and Stan, of course, had final say or authority 

over whether they use that PowerPoint. They can edit that 

PowerPoint. But if for some reason which we don't 

anticipate happening, we don't know the the day before, 

the Department would be here to assist you with drafting 

the report. And hopefully amendatory language is done by 

Wednesday and we can finalize. That's the goal-- to 

finalize the entire amendatory language package by 

Wednesday. So I don't have a specific date for you yet. 

But that can be one of the things I can take back and 

hopefully, maybe either after lunch or tomorrow morning, 

I can tell you the specific date that the subcommittee 

will report out to the main committee. 

MS. CARY: Okay. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Go ahead. 

MS. CARY: I think I was just mainly 

concerned about making sure the regulatory. The 

conversation needs to be done by Wednesday of what we 

want to push forward. 
 

 

 

 

13 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah, so that's the 

goal I because these are public meetings. I think the 

goal is to finalize the recommendation. Of course, there 

may be some technical edits that we might need to make. 

Today we will see a few in our anticipation to get the 

amendatory language to all. Before we started here, there 

were some a few technical issues that we need to fix 

today in real time that I will walk you through. But the 

goal really is to finalize the substantive points by 

Wednesday at 3:00 p.m.. But if there's like a period 

missing or something like that, of course, those can all 

be fixed and updated, but at least the substantive issues 

we want to finish by Wednesday at 3:00. 

MS. CARY: Thank you, Aaron. Thank 

you. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay, and yeah, and 

Kim, if you're tentatively interested in presenting 

based on, you know, in with conditions on the actual date 

that the report out will be, you can also weigh in on 

that as well. So I will periodically ask for the 

subcommittee members to show a thumbs up, thumbs down or 

sideways thumbs to determine if the subcommittee is on 

track to provide one recommendation to the main 

committee. I think I'm going to try and do temperature 

checks more frequently than I did last time. This will 
 

 

 

 

 

14 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

also provide an opportunity to see if there's division on 

a path forward and how we can work together to resolve 

that issue. So Vanessa, as she stated, will be sharing 

her screen and making real-time edits. And because this 

is the final three days, I really would like to focus the 

discussion on language suggestions. I know that there 

will be over overall comments on the direction of the 

regulatory package people, the subcommittee's opinions on 

the regulatory package, how this will impact communities. 

I think those will all be relevant comments. I think if 

those comments could be accompanied by a language change, 

that would be helpful because we would actually be able 

to see, you know, how the overall idea would be relayed 

through regulatory language. If you are suggesting a 

change, please be sure to speak slowly and clearly so 

that Vanessa can capture the change. If you do not have 

exact language, you would like to propose, but you have a 

concept that you would like the Department to include in 

the regulatory language, you can let us know and we will 

go back and try and draft language prior to the next 

day's meeting. So Vanessa will highlight new change, so 

in the amendatory language, which we'll see momentarily, 

we have the red line changes that well the red line edits 

that we made that we sent to the subcommittee prior to 

the first committee. All of the changes that we made 
 

 

 

 

15 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

between the first session and the second session were 

highlighted in yellow. And today I'm going to ask that 

Vanessa highlight any language changes that the 

subcommittee proposes today in bright blue. And so that 

will help us distinguish between all of the changes that 

were made or all the proposals and changes that were made 

between the first session and now. So our schedule for 

today is just to get through a lot of the more technical 

areas and the areas where the where we had general 

agreement, but the Department has added a little bit more 

context upon further discussion. And then tomorrow we're 

going to be discussing the new subpart P, and that 

generally is the overall definition of a Prison Education 

Program. We had originally intended to put that 

definition into 668.8 in the Code of Federal Regulations 

that is under eligible programs. There are other things 

discussed in that section, so we felt as though it would 

be read, it would be a better regulatory read if the 

Prison Education Program language had its very own sub 

part, and it kind of highlights the importance of Prison 

Education Programing. And then the third day we'll be 

back to more subpart P, a lot of discussion, we hope, on 

the best interest of students and with a (inaudible) 

State Department of Corrections determination of the best 

interest of students. And then the final cleanup for that 
 

 

 

16 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

for the afternoon we want to kind of go back to the 

regulation and just look at any final suggestions that 

the subcommittee has. So I want to pause there before we 

jump into the amendatory language. That's all I had for 

kind of like the lead in. And so now I did want to jump 

into the amendatory language. So if anybody has any 

questions before we do that, please let me know. 

MS. MCARDLE: I'm not seeing any 

hands. 

MR. WASHINGTON: No hands? Okay. 

Alright. So I wanted to start with, give Vanessa a chance 

to pull it up. Thank you, Vanessa. So I wanted to start 

with 600.2 in the definition section. We got general 

tentative agreements on the sorry we got I'm like looking 

at so many screens here. Alright. So we got tentative 

agreement. There were no thumbs down for the definition 

of an additional location. And we did propose. You'll see 

highlighted in here, we did propose to make some updates 

to the definition of a confined or incarcerated 

individual. And so we just added means there. You can see 

that highlighted and also from the previous discussions 

we had some suggestions and one of the suggestions was 

that Terrell advised that the Department should add that 

individual subjects who are serving an involuntary civil 

commitment would not be considered confined or 
 

 

 

 

 

17 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

incarcerated. What would allow an individual serving an 

involuntary civil commitment to access Pell to enroll in 

any eligible program, not just the Prison Education 

Program. And also that individual would have access to 

other aid programs, including direct loans. So we've 

added that they're based on Terrell's recommendation. I 

wanted to just chat with you all a little bit about Dr. 

McTier's recommendation. So Dr. McTier, you recommended 

to add outpatient treatment facilities to the definition 

of for a confined or incarcerated student that is that 

you sorry, you add you recommended to an outpatient 

treatment facility to be included for a student who if a 

student is serving in an outpatient treatment facility, 

they would be considered confined or incarcerated. So a 

lot of sorry, I got tongue tied there. And so in effect 

that would require that the student serving a criminal 

sentence in an outpatient treatment facility to enroll in 

a Prison Education Program, and that student would only 

be eligible for Pell. They would not have access to 

direct loans. We were able to discuss this with the 

suggestion with the Department of Justice and learn that 

some individuals and outpatient treatment facilities can 

leave the facility and enroll in an eligible program in a 

postsecondary institution. And so for that reason, the 

Department believes that these individuals should be able 
 

 

 

 

18 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

to enroll in any eligible program of their choosing and 

not just the Prison Education Program. And I think the 

benefit here is that it expands options for those that 

are in an outpatient treatment facility and for their 

postsecondary education endeavors. Also, Stan, you had a 

question last time about serving about the clause that 

says serving a criminal sentence. And so we've also 

followed up on that about the eligibility of someone 

who's not serving a criminal sentence, perhaps because 

they are in their, you know, just in a correctional 

facility awaiting trial. And we confirm that, that would 

not apply until the person begins serving a criminal 

sentence. Therefore, any time before the individual 

begins serving the criminal sentence, they could enroll 

in any program of their choosing, whether it is a Prison 

Education Program or not. But keep in mind, though, that 

the Department of Education, the Department of Education, 

does not have control of program offerings in 

correctional facilities and cannot compel a postsecondary 

institution to offer a program to a prospective 

individual. So, so I will pause there for any questions 

on that. 

MS. MCARDLE: Not seeing any hands at 

this moment. 

MR. WASHINGTON: So we do have to make 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

19 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

one technical update to this section, and I think Vanessa 

is sharing. I'm also, if you'll note, you'll notice that 

I'm also in the version that Vanessa is sharing. The one 

technical edit that we have to make which I'll drop in 

now is the definition of a juvenile justice facility. 

Unfortunately, that was not captured here. And so I just 

wanted to add I was wanted to let the subcommittee know 

that that definition would be added back to 600.2 because 

it was mistakenly added to subpart P when we were just 

moving things around. Also, the definition of a juvenile 

justice facility--that this was something that was added. 

So I just wanted to show you how the actual definition 

would actually look.. Remember, we had a juvenile justice 

facility before the first session, so what I wanted to do 

now, if there are no questions, is I wanted to take a 

temperature check. This will be unless anybody has an 

objection. This would be the temperature check to decide 

whether the subcommittee is okay with this as a 

recommendation to the main committee. 

MS. MCARDLE: We have a couple of 

hands up. Stanley first. 

DR. ANDRISSE: Yes, I just wanted to. 

We had this conversation last time, I believe, but just 

to get clarification on folks who have a civil 

commitment. So does Federal Law still bar people under 
 

 

 

 

20 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

civil confinement from access to regular Pell? So 

individuals that have that are not under a civil 

confinement, so they have to, you know, for instance, 

individuals with sex offenses that have to, you know, 

make that notification under, I believe we discussed that 

and it had been changed under the new law. But just to 

get verification and clarification on that. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Oh, so that was a 

direct question to me, so I just jump in there now. So 

we've added in there, Stan. If you look in the highlight, 

we've added an individual is not considered incarcerated 

if the individual is subject to or serving in a voluntary 

civil commitment. So that would mean that-- Well, first 

of all, all the students under the confined or 

incarcerated student definition are, you know, are 

eligible for Pell. It just depends on whether they're 

eligible for Pell to enroll in a Prison Education Program 

or eligible for Pell to enroll inDR. ANDRISSE: If I could clarify, 

under the previous law, for instance, there was a 

question on the FAFSA that asked people if they had, you 

know, had to had a civil commitment due to a sex offense 

and that barred them from accessing federal funds. 

Similarly, there was a question that asked about drug 

crimes that bar people that had specific types of drug 
 

 

 

21 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

crime during, you know, during school from obtaining 

federal funds and that had been removed. So I just wanted 

for the record again to clarify. And I think I mean, 

David, or one of the legal folks maybe can just add that 

clarification again for the record. 

MR. WASHINGTON: I think it's 

clarified, Stan. I said that we were saying that an 

individual that is subject or serving an involuntary 

civil commitment is not considered incarcerated for the 

purposes of Title IV Aid, so that individual would be 

eligible to enroll in an eligible program and receive 

Pell and direct loans. So that individualDR. ANDRISSE: Well, I was just 

waiting for the record to say that previously they were 

not. But now they are. 

MR. WASHINGTON: That is correct. That 

is correct. Yes. 

DR. ANDRISSE: So now the new law has 

been changed. Perfect. Thank you. 

MR. WASHINGTON: And we've added that. 

We've reflected that in the amendatory language. 

DR. ANDRISSE: I mean that that text 

doesn't reflect that what I'm talking about. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. Stan, if you 

could provide us with some of the amendatory language you 
 

 

 

22 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

think would get to that, we can take that back and 

discuss whether that language would be aligned with the 

statutory changes. 

DR. ANDRISSE: I mean, that's a 

different conversation, I believe, because that's 

referring to a different question on the FAFSA that used 

to be on the FAFSA that is no longer on the FAFSA, if I'm 

correct. Is thatMR. WASHINGTON: Perhaps ROTC would 

like to weigh in on this. 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE SPEAKER: Yeah, I 

see (background talking) 

MR. FINLEY: Yeah. So you're asking 

about the provision that used to make students ineligible 

if they had a drug conviction, right? David Musser may 

want to weigh in on it. But my understanding is that 

provision has now been eliminated and the question has 

been eliminated from the FAFSA as well. 

DR. ANDRISSE: Right. It was drug 

conviction or a sex offense. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay, I can. I can 

weigh on the drug, the drug conviction. So that was so 

the question still is present on the FAFSA but a drug 

conviction of possession or sale of drugs no longer 

impacts the student's eligibility for aid. We released a 
 

 

 

 

23 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

Federal Register Notice some time ago, clarifying that 

and outlining the Department's plans for removing the 

question from the FAFSA. It still appears on the FAFSA, 

but it no longer has an impact on the student's 

eligibility, and the Department is currently working to 

provide updated help text on the FAFSA and also remove 

the question in the future in a future award year. So in 

regard to the sex offense question, Steve, it what it 

was, what the statute was referring to was my 

understanding was about serving an involuntary civil 

commitment. And I think what we've done here is we've 

added that to the definition of somebody who is not 

incarcerated. So that means that a student that is 

serving an involuntary civil commitment, a student that 

is in a halfway house or a student that is in a home 

detention center or a student that is serving only on 

weekends, is eligible for a federal Pell Grant. 

MR. MUSSER: Aaron, do you mind if I 

jump in real quick? 

MR. WASHINGTON: Yes, please David. 

MR. MUSSER: So I definitely think 

that the amendatory text that the Department has 

introduced here makes it clear that an individual who is 

serving an involuntary civil commitment for whatever 

reason, including sexual offenses, is not considered 
 

 

 

 

 

 

24 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

incarcerated. But it may not be completely clear that 

such an individual still qualifies for Pell because the 

previous law prevented both students who were 

incarcerated in federal and state penal institutions and 

those who were subject to involuntary civil commitments 

to a loss of Pell eligibility and those who are serving 

involuntary civil commitments weren't necessarily 

considered incarcerated under that legal language. So I 

think the question that I now want to defer to our 

general counsel is whether under the new law, individuals 

who are serving an involuntary civil commitment who are 

not considered incarcerated would nonetheless qualify for 

Pell Grants when the law is fully implemented. 

MR. FINLEY: And the best I can say on 

that is what I'll have to take that back for some 

internal discussion, I don't know the answer off the top 

of my head. I'm sorry. 

DR. ANDRISSE: And if I could refer, I 

believe it was, you know, a 2008 law that specifically 

pointed to, as David mentioned, you know, involuntary 

civil commitment. You know, people serving involuntary 

civil commitments were specifically not eligible for 

Pell. It had nothing to do with whether they were 

incarcerated or not. So if we can get clarification on 

that, that would be that would be good. I think last time 
 

 

 

 

 

25 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

we had asked that as well. But, you know, just to just to 

reiterate. So it's not only a question on the FAFSA, but 

it was also a specific piece of law, as David mentioned. 

Thank you. 

MS. MCARDLE: Okay, we have Belinda, 

Marisa, and Terrell. Belinda first. 

MS. WHEELER: Great, thank you very 

much. I just wanted to make sure that we're crystal 

clear. I wanted to number one thank the Department over, 

I think it was on Friday I'd sent that email to the group 

with regards to, you know, the definitions of confined or 

individual. And I want to thank the Department, you know, 

for providing some context. You know, you had all kind of 

explained that there is a little bit of kind of ambiguity 

or complexity in this definition. And I think you did a 

really good job of explaining how the Department 

certainly isn't trying to, the Department or Congress 

isn't certainly trying to kind of jump in and, you know, 

change definitions or things of that nature with regards 

to confined or incarcerated individuals. I did just want 

to make sure that again, you know, usually corrections 

and usually education have, for the most part for 

postsecondary education have been quite separate. And for 

this, you know, as we move forward with Pell expansion, 

you know, we are going to be there's a lot of extra 
 

 

 

 

 

26 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

weight that Corrections is bringing into this space, and 

I see that Marisa has her hand up too and I definitely 

want to defer to her as the, you know, the person from 

corrections on the subcommittee here. I just want to make 

sure that if we keep this language the way you know, for 

example, bringing both confined and incarcerated 

individual individuals together in this text and not 

separating them, that when, for example, a DOC at a 

particular state is looking to work with an education's 

institution that wants to provide that we won't 

inadvertently accidentally really just get, Corrections 

might read it a certain way and Education might read it a 

different way. And that's a concern for me. I just want 

to make sure, and I know in the email that you'd sent out 

to everyone else. You know, that you all had, you know, 

clearly put in your email about the situation as it was. 

And but you'd also said that the subcommittee may wish to 

provide statutory definition examples. And I just really 

just wanted to check. And again, I see Marisa is here, so 

this may be something that Marisa wants to bring up, but 

I just want to make sure that if we do indeed decide to 

go this way or this way with this, that by not separating 

those two, that down the road, we might indeed kind of 

create a headache for corrections and education educators 

as we're looking to expand with this. So I just want to 
 

 

 

 

 

27 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

put that out there. I'll certainly I see Marisa is here, 

so maybe she might want to speak about this. And if I 

need to say anything else, I'll put myself in the queue 

again. But thank you. 

MS. MCARDLE: Marisa. 

MS. BRITTON-BOSTWICK: Thank you, 

Belinda. I think you're exactly right. These really need 

to be clarified. And the also the other issue that I 

think needs to be clarified and it probably already has, 

but is the definition of youth under a juvenile justice 

facility. We see a lot of different definitions of youth 

within education. And so is this defined somewhere else 

in the language? Because is it under 18 using dual 

enrollment? Is it 18 to 22? That would be something I 

would want clarification on if possible. So thank you. 

MS. MCARDLE: Terrell. 

MR. BLOUNT: I took my hand back down. 

MS. MCARDLE: Okay. And we have Stan 

again then. Stan. Oh, okay. 

DR. ANDRISSE: Sorry about that. 

MS. MCARDLE: That's alright. And 

Marisa, I'm assuming you're done speaking, your hand is 

still up. 

MS. BRITTON-BOSTWICK: I'm done. 

Sorry. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

28 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

MS. MCARDLE: Okay, no worries. Okay. 

That's it for the hands. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you for all 

those comments I can speak to Marisa's last question 

about the definition of youth. We haven't defined youth 

here in the regulation, but I will. I can point to the 

fact that this-- by adding I probably added to the 

confusion, but we're not proposing to add during this 

subcommittee, the definition of a juvenile justice 

facility. This was added in 2018, I believe. So this has 

been the definition that has been in our regulations for 

some time now. And thank you for bringing that point to 

us. But we had not heard that there was, I guess, 

confusion in the community based on this. Based on this 

definition, it was just to show that juvenile justice 

facilities, at least the previous way that the statute 

was written, is that those that were in a juvenile 

justice facility could receive Federal Pell Grants. And 

now we're just saying that those that are in a juvenile 

justice facility can receive a Pell Grant as long as they 

enroll in a Prison Education Program. 

MS. MCARDLE: Marisa. 

MS. BRITTON-BOSTWICK: So does that 

include people under 18 in a dual enrollment program with 

a college, or is it only 18 to 22 year olds? 
 

 

 

 

 

29 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

MR. WASHINGTON: So that would 

include. So for Pell eligibility, you have to you'd have 

to be otherwise eligible students. So any eligibility 

requirements that that we're not proposing to change 

eligibility requirements for Pell eligible for students. 

So the student would still have to you know, be a, have a 

high school diploma or its equivalent. They would have to 

be a U.S. citizen eligible non-citizen. I don't know if 

David would like to speak to dual enrollment, but I'll 

pause there to see if David would like to add anything on 

enrollment. 

MR. MUSSER: Sure. So the student 

eligibility requirements for Pell Grants and other types 

of Title IV Aid require a student to have either the 

recognized equivalent of a high school diploma or to 

qualify through one of the Ability To Benefit 

requirements, which could include the completion of a 

certain number of credits, the completion of an approved 

Ability To Benefit test, or participation in the state 

process that's been approved by the Department. But the 

law also prevents all students who are enrolled in 

secondary school from receiving Title IV Aid. So those 

individuals, if they're simultaneously enrolled in 

secondary school, will not qualify for Title IV Aid. It's 

only when they are not simultaneously enrolled, and that 
 

 

 

 

30 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

could include students who have dropped out and not 

completed a secondary school as long as they meet the one 

of the other criteria that I just mentioned in lieu of a 

recognized high school diploma, but they cannot be 

enrolled simultaneously in high school and be receiving 

Title IV Aid for an eligible program. 

MS. MCARDLE: Stan. 

DR. ANDRISSE: So I just found this 

site on the student aid page that says that people on a 

civil commitment cannot get Pell. And that looks to still 

be the law. So that was not changed with the FAFSA 

Simplification Act, as there was a specific piece of 

legislation towards that. So I think with us, excluding 

them here, we know they are again getting excluded. I 

just sent the entire group an email with that link that 

shows that particular where that's mentioned. 

MS. MCARDLE: Aaron? 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you for that, 

Stanley, that is current language that's on the FSA 

website, it hasn't been updated for the changes that we 

are going to make here during the subcommittee. The 

changes in statute are set to be made July. Well, if we 

publish a regulation by November 1st, those changes will 

go into effect by July 1, 2023, so the Office of Federal 

Student Aid. I don't want to speak for David, but they do 
 

 

31 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

have a little bit of time between then and now to update 

the website to reflect what the regulations will be on 

July 1, 2023. So you know that what that is the current 

law, but we are here working to the law has been amended 

by the 2021 Appropriations Bill to and it made certain 

changes. And one of the changes is that, you know, 

confined or incarcerated students are not eligible for 

Pell if they enroll in a Prison Education Program. So 

that's what we're here to do now. I think Steve mentioned 

that he's from the OGT perspective, they're going to take 

the question back. Hopefully we can get an answer. Looks 

like Steve raised his hand. Hopefully we're going to get 

an answer for you, but I'll pause there, I'll allow Steve 

to add more. 

MS. MCARDLE: Steve. 

MR. FINLEY: Yeah, I didn't realize my 

hand was up, sorry, I was just going to reaffirm what 

Aaron was saying, we'll take it back and try to come back 

with a clearer answer. 

DR. ANDRISSE: Yes, it is, it is my 

understanding that the bill that was passed did not 

address that, but we have the opportunity here, maybe to 

address that within the language. But if you could, I 

would appreciate if you could get back to us. Thank you. 

MS. MCARDLE: No more hands at this 
 

 

 

32 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

time. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Alright, so I kind of 

hesitate to take a temperature check there because I 

think we're not going to have it, but just for just for 

just for just for the record, Sophia, can you see 

everybody's screen that's the part of the subcommittee or 

no? No? Okay. Sophia, you're on mute. 

MS. MCARDLE: Oh, I'm sorry, I said I 

do not have Marisa. I cannot see Marisa at all. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay, I can so let's 

try and do a temperature check, and then Sophia, I'll 

see, I can see Marisa, so if anybody, if you've gotMS. MCARDLE: Well I should be able to 

see her, but I don't. Okay. We'll just see. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Oh, go ahead, I'm 

sorry. 

MS. MCARDLE: No, no, go ahead. Let's 

do the temperature check. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay, so let's give a 

thumbs up, sideways thumbs, or thumbs down to this based 

on the language as written, not including the follow-up 

on involuntary civil commitment from Steve. And Marisa 

has a sideways thumb. 

MS. MCARDLE: And Stan has down. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay so the only 
 

 

 

33 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

issue with this, well I'll let Stan speak for himself. 

Sorry. 

DR. ANDRISSE: Yes, I can't give a 

sideways or up until I get that clarification. Because 

depending on that will change what I would propose for 

language. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. Thank you. So 

do we have any further discussion on this piece, or can 

we move to the next section, 600.7? Okay so if we recall, 

this section was all about the 25% cap on incarcerated 

students enrolled incarcerated students for Title IV 

institutional eligibility. What we've done here. We did 

have no thumbs down on our temperature check last time, 

however we are proposing to we are proposing a few a few 

technical changes in this, because you'll see in the 

highlight that we're adding subpart P, we're changing it 

from six, we're changing it from 668.80 to subpart P. And 

then let's see, I got to go back, I'm like looking at so 

many screens here. Vanessa, if you could scroll down a 

little bit. We've also added on a program by program 

basis to number three, and the rationale behind that was 

that for if the school offers a two or four year program, 

then they would apply for the waiver and the Department 

would review that waiver based on the conditions that we 

proposed to outline and regulation. If the offer if the 
 

 

 

34 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

institution offers programs that are two or four year 

programs that that don't lead to a bachelor's, 

associate's or postsecondary diploma, then those programs 

would have to have a 50 percent completion rate as 

previously, it's already defined in regulation how that's 

calculated, and because each of the programs has to have 

a 50 percent completion rate or greater, the Department 

would have to review each of those programs on a program 

by program basis to ensure that each of them had that 50 

percent completion rate. So that's why we're proposing 

there to add program by program basis. You'll also see 

that we're proposing to delete the Secretary withdraws 

the waiver or any language referring to withdrawing the 

waiver and replace that with limits and terminates. And I 

want to pause there to turn it over to my to Steve Finley 

at OGC to explain why we're changing it from withdraws to 

limits and terminates. 

MR. FINLEY: Sure. When you think 

about it, when an institution obtains approval from the 

Department to do something like operate and offer 

programs that are not subject to the 25% waiver, in order 

to restrict that approval, the Department has to provide 

some form of due process to the institution to challenge 

having its approval restricted. And so by using the 

reference to limit or terminate that triggers into the 
 

 

 

 

35 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

existing Department regulations, where we provide for 

opportunities for the institution to request an 

administrative review of the actions by the Department. 

So it's a pretty standard concept, and it ensures the 

institution would have due process before having its 

approvals restricted. Now that is that is only in effect 

for institutions that are in the midst of their program 

participation approvals, right? If an institution was 

being recertified, it can get, its application can be 

reviewed and could be limited during recertification just 

as a part of a restricted approval of an application. But 

if the institution's not in the process of being 

recertified, it would get some form of due process review 

for those for those limitations or terminations of the 

waiver. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you, Steve. And 

I also, I'll just quickly add, I do know that Belinda, I 

see Belinda as hand raised, but I do know Belinda when 

one of your points of clarification that you emailed 

around that you were going to maybe propose some language 

on caps on enrollment. So if you wanted to talk about 

that, the floor is now open. 

MS. MCARDLE: Belinda, I think you're 

on mute. 

MS. WHEELER: Thank you very much. I 
 

 

 

 

36 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

didn't want to jump the gun on that. So, yes, definitely 

again want to thank the Department and colleagues. I sent 

that point of clarification. I definitely about the 

waivers and about, you know, this scaffolding approach, 

perhaps of, you know, institutions, you know, that are in 

this space. If they do indeed want to go above that 

waiver, that there would potentially be a mindful kind of 

scaffolding that we don't go for example, from a thousand 

students on a main campus to 100,000 students that 

include 299 well, 99000 students that are incarcerated 

all at once. So I think this scaffolding approach, so 

yes, colleagues who are on the subcommittee saw that 

email exchange. One of the things that I had thought of 

recommending is a cap for that waiver. You know, so that 

we're always mindful of, you know, if an educational 

institution typically serves X population that, then if 

they want to go into this population that they're not 

trying to reduce the opportunity for predatory kind of 

practices in this space. So I just wanted colleagues on 

the subcommittee to know that I will be working with you. 

I've got some possibly amendatory language right now that 

I'm kind of like working through, but I hope by tonight I 

will get that that amendatory language suggestion to the 

subcommittee for consideration. And then also, as the 

council had just mentioned too this whole idea of like an 
 

 

 

 

37 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

advisory board, you know, in place here when it comes to 

appeals or things of that nature is something too that 

we've been kind of looking at as well. So I'll try to 

make sure that that additional amendatory language gets 

out to everyone via the email so that everyone on the 

subcommittee can see it. Thank you. 

MS. MCARDLE: Stan? 

DR. ANDRISSE: Yes. I just wanted to 

agree with what Belinda mentioned and also just emphasize 

the advisory committee use here as well as I will also be 

emphasizing its use in a later part of the language. And 

I think, you know, it's helpful if you can add as we're 

in the conversation, the bubble off to the side, because 

I noticed there were a few comments that I made that were 

not recorded in the text. And so I feel like we're going 

to lose certain comments if we're if we're not actively 

adding them so that that would be appreciated if it were 

able to be someone who's keeping note of that, even if 

it's not active, you know, the version that gets sent to 

us to have those. 

MS. MCARDLE: Aaron. 

MR. WASHINGTON: You're right. I 

you're right. And I think that's a good idea. So I was. 

So I think we can add comment bubbles because I don't 

think we've had any specific language suggestions yet, 
 

 

 

 

 

38 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

but we can add comment bubbles to capture the 

subcommittee's ideas. Vanessa, if you wouldn't mind 

adding here the comment bubble somewhere in here just to 

say that Belinda will provide language on scaffolding or 

capping. That's what the capping the amount a school is 

able to increase in enrollment after receiving a 25% 

waiver. And Stan, can you please repeat your suggestion 

about working with community organizations or? 

DR. ANDRISSE: Yes, I just this is the 

creation of an advisory committee could help oversee this 

process and we can provide just as Belinda said, we could 

provide more specific language to that. 

MR. WASHINGTON: It looks like I'll 

let Steve weigh in on that first, butMS. MCARDLE: Okay Steve, and Belinda, 

did you also have a second comment or was just a hand up 

for the okay, Steve? 

MR. FINLEY: Yeah, just with respect 

to Belinda's comment, I was going to note that, you know, 

to the extent the Department's responding to an 

application for a new program, the way the scaffolding 

could be put in place if we were doing that would be to 

make it a condition of the approval right. You can 

provide a less than full approval to somebody when you're 

when you're giving new permission. And if somebody needed 
 

 

 

39 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

to have that kind of restriction put in place because it 

looked like things were out of line that would come into 

the limitations that we were using and referencing in 

this other language. With respect to the advisory 

committee, I think we need to discuss it. It seems like 

if it's something that wraps into the formal appeal 

process at the institution, the only parties that that 

are recognized in the regulation are the institution and 

the Department. So an advisory committee role might be 

something you would structure that would be part of what 

the institution would present in that situation. I don't 

know. But given the given that this is a pretty focused 

issue, I don't think it's going to result in a rewrite of 

the administrative appeals process at the Department. It 

seems like we can do square pegs in round holes to some 

degree, and then we can talk about how the advisory 

committee would play into that and see where it goes. 

MS. MCARDLE: Stan. 

DR. ANDRISSE: Yeah, so my thinking 

around it is it's still keeps the same language that it 

is those two entities that are responsible for the 

decision, but we add language that they are advised and 

particularly the DOC, you know, can be the advisory 

committee. And you know, I hope to actually propose some 

language to give that, you know, a body such as that, 
 

 

 

 

40 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

some strength behind it. But as is written, it can still 

be that the two deciding entities, you know, could be 

what is written and they're being advised by some group 

of experts. 

MS. MCARDLE: Does not look like I 

have any other hands right now. I think Belinda put her 

hand back down. Kim, Kim just put her hand up. Yes. 

MS. CARY: Yes. Thank you, Steve, this 

is for you. You mentioned the program participation 

agreement and maybe adding it to that language. Are you 

looking at maybe another column that would indicate this 

is a correctional facility that that program a study 

might be assigned to, as well as traditional students? 

And what kind of reporting out for Department of ED would 

we need to do to reflect that percentage? So they would 

how would they know that we're staying within those 

parameters? 

MS. MCARDLE: Steve. 

MR. FINLEY: Yeah, thanks, I was just 

raising my hand. I think those are great questions. I 

think one of the reasons the Department has built into 

the proposal here that a Prison Education Program is 

going to be treated as a separate location is that it 

will greatly enhance the way that the Department can 

track the information that's unique to those locations 
 

 

 

41 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

and those programs. And I think we'll need to the extent 

that that location is offering more than one program, and 

it's a program by program waiver that our program by 

program outcomes that are being tracked, I think we'll 

have to put some thought into that, it's a very good 

question. Thank you. 

MS. CARY: Thank you. 

MS. MCARDLE: And it looks like no 

hands at this time. Aaron. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you, Sophia. So 

I think, oh, Vanessa, if you can scroll up just a little 

bit back to the 600.2 section, I just wanted toad that I 

put a comment bubble in there, right there. Stan, does 

that cover what your question was? Okay thank you. 

Alright, we can scroll back down, Vanessa, to 600.7. So I 

think here unless I am mistaken, I think wait, Kim, you 

may have had another did you want to add a comment to the 

comment bubble, Kim? So far, we have Belinda is going to 

be providing us with some language. And we also have 

Stan's recommendation to add an advisory group to this 

determination. 

MS. CARY: No, I do not have anything 

on that. Okay. 

MR. WASHINGTON: So I think I'd like 

to take a temperature check on that and see how many 
 

 

 

 

42 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

thumbs down we have. Or a thumbs up or sideways thumb to 

see how we can move forward. 

MS. MCARDLE: Aaron, I still don't 

have Marisa's video, on video. 

MR. WASHINGTON: I have Marisa. 

MS. MCARDLE: Okay. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you, Sophia. 

MS. MCARDLE: Sure. 

MR. WASHINGTON: If you can put your 

thumbs up close to your face so Sophia can see them all. 

Okay. 

MS. MCARDLE: Belinda, I can't see 

yours. 

MS. WHEELER: Sorry, I had a point of 

clarification, sorry, I had my hand raised. So just a 

quick question. Ordinarily, I would do a thumbs down 

because my obviously the bubble hasn't been, you know, 

taken care of yet. So am I just doing like sorry, I just 

need to check like because if it's, you know, with the 

bubble still needing to be done, then I would do this. 

But if it's like with the bubble recorded and then we're 

going to get back to you, then I might do this. So I just 

wanted a little point of clarification. I apologize. It's 

a Monday. I just want to double check. 

MR. WASHINGTON: So the clarification 
 

 

 

 

43 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

is just for the information on the slide, just for the 

information on the slide, not with what you'll be 

proposing or not with what not what Stan's 

recommendation. I just wanted to see before we get too 

far ahead. Last time we did the temperature checks all 

the way at the end. And so at this point, because this is 

our final session, we will have to circle back to, you 

know, to fix or to amend or to provide rationale on why 

the Department doesn't recommend amending the language 

changes. So I just wanted to make sure we had a tally of 

folks as we go along to see to see if we had general 

agreement on the section or not. So far, we have to 

circle back to 600.2. So yeah, so your thumbs down. Yeah, 

okay, there you go. So, Vanessa, in that comment bubble 

that we have, sorry Vanessa, started we're going to make 

this jump between so many screens today. Vanessa, in that 

comment bubble, can you put we have two thumbs down as 

well from Belinda and Stan? And give Vanessa just a 

moment, I know we're having her jump back and forth, I've 

actually been in that seat before, like doing the real 

time red line edits, and it's a lot when you have a lot 

of people saying, put this here, put that there, please. 

Thank you, Vanessa. Alright. So we're going to move into 

600.10 now, so we can scroll down a little bit. Yeah. 

Thank you, Vanessa. So we had no thumbs down for this 
 

 

 

44 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

section. However, to improve the structure and clarity, 

we have removed the reference to romanette, oh, so we 

included Prison Education Programs in that romanette 2 in 

the first for the first session. But we wanted to give it 

its own romanette so we've added that separate romanette. 

And we've also added clarifying language about additional 

location that we're referring to. And so we've said that 

it's the first Prison Education Program under Subpart P. 

I think Vanessa, if you wouldn't mind deleting the, so 

where it says of Subpart P? Subpart P of 34 CFR part 600, 

can you delete the O and the .8? 

MS. GOMEZ: Is that what you mean? 

MR. WASHINGTON: Let's see. It's not 

updating on my screen just yet, but I'm sure you got it. 

See, yeah, it's a little late, but that's okay. So, so 

basically, we've added clarifying language to say that 

it's still the first the first Prison Education Program 

at the first two additional locations as defined under 

600.2. But we've added clarity to say that those 

locations would be a Federal, State, or local 

penitentiary, prison, jail, reformatory, work farm, 

juvenile justice facility or other similar correctional 

institution. So I'll pause there for again, we had no 

thumbs down on this section last time. This is a 

technical edit that to provide more clarity for the 
 

45 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

reader. 

MS. MCARDLE: I don't see any hands. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay so can we do a 

temperature check on that? So that's 600.10. I will give 

I think. Let's see, Sophia, you're on mute. 

MS. MCARDLE: I was going to say I 

can't see the entire screen, I cannot see Terrell, and I 

still do not see Marisa. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. I think Vanessa 

is taking it down now. Alright, I see Marisa, she is a 

thumbs up. 

MS. MCARDLE: Okay, we're good then. 

MR. WASHINGTON: So. Alright. 

MS. MCARDLE: No thumbs down. Thank 

you. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Alright, Vanessa, if 

we can go back to the rejecting the amendatory text, 

please. Let's give it a second, I think, and then. Are 

you all able to? Are you all able to see that? Not yet. 

Okay. Alright, let's just give it a second. We might need 

to. After lunch, we might need to come up with a 

different way to do the temperature checks. Maybe we can 

do like a roll call as opposed to having asking Vanessa 

to go back and forth between the language and the 

temperature check. So while we wait, the only thing that 
 

 

 

 

 

46 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

we need to add to that is that, you know, the Department 

that the subcommittee there were no there were no thumbs 

down. So I don't know. So that would mean that the 

Department likely would not need to go back and revisit 

the section other than to make perhaps the technical edit 

if it's, you know, if a romanette is off or if a period 

is off or a comma is off. Okay so let's move to the next 

session, section while we wait for Vanessa to. I think it 

should be coming up. Still nothing. Okay. Yes, so we'll 

come we'll come back to we'll figure out if Vanessa's 

screen can't is it can't be shared, then we'll figure out 

a path forward momentarily. If it's not resolved, maybe 

by 11:30, we'll take a or in the next few minutes maybe 

we'll take a short break just to figure out what the 

technology issues are. So moving into 600.1 here, we've 

also made the technical edit to add those correctional 

facilities that would have to be reported as additional 

locations. And those are the Federal, State and local 

penitentiaries, prisons, jails, reformatory, work farms, 

juvenile justice facilities and other similar 

correctional facility. And we've also stated here Belinda 

had the suggestion. So to back up, this is about so this 

600.21 is about notifying the Department after your first 

Prison Education Program, that the first two additional 

locations has been approved, so after you submit your 
 

 

 

 

 

47 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

applications to the Department to have those programs 

approved, you still institution still will be required to 

report their additional locations to the Department or 

any correctional facility where they are offering Prison 

Education Programing, essentially. And so there was a 

suggestion made by Belinda to add its establishment and 

also cross-reference to 600.2 or the definition under 

600.2. So we added that. So we say it's establishment or 

addition as defined under 600.2. So essentially we we've 

taken the suggestion here. Okay. What I want to do is I 

want to pause for a moment. Amy, is there a way to if we 

can take a maybe a three minute break just to figure out 

what is what the issue is with the projection? 

MS. WILSON: Yeah. I also emailed 

Vanessa to take a break. We would just take a break. We 

don't have a breakout room or anything, if that's what 

you're asking. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. So let's take a 

five minute break and we will return at 11:15. We're 

making really good progress. And so I think that a five 

minute break right now just to figure out what the 

technology issues is and maybe we'll have somebody else 

screen share. So thank you so much and we will be right 

back. You can turn your cameras off, please. Okay I think 

we've resolved our technological issues, and if the 
 

 

 

48 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

subcommittee could reconvene, I apologize for that short 

break. I think as a way, do we see do we have everyone? I 

see Angie, Kim, Stan, Belinda. Do we have Marisa? 

MS. BRITTON-BOSTWICK: I'm here. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. Do we have I 

think, let's see Terrell. Has Terrell rejoined us? Dr. 

McTier. If you could come off mute, Dr. McTier or 

Terrell, if you've rejoined us. So as a way forward, 

instead of asking Vanessa to take down to go back and 

forth between sharing and not sharing. I think it would 

be the best that Vanessa just continue sharing her 

screen, at least for the remainder of the morning time 

and then for the temperature checks, we can if somebody 

is in, if somebody when I say a temperature check, you 

don't. We don't have to do the thumbs anymore. We can 

just say if someone is, what would be a thumbs down, just 

let us know. And then you can just state that reason why. 

So if you're a thumbs down, raise your hands. Sophia will 

call on you and you can state while you aren't fully on 

board with that section just yet. As a recommendation to 

the main committee, did we get to do we have Terrell or 

Dr. McTier back yet? 

DR. MCTIER: Dr. McTier is here. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you, Dr. 

McTier. Terrell? 
 

 

 

 

49 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

MR. BLOUNT: I'm here as well. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay, thank you, 

Terrell. Okay so for the last section that we went 

through, the last section that we had no thumbs down for, 

it looks like Vanessa has written in there. Alright. So 

we had no thumbs down for the 600.10, and that was just 

making a technical change to provide Prison Education 

Programs its own romanette. Also updates to ensure that 

we're referring, we're making the right cross reference 

and also adding the types of additional locations that 

we're looking for, that need to be approved by the 

Secretary Alright. If we can move down to 602 21, 

Vanessa, please. Let's see. That's what we just talked 

about. So yes, I was thinking about 600.10. So 600.21 was 

reporting locations after we've approved the first at the 

first two additional locations and we've added the 

establishments or establishments at Belinda's 

recommendation. And we've also added that same clarifying 

language that we added to 600.10 and a cross reference to 

600.2. And so I can't I don't think we took a temperature 

check on this yet. If anyone isn't, thank you, Belinda. I 

see your head shaking. You're like the only person I can 

see on my screen, actually outside of the Department 

folks. So if we can take a temperature check on that, 

that would mean raising your hands and also stating why 
 

 

 

 

 

50 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

you are thumbs down for this section that would be 

helpful or if you were in agreement and you want to raise 

your hand and speak as well. That's fine. It was, you 

know, but certainly if you're if you're thumbs down. 

MS. MCARDLE: I don't see any thumbs 

down. I don't know that I have everybody. 

MR. WASHINGTON: And I don't see any 

hands raised or anyone wanting to comment. So yeah, so I 

think we can. We can say no thumbs down for 600.21. Thank 

you, Vanessa. Okay Vanessa, if you can if you can go down 

to 668.8. Alright. If you all remember, this is about 

this section is about eligible programs and the 

Department proposed to put the definition of a Prison 

Education Program here in the first round. But due to the 

level of detail in the definition, we consulted with our 

general counsel and we recommend that the Prison 

Education Programs have its own subpart. When I sent you 

the email about this, I sent you like kind of a 

walkthrough on how to see how the subparts are set up in 

the Code of Federal Regulations. So hopefully you've had 

a chance to see that. So there is one remaining clause in 

668.8 that does need to be amended here. This is a 

technical change. We did not receive any thumbs down for 

this in the first round. And so 668.8 we're essentially 

just saying that the Department well for Title IV 
 

 

 

 

 

51 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

purposes, a Prison Education Program is a program that's 

eligible to participate in Title IV programs. And we, of 

course, changed the cross reference from paragraph O to 

Subpart P where the new definition of Prison Education 

Programs will reside. So I will pause there for comments, 

and if we have none, then we can take a temperature 

check. 

MS. MCARDLE: I don't see any hands. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you, Sophia. 

MS. MCARDLE: Oh, wait. Somebody's 

just went up, Terrell. 

MR. BLOUNT: Yeah, I'm sorry, Aaron. I 

just wanted clarification on what this piece actually 

states. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay so we're saying 

here, so 668.8 is where we have the definitions of like 

just eligible programs in general, right? Like we talk 

about one of the big pieces is like for Pell 

specifically, and we talk about like minimum program 

length, right? Like it has to be like 600 clock hours or 

at least 15 weeks. We talk about a lot of different 

program eligibility regulations in that 668.8 initially, 

what we had done here, Terrell, is when the first section 

in the first session we had the entire definition of a 

Prison Education Program underneath this, but we decided 
 

 

 

52 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

to just take that out and give it its own subpart, which 

we're going to. We'll probably get to it. We're moving 

pretty fast, so we'll probably get to it by the end of 

the day. But here we're just saying in 668.8. So there's 

like, you know, there's A through M before this. So 

there's like a lot of different paragraphs before this 

paragraph. But once we get to this paragraph in 668.8, 

we're just adding that for the purposes of Title IV for 

Pell, eligible programs include not only direct 

assessment programs, which are already defined at 668.8 

and also not only comprehensive transition and 

postsecondary programs postsecondary. But we're also 

saying that a Prison Education Program would also be 

eligible for Title IV HEA purposes. So it's just a 

technical change to update the to amend the regulations 

to state that the Prison Education Programs are eligible 

programs. And this was the same language that we had from 

session one. It's just updating the cross reference now 

because it's no longer correct. We have a new subpart P 

as opposed to paragraph O that would have fallen under 

this paragraph N. 

MR. BLOUNT: Understood. Thank you. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Well, thank you for 

the question. 

MS. MCARDLE: I don't see any other 
 

 

 

53 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

hands. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay so I will move 

us into a temperature check for 668.8 and the temperature 

check is just about. Well, we've already actually we 

already we had no thumbs down, but I guess kind of just 

to put the final stamp of approval on it. I just like to 

see if we have any thumbs down for this. So if you do 

have a thumbs down, please raise your hands and please 

provide rationale on how the Department can get you to a 

sideways thumbs or thumbs up. 

MS. MCARDLE: No hands. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you, Sophia. 

Vanessa, could you add a comment bubble? Thank you. Oh, 

thank you. And can you go down to 668.32? So here, what 

let's see, let me, so here I'm going to, I have to make 

just one update. So you should see hopefully in real 

time. And then I got to make one more update. Alright, so 

the last time, so for this section, we had a lot of 

discussion about it and we did have some thumbs down from 

Dr. McTier and Stan. The Department here hasn't 

recommended any changes because we view this as a 

technical change. But we did have a recommendation to 

because originally it said, is not incarcerated. But we 

did, but I made the recommendation to update it to is not 

a confined or incarcerated individual. And so that that 
 

 

 

 

54 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

that was the change that was made between the session and 

between the first session and the second session is that 

I've added confined or incarcerated individual because 

and the reason I added confined or incarcerated 

individual is because that's how our definition is 

structured in 600.2. We've also updated a cross reference 

because instead of it being instead of the instead of so 

we actually might need to update that as well, so we need 

to make one more update. I apologize. So instead of 600., 

668.35, we need to change that to 600.2. Alright. And we 

say or enrolled in a Prison Education Program as defined 

in our new subpart P. So I will pause there for 

discussion. 

MS. MCARDLE: Stan. 

DR. ANDRISSE: I'm trying to follow 

along and having some difficulty. This document that 

you're sharing says it's 12 pages long. Is this the same 

one that you sent us that you sent to us? Because the one 

that you sent to us is not 12 pages, right? Or is it? I 

guess it's it just getting longer as you add more stuff? 

DR. MCTIER: I believe it is, it is 12 

pages, Stanley. 

DR. ANDRISSE: Oh, okay. So this is 

the same what you sent to us. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Correct. 
 

 

 

 

 

55 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

DR. ANDRISSE: Okay. 

MS. MCARDLE: I don't see any hands. 

DR. ANDRISSE: And so we're on page 

four, so we've gotten through one third of it already? 

MR. WASHINGTON: You know, we do have 

to circle back with you about a few issues, so we're not 

we're not clear of those sections yet. But we so we're 

going to circle back to 600.2, Stan, about your 

clarifications and we're going to we still have to wait 

on Belinda's language for 600.7, so it does, it does seem 

as though we're moving pretty quickly, but we have to 

wait on council and also language updates in order to do 

anything further with 600.2 or 600.7. A lot of the other 

changes that we've taken temperature checks on, or pretty 

much all of them were essentially technical changes to 

the regulations that have to be made. And so that's why. 

And also, keep in mind that the definition of a Prison 

Education Program was originally in 668.8, but remember, 

we decided to move it to subpart P. So we would have 

spent a lot more time on 668.8 if the Department had 

chosen to or recommended to keep the definition there. 

But I think once you see subpart P, once we get down to 

subpart P, that's when we're probably going to have a lot 

of conversation and spend a lot of time there. I wanted 

to get through the technical changes today, and I think I 
 

 

 

56 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

do think that we'll get to subpart P today based on the 

way, the way that we're moving. But I wanted to get 

through a lot of the more technical issues today so that 

we could spend a lot of time on the definition of Prison 

Education Program with our three days. 

DR. ANDRISSE: Yeah, and I'm trying to 

follow and not miss. You know, I have points that I 

specifically want to talk on, but then, you know, since 

it's been reframed and formatted a little bit since last, 

I think that's why I just want to make sure that I didn't 

miss something. So that's. Nothing on you guys, I guess 

just me trying to follow along in class here today. 

MS. MCARDLE: Kim. 

MS. CARY: Thank you very much, Aaron 

or Steve or David, one of you, could you, I read this 

kind of stuff all the time in my profession as a 

financial aid administrator, and I am really having 

trouble with this language. For some reason, I can't 

follow it. It feels like a double negative at times. So I 

was wondering if you could go through and for my purpose 

and for everyone else who doesn't deal with this kind of 

language every day to explain each line and what it's 

saying or not saying. Does that make sense? 

MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah, I mean, I so I 

guess we could start at C2. So we're talking for the so 
 

 

 

 

 

57 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

for this section, for the for paragraph C2, were just 

talking about purposes of Federal Pell Grant eligibility. 

And one of the this is one of the one of the statutory 

components of Pell is that it's only, you know, it's only 

for your first undergraduate course of study. That's what 

I think. That's what the law says. So here we're just 

saying that the student does not have a baccalaureate or 

their first professional degree, right? So Kim, you know 

this stuff and this is just for everybody, everybody, 

people that are listening and their awareness. Did you 

want to jump in there, Kim? So you have your hand up. 

Okay alright. And so and then there it is like there is, 

you know, everything Title IV there's always a, you know, 

like an exception to the rule. And that's for the student 

is enrolled in a post-baccalaureate teacher certification 

program. And those are those are that's long standing 

policy, that's longstanding guidance and that's actually 

statutory. And then so we said here in romanette 2 is 

that the student can't be a confined or incarcerated 

student. Going back to that definition that we're going 

to circle back to, the student cannot be a confined or 

incarcerated individual right. And if they are a confined 

or incarcerated individual, then they would have to 

enroll, the student would have to enroll in a Prison 

Education Program, as we have as we've recommended to 
 

 

 

 

 

58 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

define it in our new subpart P. And the specific 

reference would be 668.236. So I think that once we I 

think because we did make structural changes to the way 

that to the way that we've set it up first, obviously we 

had it in 668.8 and now we have an entire subpart. I 

think that's where maybe some of the especially a lot of 

the confusion might lie, you know, just the overall, just 

the formatting we haven't made in that formatting, we 

didn't make any substantive changes that weren't either 

recommended by the Department, the subcommittee or the 

Department, but so most of it remain the same. It was 

just a technical change to put it in a subpart by itself. 

It's just that we felt because the language was becoming 

more detailed, we thought that it would be better housed 

in its own subpart where it's only about Prison Education 

Programs and nothing else. So this was language. I think 

we only had two thumbs. Well, actually, Kim, you might 

have been a thumbs down last time too, because you had 

recommended to add the is not a confined or incarcerated 

individual because again, before it stated, is not 

incarcerated. So we've added that, but otherwise we did 

have two other thumbs down for other reasons, and I can 

let those subcommittee members speak to those. So, Kim 

does that help or? 

MS. CARY: It does, it just seems, on 
 

 

 

 

 

59 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

A there I mean, I know what you're trying to say, but if 

I'm a new financial aid administrator looking at this, I 

may get confused because A says it's not available to, 

you can't be confined or incarcerated or is enrolled in 

an eligible Prison Education Program. It seems like those 

would be combined. And instead of saying who can't, you 

would say, who could. 

MR. WASHINGTON: So if so, if you look 

up to the paragraph romanette 1A, we do have the negative 

as well, like does not have a baccalaureate or first 

professional degree or, you know, is enrolled in a postbaccalaureate teacher certification or licensing program. 

So we do have the, the is not language in there, you 

know? But your recommendation would be to just say that. 

MS. CARY: State if you are a confined 

or incarcerated individual, you must be enrolled in an 

eligible Prison Education Program. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. 

MS. CARY: It seems to simplify it. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Yes, to simplify it. 

Okay. We can definitely. Unless our OGC wants to weigh in 

now, we can take that back for further discussion. 

Vanessa, can you put a comment bubble into combine A and 

B, Kim Cary recommended to combine A and B? 

MS. CARY: Thank you, Aaron. 
 

 

 

60 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. 

MS. MCARDLE: No further hands at this 

time. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay so I think we 

can take a, ohMS. MCARDLE: Well, there's Dr McTier. 

DR. MCTIER: Sorry, I had to process 

what exactly was going on in terms of what was written 

and why. I could have put my thumbs down last time. I 

mean, it seems like it's again banning anyone who's not 

in the higher ed in-prison program. And so other students 

who might not necessarily be in the program would not be 

eligible for any type of Pell whatsoever, so if there's a 

101 course offering from another faculty member or 

something else unless they're in this PEP program or HEP 

program excuse me, then they would otherwise be excluded, 

and I think that's why I put my hand down last time. So 

again, it seems like this is very restrictive, and I'm 

not exactly sure what was taken back to the Department of 

ED because it looks like there's not really any proposals 

to include others outside of a Prison Education Program. 

MS. MCARDLE: Aaron. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you for that, 

Dr. McTier. So this is the Department views this as a 

technical change, the statute. I think we had extensive 
 

 

 

 

61 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

discussion about this last time and the Department. The 

statute lays out eligibility for confined or incarcerated 

individuals, and the statute says that if you are a 

confined or incarcerated individual, you can receive 

Federal Pell Grants, if you're otherwise eligible for 

that Federal Pell Grant, but to receive that Pell Grant, 

you must enroll in a Prison Education Program. And so we 

are confined by the statute and Dr. McTier, I did note 

that you said like if a student wanted to enroll in a 

one-off course for eligibility for Title IV purposes, a 

student is required to enroll in a program so students 

wouldn't be eligible for Title IV Aid to audit, like a 

one-off course. I just want to take one course. I don't 

want to enroll in a program that no student, regardless 

without regard to whether they were in the Prison 

Education Program or not, will be eligible to receive 

Pell to enroll in well they would have to enroll in an 

actual eligible program. That is not to say that they may 

not be enrolled. They could be enrolled in one course in 

a payment period. Because for Pell purposes, a student 

can enroll less than half time in a program, but they 

still would have to be enrolled in an eligible program in 

order to receive Pell. And that is for incarcerated 

students. That is for any other eligible confined 

incarcerated students, that it's for all other students. 
 

 

 

62 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

All of the regular students have to enroll in an eligible 

program to receive Title IV Federal Student Aid. And so I 

don't see a place where the Department, if you if you 

wanted to recommend some language changes, we could take 

those back. But here, because this is a technical change 

outside of improving the clarity as suggested by Kim, I 

don't see a substantive change to the to the to the 

Department's regulation here. And I will pause. 

MS. MCARDLE: Steve, were you taking 

your hand down? 

MR. FINLEY: I took my hand down 

because Aaron addressed exactly the issue I was going to, 

which is there's just it's the overall eligibility for 

Pell Grants requires the student to be enrolled in an 

eligible program and not just one class. 

MS. MCARDLE: And Dave, same? 

MR. MUSSER: I had one follow-on 

point. I agree with everything that Aaron and Steve said. 

And the only point that I wanted to make, which I don't 

think would fully address Dr. McTier's concern about 

students who want to take a class outside of a program 

which, as Aaron correctly noted, would never be Pell 

eligible in any other context, the definition of an 

eligible Prison Education Program, depending on the 

program, could be fairly expansive. In the same way that 
 

 

 

 

63 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

the definition of an eligible program at a traditional 

institution that allows for a lot of different course 

opportunities could also be expansive. So, for example, 

if a school had a variety of courses that the student 

could take to fulfill a general education requirement, 

all of those courses could qualify for Pell eligibility 

under the same Prison Education Program. Similarly, 

certain majors or other majors that would fulfill other 

requirements in the program could also qualify. So there 

is some room for an institution to define what its 

program can consist of somewhat broadly. But otherwise, 

the restrictions that Aaron and Steve noted are 

definitely something that we don't have much opportunity 

to change in the regulations. 

MS. MCARDLE: Dr. McTier, do you still 

have your hand up or? 

DR. MCTIER: Yes, I do. So I mean, I 

would just go on the record. It seems like we're tied 

here again. I think we're missing a really great 

opportunity to provide educational opportunities to so 

many individuals incarcerated. While this is a good step 

in the right direction. It's a very small step and my 

goal is hopefully to expand access to even those who 

can't even, you know, get into the PEP program or a PEP 

program because it's limited in space or it's just not 
 

 

 

 

 

 

64 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

feasible for it to be at every facility within a state. 

And I'm talking about a prison facility or whatnot. So it 

seems like we are, our hands are tied a little bit here. 

Still not very happy about it, but I guess what can we do 

at this point? 

MS. MCARDLE: Terrell. 

MR. BLOUNT: Thank you. If I'm hearing 

correctly, it sounds like the word program is being used 

in two different ways. I think when Dr. McTier is hearing 

program, he's hearing a Prison Education Program and I 

think the other way it's being used as a program, as in a 

Title IV program, meaning any student who wants to attend 

college or take classes using Pell Grants, they need to 

it sounds like be enrolled in an eligible program, 

meaning at a college, and I think the communication is 

crossed where again, the word program is being used in in 

two different ways. I don't think this language is saying 

that an incarcerated student cannot participate in a 

Prison Education Program if they are not enrolled in the 

one that's in their facility. If I'm, please correct me, 

if I'm wrong, it sounds like a person can enroll in the 

Prison Education Program that is not in their facility, 

meaning teaching in-person classes. But whatever program 

it is, outside of that, if they're doing distance 

learning with another college that is qualified, it just 
 

 

 

 

65 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

has to apply, they have to apply those same rules that 

students in the community have, meaning it has to be a 

part of an eligible program. They have to take or enroll 

in X amount of courses in order to utilize the Pell 

Grant. Is that correct? 

MS. MCARDLE: Aaron. 

MR. WASHINGTON: I just wanted to add, 

though, that if a student wishes to enroll in a distance 

or correspondence program, that program, at their 

correct, at their correctional facility, that program 

would have to be if it was the first program at the first 

two additional locations. That program would have to be 

approved by the Department and the accreditor. If it's 

not the first program at the first two additional 

locations, that program if the student wanted to enroll 

in that program, it would they would still have to submit 

that. I remember Terrell, we talked about that pseudo 

like that smaller application where they would have to 

submit information to the Department that there was that 

institution that wanted to offer the program to the 

student was not subject to any negative actions by the 

accreditor or the state in the last five years. This 

institution also could not be under any initiated adverse 

actions. And if, let's say, for example, we're going to 

get to it later. This was on the Belinda's 
 

 

 

 

66 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

recommendations, but let's say that the program was on 

the first program of the first two additional locations 

was in-person program. If that third program is like if 

that third program at the additional location is, it's 

offered as now there's a change in method of delivery to 

offer it through distance or correspondence, the 

accreditor would also have to do a complete evaluation of 

that program as well. So like if I was a student at a 

correctional facility and my, that facility was not an 

additional location, I could not just simply apply to 

enroll in that correspondence or distance program, that 

it would have to be essentially a, you know, a reported 

to the Department approved and they would have to go 

through all of the requirements that we are defining here 

today to implement the Prison Education Program. So the 

institution would have to do everything that was in the 

regulation before that student could enroll in the 

distance or correspondence program. 

MS. MCARDLE: Dave. 

MR. MUSSER: Yeah, just seconding 

everything that Aaron said, but, to your earlier point, 

it still does mean that as long as the at the other 

institution goes through all of those requirements and 

has an eligible Prison Education Program that's offered 

through distance education, the student would have 
 

 

 

 

67 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

potentially a choice of program at that facility. They 

could take the on-campus program, they could take the 

distance education program and the courses associated 

with it, etcetera. But what and what we'll get into later 

are the specific requirements for approval or reporting 

and approval of those programs. But yeah, once those 

conditions are met and those are eligible Prison 

Education Programs, then any confined or incarcerated 

student at that particular facility could be Title IV 

eligible if they are enrolled in that program and taking 

courses in that program. 

MS. MCARDLE: Stan. 

DR. ANDRISSE: So this is where I made 

the point last time to mention that, you know, this is 

not Pell for all, and I encouraged us to try and think of 

a way to think about how we can be more inclusive. I 

mean, it is in this current language or, you know, what 

is considered statutory. You know, is there a way for us 

to be more inclusive, you know? You know, I gave the 

example last time of an individual who is trying to get 

into school, get into higher education and has no idea 

about who are eligible programs and is just trying to 

apply to college. That person, how does that person 

access Pell? 

MS. MCARDLE: Aaron. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

68 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

MR. WASHINGTON: So if a confined or 

incarcerated individual seeks to access Pell, the 

correctional facility where the confined or incarcerated 

individual is, has to be an additional location of a 

postsecondary institution. So I think David mentioned 

earlier that that location would have to be an additional 

location and approved as an additional location in order 

for the student that was incarcerated at that facility to 

access Pell. So I think we see this as a technical 

change-- this is a required change. And I think that this 

language is really simply getting to implementing 

statutory language that states that a student who is 

confined or incarcerated must enroll in an eligible 

Prison Education Program. So I think I hear your point, 

Stan. I think that we're trying to ask for ways to 

clarify the language as Kim recommended. I'm not saying 

that we're going to recommend to go in that direction. 

But Kim recommended combining the two sentences to 

clarify what we're actually talking about here. But the 

recommendation wasn't to actually change or to not 

enforce the statutory provision. We are required to 

enforce a statutory provision and I think, you know, we 

can definitely continue having conversation about this. 

But I think if after we return from the lunch hour, we 

have to move on. If your recommendation is going to be 
 

 

 

 

 

 

69 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

that we amend the regulatory language to, I don't know, 

allow students to take one course or a non-(inaudible) 

program or if your recommendation is to, not require 

that a confined or incarcerated person enroll in a Prison 

Education Program, that is something the Department 

cannot do. And so if that is a recommendation that you'd 

like to make to the subcommittee, that is something that 

either Jennifer Hong or I would likely make to the main 

committee. Jennifer Hong or I would likely have to advise 

the main committee that this is a statutory provision, a 

student that is confined or incarcerated must, let me 

just finish really quickly. A student must enroll in a 

Prison Education Program to access Pell if they are 

confined or incarcerated. And while that is the 

recommendation that Stan chooses to make, that is not how 

the Department can implement the statute. 

DR. ANDRISSE: Thank you. If I could 

just also again, this was one of those places that my 

comment from last time was not included as a bubble. 

Despite it, you know, this is the language that makes 

this not Pell for all, this is the this is where in the 

language that is defining that this is not giving Pell to 

all incarcerated individuals. So, you know, one, I want 

that to be stated. Two, I want it to be stated that, you 

know, how can we be more inclusive, for us to think that 
 

 

 

 

 

70 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

way? One potential way is us defining Prison Education 

Programs to be more inclusive. And you know that now then 

challenges some of the concerns and things that we're 

thinking about as we move into the Prison Education 

Program conversation later. You know. How do we make that 

more inclusive to try and capture an individual? Right 

now it is so we're defining the Prison Education Program 

so tightly because we're concerned with quality and in 

other guardrails that we're actually making it not very 

inclusive at all. You know, we're making it very 

difficult for programs to get in. We're making them very 

difficult to even operate in terms of all of the 

stipulations that they have to meet. So, it's just very 

concerning to me. And, you know, I expressed that concern 

last time and again it wasn't it wasn't noted here, and I 

would like for it to be noted. 

MS. MCARDLE: Aaron. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Before we note that, 

I want to circle back, and I understand-- I hear what 

you're saying, Stan, thank you for your comments. We are 

going to base--- on the pace in which we're moving now. 

We will likely get to the subpart P, we will likely get 

there today, and we will begin discussing the definition 

of a Prison Education Program. And I think at that point, 

it will be more than helpful for, you know, you know, 
 

 

 

 

 

71 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

places and language suggestions where we can potentially 

make it more inclusive. But for right now, we are talking 

about 668.38. And that is technical, I think. I think 

we're required to enforce this by statute-- And I think 

it might be. 

DR. ANDRISSE: I just want my comment 

to be added. I got you, Aaron. I would like my comment to 

be added. That's simple and clear what I said. I'm not, 

I'm not, I understand what you say about statutory. I'm 

asking you to, you said that you wanted to include 

bubbles where our comments and ideas were acknowledged. 

I'm asking you to acknowledge my comment and my idea. 

That's my simple request. 

MS. GOMEZ: Is there anything else you 

want or is that fine? The idea? Stan? 

DR. ANDRISSE: This section 

specifically points to it not being Pell for all 

incarcerated individuals. I would like that added, 

please. This section specifically points to this not 

being Pell for all incarcerated students, or all 

incarcerated individuals. 

MS. GOMEZ: Could you repeat the last 

part? 

DR. ANDRISSE: This section points to 

this specifically not being Pell for all incarcerated 
 

 

 

72 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

individuals. 

MS. MCARDLE: Aaron? 

MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah, so I think what 

we can do now is take a temperature check, we have five 

minutes until lunch, so if we could have the committee, 

the subcommittee let us know if there is any other thumbs 

down. You can just raise your hand and let us know why. 

Someone is not on mute. 

DR. ANDRISSE: Yes, so my thumb would 

be down just for what was added. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. 

MS. MCARDLE: That's all I see. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Kim, if I could ask a 

question, Kim, if we consult in in in and the 

recommendation is to keep it as two separate paragraphs, 

would you be a thumbs down or if we got that, if we got 

the verification like that, that that it should remain 

two separate paragraphs? 

MS. CARY: Sure, I mean (inaudible) on 

that one because I thought, well, it's fine either way, 

but it's just, you know. These are hard to read for just 

normal people, so the simpler we can get, the better. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Alright. So 

essentially you'd be like more of a sideways thumb if we 

didn't. Okay thank you for that. Alright. 
 

 

 

73 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

MS. MCARDLE: Not seeing any other 

hands. Aaron. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Alright, let's go 

down to we have three minutes left and we did take that 

five minute break, so I wanted to introduce 668.34, I'm 

sorry, 43, before we went to lunch and this was the this 

was the disclosure section. So you can hold there, 

Vanessa. Thank you. So the temperature check for this 

section, there were five thumbs down last time. And so to 

respond to Belinda and Dr. Paccione's concerns, we have 

removed upon request. And so therefore the student would 

no longer have to request these disclosures. They would 

just the institution would just be required to provide 

these students with the disclosures. And Dr. McTier, youMS. MCARDLE: I was going to ask, is 

there a comment? 

MR. WASHINGTON: Oh, oh sorry, I was 

actually looking at my notes. Dr McTier had made a 

comment that, I'm almost done. I'm almost done, Dr. 

McTier. 

DR. MCTIER: But really quick. I was 

going to say we only have two minutes and this I don't 

want to rush. We only have two minutes before lunch. So I 

would like to put a pin in it and come back after lunch 

so that we can take the time and the due diligence to go 
 

 

 

74 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

through this stuff. I really don't want to rush anything. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah. So I wasn't 

suggesting or recommending to take a temperature check on 

this. I was just going to just introduce it. So like that 

was in folks minds that we were going to be coming back 

to it. It was just going to be a very high level overview 

of what we did, and I didn't expect people to have to 

comment in one minute and vote or do a temperature check. 

It was really just to say like, here are the changes and 

think about them over lunch and we'll come back to it. 

But because we do have one minute left, perhaps I will 

just table it for now and then and then come back to it 

after lunch with the further updates that we've made to 

the section. And so with that said, let's reconvene at 

1:00 p.m. and thank you all for completing the first 

morning session of the first day of our final session. 

Thank you so much. 
75 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21