1 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION 

PRISON EDUCATION PROGRAMS SUBCOMMITTEE 

SESSION 2, DAY 1, AFTERNOON 

November 8, 2021 

On the 8th day of November, 2021, the 

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

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

the state of New Jersey. 
2 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

P R O C E E D I N G S 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you, Amy. So I wanted 

to just start. Well, welcome everybody back from the 

lunch hour, I wanted to start with just a few items I 

wanted to go over before we proceed on to where we left 

off before the break. We do have our colleague, Ronald 

Sann, joining us from the Office of General Counsel. Ron, 

do you want to say hello? 

MR. SANN: Good afternoon, everyone. Happy 

to be here. And look forward to working with you in the 

hours and days ahead. Thank you. 

MR. WASHINGTON: So Ron will be filling in, 

well, replacing Steve Findley for our discussions. Also, 

once we get into subpart P, we do have Soren Lagaard who 

also works in our Office of General Counsel, who will be 

replacing Ron for that discussion. So for the for the 

disclosures discussion and for the Pell calculation, for 

the Pell discussion for reducing the scheduled award, if 

reducing the award, if there's other aid involved and it 

exceeds cost of attendance, that will be Ron. And then 

once we transition to subpart P, it will be Soren Lagaard 

and I will allow Soren to introduce himself. I also 

wanted to speak a little bit about the technical 

difficulties we had earlier because we can't like because 

we're all in the teams meeting the public and the 
3 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

subcommittee.. So if we do have technical difficulties 

this afternoon, I'll likely just ask all the subcommittee 

members to turn their cameras off and mute their 

microphones while the Department works to resolve those 

technical issues. I will pause. Anne Forsythe indicated 

that she would be joining us for the afternoon session 

and as a reminder, the main committee voted to add Anne 

from the Missouri Department of Corrections so that both 

the main and the subcommittee has an additional member. I 

want to pause to ask Amy, has Anne joined us? 

MS. WILSON: I am looking right now. And I 

don't think she has yet. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay, thank you, Amy. 

MS. WILSON: You're welcome. 

MR. WASHINGTON: And so with that said, I'll 

pause there. Are there any questions before we dive back 

into the language? 

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

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay, Vanessa, if you could 

pull the, well, share the regulations to the screen. 

We're actually going to go back to 668.32. We had a 

chance to discuss one of the recommendations that were 

made. Scroll, if you could scroll up to the blue 

highlight, yes, so as you all remember, I stated earlier 

during my during my opening remarks, that any actual 
 

4 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

language changes that we make during the third session 

will be highlighted in bright blue. And so we did get a 

language suggestion from Kim over the break, so thank you 

for that, Kim. To further clarify the language for people 

who are going to be reading these regulations-- to try 

and make them more clear. And Kim, we appreciate the 

suggestion and what we've done is we've kind of amended 

your suggestion to break it out. So to break it out. So 

we still maintained the romanettes 1 and 2. We didn't we 

didn't want to add a C because of the structure. The 

structure may not flow very well, and it almost kind of 

could seem as though maybe students like students that 

were enrolled in Prison Education Programs also wouldn't 

have to it would have to be their first baccalaureate or 

professional degree or enroll in a post-baccalaureate 

teacher certification program. And so what we've done on 

your screen is we have changed it. So there's no longer A 

and B, there's no longer that confined, incarcerated, but 

we have combined the two. So if a student is confined or 

incarcerated, as defined in 600.2, then the student is 

enrolled in an eligible Prison Education Program as 

defined in 34 CFR 668.236. So, Kim, do you want to, okay 

I see a thumbs up. Alright. So we can move now to 

Vanessa. We can move back to 668.43. Okay, here, give me 

a second. The computer is running just a little slow. 
5 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

Alright. Okay, so we did have five thumbs down for this 

temperature check, and I know that Dr. McTier had 

recommended we come back to it, so I'll just go back over 

some of the things that I said before the break so that 

they're kind of fresh on people, on people's minds. So 

Belinda and Dr. Paccione had recommended to remove upon 

request from both of the disclosures. And I think the 

concern was that it would so the concern that it would be 

that students may not know that they have the ability to 

request these documents. And so we just removed upon 

request, so if you're enrolling a student in a program 

that leads to professional licensure or certification, 

then you will be required to provide disclosures to those 

students about the educational requirements and also 

about if there are any prohibitions on licensure or 

employment. And Dr. McTier asked us to clarify that these 

disclosures are only specific to programs that lead to 

licensure. And so we've removed, so we've added, I'm 

sorry, we've added if applicable, and there was already, 

if applicable in romanette 2, but we just added that to 

romanette 1. So just to clarify that if it's if it's a 

general studies or liberal arts program, then they 

wouldn't be subject to these disclosure requirements. And 

I think I can pause there for discussion. 

MS. MCARDLE: Kim. 
6 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

MS. CARY: Thank you. This is where I think 

where we had talked last week, a group of us financial 

aid administrators and the idea that we don't want to we 

don't want to miss the opportunity to talk to students 

about everything that they're going to encounter and with 

the disclosures. Disclosures are very easy to let go or 

not mention more than once or even once. So we just want 

to make sure that there is something put into place. One 

of the ideas that was mentioned was similar to an 

entrance counseling that students have to do now with 

direct loans. Is there something that we could put 

together that would be something they could go through to 

make sure that they heard it at least once and then 

really encourage put in the must language to institutions 

that they must confirm that that has been completed? And 

how would they do that and how often would they need to 

do that? I just want to make sure we're protecting the 

students, especially in this licensure piece, that we 

give them what they need and not because they don't know 

what they need. We need to be the ones to make sure that 

we provide everything upfront and as they move along 

through the program. And I'm interested in thoughts on 

that. 

MS. MCARDLE: Aaron, did you want to respond 

or should we go to Dr. McTier? 
7 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

MR. WASHINGTON: Whoever had their hand up 

first. 

MS. MCARDLE: Dr. McTier. 

DR. MCTIER: Just to kind of piggyback up 

off of that, I think that a timeframe would be important 

here. So, you know, it says if applicable, applicable, 

excuse me, I'm assuming that this is going to be on the 

front end of when they start getting their Pell Grant or 

receiving Pell Grant. Or does this mean that any time a 

student wants this information, they could get it 

throughout that duration and the institution has to 

provide it? I'm a little unclear as to when this 

information needs to be provided. And then if I actually 

like the idea of doing like an entrance and exit type of 

providing that type of offering. Again, because you can 

get it on the forefront and then it can take years for an 

individual to complete their program. By that time, laws 

have changed, policies have changed and time has moved 

on. And so I think having reiterating that at the end 

would be something good, but I do think a timeframe that 

needs to be in place here. But overall, I'm happy we're 

in the direction this is going so. 

MS. MCARDLE: Aaron? 

MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah, so for the time for 

in regard to your timeframe comment, Dr. McTier, do you 
8 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

have any language changes that you'd like to suggest that 

we can put in blue highlight? 

MS. MCARDLE: Dr. McTier. 

DR. MCTIER: Sorry, I was on mute. It's 

Monday. I would probably say, let me look at it and then 

get it to you. It's something simple, so just give me 

just a second. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. And also, KimMS. MCARDLE: In the meantime, go ahead. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Oh yeah. And in regard to 

your language about entrance and exit counseling, I think 

my colleague David had his hand up. I would like him to 

talk about what Department currently requirements are 

around entrance and exit counseling andMS. MCARDLE: David? 

MR. MUSSER: Sure, I can do that. Currently, 

in order to receive a direct loan, student has to undergo 

entrance counseling in which the institution provides 

information about the obligation of the student is 

entering, entering into with respect to their direct to 

their direct loan and provides information about various 

aspects of how the loan works. But those things tend to 

be directly focused on the loan itself and what the 

student what kinds of, for example, repayment plans are 

available to the student, etcetera. Exit counseling 
9 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

similarly is provided at the end of the student's college 

experience, either after the student withdraws or after 

they graduate and provides similar information explaining 

what the next steps are for the student, when the student 

will be expected to repay their loans, begin repaying 

their loans and the conditions under which they'll repay 

the loans. To implement something like what Kim has 

described here, we would have, I think, one of two 

choices. We could either create a requirement for the 

institution to provide that information in a specific 

timeframe, both at the beginning of the student's program 

and at the end. Or we could condition receipt of Pell 

Grant funds on, for example, the entrance counseling 

piece, and of course, there's a lot of complexity 

associated with that, as I'm sure Kim can attest. But 

yes, in order to create something like that, we would 

essentially have to establish all of the timeframes for 

when that would be required and also express exactly what 

it needed to include both for the entrance and the exit 

counseling unless the content was expected to be exactly 

the same. 

MS. CARY: Thank you, David. Just a quick 

follow up to what you were saying, there is I think it's 

just a protection piece for the student and for the 

institution to make sure that they have covered the 
10 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

responsibilities of what the institution knows about 

licensure and certifications and whether or not they've 

provided that information to the student. And just and so 

that the student too can know, I choose to move forward 

with this, knowing that I may not be allowed to get the 

certification in my state, but it's just a protection for 

both as they move forward that those conversations did 

occur. 

MS. CARY: Dr. Paccione. 

DR. PACCIONE: Yeah, I was just wondering if 

it might be easier to just take out if applicable. Just 

say institution that offers an eligible Prison Education 

Program as defined must provide all available 

information. They still do the timeframes, but rather 

than, if applicable, just provide it. Whether the 

completion of that program meets the requirements for 

licensure or certification. 

MS. MCARDLE: Aaron. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you, Dr. Paccione. 

The reason that we added, if applicable, was due to a 

recommendation from Dr. McTier that to clarify that not 

all Prison Education Programs will be subject to these 

disclosures, it would only be presented. I see you 

shaking your head, so should I continue or? Okay. So I 

would you like to add, would you like a comment bubble to 
11 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

be added to remove if applicable? 

DR. PACCIONE: I think that would be okay to 

add the comment bubble as well. Because this is just for 

professional licensure or certification. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Correct. 

DR. PACCIONE: So as Dr. McTier had said 

earlier, if you're entering a program and specifically 

for licensure or certification, you should know that at 

the beginning of the program, you should know it through 

the program and not be surprised at the end of the 

program. So. 

MR. WASHINGTON: So I guess just to follow 

back up, I think it would be helpful to have a discussion 

if Dr. McTier is willing to engage about this language, 

this was the proposal. Well, we added this based on Dr. 

McTier's recommendation, so I think we'd be at an impasse 

if we couldn't figure out a way forward,-- add if 

applicable, take if applicable out. I wonder, is there 

any compromise between the subcommittee members for the 

language here? 

DR. PACCIONE: If we put add if applicable, 

then I think we definitely would need to have the 

timeframes on there. I would say that would be required. 

But if we take out, if applicable, then it means that you 

are going to provide it period. So I don't know that the 
12 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

timeframes would be needed, so one or the other. And I 

don't have a dog in the fight, so I'm okay. Dr. McTier, 

on you, brother. 

DR. PACCIONE: Dr. McTier. 

DR. MCTIER: Okay, first, I want to say that 

if we can give Dr. Stanley Andrisse access to mic and 

video, he just texted me and said he doesn't have access. 

That's number one. Number two, I like what's going on 

here with what's proposed, the, if applicable. I would 

just add for the language of the timeframe, probably 

saying prior to distributing Pell to students. And then 

and prior to the student exiting the program or something 

to that effect. So it kind of gives you that timeframe. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. Okay, if you could 

give Vanessa a second, I'm sorry, Sophia, to jump in, but 

if you could give Vanessa a second to type those in 

there? Vanessa, can you add that language and in 

highlighted in blue. Dr. McTier, I don't know if can you 

repeat that? Where, where exactly it will go? 

DR. MCTIER: Are you ready for me? 

MS. GOMEZ: I am. Where do you want to in 

thisDR. MCTIER: Okay, it looks like if we say 

if applicable, provides the information completion of the 

Prison Education Program. So if you can scroll down a 
13 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

little bit. We would just need to say, prior to 

distributing Pell to students, it looks like it might go 

at the end. And then and prior to the student. And then 

adding and prior to the student exiting the program, that 

Prison Education Program or whatever. If it doesn't work 

there, it could we could kind of finesse it to go a 

little bit somewhere in that definition. 

MS. MCARDLE: Next will be Marisa. 

MS. BRITTON-BOSTWICK: So I just want to say 

that this is so important to have the entrance and the 

exit. And I think timeframe is super important also. But 

would there be any way to put in there some kind of-- in 

conjunction with the staff of the correctional 

facilities? So it also holds them accountable and that 

it's a realistic pathway for the students? 

MR. WASHINGTON: Can you repeat? Can you 

repeat that I'm sorry, I didn't hear that. 

MS. BRITTON-BOSTWICK: I'm getting an echo. 

So I think timeframe should be in there. The exit and the 

entrance (inaudible) but also, can we put in there in 

conjunction with Department of Corrections Education 

staff at correctional facilities? So that also holds 

Corrections accountable for this timeframe? (Inaudible) 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay, so, Vanessa, can you 

do you know where you would like that to be? And if not, 
14 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

maybe Vanessa can just add a comment bubble with that 

language? Marisa, do you have a place you have a place in 

the regulation that you'd like it to sit? 

MS. BRITTON-BOSTWICK: (Inaudible) 

MR. WASHINGTON: Alright. So Vanessa, can 

you add a comment bubble and to and then just Marisa, if 

you wouldn't mind repeating that one more time? 

MS. BRITTON-BOSTWICK: So. Somewhere in 

there in conjunction with Department of Corrections 

Education staff at the correctional facility so that 

corrections also held accountable. 

MS. GOMEZ: Could you repeat it slower? You 

sound very echoey. 

MS. BRITTON-BOSTWICK: I'm getting an echo 

on this end too, I'm sorry. In conjunction with 

Department of Corrections Staff. Education staff, 

actually. At the specific correctional facility. And that 

there needs to be a timeframe on the entrance and 

accounts (inaudible) for accountability. 

MS. MCARDLE: Kim? 

MS. CARY: Thank you. So knowing that 

financial aid administrators are very familiar with this 

language we look for must, we look for may in our 

language of, you know, how strong is it to follow through 

on. I think if you wait until the Pell is dispersed or 
15 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

prior to the Pell disbursement, you've waited too late 

because you could have schools that wait until end of the 

semester to start doing that. Since it's there's not any 

there's no rush to do that until the end of the semester. 

I think it's an onboarding piece that we need to look at 

here. If we're if we know that we're going to be offering 

a program that is going to end up with a licensure or 

certification. I think you need to let the students know 

that up front in the onboarding piece so that they know 

and they have a choice at that point to either 

participate in that one or change if there's another 

offering. How the correctional facility may have 

limitations to access to that student. So we would have 

to be careful in how we establish those conversations. 

Could it be like? I know right now if we look at the 

entrance and exit counseling kind of idea that is in the 

online process, well not all of the students will have 

that access. So just keeping that in mind. I think it 

should be definitely an onboarding piece and not 

something that schools could wait to say, oh, we'll get 

them enrolled, we'll get them moving through and then 

we'll tell them. And then we still get the predatory type 

of institutions could use that kind of thought process. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Sophia, before we move to 

Dave, can we add, Vanessa, can you add a comment bubble 
16 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

to the blue text that was added, like where the documents 

are added and just that Kim suggested prior to enrollment 

Kim or you want to say onboarding or prior to enrollment? 

MS. CARY: Prior to enrollment in the 

onboarding process. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. And then you can say, 

because the institution made the institution may not 

disperse Pell. The institution may not disperse Pell 

until the end of the payment period. Thank you, thank 

you, David, for allowing me to jump ahead. 

MS. MCARDLE: Go ahead, Dave. 

MR. MUSSER: No problem at all. I wanted to 

flag for the committee subcommittee that there are some 

considerations about when a student exits that are 

incorporated into the exit counseling regulations, that 

may be important here as well. And I'm actually looking 

to Kim, who's probably familiar with return of Title IV 

and how withdrawals sometimes work. The exit counseling 

regulations specify that when we say exit, we either mean 

one of two things-- either the school is required to 

provide the exit counseling shortly before the student 

borrower ceases to be enrolled, or if the student, the 

student borrower withdraws from school without the 

school's knowledge, the school has 30 days to provide the 

information to the student. So if that's what you guys 
17 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

intend, we may need to include that somehow in in these 

provisions, and I just would. I would throw it back to 

the subcommittee members to ask you about that point. 

MS. MCARDLE: Belinda. 

MS. WHEELER: Thank you very much. I 

appreciate this conversation that we're having thus far. 

Wearing my former educator hat and former Prison 

Education Program director hat, I just wanted to offer up 

whether or not this meets with subcommittee members, with 

what has already been said. But I wonder in that blue 

text where Dr. McTier had entered some given that school 

programs, Prison Education Programs, we all have 

calendars that we submit to everyone, , students, 

administrators, financial aid. Everyone has like an 

academic calendar. I wonder, you know, bringing up Kim's 

excellent point and others' excellent points, whether or 

not we could have language that says, you know, that this 

information must be given to students before like the 

drop/add period. Like that's a specific like noted period 

every semester in an academic calendar which let students 

know that, you know, hey, if you want to sign up for this 

course, you've got until this date to drop that course 

and there is no penalties for your Pell or other things 

like that. So I wonder if, because that's always 

something that's very finite every semester, usually, you 
18 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

know, and that would be something that the educational 

partner should, I think it's always mandated would give 

to the correctional facilities, would give to the 

students. Everyone would have that calendar. So I wonder 

if we could offer up as a suggestion that we put rather 

than prior to distributing or something like that 

actually say, you know, you know, I don't know what the 

standard template is for students, but you know, students 

are given this information, you know, at least, you know, 

five days before the drop/add period, you know, for each 

academic semester so that students are always every 

semester if they want that said, you know, information, 

you know, they're having it available to them every 

semester that they potentially sign up for a course in 

this kind of program. So I just offer that up to 

colleagues. 

MS. MCARDLE: Stan. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Quick, quick, quickly, 

Vanessa, can you add that suggestion under Kim's I'm 

sorry, I'm sorry to jump in, but after. When people make 

suggestions, I think it's I had been noted that it'd be 

best to capture them, you know, in real-time. So thank 

you for that, Belinda. 

DR. ANDRISSE: So I think mine goes to the 

next I was kind of raising my hand in anticipation of 
19 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

commenting on the next part. And so if we're not there, I 

can hold off. And because have we have we, were we 

simultaneously looking at Roman numeral one and Roman 

numeral two? 

MR. WASHINGTON: Right. Yeah, essentially 

because we haven't made many, we had not proposed, I 

think we proposed very minimal updates to it, so we were 

looking at them all, both together. 

DR. ANDRISSE: Okay, then my comment is. So, 

you know, I don't want to discourage the creation of 

programs that might lead to licensures that are currently 

really not sure if you know a form, a formula, a person 

with criminal convictions can obtain that degree and I 

had given and last time we met examples of people like 

myself who have gone through and broken ceilings to be in 

employment, you know, to work in positions that would not 

normally be suited for people who have criminal 

convictions. And I also noted that there are other 

individuals who have broken barriers and, you know, 

becoming lawyers, getting licensed and getting their bar 

to practice law. And individuals within our program who 

are nurses and working towards their medical degree. So I 

mean, I think to say that, you know, to, for instance, 

just this this current text would discourage a program 

from offering a pre-law track or a pre-med track or a 
20 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

pre-health track because there are said barriers in 

place. So I have issues with this particular piece here. 

I think we should word it to where it is acknowledged 

that there are barriers to push forward in that 

particular path. But to say that it can't be offered that 

a program can't be offered, we are discouraging even the 

creation of the program. So people like Dr. McTier will 

look at this language and say, there's no point of me 

trying to create a pre-health program. It's not going to 

go through. So I think we need more. I think we need to 

make the language inviting so people like Dr. McTier in 

his position would be willing to create programs. And I 

think, Belinda, we had put together some suggestions for 

this particular text. 

MS. MCARDLE: Kim. 

MS. CARY: Belinda, if you want to go ahead 

and acknowledge that, then I can come back. 

MS. WHEELER: Thank you, if that's okay. 

Yes, so you're right, Stanley, we do have we do have 

language, but it's for another section of it. It will 

then for that other section will end up being crossreferenced with this one, but not particularly for that 

particular one. But let me double check my friend, but I 

believe that where we put the amendatory language was in 

the PEP one, which is part P, which we're going to talk 
21 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

about later on this afternoon. And if indeed that then 

gets done, it would then go back to this one here. But 

let me let me double check. 

MS. MCARDLE: Okay, back to Kim. 

MS. CARY: Thank you. So just a few things 

to tag on to Belinda and Stan, so it's my understanding 

this doesn't prohibit the offering of a program. But I 

hear what you're saying, I think institutions will be 

discouraged from wanting to do this because it's going to 

impact their accreditation numbers. So we would have to 

write things in or, you know, accreditation entities 

would have to understand that those numbers shouldn't be 

included so that there's no penalties to institutions in 

moving forward with continued accreditation. You know, 

we've mentioned before, job placement rates shouldn't be 

impacted for institutions because they may not be able to 

get a job in that area. So I think that if we can address 

that for institutions, then that will be the progressive 

way to move forward knowing that they are protected, but 

yet still trying to offer an opportunity to remove those 

barriers moving forward. Now, coming back to the original 

reason I had my hand raised. I want to make sure that we 

talk about the exit counseling really quick that David 

had mentioned, so of course, it's so different for the 

direct loan program students. We won't know if a student 
22 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

maybe even ends up withdrawing beyond their choice, so 

maybe something happens within the facility that 

prohibits them from continuing. They may be transferred 

to another institution and then we have no access to that 

student, so we wouldn't be able to make exit counseling a 

requirement. Just a suggestion, as you know, for the good 

of the student, because we would be limited in what we 

could actually control. But then again, David, I'd like 

to make sure I point out at this point that maybe we 

bring it up some time later in the conversation is the 

withdraw piece of that does impact students as well. So 

that's all I have right now. 

MS. MCARDLE: Aaron? 

MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah. Kim, to your point 

about returning Title IV Aid, I do want to leave quite a 

bit of time to talk about other issues that affect Title 

IV Aid, and so hopefully not hopefully, once we get 

through this, we can circle back to the return of Title 

IV Aid. I think you had some a few other suggestions in 

there, professional judgments. I think that was one of 

them that might have been made by another member, but I 

know that there are some Title IV specific issues that 

folks want to talk about. I wanted to get through this 

language. Of course, if you wanted to make a motion to 

like, you know, discuss it now we can. But I was I really 
23 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

wanted to get to the language and then circle back to 

those remaining issues after we've gotten through the 

language. 

MS. CARY: No that that sounds great. One 

addition to the bubble that I would put in my fellow 

financial aid administrators on here are going to 

understand Belinda's comment about at least five days. 

Let's make that at least five business days. Or yeah 

business days, we don't want calendar days, because that 

could really limit us. We want business stays in there. 

She's got a thumbs up for me, so that's good. 

MS. MCARDLE: Aaron. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah, yeah, thank you for 

all those comments and just to reiterate, we're going to 

take all these back and discuss them. I, you know, you 

know, in Pell, there's the concept of Pell recalculation 

dates. Of course, not every institution has a Pell 

calculation date, so tying it in regulation to add/drop 

dates, we'll have to take that back. I don't know if we 

have that defined in regulation anywhere. But we 

obviously do have the concept of a Pell recalculation 

date. Perhaps we can look there. But again, not every 

institution has Pell recalculation or utilizes Pell 

recalculation dates, so that's just something that we'll 

take back and think more about. We have the ideas about 
24 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

prior to enrollment or, so we have we have several things 

that we can play around with if that's the, you know, and 

come back with a stronger recommendation. 

MS. MCARDLE: I have no other hands at this 

time. 

MR. WASHINGTON: So as Belinda stated 

earlier, you know, this section is about disclosures that 

are tied to some requirements in the definition of a 

Prison Education Program. And so we will be talking about 

those it potentially could be today due the fact that we 

do have quite some time left. And so with that said, do 

we want to move on to the next section or do we want to 

spend more time talking about these? Because, you know, 

we will be talking about the license licensure and 

employment prohibitions in the in subpart P. 

MS. MCARDLE: Dave. 

MR. MUSSER: Yeah, thanks, I think we can 

move on after this, but I wanted to raise one more thing 

about the context that that that we're dealing with, but 

when we're creating these requirements, there are already 

requirements for disclosures related to whether a program 

meets the educational requirement for licensure in a 

given state. And again, this is really just as 

information for all of you in the subcommittee. But one 

of the requirements that was established, I believe it 
25 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

was in regulations published in 2020, was that an 

institution must notify a student if it if it determines 

that a program that the student is enrolling in would not 

qualify that student for licensure based on the 

institution's understanding of those requirements. And 

there's a whole set of provisions about how the school 

does that when they do it, about needing acknowledgment 

from the student. So one of the things that I think the 

Department will take a look at when we go back is how 

those requirements kind of interweave with these. We 

don't want to create regulations that are duplicative or 

achieve the same purpose. So I just think we need a 

little bit more time to consider those things in relation 

to the changes that you guys are proposing here. So I 

wanted to raise that and we'll look into it and come back 

with some more information. 

MS. MCARDLE: Aaron. 

MR. WASHINGTON: I also wanted to pause here 

and ask if and if our new subcommittee member, Anne 

Precythe, if you have joined the public on the public 

view or if you are trying to join and you can hear this, 

please email Amy Wilson at Amy.Wilson@ed.gov for 

assistance in entering the session. We have not seen Ms. 

Precythe enter the discussion yet to allow her access. So 

I wanted to make that on record that we are and we will 
26 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

send her a message asking as well an email asking as well 

if she's having trouble accessing the meeting. With that 

said, I think we can. Well, let's do let's do a 

temperature check. Let's be consistent and do a 

temperature check on this language and this language also 

just recognizing that we will be talking about 

educational requirements, prohibitions on licensure and 

employment in subpart P. So if you have so but this is so 

this is just for the disclosure that institutions will 

have to make related to those requirements. So if we can 

getMS. MCARDLE: We do have a comment from 

Stan, I think. 

DR. ANDRISSE: Just to acknowledge that I 

would be a thumbs down until it is noted that it 

references the text that we are yet to discuss. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay, so, Vanessa, if you 

could queue up like a comment bubble with the thumb 

taking into account people who have a thumbs down, so if 

we could do the temperature check now again, please raise 

your hands and we have we've noted Stan's comments. 

Maybe, Vanessa, you can say thumbs down Stan. You can say 

Stan is a thumbs down until we until we visit the 

language in the definition. 

DR. ANDRISSE: Yes, I would like it cross-
27 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

referenced. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. 

MS. MCARDLE: Belinda. 

MS. WHEELER: Yes, thanks. I was just noting 

my thumbs down until such time as we can talk further 

about those bubbles or things of that nature. Thank you. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. 

MS. MCARDLE: That's the only two hands. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Alright. Alright. Vanessa, 

can we go to all the way down to I think if at the very 

bottom, so it would be 690.62, we're going to skip over 

subpart P for right now, just so we can get through all 

of the technical things and then go into subpart P right 

after. Yeah, right there. So you can probably scroll down 

a little bit, Vanessa. I think we have some yeah to that 

that text. Okay. Alright. So for this discussion, there 

were no thumbs down in the section, and so but we did 

have just the small highlighted technical amendment to 

add indicator before 34 CFR 668.164. We do, I do have to 

make one update to this paragraph and I will make it. I 

will make it now. This paragraph B has to is we have to 

remove paragraph B, we just released a Federal Register 

Notice on October 28, 2021, and it was a technical 

package that updated our Pell regulations to include the 

concept of year-round Pell. Sorry, is somebody's trying 
28 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

to say something? Okay, alright. That was that to include 

the concept of year-round Pell, and that's been the law 

since, so the year-round Pell has been it has been in the 

law since 2017. And so that's why we and paragraph B was 

removed because and that's because we release a Federal 

Register Notice every year that highlights the Pell 

minimum. So the old regulation states that no Pell 

payment can be made to a student if the Student Annual 

Award is less than two hundred dollars, then it adds a 

little more language on there. The new regulation and the 

rationale in the regulation we remove 669.62B because 

since 2012 2013, the change in the law has been explained 

in an annual Dear Colleague letter. So the Pell minimums 

are explained in explaining the annual Pell Payment and 

Disbursement Schedule dear Colleague letter that we 

released and so we had to delete paragraph B, which 

doesn't really. It's just a technical change. It doesn't 

affect what we're working on here. And finally, we 

received two questions from the main committee, and we 

also received an email on the effects of this language on 

lifetime eligibility used. And the Department doesn't 

recommend any further changes to the regulatory. That's 

the regulatory text here. But I did draft and my 

colleagues assisted me with five examples of how Pell is 

calculated when an award is required to be reduced to not 
29 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

exceed cost of attendance. And I'm going to just kind of 

I just want to make a few points before we dive into 

those, dive into those scenarios. But my first point is 

that any time the amount of amount disbursed is less than 

the scheduled award, the students will not have used 100% 

of their schedule award and any reduction to the students 

Pell Award as a result of other aid that cannot be 

reduced is a reduction to the amount of the student is 

going to get. It is not a reduction in the student's 

scheduled award because the annual eligibility used for a 

student is calculated by dividing the amount disbursed by 

the scheduled award. So I wanted to make those points 

because I think that it wasn't really clear with the with 

the main committee what this language was trying to get 

to. Now I do want to pause there as well because before 

we go over to the scenarios, because I did see an email 

from Kim. Kim, and I don't know if would you mind 

speaking to that? You know, I know that there was a point 

of clarification because I think that there was after 

seeing the scenarios and after discussing with other 

financial administrators. I think the actual Pell 

calculation and LEU is totally understood by financial 

aid administrators. But I think that there was just some 

suggestions that were that were raised about just LEU in 

general and how appropriate it was to apply LUs to those 
30 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

that are incarcerated. 

MS. CARY: Sure, thank you, Aaron. It is not 

an easy concept to understand a lot of times, so I just 

wanted to clarify that lifetime eligibility, regardless 

of which group we're talking about incarcerated 

individuals or your traditional student. They're both 

going to be calculated at the same rate and same usage. 

So one is not being negatively impacted more than the 

other. It's just they're going to use smaller amounts of 

their percentage than a traditional student because their 

cost of attendance is going to be so much lower, which 

because of the removing of the room and board and things 

like that. So I think really the question, and Belinda, 

sure, if you think I'm saying this wrong is whether or 

not we should impose that LEU on these students while 

they are incarcerated. And the idea behind that the 

traditional student can choose whatever program they 

want, they knowing going forward with their career, they 

can say this is what I want to do, and they choose that 

knowingly and willingly. Incarcerated students may be 

subject to only a few choices, and in some instances, 

maybe only one where they have no choice but to go into 

this one program or two programs. It's not really what 

their true career choice might be. So if they were to be 

released and here they've used up a percentage of their 
31 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

Pell Grant, then when they are released and they go to 

the field that they really, truly wanted to do with their 

career, then they've already they're already inhibited by 

use of the Pell Grant to finish out that next degree. So 

it's just a thought to ask that the lifetime eligibility 

not be impactful to the incarcerated individual until 

they become a until their released, and then can start at 

that point. Does that help Aaron? 

MR. WASHINGTON: It does help, thank you 

very much for that clarification, and I think with that, 

I don't think I will go through every single one of the 

scenarios because I know they kind of, you know. But I do 

want to go through one just to have it on the record. But 

just so people can see because I know there's been a lot 

of discussion about it, but we'll put a comment bubble 

into the document with your suggestion. I did want to 

raise that lifetime eligibility used is statutory statute 

limits the students to six scheduled awards, and we 

measure those awards and percentages. So the percentage 

of the scheduled award the student uses every award year 

is, you know, they're added on top of each other until 

the student reaches the 600% lifetime eligibility used. 

So that that that is in the statute. And we in our Pell 

updates that I just talked about the revisions that we 

did to the regulations that incorporate the year round 
32 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

concept. We did also update that language as well to 

demonstrate in the regulations that student would be 

limited to the equivalent of six scheduled awards. I 

think as I stated before, I mean, there's a way we can 

make that clearer that that statutory complex clear and 

regulation. I think that's what we can probably take 

regulate recommendations. But that is a statutory 

requirement, so we are required to enforce that for all 

students. 

MS. CARY: Yes, and that's what I figured. 

So in addition then to the onboarding process, that's 

another piece that we would want to make sure is very 

clear for students going into a program and what that 

might look like. So maybe that's where we put that piece. 

I know I keep saying onboarding, onboarding, but it's 

just so important to get everything up front, so correct 

decisions can be made. 

MR. WASHINGTON: So with that, I just wanted 

to walk through one scenario, you know, so that the 

community or financial aid administrators listening and 

that still have concerns about the way that we'll be 

calculating or the way that eligibility use will be 

calculated if the students award is combined with other 

aid that cannot be reduced. So, Vanessa, would you mind 

screen sharing the scenarios for us and we'll just we'll 
33 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

only go through one. So and I think that'll save us on 

some time. Perfect. So here, oh, if you could scroll up a 

bit, Vanessa. I think, yeah, so the bolded part here is 

that we have these are just students that, you know, 

these are not real, these are not real students. I'm sure 

there are some real students with these names, but I've 

just created these students. They're enrolled at 

University of ABC in a Prison Education Program in 

general studies, that leads to an associate's degree. 

It's a standard term program with one fall and one spring 

payment period, and their cost of attendance is $6,495. 

Many of you recognize that that is max Pell for 2021-

2022. And so our first example, scroll down a little more 

Vanessa, please. Alright, thank you very much right 

there, so our first example is Jerry, and he he's 

enrolled in the program full time for the full award year 

and he has the EFC of zero. That's the EFC is expected 

family contribution that's calculated when the student 

enters their all of their information on the FAFSA and 

the Department where our central processing system does 

analysis of their need behind the scenes based on 

different characteristics. And so, Jerry's scheduled 

award is $6,495. That is the maximum for the 2021-2022 

award year. And Jerry also gets a VA education and 

training benefit for $5,495, and the VA states that this 
34 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

this aid can't be reduced. You know, in our proposed 

regulations we say if they get other aid that pushes the 

total aid above cost of attendance, you have to reduce 

that aid first. However, the VA is saying we're not, 

we're not going to, we're not going to reduce the VA 

benefit. And so Jerry's total award now is $11,000 plus. 

So a current B because remember, we had to get rid of the 

we had to get rid of the B because we do with technical 

change so that so the proposed language that we're 

proposing to add will be the new B. So Jerry, you have to 

pay Pell. We're going to pay Pell in two payment periods, 

right? We have the fall payment period. And a lot of 

people would a lot of people when I was in school, we 

just said, like, semester, right? But for in Title IV 

speak, we say payment period. And so we have the fall 

payment period and we have the spring payment period and 

you divide the schedule the award into two, right? If so, 

that that would be the case if Jerry was not 

incarcerated. However, the university has to reduce 

Jerry's award right because to $1,000 because that 

addition of the VA benefit would have caused Jerry's 

award to exceed cost of attendance. So what we're going 

to do is we're going to the university determined yeah, 

so the university determines this by subtracting the 

$11,990 by the $6,495. So Jerry, so Jerry's cost of 
35 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

attendance is exceeded by $5,495 and then the university 

then subtracts the amount above from Jerry Jerry's, 

sorry, the university subtracts the amount above Jerry's 

Pell Award from Jerry's original award, leaving $1,000. 

So that's how much Jerry can actually get in Pell. And 

then remember, we still have to pay it in two payment 

periods. And so for the fall payment period, Jerry is 

going to get $500 in Pell and for the spring payment 

period, Jerry's going to get $500 in Pell. And the way 

that looks for eligibility used, which has been the main 

part of discussion, is that Jerry will actually only end 

up using 15% of his scheduled award, so that's how much 

will be added to his lifetime eligibility used right. So 

he's that much. Let's say this is Jerry's first, first, 

first semester ever. Jerry's lifetime eligibility use 

right now will be 15.3964%. Of course, if this is his 

third or fourth or fifth year, it could be higher than 

that, depending on how much Pell he used before then. But 

it will increase by 15 at least 15%. Scroll down a little 

bit, Vanessa, so I can. So thank you. So, Sam, I'll just 

talk about one more. This is kind of the same scenario 

above, except that Sam did not get a VA education 

benefit. Right. So Sam, he has the same cost of 

attendance as Jerry. He has the same EFC as Jerry's zero 

EFC, but Sam receives no other financial assistance. So 
36 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

in this case, Sam-- his LEU would increase by 100% 

because Sam is going to get his entire scheduled award 

for the fall and spring term that was split into two 

payments. I think David wanted to add something 

MR. MUSSER: Just very quick, as you guys 

are looking at these examples, when we say that the LEU 

increases by 100% for the year. Remember that, as Aaron 

has pointed out before that the way that that Department 

calculates lifetime eligibility, we eligibility ends when 

the student reaches 600%. So when we say the student has 

had 100% use, that means one full year of their 

eligibility has been used. 

MR. WASHINGTON: So we have three more 

scenarios here that we kind of just try to apply some of 

the concerns of the main committee. But now that Kim has 

clarified what the real concerns were, I think, you know, 

not the real concerns, but, you know, more clarified on 

what some of the other concerns were. I think we're I 

think we're hopefully we reflected that that the 

regulations should not be amended any further. And I want 

to pause for a second and then move us into a temperature 

check. 

MS. MCARDLE: Kim? Kim, I believe you're on 

mute. 

MS. CARY: I am. Sorry about that. Aaron, 
37 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

this brings up a point that was also in the issue paper 

we sent out to the subcommittee. What if a student wants 

to decline their Pell Grant but still be part of the 

program? What does that look like? So, for instance, this 

student had VA benefits, so. And do they have to do 

anything special to say they choose not to use their Pell 

if they want to save it for later? 

MR. WASHINGTON: I have to defer to David 

for that one. 

MS. MCARDLE: Dave, you're on mute. There 

you go. 

MR. MUSSER: Yeah, thank you. No, that's a 

very good question. And in that case, in fact, the 

student is permitted to decline their Pell Grant for the 

period. The Department provides when actually going back 

to when the statutory limitation on the number of years 

that the student can receive a Pell Grant was first 

introduced, the Department heard from schools and others 

that declining a Pell Grant could very well be part of an 

overall strategy of a student to preserve their 

eligibility in a situation where they didn't they had 

other resources, or there was some other reason that they 

didn't want the Pell Grant for a particular period. So 

since that time, the Department has allowed students to 

decline their Pell Grants for any reason that the student 
38 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

determines that they want that they want to decline it 

for. So in the circumstance that you described Kim, a 

student would be permitted to say, I don't want any of my 

Pell Grant for this period. I just want to have the 

veterans benefits. And in that case, the student would 

not receive Pell for the period. And no, no lifetime 

eligibility would be used. I would note that if a student 

does not decline the Pell Grant and this may be where Kim 

is sort of pointing to, the institution is required to 

provide the student with the maximum amount for which the 

student is eligible. So the student does have to 

proactively decline the award in order for the school to 

avoid providing them with funds for which they're 

otherwise eligible. But they do have that ability to 

decline the amount. 

MS. CARY: Thank you, David, for that 

clarification, because it is an entitlement, so we don't 

want to skip on that. I had another question, and I just 

completely lost it. It'll come back, I'm sure. 

MS. MCARDLE: Kim, again. 

MS. CARY: I remembered. So let's say the 

student chooses to decline their Pell for the fall 

semester and then they receive other benefits, whatever 

they may be. That covers their entire semester for the 

spring. Is it only the semesters they receive a Pell 
39 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

Grant in that are counted in the overall metrics? Or is 

it just by being in the PEP program? 

MS. MCARDLE: Dave. 

MR. MUSSER: That's another good question. 

And you're asking about when Pell LEU is calculated? 

MS. CARY: And no, not necessarily. I'm just 

talking about students who we so they come into the Pell 

older program, they're in the metrics as an enrolled 

student. Do they still get counted regardless of if they 

get the Pell or not? So they're eligible for the Pell, 

they just declined it. Would they be in the metrics at 

the end of the you know, all the data that we're going to 

be pulling and counted towards at the end of all of this 

to make decisions moving on in the years. Will they be 

part of that if or is just the Pell semesters that are 

used? 

MR. MUSSER: So I can't give you a final 

answer on that yet, because the Department is still 

determining how it's going to analyze and evaluate Prison 

Education Programs and how we're going to collect data to 

support that analysis. Obviously, in the case that you 

described, the students LEU wouldn't be counted. They 

have to receive disbursements of Pell in order for that 

to count toward their lifetime eligibility. But in terms 

of whether that they are an individual that they 
40 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

Department would track, I think the Department has in 

mind that we will try to identify the individuals who 

apply for Pell Grant funds but do not ultimately receive 

them to the to the extent that we can. Now remember that 

once a student applies for aid, we know about them in 

that year and we can have some information about them. 

And for example, the reasons that they didn't qualify for 

Pell,-- , some basic information that they provide on the 

FAFSA. But we may not receive subsequent enrollment 

information about that student if the National Student 

Loan Data System doesn't ultimately collect their 

enrollment information at subsequent institutions. That 

said, it is still very likely that we will be able to 

collect that information because most institutions report 

their total enrollment regardless. But I can't, you know, 

I can't confirm that those individuals would always be 

perfectly reported upon in every case. 

MS. CARY: Thank you, David. 

MS. MCARDLE: No other hands at this moment 

in time. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you, Sophia. So I 

think we can with Kim's comments noted, I think let's 

see, Vanessa, can you bring back up the proposed 

amendatory language, please? And if you wouldn't mind 

scrolling up a bit. So what so we've added comment 
41 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

bubbles, Kim, to account for adding Pell LEU to 

counseling on interest for entrance counseling. And you 

know, we need to take back and clarify whether an 

individual, if individual declines Pell, would they still 

be counted in any of the Department or Bureau of Prisons 

Department of Corrections metrics for determining best 

interest? And then I think we have one more common bubble 

if you scroll up a little, Vanessa. Let's see, I think we 

do. Oh, oh, Okay. I think we already answered that one. 

So with that, can we take a temperature check knowing 

that we have to regulate within the statutory framework 

of six scheduled awards what we need are can we take a 

temperature check on the language just in 690.62? So I 

see Kim's recommendation would really not impact this. It 

would probably impact whether we put entrance counseling 

into 668., well, somewhere else, wherever, else, wherever 

the Department maybe recommends to put it. So can we just 

take a temperature check on the language, as is here on 

the screen? And if you have if you again, if you're in if 

you have your thumb down, raise your hand and please 

state why. 

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

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay, so Vanessa, can you 

put another comment bubble and just or you can add to one 

that's already there, either one. Just to say that we had 
42 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

no thumbs down for the section? Thank you. And could you 

scroll all the way up to where it says, let's see 

subpart, it should say subpart P. No, actually, it says, 

yeah, it says 34 668 yeah. Alright. So I think we're 

going to have to pause here one more time. I believe that 

we have Soren Lagaard replacing our council, replacing 

Ronald Sann, our counsel. Has Soren joined us? 

MR. LAGAARD: Hello, Aaron, I'm here. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Hi, Soren, would you mind 

coming on camera and introducing yourself? I don't know 

if the subcommittee has had a chance to meet you yet. 

MR. LAGAARD: Maybe they haven't. So as 

Aaron said, My name is Soren Lagaard and I'll be working 

and helping here with some (inaudible). 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay, so as stated earlier, 

you know, we did say that we wanted to provide the Prison 

Education Program language with its own subpart, as 

opposed to trying to put it all into the existing 

language in 668.8. I don't think we need to take a 

temperature check on that unless a subcommittee member 

feels strongly that it should remain in 668.8. It would 

have its own its own entire subpart dedicated to Prison 

Education Programs. And so here we just rework the 

structure. And does anybody have any questions about how 

we did this or why we did this or? Okay, so the first 
43 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

section, every at the beginning of a subpart, most of our 

subparts begin with a scope and purpose. It's 668.243. 

That's what we're proposing to. We have to we're 

following along. I think the last the last regulatory 

provision was before this was 668.233. So we're doing 

668.234. I'm sorry, I'm mixing my numbers up. And so this 

is just an introduction that we've drafted. And you see, 

it's all in highlight because it's all new language. So 

it's just kind of an overview of, you know, what the 

reader can expect coming in the regulations laid out in 

this subpart. Does anybody have any comments on the 

language or anything you'd like to add? This is more of a 

summary. So I think we have some flexibility in here to 

add some language. I'll give everybody a second to read 

it. Okay. So I. It doesn't look so do we have any hands 

or? 

MS. MCARDLE: No, no hands. 

MR. WASHINGTON: So I like to. Take a 

temperature check on it, you know? Is the subcommittee 

okay with this language as proposed here. Just the 

overall summary, if no, if no hands are raised. 

MS. MCARDLE: No hands are raised. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Alright, let's move into 

the let's move into the next section. Here is most of our 

subparts also contain a definition section. And so I 
44 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

think you can see on this slide we referenced on the 

screen share, we referenced two definitions and six 

hundred point two. That was additional location in a 

confined or incarcerated individual. That the juvenile 

justice piece that will be moved. So that will be moved 

back to 600.2. So that will no longer that will no longer 

be there so I can actually take that out now, so that's 

not something that we're looking at that could impact, or 

either me or Vanessa would see that would just that would 

just go away. And then I can just note that has been 

moved to 600.2. And we also so the one definition that we 

are proposing is to add the oversight entity definition 

and that is because the statute references the statute, 

the statutory language is the appropriate State 

Department of Corrections or other entity that's 

responsible for overseeing correctional facilities or the 

Federal Bureau of Prisons. And it repeats that language 

in a few places. We had that repeated all over the 

regulation, and we thought that oversight entity would be 

a more succinct, simple way of referring to that entire 

statutory clause. So that's essentially the only 

definition that we've that we've added to the definition 

section in the Prison Education Program subpart. 

MS. MCARDLE: We have some comments for us, 

Belinda and then Stan. 
45 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

MS. WHEELER: Thank you, I would like to 

propose that we pause on a status check on the oversight 

entity means until we have a chance to actually review, 

and I do remember it is all over the language and I 

definitely understand that. But now that we have 

something here, I would like to definitely not do a 

temperature check on this until we get the whole context 

first so that then potentially we could provide some 

amendatory language if needed for that. So I just wanted 

to kind of put that there because this is the first time, 

obviously, that we're seeing it as this and it makes 

sense. But I just want to see it in the context of 

everything else. First, before we do a temperature check 

on that. Thank you. 

MS. MCARDLE: Stan. 

DR. ANDRISSE: Yeah. Similarly, I would 

agree because I want to propose, I think, how I was going 

to propose this to add like a sub definition, and that's 

how I was going to propose to add this idea of an 

advisory committee that helps to advise the Department of 

Corrections or that other entity and the overseeing of 

the or just to assist in several different places where 

oversight entities is mentioned, so I don't know. As 

Belinda mentioned, it is going to come up again here in a 

second, so I don't know if it's more appropriately to 
46 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

actually add it within this definition, which I think 

maybe it would be. So that way, every time it is 

mentioned, oversight is mentioned there is this 

definition, the appropriate state Department, etcetera, 

and then add a sub definition saying that is advised by 

an advisory committee made up of members that we that 

should be somewhere later in in the in the language. So 

my proposal would be to add a sub bullet point to that. 

MS. MCARDLE: Aaron? 

MR. WASHINGTON: Oh, yeah, I was going to 

ask Vanessa that, but she's already doing it. 

MS. MCARDLE: Stan, did you have something 

else? 

DR. ANDRISSE: Well, I was just going if she 

needed me to repeat anything. 

MS. GOMEZ: Do you want to revise anything I 

wrote? Or does it look good, Stan? 

DR. ANDRISSE: That looks good. And I mean, 

to add that we've the members of the advisory group, 

we've listed that, I think later of what that advisory 

group may look like, we listed some potential 

stakeholders further down. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Stan, do we have the 

language, or is it something that is going to be 

submitted or developed later? 
47 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

DR. ANDRISSE: I think we are going to be 

sending that to you soon, but I mean, I mentioned it was 

in the bullet, just off the stakeholder groups that we 

mentioned last time were in the bullet. Were in the 

bubble, I mean. 

MS. MCARDLE: No other hands right now on 

the show to respond further, Aaron. 

MR. WASHINGTON: No, I think we have the I 

think we have the bubble and I think we have I think 

we'll just have to we can either reference back to the 

first the bubbles from the first session or wait for the 

language that will be submitted. So we're going to pause 

on the temperature check here and move into the next 

section. That would be 668.236, eligible Prison Education 

Program. So here we're going to get into the definition 

of the Prison Education Program. So you all. So what 

we've done here is you can see in paragraphs A, B, C and 

D where we've removed, you know that the kind of like the 

longer sentence, the appropriate State Department of 

Corrections, etcetera, and added oversight entity. So 

these could be viewed as, you know, technical changes to 

improve clarity. We also updated a few legal citations. 

You can see the indicators that were put before 34 CFR 

600.4, 600.6, and then let's see paragraph C --there's a 

technical change, and that doesn't affect the substance. 
48 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

It doesn't change that substance. It just clarifies a 

paragraph and makes it more succinct, adding the 

oversight, adding the information about the oversight 

entity. But for paragraph C, I did know that one of 

Belinda's points of clarification was specifically about 

the initial two-year period, so I wanted to pause on 

paragraph C to see if there were any further comments on. 

MS. MCARDLE: And we'll start with Stan and 

then Belinda. 

DR. ANDRISSE: So this was so it looks like 

the bubble was removed, but Dr. McTier had mentioned a 

bubble in this particular part as well, if I recall 

correctly. But this is where we were. This is why I think 

it would be important to add in that definition. If 

you're simply going to say oversight entity here, this is 

where we would want this advisory group to advise the 

decision of the correctional entity. And that advisory 

group included stakeholders such as the accrediting 

institution. Institutions of Higher Education included 

community-based organizations, reentry organizations. We 

had a list but I don't see it anymore. 

MS. MCARDLE: Belinda? 

MS. WHEELER: Yeah, I'm sorry, I'm still I'm 

going backwards and forwards between the previous one and 

then this one here to. So there's definitely amendatory 
49 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

language that we do want to offer up into here. But some 

of the bubbles that I had with amendatory language are 

not working with-- now, you know, crossed out stuff. I 

will just offer anecdotally something else -- and by 

offering this I don't want to, like Stan's point is 

really important here. So just with regards to the two 

year, I did have language that I will send the 

subcommittee with regard to this whole idea of like, 

because a lot of constituents-- of all subcommittee 

members, our constituent groups have talked about how the 

two-year period just is way too short. So one of the 

things that we have as amendatory language is possibly 

like some kind of probationary period. Like if we think 

of traditional education accreditation standards, you 

know, there's a comprehensive review that happens at, 

say, for example, year six, but there might be a 

preliminary kind of smaller document that educational 

institutions need to provide an accreditation agency at 

year three, for example. So that's one of the amendatory 

language pieces that will be coming to the to the 

subcommittee group later this afternoon once we finish. 

So I definitely wanted to give voice to that because I 

can see that that's still and let me clarify Aaron with 

you now that the two year isn't, you know, it's being 

kind of crossed out here. Does that mean we're still 
50 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

possibly able to provide amendatory language about that 

timeframe here? Or I just want a point of clarification 

with that because I'm a little, you know, you guys gave 

us all this and everything. I'm just still trying to look 

at the document that I have with amendatory language and 

then back to this document with some of the stuff crossed 

out. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Sure, I can respond to that 

and I want to turn over to our OGC counsel, Sorin. So we 

still have that initial two-year period. So it's a lot of 

red in there, but it's tucked in there. It says after an 

initial two-year approval is determined by the oversight 

entity so that all that, all that language that's crossed 

out is just that, you know, the appropriate State 

Department, Bureau of Prisons. So we cited the initial 

two year period in there and we did mention it in the 

response to your email that we do. We are willing to, you 

know, we want to see your proposed language. And so once 

we get that, perhaps it could be incorporated here. I 

know I don't want to jump ahead too far to the best 

interest, but I guess I am going to. I am jumping ahead. 

But you know, in the best interest piece, I think we'll 

see, probably not today, but tomorrow how the Department 

did try and draft some language around the Bureau of 

Prisons, State Departments of Corrections reaching out to 
51 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

relevant stakeholders in order to make these 

determinations. And so, for example, just I'll just read 

one quickly for the rates of a confined or incarcerated 

individual continuing their education post-release as 

determined by the percentage of students who reenroll in 

higher education, reported by the Department of 

Education, meets thresholds established by the oversight 

entity with input from relevant stakeholders,-- which 

must include, among others, incarcerated students, 

organizations representing incarcerated students, and 

accrediting agencies. So I don't know if folks have had a 

chance to look at that language that we've incorporated 

into several of the indicators, but we have tried to 

resolve for some of the comments that were made in the in 

the first session about there being a lack of 

collaboration among community stakeholders or relevant 

stakeholders, I'm sorry, including incarcerated students. 

So. 

MS. MCARDLE: Soren. 

MR. LAGAARD: Thank you. Yeah, and just what 

Aaron was saying was going to be my point as ,, just that 

we've included that language there. If you're looking 

down further down the page towards a new section of 241 

the best interest determination. And so Aaron cited 

paragraph A1. But we've also included it in A1, 2, 4, and 
52 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

then 8 as well. So in four different areas. But you know, 

again, don't want us to jump too far ahead here, but 

that's where that language now lives. And we thought that 

again, breaking out the best interest determination since 

that was a pretty important determination and pretty long 

that that would be easier to understand in terms of like 

the organization of the regulation. Thank you. 

MS. MCARDLE: Dr. McTier. 

DR. MCTIER: Yeah, I'm not a fan of the 

oversight entity. I see you all just drop the work 

collaboratively text that I had previously suggested back 

into the document, and I don't know if it's just a show 

where it was at or what happened to it, but it looks like 

it's just completely being eradicated. And so I am not a 

fan of this. And by simply saying the oversight entity, 

it's a clever way to push out the important people from 

the table. So I think it's important to spell out exactly 

who we want at the table because again, this is a new 

provision that's being provided and we want to make sure 

it's clear and concise. I just think the oversight entity 

is too vague. 

MS. MCARDLE: Kim. 

MS. CARY: Thank you. Going back to the twoyear approval, just for my colleagues to think about, 

each school has a different level of what is their 
53 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

highest credential that they offer. So maybe it gets tied 

back to that as when the oversight is looked at because 

you don't want. I'm from a two-year institution, so we 

don't want to go six years before someone comes in and 

looks at our program to make sure we're doing what we 

need to do. Maybe our timeframe is less than a four-year 

institution, so just keep that in mind, maybe when we're 

talking later in our subgroup. 

MR. WASHINGTON: I'm sorry. Can I just, so 

Kim, just so we can capture that point? Did you want us 

to establish different initial periods based on 

institution like so for a two-year school would have a 

shorter initial period or? 

MS. CARY: Right, so we were saying earlier 

that through Belinda, that two years is probably too 

little of a time. So but when we do determine what that 

level should be, I think it can be important to make sure 

we're acknowledging institutions and their highest level 

of credential and then looking at that to make a 

determination of when there the oversight entity should 

be coming in and taking a look at. Again, it's going to 

keep your bad players out of the mix sooner than later. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Vanessa, can you add a 

comment bubble quickly? Not quickly, not quickly, but can 

you, can you add a comment bubble just to say take into 
54 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

consideration type of institution? Sorry, institutions 

highest credential offering in timeframe for the initial 

approval? Kim, can you just expand on that just a little 

more so for like, let's say, the highest credential 

offering is an associate's. What would be the timeframe 

versus, you know, a bachelor's or? 

MS. CARY: Well, I think you could look at 

maybe tying it to the kind of like the (inaudible) did 

where we would if you have two year credentials, our 

highest and maybe at three years, you come in or if it's 

four, then you go to six. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Of initial of initial like 

just no. Okay, alright. Okay, so Vanessa, can you put 

that in there? Three years for two-year institutions. 

Four years, six years for four-year institutions. 

MS. CARY: Does that make sense, what I'm 

saying? 

MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah, it makes sense. I 

just wanted to make sure we captured it and you we're 

able to respond to it tomorrow or at a later date. Thank 

you, Kim. 

MS. CARY: Thank you. 

MS. MCARDLE: Stan. 

DR. ANDRISSE: Yes, so I would like to go 

back up to the oversight entity and the language that I 
55 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

would like to propose is you can copy it from Dr. 

McTier's and I's comment. So if you scroll down and copy. 

What we had already said previously, the only addition to 

that that would need to be added is if you subpoint it, 

you can just simply say the above oversight entity. The 

above oversight entity's decision will be made and paste 

everything that you have there. And this was something 

I'm, you know, as Dr. McTier mentioned, it's frustrating 

that we specifically mentioned, it seems to me that, you 

know, it is it is not this subcommittee that is making 

the decisions on what the language should be, which is 

what to my understanding it should be. That's what we are 

gathered here for is for us as the subcommittee to make 

the language, and we specifically asked for that to be 

added. And instead, it was quite cleverly removed and 

added in other places. Adding it in those other places 

does not give it the strength of adding it in the place 

that we had originally asked for it to be added in. 

MS. MCARDLE: Kim, is your hand still up? 

Okay. Aaron. 

MR. WASHINGTON: I let's see trying to 

sorry, I was. So with that said, thank you for your 

comment, Stan, first. I did want to move us into 

Paragraph D because I think, you know, we've captured 

your points. I mean, to respond to your comment, Stan. I 
56 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

don't want to interpret what you are saying, I but I do 

want to just say that it not including the comment 

bubble, was not a clever attempt to mask or hide you or 

Dr. McTier's suggestions, if you look over the entire 

documents, I think the entire subcommittee will see that 

no one's comments were included in this draft. They were 

all removed, the only comments in the draft are comments 

from the Department of Education. So you'll see, you 

know, you'll see author or the subcommittee members, this 

language has been simply removed. A Department official 

or Department staff person added those comments. But 

there were many comments made by many people other than 

you, Stan and Dr. McTier, that are no longer that are not 

in this document. There are none of the comments from 

session one are in this document. It is all new comments 

or new explanations or directed questions for the 

subcommittee and this document. You'll see a lot of them 

under the best interest piece, which we hope to spend a 

lot of time talking about, but there was no attempt to 

hide that that suggestion. In fact, what we tried to do 

was incorporate your suggestions into the best interest 

piece. So I think with that hope that we can move to the 

next portion for discussion, and that would be Kim, one 

of Kim's recommendations for paragraph D. 

MS. MCARDLE: We still have a comment from 
57 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

Dr. McTier. 

DR. MCTIER: So if I'm understanding so, 

this entire document 12-page document that we got is this 

is what we're working off of now. But it doesn't have 

anything that we've worked so hard on the last session. 

Wouldn't we want to have that document? Because now, 

honestly, I'm becoming confused by trying to keep track 

of what's added, what's not added, what's been eradicated 

and that level of confusion for me as I'm looking at 

this, this latest document, I don't know what's being 

proposed and what's not or when we're going to receive 

that combined information. It just becomes daunting to 

try to sift through all of the information and then to go 

back and to recall, you know, where we made notes at and 

whatnot. As I mentioned before, I'm a visual learner, and 

so I like to see, so these bubble comments help. But if 

you're removing our stuff and if this is not the official 

document, then I'm kind of confused as to what we're 

doing. 

MS. MCARDLE: Stan. Do you want to respond 

first or should I go to Stan, Aaron? 

MR. WASHINGTON: I can see if we can try and 

add back in the comments that were made in the first 

rounds. I've tried, I've stated verbally where the 

Department has made an update based on a subcommittee 
58 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

member's recommendation. And in fact, we will see that in 

the next paragraph. Indeed, Kim made a recommendation in 

the previous round to define the oversight entity, I'm 

sorry, defined the postsecondary institution as the 

entity that makes the determination on where students 

will be most likely to return upon release. And so you'll 

see there that we have adopted Kim's suggestion. It just 

doesn't say Kim Cary in the bullet made this suggestion. 

And so what I can do is I can go back through and add 

tonight where subcommittee members made suggestions in 

this document that is projected so you will have all that 

information. 

MS. MCARDLE: Stan. 

DR. ANDRISSE: Thank you, Aaron. I think 

that would be helpful because I was, you know, those are 

kind of landmarks to for me to like, know where I want to 

add my points that I had made and I think they'll be 

helpful. And you know, again, to the point, it looks like 

and I know this is I mean, you, you all are, you know, 

working to you know, do the best that we can. You know, I 

truly I believe that you're working in that interest to 

get this done, but you know, what you did was kind of 

take our suggestions and kind of do what you wanted to do 

with them and incorporate them the way that you wanted to 

instead of incorporating them, just the way that we ask 
 

59 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

them to be, you know, so this language, you know, 

particularly pertaining to this, we specifically wanted 

that advisory stakeholder group to be at the level of 

overall, you know, to be part of the overall decision 

making on all those best interest bullet points instead 

of picking a best interest bullet point to say that it 

should be part of, you know, you know, my suggestion that 

I just made, I want, you know, that's you know, I think I 

want to have that in the language. And you know, that's 

you know, that's why we made the suggestion. That's what 

we made the suggestion for earlier. The other thing that 

I was going to propose to the committee, you know, me 

personally, this is me. I feel that we're in need of a 

break and I would like to propose a break. 

MR. WASHINGTON: If I could just respond to 

that, we you know, we do end at 3:00 today, Stan. What I 

can try and do tomorrow is incorporate a break, I think 

with 23 minutes left, you know? I would hope that we can, 

you know, push through today. 

DR. ANDRISSE: Oh, that's my fault. I'm on 

the main committee as well, and we go an hour longer, so 

my apologies. Yes, that's correct. 

MR. WASHINGTON: I know, but tomorrow we can 

tomorrow, I think, you know, is going to be mainly the 

definition of a here, we're going to be in subpart P 
60 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

tomorrow mainly so perhaps a break around 2:00, a 10-

minute break would be beneficial. 

MS. MCARDLE: Dr. McTier. 

DR. MCTIER: Yes, so just to kind of go back 

on this information, so you mentioned that as an example, 

Kim, Kim's spot was added to the text and so that again 

lets me know that what we proposed was not added. And we 

I remember specifically having a long conversation about 

the stakeholder piece. And so it seems as if the 

Department of ED is not wanting to add that information 

into this. Is that what I'm taking from this? If we've 

added other suggestions throughout this particular 

document, the very most important part in terms of 

stakeholder collaboration that needs to be added is not 

being considered. Is that my understanding and take-away 

from this? 

MR. WASHINGTON: I think we have a different 

understanding of what we've tried to do. We've tried to 

add that to the best interest piece. I did read a bit. I 

do remember Vanessa scrolled, Vanessa, you don't have to 

scroll to it again, but I believe Vanessa scrolled to it. 

If that language is not sufficient, as you've stated, or 

if that language is not what you'd like to see? We've 

noted that that's language you would not like to see. You 

would like to see different language added to the 
 

61 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

definition of an oversight entity. So we put a comment 

bubble there. And I think we have to move to paragraph D 

at this point. I don't know if it's beneficial to-- I 

don't want to just give you the same answer over and over 

again, you know, so, well. 

DR. MCTIER: Well, I was asked, I'm asking 

for clarity, so please don't blow me off. My 

understanding from this document is that elements have 

been added into this document, is that what I'm taking 

away from this? It seems like that's a yes. Am I correct? 

MR. WASHINGTON: I'll let Soren, I think 

Soren wants make statement. 

MR. LAGAARD: Thanks so much, Dr. McTier. 

No, the purpose of a reorganization didn't change or add 

anything here, at least as so far as just reorganizing 

things. What was happening is, as we were going through 

and this subcommittee met and proposed the reg is it 

became really kind of unwieldy, right? And so, you know, 

we had folks who looked at it and tried to read it, you 

know, not having, you know, engaged in any of this work 

and just trying to like plain language, look at it. And 

it was getting it was getting a little bit much. And so, 

you know, knowing how important best interest was, we 

broke that into a section that is going to be discussed 

below. I hope that helps. I don't think we did in any way 
62 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

try to change, you know, anything that you know, 

otherwise we were we were trying to do there through the 

reorganization and it just as a personal note to the 

members of the committee. If this is a subcommittee, if 

this is helpful, sometimes I view these this document on 

just clean or a clean draft because with the highlights 

and if you have the red line, it can be a little 

difficult to actually, you know, see what is the actual 

language that the Department is proposing? So hopefully 

that's helpful. 

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

moment. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay, thank you. Let's move 

to let's move to paragraph D. So here we have. So there 

are several places in the regulation that kind of talk 

about a federal correctional facility and something some 

entity, someone or some school having to determine where 

most students will reside upon release from the 

correctional facility. And Kim, Kim recommended that 

postsecondary institution decide where our student 

correctional facility is most likely to reside upon 

release. So we've added that language throughout the 

document and that these are the one. This is one of the 

places that we added it. And that is in regards to the 

transferability of credit to at least one institution of 
63 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

higher education, either in the state if it's something 

other than a federal correctional facility or the state 

that most students are likely to reside if it is a 

federal facility as determined by the postsecondary, the 

school postsecondary institution, and that's based on and 

based on information provided by the oversight entity. 

Keep in mind, you know, the oversight entity was the BOP 

DOC entity, so the school will have the ultimate 

authority in making that determination. So I'll pause 

there for comment. In fact, I can. I'll do it directly, 

question, Kim, is this is this is this does this kind of 

align with what you would have wanted to see generally 

for the most likely to reside language? 

MS. CARY: Yes, it is, because if I remember 

correctly, it was the DOC was going to make that 

determination and that didn't make sense because we're 

the ones working with the students in the onboarding and 

throughout their program to determine where they're going 

to land upon their release, so. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Mm-hmm. Okay, let's move 

to. Well, I think temperature checks would be better for 

like the entire part, the entire like 668.236, I'll wait 

to do a temperature check. I won't do it paragraph by 

paragraph, but I'm sorry, Sophia, did we have any more 

hands raised for that? 
64 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

MS. MCARDLE: No, we did not. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. Alright. So for 

paragraph E, we had a suggestion from Belinda to cross 

reference to our definition section in the accreditation 

regulations. Keep in mind, we do have our Elizabeth 

Daggett, our accreditation expert, on with us for the 

full day today. So if anybody has any questions about 

accreditation, she is here as our advisor. But here we've 

added that we just added the cross reference here. And so 

any comments on that? I think I think we've just accepted 

with the recommendation and also we discussed the idea of 

adding a program review, as suggested by Kim. However, we 

don't recommend adding that here. A program review is an 

investigation of an institution's compliance with Title 

IV requirements, and therefore performed for a variety of 

reasons. And so some program reviews are conducted as a 

result of FSA's risk analysis. Others are routine 

evaluations of an institution's compliance with Title IV 

requirements and are not associated with potential risk. 

So in some cases, program reviews will result in 

liabilities or other negative actions against the 

institution by the Department. But some result in no 

negative actions whatsoever, so therefore, it's in the 

Department's view that it is more appropriate to 

condition eligibility on the result of a program review, 
65 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

such as a limitation or termination in the statute, we 

have suspension, emergency action and termination rather 

than a program review itself. So I will pause there and 

in case Kim wanted to add any comments on that. 

MS. CARY: Thank you, Aaron. I think I just 

wanted to clarify that. I mean, sometimes it can be years 

that an institution is starting a program review and 

ending a program review. And during that timeframe, there 

are very limited. You're very limited as an institution 

on what you can do. So I just wanted to make sure that 

during that time, could an institution actually go into a 

partnership with a correctional facility to start 

offering these types of programs? Or they really locked 

down and saying, well, not until that program review has 

ended and a determination has been made. So I just know 

it's very restricted on even who you can talk to at DOE 

while you're in a program review, so that's really what I 

was getting to. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you, Kim. And I 

think, you know, I think I might have said it too fast, 

but we think that we should condition the eligibility of 

the Prison Education Program on the results of the 

program review. And so it would be that result that 

whether the Department decides to limit or terminate that 

the institution's participation in Title IV programs. And 
66 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

then the paragraph also says, you know, within the last 

five years. So of course, if there was any of those 

issues in the last five years, not just a program review, 

but a suspension, emergency exit or termination in the 

last five years, then that's when the institution would 

not be able to provide a Prison Education Program. And 

only at that point would they not be able to provide it. 

Of course, there are some other things that we'll talk 

about, like the initiated adverse action that we've 

added, but at least from the Department's perspective 

we're proposing we're recommending to keep it to the 

suspension, emergency action and termination or 

termination. 

MS. MCARDLE: Dave. 

MR. MUSSER: Yeah, I wanted to speak to 

Kim's question. When a program review is initiated, the 

primary limitation in the law about providing information 

about that program review is on the Department's findings 

and related information coming out of the program review. 

So, for example, neither the Department nor the 

institution are permitted in general to share the program 

review report with anyone other than a small number of 

oversight bodies. The same thing would be true in this 

circumstance, mostly because the Department considers an 

open program review to be something that has not yet been 
67 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

established or decided. And I want to defer in part to my 

OGC colleague Soren here. In most cases, the Department 

does not choose to take an action or to prevent an 

institution from doing something without finalizing a 

determination about some something about the institution. 

So that's part of why we're recommending here not to 

introduce the concept of program reviews into this set of 

set of restrictions, because program reviews could mean 

nothing if we determine that there are no problems, or 

even if we're in the middle of determining whether there 

are problems at an institution, we wouldn't necessarily 

want to take an action on that or basis or across the 

board prevent an institution from offering a Prison 

Education Program. So that's I just wanted to say that's 

our general approach to this is that program reviews are 

sort of an ongoing process until we publish a final 

program review determination and that establishes what we 

identified as compliance errors. And that could result in 

some of these actions. And we might want to condition 

eligibility on those. 

MS. CARY: Thank you, and I brought it up 

initially because I agree with you, I don't think it 

should be held against an institution trying to enter 

into this partnership. So just to bring it up and make 

sure that you could have some institutions that are in 
68 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

the middle of that and don't know that they may think it 

hinders them from participating, and we want to make sure 

that they know it does not. So thank you. 

MR. MUSSER: That's right. 

MS. MCARDLE: And I do not see any hands at 

this moment. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you, Sophia. So 

moving into the next section, we only have a few more 

left, I don't know if we'll be able to get to all of them 

before we close today, but there were no thumbs down on 

paragraph F, which will be a new paragraph F will no 

longer be paragraph seven. I think that's what you're 

seeing on your screen. Yeah, so. I think we're I think we 

can move to the paragraph G. This was this paragraph F 

was just about the initiated adverse action and well, we 

have what we have added, you know, just made some very 

technical updates to this paragraph, but nothing that 

would change the substance of it. I don't believe we had 

any thumbs down on this paragraph last time, so I'll 

pause there for comment. So essentially, this paragraph 

is saying that if an institution is subject to a current 

initiated adverse action, they would not be able to offer 

a Prison Education Program until that adverse action was 

rescinded. And they would also have to produce a teach 

out plan. Or submit a teach out plans, sorry, to their 
69 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

accreditor. 

MS. MCARDLE: I see no hands. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you, Sophia. Alright, 

paragraph G. This was about the program satisfying 

ensuring that programs that do lead to licensure or 

certification do satisfy all of the educational 

requirements, whether that be if it's a federal facility 

in the state that most students are likely most likely to 

return or if it's anything other than a federal facility. 

The requirements in the state in which that facility is 

located. And here we have made a change. Again, we 

updated the language based on Kim's feedback, and so, he 

said, as determined by the institution. And we've also 

added not less than annually based on information 

provided by the oversight entity to ensure that you know 

these that the that the postsecondary institution is 

continuing to evaluate their students to make sure that 

the licensure requirements sorry, the educational 

requirements are in line with either the state or the 

state that most students are most likely to return. And 

so that's why we want to have that periodic annual review 

for Federal, for Federal correctional facilities. And 

that'll be a consumer that should be a consumer good for 

the good for the student because the program will always 

ensure that they're following the educational 
70 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

requirements of that, whatever state most students will 

return to. 

MS. MCARDLE: I see no hands. Okay. 

MR. WASHINGTON: And let's begin the 

conversation on H. This is this is this is the paragraph 

that informs the disclosures that we were talking about 

under 668.43. In this paragraph had a lot of discussion 

in the first set in the first and our first session. And 

this was about not offering education that is designed to 

lead to licensure or employment for a specific job 

occupation. If in the state, if that job occupation 

typically involves prohibitions on licensure or 

employment to formerly incarcerated individuals, and 

again, we have that Federal clause most likely to return 

to or state clause whatever state the correction of 

whatever state that the correctional facility is located 

in. The Department added one and two to provide more 

background on or more of an explanation on the regulatory 

the statutory on the statutory text. And we did get some 

thumbs down here and a recommendation from Terrell and 

Terrell recommended that a student and again, I will add 

these comment bubbles. But Terrell did recommend that a 

student can acknowledge prohibition to a student, should 

be able to acknowledge prohibition to licensure or 

employment, and still enroll in a program after 
71 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

counseling. The Department from the Department's 

perspective, we cannot override the provision in statute, 

which prohibits students from enrolling in a program 

which would lead to licensure or employment in a field 

which is not currently accessible to individuals with 

criminal convictions. By defining this part of the 

statute to only apply where state or Federal law 

prohibits employment, we believe we can protect students 

from predatory institutions while maintaining as many 

options as possible within the language of the statute 

for students to pursue education. So I'll pause there for 

comment, because I know we only have five minutes left, 

so I don't want to go on and on. I want people to be able 

to comment. 

MS. MCARDLE: Stan. 

DR. ANDRISSE: So. Again, pointing to the 

typically point. So because typically is in there, it 

doesn't, it's not it's not barring a program from 

offering it and doing it, as Terrell mentioned. So I 

mean, we have five minutes left. I don't know what we 

intend to get into in five minutes to try to even to jump 

into this. But I certainly have more to say, and I don't 

think that we can get through what needs to be discussed 

in this in five minutes. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Belinda, if I could. I'm 
72 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

sorry, Belinda, I think I'm always in a position to be 

like Belinda, can you just give me a second? But I wanted 

to just cue up the conversation. I think that we are 

definitely going to. I think I even alluded to it before 

I started that we'll likely return to this tomorrow 

morning first thing. I anticipate a lot of discussion 

around this. And I don't I'm not proposing to take a 

temperature check on this paragraph before 3:00. I just 

wanted to introduce it and therefore we can just dive 

right into it tomorrow. 

MS. MCARDLE: Belinda. 

MS. WHEELER: Great, thank you very much. 

Yes, I just wanted to say thank you for Stan for your 

comments, my friend. This is one of the emails that I'd 

sent out to the subcommittee asking for clarification 

with regards to that, and I want to thank the Department 

for responding to me and where we could potentially go in 

this space. One of the two of the recommendations that 

the Department had mentioned here is, you know, within 

this framework, the subcommittee could consider whether 

recommendations should be made about how an institution 

would make those determinations of what a typical 

prohibition on the licensure or employment might be. And 

then also that the subcommittee may also have 

recommendations on programs ensuring that they're keeping 
73 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

track of rapidly changing laws in this space. I think one 

thing that I've learned a lot about in this space is just 

how different certain things are and how some states seem 

very progressive in wanting to kind of open things up, 

you know, to people that have some form of carceral 

experience and trying to open up careers and licensure 

for those individuals where some states seem quite less 

excited about kind of taking those taking those 

approaches. So one of the things that I will be doing 

with the subcommittee tonight is, you know, taking, you 

know, sending an email out to everyone with regards to 

some of those recommendations that the Department has 

there and perhaps proposing a very early kind of draft 

form of amendatory language and I'm very interested to 

see what you know subcommittees have to say here, because 

some of the things such as, you know, keeping track of 

rapidly changing laws, is there an actual website that we 

might recommend that keeps, track of these things so that 

we can kind of make sure that, you know, educational 

programs and things of that nature, there can be some 

kind of positive pressure to bear, you know, on some 

states that, perhaps you know, can be made that the 

licensure can open up, , for those students. So. So I 

just wanted to say thank you ED for acknowledging, you 

know, my clarification. I appreciated your feedback. It's 
74 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

still something I'm definitely working on. So I'll send 

an email to the subcommittee members overnight and just 

say that I definitely recommend, you know, welcome their 

comments on this because I do think, as Stanley pointed 

out and others had previously, that this is an area where 

we can really add some value. Thank you. 

MS. MCARDLE: Aaron. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you, Belinda. Yeah, I 

did, you know, in response to those rapidly changing 

laws, if the law the law changes in an occupation, you 

know, an occupation becomes newly opened to a formerly 

incarcerated students. Institutions would be able to add 

those programs at the time. And you know, like, like you 

said, we do see we do seek feedback on language to ensure 

institutions reflect updates to Federal and state laws as 

soon as possible. I think the idea here was that Pell is 

limited. We've talked about that quite extensively and 

some of the examples, you know, to six scheduled awards 

and we really do look forward to your feedback. I know 

that this was a place that you said that you know that we 

you indicated you would provide, you know, there would be 

some amendatory language coming our way. And so what we 

look forward to seeing what that language is and with 

that I think we should close for the day. I mean, it's 

3:00 now and thank everybody. I wanted to thank the 
75 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/08/21 

entire subcommittee and everybody from the Department of 

Education that assisted with this process, and we will 

see you all tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time. Bye. 
76 

Subcommittee Meetings -11/08/21