Committee Meetings - 01/18/22 

1

 

 

 

 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

 

 INSTITUTIONAL AND PROGRAMMATIC

OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION

ELIGIBILITY COMMITTEE

 SESSION 1, DAY 1, MORNING

January 18, 2022
2

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

P R O C E E D I N G S

MS. JEFFRIES: Good morning, everyone. 

My name is Commissioner Cindy Jeffries, and I am the 

federal mediator who will be part of a facilitation team 

from Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. It is 

my distinct pleasure to welcome all of you to the United 

States Department of Education's negotiated rulemaking, 

through which the Institutional and Programmatic 

Eligibility Committee will prepare proposed regulations 

for the federal student aid programs authorized under 

Title VII of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as 

amended. In an effort to welcome everyone, the 

Department committee, negotiators, advisors and the 

public actively viewing and following our sessions. I'd 

like to turn it over to Mr. Gregory Martin, the 

Department's Federal Negotiator. Gregory?

MR. MARTIN: Thank you, Cindy, it's a 

pleasure to be here with all of you this morning, even 

if only virtually. And I want to thank all of you for 

being willing to be here. I'm honored to be to be a part 

of it and representing the Department. At this time, I'd 

like to introduce Undersecretary James Kvaal, who has a 

few opening remarks. Mr. Kvaal?

MR. KVAAL: Thanks so much Greg. Good 

morning, everybody, I am James Kvaal, the Undersecretary 
3

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

of Education here at the Department. I coordinate our 

work on postsecondary education, adult and career 

education and federal student aid. On behalf of 

Secretary Miguel Cardona and the staff of the Department 

of Education, I wanted to welcome you to this round of 

negotiated rulemaking. President Biden and Secretary 

Cardona have laid out an ambitious vision for how we can 

rebuild our system of higher education around equity, 

and their work so far has led to an unprecedented 

investment in colleges during this time of national 

recovery, especially those committed to the mission of 

equity and student success. This administration is also 

committed to tackling issues of accountability and 

oversight. And I'm thrilled that we're beginning this 

work today. Many of you know that the Department 

recently completed negotiated rulemaking on a set of 

issues related to affordability and student loans in 

December, and we recognize that the student loan system 

has left many students worse off due to unaffordable 

debts and appreciate the help of stakeholders and 

restoring a student loan safety net so that borrowers 

have protections against unaffordable debts, 

opportunities for second chances and protections when 

everything in life goes wrong. We will continue that 

work by publishing proposed rules for further public 
4

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

comment later this year. The work of this panel is 

equally important. During these meetings, you will 

provide insights, expertise and firsthand experiences 

into how the Department can ensure its rules are 

promoting accountability for institutions, and how we 

can ensure that institutions are offering high quality 

and high value programs to students. Thank you for your 

time. This work is a priority for the administration, 

and it's my hope that the regulations developed here 

will move us closer to clear policies that protect 

students and taxpayers. We have a full rulemaking 

agenda, and I know everyone's eager to get to work. 

Several of you know, this is not the first time we have 

regulated on some of these topics, and I appreciate the 

work that has occurred previously. And now we have an 

opportunity to learn from that experience and build on 

what's come before. Because this is a virtual 

rulemaking, there may be some technology challenges. We 

don't anticipate major issues, but please be patient if 

we do encounter technical difficulties from time to 

time. On the bright side, virtual hearings have expanded 

access to negotiators who might have challenges 

traveling to D.C. and a special welcome to those of you 

who are dialing in very early on west coast time. 

Through live streaming and posting all recordings from 
5

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

the committee, we will also continue to ensure full 

transparency to the public. In closing, I want to say 

thank you once again to members of the committee and 

those in advisory roles for you willing to advise us and 

to be so generous with your time. This is an important 

process, and we couldn't do it without you. Secretary 

Cardona and I know that you take this work very 

seriously, and we're very appreciative of your efforts. 

I also want to thank members of the postsecondary 

community who are watching and who will weigh in on 

these important issues. And of course, I want to thank 

Acting Assistant Secretary Michelle Asha Cooper, our 

negotiator, Greg Martin and the staff and the Office of 

postsecondary Education and across the Department, whose 

hard work has made these proceedings possible. 

Postsecondary education remains one of the best 

investments in equity and upward mobility, and we need 

to make sure that promises are kept for all students. I 

appreciate your work to make sure we can achieve that 

goal. Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Greg, and 

under Secretary Kvaal. We appreciate your remarks and 

encouragement. So, we will begin today with 

introductions and then together review the process, 

protocols, and agenda. So, at this time, we will 
6

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

introduce in this order. The Department of Education 

participants, the primary and alternate negotiators of 

the committee, the experts selected to serve as 

advisors, and finally, your third-party facilitators 

from FMCS, which includes myself and three of my 

esteemed colleagues. So as mentioned before, our federal 

negotiator is Mr. Greg Martin. Greg, is there anything 

you'd like to share with us by way of introduction to 

yourself?

MR. MARTIN: Oh, yeah, I have very 

lengthy remarks prepared. No, not at all. I want to say 

that I again, I want to say how glad I am to be here. 

Some of you I know and worked with in the past. So, for 

those of you whom I've encountered at conferences or in 

other various ways, it's good to see you all back. And 

for those who I'm meeting for the first time, I'm 

excited about the prospect of working with all of you. I 

just want to say that I know we come from, everybody 

comes from different backgrounds and that people 

represent different positions and these are 

negotiations. So, there will be differences of opinion. 

And I expect that. I just hope we can all when we do 

these things, I hope to maintain and make ability as 

best as, to the highest degree possible. And keep in 

mind that we're at the end of the day, we're all still 
7

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

friends. We're all of us trying to do the best we can to 

help students. So just keep that in mind throughout the 

week, even when sometimes it's hard when you're very 

passionate about something, but just try to keep that in 

mind. And I think we'll have a great three sessions 

coming up this month, February, and in March. Thanks, 

Cindy.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thanks, Greg. 

Appreciate it. We also have several non-voting 

participants from the Department's Office of General 

Counsel that will be assisting throughout this entire 

rulemaking. Those individuals are Mr. Steve Finley, Ms. 

Donna Mangold, Ms. Denise Morelli, Mr. Alejandro Reyes, 

and Mr. Ron Sann. So, we welcome all of them to the 

process. There are a couple additional department 

representatives who will wear a number of hats for us 

throughout these proceedings: correspondence, 

information sharing, screen sharing, language tracking 

and work with the committee. Those two individuals who 

will be primarily doing that are Ms. Vanessa Gomez, who 

will be doing the screen sharing for us today. And Mr. 

Aaron Washington, we welcome both of you. So, with that, 

we're going to move next to introduce the esteemed 

members of our institutional and programmatic 

eligibility committee. These negotiators have been 
8

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

nominated by the public and selected by the Department 

to represent 13 respective constituencies. For each 

constituency, we will invite the primary negotiator and 

alternate negotiator to briefly introduce themselves on 

behalf of their constituency group. So, for the 

constituency, Accrediting Agencies, we have Ms. Jamienne 

S. Studley.

MS. STUDLEY: Thank you very much, 

Cindy. Yes, I'm Jamienne Studley, I'm president of WASC, 

the Western Association of Schools and Colleges...the WASC 

Senior College and University Commission. You can call 

us by our nickname WASC if you refer to us. Yesterday 

marked my four-year anniversary in the role of CEO of 

this organization. Earlier, I have served as deputy and 

acting undersecretary of the U.S. Department of 

Education, acting deputy and acting general counsel and 

chair of NACIQI...all of which was a privilege. And I'm 

honored to be working with the Department again in this 

capacity. I've also served as president of Skidmore 

College, of a civil rights advocacy group called Public 

Advocates and associate dean of Yale Law School.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, appreciate

it. You are so welcome. And as alternate for the group 

is Dr. Laura Rasar King.

DR. KING: Good morning. My name is 
9

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

Laura Rasar King, I am the executive director of the 

Council on Education for public health, which is a 

specialized accrediting agency for public health degrees 

from the baccalaureate to the doctoral level. This is my 

second rule making.

MS. JEFFRIES: Laura, your audio is 

coming in and out, so I'm not sure it seemed like when 

you moved closer to your microphone, it was stronger, so 

just please be aware of that. For the constituency, 

civil rights organizations and consumer advocacy 

organizations, the primary is Ms. Carolyn Fast.

MS. FAST : Hello, good morning. My 

name is Carolyn Fast, I'm a senior fellow with the 

Century Foundation. Prior to that, I was special counsel 

with the New York Attorney General's Office, Consumer 

Frauds Bureau, where I worked in enforcement 

specifically with a focus on higher education.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Carolyn. And 

the alternate is Mr. Jaylon Herbin.

MR. HERBIN: Good morning. Jaylon 

Herbin, I served as a policy and outreach associate for 

the Center for Responsible Lending. And prior to that, I 

served as a district liaison for Congresswoman Alma 

Adams.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thanks, Jaylon. For the 
10

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

constituency federal aid administrators at postsecondary 

institutions, our primary is Ms. Samantha Veeder.

MS. VEEDER: Good morning. My name is 

Sam Veeder, and I'm the associate dean of enrollment and 

director of financial aid at the University of 

Rochester. I am currently serving on the [inaudible] 

board and I am past president of the Eastern Association 

of Student Financial Aid Administrators and have had 

several positions also in the New York State Financial 

Aid Administrators Association.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Sam. And the 

alternate is Mr. David Peterson.

MR. PETERSON: Morning, everyone, I'm 

Dave Peterson, I'm with the University of Cincinnati, 

where I serve as the assistant vice provost for 

enrollment management. I've been in financial aid or 

enrollment management for 28 years and really looking 

forward to working with all of you. Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thanks, David, 

appreciate it. For the constituency four-year public 

institutions of higher education, the primary is Mr. 

Marvin Smith.

MR. SMITH: Good morning, I'm Marvin 

Smith, I'm executive director of financial aid and 

scholarships at UCLA. I have 30 years of experience in 
11

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

financial aid. I've worked for the University of 

California, Los Angeles Campus; Purdue University; and 

Indiana University. So, I'll be representing the fouryear publics.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Marvin. And 

the alternate is Ms. Deborah Stanley.

MS. STANLEY: Good morning, my name is 

Deborah Stanley, currently the director of financial aid 

Bowie State University in Bowie, Maryland. I have 30 

plus years in higher education, including at one point 

working with the Department of Education. I look forward 

to working with everyone.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thanks, Deborah. For 

the constituency legal aid organizations that represent 

students and/or borrowers, the primary is Mr. Johnson 

Tyler.

MR. TYLER: Hi, good morning, 

everyone. In the capacity of 30 years and more in one 

field, I've worked at a legal services office in 

Brooklyn and been specializing in student loans, I'd 

say, for the last eight years. Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Johnson, and 

the alternate is Ms. Jessica Ranucci.

MS. RANUCCI: Good morning, my name is 

Jessica Ranucci. I'm an attorney at the New York Legal 
12

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

Assistance Group, where I have legal services 

organization in New York City.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Jessica. For 

the constituency minority serving institutions, the 

primary is Dr. Beverly Hogan.

DR. HOGAN: Good morning, I'm Beverly 

Hogan, and I served for 17 years as president of 

Tougaloo College and another five years as the vice 

president. And during that time, I had the pleasure of 

working with many organizations in higher education, 

including the National Association of Independent 

Colleges and Council of Independent Colleges (NAICU) and 

UNCF serving on that board. And I'm currently doing some 

work with UNCF as a president and resident. And I'm 

looking forward to the work before us.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Dr. Hogan. 

The alternate is Ms. Ashley Schofield. 

MS. SCHOFIELD: Good morning, 

everyone. My name is Ashley Schofield. I am the 

associate vice president for fiscal affairs at Claflin 

University in Lynchburg, South Carolina. I am 

representing the MSIs an HBCUs constituent group. I have 

been here at Claflin for 9 years and I'm [inaudible] 

fellow along with serving on the NACUBO Higher Education 

Accounting Committee. And I'm looking forward to working 
13

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

with you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Ashley. 

Moving on for the constituency of private nonprofit, 

institutions of higher education, the primary is Ms. 

Kelli Perry.

MS. PERRY: Good morning, my name is 

Kelli Perry and I’m the assistant vice president for 

finance and controller at Rensselaer Polytechnic 

Institute. I also serve as the vice president of 

NACUBO's Accounting Principles Council, and this is my 

second negotiation and I'm happy to be here.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thanks, Kelli. And the 

alternate is Mr. Emmanual A. Guillory.

MR. GUILLORY: Good morning, everyone. 

My name is Emmanual Guillory. I work for the National 

Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, 

serving as their director of student and institutional 

aid policy. I'm about 13 years into my career. I spent 

10 of those as a staffer in Congress, most recently 

working for the House Committee on Education and in the 

workforce, and then working for UNCF for two years. And 

now with NAICU. So happy to be here and good to see you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Emmanual. 

For the constituency proprietary institutions of higher 

education, the primary is Mr. Bradley Adams.
14

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

MR. ADAMS: Good morning. My name is 

Brad Adams, and I serve as the chief operating officer 

for South College. And prior to becoming the COO in 

2018, I had the opportunity to serve as the chief 

financial officer for the institution since 2014. South 

College is regionally accredited by SACSCOC to award 

degrees ranging from certificate to doctorate. Prior to

South College, I worked at Tennessee Valley Authority 

for 5 years, a federally owned electric utility 

corporation, and I started my career with 

PricewaterhouseCoopers, working in auditing for forprofit and nonprofit companies all over the world, 

including some institutions of higher learning. Look 

forward to speaking with everyone.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Brad. And 

the alternate is Mr. Michael Lanouette. I will note that 

when we get to the issue of Ability to Benefit the 

alternate, Mr. Michael Lanouette will be sitting at the 

table in place of Mr. Adams. So, Michael?

DR. LANOUETTE: Thank you. Yes. My 

name is Dr. Mike Lanouette. I have over 30 years of 

experience in the proprietary postsecondary section, as 

well as the nonprofit section. I currently hold a

position of vice president of administration for a 

series of Colleges, Aviation Institute of Maintenance, 
15

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

Tidewater Tech and Centura College.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Mike. For 

the constituency state attorneys general, the primary is 

Mr. Adam Welle.

MR. WELLE: Morning. My name is Adam 

Welle, I'm an attorney at the Minnesota Attorney 

General's Office. I've been at the AG's office for about 

7 years. I work in our Consumer Wage and Antitrust 

Division, which handles a number of matters around 

advocating for consumers enforcing consumer protection 

laws. I work in the area, among others, of student loans 

and higher education. So good to meet you all. Thank 

you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Adam. And 

the alternate is Ms. Yael Shavit, who will be sitting at 

the table the entire first week in place of Adam. Yael?

MS. SHAVIT: Hi, my name is Yael 

Shavit. I'm the managing attorney in the Consumer 

Protection Division of the Massachusetts Attorney 

General's Office. I've been in the office for about six 

years and am one of the lead attorneys on much of our 

work related to higher education financing, for-profit, 

consumer fraud, and student loan servicing. Looking 

forward to working with everyone in the committee.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thanks, Yael. For the 
16

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

constituency state higher education executive officers 

state authorizing agencies and/or state regulators of 

institutions of higher education and/or loan servicers, 

the primary is Ms. Debbie Cochrane.

MS. COCHRANE: Hi, thank you. That's a 

mouthful of a category. And I am one of the state 

regulators of institutions of higher education. I am 

chief of California's Bureau of Private Postsecondary 

Education, which approves over a thousand institutions 

in to operate in the state of California. The bureau 

also houses the state's Office of Students Assistance 

and Relief, known as OSAR, which provides guidance and 

support to prospective, current, and future private 

postsecondary students. Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thanks, Debbie. And the 

alternate is Mr. David Socolow.

MR. SOCOLOW: Good morning. I'm David 

Socolow, I'm the executive director of New Jersey's 

Higher Education Student Assistance Authority, which is 

the state's financial aid agency, supporting students 

attending postsecondary education in our state. And 

thrilled to be part of this negotiation. I've been in 

this role for four years. Prior to that, I led the 

Center for Postsecondary and Economic Success at CLASP. 

And prior to that had a long career in both state and 
17

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

federal government agencies. So, looking forward to 

working with all of you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, David. For 

the constituency students and student loan borrowers, 

the primary is Mr. Ernest Ezeugo.

MR. EZEUGO: Hi, everyone. My name is 

Ernest Ezeugo. I am the director of policy and advocacy 

for higher education and workforce at Young Invincibles, 

an organization dedicated to advocating voice and power 

of young people in the political process. I'm also a 

student at the University of Maryland Global Campus. And 

I'm really excited and looking forward to working with 

you all over the next three months.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Ernest. And 

the alternate is Mr. Carney King.

MR. KING: Good morning, my name is 

Carney King. I work in the California Senate, currently 

representing students and student loan borrowers.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Carney. For 

the constituency to your public institutions of higher 

education, the primary is Dr. Anne Kress.

DR. KRESS: Hi, I'm Anne Kress, I'm 

the president of Northern Virginia Community College. I 

have 30 years in the community college system and have 

worked in Florida and New York and now in Virginia. I'm 
18

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

excited to be here and thank you so much.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Dr. Kress. 

The alternative is Mr. William S. Durden.

MR. DURDEN: Thanks, Cindy, good 

morning, everybody. Will Durden. I'm the director of 

basic education for adults with the Washington State 

Board for Community and Technical Colleges. That's Title 

II WYO funds for those of you who speak that language. 

It's a pleasure to be here this morning, and I'm really 

here representing adults who need both the secondary and 

postsecondary credential. Thanks.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Will. For 

the constituency U.S. military service members veterans 

or groups representing them, the primary is Mr. Travis 

Horr.

MR. HORR: Hi everybody, good morning. 

My name is Travis Horr, I'm the senior director of 

government affairs at Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of 

America. I've been at this organization for about three 

and a half year, focused on education issues affecting 

service members and veterans. And prior to that, I was 

enlisted in the Marine Corps. I went to colleges on the 

post 9/11 GI Bill, and I'm honored to represent service 

members, veterans, and their families, as well as a 

variety of veteran service organizations. And thank you.
19

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Travis. And 

the alternate is Mr. Barmak Nassirian.

MR. NASSIRIAN: Morning, everybody. My 

name is Barmak Nassirian, I am vice president for higher 

ED policy with Veterans Education Success, which is an 

organization committed to improving educational outcomes 

for veterans, service members and military connected 

families.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Barmak, 

appreciate it. That is all of the negotiators. Did I 

miss anyone? Okay, good start to a day. So, I'd like to 

thank you all for introducing yourself and for your 

time, efforts, expertise, and commitment to this process 

and the representation of your constituencies. We're 

glad to have this opportunity to work with each and 

every one of you through this process. To assist you 

with your work, we would like to take this opportunity 

to introduce two expert advisors who have been selected 

to serve as a resource to your committee. These 

individuals were similarly nominated by the public and 

chosen by the Department. They are not themselves 

members of the committee, and nor would they participate 

or impact consensus decision making process. Instead, 

they are available to provide experience and researchbased information and data to the committee and perhaps 
20

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

make recommendations on regulatory language. First, I'd 

like to welcome and invite an introduction from our 

advisor as a compliance auditor with expertise auditing 

institutions that participate in Title IV, HEA programs, 

Mr. David McClintock.

MR. MCCLINTOCK: Morning, I'm Dave 

McClintock, the managing director for McClintock and 

Associates. We're a public accounting firm dedicated to 

providing consulting services to help postsecondary 

schools understand and comply with Title IV regulations 

so that they can focus on changing their students’ 

lives. Each year, we issue well over 100 audit reports 

for postsecondary schools, including single audits, 

financial statement audits, and Title IV compliance 

audits. I'm honored to have been selected as the first 

auditor to serve as an advisor in a negotiated 

rulemaking process, and I promise to utilize my 

experience developed over the last 18 years, auditing 

postsecondary schools, to support these crucial 

conversations in any way that I can. I look forward to 

working with all of you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Dave. 

Appreciate it. Next, I'd like to welcome and invite an 

introduction from our advisor for labor economists or an 

individual with expertise in research, policy, 
21

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

accountability and or analysts of higher education data, 

Dr. Adam Looney.

DR. LOONEY: Thank you very much. I'm 

Adam Rooney, I'm an economist and a professor of finance 

at the University of Utah. Previously, I'd worked in 

D.C. for most of my career at Brookings Institute, at 

the Federal Reserve Board, at the White House, and at 

the Department of Treasury. And much of that work was 

analyzing federal programs from the inside, for example, 

analyzing data on the outcomes of students for projects 

like the college scorecard. Glad to be here. Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Adam, 

appreciate it; thank you to both, advisors. Lastly, I 

would like to take a moment and introduce you to all 

your facilitation group. I and three of my colleagues,

who will introduce themselves momentarily, are 

commissioners or federal mediators with the Federal 

Mediation and Conciliation Service. FMCS is a small, 

independent federal agency of the executive branch. We 

have several statutory bodies of work, one being 

negotiated rulemaking. Specifically, the Administrative 

Dispute Resolution Act of 1990 and the Negotiated 

Rulemaking Act of 1990, authorized FMCS to use its 

dispute resolution expertise to bring together the 

regulators and those impacted by the regulations in a 
22

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

collaborative process prior to the issuance of the rule. 

In this regulatory process, your FMCS team, as a neutral 

third party, will host the technology and platforms for 

your virtual sessions. We will facilitate the 

discussions and consensus check for each issue. We will 

assist the negotiating committee in identifying and 

overcoming barriers that arise in multi-party 

negotiations. We will enforce the organizational 

protocols. We will work with the committee as 

appropriate and breakout and caucus spaces during 

sessions and with work groups between sessions. We will 

solicit and distribute documents and information for the 

Department of Education Committee and Advisors and 

capture our process and progress in the drafting of a 

session summary. We are here to assist you every step of 

the way. While you are the subject matter expert and 

focused on the topics before the committee, we will 

drive the process and move the committee through each 

session--navigating order, agenda, timeliness, 

strategies, and dynamics at the table, all in an effort 

to assist you to be solution oriented and to build 

consensus. We want each of you to feel encouraged and 

empowered to reach out to us directly with questions, 

comments, concerns throughout this entire process. So,

for myself, I have been a mediator with FMCS for the 
23

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

past 11 and a half years, currently working out of 

Orlando, Florida, and I previously worked out of Albany, 

New York. I enjoy multi-party high stakes negotiations 

and always appreciate getting to work with subject 

matter experts in a variety of sectors, industries, 

locations, and circumstances. I am joined by three 

fellow FMCS colleagues who I'd like to invite to 

introduce themselves and anything I might not have 

mentioned about FMCS in our role. So first, we have 

Commissioner Brady Roberts.

MR. ROBERTS: Good morning, everyone. 

Brady Roberts here with FMCS. Nothing to add other than 

looking forward to working with everyone; good morning.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thanks, Brady. Next, we 

have Commissioner Rozmyn Miller. She may have stepped 

away for a moment. Let's move to Commissioner Kevin 

Wagner.

MR. WAGNER: Hello, I'm Kevin Wagner 

out of the headquarters in Washington, D.C., look 

forward to working with everyone over the next few 

months.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay and Roz just sent 

me a message, she's back, so Roz, you want to introduce

yourself? I think you might still be double muted Roz.

MS. MILLER: Sorry about that, I was 
24

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

double muted. My name is Rozmyn Miller. I've been with 

the agency for 15 years specializing in all things 

conflict management, and I'm excited to be here today.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thanks, Roz. So, I 

believe that we now have made all the introductions, and 

if I've missed someone, I apologize and I invite you to 

let me know at this time. Alright. So now that we've 

been through all the introductions, we'd like to remind 

you all to ensure that you're naming convention is 

consistent with what has been requested. A quick scan 

looks like it is. But just for the public, it is the 

first name or the name that the party wants to be 

addressed by. A P stands for Primary, an A for 

alternate, and an abbreviated reference to your 

constituency group. In addition to the naming 

convention, I have a couple additional technology notes 

at this juncture. While you are not speaking, please 

keep your audio muted. This will help us all cut down on 

background noise distractions and be able to identify 

the speaker more readily at any given time. If you are 

at the main virtual table and have something to share, 

please raise your virtual hand by clicking the reactions 

icon at the bottom of your screen and selecting “raise 

your hand.” We will generally call on folks throughout 

the process in the order in which their virtual hands 
25

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

appear on our screen. Should you have technology related 

questions today during our session, we will identify 

each day of the session in the chat the name and email 

address of one of us that will be filling that role on 

that day. For today, we have Brady Roberts and I believe 

Brady you already put your information in the chat. So,

if you have technology issues, please reach out to Brady 

today. A note on the chat feature...it will remain enabled 

during our sessions together. Please know that all 

messages sent out to the full group may be subject to an 

ongoing transcript. Direct messages outside of those 

sent to the Department will not be subject to that same 

transcript. Each day, the public will have an 

opportunity to log in and observe our session via the 

live streaming. The Department has posted a registration 

link for that on their website. Brady will also place 

that link in the chat right now. This is the same place 

where updates and shared documents will routinely be 

provided. Next, we'd like to move on to address the 

organizational protocols. I know that each of you 

previously received a copy of the protocols to review 

and briefly discuss with the facilitators who schedules 

your outreach sessions. Based on some of those 

discussions and the questions asked within, I would like 

to address a few of the concepts covered in that 
26

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

document. Primary and alternate committee members: We 

recognize primary and alternate committee members as a 

team representing their constituency. To that end, we 

value the input, expertise, and representation that both 

bring to the table. To carry out our virtual process, we 

must note several important distinctions. First, as in 

previous in-person rulemaking, only the primary 

generally sits at the table. In an effort to replicate 

the main table and distinguish between our primary 

alternates, when we enter into the substantive portion 

of our sessions, reviewing and negotiating over the 

topics, we will ask that alternates and advisors turn 

off their cameras. If the alternate is substituting for 

the primary for a topic or short period of time, please 

send myself or the FMCS team a note to that end, 

especially if you are not going to be there for an 

entire day or in the case of this week, we will have one 

alternate sitting in the entire week. So, after much 

consultation and consideration, this was the best 

virtual practice to easily delineate between those 

participating for the purpose of determining consensus. 

Alternate committee members will be invited to turn on 

their cameras when they are at the main table, and this 

might occur in several types of instances. In an absence 

of the primary member, the alternate will participate at 
27

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

the main table and for the purposes of consensus. And I 

again, I ask that you send us as much advance notice as 

possible. The primary and alternate negotiator may 

decide that the alternate will take the primary's place 

at the main table, either for a certain topic or to have 

an opportunity to briefly comment on a particular topic 

segment subsection of a topic. The alternate would thus 

be on camera and the primary would turn there came off 

for that portion. I hope that everyone understands the 

virtual and logistical intent behind this practice and 

would ask for advance notice again when there is going 

to be a swap. For the purposes of at the table and an 

alternate wants to step in and make a comment, if you 

just put that in the chat, we will note it once we 

announce it then you can make that change. The same will 

work for advisors. When the committee are facilitators, 

request their assistance input, we will ask that they 

come on camera to address the committee. The same is the 

case when the adviser requests to speak for the 

protocols. Otherwise, their cameras will remain off. We 

will engage in consensus decision making to develop 

proposed regulations. We will utilize good faith group 

problem solving to address the interests of the 

committee members and ultimately reach unanimous 

agreement otherwise described as building consensus. It 
28

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

is not a majority vote, but rather an expression of 

agreement or dissent, and we have built consensus once 

there is no dissent by any member of the negotiating 

committee. Thus, no member or minority group can be 

outvoted. A few important notes here. Per the protocols, 

members of the committee should not block or withhold 

consensus unless they have serious reservations about 

what is being proposed. Absence at the time of consensus 

check will be the equivalent to not dissenting and will 

therefore not prevent consensus from being reached. To 

take the consensus checks, we will utilize a visual 

three thumb approach. The thumbs up...this is an 

expression of agreement by who is in agreement with, and 

in support of, the proposal at hand. A sideways thumb...

this is also an expression of agreement; it is, in fact, 

an indication that one does not feel as strongly 

favorable to the proposal but will support and agree 

with the proposal and not dissent if everyone is a 

thumbs up or sideways thumb, you've reached consensus. 

If there are thumbs down or even a single thumbs down, 

this is an expression of dissent by one who will not 

support the proposal at hand. If one or more individuals 

are a downward thumb, we are not in consensus and the 

dialog and work continues during our remaining scheduled 

time together, starting with the dissenters being asked 
29

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

if there are additional concerns other than what was 

presented in the discussion prior to the consensus check 

and asked to provide a change to what was proposed that 

would get them to consensus either sideways or a total 

thumbs up. Finally, we will seek be seeking consensus 

separately on each issue. This is different than some of 

the negotiated rulemaking experiences previously but was 

utilized in the negotiated regulating rulemaking just 

that was just completed in December. We will not be 

seeking consensus on groups of issues or a complete 

package of all proposals. Rather, each issue will be 

subject to its own distinct consensus building, and as a 

result, those issues where consensus is not reached will 

not hold back those issues for which consensus has been 

built and achieved. Throughout the process, we may take 

the committee's temperature for purposes of tentative

agreement. This will help us, and the Department monitor 

where the committee is as a group with regard to 

specific issues, proposals and solutions so that we can 

continue through the process towards building consensus. 

This will be done using the same three thumb approach. 

We will make it clear in any given instance whether we 

are taking your temperature for purposes of tentative 

agreement or whether we are taking an official consensus 

check. Data and information requests and sharing: In an 
30

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

effort to streamline an effective and consistent process 

for sharing data and information, we request that 

materials be provided to FMCS, and we will distribute 

them to the full committee. So please email any of your 

data requests, proposals, anything like that directly to 

me and I will forward them to the parties that you 

indicate. We will send them to all the negotiators. We 

will send them to the Department, and the Department 

will be doing the same...sending it to us and we will 

disseminate it to all of you. Specifically for the 

advisers: This is a new role to have designated advisers 

for the committee; it was done in the last rulemaking. 

This is the second time that it's been done, and we want 

to utilize your expertise in a respectful and efficient 

manner. To that end, we would like to establish a 

consistent practice for soliciting that and information 

from them and the effort to timely address requests, 

address potentially duplicitous requests and ensure that 

everyone receives the information and data being shared 

by the advisors. We ask that you request and provide it 

again to the facilitators, who will then in turn provide 

them to the advisors. Any materials and documents that 

the advisors wish to share can be provided to FMCS and 

we will send them out to everyone and the Department. 

Our intent here is really to track requests and 
31

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

responses and ensure that everyone receives all that 

information being shared. For data requests to the 

Department, please refer to the protocols for additional 

information. These will be invited at the time of 

addressing the particular topic for which the parties 

request pertained. Any information provided by the 

Department in response to a data request will be sent 

out to the entire committee. The Department will 

prioritize data requests, and please keep in mind that 

many, if not most, of the data requests may take a 

period of time for the Department to compile that 

information. Sometimes it has to come from multiple 

sources. In addition to that, we will be using breakout 

rooms and caucuses. Per the protocols, committee members 

may request to caucus for the purpose of consultation. 

To achieve this within our Zoom.gov platform, the 

facilitators will move individuals into breakout rooms 

within the platform. These breakout rooms are secure and 

private virtual spaces where there will be no live 

streaming or recording. For time management purposes, 

the facilitators will work with the committee to ensure 

that these rooms are used intentionally and 

strategically for specific periods of time. It is no 

secret that we have a number of important topics to 

address in our limited time together, and we want to 
32

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

ensure that we are using each of your time during 

sessions most productively. In terms of participation,

only those within the platform will be able to access 

the breakout rooms through Zoom. This means that we will 

not be able to admit any additional individuals to the 

meeting for the purpose of meeting with you in caucus. 

This is in no way an attempt to stifle dialog 

consultation or the input of others from your respective 

constituencies. It is simply a matter of logistics, 

keeping the facilitators focused on the task at hand 

with the committee, preserving our time together, 

minimizing technical issues, and protecting the security 

of virtual meeting space. While in the breakout rooms, 

we encourage you to contact and consult with others as 

you deem appropriate and necessary. Feel encouraged to 

call them, use conference lines, speaker phones, or 

other preferred technology. We also encourage you to 

consult with them on breaks, lunches, outside session 

hours, and between sessions. Moving to the social media 

piece of the protocols, a couple of questions have come 

up about social media as it is addressed in the 

protocol. First and foremost, we ask that everyone 

refrain from posting and commenting on social media 

during our sessions together because we want everyone 

fully engaged and participating when we are together. 
33

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

Outside of our sessions, we appreciate that social media 

can be an effective tool for positive use, such as 

soliciting feedback from your respective constituency. 

Consistent with the protocols, however, all members 

shall act in good faith in all aspects of the 

negotiations and refrain from characterizing the views, 

motives, and interests of other members regarding 

negotiated rulemaking. You are all here because you have 

expertise, were nominated by the public, and selected by 

the Department to work together in good faith and strive 

to reach consensus on a number of very important issues. 

Each and every one of you are valuable to the process, 

and we ask that you treat each other accordingly. 

Finally, it has previously been conveyed that your 

agreement to serve as a negotiator indicates your 

willingness to follow these protocols. We are going to 

ask you at this time to approve the organizational 

protocols as provided. This will be our first 

opportunity to use our thumbs and achieve agreement. 

Does this committee agree with formally adopting the 

protocols? I could see your thumbs. Okay. It looks like 

we have all thumbs up, anyone see something different 

than that, please let me know. Alright. So, thank you 

very much, we will reflect that adoption in our record, 

you have now just reached your very first consensus. 
34

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

What a great way to start off your day. Before moving 

into a brief review of our agenda. Does anyone have any 

questions or comments?

MS. MILLER: Cindy, we have one more 

alternate David Socolow representing the agencies for 

Ability to Benefit.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. So, when we move 

into Ability to Benefit, David Socolow will be sitting 

at the main table. Thank you, Roz. Any other questions 

or comments? Okay. So, a review of the agenda this was 

emailed out and shared online by the Department. Anne, 

do you have your hand up?

DR. KRESS: Sure, I just wanted to 

note that I had also sent in a request for the community 

colleges, Will Durden will be our primary negotiator for 

the Ability to Benefit.

MS. JEFFRIES: Yes, thank you. I did 

receive that. I will be announcing all changes when I 

introduce the issue, but thank you for that, Anne. The 

email the agenda was emailed out and shared online by 

the Department. This is the order in which we plan to 

introduce topics during this first week-long session. I 

must let you know that it is subject to change based on 

a number of potential factors. Quick note on public 

comment, at the end of each day that the committee 
35

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

meets, we will reserve time for public comment, which 

will begin each day from 4:00 to 4:30 when we start our 

schedule of ending at 4:00, public comment will be 3:30 

to 4:00. At that time, individual public commenters will 

be admitted into our Zoom meeting from the waiting room 

and permitted three minutes to speak. They will be 

removed from the session when the remarks are complete. 

Along those lines, the Department does slot people into 

every three-minute time slot during the period of open 

comment from 4:00 to 4:30 once those slots are filled, 

people will be placed on a waiting list and should time 

slots open up during that half hour and we have gone 

through everyone who was scheduled, there sometimes are 

those who cannot make it, we will then move to the 

waiting list in an effort to make sure that we get as 

many people as possible in that half hour. Okay, that is 

all I have in terms of opening statements. Is there 

anything that the committee wants to bring up before we 

move into our first issue of Ability to Benefit?

MR. TYLER: Yes, Cindy, hi it's 

Johnson. I had a motion to add a person to the 

negotiating rule making committee, should I make that 

now?

MS. JEFFRIES: Yes, please go ahead.

MR. TYLER: So good morning, everyone. 
36

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

It's nice to meet you all. I'm Johnson Tyler from the 

legal aid constituency. Oh, we want to add a civil 

rights seat to the negotiating making committee table. 

The person we'd like to nominate is Amanda Martinez, who 

works at Unidos in a Latin advocacy organization in a 

Washington, D.C. The civil rights seat was originally a 

its own entity, and it got collapsed into consumer and 

civil rights. I think these two issues are fairly 

different, and that's why we want to make this 

nomination. In addition, I'm aware that we're making 

this on the Tuesday after Martin Luther King weekend, 

where we're celebrating his achievements, and I think 

all of us would agree, the last two years, we've become 

acutely aware of the inequalities in the United States 

that have persisted despite his efforts. Economists have 

been looking at it, The Federal Reserve issued a report 

showing that the wealth gap between African Americans

and whites is greater than it was in 1968. And there's 

lots of data about student loan inequality and outcomes. 

We all are here because we care about education and care 

about its ability to hopefully transform our society. 

But I think we all have specialties that do not include 

civil rights, and consumer law is largely based on 

consumer statutes. And that's what I and a lot of other 

people here use. So having someone who's deeply immersed 
37

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

in civil rights issues and looking at things through the 

lens of race would really be helpful. And that's why I'm 

nominating Amanda. And I'm happy to put in her resume 

and a recommendation from various organizations that 

have been provided. Cindy also has it if she thinks it's 

more appropriate for her to put it in the chat.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Johnson. I 

did email that to the negotiators, so they have it at 

hand. I, at this point, the Department needs to know I 

need to have verification from Ms. Martinez that she is 

in fact available and ready to join the committee if the 

committee reaches consensus to add her. I am awaiting 

that confirmation from her. Johnson, do you have any?

MR. TYLER: I've been communicating 

her by email, I can call her and have her contact you. 

She says she's watching right now and is committed to 

participate.

MS. JEFFRIES: If she could send me an 

email real quickly confirming that yes, she is available 

and willing to join us today throughout for the whole 

entire rulemaking. If once I get that confirmation, I 

will move your proposal to the Committee for Consensus.

MR. TYLER: Okay, I'm going to go to 

my email and try to send her this.

MS. JEFFRIES: Alright. As we await 
38

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

that, is there anyone else, Jaylon.

MR. HERBIN: I would just like to say 

that some from the coalition of our consumer advocates 

and civil rights coalition that we have built in the 

constituency that we are represented do support the 

nomination that Johnson is moving forward with.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, thank You. Any 

other business to take care of why I see if Ms. Martinez 

can quickly respond to us?

MS. MILLER: Ernest has his hand up, 

Cindy.

MS. JEFFRIES: I'm sorry.

MS. MILLER: We just ignored it.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay.

MS. MILLER: No, it's back up again, 

I'm sorry, Ernest?

MS. JEFFRIES: Ernest, Okay.

MR. EZEUGO: No, that's okay. I would 

also just super quickly like to offer my support of the 

seat, both to the addition of a specific civil rights 

seat and my support for Amanda Martinez in particular at 

this seat, of course, pending her willingness and 

ability to do it. I would flag that Amanda has been a 

negotiator before and critically, she was a negotiator 

representing students in 2019, the distance education 
39

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

decided on negotiated rulemaking. Her voice on this 

committee, in particular, would be extremely valuable. 

And if I may say, extremely beneficial considering kind 

of the slant on this currency and the lack of 

representation of student facing seats, we know she's 

well equipped to do it. So, I simply wanted to add my 

support in that regard as well.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, thank you. Brad.

MR. ADAMS: Yes, good morning. While 

we consider the vote on the nomination put forth by our 

colleagues, I'd like to nominate someone to the 

committee. Many of the issues will be negotiated on 

during this upcoming rulemaking session directly impact 

proprietary schools. And according to 2020 IPEDS data, 

there are approximately 2,270 taxpaying proprietary 

institutions with only 330 of those schools having 

programs four years or longer like South College. Prior 

gainful employment will make concessions proprietary 

schools had two voting seats, one for private 

proprietary institutions with an enrollment of 400 

students or less, or 50 students or less, and the other 

with proprietary institutions enrollment of 451 students 

or more. And thus, with South College having 7,000 

students, we do not have a representative covering for 

smaller proprietary schools. As many of you know, the 
40

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

2014 Gainful Employment Rule established debt to earning 

measures to determine whether a program prepares 

students for gainful employment and a recognized 

occupation. Under the 2014 gainful employment rule the 

Department obtained was currently available mean and 

median annual earnings of students who completed the 

gainful employment program from the Social Security 

Administration. And we know in the Department gainful 

employment issue papers recognize that educational 

programs that produce graduates in fields were 

underreported income occurs is a challenge for any 

measure that includes income reported to a federal 

agency. Given that fact that many of the issues we are 

negotiating today, in fact proprietary institutions and 

looking around the virtual table with all due respect to 

my committee colleagues, we would benefit from adding

someone to the committee that a smaller school with 

programs less than 2 years in length has significant 

knowledge and experience with occupations that rely 

heavily on tips such as barbering, cosmetology and 

massage therapy. So, I would like to formally nominate 

Michael Halmon to the committee. Michael proudly served 

our country in the U.S. Marine Corps from 1978 to 1986. 

Currently, he's the president of the American Institute 

of Beauty, which operates two campuses in the state of 
41

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

Florida, offering programs in beauty and wellness with 

enrollment of 300 students. Additionally, as current 

chair and president of the American Association of 

Cosmetology Schools, which represents 500 plus schools 

across the country. He is the founding member and 

current board of director of the Florida Association of 

Cosmetology and Technical Schools. Michael is actively 

involved in state and federal advocacy on behalf of 

students attending schools that offer cosmetology, 

barbering and massage programs. Michael is listening 

this morning and is prepared to participate immediately 

if the committee accepts him. I can put his LinkedIn bio 

in the chat for reference.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Brad. I need 

to hear directly from your nominee as to whether or not 

they will accept it, so I still have not. Pardon me? 

MR. ADAMS: Would an email suffice?

MS. JEFFRIES: Yes. Yes. Still have 

not heard from Ms. Martinez, either. So, in an effort to 

move things along and not hold the committee up from the 

work that they have at hand, I'm going to move us to the 

first issue of Ability to Benefit, as that is a 

discretionary piece at this point. At such time that I 

receive confirmation from either party, I will bring the 

committee back around to addressing the addition of 
42

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

these two. Brad, I'm not sure what constituency are you 

suggesting that Michael represent?

MR. ADAMS: Proprietary schools with 

enrollments of 450 students and a college being 

regionally accredited with 7,000 students as different 

issues than what a cosmetology school offering programs 

with 2 years or less. This is a seat that was there in I 

believe the 2017 negotiation of gainful employment. And 

I’m just asking that seat to come back.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. So, the name of 

the constituency would be proprietary schools with 400 

students or less enrolled?

MR. ADAMS: 450 students or less.

MS. JEFFRIES: 450. Okay, thank you. I 

have received confirmation from Ms. Martinez that she's 

formally confirming her ability to participate as a 

civil rights negotiator for the Institutional and 

Programmatic Eligibility Committee. So, with that one, I 

think we are able to move that one to consensus. At this 

point, I would like to ask all non-main table 

participants to turn your camera off so that we can 

readily identify just the people who will be 

participating in the consensus. So, we have one, two, 

I'm showing 15.

MR. ADAMS: Cindy, would it be 
43

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

appropriate to get some additional information? I 

haven't seen a resume.

MS. JEFFRIES: I sent it to everyone 

this morning. I emailed it. You didn't get it?

MR. ADAMS: I did not get an email, 

I'm sorry.

MS. JEFFRIES: It's probably hanging 

out there in cyberspace. Johnson, do you want to pop 

those into the chat? Okay, I also got confirmation for 

Mr. Hellman that should the committee reach consensus to 

add that constituency, he would be able to participate 

immediately. Are we ready to move on Ms. Martinez and 

the civil rights? Okay, so if I could see your hands.

MR. ADAMS: May I have a conversation 

with Michael Johnson, please?

MS. JEFFRIES: Do you want a private 

conversation with him or what are you asking for?

MR. ADAMS: Yes, that would be 

excellent if I could. I'm not sure how to do that via 

this Zoom format.

MS. JEFFRIES: That's okay. We will 

set it up. So, you were interested in a caucus with 

whom?

MR. ADAMS: I believe it is Mr. 

Michael Johnson.
44

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

MS. JEFFRIES: Who is Michael Johnson?

MS. STUDLEY: I think he means Tyler.

MR. ADAMS: Sorry, Tyler Johnson. 

MS. JEFFRIES: Johnson Tyler. His 

first name is Johnson.

MR. ADAMS: I apologize.

MS. JEFFRIES: No worries. No worries. 

I made the same mistake, so we're good. Brady, can you 

set up that quick breakout room? Brad, can you give me 

some sort of indication as to how long this caucus will 

take?

MR. ADAMS: Within five minutes or 

less.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. So, for the 

purposes of the public, we are setting up a breakout 

room for Johnson Tyler from legal aid organizations and 

Bradley Adams from proprietary institutions, we will go 

off live stream for the period of time that it takes for 

them to do an anticipated to be five minutes. So, with 

that, could we end the live stream? 

<BREAK>

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Welcome back, 

everyone. The caucus has completed, so we're ready to 

move forward. Let's move with the first nomination of 

adding the civil rights seat with Ms. Martinez as the 
45

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

nominee for that. If I could please see a show of 

thumbs. Okay, so the committee has reached consensus on 

that. So, Brady, if you would please send all the 

documents and materials and the link to Ms. Martinez so 

she can join the committee today, that would be great. 

Moving on to the proposal to add proprietary schools 

with 450 students or less with Mr. Michael Hamlin as the 

nominee. If you could please show me your thumbs. Okay. 

I am showing one. Please keep your thumbs up. Two, 

three, four, five, six, seven. I am showing eight 

dissenters, so that proposal did not pass. So, moving 

on, we will move to the first topic that we have, and 

that is the Ability to Benefit. And Brad, you raised 

your hand.

MR. ADAMS: Yes, ma'am, I just want to 

state for the record, I'm disappointed that a critical 

voice will be missing from this conversation, but I 

understand the committee that voted against it has that 

option. Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you. Okay. If you 

could please lower your hand, Brad. We will move forward 

with the Ability to Benefit discussion. We have several 

substitutions. David Socolow will be in substituting for 

Debbie Cochrane. Will Durden will be in for Anne Kress. 

Did I miss anyone? And of course, Yael is in all week 
46

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

for state attorneys general. Johnson?

MR. TYLER: Could Brady or someone 

help Amanda to join the group, too, since she's been?

MR. ROBERTS: She's been sent the Zoom 

link along with all the issue papers and protocols, I'm 

just waiting to admit her.

MR. TYLER: Okay, great. Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. So, with that, 

I'm going to turn it over to Greg from the Department to 

walk you through the Ability to Benefit.

MR. MARTIN: Thanks, Cindy, I 

appreciate that, and as was indicated, our first topic 

for the day will be Ability to Benefit. And what I'll do 

is just go through a brief intro, give a little bit of a 

background about Ability to Benefit for I understand 

that not everybody on the committee is steeped in 

Ability to Benefit. It depends on what you've been 

working or what your background is as to how much you 

know, regarding how much exposure you've had to it. So, 

and then once we go through the introductory part and a 

couple of the main points, we'll start addressing the 

regulations themselves. So just as an introduction here 

what we're talking about is an Ability to Benefit and is 

in statute in Section 484D of the HEA that requires that 

in order to gain eligibility for Title IV federal 
47

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

student aid, a student without a high school diploma or 

its recognized equivalent must fulfill one of the 

Ability to Benefit alternatives. And they are as 

follows: A student can pass an independently 

administered, Department-approved ATB test. A student 

can complete six credit hours, or the equivalent 

coursework offered by the postsecondary institution. A 

student who meets one of these or the third option, 

which is they participated in a state process that is 

approved by the Department.

MS. JEFFRIES: Greg?

MR. MARTIN: Yes.

MS. JEFFRIES: Can I interrupt for 

just a second? Do you want this document screen shared?

MR. MARTIN: You don't have to put it 

up. I'll tell you when you can put it up.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, great. Thanks.

MR. MARTIN: This is just after these 

introductory remarks. And so, we want to point out here 

is that a student that meets one of the ATB alternatives 

may use that alternative to establish Title IV 

eligibility at any eligible institution where the 

student enrolls in an Eligible Career Pathways Program. 

ECPP, so that's Eligible Career Pathways Program. I hate 

to be the individual that introduces yet one more 
48

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

acronym to you all, but I'm afraid I’ll have to do that. 

So, it's not the worst acronym we've ever had, so I will 

refer to it as ECPP in the future. Again, that's 

Eligible Career Pathway Program, and that's defined in 

the HEA for purposes of the Ability to Benefit process. 

So, the important point is here, no matter which the 

student uses to establish the Ability to Benefit, the 

only way that that can take place is through an Eligible 

Career Pathways Program. And on that point, just a 

little bit of a background about ATB, so again what is 

Ability to Benefit? We just talked about that being 

defined in the HEA, allowing students to participate, be 

eligible rather without a high school diploma or its 

equivalent. And we talk about what is an Eligible Career 

Pathways Program that's defined in the HEA as well and 

ECPP as a program that combines rigorous and highquality education training and other services that align 

with the skill needs and seven specific components that 

make up the ECPP. What is the state process? The state 

process describes the education services and supports 

that all programs operating within a given state process 

will follow. It must be approved by the Department. Only 

institutions identified by the state will be able to 

participate in that process. A little bit of history of 

ATB before we move into it, just to look to the past 
49

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

about where we have been with ATB and where we are now. 

So, in 1991 and in 92, Congress created ATB via exam and 

the state process. For a long time, there were no states 

participating in the state process. So, for the longest 

time, it really was only through the exam that those of 

you who are familiar with ATB know that students were 

able to become eligible through this process. In 2008, 

Congress had a third option that was credit hours. So,

in not just the testing or state process, we had the 

completion of credit hours that through which the 

student could establish ATB. And in 2008, rather, in 

2011, Congress repealed ATB. You might recall that at 

that time, ATB went away completely. In 2014, Congress 

restored ATB with all three options and a new 

requirement that students must be enrolled in the ECPP. 

So, it's important to remember that the Congress put 

back all three options for establishing the Ability to 

Benefit. However, important caveat there is that the 

Eligible Career Pathways Program is the only mechanism 

through which ATB can be accessed, whether it's through 

the exam, whether it's through completion of the clock 

hours or credit hours, or whether it's through the state 

process. So, looking at what ATB looks like today, in 

2019/20 award year, approximately 240,000 students 

received Title IV aid through ATB of those students, 86 
50

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

percent accessed ATB by completing six credits. The 

remaining 14 percent accessed it by completing a test. I 

do want to point out that until recently no state has 

utilized the state process provision. In 2020, the U.S. 

Department of Education approved the first two states--

that's Wisconsin and Washington. As of 2021, four state 

processes have been approved. Washington's application 

was the only one actively approved by the Department. 

The other three were approved automatically due to lack 

of response within six months. That’s statutory. If the 

Department does not respond within six months, then the 

state process is automatically approved. In 2021, we 

have a fifth state submitted and no determination has 

been made there as of yet. So that's a little bit of a 

background to ATB. So, with that, I think Cynthia, we 

can put the paper up.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, that sounds 

great. While we wait for that, I want to make note, for 

the record, that Ms. Martinez has now joined the meeting 

on behalf of the constituency group of civil rights. In 

addition to that, I need to make note that Michael 

Lanouette is at the table for Brad Adams for proprietary 

institutions and that Ashley Schofield will be joining 

the table in place of Beverly Hogan from minority 

institutions. So back to you. Greg.
51

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

MR. MARTIN: Thank you. I think I 

pretty much covered the summary of issues there. Let's 

go down to the proposal section here to see exactly what 

the Department is proposing. And we're dealing with two 

areas really with our proposals for ATB. The first one 

will be with respect to the eligible career pathways 

process or program, and the second will be with the with 

the state process. So those are the two main areas we're 

looking at, and they do intertwine. And you'll see as we 

go through the material how that works. So firstly, the 

Department is going to clarify how institutions 

demonstrate they offer ECPP. Currently, it has been in 

statute, but we've not regulated on this before, so this 

will be the first time that we that we regulate in this 

area. And although, as I said before, it is out in 

statute currently. The Department is aware of compliance 

and program integrity issues, concerns with programs 

that claim to offer an ECPP rather but do not offer all 

the required components and state process applications 

that have not provided robust data on student success. 

So, with respect to ECPP, the statute does require 

certain criteria be met and we are seeking to put that 

into regulation. So first, we're going to provide 

clarity as to what is required to demonstrate to the 

Department that that a program qualifies as an ECPP for 
52

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

the purpose of Ability to Benefit. So again, codifying 

this definition in regulation and providing detail on 

the types of documentation required to demonstrate that 

the program does meet the definition of an ECPP. The 

second point you see there is eliminate the requirement 

that first time applicants for the state process must 

demonstrate past performance metrics for the initial 

period. There is in current regulation, a requirement 

that to be approved, the state provide certain 

performance metrics to us. And the problem with that is 

that if the state is coming in initially and proposing 

this process, it's understandable that they will not 

have data at that point to give us to show us the 

success of the program. So, for that reason, we're 

regulating this in a way that I think will make a lot 

more sense to allow the state to come in initially and 

then provide us with data after a certain amount of time 

and you'll see how that works. So, what we're going to 

have here, we seek to recommend a maximum of 2 years of 

length of time that the United States Department of 

Education should receive the application for approval on 

the length of time, rather that we receive it. Second, 

to Department's process, requiring states to verify 

their applications that all new students served in state 

process will be enrolled in ECPP. And the Secretary 
53

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

shall verify that a sample of the proposed ECPP are 

eligible. So, when states are applying, remember they 

can have a state process, but we're still requiring that 

that be through an Eligible Career Pathways Program. So,

we want to make sure that the participants are offering 

this program in accordance with what statute and statute 

and now regulations we'll require. The Department also 

seeks to propose setting a maximum number of students to 

be allowed in the initial approval period or limiting 

the institution to one ECPP for students eligible for 

the state process. So, we'll be seeking feedback from 

all of you on the best approach for all that. And 

fourth, we are removing the requirements that states 

demonstrate past success rates for the initial period. 

And I already discussed that it's virtually impossible 

to do if you haven't had the process before to 

demonstrate success rate without a trial period, which 

we're going to be introducing here. That's given that 

the state will not have prior data. However, we are 

proposing to replace that requirement with initial 

quality metrics that will allow us to assess the 

effectiveness of the program participating under the 

state process, and we seek feedback from negotiators on 

what those quality metrics ought to be. And finally, we 

are proposing requiring states to describe in their 
54

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

application the enrollment or admissions criteria that 

students accessing Title IV through the state process 

would be required to meet. And moving on, we're 

requiring that there be clarity on the requirements, or 

we're going to provide clarity on the requirements for 

states that are reapplying for subsequent approval of 

the state process. So, when a state applies for 

subsequent approval from the Department, the Department 

proposes to require additional data and proof of success 

to meet the statutory requirement to demonstrate 

effectiveness. So, you will recall that there is a 

statutory requirement for the state to demonstrate 

success in the program. We're also going to ensure that 

the success rate that states demonstrate is appropriate. 

In order to demonstrate this effectiveness, the current 

regulation requires the completion rate for 

participating students without a high school diploma or 

its recognized equivalent that must be 95 percent of the 

completion rate for students with high school diplomas. 

As we discussed just a few moments earlier, that's not 

really possible if the state has not had time to run the 

program. Hence, the introduction of the trial period. 

Other alternative performance indicators to be 

considered include earnings, employment credentials, 

credits, postsecondary transactions or transitions 
55

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

rather. We also seek feedback on the most appropriate 

mechanism to hold states accountable when participating 

institutions do not meet the success rate thresholds. We 

also seek to establish reporting needed to retain access 

to Title IV to ensure states report institutional level 

data to the Department when such data are not available 

to the Department through the standard Title IV 

reporting. That's the introduction of what we'll be 

talking about here when we actually look at the 

regulations. And if there are no questions at this 

point, I think I'd like to move to a discussion of the 

regulations themselves starting in the general 

provisions and our definitions, 668.2. And we can walk 

through this. I want to make certain that we take this 

in chunks that are reasonable so that we don't go over 

too much before introducing discussion on that topic. I 

think that with what we have under 668.2, we can address 

what we have in that section. And in paragraph B, we can 

start with discussion on that, but before we get into 

that, does anybody have any preliminary comments or 

questions?

MS. JEFFRIES: Greg, there are several 

hands up, and there was a question placed in the chat as 

well. Sam. You are muted, dear.

MS. VEEDER: Thank you. I do have a 
56

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

question on the state process. Greg, when you gave the 

statistics, most students entered the program through 

credits and 14 percent through tests. Is it fair to say 

that students are not currently entering ATB programs 

because of the requirements are unreasonable to have 

data in advance to go through the state program? Is that 

a fair assumption as to why the state option isn't 

currently being used?

MR. MARTIN: I don't know if I could 

say that that, as far as the unreasonableness of it. I 

don't know if I’d use the word unreasonable. It's a 

little unworkable. I mean, as it currently is, we did, 

as was pointed out in the introductory comments, approve 

one state. The other states that have been approved were 

done by default, since we didn't take action during the 

six-month period. Yes, it does put the Department in a 

difficult position because currently the regulations 

require the establishment of this 95 percent success 

rate where these state processes are mostly are new. So 

there doesn't exist any data for them to give to us to 

show this. So, it's a bit of a bit of a conundrum, we 

thought about it for the last couple of years and it’s 

one of the reasons why we put it on this negotiating 

table. As to why only recently states have begun to 

participate to come into this, I think for a lot of 
57

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

years before ATB was taken away in 2011, it just became 

established that there was the test process and then the 

credits, and that just seemed to be what everybody did. 

I don't think there was a lot of interest in the states 

in applying. It wasn't that we didn't permit it. It was 

certainly an option that was out there. But frankly, 

I've been around for about 30 years in this, and it just 

was something that was in the regulations that until 

very recently; we just didn't get the applications. So,

I don't know without querying states where there are 

states that wanted it to do it but were put off by that 

success rate. That's possible. But as I said, I just 

don't know for sure. But it does seem that recently, 

anyway, in the past couple of years, there's a lot more 

interest in the state process, I think, than there has 

been previously. But that's about all I can say about it 

because for a lot of years, we just got no applications.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you. Johnson.

MR. TYLER: Hi. Thanks, Greg. I missed

the number of how many people are using this, and then 

related to that, you said at the beginning of the paper 

that there are integrity issues. This is not an area of 

that I'm well-versed in. Could you just expand a little 

bit on that? And so, I'm curious, how many people is 

this impacting and what are the integrity issues that 
58

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

you're concerned about?

MR. MARTIN: So, I'm going to get

that. I'll try to find that figure, I think it was 

240,000 last year, but if someone can recall, I'm going 

to ask my colleagues in the Department.

MR. TYLER: That's good enough. I know 

it's a lot of people.

MR. MARTIN: Yeah. I think it was 

about 240,000 and so that I'll have that confirmed or 

denied to me shortly because I just don't want to fumble 

through the paper while I'm while I'm talking to all of 

you. But as far as integrity issues are concerned, we 

are concerned about the well, as I said before, with 

respect to the state process, the current regulation is 

not really giving us what we what we need to put into 

place a viable way of assessing these programs. So, we 

with the current regulations we would be stuck with

approving without that success rate or just not 

approving, which we don't want to do that, so I mean, we 

do we want to introduce regulations that will allow us 

will be fair to schools...I mean, rather, fair to the 

states and schools in bringing up this process initially 

and then being able to provide us the data to go to 

evaluate the program. So, when we say integrity issues, 

I think it's that it’s a structural thing we're talking 
59

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

about here. I don't think we've identified a specific 

state that we found was doing something untoward. But we 

but we realize this could be there could be large 

numbers of students coming in with this process. It is 

an alternate process. So, we are concerned about 

establishing integrity with that. With respect to 

Eligible Career Pathways Programs in general, you may 

recall that we did put out a dear colleague letter 

regarding these programs because there was nothing in 

regulation, simply in statute. And as far as integrity 

issues go, we are concerned. Again, this is not because 

we have necessarily identified in program review reports 

or audits specifically where this might be happening, 

but we do have concerns about the about the current 

structure allowing for a school to simply say, yeah, we 

have an Eligible Career Pathways Program. And just 

basically being able to say, yes, we have that without 

there being anything in regulation to hold that school 

to. So currently, I think the Department's opinion is 

that or belief rather is that there just isn't enough 

out there to ensure that when schools offer these ECPPs, 

that they're meeting the statutory guidelines. And 

that's why we're putting it into regulation here. I 

think that it will help codify that and to make it clear 

that this is not just something you do because you just 
60

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

want to be able to take advantage of ATB. Again, that 

you want to, because remember, if Congress had wanted to 

bring back ATB in its entirety, they could have done 

that. They didn't choose to do that. They brought it 

back completely within the context of an Eligible Career 

Pathways Program. So, we feel that we have an interest 

in the taxpayer and students in making certain that that 

process is being adhered to.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Greg. David 

Socolow.

MR. SOCOLOW: Yeah; hi; thank you. And 

Greg, I want, if I could at this point before responding 

to the specific metrics on which you requested feedback, 

which I guess we'll get to one at a time. I just want to 

do some response to the general frame you just said, 

especially about the congressional intent. So first, I 

applaud the Department very much for clarifying what it 

takes to get the Secretary's approval of the state 

process to help students who have neither graduated high 

school nor have an equivalency diploma become eligible 

for Title IV student aid. And I'm glad that there's a 

recognition that we need clarification about what's an 

eligible career pathway. But there's more that needs to 

be done in this reg to make sure that ATB can actually 

foster strong evidence-based integrated education and 
61

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

training programs, IET programs, that help this 

population make career progress and educational 

progress. Well-designed IT programs, as the Department 

knows, can help students who don't have a secondary 

credential, but poorly designed ones can saddle students 

with unsustainable debt and really cause a lot of 

issues. That's why we asked the Department for more 

data. You provided a little bit of data here, but we are 

looking for more data, which we did send a request in 

about how ATB is being used now. You mentioned 

congressional intent. So, as you said 7 years ago, when 

ATB was partially revised, it was not a carbon copy of 

what had been eliminated in 2011. They carefully 

included the same definition of career pathways as in 

the Workforce Innovation Opportunity Act, WIOA, and it's 

now also in Perkins, the Career and Technical Ed Act. 

And so, it's clearly meant to restrict ATB for students 

served through true robust partnerships, coordinating 

adult ED under WIOA Title II with occupationally 

oriented coursework offered by Title IV institution. And 

so, as a state agency representative, here we are 

particularly involved in making these IET programs work. 

They require coordination. They require grading of state 

funding and different streams of federal funding in a 

lot of coordination among state and local entities in 
62

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

different institutions. So, this regulation is going to 

need to further clarify how an eligible career pathway 

is going to be documented for all three modes of ATB. 

The six credit or clock hours, the test, or the state 

process. So, what I'm hoping that we'll be able to do in 

this conversation is look at the body of knowledge and 

guidance from coordinated programs. You know, the 

Department's own Institute of Education Sciences put out 

a research and practice guide on career pathways. And 

obviously, the experts at the Office of Career Technical 

and Adult Ed have a lot of research and guidance on IET. 

I'm going to suggest additional language to add to this 

red line that you're walking through now to ensure that 

eligible career pathways for ATB is aligned with the 

other federal and state investments to accelerate dual 

enrollment for adults. And not just, as you said, anyone 

who says they have a career pathway. Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, David.

MR. MARTIN: Thanks, David. I do want 

to point out that your data request that was submitted 

to us is being worked on by our colleagues in Federal 

Student Aid and I also have a great team of colleagues 

supporting me here, which is a great thing for me and as 

I do, where I've may have misspoken. I said earlier that 

I wasn't aware of any program review findings related to 
63

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

Eligible Career Pathways Programs, but I was informed by 

our staff that we have indeed had some program review 

related findings associated with Eligible Career 

Pathways Programs, so I do want to correct myself on 

that note. And as far as any proposed language, we'll 

certainly be willing to take a look at that. And as we 

go through and look at what we have here, we'll discuss 

that. If I mean, obviously, the Department feels that 

what we've presented does accomplish what was just being 

discussed. But we can start with going through that. 

Cynthia, do we have any other comments we need to take 

before we go into the reg?

MS. JEFFRIES: We do. We have two more 

comments; and, Greg, I would like to point out there was 

a question put forth in the chat when you were 

presenting from Michael Lanouette. Michael, do you want 

to pose that question since you've been waiting 

patiently?

DR. LANOUETTE: Oh, that's alright I 

was just wondering if the Department could share how the 

240,000 students were divided up by sector by sector.

MR. MARTIN: Yeah, ATB schools are 

required to report, but someone from my group is going 

to have to clarify this. We know if it's a test and it 

used to be reported if it's a test or the six credits. I 
64

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

don't think we have a mechanism for reporting state 

process, but I'll wait for them to clarify that for me. 

One second here. Ok, I'll wait for clarification on 

that, but I believe that we use the reporting that we 

get when schools use ATB and they're required to report 

to us that they have used it. Yes. It's just been

confirmed to me by my colleague Aaron Washington that we 

have reporting for the six credits and the test, so 

that's currently all we've all we have right now. We 

don't have a mechanism currently built in to collect 

state process, so we can only break it down by those two 

mechanisms right now...by either the test itself or us or 

the six credits.

DR. LANOUETTE: Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you. A couple of 

things before we move on; we have two comments from 

Jamie and Will. I do want to welcome Ms. Amanda Martinez 

to the table for the newly added constituency of civil 

rights. Welcome, Amanda. I also want to point out that 

Ashley Schofield has come to the table in place of 

Beverly Hogan for minority representing institutions, 

and I think those are the only two changes at this 

point. So, with that, Jamie?

MS. STUDLEY: Thank you. I first 

learned about ATB in 1993, but on behalf of those of us 
65

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

learning about ECPP in this process, it would be 

helpful, Greg, if you could tell us a couple of simple 

questions, I think. Do these provisions affect in any 

way ATB students at other than ECPP programs? Are ECPP 

programs exclusively or almost entirely ATB students who 

have not yet who were in dual enrollment or other kinds 

of programs, or are there mixed enrollments at these 

programs that would allow comparison between people who 

have a traditional high school diploma and others? Then 

a thumbs up for the Department on the notion of having 

initial and renewal conditions. I think that's a 

thoughtful and creative way to think about what you can 

know at the beginning and to start on a contained basis. 

But just a little bit about the ECPPs to understand the 

scope of these provisions.

MR. MARTIN: Thank you for the kind 

words regarding our efforts; we always appreciate that.

First off, as far as these programs are concerned, we 

certainly are aware of the fact that there have been 

career pathways programs in existence. And we are 

introducing the title here of an Eligible Career 

Pathways Program. I don't have any data or statistics on 

it, but I'm certain that there are career pathways 

programs out there that students are participating in 

that are not involved in ATB. So, I don't think that 
66

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

that there's an exclusive there. But the important thing 

to remember here is that...let's just take the state 

process out of it completely. If a student is going to 

establish eligibility by demonstrating ATB, either 

through the approved test or through the six credits (or 

the requisite clock hours), then it still has to be an 

Eligible Career Pathways Program, so there's no other 

entry point or gateway ATB other than the Eligible 

Career Pathways Program, regardless of which particular 

means the student uses to establish that. So, the 

Eligible Career Pathways program has to be there. So 

that's why we're talking about trying to make a 

distinction between career pathways programs that might 

be out there, which may or may not meet all of these 

statutory criteria that we have here for an Eligible 

Career Pathways Program. But yes, I think you're right, 

your point about it could it be a mixed group of 

students. Yes. I mean, there could be students enrolled 

in career pathways programs. There could be students 

enrolled in a program that meets the Eligible Career 

Pathways Program and all the all the rigor that that 

that necessitates, but that are not accessing through 

ATB. Although, if you're in an Eligible Career Pathways 

Program that has a dual mechanism through which students 

are taking the postsecondary credential and also having 
67

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

a pathway to a to a high school diploma as well. So, one 

would suspect that the majority of cases these students, 

if they're accessing Title IV, don't have a high school 

diploma.

MS. STUDLEY: Cindy, may I ask a 

clarifying question?

MS. JEFFRIES: Sure. Go ahead.

MS. STUDLEY: Is this the only quality 

screen that the career pathways program has to go 

through? Is this where the control about whether it is 

good enough takes place, as opposed to all of the other 

things we're going to be talking about?

MR. MARTIN: Yes, when we walk through 

the rule, you'll see we'll start with the definition of 

a career pathways program. So, there's the definition. 

What are the elements of it career pathways program? And 

“b” is taken from the from the statute. And then we also 

are proposing to regulate how a school demonstrates that 

it is just done this--beyond just saying, yes, we have 

it. Does the school have mechanisms to demonstrate to us 

that it is an Eligible Career Pathways Program? I mean, 

currently it does have to meet these statutory criteria. 

But we will be putting it into regulation, and we've not

before been specific about how a school has to 

demonstrate this in our dear colleague letter. We 
68

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

essentially just reiterated the statute and left it at 

that. So, we are introducing a higher level of, I think 

of program integrity here with this.

MS. JEFFRIES: Ok, thank you. Alright. 

Will, you are up next.

MR. DURDEN: Thank you, Cindy. Good 

morning again. Will Durden in Washington state with one 

of those approved plans, so thank you Gregory and the 

Department for the state plans that have been approved 

so far. I think we were the second state in the nation,

and we've been pleased to be hearing of other 

applications coming in as well. I really want to second 

Mr. Socolow's comments, and to that end, won't reiterate 

what's been said in the interest of time. Also want to 

make a few general comments to really highlight just how 

important just how critical this work is for us and how 

much it matters that we get this right. So, we're 

pleased to be at the table here. We designed our state 

strategic plan in the Community and Technical College 

System in Washington state explicitly to leverage the 

potential for Ability to Benefit with our career 

pathways that our colleges offer through our Guided 

Pathways initiative, which we which fits well with 

career pathways. Our state IET model, which I-BEST 

nationally recognized and our competency based high 
69

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

school completion program High School Plus. So, Ability 

to Benefit for us is a core component of our state's 

strategy to lead with racial equity. It's really 

connected to and central to our equity efforts in the 

state to transform lives within a culture of belonging 

that advances racial, social, and economic justice and 

service to our diverse communities. We took our state 

financial aid system, the Washington College Grant, and 

lined up the eligibility rules with federal ATB so that 

we could have a state and federal Ability to Benefit 

package easier to administer in the state because the 

rules match. That has really helped colleges [inaudible] 

state and federal resources to support students. So,

it's a core recruitment and strategic enrollment 

strategy for us to bring more underserved students, 

including students of color, into our high wage, high 

demand programs. I'll have additional comments at 

specific points in the regs. But just want to note that, 

I like the Eligible Career Pathway Program. It has taken 

us a lot of time to help colleges feel comfortable with 

those criteria. We've often felt confident that the 

colleges are meeting that criteria, but they don't 

always have that same level of confidence. And to that 

end, I don't see it as an additional burden for an 

additional accountability measure. I really see it as 
70

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

support and guidance for institutions to feel like they 

know that there's a process that says, yes, we have 

ECPP, and we can feel good about that. So, we absolutely 

welcome efforts from the Department to ease and help 

institutions use this. I'm surprised by the 240,000 

figure. I thought it would be a much lower, so I'll be 

curious to see where the state distribution of that is 

and the industries in the other information that comes 

out on that.

MS. JEFFRIES: 30 seconds. Okay, I was 

just going to give you your 30 seconds. Thanks, Will.

MR. MARTIN: And thank you for your 

kind words. I appreciate that.

MS. JEFFRIES: Alright. I see no other 

hands. Greg, do you want to move us forward?

MR. MARTIN: I could do that. We'll 

move into our first regulation, so it's a milestone here 

as we as we get started on ATB. I think what we'll do is 

thinking about the protocols for this. We'll discuss in 

this case, it's not the entire section of 668.2; it's 

just the pertinent part of that of that section that 

we're dealing with today. Again, 668.2 is in definitions 

in the general provisions. We have added this; this is a 

brand-new regulation, and it's coming up on the screen 

now. Thanks, Vanessa. The definition of an Eligible 
71

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

Career Pathways Program. So just want to point out that 

as we go over this will take all of “b” and then go 

through it, then discuss. But I want to point out that 

this is just the definition. We're not getting into 

anything here about what schools have to do to 

demonstrate that they meet this requirement. We're just 

talking about the definition of the Eligible Career 

Pathways Program at this point. So, I will walk through 

it, our proposed definition. An Eligible Career Pathways 

program: a program that combines rigorous and highquality education training and other services that 

aligns with the needs, skill needs of industries in the 

economy of the state or regional economy involved, 

prepares an individual to be successful in any of a full 

range of secondary or postsecondary education options, 

including apprenticeships registered under the Act of 

August 16, commonly known as the National Apprenticeship 

Act; includes counseling to support an individual and 

achieving the individual's education and career goals. 

Includes as appropriate education offered concurrently 

with and in the same context as workforce preparation 

activities and training for a specific occupation or 

occupational cluster; organizes education training and 

other services to meet the particular needs of an 

individual in a manner that accelerates the educational 
72

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

and career advancement of the individual to the extent 

practicable; enables an individual to attain a secondary 

school diploma or its recognized equivalent, or at least

one recognized postsecondary credential, and helps an 

individual enter or advance within a specific occupation 

or occupational cluster. So that is our proposed 

definition under (b). And having gone over that 

definition, I would invite any comments on that.

MS. JEFFRIES: Sorry about that, I had 

trouble getting my mouse to cooperate with me. Thanks, 

Greg. Kelli has her hand up.

MS. PERRY: Good morning. I just I 

have a question on where it talks about enabling an 

institution to individual to obtain a secondary diploma. 

Can you clarify whether or not that means that a school 

would just need to offer a way for them to obtain that 

or that it becomes something that they actually have to 

obtain that that they have to get that diploma. I guess 

what I'm saying is, schools are going to offer or 

disburse aid based on outcomes that haven't happened 

yet. Are they going to be retroactively penalized if the 

students do not actually obtain that secondary diploma? 

Or are they just need to provide the ability for them to 

obtain it?

MR. MARTIN: That's a very good 
73

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

question. So, to answer it broadly, no; these 

regulations are not requiring that in order for the 

students who have been eligible that there's going to be 

a retroactivity test of whether the students did 

complete the high school credential. Having said that 

though, it's extremely important to us that the means to 

obtain the high school diploma would be real. And our 

moving students toward this, the whole idea of this 

Eligible Career Pathways Program as a student is that 

the student emerge with the postsecondary credential and 

also get the high school diploma, I think we all are 

aware of the fact that irrespective of whatever else a 

student may do, it's important for people to obtain that 

high school diploma. It's an important milestone in 

people's lives, and it's been shown to be of great 

importance economically and socially in other ways. So, 

now, we're going to go through the proposed regulations,

and you'll see how we propose to bring integrity to that 

process of making certain that the that the pathway is 

there. However, again, we are not proposing that if the 

student does not ultimately obtain the high school 

credential would a student lose eligibility, nor would

the Eligible Career Pathways Program become ineligible.

MS. PERRY: Thank you.

MR. MARTIN: Sure.
74

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you. I have lost 

my screen, I'm going to log in and out on the meeting, 

Commissioner Brady Roberts will step in until I can get 

this screen back.

MR. ROBERTS: Good morning, everyone. 

Cindy, just let me know when your screens back again. 

Sam, I see your hand next, go ahead.

MS. VEEDER: Thank you. I have a 

question regarding item number one here, aligning with 

the skills needed in the economy of the state or the 

regional economy, and I'm curious how that will be 

demonstrated and/or measured as an outcome. Is this 

something like the TEACH Grant proposal, which can be 

very difficult to monitor and also, I think, restricted 

some students, right, who maybe didn't want to stay in 

the state or region once they achieved their credential 

or their skill? They might want to take that skill 

somewhere else where it is needed. So, can you describe 

how that will work in more detail, Greg?

MR. MARTIN: Yeah, we will get we will 

get to that. You're talking about again (going back to 

my document here) just for clarity’s sake, aligns with 

the skill needs of industries in the economy of the 

state. Yeah, so what we're looking for here is, again, 

we're going to get into more detail about the ECPP 
75

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

itself, but what we are looking for here is that there 

be on the part of schools, a real assessment of did you 

look at what the skill needs were in the economy or the 

regional economy involved...and certainly within the 

context of the state process, we have states doing that. 

But again, this is available; you don't have to go 

through the state process in order to participate to 

have an Eligible Career Pathways Program. So with 

schools, we would be looking to see what measures the 

school took in designing the program...like what data did 

you look at to determine whether or not this aligns with 

industry needs out there, looking at what jobs are 

available, what pay levels are, what the economic 

success rate is of these of these students...and what 

we're what really trying to prevent...to not allow to 

happen here...is for there to be a sort of a judgment that 

oh yeah, we have an X program, and everybody knows that 

the world needs whatever this is. So therefore, sure, 

there's a skill need in the state for this; but you 

actually have to have looked at data and applied that to 

that decision. I don't know, as far as this kind of 

thing goes. I think we all have to be cognizant of this, 

honest about this, that this is not like how many days 

you have to make an R2T4 payment. It's not quite as 

objective as that, but we will get to that, and I point 
76

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

out here that this is described in 668.157. So, the 

definition; we will get to that point, but I'll read it 

now. The program aligns with the skill needs of 

industries in the state or regional labor market, in 

which in which the institution is based or located based 

on research, the institution that's conducted. Again, as 

I pointed out already, it can't just be, yes, we teach 

X, and everybody knows people need to hire that. So,

that would be government reports in identifying 

occupations with the greatest hiring demand in the 

state, region, and the regional market surveys; 

interviews; meetings; or other information obtained by 

the institution. So, you can see here we're not being 

100 percent prescriptive. There is obviously some 

subjectivity involved here that we can't entirely take 

out. But this is this is statutory, and this is how we 

intend to regulate it. We'll get to that and we're not 

there yet, but we will get there. But I just wanted to 

read that because that the question was asked. So that's 

how we intend to put it into regulation. As far as like 

being any more prescriptive than that, we're not saying 

exactly which government reports, which surveys, which 

interviews. I mean, just establishing the fact that this 

has to be researched and not just eyeballed. And I want 

to thank my colleague Aaron Washington for pulling that 
77

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

up for me.

MR. ROBERTS: Just as a quick update, 

I think, Cindy, you're back and ready to go.

MS. JEFFRIES: I am, yes. Thank you, 

Brady. Amanda, you are next.

MS. AMANDA MARTINEZ: Hi all, thank 

you. Well, one, I just wanted to introduce myself, thank 

you all for the vote of confidence. It's great to be 

here and I'm excited to learn and ask all the questions 

and hopefully come out with the better outcome for 

students who have been historically excluded from the 

higher education sector or been taken advantage of. So 

just kind of a context, I have two questions but before 

I get into my two questions about this specific issue 

paper, I did want to remind folks that the K-12 sector 

has been also laden with many issues. So those students 

who are maybe didn't complete high school or had issues 

with their high school education that's coming from a 

long-standing history of, as we know, segregation in our 

K-12 system, which continues to be actually worsened a 

in our high schools and the quality of education that 

students, especially black and Latino students, are 

receiving. So, I'm particularly interested in seeing the 

intention of schools using this Ability to Benefit. The 

definitions here are really important because we wanted 
78

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

to make sure that the students who maybe didn't receive 

the best high school education or not by their own 

choice or their own fault, but really at the 

institutional level and are still interested in pursuing 

their career goals and achieving additional educational 

opportunities...that whatever opportunities that they're 

provided or seem to, which could be through this pathway 

that states are hoping to utilize, that they are of 

quality, that they're not once again being given a worst 

outcome. So that's my introduction. I will then ask my

two questions. Hopefully, the Department of Education 

can answer. So my first question the specific the 

definition that we're going over at the moment Eligible 

Career Pathway Program. It says in our issue papers that 

this was taken from or inspired by the definition drawn 

from statute is that are each of these line items 

specifically, was there anything that was added or 

separated from the statute or is this exactly replicated 

from the statute definition? I was just interested if 

you can just make those differences for me. And then my 

second question is that line three includes counseling 

to support an individual. Is that really the definition 

of counseling? How are you defining what quality 

counseling is? Is that academic, not academic? It's not 

really included there. So, I'm wondering if there are 
79

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

other regulations that can help support what includes 

counseling really means and how are you assessing its 

quality of counseling?

MR. MARTIN: Okay, I'll take the first 

question. Our definition as proposed here pretty much 

mirrors the statute. That's to my knowledge, we have not 

added anything there, but I'll ask my colleagues to 

weigh in with me about that, but that's taken from the 

statute. As far as the second question about the career 

counseling, again, we're going to be, and my colleague, 

Aaron, has just told me that he confirmed that this is 

pretty much cut and pasted from statute. So even a 

higher level than what I said, exactly the statute. 

Regarding the counseling, so again, we're jumping 

forward to 668.157 where if you look in your papers, if 

you want to just 668.157 is not the definition of a 

career pathways program, but it's where we say an 

institution demonstrates the Secretary that a student 

enrolled in an Eligible Career Pathways Program as 

required in 668.156.83 documents that lie in the 

following ways. And then we lay out how that's 

documented. And we do have the career counseling aspect 

there that the program provides career counseling 

services that assist students in obtaining jobs aligned 

with the skill needs described in paragraph two of the 
80

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

section and identifies the individuals providing the 

counseling services. So, what we did there, to your 

point about bringing an added measure of integrity to 

this beyond just yes, we yes, we provide those services 

is actually required in the school to indicate who does 

provide these services so that they'll have to list 

people. We can definitely in any type of a compliance 

setting say which individuals provide this and then 

determine do these people actually provide the career 

service and/or the career counseling services? Because I 

think that the important thing here is that this is 

actually taking place, not just to check the box...yeah, 

we provide services. A student asked us a question we'll 

answer. Are there real career services? Is there real 

career counseling going on? And again, we're in a 

subjective area where that's to some extent a judgment 

call, and I don't think there's any way out of that 

entirely. But I think it's important that we do look at 

that, so that would be the way we intend to enforce 

that, and I can say that the Department is very serious 

about that. When a school says we meet these criteria, 

that they actually do. And I also want to say to Amanda 

welcome it takes a lot of guts to be back. I think she's 

a veteran of my subcommittee for Distance and 

Innovation. So, the fact that she's back with me does 
81

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

say something about her tenacity and willingness to go 

back at it again.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thanks, Greg and 

Amanda. Will, you are up next.

MR. DURDEN: Thank you. One question 

on item five in that list, I recognize it's in statute 

and we're just seeing it again. But any comment on what 

acceleration or acceleration to the extent practicable, 

how that was interpreted by the Department and how they 

might look at regulating that?

MR. MARTIN: I'm sorry, you said 

number five, right? So yeah, organizes education 

training other services to meet the needs of individual 

in a manner that accelerates the additional career 

advancement of these of the individual to the extent 

possible. I, again, with the acceleration, I'll ask my 

colleagues to weigh in with that statutory language. And 

I think what we're looking at here is the individual 

student and what will advance that student's placement 

to the extent that that's practical. The whole purpose 

of this career pathways program is we're generally not 

talking about students who are traditional students and 

say, a four-year program, so the whole goal here is to 

get these students started into a career. We haven't 

been prescriptive about this, and we don't when we're 
82

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

not in these regulations either. But I think that I 

would say that if you want to say, what can we define 

accelerates well, it's going to be a little difficult to 

do. But again, the whole idea of this is that's a career 

pathway. It's supposed to be able to take a student from 

a certain point and move that student into a job and 

into a career, and that we expect that to this program 

to be something that increases that pace beyond maybe 

what the student could ordinarily accomplish without 

benefit of the program. I think that's where the 

accelerant...I don't want to say the word accelerant, it's 

not a chemistry class. That's where the acceleration 

aspect of this occurs.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, thank you. Seeing 

no other hands on this 668.2 definition. Would it be, do 

you want to take a temperature check on this at this 

point, Greg just to see where the committee is lying?

MR. MARTIN: I would; yes, I would. 

Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Alright. You are 

welcome. So, remember, a temperature check is not 

consensus. It's just a check to see where the committee 

falls. I do know that there have been statements that 

additional text may be presented throughout this ATB. 

This is just on the language that is out there on 668.2 
83

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

only for a temperature check so the Department has some 

sort of understanding of where the committee as a whole, 

where their thoughts are. So, with that, if I could 

please see thumbs up and please hold him high, because 

sometimes it's a little hard to see. So, if I could see 

your thumbs, I would appreciate it. Okay, I'm not seeing 

any thumbs down. So hopefully that is helpful for the 

Department on 668.2. I want to thank you all for that. 

So that brings us to the next section, Greg. Johnson, 

you have a question.

MR. TYLER: Yeah, I'm sorry, this is a 

late question but the ECPP, this applies to all sectors 

it doesn't apply just to the nonprofit or the private 

nonprofit. Is that correct?

MR. MARTIN: That's correct. We don't 

we do not limit access to Ability to Benefit by 

institutional type. I think largely it probably is 

either career schools or community colleges. But that's 

not limited. And again, the Eligible Career Pathways 

Program, I have to make sure I get the acronym right 

myself eligible career, ECPP, not ECCP, is a 

prerequisite for accessing any of any ATB. I think if 

you look at it like that, that's the basis you have to 

have that and then moving to either the state process or 

the test for the credits. But yes, it is a universal, 
84

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

it's universal applicable.

MS. JEFFRIES: Ok, so we have about 

roughly 14 minutes before the scheduled lunch break, 

Greg, do you want to start into 668.32?

MR. MARTIN: Yeah, I think so, I don't 

want to waste the time, although anybody who knows me 

knows what a compulsion they have about lunch. I'm 

always tempted to definitely go to lunch, but I'm not 

going to do that in this capacity. So, we will start 

with 668.32. And I think that we will begin with that, 

and I think with 32 as well, we can walk through what we 

have. And just hold on one moment. And we'll walk 

through 32, this is just to clarify this student 

eligibility and remember, I want to point out that when 

we're presenting you, it probably goes without saying 

but I just want to reiterate that obviously all of 

668.32 is not here. That's the asterisks indicate that 

we're just putting the applicable portions in here. But 

this is the student eligibility section of the 

regulations. And we're only giving you here what is 

applicable to what we're doing with respect to ATB. So,

let's take a look at this at the student eligibility and 

I this is not very lengthy, so I'll walk through it and 

then we will discuss after this particular paragraph (e) 

here. So, looking at eligibility, the first way of a 
85

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

student establishing eligibility is, of course, to have 

a high school diploma or its recognized equivalent. Next 

has obtained a passing score identified by the Secretary 

on an independently administered test in accordance with 

subpart (j) of this part. So the tests obviously are the 

approved ATB tests and there are only two mechanisms 

like I kind of I'm going to apologize. I misspoke a 

little bit before and saying that the ECPP is the only 

mechanism through which you can access ATB. That's not 

quite true. I think it is true for all practical 

purposes now that we are as far away removed as we are 

from 2012, I should say for most practical purposes. So,

let's take a look at this. They could take the test, and 

either was first enrolled in an eligible program before 

July 1, 2012, so they would have to prove that they were 

indeed eligible program before that. So obviously, we 

could have nontraditional students who meet that 

requirement or is enrolled in a career pathway program 

as defined in 668.2 which we just looked at and did our 

temperature check on. I think in most cases, it is going 

to be romanette 2 there. But I do want to point out that 

there still is this grandfathering that Congress did 

when they brought back ATB that was probably a little 

more pertinent at the time. As we move away from 2011, 

it's less and less so with each year, but certainly it's 
86

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

possible. And 3, you can see here we bring in the is 

enrolled in an eligible institution that participates in 

a state process approved by the Secretary under subpart 

(j) of this process. And we'll be looking at the state 

process later on in this discussion of our ATB issue 

paper here. And either was enrolled in an eligible 

program before July 1, 2012 or is enrolled in an 

Eligible Career Pathways Program as defined in 668.2. So 

again, you're seeing there that even with test or the in 

this case, the state process still have to have the 

Eligible Career Pathways Program. The next mechanism 

is...was home schooled and either obtained the school 

completion credential for home school other than a high 

school diploma or recognized equivalent provided by a 

provider for under state law or if the state does not 

require home school students who obtain a credential 

described in this section as completed the secondary 

school education in a home setting that qualifies as an 

exemption from compulsory attendance requirements under 

state law. So just that's not pertinent to what we're 

doing here, but just a reminder of all the ways the 

student can establish eligibility other than our high 

school diploma. And lastly, has been determined by the 

institution to have the Ability to Benefit from the 

education or training offered by the institution based 
87

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

on the satisfactory completion of six semester hours, 

six trimester hours, six quarter hours, or 225 clocked 

hours that are applicable toward a degree a certificate 

offered by the institution. And that has been there for 

quite some time. As we discussed in the history of ATB, 

but here we are adding to for clarification purposes, 

was either enrolled in an eligible program before July 

1, 2012, or is enrolled in an Eligible Career Pathway 

Program as defined in 668.2. So, basically what we're 

doing here...I think this is a good clarification the 

regulations tying all of these mechanisms that are 

related to ATB back to the Eligible Career Pathways 

Program requirement. And again, just throwing in there 

that there is that other option, not really an option, 

it's a possibility, where the student was enrolled in an 

eligible program prior to July 1, 2012. So, with that, 

I'll open it up for comments discussion.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, thank you, Greg. 

If we could stop this screen share, please? Thank you. 

Alright. Questions? Comments? Not seeing any. Okay. How 

about we go ahead and take a temperature check on this 

section just to just to see where we're at Greg?

MR. MARTIN: I think that's a good 

idea.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Alright. If I 
88

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

could see your thumbs high, please. I'd appreciate it. 

Jamie, can I? Okay. All thumbs are up. Thank you very 

much. Alright. Greg, you have seven minutes before 

lunch.

MR. MARTIN: I want to thank everyone 

for that and why don't we move on. I think we're going 

to move on to 668.156. And here is where we are 

discussing the approved state process. So, I think 

because this section is dealing with more of a lengthy, 

lengthy session, a section here I would like to. I think 

I'll go through it by applicable paragraph, so why don't 

I just start with (a). We might be able to get a little 

bit of discussion in. I realize we have a hard stop at 

12:30 and we don't have an excessive amount of time for 

lunch today. So, we want to make sure that we adhere to 

that. So, let's just start here, I'll go through, and

we'll have a discussion of that and see where we stand. 

So, the approved state process, a state that wishes the 

Secretary to consider its state process as an 

alternative to achieving a passing score on an approved 

independently administered test or the satisfactory 

completion of at least six credit hours or recognized 

equivalent coursework for the purpose of determining a 

student's eligibility for a Title IV program funds must 

first apply to the Secretary for approval of that 
89

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

process. So, making it clear here that the state that 

wants to participate in this process must make 

application to the Secretary, to the Department for 

approval. And let's look at what the state's application 

for approval must include. So here that the institutions 

it would include the institutions located in the state 

included in the proposed process, which need not be all 

of the institutions located in the state, making clear 

that the state process did not have to be inclusive of 

all participating institutions in that state that the 

state can in this process include such institutions as 

it sees fit or that they want to be part of this. But in 

any case, they do have to inform the Department of which 

institutions will be participating. The requirements 

that participating institutions must meet to offer 

Eligible Career Pathways Programs through the state 

process. So, each state has a different process, and 

they have different qualifications the institutions must 

meet to participate. We need to be informed of what 

those are and a certification that as of the date of 

application, each proposed career pathways program 

intended for use through the state process constitutes 

and constitutes rather an eligible career pathway 

program that is described under 668.2, the definition we 

just went over. So, certifying to us that all of the 
90

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

programs included in this do meet the definition of an 

Eligible Career Pathways Program and we also are 

requiring that it be disclosed to us what the criteria 

used for determining student eligibility participation 

in the state process is. Before approving the state 

process, the Secretary will verify that a sample of the 

proposed Eligible Career Pathways Programs comply with 

the definition of an Eligible Career Pathways Program 

under 668.2 of this part. So, we will be informed of all 

of the programs that are all the institutions and 

programs participating in this through state process. 

And prior to our approval, we are going to sample some 

of those programs to determine that they do indeed meet 

the definition found in 668.2. So, I'll stop there. We 

still have three minutes. I guess we can entertain a few 

questions or comments before we reach the 12:30 break 

point.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Johnson?

MR. TYLER: Hi, great. Wasn't there a 

provision that said if the Secretary didn't act on 

something within six months it became uh it was by 

default approved? And does that undercut this monitoring 

thing where the Secretary is supposed to do a sample?

MR. MARTIN: The when the when the 

school makes when the process, yeah, When you're talking 
91

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

about the six months, if the Secretary doesn't act on 

the application to either approve or deny, does that 

remain and does that remain in effect? And that is in 

there, and my colleague just gave it to me, so if you 

look at, it is in the section; we just haven't got to it 

yet. Looking, yeah, (d) (1), okay, so if you look over 

on (d) (1), that is still included, the Secretary’s

response to the state's request for approval of its 

state process within six months after the Secretary's 

receipt of that request, if the Secretary does not 

respond by the end of six months to state process is 

deemed to be approved. So that is consistent with what 

we are proposing here, because it doesn't require that 

the Secretary have actually gone through every step of 

approval, we simply have to respond to the request for 

approval within six months and that is in the statute. 

So, we have mirrored that here in our regulation and 

again in (d) in (d) (1), paragraph (d) (1).

MS. JEFFRIES: Ok, thank you Johnson 

and Greg. Kelli?

MS. PERRY: Sorry, I was just trying 

to find my mute button. Question about number two and 

the third one where it talks about the certification. 

That it proposed CP, sorry, ECPP, That's part of it. So,

I guess my question is, does that certification require 
92

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

that each of the pathway programs be listed? Because if 

not, how are you going to verify a sample in number 

three if they're not listed? Does the state have to list 

each of the programs?

MR. MARTIN: I am on mute. Okay, I'm 

not on mute. So, yeah, as you can see in the regulation, 

the institutions in the state have to be identified and 

I mean, we would know. I mean, so obviously if the 

institutions are identified, we know that those 

institutions have career pathways programs. I'm not, I 

don't think, and I'll ask my colleagues who are back 

monitoring and doing all the legwork here. Here we do 

say the institutions must be identified and we would 

know, obviously then, if the institution has been 

identified that does have a career pathways program, I 

think we would have an avenue to sample that. I don't 

know that we've been prescriptive here so when the state 

informs us of the institutions themselves, that will be 

participating, is it required at that point that the 

listing of institutions that each program be identified 

or with the Department, certainly we could get to that 

by simply querying the schools that we're going to 

sample of which programs are offering that are career 

pathways programs. But I'll take that back with me, does 

that need to be fleshed out a little bit more. I don't 
93

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

think that we're at a deficit here because if the 

institutions identified to us then we know it does have 

career pathways programs the state certified that it 

meets so know then which programs those are. We can 

certainly determine that. But I'll ask for some more 

clarification here. And I'm being told from my 

colleagues that, yes, they are going to take that back 

and think about that because we haven't. That's a good 

question. I think that's sort of imputed here, but not 

made 100 percent clear. Thank you very much.

MS. PERRY: And then Cindy one other 

question, my alternate Emmanual has a question that he 

would like to ask.

MS. JEFFRIES: Great, thank you. 

Emmanual?

MR. GUILLORY: Thank you so much. I 

guess this is now more of a comment because of my 

colleague Kelli, who kind of talked about that issue 

that she brought up. But I think when we are looking at 

this, the Department should consider, I'm assuming that 

this would be public available information for students 

and families to be able to look at and know what 

Eligible Career Pathway Programs are being offered in 

the state, what institutions are offering them. So, I'm 

assuming this is going to be public. I just didn't read 
94

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

that it would be, but I'm assuming that it would. Also, 

I think the Department should think through across 

multiple states with varying processes and the 

components that make up the processes what that would 

actually be. So, what I mean is if in one state to have 

the Ability to Benefit going to the state process, you 

have to meet certain requirements in mathematics and 

science and education and whatever the case may be, but 

versus another state, those requirements are different 

or they vary. Does that put that student at a 

disadvantage, if they could, if they live in Texas, but 

they can't seem to go to the state process display in 

Texas, but in Louisiana, they could go through that 

process because the process is different. So not that I 

know I'm not advocating for a standardized process, 

necessarily across every single state in the country, 

but I just think it's something to think through when it 

comes to putting in this language of allowing a state, 

even though in statute, technically, I guess a state 

could already do this. But just kind of clarifying in 

the language that there is a six-credit hour coursework 

equivalent state could create. So, I just wanted to 

highlight that and see the Department's gone through 

that too as well.

MS. JEFFRIES: Ok, thank you. It is. 
95

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

Greg, did you have a response or?

MR. MARTIN: No, no, we'll take that 

we'll take that back.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, great. It is 

12:34, four minutes past Greg's lunchtime. So, with 

that, we will break for lunch for 30 minutes. We will 

come back here around 1:00. You are free to log off and 

sign back in, or you can mute yourself and go off 

camera. It is entirely up to you. With that, let's go 

off live broadcast and everyone have a great lunch.
96

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

1 Appendix

2 Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education

3 Zoom Chat Transcript

4 Institutional and Programmatic Eligibility Committee 

5 Session 1, Day 1, Morning, January 18, 2021

6

7 From Brady Facilitator FMCS to Everyone:

8 Morning all- I can handle any tech issues that arise 

9 this morning. Please feel free to DM me with issues or 

10 email me at broberts@fmcs.gov.

11 From Beverly (primary/MSIs) to Everyone:

12 I have informed Commissioner Jeffries. I will leave 

13 the table at 11:25 EST this morning for a prior scheduled 

14 meeting. Ashley Schofield, the alternate, will join the 

15 table. I will return at 1:00 pm.

16 From Brady Facilitator FMCS to Everyone:

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

18 2021/index.html

19 From Jamie Studley (P) Accrediting Agencies to Everyone:

20 I don't see her CV in our mail or chat. Is that 

21 available?

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

23 + Jamie, I also do not see her CV.

24 From Brad Adams - (P - Proprietary Institutions) to 

25 Everyone:

26 https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-l-halmon-mba27 0311a4b8/

28 From Jessica Ranucci (A) Legal Aid to Everyone:
97

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

1 Can the alternates join the breakout rooms?

2 From Mike Lanouette (A) Proprietary Institutions to 

3 Everyone:

4 Brad indicated earlier that I will be joining as the 

5 primary for the ATB discussion.

6 From Rozmyn FMCS Facilitator to Everyone:

7 Amanda Martinez has joined the session.

8 From Cindy FMCS Facilitator to Everyone:

9 Ms. Amanda Martinez has joined the meeting for the 

10 Civil Rights constituency.

11 From Mike Lanouette (A) Proprietary Institutions to 

12 Everyone:

13 Could Greg share with us how the 240k is divided up by 

14 sector when he is done with his remarks? TY

15 From Barmak Nassirian (Alt) Vets & Military to Everyone:

16 Regarding program integrity implications of ATB, a 

17 reminder that ATB students represented 24% of enrollments 

18 at Corinthian Colleges in 2009

19 From David Socolow (A) State Agencies to Everyone:

20 It's essential that this ECPP definition in 668.2(b) 

21 be verbatim from the HEA statute, because the identical 

22 definition of Career Pathway is contained in 3 separate 

23 federal laws (HEA, WIOA, and Perkins Career & Tech Ed) --

24 and that shared definition drives the true and robust 

25 partnerships with adult ed systems that are the hallmarks 

26 of real career pathways.

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

28 Wanted to share that, as Greg has mentioned, the ECPP 

29 definition is taken from statute, but it is not literally 

30 verbatim. The only difference is in Section 484(d)(2)(B) of 
98

Committee Meetings - 01/18/22

1 the HEA as the department's regs exclude "(referred to 

2 individually in this Act as an "apprenticeship," except in 

3 section 171)" This exclusion does not have any sort of 

4 bearing on the meaning of the overall program but just 

5 wanted to be specific about it.

6 From Brad Adams - (P - Proprietary Institutions) to 

7 Everyone:

8 Do you recommend we stay on zoom with video off and 

9 mute on during the lunch break or do you recommend logging 

10 off and back on at 1:00?

11 From Brady Facilitator FMCS to Everyone:

12 Completely up to the committee! I will readmit folks 

13 when they log back in, but you are always welcome to stay 

14 on