Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

1

 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

 OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION

 PRISON EDUCATION PROGRAMS SUBCOMMITTEE

 SESSION 1, DAY 3, AFTERNOON

October 20, 2021

On the 20th day of October, 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 - 10/20/21

P R O C E E D I N G S

 MR. WASHINGTON: Welcome back to the 

final afternoon session of our first our first 

subcommittee meetings. The afternoon of day three. Before 

Kim, you had asked a question about what we're doing in 

FSA to kind of like ramp up and like for prison education 

programs and different things FSA is doing in terms of 

FAFSA completion. So what I wanted to do is turn it over 

to my colleague, David Musser in FSA to talk a little bit 

more about that.

 MR. MUSSER: Sure, thanks, Aaron. 

Yeah, I thought it would be helpful just to give a series

of things that the Department and FSA are doing to make 

the process for applying for Title IV aid and maintaining

Title IV aid eligibility easier for incarcerated 

individuals. So I'll go through the things that we're 

working on. And if you guys have any questions or any 

other suggestions, we'd certainly be open to hearing 

those. So the first one I wanted to mention is that as 

many of you know, Congress eliminated the Selective 

Service and drug drug conviction limitations on Title IV

eligibility. FSA has already implemented a change in 

eligibility requirements for the current award year. But 

we're also going to be removing that question from the 

FAFSA in the 2023-24 award year. So hopefully, that will 
3

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

cut down on the number of individuals who decide not to 

complete the FAFSA, because because they think that that 

could affect their eligibility. We we hope that that 

makes a positive impact for them. We're also 

collaborating as, and we talked about this in an earlier 

session, we're collaborating with, with other Department

staff to determine ways for to make it easier for 

incarcerated students to get out of default, or 

overpayment on Title IV grants in order to regain Title 

IV eligibility when that happens. And that could include 

a variety of things for all the way from, you know, just 

just how they get out of default in the first place to 

the specific require servicing requirements for for when 

they contact service for about something like this. We're

also proposing as as part of this process to restore a 

student's lifetime eligibility, if they cease if if their

school ceases offering programs in the students’

facility. And FSA is working on the details for how that 

how that would work. We are also working to establish a 

process to identify incarcerated students as part of the 

application process so that we can account for their 

special circumstances. And that could potentially include

different requirements for completion of verification, 

something that Department is working on right now. Then 

finally, I wanted to mention, we're also thinking about 
4

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

some more minor changes. We've heard from, from various 

folks that there are occasions where student incarcerated 

students can't receive paper Student Aid reports, because 

it's on colored paper, it's easier for them to receive it 

on white paper. So we're working on trying to ensure that 

once we've identified someone as incarcerated, that we 

send them something that their report on white paper to 

help improve the chances of reaching them if they don't 

have internet access. There's also some little things in 

terms of how what we require for completion of paper 

FAFSAs. We traditionally have required the use of black 

ink, we plan to relax those requirements, because 

sometimes, facilities have specific requirements for the 

use of different kinds of ink in their facility that may 

not be black. So we want to be sure that that's not an 

impediment. And then lastly, longer term, we're 

considering other changes that might make it easier for 

incarcerated students. We have to acknowledge that for 

now, we think that paper FAFSAs are still the likeliest 

method for incarcerated students to use to apply for the 

FAFSA, we recognize that that can be a cumbersome 

process. And we also recognize that financial aid 

administrators often have to assist in that process

pretty substantially. So we're considering ways that we 

could also streamline that process and make it easier for 
5

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

students to to complete a version of the electronic 

process if they don't have internet access, or some other 

way for financial aid administrators to serve to help 

them and reduce the burden on the students. So that's 

that's the list of things that I have I will I want to 

open it up to the group if you guys have questions about 

any of those or anything else that I can help explain on 

that front. 

 MS. MCARDLE: Kim.

 MS. CARY: Thank you David for 

addressing all those and letting us know I'm sure there's 

a lot of feedback the Second Chance Pells financial aid 

administrators could provide. So I will let NASFA know 

that we are willing to provide feedback to them if they 

want to be our, our go between and I know we use that 

quite a bit. So, what about specifically with dependent 

students? I know you touched on the verification. and 

just the dependency requirements. I don't know the status 

of a student who is incarcerated, they are considered, 

you know, ward of the state or things like that. I don't 

know how, what that language looks like, and it can be 

extended to incarcerated individuals.

 MR. MUSSER: And that's an area that, 

that we have not yet found a way to address. Currently, 

if an individual does not meet one of the dependency 
6

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

requirements to be considered an independent student, 

they'd still be considered a dependent student, and may 

have to obtain their their family's financial information 

to complete the FAFSA. So we're still thinking about that 

one. And we know that one's challenging, but it's 

something I'll have to take back and talk over with my 

FSA colleagues and my Department colleagues to see if 

there's any way that we can overcome that particular 

hurdle. We know that that is challenging that, that 

getting that out documentation from outside sources is 

one of the biggest hurdles that incarcerated individuals 

face with their application. So it's something I'm happy 

to take back.

 MS. CARY: Stan.

 DR. ANDRISSE: I just wanted to thank 

you David, for that and for the information you provided 

and for what you know FSA is doing for incarcerated 

students and just understanding the situation so well, as 

you do. I would also want to know a little bit more about 

students who are in default, and how, you know, what your 

view, you know, what, what are you doing in that range, 

because a lot of I mean, there are a number of student 

incarcerated students who have defaulted and thus need 

that addressed.

 MR. MUSSER: So I can't comment on 
7

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

exactly what our approach is going to be, because I think 

the Department still has to make a final decision about 

how we're going to move forward with it. But I can tell 

you what we've heard from incarcerated individuals and 

other advocate groups that we'd like that we are trying 

to address. And it's mainly the fact that incarcerated 

individuals, simply it's really challenging for them to 

make the number of on time payments that do they need to 

make in order to get into a rehabilitated status. And so 

what we're looking at now are, there are a few other ways 

that that individuals can get back into an in an in 

repayment status. And what what we're thinking about are 

ways that we could adapt those for incarcerated students. 

So again, without going too much further down that road, 

I just want to say, that's kind of the direction that 

we've been considering. And we also are considering ways 

that we can help improve the process for sort of sort of 

seeking the the seeking assistance to get out of default. 

Recognizing that, you know, getting on the phone with a 

servicer is often the traditional way of doing that. And 

that's also very challenging for incarcerated 

individuals. So that's another thing that we're trying to 

figure out how, and amid some of the other things that 

we're working on and servicing, how we can help address 

that and make that process a little easier.
8

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

 MS. MCARDLE: Stan and then Kim

 DR. ANDRISSE: Thank you again, David. 

I would also just so we work, my organization works 

closely with individuals that fall into that category, 

and we help them in that particular regard. I would love 

to have conversations. I mean, you mentioned that, you 

know, you're figuring these solutions out by talking to 

incarcerated students and advocacy groups for them, I 

would love to have a conversation and be involved in 

those conversations, you know, be involved in that 

thinking process of how to address that, as we as we work 

with a lot of students in that in that position.

 MR. MUSSER: Sure, I'd be glad to hear 

your suggestions, and we could talk about that offline.

 MS. MCARDLE: Kim.

 MS. CARY: I would also share that I 

encourage financial administrators that are listening in 

to make that part of your onboarding process. Once we 

know what the Department is going to require of those 

individuals to be the go between to help them connect 

with those servicers or whatever that ends up being. 

That's just going to be part of making them successful. 

That's just part of something that they should be looking 

at helping with.

 MR. MUSSER: And I also just want to 
9

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

say thanks for for your suggestions on this Kim and if if 

your schools or NASFA have suggestions, we're also very 

interested in those on from the school perspective as 

well.

 MS. CARY: Thank you, David.

 MS. MCARDLE: Oh Sorry, Marisa.

 MS. BRITTON-BOSTWICK: I think just to 

piggyback off Kim, I think would be so important in the 

correctional facilities too that we have all the 

appropriate information for individuals that are going to 

be in this program. So thank you for those ideas.

 MR. MUSSER: Sure. Thanks, everyone.

 MS. MCARDLE: I see no other hands.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you for that. 

David. Let's launch into the last discussion on the 

regulations that will be about we're still in the best 

interest and interest determination. But we'll be talking

about the remaining indicator. So Vanessa, would you mind

posting or projecting the amendatory language, please? 

Thank you. Yep, right there's perfect. So we have three 

remaining indicators. And we suggest defining the inputs 

as serving the best interest of students, when they 

provide the same level of services to students who are 

incarcerated, as to those who are not. So I think we can 

kind of take all of them as one and while they're 
10

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

distinctly different, our-- what we've added to the 

statutory language is essentially similar. And so for, 

for E, we see whether the experience, credentials, and 

rates of turnover or, or departure of instructors for a 

prison education program. That's kind of where the law 

cuts, that is where the law cuts off, we've added “is the 

same or similar to the experience credentials, and rates 

of turnover, departure of instructors for non prison 

education,” non prison education, non prison education 

programs offered by the institution. And we've done we've 

added similar language, about the transferability of 

credits and also whether the institution offers relevant 

academic and career services to participating, confined 

or incarcerated individuals while they're incarcerated in 

advance of reentry, or upon release. And so you see, 

we've added some language to all of all three of those 

indicators. And Vanessa, if you could just scroll down, I 

wanted to just remind them remind folks, I'll tell you 

when to stop. Keep going. Let's see. Let's see, keep 

going. Let's stop right there. So I just want to remind 

folks that about the accreditation piece, if you see 

number ten, romanette, three, “reviewed and approved the 

methodology for how the Bureau of Prisons or State 

Department of Corrections or other entity made the 

determination under E-G,” that's what we're talking 
11

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

about, to ensure that the prison education program meets 

the same standards as the same or substantially similar 

programs that are not prison education programs at the 

institution. We do have Elizabeth Daggett from the 

accreditation group here with us again today until 2pm. 

And so she will also be able to provide insight on how 

their credit on the role of the accreditor in this as 

well. So Vanessa, if you wouldn't mind scrolling back up 

so folks could see the best interest piece again. And I 

will stop there and open it up for conversation.

 MS. MCARDLE: Belinda.

 MS. WHEELER: Thank you very much. I 

just wanted to say that I think that these three 

standards are really important. I think that they align 

very well with what we expect in the on the accreditation 

side of things with our traditional, you know, classrooms 

for students, and I feel that, you know, people who are 

incarcerated and undertaking you know, university or 

college programs deserve this the same or as close to the 

same, you know, standards, quality that they would expect 

if they were a traditional student. So I think that these 

three points are very good guardrails for everyone in 

this space and I think it helps protect students. So 

thank you for having this language there.

 MS. MCARDLE: Marisa.
12

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

 MS. BRITTON-BOSTWICK: I would agree 

with Belinda I think these are so important and very much 

needed in here. So thank you.

 MS. MCARDLE: Stan.

 DR. ANDRISSE: I would also agree that 

these are very, very needed to gauge quality. I do have, 

you know, concern or question as to what is in mind with 

turnover? As you know, a lot of times, prison education 

programs are hiring, you know, professors or instructors 

that don't hold tenure track positions or regular 

positions at the institution, and they're brought in to 

teach a special course, as you know, they're seeking, for 

instance, to make the curriculum a little more culturally 

sensitive and responsive to the, to the population it's 

being delivered to. So in that regard, sometimes the 

turnover is slightly different than the on campus 

program. And, you know, you know, just just to have that 

in mind, and for us to think about here, that difference 

between, you know, the prison education program, and the 

non prison education programs at an institution.

 MS. MCARDLE: Aaron.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Stan, is there any 

language or if you can think of any language, you know, 

before the second session that we could add to account 

for circumstances like that? That would be really helpful
13

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

for the Department. 

 DR. ANDRISSE: Yeah, I can, I can 

certainly do that. And bring get that back. I mean, to 

something without without thinking of the exact language, 

but to what the metric of same or similar is the similar 

part gives room for, you know, interpretation. So I think 

this may be the place for the Dear Colleague type 

letters, where that is explained there, for instance, and 

it's really the interpretation that needs that 

understanding of what I what I've mentioned.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah, and that's 

exactly what I was gonna follow up with, you know, we 

say, “same or substantially similar.” And I would, you 

know, for any, for any of the subcommittee members that 

are either based at a postsecondary institution, or have 

experience at a postsecondary institution, if you have 

any thoughts on the same, or substantially substantially 

similar language in there, I think that what Stan just 

said is, you know, a, an idea could be to, you know, we 

anticipate probably getting questions on that. So maybe 

we can further expand on that, and a Dear Colleague 

letter, sub regulatory guidance, preamble language, or do 

you all think that more regulatory language needs to be 

added here to further describe “same or substantially 

similar?” 
14

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

 MS. MCARDLE: Kim.

 MS. CARY: Thank you. I think one of 

the things we need to take into consideration and I'm not 

sure how we would write the language for it, but one of 

the hurdles that we ran into when we were trying to 

establish our educational program with in our first 

program in the Second Chance Pell was the the institution 

we were working with, had very large restrictions as far 

as types of ways that incarcerated individuals could 

communicate with us. Whether it be if it was seated, or 

online, we had to follow certain protocols with the 

online connections that we had, it wasn't normal internet 

connections, certain tablets had to be used, I can see 

that being varied from correctional facility to 

correctional facility. One of the barriers was when we 

talk about similar instruction, when you have an online 

class or a seated class, you have the ability to talk 

amongst yourselves as students in discussion boards or in 

class settings. Some some correctional facilities forbid 

that discussion board type of environment. So how do we 

write that in there that institutions may seek to make it 

as similar as possible to the ones that they have on 

their campus, but or online that may have restrictions 

pushed back down from the correctional facility?

 MS. MCARDLE: I see no other hands. 
15

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

Oh, wait, sorry Stan just went up.

 DR. ANDRISSE: I just wanted to add to 

what Kim and say that you know, that's certainly 

something to consider and as an example, a science 

course, you know, may a lab component of a science course 

may, you know, have things that cause, you know, issues 

to get into the correctional facility. Thus, you know, 

the “same or similar” becomes a little more challenging. 

To the turnover point that I had mentioned earlier, is it 

possible to think about, instead of turnover faculty to 

be thinking of that the credentials of the faculty are 

same or similar, even if there are, you know, different 

faculty in it. So, maybe something to consider in the 

language. 

 MS. MCARDLE: Aaron.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah, these are all 

great ideas and things that the Department can take back 

and discuss further and think through ways to either 

amend the language that we've presented here or, you 

know, think of ways in the future, that we can provide 

clarity. Again, whether that's in regulation or through 

subregulatory guidance. I want to make sure we have 

enough. I want to make sure everybody has been able to 

provide their thoughts on on each on each of them. I know 

we talked about Stan talked specifically about the 
16

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

teacher experience credential and turnover. Any thoughts 

on the “transferability of credit for courses available 

to confined or incarcerated students?” Vanessa if you can 

scroll down just a bit. I think they one of the 

paragraphs. If anybody sees it stop me, , keep scrolling. 

Vanessa, please. One of there it goes, you can stop 

there. Number five, we say “offers transferability of 

credit to at least one institution of higher education in 

the state in which the correctional facility is located 

or in the case of a Federal Correctional Facility in the 

state in which most of the individuals confined are 

incarcerated in such facility will reside.” And that was 

taken directly from the statute. And so while the Bureau 

of Prisons takes this into consideration in their 

determination, that this is the actual statutory 

framework for what is at least required, and then we're 

saying for the Bureau of Prisons determination, we want 

to have at least similar or the same or substantially 

similar offering so any any more any more ideas on that 

the I was just trying to point out the statute kind of 

talks about and the regs talk about transfer 

transferability of credit in two places. So any more 

ideas on transferability of credit, you can scroll back 

up Vanessa, I'm sorry, to the “best interest” piece. 

Thank you.
17

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

 MS. MCARDLE: Belinda.

 MS. WHEELER: Thank you, I'll just 

reiterate, but make it more specific to this particular 

one. This is a really important, you know, this is a 

really important guardrail. I think it will protect 

students against you know, potentially bad actors coming 

in with kind of junk credits or, you know, things like 

that. So I think it it kind of puts everyone on notice 

that, you know, these really need that educational 

institutions cannot work in a vacuum, and that they must 

have these transferability. So I think, again, this is 

just a really good guardrail that protects students 

because, you know, oftentimes they move, you know, both 

while incarcerated, and then just the general public on 

the outside. So this is, I think this is really valuable 

that this protection, this guardrail is put in for 

students so that they do have that because oftentimes, 

we've seen, you know, with other situations where 

students have had to come en masse to the government to 

help them out because their, their credits weren't able 

to be transferred. So I appreciate ED putting this 

putting this in. Thank you.

 MS. MCARDLE: I don't see any other 

hands.

 MR. WASHINGTON: And then for the last 
18

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

one, you know, “offering relevant academic career 

services.” Are there any ideas on language here? Or even 

if you have ideas about what should be in, you know, in 

subregulatory subregulatory guidance, if we release that 

to explain this further, any any of your thoughts or 

ideas will be welcomed.

 MS. MCARDLE: I'm not seeing any 

hands. 

 MR. WASHINGTON: Okay, well, I with 

that, I think what we can do in the time remaining is 

move into temperature checks. I will say I'm not an 

expert at temperature checks. And we have okay, we have- 

 MS. MCARDLE: We have two comments, 

Belinda and then Stan.

 MS. WHEELER: Quick question. Thank 

you very much. We had discussed recidivism and ED's 

desire to get a definition on that. You know, during the 

break, a lot of us had had a chance to, you know, talk 

and look at stuff and I was curious, do we have space now 

before we do the temperature checks to to visit that I 

don't want to derail us if we're going in this direction, 

but I just wanted to check on that, because, and then 

also, there was another issue about some concerns about 

the two year part of things. And, you know, I've talked 

with constituents and colleagues on the subcommittee, and 
19

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

I just wanted to check whether or not there might be an 

opportunity to say something briefly about that. Thank 

you.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah, let's do it. 

 MS. MCARDLE: Stan.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Oh, sorry, sorry 

Sophia.

 DR. ANDRISSE: I was gonna actually 

mention the same thing, and propose some ideas around 

recidivism. And in the two-year piece, as well. And so 

what a lot of there's a lot of different, as Dr. McTier 

was mentioning, there's a lot of different ways to look 

at it. And I think that's where his questioning came. One 

of the, you know, more commonly used ways of the 

definition is it's reincarceration within three years, as 

a result of a new conviction, or a technical violation. 

But what is, you know, what is being more commonly used 

amongst groups, like myself, that I represent, is 

removing that technical violation piece, and just saying, 

reincarceration, within three years, due to a new felony 

conviction, the technical violation piece is very 

problematic in that, you know, there are individuals 

that, you know, being a formerly incarcerated person 

myself, I can, you know, I had good POs, had good, had

some parole officers that were very excited about me 
20

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

being back in school, for instance, and working on my 

doctorate degree. And then I had some parole officers 

that were not very excited about that particular aspect 

of who I was, and that, you know, made things a little 

bit more challenging for me. So, you know, if we were to 

go off of technical violations alone, sometimes people 

just get the, you know, luck of the draw and get a parole 

officer, that is, you know, not working in their best 

interest per se. And, and they get it, you know, 

technical violation. So I would propose not to use 

technical , you know, re incarcerations due to technical 

violations, and simply added as reincarceration due to a 

new felony conviction. And I also just wanted to add, I 

don't think my question about the requiring recidivism as 

being used as the quality of the program was really 

addressed. And I know, you know, we intended I intend to 

send some language suggestions. But you know, it wasn't 

really responded to the, you know, what, what's your alls 

thoughts were on not using recidivism as a metric for 

quality. But since I mean, but tracking it, but not using 

it as a metric of quality of the program.

 MS. MCARDLE: Aaron.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Stan, I don't think a 

decision has been made there that we wanted to get the 

thoughts of the subcommittee. You, I think almost 
21

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

everyone that has spoken has said it should not be 

considered in the quality of the program of the 

subcommittee members, and we will certainly take that 

back and discuss it. But we, but it was clear that the 

subcommittee in general, did not think that that would be 

a good indicator of quality of a program.

 MS. MCARDLE: Belinda.

 MS. WHEELER: Thank you. If we are 

able to chime in about the definition. I just wanted to 

say that I agree with Stanley, I think that the language 

should read that it is only for a new conviction, a new 

felony conviction rather, so that that whole idea of the 

technical is removed. Stanley did make a comment about 

like a three year thing. I was unaware of that. I just 

want to reiterate what I'd said earlier about that 

timeframe of actually tracking recidivism, I think that 

the maybe going like that five to seven might be more 

beneficial. So that might be an opportunity, perhaps that

would not cause harm against the the people that we're 

trying to help here. So if that is technically something 

on the table, too, if a timeframe does need to be, you 

know, looked at, I wonder if you know that five to seven,

again to give people the space to, you know, fully 

integrate and things of that nature but definitely 

taking, removing that that technical violation, I think 
22

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

it must be a new felony conviction. Thank you.

 MS. MCARDLE: I see no other hands.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Belinda, I think you 

said you wanted to talk about one more thing outside of 

recidivism.

 MS. WHEELER: Yeah, I was actually 

just gonna raise my hand and ask if that's okay. Yes, 

sir. Thank you. So there was a there was some concerns 

about I forget what number it was, it was number, it's 

about that two year for a program and it being kind of 

evaluated, I wanted to put an idea forward for ED's 

consideration. And it parallels what goes on in a lot of 

different spaces now. If an educational institution is 

told by their, their accreditation agency, that they are 

in violation, so I just use that as, as a kind of base 

point there, that there's usually an appeal process that 

is available to an institution, you know, to try to, you 

know, show cause and, you know, show look that we're 

actually really, really doing things incorrectly. And 

we're asking for a second glance, I wonder whether or not 

it would be important for ED to consider to have a 

process in place for colleges to appeal a decision that 

DOC might make about their program not offer operating in 

the best interest of students, it seems good, good for 

the appeal to be made to the Department of Education to 
23

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

kind of be a status check on on to whether or not that 

college program meets that quality standard. So I wonder 

whether or not that kind of, you know, since we do seem 

to have a little bit of latitude on on how this language 

is written, that, you know, if there is indeed a case 

where it looks like an educational institution may not be 

serving the best interests as based by, you know, 

corrections or that other entity that's listed in the 

statutory language, whether or not there could be a 

possible appeal process there. I just put that for the 

Department's consideration. Thank you. 

 MS. MCARDLE: Aaron.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. And I 

think that I had mentioned earlier that we will be 

talking about you know, standards, consequences, and 

appeals in the next session and I think that will 

probably end up, you know, devote a lot of times those 

those areas.

 MS. MCARDLE: I see no other hands.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Okay, so I think I 

think it's time to move on to temperature checks. I I'm 

gonna need Amy's help with this. Amy, is everybody on? I 

can only see and I don't so I can't see everybody to do 

the thumbs up thumbs down, sideways thumbs. So maybe 

Sophia, can you see everybody or?
24

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

 MS. WILSON: Could everyone turn on 

their video?

 MR. WASHINGTON: Just the subcommittee 

members? 

 MS. WILSON: Yes, just the 

subcommittee. Sorry.

 MR. WASHINGTON: It might take us a 

few a few times to get this right. But if thumbs don't 

work then we can do we can just people can just raise 

their hands if they have issues with the language as 

proposed because I I can't see everybody on the screen 

from my view. But I know we do have Dr. Paccione on the 

line. I believe Dr. McTier was able, we resolved his 

technical issues, Amy? 

 MS. WILSON: Yes, we have everyone who 

should be here.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. Okay. I think 

the only person we don't have today for today is Terrell

who told us he wouldn't be here. So Vanessa, would you 

mind scrolling all the way up to the top of the document? 

Thank you. So yeah, I can't see everybody so if so we'll 

do it this way. You can Sophia?

 MS. MCARDLE: I can see 123456.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Subcommittee.

 MS. MCARDLE: And I think this is Ron 
25

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

also on here. Yeah. So yes, I see six subcommittee 

members.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Okay, great. So I'll 

rely on you to help us if we if there's any thumbs down 

and then if there's a thumbs down then we can manage it 

and Sophia can you call on an individual? 

MS. MCARDLE: Absolutely. 

MR. WASHINGTON: What the, and before we 

start I, I want to say it would be helpful for the 

Department if you if your thumbs down to provide either 

actual language that we can consider or if you don't have 

language, just the general concept, you know, if you if 

you don't like a regulation, and if we get like I don't 

like it, it will be, it will be difficult for us to, I 

guess go back and in our proposed regulation, it'll be 

difficult for us to go back and draft language around 

that or try and come to some compromise. So if you could 

provide like a framework on what you would like to see 

going forward in session two, that would be really, 

really helpful. 

 MS. MCARDLE: Belinda.

 MS. WHEELER: Sorry, just a clarifying 

question. Because this is the first time I've gone 

through this process. If, for example, I was to do a 

thumbs up or a sideways, I just want to be clear, do I 
26

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

still have the opportunity to potentially provide some 

additional or a different language after this temperature 

check has you know, because a lot of my stuff might be 

this [holds up sideways thumb] right now. But I am 

planning, you know, with the committee and the 

constituents to provide some other language so just want 

to make sure that if I'm doing this [thumbs up] or this

[sideways thumb], that I'm not, I'm not locking myself 

out from offering ED more language with regards to this. 

I just wanted to clarify that please. 

 MR. WASHINGTON: That's absolutely 

correct. And, and Belinda, keep in mind that this is this 

is the subcommittee as well. So you know, this is the 

recommendation to the main committee. So it's, we're 

really not locking anything-- the main committee was 

raised of is the real is the entity that kind of locks it 

in for consensus, or no consensus, hopefully, consensus, 

but, but so yeah, so if you're saying that you that you 

like the lang that you'd like the language, you can still 

say, hey, I thought about it a little more. And I want to 

I do want to add something, if you're not really sure 

right now, and you can do the sideways if you're, if 

you're okay with the language, and then if you just if 

you just totally disagree, or then you can do the thumbs 

down and then and hopefully, with all anybody who does a 
27

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

thumbs down, you can just briefly tell us why. Okay, 

okay, so for- 

 MS. MCARDLE: And just a reminder to 

put the thumbs close to the face so that we can actually 

see them.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Alright, you ready? 

This is my first time doing a consensuscheck, so. I'm 

getting a message. I'm sorry. One second everybody, I 

just want to make sure that I'm doing this correct. Yeah, 

so this is just a status check of where we are. We don't 

want to diminish the role the subcommittee's role, and we 

do want your feedback. We have another full session next 

month, and we will continue all these conversations. So I 

hope that I hope that was clear. And what I said and in 

that reiterated in, in the guidance that I just received. 

So for 600.2, the definition of an additional location. 

What is this subcommittee feeling and this was adding the 

adding that you have to an additional location would be 

any of these facilities, even if the instruction was 

through, even if the instruction was through 

correspondence, correspondence or distance education. Do 

we have a thumb, do you want to do your thumbs or? Okay, 

Sophia has got it.

 MS. MCARDLE: Okay, I can't see 

Marisa's. Okay, gotcha. Marisa. Yeah, there's no thumbs 
28

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

down. 

 MR. WASHINGTON: Okay, alright. Okay, 

so let's move on to the confined or incarcerated 

individual. This was about mirroring the definition in 

regulation to the statute. 

 MS. MCARDLE: I'm sorry Aaron, Dr. 

McTier had a hand raised.

 DR. MCTIER: Just for clarity 

purposes. We're also including the side notes that you've 

placed in the document, am I correct? As a part of what 

we're gauging temperature checks for? Or is it just the 

regular text?

 MR. WASHINGTON: For now let's just do 

the regular text because if you are not and if you do a 

thumbs down because we haven't you know this, your Dr. 

McTier, your thumbs down can be because right now that 

language is not including there, we haven't had a chance 

to go back to talk to our colleagues and leaders about 

adding this or adding these pieces. So that would be a 

point where you could just do thumbs down and then state 

why.

 DR. MCTIER: Gotcha. But then on my 

other one, I will put my my finger as sideways, the first 

one.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Okay, thank you. So 
29

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

I've got a temperature check on a confined or 

incarcerated individual. The definition mirroring that's 

the statute and also including juvenile justice justice 

facility in the definition.

 MS. MCARDLE: Okay. There are two 

thumbs down. And I guess we'll start with, who should we 

start with?

 MR. WASHINGTON: It's up to you, 

Sophia. 

 MS. MCARDLE: Let's go with Stan first 

and then go to Belinda.

 DR. ANDRISSE: So I'm just 

acknowledging the comments, the additions by Terrell and 

Dr. McTier that are in the sidebar there.

 MS. WHEELER: That's the same for me. 

I just want the acknowledgement of those bubbles. Thank 

you.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. Okay, we 

can move down to 600.7. This is, Vanessa, if you can 

scroll down to like, I guess the first there's a lot of 

red in there, but just scroll down to the first piece of 

red. Yep. Okay, so we'll just take a temperature check on 

the whole 600.7. as a whole. This is codifying the 

process by which the Department will not grant the waiver 

to exceed 25% of students. If 25, if an institution has 
30

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

more than 25% of their regular roles, because they're 

incarcerated, they can apply to the Department for a 

waiver and these are the conditions for which the 

Department will not approve a waiver or grant a waiver. 

And it also discusses it also, if you scroll down a 

little bit Vanessa, it also discusses if the waiver is 

approved, then the the circumstances under which we can 

withdraw the waiver and the wind and then how the 

institution would go about winding down if the waiver has 

been drawn. So can I see thumbs?

 MS. MCARDLE: I'm still waiting, okay, 

there are no thumbs down at this point. 

 MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. Can we go to 

600.10, Vanessa? Okay, so we didn't specifically talk 

about 600.10 like, just on this paper, but we did talk 

about it when we talked about the application that the 

school would make to the Department of Education under 

668.8. So essentially, here we're just codifying a 

regulation that the Department's proposal that the first 

eligible prisoners, that the that the, the Department 

must, the Secretary must approve the first prison 

education program at the first two additional locations. 

So that's, that's what we're going to that's what we're 

adding. And we talked about that under the definition of 

668.8 but we're proposing that the Secretary approve the 
31

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

first prison education program at the first two 

additional locations. Sophia, do we have a hand up or? 

 MS. MCARDLE: I don't see any thumbs 

yet. 

 MR. WASHINGTON: I didn't know if we 

had a hand up.

 MS. MCARDLE: But Dave has his hand 

up. So are we doing let's, let's do the thumbs first, and 

then we can get to go to Dave.

 MR. MUSSER: I'm sorry, Sophia. Real 

quick, this was an explanation for why there's some text 

in here that people probably won't understand. Because we 

haven't really talked about it and it's unrelated. If you 

see C one, romanette three there, that's actually a 

technical change from a completely different part of the 

regulations that is going to happen regardless of what we 

do here. So you can ignore that. I think what you're 

giving a thumbs what you're giving thumbs for is the are 

the provisions elsewhere. And especially specifically in 

C one, romanette two. Sorry about that. Sorry for jumping 

in.

 MS. MCARDLE: That's okay. So let's go 

ahead and do the thumbs now. We can look at them now 

then. Okay, and no thumbs down.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you, Sophia. 
32

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

Vanessa, can you go to 600.21? This is in regard to 

reporting additional locations to the Department. So this 

is just updating application information. So updating 

your Participation Agreement with the Department to 

inform us within 10 days of the change that, that you've 

added another that you've added to eligible prison 

education program. We're not voting on Belinda's edit, 

Belinda's edit was the establishment of an eligible 

career, sorry, an eligible prison education program at an 

additional location as defined in 600.2. We are not 

voting on that, we are voting on the language as is 

there. So if your thumbs down, you can explain why. So, 

so show us your thumbs. 

 MS. MCARDLE: Okay, we have one thumb 

down. I can't see Angie and I cannot see Dr. McTier. 

Okay, I have one thumbs down. And that is from Kim.

 MS. CARY: Just clarifying that 

Belinda's, Belinda's thing there? Otherwise, it'd be 

good.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. I'm just 

writing as fast as I can. Alright? Vanessa, can we go to 

668.8? We're going to, you know what, let's take this as 

a whole, let's take it as a whole, I know that there's a 

lot in there. But if you're a thumbs down, then you can 

just point out the section that you're that you will let 
33

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

us know what section you're a thumbs down for. This is 

the definition of a prison education program. And then we 

can ask Vanessa to scroll to the area that you want to 

discuss. So you're, so Sophia will let us know who what 

order we should go in. And then- 

 MS. MCARDLE: We do have Stan Stanley 

asking a question, I believe. 

 MR. WASHINGTON: Okay.

 DR. ANDRISSE: I think it's a lot to I 

mean, I'm a thumbs down. And I think it's a lot to go 

through. And I think we should try at least, you know, 

couple sections at a time, but not all as a whole.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Okay, let's do that. 

Okay, Vanessa if you can scroll back up to the top. So in 

paragraph N, we've just provided that we've just added to 

the regulation, that the Department considers a prison 

education program as an eligible program.

 DR. ANDRISSE: I mean, even if we just 

do what can be captured on the screen, that way, we could 

at least be refreshed of what we're discussing. And we 

can do couple at a time in that way. 

 MR. WASHINGTON: I guess what's 

captured on the screen is like some of them, you know, 

some sometimes we'll jump from like, or it might not the 

whole entire thought in the regulation might not be 
34

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

captured on the screen. Like let's say you just see half 

of like what we're proposing for our accreditation or 

half of what we're proposing for the Department's 

approval? I think Stan, you had offered let's go section 

by section. So I think maybe we should, hopefully just do 

that. Okay. Alright. So how about N? Just this is a 

technical change, what I would consider a technical 

change. We're essentially saying that, you know, it is an 

eligible, a prison education program is an eligible 

program.

 MS. MCARDLE: I have no thumbs down.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. Alright. Let's 

start with (o)1, (o)1 is a statutory change. That is 

saying that. That's only only I'm sorry, only public non 

profit or vocational institutions are eligible to provide 

a prison education program that is in the law. So we see 

that as technical. Thumbs?

 MS. MCARDLE: I have no thumbs down.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. Vanessa, could 

you scroll down a little bit? Thank you. That so (o)2 is 

also directly from statute. The institution has to be 

approved by the BOP, DOC, or other entity to to operate 

in the correctional facility. The postsecondary 

institution has to be approved to operate in the 

correctional facility. This is a statutory this is 
35

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

directly from the statute, no changes were made.

 MS. MCARDLE: I have no thumbs down.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. (o)3. This was 

essentially out of the statute. But this is where this is 

essentially where we're saying that after two years of 

approval by the BOP or DOC, the postsecondary the the 

Bureau of Prisons would then have to begin evaluating 

programs or determining programs are in the best interest 

of student based on the definition that we're going to 

create here. 

 MS. MCARDLE: Stan had a hand up I'm 

not sure if you had a question, Stan.

 DR. ANDRISSE: Yes, I I actually am a 

thumbs down for the one before actually.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Stan, can you explain 

why?

 DR. ANDRISSE: I think this is where I 

would like to propose the idea that there is a collective 

of stakeholders involved, if I if I'm recalling 

correctly. 

 MR. WASHINGTON: I believe that was 

the next one. I put Dr. McTier and Stan's comments. If 

you see the next paragraph 3(i), I put your comment 

there.

 DR. ANDRISSE: Okay.
36

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

 MR. WASHINGTON: Vanessa's 

highlighting it. I'm getting feedback. Give me one 

second, I'm sorry. Let's just vote on let's just vote on 

3 altogether. As opposed to voting on 3 (i), 3 (ii) So 

essentially, we're saying after-- So let's vote on all 

3. So after two years of approval under the so that 

essentially we're saying we will give them two years of 

approval initially. And then after that, the Department 

after that the Department Bureau of Prisons and 

Department of Corrections would have to apply our 

definition as we define it through the subcommittee to 

the program's continued approval to this institution 

continued continued approval to operate a program at a 

operated prison education program at a correctional 

facility.

 MS. MCARDLE: I have two thumbs down 

so far, two thumbs down. 

 MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. 

 MS. MCARDLE: Let's start with Stan 

and then go to Dr. McTier. Stan, Stan. Yeah, I think 

you're on mute. Sorry.

 DR. ANDRISSE: Sorry, I'm trying to 

read through what's on the screen, as well as looking at 

the document in another view. So I'm in the thumbs down, 

because what Dr. McTier and I mentioned in the sidebar 
37

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

there. And I mean, looking back through it, I'm, you 

know, I'm also a thumbs down for for the for number two, 

because for the similar reason, it is number two is 

saying that it is the correction, I'm against the 

Department of Corrections being the gatekeeper to these 

programs. And that is what number 2 is saying. Correct? 

And am I reading that correctly?

 MR. WASHINGTON: Yes, Stan, you're 

reading it correctly, that is- 

 DR. ANDRISSE: So I'm a thumbs down 

for that, I think. You know, I think that the collective 

of stakeholders should be involved at that approval 

stage, that gatekeeping stage.

 MR. WASHINGTON: To reiterate, I just 

want to reiterate that the there is a weigh-in from the 

Department of Education, there's a weigh-in from the 

accreditor. There's also a weigh-in from the State. The 

Bureau of Prisons is is not the only entity that will 

that will have a say in whether a program can operate or 

whether a prison education program can be established at 

a correctional facility. 

 DR. ANDRISSE: So, yes, so the 

Department, the Secretary has the ability to say it won't 

happen. The accreditor has the ability to say it won't 

happen. And the Department of Corrections has an ability 
38

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

to say that it won't happen. So I and what I'm suggesting 

is that the Department of, particularly for the 

Department of Correction piece, that there be a 

collection of stakeholders that advises the Department of 

Correction. So, you know, the way I'm looking at it as 

the Secretary of Education has a pretty good handle on 

education. The accrediting institutions and agencies that 

accredit education programs have a pretty good handle on 

Education. Department of Corrections do not have a 

handle, it is not their job to have a handle on 

education. So for that reason, I think that there should 

be a collective of stakeholders that is helping to advise 

the Department of Corrections in that decision process.

 MS. MCARDLE: And should we go Dr. 

McTier, or do you want to respond Aaron?

 MR. WASHINGTON: No, let’s go to Dr. 

McTier, please. 

 MS. MCARDLE: Dr. McTier.

 DR. MCTIER: I echo all the sentiments 

of Stanley Andrisse. I'm not a fan of the lack of 

students, formerly incarcerated students at the table. 

Surprised that, you know, the individual applying to 

establish this program is not at the table, I do think 

that they should also have a voice to explain or further 

articulate as to why they want to establish the program 
39

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

beyond just the application phase. Right. So I just think 

there needs to be key stakeholders, and a representative 

from each constituency group at the table, as it relates 

to 2, I am not a fan of the recidivism rates being added 

on I just think some of these metrics are not-- our I 

think some of these metrics are problematic. I've stated 

that through throughout this subcommittee, I'm not going 

to go into too much detail. I understand that they're 

statutory. But just because they're statutory doesn't 

mean that I agree with them. I think there's just too 

many nuances that exist. I don't think the Department of 

Education understands what it's like to be incarcerated

and then released from a prison facility. And I don't 

think that there's a lot of expertise from the Department 

of Education side, on what actually needs to be looked 

at. I just feel like we they completely missed the mark, 

in this particular area, so my thumb is down. I don't 

support it.

 MS. MCARDLE: Stan?

 DR. ANDRISSE: Yeah. So, you know, 

just to mention, again, that my thumb is down for both 2 

and 3. And, you know, to touch on 2 again, and then also 

the comment on why it's down for 3 is, you know, I think 

we can still leave it as is and add in that stakeholder 

piece, where it's still the Department of Correction, 
40

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

they're just being advised. I mean, when, you know, I had 

brought up, I had asked Aaron, like, what was the 

envision of how these new programs will be started? And 

you know, who is it-- the education institution that 

approaches the DOC? Or is it a DOC that approaches the 

education institution? I think, thinking about that is is 

important. In most cases, I mean, I don't know, but I 

know for for the most part of my experiences, and knowing 

a lot about the different programs that are already in 

place. It wasn't the DOC that approached an education 

institution, it's it's an education institution, that 

ended up approaching a DOC for a partnership. And the DOC 

generally is like, you know, I don't know too much about 

this, like, please, you know, so there's there's 

multiple, multiple, multiple relationship building 

meetings around just getting the DOC to understand what 

you know how prison education program runs. If we if it 

is included in there, that there's already a body,an 

entity, an advising group of stakeholders present for the 

DOC to rely on, then the DOC can lean on that since the 

DOC is not, you know, it is not their responsibility to 

know all there is to know about education, but they could 

rely on this advisory committee of individual 

stakeholders and such to help them in making that 

decision.
41

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you, Stan. I 

wanted to circle back to Dr. McTier. Are you are you now 

a thumbs down for paragraph two? I just wanted to make 

sure I get the tally. You said that you agree with Stan.

 DR. MCTIER: I am sorry I was, Roman 

numeral two.

 MR. WASHINGTON: The number 2, 

Vanessa, can you highlight that? Yeah.

 DR. MCTIER: It's under 3. Are we 

talking about 3? 

 MR. WASHINGTON: Oh, I'm sorry, I 

thought you were just I thought you were saying because 

Stan had went back and said he's now a thumbs down for 

number 2, originally, he was not. And so I know you said 

you agree with everything Stan said about the Bureau of 

Prisons and not--in wanting to work collaborative, 

collaboratively or in partnership with other key 

stakeholders. I want to also say guests, guests have that 

ability to raise their hands, but they will not have the 

ability to speak. And so, if you're watching from the 

public, while you do have the ability to raise your hand, 

consequently, you don't have the ability to speak, I 

think I just saw hand raised from the public. But but so 

I just wanted to ensure Dr. McTier that you were- 

 DR. MCTIER: Well my thumb is down for 
42

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

definitely for 2 because I do want that that partnership, 

piece added into that. And then for 3 Roman numeral 1 and 

2, and then all those A,B,C,D I'm definitely down.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. A,B,C,D. So 

you're talking about the out, you're referring to, you're 

down, down down the outcomes?

 DR. MCTIER: Well, that's what I 

thought we were on. Are we on? You? Are we on number 3 

Roman numeral 1 and 2? 

 MR. WASHINGTON: We're on number 3 

right now. And I apologize for being for being so 

confusing. But I just want to first I want to circle back 

to see what your if any of you were still sideways, 

thumbs for number 2, which you said, your thumbs down. 

And then for number 3, you said that you were thumbs down 

because of the recidivism at first. And then you said I'm 

also thumbs down because of A,B,C,D and so- 

 DR. MCTIER: Etc cetera. I'm not a 

fan, my thumb is down because for 3 specifically for 3. 

I've already explained why I'm thumbs down for the 

recidivism rates and all of those things. For 2 my my 

thumb was to the side, because you did say that it was 

statutory. But if I could put it down, I would with the 

caveat that you know, I do want to see that stakeholder 

piece added into both of these areas. But because it's a 
43

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

statutory requirement, my my, my thumb is to the side 

with the I really want to put down.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Oh, okay. I'd like to 

move to paragraph four. Sophie, well, let me know. Let me 

know when whenever we're ready.

 MS. MCARDLE: Okay, so let's get 

everybody's thumbs then.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Oh, do we have a 

four? Now let me see, did we skip four? There could be 

some technical, like issues with like the numbering in 

the document. Oh, if you could, let's see. Scroll down, 

Vanessa. Yeah, I think we skipped number four, you know 

what it was, if you can scroll back up Vanessa, to the 

Roman numeral four, I think you will that was originally

the number four and we made it Roman numeral four. So 

this was let's this was that the going forward, the 

Bureau of Prisons will be required, we're proposing to 

require the Bureau of Prisons to make the determination 

going forward into the future 90 days before the 

expiration of the institution's program Participation 

Agreement. So that would essentially be about every six 

years, the Bureau of Prisons, State Department of 

Corrections, based on the definition that we create here

will make that decision that the programs are operating 

in the best interest of students. Each each each, each 
44

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

institution would have different expiration dates for 

their program Participation Agreement, but but 

essentially, a program participation agreement could last 

up to six years depending on if the institution is on 

provisional certification. That could that would be 

whatever the agreement was between the Department and 

that institution. But if but generally for many 

institutions, it would be every, every every six years 

the determination would need to be remade that the 

programs continue to operate in the best interest of 

students. 

 MS. MCARDLE: So are we ready to get a 

thumb?

 MR. WASHINGTON: Oh, yeah, please, 

Sophia.

 MS. MCARDLE: Let's see the thumbs 

then. Okay, I got-- see I can't see Angie's thumb. I'm 

sorry, doctor. Oh, thank you. I have no thumbs down.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. Alright. 

Vanessa, can we go to (o)5. This is transferability of 

credit. This was this mirrors the statute, one minor 

technical change, to update the CFR, the Code of Federal 

Regulation references. So we can do the temperature 

check, Sophia.

 MS. MCARDLE: Okay. And I don't see 
45

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

any thumbs down.

 MR. WASHINGTON: (o)6, this was this 

was (o)6 was essentially from statute however, we we did 

add clarifying language, that it has to be a final 

accrediting action, that is an adverse action. So the 

institution would have to have exhausted all their 

appeals processes. And then the final action by their 

creditor was to revoke accreditation. So if any of these 

things happen, so if any of these things happen under 

six, you know it from the Department's perspective, from 

the creditors perspective, or the state's perspective, 

the postsecondary institution cannot offer a prison 

education program. We're not voting, we're not taking a 

temperature check on Belinda's proposed addition to cross 

reference to 6 (o)2. So if you are a thumbs down, 

Belinda, if even if your thumbs down, because that's not 

in there, you can just you know, let us know.

 MS. MCARDLE: And I just want to check 

if Kim had a question or if this was in respect to the 

actual check.

 MS. CARY: Question. I have a question 

really quick. Aaron, I believe it was yesterday I asked 

about the ability for school, an institution, to continue

or start in a program if they were under program review. 

Would that be language that we would need to put here?
46

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

 MR. WASHINGTON: You know, what, I, 

Vanessa, can you put that can you put that? 

 MS. CARY: Thank you, Aaron.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Program Review 

underneath the underneath Belinda's comments. We’ll have 

to take that back and talk about it. But that would be 

Dr. Paccione. Vanessa, you can write Dr. P, Dr. Paccione 

 MS. MCARDLE: I think this was Kim, 

right? 

 MR. WASHINGTON: Was that? Was that 

Kim? Or was that Dr. Paccione speaking? 

 MS. CARY: It was Kim. Thank you. 

 MR. WASHINGTON: Oh, sorry, Kim. I 

apologize.

 MS. CARY: That's alright.

 MS. MCARDLE: Sorry. I have another 

question from Stan.

 DR. ANDRISSE: Yeah, I just wanted to 

it was not added in the document. My comment earlier on 

number 2 and the DOC being the gatekeeper, I would, if 

you wouldn't mind going back, I can give you the 

suggested language that I would like you to put there. So 

you know, even in regard to this being statutory that the 

DOC needs to be in that decision making capacity. I would 

like the language added, “with guidance from a 
47

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

stakeholder advisory group.” 

 MS. GOMEZ: So you want me to type 

exactly where you're saying right now? Okay. 

 DR. ANDRISSE: Yeah. So with with 

guidance from a stakeholder group, with guidance from a 

stakeholder advisory group, to include and essentially 

the same stakeholder groups that we've mentioned in the, 

that Dr. McTier mentioned in the bottom. You know, just 

two comments below.

 MS. MCARDLE: Okay, so let's go back 

down then and do the thumb check. Please remember to put 

the thumbs close to your face so I can see them. Okay, I 

have at least two thumbs down. I can't see Dr. McTier and 

I cannot see Marisa. Dr. McTier has a question.

 DR. MCTIER: Okay, we're back to what 

section again, I'm sorry. Okay, 6. Alright.

 MS. MCARDLE: Shall we try again? 

Let's try again. Let's do that thumbs again. So again, I 

have thumbs down from Belinda, thumbs down from Stan. And 

I cannot see Marisa for some reason. Oh, there you are. 

And I cannot see Dr. McTier. Okay, it looks like okay, 

there's things blocking them. So we have two thumbs down. 

Let's start with Belinda this time.

 MS. WHEELER: Yep, thank you. The only 

reason my finger my thumb is down is because of those two 
48

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

bubbles. I want to make sure that those are acknowledged. 

I think it's really important to for potentially that 

program review that's so important with making sure that 

students are protected. And then just for clarity, that 

cross reference so just want to acknowledge those 

bubbles. Thank you.

 MS. MCARDLE: Okay, and I'm not sure. 

Dr. McTier, did you have a question or? No, thumbs down. 

And the other thumb was I lost track myself. There was 

another thumb down that was, was that Kim or Stan?

 MS. CARY: It was not Kim, but I 

would agree with my own comment there that I would want 

that included. 

 MS. MCARDLE: Okay.

 DR. ANDRISSE: And that's why I had it 

down as well.

 MS. MCARDLE: Okay. 

 MR. WASHINGTON: I heard that Dr. 

McTier had his thumb down.

 MS. MCARDLE: No, no. Yeah 

(inaudible).

 MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah. Alright, 

Vanessa, we can move up. (o)7. This was about the 

initiated adverse action, so- 

 MS. MCARDLE: Can we just there's a 
49

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

question from Dr. Paccione.

 DR. PACCIONE: Yeah, I don't know if 

you can hear me. But can we is it safe is it safe to 

assume that all the comments that were made that are 

going to be included? Or should we be voting no, just to 

say we want to make sure that those comments are 

acknowledged? Can we just-- is it safe to assume that all 

of the comments that were made during the sessions are 

going to be addressed and it's not safe to okay, I 

thought alright, thank you guys.

 MR. WASHINGTON: All of the comments 

that were made will be addressed whether the whether we 

adopt them or propose to adopt them or not and if we 

propose not to adopt them first of all this again, I this 

is a subcommittee recommendation, right? But we have to 

keep in mind the Department of Education does have a vote 

at the main table as well. Like Jennifer Hong can vote 

is on this package as well. But if I if we come back the 

next session, and then after discussions with leadership 

and colleagues, if there's rationale for why we really 

don't believe something should be included that will be 

provided to the subcommittee the subcommittee chooses to 

push forward with the recommendation like we want this 

included and this is what we want to present to the main 

committee then that's that's up to the subcommittee but 
50

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

what I can do is provide the rationale behind why the 

Department doesn't think something maybe something should 

be included for example well I won't give example but but 

but I'm but we will provide rationale at least for why we 

don't think it should be included. Is that okay? And so 

that's why I want to vote on the language on the screen 

because we haven't had it and not the comment bubbles 

because we haven't had a chance to fully discuss 

everything in the comment bubbles just yet.

 MS. MCARDLE: And also we have a hand 

up from Stan.

 DR. ANDRISSE: Yeah I was I was just 

going to clarify what you just said so we're we are 

temperature checking our feeling on every-- what's not in 

the comment bubbles. But and then I also wanted to just 

clarify and add to my subcommittee members that you know 

what we finally decide is upon us and you know, for 

instance Dr. McTier's, strong suggestion against 

recidivism, we make that decision you know, not not Aaron 

for instance and the other Department of ED colleagues, 

am I correct on that? It is the subcommittee members that 

make the final piece that is that is brought to the sub 

that is brought to the full committee.

 MR. WASHINGTON: That's correct. Okay,

and I think with the thumbs down you-- people are 
51

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

expressing why the thumb is down so I mean, you know, 

you're saying I'm gonna put my thumb down because you're 

gonna address my comment bubble. We we kind of the 

Department knows why your thumb is down. So number number 

7 is the initiated adverse action piece. And that was 

about if there's an initiated adverse action, if the if 

the accreditor takes steps to initiate an adverse action, 

suspension, revocation, and Beth wants to jump in there 

with other items that the accreditor can do, if they take 

steps to initiate an adverse action, then the institution 

cannot begin a prison education program. And if there are 

already prisoner education programs active at a 

correctional facility/additional location, then there, 

they would have to submit a teach out plan to the to 

their to their accreditor. So your thumbs please?

 MS. MCARDLE: And I cannot see Stan's 

or Dr.McTier's, if you can put them by your face. Okay.

 DR. MCTIER: Can you repeat it? I'm 

sorry, I did get sidetracked.

 MR. WASHINGTON: So this this 

paragraph was about initiated adverse actions. So if the 

if the if the accreditor takes steps to initiate some 

sort of adverse or negative action against the 

institution, such as terminating, suspending or revoking 

the accreditation or pre accreditation of the 
52

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

institution, that institution would not be able to offer 

a prison education program. So if they apply to the 

Department got all our stuff together, we want to we want 

to provide a prison education program at X correctional 

facility, that will be it'll be denied they couldn't do 

it, because they had an initiated adverse action. And 

there's a process an appeal process that the institution 

can go to go through in order to resolve that initiated 

adverse action. And only at that point, could the could 

the institution offer a prison education program, and if 

the institution already offers prison education programs, 

they would have to create a teach out plan for that 

prison education program in order to have a plan for, for 

for for in the unfortunate event, that the final 

accrediting action was adverse. And accreditation was 

revoked from institution and therefore, the students in 

that program can no longer receive Title IV aid.

 MS. MCARDLE: Okay, no thumbs down 

then.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Okay, let's go to 

paragraph 8. This paragraph is directly from the statute. 

And this is just saying if the program leads to 

licensure, or certification, that it would have to 

satisfy the applicable licensure requirement, like the 

applicable the applicable educational requirements in the 
53

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

state, if it's a correctional facility other than a 

Federal Correctional Facility, and if it's a Federal 

Correctional Facility, in the state that most students 

will reside upon release. And we're not voting on the 

comment bubble. Kim had made the recommendation that the 

postsecondary institution would make that decision, but 

we're not voting on that comment bubble. We're just 

voting on language. This was this was directly from the 

statute.

 MS. MCARDLE: Okay, I have one thumbs 

down. That's from Kim.

 MS. CARY: Just to add the language 

for clarification. 

 MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. Paragraph 9. 

Paragraph received a lot of discussion yesterday. This 

was about not offering education to a student if their- 

 MS. MCARDLE: Just one moment, I Dr. 

McTier are you voting for the thumbs down in the prior or 

the now?

 MS. MCARDLE: Now, okay. Go ahead, 

AaronAaron, I think you're on mute.

 MR. WASHINGTON: It does not offer 

education that is designed to lead to licensure 

employment for a specific job or occupation. And the 

state of such job occupations typically involves 
54

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

prohibition on licensure or employment to a formerly 

incarcerated student. And then to kind of have that 

nuance about if it's anything other than a state, Federal 

Correctional Facility in that state or if it's a Federal 

Correctional Facility in the state that that most of us 

will reside upon release. And Vanessa if you can scroll 

down a little bit, the Department has added go back up, 

just maybe we can try and get Roman romanette one. Yep. 

And the Department has added a little more clarifying 

language to say that, essentially, the school, the 

institution cannot enroll a student in a program, if 

there's any state law that bans, bars, or prohibits 

licensure or employment based on criminal conviction or a 

specific type of conviction. Then again, we had that 

nuance again, where if it's a State Correctional Facility 

in the state that the correctional facility is located in 

or if it's a Federal Correctional Facility, the state 

that most students would reside upon release, or 

individuals reside upon release. So can we get a thumb 

temperature check on that?

 MS. MCARDLE: Okay, I have three 

thumbs down. Let's start with Dr. McTier.

 DR. MCTIER: I just want to echo or 

acknowledge Terrell's comment in the bubble. But just 

really want to make sure that students have the agency to 
55

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

decide on what type of education that they want to choose 

with the expectation and with the expectation that the 

institution makes them aware of, you know, potential 

barriers that may exist. But just to say that we can't 

offer degrees because of licensure. I don't agree with 

that.

 MS. MCARDLE: Let's go to Stan. And 

then Belinda.

 DR. ANDRISSE: Mine was the exact 

same.

 MS. MCARDLE: Belinda.

 MS. WHEELER: Thank you. This 

acknowledges I just wanted to acknowledge the bubble and 

how important that is. And I'm already working with 

constituents and colleagues on the subcommittee and we'll 

share with the subcommittee via email, some new language, 

which put some advocacy in there for both students that 

want to pursue a degree that currently is limited because 

of a statute and requiring, you know, educational 

partners to really kind of, you know, let's see if we can 

provide some opportunities for students with community 

partners and education to actually remove some of these 

statutory licensure restrictions right now. So there will 

be some new language coming in but also acknowledging the 

excellent beginnings that Stan and Dr. McTier have said 
56

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

in this space. Thank you.

 MS. MCARDLE: Kim.

 MS. CARY: Just to clarify for Belinda 

a note, you and I have not talked off off camera but make 

sure you add in here about the how that connects back to 

placement rates. Thank you.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Kim, were you a 

thumbs down or?

 MS. CARY: No, I was not. I was 

sideways.

 MS. MCARDLE: She had a question or a 

comment.

 MR. WASHINGTON: I'm sorry, Sophia, I 

didn't-- somebody had a question?

 MS. MCARDLE: No, no, that was Kim. 

Kim had a question. That was her. She was thumbs 

sideways. But then she had a comment.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Alright. Okay, thank 

you, Sophia. Paragraph 10 is regarding accreditor 

accreditor requirements. So they'll evaluate the first 

prison education program at the first two additional 

locations. They will perform a site visit at those 

locations no later than one year after initiating the 

program. And they'll also review and approve the 

methodology behind the input indicators. We're not voting 
57

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

on Belinda's comment bubble, and if there's a downvote 

then folks can explain.

 MS. MCARDLE: I have 3. 1, 2, 3 down. 

Let's start with Belinda, then go to Kim, and then go to 

Stan.

 MS. WHEELER: Thank you. Yes, this is 

just the acknowledgement of the on the bubble off to the 

side. And then I'm continuing to work with, you know, 

constituents, colleagues, as we kind of look to clarify 

this further and provide language to the subcommittee. 

Thank you.

 MS. MCARDLE: Kim.

 MS. CARY: Just acknowledgement of 

Belinda's comment.

 MS. MCARDLE: And Stan.

 DR. ANDRISSE: The same. 

 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you all. 

Paragraph 11 Vanessa. Paragraph 11 is is similar to the 

preceding paragraph. This is the Department's approval. 

We are also proposing to approve the first prison 

education program at the first two additional locations. 

After that, the prison education programs no longer have 

to be approved, but they do have to comply with various 

parts of the Code of Federal Regulations and 25% waiver. 

In some reporting things they are adding if certain types 
58

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

of institutions are adding additional locations, they 

would have to get approval first if they're under a 

heightened cash monitoring, or other or provisional 

certification. And then also under paragraph 11 is the 

application process to the Secretary for the first 

program of the first two additional locations. I think 

there's a little more, Vanessa, can you scroll down? I 

think there's a little more. Yeah, this is okay. And so 

if the first two is the first prison education program at 

the first two additional locations is approved, romanette 

three is the process by which institutions would apply to 

have subsequent would report to the Department subsequent 

programs? By just letting us know that there's no the 

accreditor will let us know that there's no initiated the 

school will let us know that there's no initiated adverse 

action, there's no final adverse action within the last 

five years. And also that there's, the state has not 

moved to revoke its licensure, its state authorization in 

the last five years. So I'll pause there for temperature 

check or question.

 MS. MCARDLE: On this, I believe a 

question from Kim, or a comment. 

 MS. CARY: A comment. Dr. McTier is 

this where on (E) reentry counseling was brought up 

earlier, and I don't see a bubble, or any comment out
59

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

there is is that needed? Or am I in the wrong section?

 MR. WASHINGTON: If I can, but 

Vanessa, can you scroll out to B really quickly? Oh, 

yeah.

 MS. CARY: E, sorry, E as in entry.

 DR. MCTIER: Yes, I think this is what 

we were talking well. Yeah. Well, the conversation we had 

early this morning.

 MS. CARY: Okay, does there need to be 

a bubble there to discuss? If I remember correctly, this 

was where we want to have more of a collaboration and not 

just put this on the institution or the DOC, we wanted to 

have third party entities involved, much like what you 

and Stan work with every day. Is that correct? 

 DR. ANDRISSE: (interposing) I'm 

sorry, go ahead Dr. McTier.

 DR. MCTIER: Yeah, my stance was that 

for the academic institution, or the academic program, 

that is applying for applying to establish a program, not 

making this a like a requirement, but an option, just in 

case, you know, they don't have the necessary band 

manpower, or the bandwidth to carry out the reentry 

component. This seems like more of an expectation that 

they do that. And then I know a lot of educational 

programs, establish or want to provide educational 
60

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

services and degrees, not the reentry component, because 

it's outside of their wheelhouse. So I just want to make 

sure that that is clear. I do think it's, I really want 

to go on record and say I think it's very important that 

reentry services are provided by those who know what 

they're doing. I just don't think that educational 

institutions and programs have the tools to do that part.

 MS. CARY: Thank you. I was thinking 

this was where it was at. And sometimes you'd said also 

that maybe on the DOC side, they don't allow that that 

connection to happen sometimes. So I guess I just want to 

make sure that point was brought up since I didn't see a 

bullet there.

 MS. MCARDLE: And also we have a 

comment from Stan.

 DR. ANDRISSE: Yes, I would. You know, 

we plan, as Belinda has mentioned and as I have 

mentioned, to provide some language, but I also think 

that if you can add the bulleted or excuse me, the 

bubbled comment for Dr. McTier as well as my comment to 

this. You know, I also said that, similar to what he's 

what Dr. McTier just mentioned that reentry counseling is 

I think that it should be included. And it should be, you 

know, community based organizations that have expertise 

in providing those services.
61

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

 MS. MCARDLE: Aaron, did you have a 

comment or are we ready for the temperature check?

 MR. WASHINGTON: Yes, please, Sophia.

 MS. MCARDLE: Okay, everybody thumbs 

to faces so we can see what you probably don't see is 

that your mute your mute num symbol, sometimes block your 

thumbs and I see 1,2,3,4. I can't see Marisa's. Five 

thumbs down. So let's just go from Belinda and then Kim, 

Dr. McTieer, Stan, and Dr. Paccione. 

 MS. WHEELER: Thank you. It's just the 

acknowledgement of the bubble. Thank you very much.

 MS. MCARDLE: Kim.

 MS. CARY: Same, thank you.

 MS. MCARDLE: Dr. McTier.

 DR. MCTIER: Same.

 MS. MCARDLE: Stan.

 DR. ANDRISSE: And I also the same as 

well.

 MS. MCARDLE: Dr. Paccione.

 DR. PACCIONE: Same.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. Let's go to 12. 

Thank you, Vanessa.

 DR. ANDRISSE: So I did have a 

question on that part. Is this the-- could you remind me 

what part that is in? Is that the metrics part? Or what 
62

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

section is that in that would the reentry counseling. 

 MR. WASHINGTON: So this, that would 

be under 668.8 (o)11. And that would be the application 

that the postsecondary institution submits to the 

Department of Education for the first program at the 

first two additional location. So after you get your 

approval from the Bureau of Prisons, Department of 

Corrections, after you get your approval from the 

accreditor, then well, the postsecondary institution, and 

the postsecondary institution would then submit this 

information to the Department of Education.

 DR. ANDRISSE: And are you running a 

program already at this phase?

 MR. WASHINGTON: At this phase? You 

are not. You're submitting your application to start your 

first prison education program at your first additional 

location or your second additional location. 

 DR. ANDRISSE: So that that I mean, I 

that's what keeps throwing me off with the additional 

location piece. I I'm thinking of it as an additional 

prison education location, but it's an additional 

location just to the educational institution, the 

additional location of the prison.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Additional location 

to the yeah, it's a postsecondary institution. 
63

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

 DR. ANDRISSE: But it is a first 

prison education program for the institution.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Correct.

 DR. ANDRISSE : Thank you for the 

clarification.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah, maybe we can 

clarify that more in the regulations as well, but I we 

did note five, five thumbs down. Okay, the (o)12 is the 

report. Instead of instead of codifying every every data 

element in regulation, we thought it would be best to 

codify it in the Federal Register annual Federal 

Register. It's published by the Secretary. And that would 

provide that data items that we want to collect and an 

explanation of the process of how institutions would 

submit those to us.

 MS. MCARDLE: And let's see the 

thumbs. The only one I don't see is Stan's. Okay, no 

thumbs down. Thank you.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. (o)13. This is 

this paragraph is the circumstances under which the 

Secretary can withdraw approval of a postsecondary 

institution to offer a prison education program. We're 

not voting on comment bubble. We're only voting on the 

language on the screen. I mean, sorry, the red line

language.
64

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

 MS. MCARDLE: And let's see our 

thumbs. Okay, I have three thumbs down. Let's start with 

Dr. Paccione this time then, Kim, then Belinda.

 DR. PACCIONE: Yeah, I'll go with the 

comment bubble. This needs to be a teach out process.

 MS. MCARDLE: Kim. 

 MS. CARY: Absolutely with the bubble, 

we can't have it without that.

 MS. MCARDLE: Belinda.

 MS. WHEELER: Yes, thank you, the 

bubble. We must have students protected and a teach out 

plan will protect them. Thank you so much.

 MS. MCARDLE: Thank you.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Okay, we have 

completed the definition of a prison education program. 

Vanessa, can you scroll back up a little bit? To (p)

right there. That's perfect. Thank you. This paragraph is 

about winding down of eligible programs that are not 

prison education programs at institutions that are not 

federal or state penal institutions that are currently 

offering programming to to students that are incarcerated 

in anything other than a federal or state penal 

institution, or Correctional Facility, the statute says 

penal institution but Correctional Facility, so we’re 

proposing to allow for either six years after July 1, 
65

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

2023, until the individual student reaches the maximum 

timeframe for their program completion, or the individual 

student reaches has exhausted their Pell eligibility 

under the Pell eligibility rules. And then we're also 

proposing Vanessa, if you can scroll down a little bit. I 

believe we're also proposing that for programs that do 

not transition there, for institutions that do not 

transition their programs, they're eligible programs to 

prison education programs, they cannot enroll new 

students after July 1, 2023, because they would no longer 

be in compliance with the with the statute.

 MS. MCARDLE: We do have a hand up 

from Dr. McTier? I'm not sure if it's a question or a 

comment.

 DR. MCTIER: Well, both for clarity 

purposes. So you just mentioned six years that a student 

is eligible for Pell. I'm just thinking about students 

who are taking one credit or one course that might exceed 

that six years. So are you saying that the student has, 

their Pell Grant will end after six years? Is that how 

I'm understanding this?

 MR. WASHINGTON: Well, we're saying 

that the the institution can continue offering the the 

eligible program for an eligible program for six years 

after July 1, 2023. I think, I think I saw David's hand. 
66

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

I think David Musser will weigh in, if that's okay 

Sophia.

 MS. MCARDLE: Of course. Yes, David. 

 MR. MUSSER: Sure. I just wanted to 

clarify a little bit about how that Pell Grant lifetime 

eligibility works in practice. Each student when they 

file a FAFSA, and they're determined to be eligible for a 

Pell Grant is awarded what we call a scheduled award, 

which is essentially 100% of the student's eligibility 

for the year. But there are a lot of things that can 

reduce that eligibility. One of those is if the student 

is enrolled less than full time, so if they're enrolled 

in just one class, for example, they'll typically receive 

only one quarter of the Pell grant that they would 

otherwise have received. And so then they'll only have 

used 25% of their lifetime eligibility for that period as 

opposed to one or 100%. So when you get to that, we do it 

on a percentage basis such that when a student reaches 

600%, essentially six full years of full awards, that's 

when they're cut off. So if they were less than half time 

only taking one course then they would only accumulate 

25% every single year, which means they could go 10, 15, 

20 years and before they reach that limit. So that's how 

that would play out in this context as well.

 DR. MCTIER: Thank you for that 
67

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

clarification.

 MS. MCARDLE: Okay, so should we take 

our or do you have anything else to add Aaron or should 

we go ahead and with our temperature check? Let us do our 

thumbs. Okay. Stan, which is it?

 DR. ANDRISSE: I guess I'm this way

[sideways thumb] I have questions about this one, but 

yeah, I guess I'm- 

 MS. MCARDLE: Okay. So no thumbs down 

then.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Okay, let's go to 

668.32. This got a lot of discussion. This is amending 

the student eligibility portion of the regulations to say 

that says a student is for eligibility purposes for Pell 

Grant, the student is not incarcerated and if the student 

is incarcerated is enrolled in a eligible prison 

education program as we propose to define it with the 

Department would see this as a technical change.

 MS. MCARDLE: Shall we get our thumbs 

ready to go? I can see. I cannot see, Stan. Alright, I 

have three thumbs down. Let's start with Kim. And then 

we'll move to Dr. McTier and Stan.

 MS. CARY: Just acknowledging Aaron's 

update on the comment to match the description or 

definition of a question, the definition of the student.
68

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

 MS. MCARDLE: Dr. McTier.

 DR. MCTIER: Same, but just also 

acknowledging that the confined and incarcerated there's 

some level of nuance and a level of ambiguity that exists 

with those as it relates to the population as a whole.

 MS. MCARDLE: And Stan.

 DR. ANDRISSE: Same as Dr. McTier.

 MS. MCARDLE: Okay. Thank you.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Let's go to 43. 

Vanessa, these are the disclosures. I forgot to mention 

the Department is open to hearing ideas. We only have 20 

minutes left. But if there's proposals for more 

disclosures, adding more disclosures for students, we're 

also open to that as well. But the two, the two 

disclosures we have here are relating back to the 

statutory language on ensuring if a program leads to 

licensure, that it meets all educational requirements. 

And also if it's if there's any prohibitions on 

employment or licensure, that that students are aware so. 

So these are the these are the disclosures that we 

propose.

 MS. MCARDLE: I have a hand up from 

Dr. McTier.

 DR. MCTIER: So this proposal is that 

the institute the higher education institution, or the 
69

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

specific higher education program provide this 

information to whomever?

 MR. WASHINGTON: Belinda, do you mind 

if I answer Belinda? Okay, it looks like we're saying an 

institution that offers a eligible prison education 

program, the institution will provide this information to 

this student.

 MS. MCARDLE: We have Belinda. And 

then we also have Kim.

 MS. WHEELER: Thank you. My challenge 

with this is the first two words after the Roman numeral, 

one that I, “upon request”, I believe that the whole idea 

of you know this, the population that we're trying to 

serve them having to with technical challenges, all sorts 

of challenges, needing to reach out to an institution to 

ask these questions is is very difficult. So I would like 

to advocate if it's possible, the removal of “on request” 

that this material is just made available to all students 

and they shouldn't have to request it. Thanks. 

 MR. WASHINGTON: Sofia. How many? I'm 

sorry, I didn't hear how many thumbs down do we have?

 MS. MCARDLE: We didn't we didn't have 

a vote yet. Okay, so we had people who were questioning 

or commenting before the vote, so not yet. And we have 

still Kim, who was in the queue to comment.
70

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

 MS. CARY: Thank you. I was thinking 

about this one a lot yesterday and for conversations, and 

I agree with Belinda, that the “upon request” is a little 

daunting. Not only from the students perspective, but 

also from the institutional perspective. If you know, 

someone says, Well, I want to know how every state you 

know, reads their professional license or what's required 

in every state. We don't necessarily have readily 

available information to us, we can certainly find it. 

But maybe we add a bubble in here that it's in 

collaboration with accreditation agencies, that you're 

allowed to gather that information, or they make that 

readily available to, you know, some source where we can 

go to gather that information, easily. Thank you.

 MS. MCARDLE: So there are three 

additional hands up. We have Dr. Paccione, we have Dr. 

McTier and we have Stan.

 DR. PACCIONE: Thank you. I agree with 

what Belinda and Kim said the removing the “upon request” 

and adding a bubble to this section I think is really 

critical.

 MS. MCARDLE: Dr. McTier.

 DR. MCTIER: Maybe we should say, the 

request is for those who are offering licensure programs, 

because I don't want to get into the point of where, say, 
71

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

like a program like mine, we offer liberal arts degrees 

and, we don't offer the licensure component, will we be 

required to provide that information? If a student 

requested, I think we should put that caveat in there 

that if the program is offering licensure, then that 

request can be made, but if not, then yeah.

 MS. MCARDLE: Stan.

 DR. ANDRISSE: I think this was a part 

that I had mentioned, again, the adding of language 

around a advisory group of stakeholders being created. 

And there being language added here. So I mean, if we can 

add a bubble that says, and really what I'm referring to, 

you know, I will go back to my constituency with this and 

see where appropriately, it can have its own bubble or 

you know, its own language. And then that way, you know, 

in parts like this, it can say, refer back to this 

particular section, where, you know, there needs, you 

know, best practices show that having this third party 

group or entity of stakeholder that represent, you know, 

several different groups within, you know, you know, 

stakeholder groups, advising on things such as this would 

be the helpful then it takes, you know, as Dr. McTier 

mentioned, it's it would be difficult for the higher 

education institution to to make this request. But if 

there is this kind of advisory group that is putting out 
72

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

best practices, they could assist and something of this 

nature.

 MS. MCARDLE: Aaron.

 MR. WASHINGTON: I hear I, Stan I got, 

I hear I heard a request for comment bubble, I heard a 

few requests for comment bubbles, because we have 12 

minutes left, I have written down all of the requests. 

And I know we have note takers at the Department. And it 

sounds too if we could take a temperature check because I 

think 1,2,3,4 or 5, we have at least five thumbs down. 

And we'll you know, we'll definitely take all those ideas 

back with just for time sake, maybe asking Vanessa to add 

all those comment bubbles now maybe we still have to vote 

on one more thing, I think. Okay, is that okay with you 

Sophia? 

 MS. MCARDLE: Sure. 

 MR. WASHINGTON: Let’s move to 690.92

This one was about the credit balance issue this week, we 

consider this a technical change. If the if the Pell 

award exceeds cost of attendance, it is required by 

statute to reduce it.

 MS. MCARDLE: And shall we have our 

vote? I cannot see Dr. McTier. Okay, no thumbs down.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Okay, we've gotten 

through it, I, I want to just you know, thank first of 
73

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

all, I just want to thank everybody for all of the 

feedback. We will use all this information that you 

provided us to come back when you language and we 

encourage you all to submit any language suggestions, as 

soon as you can so we can incorporate them. The 

Department is going to start immediately back you know 

going back at the you know the drawing, trying to craft 

new amendatory language for you to discussing your 

changes so the fact the faster you can get it to us, the 

better. I think we meet again on November 8th through the 

10th so if you could get it to us before then that would 

be so helpful so we can incorporate it or if we think 

that it wouldn't be beneficial to incorporate language we 

can provide you with a rationale. Stan has mentioned that 

this is the subcommittee's recommendation if you choose 

to continue to go for what that's the the main committee 

that is your that is your decision. But but I think we 

have some hands up we definitely have 10 more minutes so 

we can keep discussing.

 MS. MCARDLE: We have Stan is next.

 DR. ANDRISSE: Yeah, I just wanted to 

bring up to the subcommittee the the report out that will 

be at the November full committee meeting. So maybe take 

some time to talk about that before we close here.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Stan, you're taking
74

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

my job. I forgot all about that. Yeah, you're making me 

look bad. But the yeah, so I had mentioned that the 

report out will be in December, there, there, there will 

need to be a report out in November as well. But the main 

committee, we have to wait to see when that will be. So 

it might be, you know, pretty quick turnaround for you 

all were, but I will make sure to keep in contact with 

the subcommittee to let them let you all know, when that 

will be, it's will be like a higher level workbook report 

out if the main committee does have if we if I go back 

later. And you know, my colleagues or leaders determine 

that we need something in writing to the to the main 

committee for the November meeting. I'm here to assist in 

helping to write things I know a lot of everybody has 

jobs. So, you know, this is one of my main tasks. So here 

at the Department so I will I can assist. If, you know, 

two days before we find out we need a 10-page report in 

writing, you know, but generally for the November 

session, we would like somebody to volunteer to provide 

an overview of what we discussed here during the 

subcommittee, and, and that that date is to be 

determined, the length of time is to be determined, but I 

will absolutely keep you apprised of, when we get more 

concrete information.

 MS. MCARDLE: Kim.
75

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

 MS. CARY: Thank you. I just wanted to 

let you all know that as a financial aid administrator, I 

did my best to bring issues to the table that were in the 

issue paper. And I appreciate ED's opportunity to allow 

my constituencies to come together and work with NASFAto 

present feedback that can be thought out, I know, it's 

been a huge concern of financial aid administrators that 

the same student eligibility requirements are in place 

for all students. And this particular group has its own 

challenges that we need to address and try to remove as 

many barriers as possible. So I don’t know if David's 

still on here not, but return of funds, all the changes, 

we've seen that that I forgot to mention that one as a, 

an issue that I hope ED looks at, and will certainly be 

bringing that through NASFA to their attention. I don't 

think NASFA’s minding me talk to talking on their behalf 

in that way. That you know, it's sometimes it's not in 

the students. They don't have the choice of being 

transferred to another institution. And we don't want 

that to be a negative aspect for them and stop their 

education. So I'll do my best. If you have any questions, 

please feel free to reach out and ask them. Thank you 

all.

 MS. MCARDLE: And we have Stan, and 

then Dr. McTier with comments, Stan.
76

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

 DR. ANDRISSE: So I just wanted to 

point out that I know so you know, being on the full 

committee, several of the negotiators had mentioned 

wanting to bring to the full committee changing the order 

of the topics. So prison education came last. I know 

there's a number of negotiators that were interested in 

bringing it closer to the front for this round, so it 

doesn't so it receives more attention or time potentially 

than it did this past time. So I know that that's 

something that the negotiators several had thought about 

proposing to changing the time and adding more time to 

it. So in that regard, it may come first or may come near 

the beginning of the week, instead of at the end of the 

week, like it did last time. Additionally, I was going to 

suggest that, you know, maybe we provide the amended 

language as whatever it is that we come up with by that 

time. And then the report out be really, for us to speak 

to the nuanced parts that there wasn't quite agreement 

on. And that can be a way that it is presented to the 

full committee.

 MS. MCARDLE: Dr. McTier. 

 DR. MCTIER: I agree with Stanley 

wholeheartedly, I do think that, you know, this is a new 

program that's being established. And so I think it needs 

the level of attention, as do student loans and whatnot, 
77

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

because, listen, I have my student loans, and I 

definitely want that addressed too. But I do think, you 

know, I'm here for my students and the students that I 

serve and I want them to receive as much attention. So if 

we can get it pushed to the forefront instead of at the 

end of the week, because it did feel completely rushed to 

where we couldn't really dive deep into the necessary 

issues. And it seemed as if the main committee was really 

interested in hammering out some of these details. That's 

point one. Point two is a request if we can get all the 

document with all of the bubbles, and all of the texts 

sent out to the committee members so that way, we can 

have it fresh on our minds. I know we've been, some of us 

are traveling and doing things, I'm sitting in front of 

my prison getting ready to go speak to my students, so I 

don't have my computer and I wasn't able to take notes, 

so it'll just be helpful to have that information. Thank 

you.

 MS. MCARDLE: Aaron.

 MR. WASHINGTON: I'll send out a 

document with the bubbles right after this. Right after 

we conclude.

 MS. MCARDLE: Belinda.

 MS. WHEELER: Thank you. So just 

wanted to double check with the subcommittee and then 
78

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

Aaron with regards to the reporting out and getting 

documents in that ready for the main committee members 

just want to check with the subcommittee. Is everyone 

comfortable with you know, Stan and myself working on 

those documents to to bring them back to the main 

committee? I know, it was kind of addressed super 

quickly, you know, on Monday, Monday afternoon, and I 

just wanted to make sure that, you know, we hear from the 

subcommittee members, and you know, I don't think it 

needs to be a thumb check. But I just want to make sure 

that, you know, that was what we'd kind of left the, the 

conversation with, and I know it was mentioned earlier 

this morning, when we started, you know, Stanley's name 

and my own being offered up, but I just wanted to double 

check that that is, you know, full transparency, and 

everyone is okay with that, or if there are other 

considerations that need to be made. Thank you. 

 MS. MCARDLE: Dr. McTier.

 DR. MCTIER: I'm okay with that, 

speaking for myself, but I will ask that if you know, I'm 

sure we're all working together. But just to keep that 

transparency, the document and the talking points be 

submitted to the group, and to Aaron, and the Department 

of ED. So that way, we are all kept abreast of what's 

going on, that'd be greatly appreciated. 
79

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

 MS. MCARDLE: Aaron.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Oh, yeah, we will. 

We've heard your comments. And I don't know, Sophia, if 

you had any statements that you'd like to make? Or?

 MS. MCARDLE: I would just like to 

thank everybody for their participation and all the 

wonderful information that we've been provided with. 

Thank you.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah. And we can look 

at the we can look at the order of the, of the order of 

topics at the main committee, and we didn't intend to 

rush, but we knew we knew that the subcommittee, would be 

discussing the details. So yeah. I think that's I think 

we're I think that's it. Again, thank you all like I 

thank you all for providing your time to the Department. 

And I'm definitely working on behalf of, you know, 

students and affected students. And I think we've had 

really a really great discussion this week, and so much 

feedback and information to take back in process and 

we're ready for round. Get ready for round two. We have 

two minutes left. I don't want to rush anybody out the 

door. 

 MS. MCARDLE: We do have one comment 

from Stan.

 DR. ANDRISSE: Oh, I just wanted to 
80

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

say it's been a pleasure being here with you all. And 

I've really enjoyed the conversation and an honor to have 

been, you know, accepted to be at this table. Very 

important stuff that we're discussing here. And it's just 

been a pleasure being here with you all.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Agreed. No, I don't 

want, we have 20 seconds left. We're like we're like 

running down the clock. I don't want to end before 3:00. 

I don't I don't want to get an email saying you didn't--

you had to go till 3:00. That's what we said in our in 

our, you know, guidance. So we got five seconds left. So 

thank you all again, and have a wonderful. Oh, we have 

one more comment.

 MS. MCARDLE: Kim. Kim will do it.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Kim will take us out.

 MS. CARY: Aaron, I just wanted to say 

thank you for leading us down this path. Thank you very 

much.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. Alright, 

well, you all have a wonderful rest of your day.

 DR. ANDRISSE: Bye everyone. Take 

care. Get some rest.
81

Subcommittee Meetings- 10/20/21
82

Subcommittee Meetings- 10/20/21