1 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION 

PRISON EDUCATION PROGRAMS SUBCOMMITTEE 

SESSION 2, DAY 3, AFTERNOON 

November 10, 2021 

On the 10th day of November, 2021, the 

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

to 3:00 p.m., before Jamie Young, Shorthand Reporter in 

the state of New Jersey. 
2 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

P R O C E E D I N G S 

MR. WASHINGTON: Welcome back to the 

afternoon session of our final day of the Prison 

Education Program subcommittee. So I just wanted to start 

out with just a few comments, so I did send the language 

to the subcommittee that we're working on today. And I 

noted that I noted where we've taken temperature checks, 

and I want to reiterate that I do not take things 

personally that I said during the subcommittee. I also 

want to clarify and really definitively say that I have 

not had any off the record substantive conversations with 

a subcommittee member about the regulatory issues at 

hand. I scheduled the meeting on October 29 with the 

Department of Education staff person, and Stan and 

Belinda to discuss the subcommittee report out to the 

main committee. Consequently, Stan was not Stan was not 

available to make that meeting when Stan provided his 

availability to speak with me through email, I responded 

by cc'ing and the Department of Education staff member 

and Belinda that I would return Stan's call. 

Subsequently, I was able to call Stan one on one where we 

exchanged polite conversation with with the main focus of 

the discussion, the main focus of the approximately five 

minute discussion being the process for the subcommittee 

report out to the main committee. And so I will defer to 
3 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

my colleague Steve Finley in OGC to discuss more of my 

role and the general role of the subcommittee. 

MR. FINLEY: Alright, thanks, Aaron. I think 

we want we want to respond to some of the comments that 

at least have raised the question as to whether there's a 

conflict of interest with the Department's role on the 

subcommittee and I will say that's the first time I ever 

I have ever heard that suggestion. If it will help to 

clarify, the Department does have two different functions 

here. We're a member of the subcommittee, and Aaron 

represents the Department's constituency, you know, in 

the comments that he makes and just like the rest of the 

subcommittee members do in between sessions, he's he's 

getting feedback from his constituency on how the 

Department's positions should be expressed and discussed 

in the subcommittee meetings. But separate and apart from 

that, a significant amount of Department staff serve a 

support role to for the subcommittee writ large where 

we're providing background reg text, we are providing 

proposed changes that we think reflect a tentative 

recommendation from the Department along with statutory 

requirements and and that is done to further the 

discussions. We've had meetings with subcommittees before 

that start out with pretty much no material being 

provided when folks would just have a general discussion 
4 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

and the feedback was always consistently that it seemed 

like the most productive parts of those meetings would 

take place later, when the Department started providing 

exactly those types of materials to underscore and 

support the discussions. And the goal in the subcommittee 

is is to collect differing viewpoints and to inform the 

the overall process with the backgrounds that everyone's 

expertise brings to them. So if if if some of what is 

presented feels like your comments are not being heard or 

expressed, you know our goal is to capture them somehow 

so they can be presented to the full committee. And we 

also note that the Department is not one of the 

presenters to the full committee. So that's another 

that's another area where we think it gives the 

subcommittee more control over how the report out is 

expressed. So thank you for that. 

MS. MCARDLE: Stan. 

DR. ANDRISSE: Thank you, Steve and Aaron, 

for for those opening comments. I would just like to 

clarify that on all the documents that I have regarding 

who is on the subcommittee, Aaron Washington is not 

listed as one of the subcommittee members and is not 

listed as representing a constituent constituency on the 

Prison Education Programs Subcommittee. I just checked 

that's according to the PDF document that I received upon 
5 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

being nominated to this committee, and that's also still 

what is PDF on the neg reg website does not list Aaron's 

name as a subcommittee member on the site. So what you've 

just mentioned, about Aaron having the ability to weigh 

in on this conversation, would effectively be incorrect. 

MS. MCARDLE: Aaron? 

MR. WASHINGTON: I think that we can move 

the conversation forward with the statements that have 

been made previously. I would point the members of the 

public that are listening in and also subcommittee 

members to our negotiated rulemaking website. If you pull 

up a a search engine and type twenty 2020 2021 negotiated 

rulemaking, it should be the first link if you scroll all 

the way part way to the bottom you'll see Pell Grant for 

Prison Education Programs parentheses PEP Subcommittee 

parentheses virtual. The first link you'll have there is 

subcommittee members. It's a link to a PDF and there 

there my name is listed as U.S. Department of Education 

Aaron Washington, office of Postsecondary Education 

subcommittee leader, and then it says Ronald Sann, Office 

of General Counsel, so that there is documentation on 

that on that publicly available website with that with my 

name on it. 

MS. MCARDLE: Stan. 

DR. ANDRISSE: There is also documentation 
6 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

on that same site that lists the full committee members, 

as well as the subcommittee members. And that was the 

document that was provided to me upon my acceptance to 

the committee. And it does not list your name on it. So 

if you go to the full committee list, which includes the 

subcommittee list. Your name is not on there. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you for your 

feedback, Stan. I think we can probably reflect that in 

the comments. Vanessa, would you mind pulling up the 

comments and going to 668. well, actually, can you bring 

can you pull up the the documents just in general and at 

the top of the document? We'll give Vanessa a second to 

do that and after after we pull it up to screen share, we 

can, I can, we can add a common bubble. Thank you, 

Vanessa. So at the top, so just right there, maybe at the 

six sixty, I'm sorry, 600.2 definition, anywhere in 

there, we can put a comment bubble to 11/10 and then Stan 

can you can you can you repeat that? What would you like 

to go in that comment bubble? 

DR. ANDRISSE: So on your neg reg site, if 

you go to the list of the full committee, your name is 

not listed on there. And furthermore, if you want to make 

the argument that Steve just made that you are a member 

of this subcommittee, it's still the subcommittee that 

decides what language gets put in there. So even if Aaron 
7 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

were to have a voice which just again points to his 

conflict, but, you know, even if he was to have the voice 

on there, it's his voice shouldn't rule. So it shouldn't 

be his voice that decides what language gets put in 

there, which is which is what's happening, which is the 

Department deciding what language gets put in there 

instead of the subcommittee voting temperature checking 

to see what language gets put in there. 

MS. MCARDLE: Steve. 

MR. FINLEY: Yeah, thanks, Stan, I 

appreciate those comments and others at the Department do 

as well. The subcommittee is is a working group that 

supports the work of the larger committee. And so one way 

to think of this is that this working document that's 

provided for our discussion to record the different 

positions of the subcommittee members, is just that. It's 

a working document and the goal is to then provide, you 

know, the collective opinions of the subcommittee to the 

full committee. Consensus is nice, but it's the consensus 

and vote tallying from the subcommittee is a little bit 

different than it operates in the full committee. But 

thank you for those comments and we're you know, our 

goal, I think for this session is going to be to make 

sure that the document captures the different impressions 

and comments that we receive from the subcommittee 
8 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

members, particularly where there are not agreements. 

Thank you. 

MS. MCARDLE: Dr. McTier. 

DR. MCTIER: I don't want to belabor this 

point, but I do agree with Stan on this, this issue. 

Specifically because only two I believe it's two myself 

and Dr. Andrisse are the only voting members on the main 

committee and we are outnumbered. If we look at the 

weight of the subcommittee versus the main committee, we 

are outnumbered. And so with that, I do think that there 

is a concern about the things that we're proposing is not 

being added in the document. I specifically remember 

yesterday we were figuring out one specific definition 

that was taken away. And so I do agree with Stan and I do 

think that some of the points that we are trying to make 

somehow miraculously disappears and then we have to argue 

to say, put it back in, and this document has become 

messy. So that's point one, point two, we are on day 

three with two hours left, and so I really want to make 

sure that we tackle some of these other issues before our 

clock runs out. So I just wanted to put that out there as 

well. 

MS. MCARDLE: Kim. 

MS. CARY: Thank you. Aaron, I'm not sure if 

this was put into the document or not. I know that one of 
9 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

the points that started the conversation was the 

oversight entity, and you gave your explanation from the 

Department's view as to the what that meant from the DOC 

perspective in the act that they have surrounding them. 

Is that put in the document so that the main committee, 

when they get this and see it, they can understand that 

we had hoped for one thing but due to these restrictions, 

this is the conversation? 

MR. WASHINGTON: Vanessa, I'm not sure 

Vanessa had a chance to capture that before the break, 

but Vanessa, if you could capture Kim's comment just 

anywhere on the oversight entity definition. 

MS. CARY: I think that would help with this 

to get the full picture. Thank you. 

MS. MCARDLE: Stan. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Before we move on, I just 

want to give Vanessa a chance to capture that. Kim, could 

you state what you would like to go in the comment 

bubble, please, one more time? 

MS. CARY: Yes. So the oversight entity 

position that the subcommittee had hoped for to have 

multiple groups weigh in on that as a possibility is this 

is what we hoped for. I don't know if I'm going to give 

you the right language because you'll have to probably 

repeat what you had said, Aaron. 
10 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

MR. WASHINGTON: You know what, I can 

definitely also like kind of edit it after, you know, 

like I think I I understand what you're trying to say. So 

I think essentially can we can just say, yeah, we had 

hoped for more collaboration, but there is, Vanessa say 

collaboration but there is a statutory definition of 

oversight of the oversight entity already defined. Kim is 

that okay? 

MS. CARY: Yeah. With the DOC and mentioned 

the act that they would be up against trying to enforce. 

You mentioned that earlier. 

MR. WASHINGTON: The act, the law? The Act? 

MS. CARY: The DOC has an act that they 

would have to go to to have. That we can't do this 

oversight committee, or way the entity, the way we want 

it because the there's an act, a legislative act that the 

DOC is bumping up against. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay, you can just say the 

Higher Education Act, Vanessa. 

MS. CARY: Sorry. 

MR. WASHINGTON: That's okay, that's totally 

okay, thank you. 

MS. MCARDLE: Stan. 

DR. ANDRISSE: Thank you. So to Kim's point, 

I I ended up mentioning that I was not clear, and I think 
11 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

Kim is asking that it be stated clearly why what your 

position was that you mentioned right before we closed. 

So and I mean, before we closed, I was also asking for 

that clarity. And, you know, if we're presenting this, we 

would need, I think Kim is asking, so it is noted that 

there is clarity on why you're saying that we can't take 

this position. I might also add once again that it should 

be up to the subcommittee if the subcommittee says that 

clowns should wear a red hat and nose, and that's what 

needs to be done and that's what we vote on and that's 

what you know, that's what we collectively say should be 

included. That's what we should present to the main 

committee. So again, I don't understand why the 

subcommittee's position is to include this. Regardless, 

if it is against statute, it should go to the main 

committee as what we voted for as what we what the 

consensus of our group said should be included. And the 

main committee can then go in to say that it's not going 

to work. But from us, this is what we want to include. 

Like, I'm not understanding why we can't have that That's 

not that's not I thought that's what we were here for. 

And again, I would like clarity as to why you're saying 

that it can't be included. 

MS. MCARDLE: Aaron? 

DR. ANDRISSE: I would like you to provide 
12 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

clarity at this moment as to why you're saying it can't 

be included. 

MR. WASHINGTON: I just want to really start 

out by saying before I respond that I really want to 

ensure that we continue to engage in like respectful 

conversation. I am really here to answer your questions 

and I will answer when you ask me to answer. I was 

intending to answer, but I really want to make sure that 

the conversation remains, I hope, respectful, at least 

between between the subcommittee members. Stan this is a 

statutory provision, our Office of General Counsel has 

amended has proposed to put the entire prison education 

definition into Subpart P because we didn't want to 

repeat throughout. From the first session, we had 

repeated the appropriate State Department of Corrections 

or other entity that is responsible for overseeing 

correctional facilities or the Federal Bureau of Prisons 

repeatedly in the regulation. And we thought that it 

would be best to condense that down into an abbreviated 

term “oversight entity” in order to not have to in order 

to shorten the regulation, in order to not have to have 

that same phrase repeated over and over again in the 

regulation. 

MS. MCARDLE: Dr. McTier. 

DR. MCTIER: Along the lines of that, so if 
13 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

this document is supposed to be a reflection of our 

subcommittee, then based on our earlier conversation 

around the “May” and “Must” component, I do want this 

document to reflect our stance on switching that language 

to “May”. Because I know earlier you were saying that's 

what the Department is wanting to do. And if you're not 

voting on the main committee, then it should be we will 

present this as “May” and then we can send it to the main 

committee to do that. So I do think, yeah, I hear you 

that you spoke with the Department of Ed rep but for us, 

we are challenging, I am challenging saying that we want 

to change that language back to back to “May” because 

that's what's reflected in the language that was 

presented to us. And so that's an example of how, you 

know, we're presenting something or putting something 

forward and our our words are not or our thoughts are not 

adequately being captured. And so we kind of feel, let me 

not say we, I kind of feel like I'm being pushed up 

against the wall and sitting here twiddling my thumbs and 

wasting my time by my thoughts not being captured 

correctly or being glossed over just for the sake of the 

Department's clarity or whatever they want to do. If 

we're here to provide the intellect, the knowledge we 

are, the individuals on the ground doing the work. So 

we're trying to tell you all what's going to work and 
14 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

what doesn't doesn't make any sense for the Department of 

Ed to ignore us because it just doesn't make sense to 

them. It makes sense to the people who are doing the 

work, boots on the ground. So I do stand behind Stanley 

Andrisse his statement, I agree 100%. I do think I do 

feel as if it's kind of been a waste of time because I 

see things that are talked about and then they're not 

added anymore or they they disappear. And then we have to 

go back through this whole cycle again, arguing just 

wanted to put that out there. 

MS. MCARDLE: Aaron? 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you, thank you for 

that. Dr. McTier. I, this document is just for this was 

the Department of Education’s document that you know that 

we were working on in between sessions to update the 

language during the session, to update the language for 

from our perspective. If you if you're if you join Stan 

and Belinda in presenting and potentially Kim and 

presenting during the main committee, you can present 

entirely different documents so your documents can say 

“May” like so and it doesn't have to be in a comment 

bubble. It could be, your document could actually say 

“May”. The definition of oversight entity in your 

document can actually be the proposed definition in the 

blue comment bubble. Vanessa, if you can expand that, I 
15 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

think it's 10, 11/8. I think it's 11/8 one the middle 

one. Yeah, that your your document can actually have that 

as opposed to or maybe it's not that one, but your 

document can have all of that language yep, added added 

in there, and that's what you can send to the main 

committee for your report. 

MS. MCARDLE: Stan. 

DR. ANDRISSE: So I don't feel that the 

response in terms of my asking for a clarification 

clarified you, you know, so what I heard was that we are 

adding that to make things, you know, less repetitive. 

That's not giving a reason why you're not adding the 

recommendation of this advisory committee. And I still 

don't, you know, there's what would be the reason for not 

adding the additional language of us, adding an advisory 

committee that advises the decision of the DOC or BOP? 

MR. WASHINGTON: I I'm not sure if you were 

able to if you were able to join at that point, Stan, but 

I provided the rationale. Were you here for my discussion 

to the Federal Advisory Committee and limitations? 

DR. ANDRISSE: I was here for the last 30 

minutes. And you provided a definition as to why you're 

not including the advisory committee and I'm asking for 

clarification on why we are not including that text. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Ok, so I will I'll so we 
16 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

appreciate and share the subcommittee's interest in 

establishing a way to get stakeholder input. However, we 

have unresolved questions about how a formal advisory 

committee would be operationalized. We have learned that 

it will require the Bureau of Prisons to be subject to 

federal advisory, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 

which creates a separate set of operational 

considerations, considerations. And we have questions 

about how feasible it is to stand up such a formal 

committee in every single state so quickly until we until 

we have the opportunity to fully explore those specific 

issues. It is not something the Department could commit 

to supporting at the main table. We have proposed instead 

language that we will see momentarily, and we'd still 

appreciate the work of the subcommittee to encourage us 

to expand stakeholder representation in the process. 

MS. MCARDLE: Stan. 

DR. ANDRISSE: So thank you for that. And if 

I'm not mistaken, I think Kim was asking for that 

clarification. But, you know, yes, so she was asking that 

that clarification be added in so we can properly explain 

that to to the full committee. But further, I would like 

to add that is it a belabored thing that we ask, you 

know, nonprofit entities to have a board or a committee 

and and and have advisory members? You know, it's it's 
17 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

troubling to me that or concerning to me that the 

Department wants to add all these other tasks and things 

to do for other entities, but adding this piece feels 

like too much. I mean, isn't it, you know, that's that's 

our argument against some of the other points is that it 

seems like we're asking too much of DOC or asking too 

much of, you know, within this entity. So what I heard 

was it seems too difficult, but to me, that's not that's 

not a sufficient response. It's not that we can't do it. 

it's that it seems too difficult. That's not that's not 

that's not sufficient. That's not that's not we can't do 

it, that's I don't want to do it, but it needs to be 

done. So it should be done and it should be upon us to 

decide whether we want to propose that to be done. 

MS. MCARDLE: Kim? 

MR. WASHINGTON: Before Kim, I just wanted 

to say, Kim, if you can, you clarify? Were you talking 

about the Federal Advisory Committee Act or the Higher 

Education Act? So what I was referring to was the 

definition of actual oversight entity, and that's in the 

Higher Education Act. But the rationale I provided about 

about the Bureau of Prisons being held to the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act that can also be added if you'd 

like it to be added to the comment bubble. I apologize if 

I confused your point. 
18 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

MS. CARY: No, I should have had the right 

wording. I just couldn't remember what you called it. The 

federal advising piece, I think, is good for the main 

committee to hear so they can understand the logic why 

that is a hindrance right now. But what I would like to 

add is maybe this is another piece that we can put into 

the bubble that says, we're startup of these programs I 

understand 2023 is right around the corner, and maybe 

this isn't something that can be in the initial startup. 

Like we've put two years on the other pieces. Maybe this 

is something that we could say, you know, two three 

years, depending on how long it would take for the 

Federal Advisory Act to be reviewed. How long would it 

take Federal Bureau of Prisons to come on board with 

having this type of oversight entity built. I think it's 

I think it's important to have all these stakeholders at 

the table. I understand the logistics of it that maybe we 

put a timetable on it for onboarding of this new idea for 

two or three years so that it's in the it's in the 

language that this needs to be part of it. And we 

wouldn't have to wait for the next time statue is looked 

at to to bring it back in. 

MS. MCARDLE: Stan. 

MS. MCARDLE: I guess Stan put his hand back 

down. Aaron? 
19 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

DR. ANDRISSE: Oh I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I 

was muted. 

MS. MCARDLE: Okay, sorry. 

DR. ANDRISSE: I was mentioning that. So one 

thank you, Kim. And I was going to mention how on a 

number of occasions, Marisa, for instance, mentioned how 

providing a certain metric would be difficult for DOC to 

do. And so if we were just simply going off of we 

shouldn't do this because it's going to be difficult for 

DOC or BOP to do it, then there are several things that 

we wouldn't have included. But yet we included them. 

Despite, you know, there was we mentioned that it would 

be difficult for DOC to do. So now you're simply saying 

that it will be too difficult for BOP to do it. But we've 

been saying that on a number of occasions. So now you 

want to try to use it to your advantage to not include 

something. 

MS. MCARDLE: Aaron? 

MR. WASHINGTON: I think, Stan I just tried 

to I just wanted to add. We're asking Vanessa to add a 

lot of stuff all at once, so I just wanted to add to the 

document Kim's point and we hear your points. And if 

you'd like that added as well, we can add another comment 

bubble. But I think with an hour and a half left for the 

subcommittee, we have to move to the next section. We 
20 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

have to move to the next section. So I would have to move 

us to a temperature check for this. If your if your thumb 

is dumb down, just please raise your hand because I don't 

think we can see everybody on the screen right now. So if 

your thumb is down, we've had substantial conversation 

about this. So just raise your hand in your comments 

will, you know, I think that we can move to the next 

section. So Sophia? 

MS. MCARDLE: I see one hand up, which is 

Stan. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Alright. And if you put 

your hand up right now, it's the reason that the hands 

are going, that reason that we're. 

MS. MCARDLE: Kim is also up now. 

DR. MCTIER: I'm sorry to interject. What 

are we raising our hands for specifically? 

MR. WASHINGTON: The temperature for sorry, 

this is the temperature check for section 668.235 the 

definition that includes all the definition cross 

references and oversight entity definition as is 

displayed on the screen right now. And so if you do not 

agree. Sophia, can you see all the subcommittee members? 

MS. MCARDLE: I can see that there are three 

hands up. Three. Those would be Stan, Kim, and Dr. 

McTier. 
21 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. And I think we've 

noted, I think we've tried to note all the concerns. If 

they're not noted, please let us know. But they are 

noted. I think we should move on to the to the 236. Is 

the hands up, I mean, Okay, thank you. Alright. Okay, 

thank you. Alright. Vanessa, can we go to 236? Okay, so 

here. Can you keep scrolling down Vanessa? Oh, yes, stop 

right there, please. Go back up a little bit to H. Okay. 

So while the statute so far this is H is the language 

about offering education to a student where there would 

be a prohibition on that student obtaining licensure or 

employment and the statutory language restricts while the 

statutory language restricts prison education programs 

from offering programs that lead to licensure employment 

in a job or occupation that typically prohibits licensure 

employment for formerly incarcerated students. We agree 

that we do not want the Department of Corrections to read 

that restriction too broadly, as is the proposed 

amendatory language tells the Department of Corrections 

to only prohibit enrolling a student if a specific state 

or federal law would prohibit a student from licensure 

employment. We do not read this and would not interpret 

this as including good moral character provisions or 

other provisions where a licensure board might have 

discretion. We think that it is more appropriate to 
22 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

include language and guidance describing that 

interpretation, given the variance in these types of 

provisions and the need for further elaboration on all 

the provisions all the provisions that I that I stated. 

And so I'll pause there and open it up for comments. 

MS. MCARDLE: I see no hands. And I now see 

a hand, Dr. McTier. 

DR. MCTIER: So what you just read is 

obviously not in the screen, so. Has that been sent, that 

statement been sent? 

MR. WASHINGTON: No, no, the statement has 

not been sent. 

DR. MCTIER: Okay. So, because it was a lot, 

so I'm trying to. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Oh, Okay, sorry. Do you 

want me to take it point by point and then I just we talk 

about each point. 

DR. MCTIER: I think that'll be easier 

because this is a big piece and that that statement from 

the Department of Ed was rather lengthy and I'm trying to 

listen and read again. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Agreed. Alright. While the 

statutory I'll just do the first bullet, okay? While the 

statutory language restricts prison education programs 

from offering programs that lead to licensure employment 
23 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

in a job or occupation that typically prohibits licensure 

or employment for formerly incarcerated individuals, we 

agree that we do not want the Department of Corrections 

to read that restriction too broadly. 

MS. MCARDLE: No hands. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. 

MS. MCARDLE: Wait, never mind, Stan. 

DR. ANDRISSE: So you agree that you don't 

want you said the Department of Corrections to read it 

too broadly? 

MR. WASHINGTON: Yes. Okay. Should I 

continue, Stan? 

DR. ANDRISSE: I'll have more on that, but 

go ahead. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. Alright. As is, the 

proposed amendatory language tells DOCs to only prohibit 

enrolling a student if a specific state or federal law 

would prohibit a student from licensure or employment. We 

do not read this and would not interpret this as 

including good moral character provisions or other 

provisions where a licensure board might have discretion. 

I'll pause there. 

MS. MCARDLE: Stan. 

DR. ANDRISSE: So I'll just again point to 

the point that I made yesterday where there has been 
24 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

there has already been instances where there was a ban in 

place, there was prohibition in place and yet a formerly 

incarcerated person still surpassed and got licensed 

under that under that board. So in that case, you are 

eliminating that possibility because the person can't 

even pursue that type of degree because there's already a 

prohibition in place. So there have already been 

instances where people have beat them, and those are the 

cases that change the prohibitions, those that state now 

has changed how they proceed against formerly 

incarcerated individuals. We are by adding that you're 

stopping, you're hindering that process. And that is why 

yesterday I say it would be better just to not include 

that additional text. 

MS. MCARDLE: Dr. McTier? 

DR. MCTIER: I would also agree that many of 

if they're a student, a current student, they won't sit 

for the board anyway. So typically a person goes up for 

their licensure after they've graduated. So this text 

would essentially prevent them from actually taking 

college courses. Those are two different things, right? 

We want to allow our students if they choose to take the 

college courses in a specific field, right? There might 

be some, some stipulations, depending on the type of 

crime, but to specifically say if they can't get it from 
25 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

the or get approved from the board, which is outside of 

the institution in and of itself, that's a problem. And 

so I agree with Stan on this, on this point, just with 

that added additional knowledge. 

MS. MCARDLE: Marisa. 

MS. BRITTON-BOSTWICK: Good afternoon, 

everyone, I completely agree with Stan and Dr. McTier. I 

think there are enough barriers for people leaving 

correctional facilities that we don't need to put that in 

there and I just want that on the record, I don't think 

that should be in there. I don't think as a person in 

education for many years, the last thing I want to do is 

put barriers on people on what they can do. So I would 

like that in there too. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Sophia, if you wouldn't 

mind jumping in, I just want to make sure Vanessa can is 

able to record these. I believe we have a comment from 

yesterday, Vanessa, that said that Stan recommended. 

Yeah. Can you add Marisa? 

MS. BRITTON-BOSTWICK: And I would agree 

with Stan's bubble from yesterday that the language is 

kept open. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. Alright. So Marisa 

agrees. Dr. McTier, can you clarify that Stan has another 

point in there for her to keep the language open do you 
26 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

agree with that as well so we can capture both of you in 

this comment? 

DR. MCTIER: Yes. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. Marisa and Dr. McTier 

as well, please, Vanessa. And when you close out of that, 

I know Kim has her hand up, so I want to expand to see 

Kim's entire comment because it kind of it kind of makes 

it seem like Kim is saying remove one or two. But that's 

not what the comment really said. The blue one. Yeah, 

okay. Yeah, so I'm sorry, Sophia, back to you. 

MS. MCARDLE: Thank you, Aaron. Angie was 

next. 

DR. PACCIONE: Yeah, thank you. I'm 

wondering if we might add that it's that whoever is 

providing the program informs the the incarcerated person 

that there is a possibility that they would not be 

eligible even if they take this course work, that they 

might not be eligible to be licensed because of state 

regulations or things like that. So while we may open it 

up for them to take those courses if they like, they 

should know that there's a good possibility, given the 

current legislation, that they might not be able to be 

licensed. And I think doing that on the front end would 

be really critical so that a student doesn't go through 

the whole thing and then realize what I spend all this 
27 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

time doing this and I can't get licensed. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you, Vanessa. I think 

on that 10/20 comments, I think Terrell had made that 

proposal. Can you open up the 10/20? Yeah, can you add, 

Dr. Paccione is it okay if I say plus Dr. Paccione after 

Terrell's comment? Okay. Vanessa, can you put that, I'm 

sorry, can you put that on the same line just so we know 

that it doesn't that so it so Kim's comment was totally 

different, but it was the same. Yep. Alright. Thank you. 

Yep. Perfect. Thank you. 

MS. MCARDLE: And the next would be Stan. 

DR. ANDRISSE: So I I plus one that as well, 

and I think that was something that Belinda also had 

language on as well in terms of informing the student 

that of the possibility of the ban, but not denying them. 

I would just also just again like the point to why we've 

expanded this language of this particular point, yet our 

expansion of oversight definition is is deemed, you know, 

and, you know, not plausible, just pointing that out. It 

seems okay for the Department to add additional language, 

but for us to add additional language, there seems to be 

a problem with that. 

MS. MCARDLE: Kim, was your hand still up or 

did you take it down? 

MS. CARY: I took it down because I think it 
28 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

was it's okay to be addressed like it was yesterday. 

Thank you. 

MS. MCARDLE: And Marisa, same? 

MS. BRITTON-BOSTWICK: I just want to say 

something, and I don't want to get into the weeds because 

I can do that very easily, but I think this could be part 

of the disclosure statements in the beginning. That 

that's just something I I think it's important, but I 

don't think there need to be barriers written into this. 

MR. WASHINGTON: I mean, I think I think I 

think we've captured your support, I'm sorry, Sophia, I 

just wanted to make sure I think we've captured your 

support for removing one and two, Marisa. I believe we 

have yeah, we did. Yes, so thank you for that comment. 

MS. BRITTON-BOSTWICK: Thank you. 

MS. MCARDLE: And now, Dave? 

MR. MUSSER: Sure. Mine's short. I just 

wanted to clarify that the disclosure and I think this is 

what Marisa was alluding to, the disclosure is already 

being proposed that we would that the schools would be 

required to inform students that they were aware of 

prohibitions on employment in the area that this was 

being trained for. So I think the if I'm getting this 

correct, Marisa, your proposal would be that that 

disclosure sort of that we would build on that disclosure 
29 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

to allow the student to make this decision one way or the 

other. Okay. But just wanted to be clear that the 

disclosure itself is already something that's in in the 

language that's being proposed. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you, David. So would 

that would that mean that you would want to add your 

support to Terrell's points that we allow the students to 

disclose or affirmatively acknowledge that they 

understand that there's a prohibition and still enrolled 

is that I'm just I just want to make sure. Okay, Alright. 

Can you say plus Marisa there, Vanessa? 

MS. MCARDLE: Kim. 

MS. CARY: I do you have a new thought. 

It's not really new, it's just kind of building on what 

I've said before is that the is there some way we could 

put in here and I can send you language regarding this I 

know the Department has done this before in language 

where they encourage institutions to basically, go out 

there go outside of their comfort zones and offer this 

kind of program knowing that it won't lead to licensure. 

Is there's some way we could encourage institutions, 

though, it says that they will not offer education. We 

get back to that typically involves prohibited prohibits. 

But I think you could have schools that would still read 

that as we don't want to take a chance on that. We'd 
30 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

rather be conservative. And if the Department put 

something in there that says that it's encouraged, then 

that might open the window for some to actually to open 

those conversations at schools with their academic areas 

and schools could actually take that back to their 

accreditors and say, we're encouraged to do this as well, 

we don't have to, but we're encouraged to look at it. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Vanessa, can you add that 

as a comment bubble? 

MS. MCARDLE: And next, we will have Stan. 

DR. ANDRISSE: I would just plus one that 

and think and add to it that maybe it could be even a 

Dear Colleague explanation of that. And I mean, I'm not 

I'm curious, and I don't want to belabor if it's going to 

take too much time, but do dear how do people that read 

these see it? Will the Dear Colleague be like an 

additional link that they can easily see that there is 

additional information that they can find on this piece. 

If that is the case, then yes, I would be for a Dear 

Colleague. If it's hard to find Dear Colleagues, then I 

think maybe we need to put it in the language. 

MS. MCARDLE: Dave, would you like to speak 

to that? 

MR. MUSSER: Sure, it's a good question, 

Stan. Dear Colleague letters are guidance that are 
31 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

published by the Departments and published on FSA's 

knowledge center. And the knowledge center is the website 

that all financial aid administrators and staff of 

financial aid offices go to for information about the 

federal student aid programs. It is a well understood 

resource. It is easily searchable, and if someone is 

seeking to find information about prison education 

programs and everything that we've published on it, FSA 

does make it as easy as we possibly can to obtain that 

information. And we typically also include information 

that's as substantive as what you're what you're 

describing in the Federal Student Aid Handbook, which is 

a compilation of of of all the guidance that the 

Department has published on a very a given topic. The 

other place that the Department may publish guidance 

would be in the preamble to a Federal Register notice 

where we explain our rationale for a particular policy 

for a particular set of regulations. 

MS. MCARDLE: Kim? 

MS. CARY: Hi, yes, thank you. David, just 

to follow up for Stan, if I, for instance, am looking at 

the handbook for this particular topic, then sometimes 

there are pieces broken out in the side sidebar that 

would point me in the direction of that Dear Colleague 

letter or electronic announcement. Hope that helps. 
32 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

MS. MCARDLE: Stan, do you have something to 

say or is it just still? Okay. 

DR. ANDRISSE: Sorry that was. 

MS. MCARDLE: That's okay. No, no, no 

further hands. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Alright, thank you for 

that, David. I think what we should do now is move to a 

temperature check on the language that you see before 

you. I, I, I this is actually it would be a I think, 

Vanessa, can you scroll down, let me see, I think that's 

all for the, yep. So this would be a temperature check on 

the entire part. I think Vanessa is going to read my mind 

the entire part 668.236 and that's the definition of a 

prison education program. So there is, so if your hands 

up right now are for if you, you know, if you do not 

agree for this temperature check. So I see, Stan, Sophia 

I'll let you. 

MS. MCARDLE: Stan's hand is up. 

DR. ANDRISSE: Yes, mine is up, because I 

believe that that additional definition for licensure 

needs to be removed. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. 

MS. MCARDLE: Kim's hand is also up and same 

with Dr. McTier. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. Are the comments are 
33 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

the comments already captured in the documents? If 

they're not, then please let us know. We've got, we've 

got we've already we have for Stan to remove one and two 

in there. We have I don't know if we've got Kim's yet. 

Oh, I think we did get Kim's. Did we get Kim's? I think 

it says 11/10 we got Kim's and then Dr. McTier did you 

have anything you wanted to add? 

DR. MCTIER: Nothing to add. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. 

MS. MCARDLE: Kim, did you have something to 

add your hand is still up? 

MS. CARY: No, just for the comments. It's 

the only reason I'm a hands down. So or thumbs down. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. Alright. Vanessa, if 

you could go to 668.238. The reason that we are skipping 

237 is because yesterday we got general agreement on the 

accreditation requirements. So this is the application 

requirements if you scroll down. Where are the changes 

made there? Oh, Terrell had made he said that the 

language was there were some grammatical errors in the 

language, so we fixed that. And we also said, oh, this is 

where number (8) is, where we've said when we had when I 

talked about this earlier, in order for the Department to 

to calculate enrollment post-release or earnings or 

completion rates, we would have to know from the Bureau 
34 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

of Prisons or State Departments of Corrections the 

release date of the confined or incarcerated individual 

that participated in the prison education program. And so 

here is where we've added language and you'll see it 

actually three places and as we go through the document, 

and that's number (8). So the documentation that the 

institution has entered into an agreement with the 

oversight entity to obtain data about transfer and 

release dates of incarcerated, incarcerated individuals, 

which will be reported to the Department of Education. So 

the BOP, DOC or other entity would report the release 

date to the Department of Education and again, you'll see 

this in three different places. It'll be. So this is the 

first place you see it right here is under the 

application for the first prison education program at the 

first two additional locations. We'll also see this come 

up in the second or subsequent many applications and then 

we'll also see this come up under the reporting 

requirements and it's the same text. It's just to ensure 

that there are no loopholes in this information being 

reported to the Department. Vanessa, can you scroll down 

a little bit? Yeah, a little bit more. Yeah, there 

perfect. So you'll see it right there, too. So for the 

second or subsequent eligible prison prison education 

program, you see how we have the kind of toned down 
35 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

reporting requirements under 600.21. And we also have 

that we also have a requirement that documentation that 

the institution has entered into an agreement with the 

oversight entity to obtain data about transfer or release 

dates is also required here. So when after the Department 

has approved, that first person education program or the 

first two test locations, they'll still have to provide 

this documentation to us as well. And with that said, I 

would like to move us to a temperature check here on 

668.238. I see David is on camera. David, did you want to 

say something before we did the temperature check? Oh, 

okay, Alright. Oh, okay. Alright. So can we get a 

temperature check? So we've made the grammatical change 

to that doctor that Terrell recommended and added in just 

some more language about release date. So can we take a 

temperature check on this language? 

MS. MCARDLE: I do not see any hands up. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. Vanessa, can we 

move to section 668.240? So here we have our general 

counsel, Steve Finley, has made a recommendation to add 

to (b) if the Secretary initiates a limitation or 

termination, the the institution will submit a teach-out 

plan. And Steve, would you mind you want to give a little 

bit more background on that? 

MR. FINLEY: Yeah, I mean, the most recent 
36 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

change was just saying that it's the start of taking such 

an action that would reduce the requirement to get a 

teach-out plan because it could take a while for a 

limitation or termination action administrative appeal to 

run its course. And it would be in the best interests of 

the students to already have a teach-out plan in place to 

deal with that outcome. Aaron, did you did you want me to 

just to more generally discuss why we need to provide an 

administrative appeal there or was that just the new 

part? 

MR. WASHINGTON: Well, if you want to, I 

mean, yeah, it's up to you, Steve. 

MR. FINLEY: Yeah. This is just this is how 

the Department would have to limit or take away the 

institution's ability to stop offering fully approved 

prison education program. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you, Steve. I want to 

give folks a second to like, read over it and then I'll 

move us to a temperature check, so, Sophia, I'm not, are 

we having any hands about this? 

MS. MCARDLE: No, there are no hands. 

MR. WASHINGTON: So can we go to a 

temperature check on this section? 

MS. MCARDLE: Yes. 

MR. WASHINGTON: If you have any objections, 
37 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

please raise your hand and state why. 

MS. MCARDLE: I see no hands. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. And let's move to and 

I think if we finish a little early, we can. I obviously, 

you know, go back because this is the final section, the 

best interest piece that we want to talk about so we can 

go back to discuss any other area of the regulation that 

that any subcommittee member proposes after this, 

depending on how fast we get through best interests. 

668.241, I do have some points on this, let's see. 

Alright, so we we appreciate the concerns of, yeah, we 

appreciate the concerns over the use of recidivism rate, 

but we also believe that, well, maybe I'll save that for 

the recidivism, but here we've here, here and here in the 

green, we've added, “with engagement from relevant 

stakeholders who must include, among others, incarcerated 

students, organizations representing incarcerated 

students and individuals, and accrediting agencies.” And 

that was if you can scroll down a little bit, Vanessa, 

that was, you can stop there, so I think that that was 

included in several of the indicators yesterday, but now 

that's included as a lead into the paragraph. So, Vanessa 

can you scroll back up? Thank you. We're essentially 

saying that you know that that the Bureau of Prisons and 

Department of Corrections or other entities are set best 
38 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

interests- determination must include an assessment with 

engagement from relevant stakeholders as outlined there 

for for all of the indicators for all of the indicators. 

MS. MCARDLE: We have Stan, followed by Dr. 

McTier. 

DR. ANDRISSE: So help me understand why the 

stakeholders would be acceptable here but not acceptable 

in the definition of oversight entity? 

MR. WASHINGTON: The definition of an 

oversight entity is is so if we were to take out 

oversight entity, we would have to put in that entire 

phrase that is in the statute, it's they they that that 

that that in those entities make the determination 

whether a prison education program can operate in one of 

the correctional facilities that they oversee. 

DR. ANDRISSE: So I still I am not sure I 

understand. I mean, why they are able to be included here 

or why I should say not able, because I don't think 

that's the correct usage of words. Why you want them 

included here, but you don't want them included in 

oversight? 

MS. MCARDLE: Steve, is that something you 

wanted to address? 

MR. FINLEY: Actually, what I wanted to do 

is announce that Ron Sann is going to take the lead for 
39 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

OGC on on this provision, and he may respond. 

MS. MCARDLE: Okay. So is Ron on? Ron, do 

you want to say something to this, or shall we go to Dr. 

McTier? Dr. McTier, since I don't hear our see Ron, there 

you go, Ron. Okay. Dr. McTier? 

DR. MCTIER: Yes. So this is a play on words 

and doesn't do what it is that I want it to do. It says 

an oversight entity's determination that a prison 

education program is operating in the best interest of 

students must include an assessment. And then there's a 

comma with engagement. I'm not a fan of this “Must”, 

because that's not what the statutory language says. It 

says “May”. So I want to change it back to “May”. 

Include, I believe it's yeah, I think that's the part 

that says it says “May”, so I want to add that “May” back 

in there. Because that's what the statutory language 

says. And I understand the Department of ED's stance or 

whatever, great, but for us, I wanted to say “May”. 

MR. WASHINGTON: I think Vanessa has noted 

that, Dr. McTier, thank you for your comment. 

MS. MCARDLE: And Steve, I'm just checking 

your hand is still up, you're not not part of this 

conversation, correct? Okay, let's go to Ron and then to 

Stan. 

MR. SANN: Hi. I just I just Want to kind of 
 

40 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

add in terms of the the draft language that's here is a 

requirement that certain factors must be considered 

doesn't doesn't take away the authority of the State 

Corrections Department or the Federal Bureau of Prison 

Prisons to ultimately make a determination as to what's 

in the best interest of students. So it's saying that 

these factors must be considered, but it's not changing 

the fact that that the responsibility to make these 

decisions still would will rest with with these oversight 

entities. 

MS. MCARDLE: Stan. 

DR. ANDRISSE: So I was the was advised by 

an advisory committee of individuals that helped me 

understand this a little bit better. And it is my 

understanding that the “May” that was in the actual 

statutory language means that we have the option to 

include or not include any of these. The language was in 

the law was intentionally, intentionally said “may” to 

allow the regulatory process to decide what should be 

included. And to that point, you know, you have a group 

of experts here informing you that recidivism should not 

be used and that we should stay with what is used to by 

accrediting agencies to generally describe what is, you 

know, metrics that are gathered for normal higher 

education programs and recidivism is not one of those 
41 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

things. The law intentionally left that up for people 

like us to come in and help make that regulatory 

decision. And I mean, so, you know, I want to drop that 

on the table that it is very much up to us to decide 

whether we should include or not include something, and 

we've kind of pretty consensus around not including 

recidivism. 

MR. WASHINGTON: If I can jump in there. 

That can be part of your proposal to the main committee. 

So if you submit amendatory language this exact document 

and you cross out “Must” and put “May” that's your that 

can be your presentation to the main committee. 

MS. MCARDLE: Dr. McTier? 

DR. MCTIER: I also want to just kind of 

push back a little bit on from the Department of Ed 

standpoint. How can we add and not take away? Does it 

make any sense? So if we're able to add other metrics to 

this piece, then we should also have the ability to take 

things away. So with that being said, because of the 

statutory language says “May”, I want to propose that we 

remove the recidivism piece out of it basically the first 

four we remove completely out of this document. 

MR. WASHINGTON: I think Vanessa is adding 

that now. 

MS. MCARDLE: Kim. 
42 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

MS. CARY: Thank you, so, Belinda, chime in 

here, if I don't say your, say this correctly, you had 

recommended to the committee that we read through a 

document where you had suggested that the “Must” be on 

certain pieces of this section. So let me come at this 

from a financial aid perspective and from listening to 

all of you through this subcommittee. You don't want DOC 

to have full authority to do what to do to only do what 

they want to do. So that's why we had expanded and wanted 

stakeholders to be a part of this. If we leave “May” in 

there, then they have the ability to “May” they may go 

out and get those stakeholders involved. They may not. If 

it says they “Must”, then they have to get them involved 

in making these determinations if the best interests of 

the students. So I like the word “Must” because I want 

those other people involved in the conversation, but I 

don't like that it's in a “must” sentence where it says 

all of the following below it. I like the idea of 

breaking this out to each piece and saying, “Must” on 

this or “May” on this. So in the idea of number four with 

the recidivism, maybe that's a “May” and that's the only 

one in this group that's a “May”. I like the idea of a 

“Must” on the rest of them. So I'll just put that out 

there or something to think about. We want to be 

inclusive with all of and Aaron, maybe you can address 
43 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

with the peace where the definition of oversight entity 

can't include the stakeholders is that maybe that's tied 

back to a specific federal advisory to not bump up 

against that, but we can include it here as someone that 

the Oversight Committee, the Bureau of Federal Prisons, 

could act with those other entities to make the best 

interest of students. So maybe it's not in one place 

because of that Federal Advisory Committee issue, but it 

can be placed here. If that's how I'm interpreting this, 

let me know. 

MS. MCARDLE: Aaron, do you want to respond 

before we move to the other comments? 

MR. WASHINGTON: You know what, I want to 

make sure that your suggestion is captured and in a 

comment bubble. And I think we can move to the next 

speaker, so can you just make sure one second Sophia, I 

just want to make sure so Kim, can you just repeat what 

you like Vanessa to capture here, please? 

MS. MCARDLE: Oh, you're on mute. 

MS. CARY: Yes, I am, sorry about that. 

Maybe before we capture my bubble, we could let Belinda 

speak to it because I think we're on the same page, 

maybe. But she can address it from her perspective, and 

then we can collaboratively make the recommendation. 

MS. MCARDLE: Belinda. 
44 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

MS. WHEELER: Great. Thank you very much. 

Yes, what I'm going to say here basically just kind of 

reiterates the email that I'd sent out to my colleagues, 

everyone on the subcommittee and and the Department last 

night with regards to clarifying the “May/Must” issue. 

You know, as I mentioned, you know, the FAFSA 

Simplification Act did indeed say “May” we are seeing 

language here that says “Must”. From a, you know, again 

wearing the two hats former prison education director who 

worked in the Department with with accreditation and 

things of that nature and now with my hat with Vera all 

of those benchmarks that are in there, with the exception 

of recidivism, are things that accreditation agencies 

already ask educational institutions to to provide that 

information to accreditation, you know, job placement 

rates. You know, if students are continuing their 

education, you know, what is the faculty, you know, what 

are their credentials and things of that nature? Because 

that is something that is standard in educational 

institutions around the country already, and it is 

something that accreditation agencies look for. I do 

believe that all of them, with the exception of 

recidivism, should remain a “Must” because accreditation 

agencies are going to say, look, we can't say no to one 

of these other ones because we've already got these we've 
 

45 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

already got these benchmarks that we have every single 

educational institution in the country looking for. And 

in my in my letter that I sent to the group last night, I 

also mentioned that, you know, so so I am in alignment 

with Kim there, you know, if there is with the latitude, 

with what the FAFSA Simplification Act had said as a 

“May”, that, you know, if we can't scrap recidivism 

altogether because again, I do not believe that it's 

something that really shows whether or not a educational 

program is effective or not, then I definitely would 

support a “May” in that. You know, there is language that 

the Department has provided listening to us about ways 

that we could perhaps mitigate that if it does indeed end 

up being a “Must”. But you know, on the record, I did say 

and I continue that today that it would be great to 

either cut recidivism, put it in a section of “May” if 

that's not possible with all the other indicators. Again, 

I just go on the record as saying that I I strongly 

recommend for subcommittee members to not make them 

“Mays” because that would create an accreditation 

nightmare. Because again, these are things when I did at 

Paine College and at Claflin University, when we were 

preparing our reports for accreditation agencies. These 

were all things that are, you know, standard throughout 

the country that accreditation agencies ask for. So just 
46 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

to sum up, Kim, I am in agreement with what you'd said 

about the a May if that is possible, let me know if 

anyone has any questions, but thank you very much. 

MS. MCARDLE: Elizabeth has her hand up. 

Should we hear from her before we move on to Stan and Dr. 

McTier? 

MR. WASHINGTON: Is that okay with. 

DR. ANDRISSE: I'm okay with that. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Dr. McTier is that okay 

with you? 

DR. MCTIER: Sure. 

MS. MCARDLE: Elizabeth? 

MS. DAGGETT: Thank you just very, just very 

quickly, I wanted to respond to Belinda's points about 

what other accrediting agencies require. And yes, many of 

them do require the reporting on some of those, but it is 

not a requirement by the Department for those items. And 

in fact, we cannot require specific requirements around 

student achievements. We do require that they have to 

have standards related to student achievements. But these 

specific things related to median earnings for graduates, 

specific job placement rates, licensure rates, we don't 

have specific benchmarks in those areas. So just to let 

you know, it's not necessarily an across the board 

requirement by accrediting agencies and every single one 
47 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

of the areas that are listed here. 

MS. MCARDLE: Stan. Oh, I'm sorry, Dr. 

McTier, then Stan. 

DR. MCTIER: Thank you, Elizabeth, for that 

clarification. Really, really helpful. I want us to keep 

in mind that the point of this right here is saying that 

the DOC and the Bureau of Justice is going to be 

responsible for this. Right. I just completed an 

accreditation application and I did not go to the DOC or 

the Bureau of Justice to submit my accreditation 

application. I'm going through my institution to do that. 

And so now to have again the Bureau of Justice and or the 

DOC to see if we operate in the best interest of the 

students, there's a disconnect. So these metrics they 

wouldn't need this information, is what I'm saying, and 

so I'm going to push back again on that. The application 

is totally different and it goes to something to someone 

different than the Department of Justice. Excuse me. The 

other piece to that is. Yeah. Let me let me get my 

thoughts back together because I was listening and then 

reading something, but for the most part, this whole 

application process, we have to keep in mind that this is 

the DOC who will be collecting this information and 

operating within the best interests of the students. I 

don't think that they have the capacity, as I mentioned 
48 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

earlier. I mean, the other representative that was 

supposed to be here has not been here. And that should 

show a sign that I mean, it's often difficult to work 

with those in the DOC and now to have them carry out all 

of these expectations. It's just not going to be in the 

best interests of programs who are interested in starting 

up. 

MS. MCARDLE: Stan. 

DR. ANDRISSE: So thank you for all the 

comments, I just wanted to add a couple of points. You 

know, it sounds like at some point or another, there are 

different accrediting agencies asking these types of 

questions to the academic institution. So it would seem 

repetitive that we're asking them again because if there 

are students the incarcerated students will be just 

students of the academic institution. So in the overall 

reporting that the academic institution has to do, they 

would have to include those students who are 

incarcerated, so it seems repetitive. One thing that I 

wanted to point out and said, you know, the other thing 

is why are we asking DOC to do this? And I get it, it's 

it's in the statute that the oversight entity, you know, 

was asked to do this. But I would also just like since we 

have Elizabeth with us, Elizabeth, what is your 

perspective on what should be included as benchmarks 
49 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

since you've mentioned that some of these are not actual 

benchmarks that are used by accrediting agencies? 

MS. MCARDLE: Elizabeth. 

MS. DAGGETT: I assume I can jump in. Well, 

they are all required to have benchmarks for student 

achievement it's just a matter of the agency determining 

whether or not it's at the institutional level or whether 

they set them as an agency. Many of our agencies in 

particular, it's much easier for a programmatic. So let's 

say they are all training, it's for occupational therapy 

and everybody is training for occupational therapy and it 

requires licensure. It's much easier for an accrediting 

agency that's only looking at those programs to set 

specific benchmarks for completion, placement and in 

licensure rates. It's much harder for an institutional 

agency to do that because generally they have, depending 

on which agency it could have only two year institutions, 

four year institutions. Many different variables go into 

that, so a lot of times they're focused more on an 

institutional level. I would say that many of these 

items, except for exactly what Belinda had said, many of 

the other items, except for our recidivism rate, would be 

something that would be within the portfolio of items 

that they would look at for student achievement that an 

accredited agency would look at. So I'm not sure if that 
50 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

answers your question, Stanley, but I'm happy to expound 

if you need to. 

MS. MCARDLE: No other hands at this point. 

MR. WASHINGTON: I did just want to mention 

that we we do, and we're really happy to have another 

another person representing the Department of 

Corrections. Marisa has been with us the entire time and 

we're really grateful for her contributions to the 

subcommittee. 

MS. MCARDLE: So still, no, no hands. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. Alright. Let's see. 

So we did have some change proposals here, but before we 

did those, we did have some notes. I know recidivism 

specifically has been mentioned by several the 

subcommittee members. And so we we do appreciate the 

concern raised over the use of recidivism recidivism. But 

we also believe that it is a measure that Congress wanted 

oversight entities to consider among a suite of other 

metrics in the implementing policy. We've also heard this 

week and in our last meeting that recidivist recidivism 

rates continue to be a metric that oversight entities 

think about and place emphasis on. One thing we do not 

want to do is to permit the use of deeply, deeply flawed, 

a deeply flawed version of a metric. And to that end, 

over the course of the subcommittee meetings, we have 
 

51 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

incorporated some limitations on how an oversight entity 

is permitted to define recidivism, excluding excluding 

recidivism after a reasonable number of years and 

excluding less serious examples of recidivism by trying 

to define trying to to keep the definition to new felony 

convictions with U.S. sentencing guidelines, we also have 

worked to build in substantial amounts of stakeholder 

engagement, which will allow incarcerated students and 

their representatives to advise the oversight entities on 

appropriate definitions, measurements and emphasis placed 

on the emphasis to place on recidivism metric. I think 

with that, I would like to move us to some updates that 

we've made to this definition based on some comments that 

were made before lunch. And then we can so with just in 

the interest of time, it is 2:18 I just want to make sure 

that we touch upon what several of the updates we made. 

So Vanessa, can you scroll down just a bit to have (5), 

(5) and (6) and (7) on? There you go (5), (6) and (7). So 

let's see, for the, give me one second, I'm sorry. 

Alright, so for number (8), Belinda had, can you can you 

open up that comment bubble right there? If you scroll up 

a little bit, Vanessa, not that one, but the one above 

it. Just the note, the blue one above it, I'm sorry, I'm 

not being clear enough. It's like it's at 11/9, Belinda, 

yeah that one, the yeah, I don't think it's that one 
52 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

either. Maybe scroll down. Let me let me go on my 

computer. I'm sorry. These were we were trying to add 

these to respond to Belinda's point. So essentially, what 

we've done here is we are proposing to add language to 

the to add whether whether the institutions ensure that 

all formerly incarcerated students are able to fully 

transfer their credits and continue their programs at any 

location of the institution that offers a comparable 

program, including the same mode of instruction barring 

exceptional circumstances surrounding the student's 

conviction. And so that was a piece that Belinda had 

recommended to add. We believe and what we had more 

feedback from the subcommittee about what the 

implications of that could be. So we try to accommodate 

or update the regulations to reflect Belinda's 

recommendation. So I see I won't take Sophia's job, but I 

see Stan's hand up but also Belinda's as well, you know, 

on the added language to the indicated number (8). 

DR. ANDRISSE: I just I'm switching devices 

and I've entered in another device. Can you switch my 

device, please? 

MS. MCARDLE: Stan, are you planning to say 

something or should we go to Belinda? Go ahead okay then 

go ahead. 

DR. ANDRISSE: No, no, I'm not. Thank you. 
53 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

MS. MCARDLE: Ok, Belinda, then thank you. 

MS. WHEELER: Thank you. I just wanted to 

respond to Aaron addressing me. Yes, I appreciate the 

Department's willingness to work with both 

recommendations that I had, and I think I know Kim with 

any location everyone's good feedback that we provided 

the this morning. So I just want to say thank you ED for 

taking into account everyone's thoughts this morning. 

Thank you. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah, I was just, any other 

hands? 

MS. MCARDLE: There's no other hands, so. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Alright, yeah, so I was 

trying to find my notes for this. And so, yeah, so 

essentially that's, you know, we agree that institutions 

would welcome formerly incarcerated students after 

release and the statutory requirements. In short, 

transfer transferability to one other college in the 

state doesn't go far enough. So we hope that this does 

reflect that. I think, Belinda, you confirmed that for us 

in regard to academic counseling and advising, I think 

that is number (7). We appreciate and share the concern 

about having adequate services and resources for 

students. However, we think that we think a clarification 

that institutions may use outside organizations, 
54 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

community partners and correction agencies to offer that 

programing is best offered through guidance to 

institutions about these best about these best practices 

for serving incarcerated students. We cannot explicitly 

require that such partnership exist, and we are concerned 

that language encouraging them to do so and regulation 

will be confusing both to the institution and to the 

oversight entity. So I'll pause there for Belinda's 

feedback or anybody's feedback, but that was a Belinda 

recommendation. So anybody's feedback? 

MS. MCARDLE: Stan. 

DR. ANDRISSE: Yes. So that's saying that, 

for instance, when a RFP requires that a letter of 

support be provided for some partnership that the RFP is 

requiring. I mean, I mean, that's something that's 

commonly done. So we're saying that it would be 

challenging to ask them to potentially seek a 

partnership? 

MR. WASHINGTON: I think the the point was 

we can't explicitly require such partnerships exists. 

DR. ANDRISSE: And why is that? 

MR. WASHINGTON: We are concerned that 

language encouraging them to do so on regulation would be 

confusing both to the institution and oversight. So I 

think the general idea is we explicitly we can't require 
 

55 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

them to and that's the Department has discussed this over 

the lunch break, and we did say that we would come back 

to the table and provide the subcommittee with more 

information on this. But that was the determination made 

that we cannot explicitly require such partnerships to 

exist. But we are but we did say that we could 

potentially provide guidance to institutions program as 

best offered through guidance institutions as best 

practices. We could potentially provide guidance as a 

best practice as opposed to in regulation. 

MS. MCARDLE: Stan and then Kim. 

DR. ANDRISSE: So we, as in the Department, 

when you say we you mean the Department of Ed and then 

you additionally said that we, as in the Department of 

Ed, could provide guidance. Has the Department of Ed run 

a reentry program before? That's a question to one of my 

Department of Ed colleagues. 

MR. WASHINGTON: I can't I can't speak to 

that Stan. 

DR. ANDRISSE: So you're considering 

providing guidance on how to run a reentry program, but 

haven't, Ed is not designed nor an expert in doing so. 

And furthermore, why would it be I still see there's 

grant applications from, you know, it's regular, it's a 

regular occurrence that, you know in an RFP would ask for 
56 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

particular types of partnerships. I mean this this whole 

thing doesn't operate without partnerships. It's a 

partnership between we're asking DOC to partner with an 

education institution. We're asking the education 

institution to abide by the accrediting agencies 

guidelines to be accredited. This, this whole thing is a 

massive partnership. So why would we be against adding an 

additional partner that the experts that you've brought 

to the table have mentioned would be a good partnership 

to have in this already collective group of partners? 

This this entire thing is a partnership. What would be 

the problem with adding an additional partner? 

MR. WASHINGTON: I I think, you know, I Stan 

I've tried to respond to the question that we don't think 

that we can explicitly require our partners to exist. I 

can just speak from my personal experience at the 

Department of Education over the last eight years, the 

Department and I am not saying this is the exact 

direction the Department is going to go in. But I have 

been involved in several working groups where the 

Department has reached out to community stakeholders when 

drafting sub regulatory guidance meaning toolkits. I've 

been involved in several toolkit toolkits where there 

have been there have there has been input from relevant 

committees, stakeholders, community based organizations 
57 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

and so so it so I know, at least from my perspective, 

that there has been those instances in which the 

Department has sought expert guidance. 

MS. MCARDLE: Let's move to Kim. Did you put 

your hand down, Kim? Okay, Dr. McTier? 

DR. MCTIER: Yes. Can we strike, hold on. I 

got to go back to it. Can we strike that “barring 

exceptional circumstances based on the student's 

convictions”? 

MR. WASHINGTON: Oh, Vanessa, can you add 

that as a comment bubble, please? And you know what, I 

did just notice the time. I think we have a few more 

sections in this part to get through. Actually, we talked 

about this before lunch, so we actually talked about a 

lot of stuff going so. But I do want to make sure that we 

speak to Belinda's comment on the appeals process and the 

timeline for adding new indicators before 3:50. So. 

MS. MCARDLE: Belinda? 

MS. WHEELER: Thank you, super quick. With 

regards to number (8), I actually want to see, I would 

like to recommend a period after, “offers a comparable 

program” period and then cut the rest, “including the 

same mode of instruction barring exceptional 

circumstances surrounding the student conviction”. One of 

my original concerns that I mentioned before lunch was, 
58 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

you know, if there is a student who is currently 

incarcerated and you know, the only modality for them is 

online because of their situation. This this school 

that's there, for example but then when they are 

released, they want to exercise their right to be on 

campus. And I think the “including the same mode of 

instruction” might further it would do harm, which is not 

what I was planning on doing. And then the same with the 

“exceptional circumstances” I did just want to say, Kim 

and others, Marisa and others who had mentioned that, I 

want to say that I'm not minimizing what you had said, 

but given the complexities with barring the box and 

things on a on an institution by institution level, I 

think it would empower the students if that language is 

not there so that if, for example, a student felt like 

they were being inadvertently discriminated against by an 

institution for whatever reason, barring the box or 

whatever that the student gets the chance to exercise 

their rights. And I think if we do include that, that 

that might prevent that and I certainly didn't want to 

cause harm and then super quick with number (7), I just 

wanted to double check, this is under that's one section 

where at the very beginning we have the stakeholders and 

all that kind of listed that the Department had actually 

put there, correct? So I just wanted to make sure that 
59 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

while while (7) hasn't necessarily taken into account 

what the subcommittee had recommended for that, I just 

wanted to clarify it if I'm understanding what the 

Department has done since lunch is that the stakeholders 

in that that that at least I can only speak for myself 

that I was thinking of with reentry services and things 

of that nature, that there is perhaps there that language 

at the very beginning there with outside stakeholders, 

that opportunity to include that. So that's it for me. I 

know we're really pushed on time. Thank you very much. 

MS. MCARDLE: Dave, did you want to speak 

before Dr. McTier to something that Belinda was saying? 

MR. MUSSER: Yeah. Thanks, Sophia. 

MS. MCARDLE: Do you mind, Dr. McTier? 

DR. MCTIER: No, I forgot to actually put my 

hand down. 

MS. MCARDLE: Okay, perfect. 

MR. MUSSER: I just wanted to confirm what 

Belinda was saying. That language is intended to cover 

all of these. So all of these are that would we would we 

at the Department would expect that the group of 

stakeholders would be involved in the evaluation of these 

components. And so that's operationally what we would be 

looking for to ensure that the the institution that all 

of this is documented, that that involvement was there. 
60 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

So just just want to put that out there, that that was 

intended to address all of these at once. 

MS. MCARDLE: Angie. 

DR. PACCIONE: Yeah, I just want to support 

Belinda's comment there for the for the striking, the 

last part of that sentence. 

MS. MCARDLE: Aaron? 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you for those 

comments. Let's go to well, actually, we can just stay 

here, I just wanted to provide some feedback on a few of 

the other comments that Belinda made before lunch. We got 

some feedback about an appeals process. We appreciate and 

agree with the overall interest in ensuring that 

institutions have some ability to appeal the 

determinations of their oversight entities. We are 

concerned, though, that we haven't had time to thoroughly 

vet any language, including with our federal partners at 

the Bureau of Prisons. At the federal level, there are 

substantial legal requirements surrounding how that 

appeals process can be treated, and we will need to 

coordinate with the Bureau of Prisons to better 

understand how any language might affect the agency. So, 

yeah, I'll pause there and allow because it was Belinda's 

recommendation. But anybody else can, of course, comment. 

MS. WHEELER: Thank you very much, 
61 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

Department, for taking that into consideration. I 

understand that this is a very complex thing that we're 

rolling out, and I look forward to the opportunity to 

work with the Department and, you know, others in this 

capacity as we move forward because I do believe that 

some kind of appeals process is is warranted moving 

forward. But I do understand that it may not be possible 

right here. So just looking forward to an email receiving 

from the Department to kind of talk this one through 

because I do think that on the record, I think it's very 

important to have an appeals process. Thank you very 

much. 

MS. MCARDLE: Kim. 

MS. CARY: Thank you. Really quick just to 

jump back up to the piece that that was several want to 

take out our number (8), would the Department recommend 

that schools and put something in their PEP which would 

address that last line internally with each institution 

so that we have because I know that sometimes we do reach 

out to parole officers and run through the scenario with 

them to make sure that the student is not unknowingly 

doing something that they shouldn't do to hurt their 

release. So we would keep it very broad, of course, that 

we want to have some type of protection there too, 

because if you read it as is, it would be I can come 
62 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

there it says I can come to your institution you have a 

comparable program and then we would have to go to our 

own internal policies and procedures to explain why would 

that be something you would write that you would 

recommend? 

MS. MCARDLE: Dave. 

MR. MUSSER: : We can't offer an exact 

recommendation for how you might comply with it, though 

what you described, I think, is is the way that we would 

that we would see an institution ensuring this. Because 

institutional locations are sometimes more independent 

than others. So I don't want to say that there's one 

particular way that an institution should should comply 

with this. There may be cases where each each of the 

locations is sufficiently independent that they all need 

to agree at the outset and have their each have their own 

policies and procedures that that clearly state that this 

will happen. But in other cases, an institution that 

simply has locations that are all sort of reporting up to 

the main, they might have a single set of policies and 

procedures that address this. So there's a variety of 

ways that it could be done. But I think what the 

Department would be would be looking for is that it's 

been addressed. And keep in mind here that these are the 

things that the correctional agency and the the group of 
63 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

stakeholders are going to review. Certainly, the 

Department is going to come back and evaluate what was 

reviewed and how it was reviewed, but this isn't 

necessarily the Department doing this. So how how you 

comply with all of this is something that would be 

primarily evaluated by the Department of Corrections and 

that group that we discussed earlier. 

MS. CARY: Ok, thank you, David. We would 

obviously very be very open and encouraged to create an 

open environment, but we also want to protect the 

student. And in situations like I mentioned earlier, we 

have several campuses. Their ability to attend one campus 

might be prohibited, but they could have other options to 

attend elsewhere to not be in violation of their 

probation. Thank you. 

MS. MCARDLE: Dr. McTier. 

DR. MCTIER: Yes. I just want to go on 

record that just a few minutes ago, with roughly 30 

minutes left on the clock that it was stated that the 

Department of Ed would need to consult with the Bureau of 

Prisons and those entities, and here we are and here I am 

have said that from the get-go, we need that 

representative at the table. And then a few minutes ago, 

well, probably about an hour ago, Aaron, you mentioned 

that we had I believe it's someone here on this call 
64 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

representing the Bureau of Prisons that you all just said 

y'all did not consult and need to consult. So again, we 

don't have the appropriate individual here representing 

that agency. We've said that from the get-go and we've 

received a lot of pushback. And I find it very, very 

interesting that the Department of Ed is now saying, oh, 

we haven't had time to do it, but we need to do it. I 

just want to say this, let me tell you something, I've 

never known a prison to work in the best interest of 

anyone, and I'm going to be quite frank and now to have 

them do this particular work, to work in the best 

interest of a student trying to better their education. 

Many of the prisons that I've talked to, or maybe even 

many of the students that have talked to have faced so 

many barriers, have been denied their applications never 

get in because these same prisons are saying, oh, we 

don't want them to have that education. I don't think 

that prisons operate in the best interests of individuals 

trying to better their lives, and we're not going to be I 

would be remiss if I did not state that. I don't think 

that the appropriate individuals are here. I don't think 

these these provisions that are provided in this section 

for best interest. We're giving all of the power to the 

prisons, and I disagree with what we're doing and how 

we're moving forward. The last thing I will say is that 
65 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

many of the prisoners I know can't hardly keep track of 

the individuals that they were detaining, they don't know 

anything about them once they leave the facility. Right. 

And so now to have them take on educational statistics 

and you know, all this data, they can't even do that for 

their own selves. So I'm struggling with all of this and 

I just wanted to voice that concern and that opinion. 

MS. MCARDLE: Aaron. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you, Dr. McTier, for 

that. I just wanted to one quick clarification. I 

mentioned we have a subcommittee member from the 

Department of Corrections, not the not the Bureau of 

Prisons. And Marisa has been with us the entire time, the 

entire six days, and we appreciate Marisa's contribution 

to the subcommittee. In regard to us consulting with the 

Bureau of Prisons, I was specifically responding to the 

points I was trying to make was specifically to Belinda's 

request to draft an appeals process in the regulation, 

and we haven't had the chance to talk to the Bureau of 

Prisons or State Departments of Corrections regarding an 

appeals process. Keep in mind that the Bureau of Prisons 

and State Department of Corrections have the ultimate 

authority whether to allow a prison education program to 

function in there in the institutions institutions that 

they oversee. And so in discussing an appeals process 
66 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

with the in drafting in an appeals process, we really 

have to determine whether the Department of Education, 

the postsecondary institution has the ability to require 

that the Bureau of Prisons allow the postsecondary 

institution into their facility to offer a program to 

their students, but I will leave that there. I really no, 

not with, we have the it's 2:40 I just want to get go 

through the remainder of the section. We already talked 

about this prior to the lunch break. So Vanessa, if you 

wouldn't mind scrolling down. I just want to make sure 

that we hit on every point during the subcommittee today. 

So here we've already talked about this piece. The 

Department has clarified that the the oversight entity is 

able to while they have to make those determinations 120 

days before the expiration of their program participation 

agreement, they can make the determinations more more 

than that more regularly than that. If they if they 

determine that it is in the best interests of students to 

make a determination before the expiration of the PPA. 

Vanessa, can you keep scrolling down? 

MS. MCARDLE: We have a comment from Stan. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Just one more thing, 

Sophia. I just wanted to give this out and we can just 

open it up for like just conversation for the rest of the 

day, honestly. And this was this was just, oh, this this 
67 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

was adding in we've added in the record section the time 

that institutions must maintain documentation in regard 

to their prison education programs. That's for as long as 

they're active or three years following the 

discontinuation of the program. So what I wanted to do is 

I wanted to take a temperature check. I know that there 

will be comments on this, but what I want to do, I want 

to make sure that we do a temperature check. And then at 

that point, we just open it up for a conversation for the 

rest of the day until we close out. And so if we can take 

a temperature check on 668.241 the best interest of 

students. You can just raise your hand and let us know 

based on the language on the screen, based on the 

unedited language on the screen. And we we we of course, 

added in Belinda's comment about transferability of 

credit so that you're also voting on that. But just the 

language on the screen. Could you please raise your hand 

if you are not in agreement during the temperature check? 

MS. MCARDLE: I have three hands up. I have 

Stan, Dr. McTier, and Belinda. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. Alright, and I think 

for the rest of the day, we can just that that concludes. 

MS. MCARDLE: I'm sorry, I would like to add 

Kim. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. I think I think let's 
68 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

give Vanessa a chance to capture that. And I think we we 

have gotten through the entire documents. I think that I 

have like so many papers here, it looks like we've moved 

600.2, 600.7, 668.32, 668.43, 668.38 and 668.40 up into 

the agreement section. So outstanding sections were 

668.235 that's the definition section, 668.236 that is 

the prohibitions on that is the definition of a prison 

education program, so that's like that that's the main 

issue there was the prohibition on licensure employment. 

And also, I think we're about to hear some comments on 

668.241 the best interests of students. 

MS. MCARDLE: Okay, let's start with Stan 

and then Dr. McTier. 

DR. ANDRISSE: So. In regards to the appeal 

process. You're saying that you need to consult with the 

BOP and then you add it also with the State Department of 

Corrections, which was, you know, one of the reasons that 

I proposed to have director Precythe join us, which you 

know, was a last minute thing and it was hard for her to 

join us, but so you say you need to consult with them, 

yet you didn't bring them to the table. On this appeal 

process, but you're not thinking that you need to consult 

with them for all of these other things that you're 

trying to get them to do? Like what, how does that make 

sense you want you want to consult with them about 
 

69 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

appeals, but not consult with them about all these 

requirements that you're going to have them do in terms 

of best interests of students and the other requirements 

within the document. I I just can't help but feeling as 

if I've just participated in structural racism. I feel 

like this is at the core of how structures are put in 

place that promote harm to certain groups of individuals 

that happen to look like myself. 

MS. MCARDLE: Dr. McTier. 

DR. MCTIER: Stan, you done dropped the mic 

on that brother. I agree, because this is this whole 

document's mess. And with 13 minutes to go, I'm not 

exactly sure as to how much we can really or even how 

much we've actually accomplished, because there's still 

so much confusion, a lot of ambiguity within this 

document. People not at the table. And we are trying to 

roll this out and we're all not in agreement. And I find 

it concerning that again, you have experts who are on the 

ground boots on the ground doing this work. You have 

someone who's running a program right now, myself, doing 

this work and we're telling you this ain't going to work. 

And I just find it concerning that, you know, from the 

onset of this, this subcommittee, it's been, you know, so 

much resistance to trying to get the appropriate pieces 

in play, trying to get voices at the table, trying to get 
70 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

clarity and whatnot and trying to, you know, extend the 

time and even sometimes just to flush this out. And we've 

essentially been pushed against the wall. And I do feel 

like while I have been speaking, my voice is still, 

people hear me but then they roll their eyes and then 

just move on because they're going to do what they want 

to do. It seems like the Department of Ed has made up 

their mind on the direction in which they want to go, and 

we were just a formality for this particular piece. And 

you know, at times, I do feel like my time has been 

wasted because things are not being heard. Sure, we've 

made some progress in some areas, but overall, I just 

feel like this is this is very muddy and it's still 

murky. And then even it seems like the lawyers who've 

been on here, the Department of Ed, they're not in 

agreement in some areas. And so it's just I just want to 

put that out there that I'm not really I'm happy that 

we're having these conversations. I want to say that, but 

I'm still not happy with this document. There's a lot 

more work that needs to be done. And unfortunately, we 

have reached the end of our our time. So I wanted to put 

that up there. 

MS. MCARDLE: Belinda. 

MS. WHEELER: Thank you. I just. First of 

all, I just wanted to thank my colleagues on the on the 
71 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

subcommittee with this work that we've done together over 

the last six days. I did have a question for the 

Department with regards to and I know that Aaron will 

send an email to Stan and myself and CC the subcommittee 

members as we get ready for December. I just had a quick 

clarification about process that we could expect to see, 

the subcommittee members could expect to see, in 

December. And I just want to clarify, I think, Aaron, you 

had mentioned that after, you know, Stan and I do a 

presentation in December, all the main committee members, 

you know, will obviously have a chance to ask questions 

and things of that nature when voting does indeed take 

place in the main committee with regards to these 

recommendations, I think you had mentioned is it that it 

has to be 100% consensus with all the subcommittee 

members for something to to move forward and if that is 

indeed the case, say, for example, there might be some 

things that are agreed upon in the main committee. But 

then, for example, there may be some things that that 

consensus wasn't wasn't maintained within the within the 

group. How does the Department move forward, for example, 

with something like that, if there if there's, you know, 

one or more pieces where there isn't consensus just from 

kind of a, you know, a layman's kind of perspective here 

could obviously the subcommittee work finishes, you know, 
72 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

now does that kind of take that under advisement and then 

kind of move forward with things? Does that mean 

something completely like it's dead? I was just kind of 

curious on, you know, once the main committee, you know, 

does vote and things of that nature, what potentially 

happens to the work that the subcommittee has put into 

here? If you wouldn't mind kind of clarifying that I'd 

greatly appreciate it. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you, Belinda. And I 

wanted to also tell Stan and also Dr. McTier that I I 

heard your comments and I really I did hear your comments 

just to just to talk about the process going forward. So 

the the package that we've developed here, I think we can 

we can we this is what the Department, you know, my role 

here was to kind of hopefully show you what the you know, 

the what the Department would be likely comfortable with 

like a package of Department be comfortable with 

approving and consensus is 100% for the main committee, 

not the subcommittee, but the main committee. Everyone on 

the main committee, I think there's 13 or 14 

constituencies, plus the federal negotiator who is 

Jennifer Hong all have to agree. They do a lot of they do 

a lot of temperature checks on the main committee and 

they everybody has to vote yes. And I think I think it's 

been announced that we will be voting, that the the main 
73 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

committee will be voting on things in buckets and 

packages. And so everybody on the main committee would 

have to vote yes to the amendatory language proposed in 

order for consensus to have been reached. If consensus is 

reached then Department publishes what was agreed to 

during the during the main committee as a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking. And then the public can comment on 

that. And then after that, with the Department drafts of 

final rule, sorry, it's not bucket's it consensus by 

issues. I apologize. But then there's a final rule that's 

published hopefully by November 1st well it has to be 

posted by November 1st because the statutory framework 

goes into effect on July 1st 2023. In regards to the 

subcommittee, I think I know it's getting super 

redundant, but I just wanted to like just to respond to 

you Belinda I know you've heard this, I don't want to I 

don't want to make it seem like you haven't heard this, 

but you can submit we have we have general agreement in 

all but three areas. And so the subcommittee members who 

don't agree in those three areas that I mentioned can 

present the language to the main committee so it can be 

more than Stan and Belinda. It could be just Stan and 

Belinda representing the subcommittees, the dissent on 

the subcommittee as well. They can just be emails to them 

about that. Or it could actually be the subcommittee 
74 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

members themselves that didn't agree with that language, 

presenting actual amendatory language to the main 

committee. It does not have to be the package that you 

see on your screens in front of you. This is just what 

the subcommittee has developed over the last six days. So 

Belinda did I answer most of your questions? I know Steve 

wants to jump in there too. 

MS. WHEELER: Thank you. Yeah. Just to 

clarify, so I totally understood everything that you said 

there and that that particular part wasn't actually my 

question. I was just curious that, you know, whatever is 

presented, you know, to the main committee, including, 

you know, what is kind of like consensus and what is 

perhaps not a consensus and letting the main committee 

know that I was just curious if there are certain parts 

of, you know, whether the language that the subcommittee 

agreed on or the language that the subcommittee did not 

agree on, that the main committee basically votes down. I 

was just curious what happens to that language because 

obviously it wouldn't go into that, you know, that 

published document that's ready for, you know, November. 

Is that something I just wanted to know if there was any 

language, you know, whether consensus in this space right 

now or not, consensus in this space is not approved by 

the main committee. I was just curious what the 
75 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

Department does with that there? Do you guys kind of go 

back to the drawing board? Do you take it under 

advisement? I was just curious about that. It was just a 

I hope I didn't muddy that, Aaron, but just a general. 

MR. WASHINGTON: No, you didn't muddy it. I 

think Steve has his hand up, so I'll let him jump in 

there. I don't. I, you know, I think he can provide a 

good answer. 

MS. MCARDLE: Steve, you're on mute. 

MR. FINLEY: Thank you. As as as Aaron 

mentioned, the full committee will go for consensus votes 

issue by issue. If if there's a consensus reached on the 

issue that that will be what is put into the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, unless for some reason the 

Department decides not to adopt a part of it, and then 

that has to be very well explained. But in general, that 

will be the in the NPRM. For items where there's not a 

consensus reached the Department is not bound to use 

anything, but I can tell you from a lot of experience 

that the Department views the negotiated rulemaking 

process as a way to become much better informed on how 

the regulations are written and the pieces that are put 

into them. So even in prior years where we had to have we 

had consensus tied to an entire package and and consensus 

may not have been reached, but a lot of the agreements 
76 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

that were that were reached during that process ended up 

in the final regulation. So I hope that answers your 

question. 

MS. WHEELER: It does thank you very much. 

MR. WASHINGTON: So with that said, with 

three minutes left, I personally wanted to thank the 

subcommittee. I want to thank Stan. I wanted to thank 

Terrell. I wanted to thank Dr. McTier. Thank you, Dr. 

McTier. Thank you, Dr. Paccione. Thank you, Belinda. 

Thank you, Marisa. Thank you, Kim. Thank you, Anne, for 

being with us. I really appreciate you taking the time 

out of your schedules to speak with us about such an 

important issue. And I know that you all want wanted to 

be here too. So I think we all want it to be here 

discussing these issues. I also wanted to send some shout 

outs to people at the Department of Education. Vanessa 

has worked really tirelessly on projecting for us and 

really keeping up with all I mean our comments got 

intense today. So thank you so much, Vanessa. And Steve 

Finley, Ronald Sann, Soren Lagaard, Beth, who was with 

us, our accreditation expert David Musser. I mean it goes 

without saying this guy is a is a huge help. Thank you, 

David. Amy Wilson, who has been running like behind the 

scenes, the logistical aspect of it. Sophia, thank you 

Sophia, for being an amazing facilitator and Brian 
77 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

Schelling on our first day. There are a ton of people 

behind the scenes who are, you know, who who. We have to 

also send a huge shout out to and thank you. I couldn't 

list them all, but and I did I wouldn't want to list them 

all because I don't want to forget anybody and have 

anybody upset with me. But I think the main thing is to 

express appreciation for the communities that have worked 

very hard for this change and that we sat around this 

table to help write proposed amendatory language we want 

we we our goal was to hear those voices representing 

impacted students and and we hope that we hope, at least 

with these comments that you all gave us, everything is 

recorded. There's a transcript. So everybody's comments, 

everybody's comments are in stone they’re in writing 

forever, they're going to be posted to our website, so go 

there and check those out. So I just so that's it. That's 

we got one minute left. I'm not going to end early. Oh, 

they thank you. I appreciate that we're not going into 

early cause I don't want to get an email. Remember, like 

last time, I don't want to get emails saying we ended a 

minute early, so we got we got how many seconds left let 

me see 40, 20 seconds. So I don't know if anybody else 

wants to say anything or. 

MS. MCARDLE: Kim has your hand up. 

DR. PACCIONE: I just want to thank you 
78 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

Aaron, for for all of your work on this as well. Sorry, I 

jumped in there, but thank you for your work on this as 

well. 

MR. WASHINGTON: I appreciate that. Thank 

you. 

MS. CARY: And I just want to say thank you, 

everyone, this has been a great learning experience for 

me since this has been my first one that I have sat on. 

And it's definitely expanded my comfort zone into areas I 

didn't really know about, and it's actually increased my 

interest in getting more involved in areas that I've 

learned I've learned about in this setting, so I would be 

remiss for my financial aid administrators that I am here 

for. If I didn't ask the Department to be thinking about 

the the FAFSA, all things surrounding the barriers that 

students will be. You've addressed them, you said they're 

coming, we'd love to hear more about that. And one thing 

I would like to add in is there's some confusion about 

what can be included in cost of attendance since Pell is 

going to be paying for that. So would that be the 

internet services, things like that, the tablets, things 

like that? What could be included in that? So just wanted 

to say thank you for thinking ahead of all of that and 

getting word out to us so we can do this effortlessly as 

much as possible. Thank you. Thanks Aaron, you've done a 
79 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 

great job working through a very, I think, emotional, 

important topic for a lot of people. So it was I knew it 

was going to be difficult. I think you've done a great 

job. Thank you. 

MS. MCARDLE: Stan. 

DR. ANDRISSE: Yeah, I just wanted to echo 

thanks to all the committee members, all the people 

behind the scenes and and the Department. And as was just 

mentioned, you know, specifically, David, I would love to 

connect offline and talk about we had mentioned and that 

kind of goes for all the other subcommittee members, I 

would hope to connect in ways that we can support your 

work. But it's been a pleasure being here with you all. 

MR. MUSSER: Thanks, Stan. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay, with that said, we're 

going to conclude the meeting for today and have a great 

rest of your week. 
80 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21 
81 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/10/21