Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

1

 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

 OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION

 PRISON EDUCATION PROGRAMS SUBCOMMITTEE

 SESSION 1, DAY 2, AFTERNOON

October 19, 2021

On the 19th 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 - 10/19/21

P R O C E E D I N G S

 MR. WASHINGTON: -program 

subcommittee, we are going to well, we left off 

discussing how the subcommittee is going to define best 

interest. And I wanted to table that conversation for 

right now, because the Department is going to work on 

some visuals that we can provide the subcommittee, it was 

a request made by several subcommittee members. And so 

we're going to pick that back up tomorrow. And I think we 

should move on into different aspects of the definition 

of Prison Education Program, where we, where we have 

amendatory language that you all received, and that we 

can go through and we can get to your comments on that. 

So before I leave that, did anybody did anybody wants to 

say any last things about the best interest piece before 

I before we before we move on? I know that was a slight 

change. Okay. Alright, Vanessa, if you could project 

paragraph, well, paragraph five of the prison education 

program, definite of the of the definition of a prison 

education program, so that it starts with “offers 

transferability of credits to at least one institution of 

higher education.” It's almost right under the school. If 

you scroll up, oh, there go. Yep. Yeah, it's actually 

perfect. Thank you, Vanessa. So this paragraph generally 

mirrors the statutes. And there's just been one technical 
3

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

change. And so it's saying that the prison education 

program has to offer a transfer transferability of 

credits to at least one institution of higher education, 

as defined in sections 600.4 and 600.6 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations in the state in which the 

correctional facility facility is located or in the case 

of a Federal Correctional Facility in the state in which 

most of the individuals confined or incarcerated in such 

facility will reside upon release. So that is, 

essentially directly mirrored in from a statute and 

regulation. I will pause there for comments.

 MS. MCARDLE: I see no hands.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. So the next 

paragraph is mirror statute as well, the majority of the 

next step number six mirrors statue however, so there, 

these are, these are actions that the Department of 

Education can take against institutions. So if we're 

looking at is offered by an institution that has not been 

subject during the last five years preceding the date of 

the termination, to any suspension, emergency action, or 

termination of programs under this title, so those are 

all actions the Department of Education would take 

against an institution and they're already defined in 

regulation. So the emergency action, suspension and 

termination are defined that mirrors the statutory 
4

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

language. I will pause there for comment.

 MS. MCARDLE: Once again, I see no 

hands.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Alright, so romanette 

two, there is a slight change in the statute. This 

paragraph was based on statutory language but has been 

modified to include the words “final accrediting action.” 

The final accrediting action means a final determination 

by an accrediting agency regarding the accreditation or 

pre-accreditation status of an institution or program. A 

final accrediting action is a decision made by the agency 

at the conclusion of any appeals process available to the 

institution or program under the agency's due process 

policies and procedures. A final action that is an 

adverse action is the denial, withdrawal, suspension, 

revocation or termination of accreditation or preaccreditation, or any comparable accrediting action an 

agency may take against an institution or program.

 MS. MCARDLE: Belinda.

 MS. WHEELER: Yes, thank you for that. 

And thank you also for that clarity of the “final” being 

put in there. One of the things that I've been doing with 

Vera and talking with constituents is talking with 

accreditation agencies as we're getting ready for the 

Pell For All reinstatement. And a number of different 
5

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

accreditation agencies that I spoke with, had wanted some 

clarity about what that adverse action was, because not 

all accreditation agencies are the same with their 

language. So Aaron, I did hear you just now, you know, 

explicitly define that final accreditation action. So my 

question to you is, will there be some kind of have like 

a footnote or reference there so that all the different 

accreditation agencies that will be, you know, in this 

space can see exactly what that is because the nine 

different accreditation agencies that are currently 

working with the 130 plus different Second Chance Pell 

sites, they themselves had noted that there that they 

have differing opinions on the adverse action. So just 

wanted to clarify, will there be some kind of footnote or 

endnote, or some reference there that will provide that 

clarity that the accreditation agencies are seeking?

 MS. MCARDLE: Aaron, did you want to 

respond or should we go to Terrell?

 MR. WASHINGTON: Sure, we also Belinda 

we also have preamble language that we can further 

describe changes that every regulation has preamble 

language we can further describe the the intent or what 

we mean and provide further clarification there. 

 MR. BLOUNT: I just wanted to share 

that I think Dr. McTier wants to chime in and is having 
6

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

trouble accessing his mic.

 MS. MCARDLE: Amy is that something- 

 MS. WILSON: I'm looking right now. 

 MS. MCARDLE: Okay. In the meantime, 

let's go to Elizabeth.

 MS. WILSON: Okay.

 MS. DAGGETT: Thank you, Sophia. I'm 

happy to be here today. I wanted to respond to Belinda's 

comments, and that both the final accrediting action and 

adverse action are definitions that are included in 34 

CFR 602. So those are applicable to all accrediting 

agencies already. So I'm not sure where the confusion 

might lie with the agencies that you've been in contact 

with. But those are already regulatory definitions that 

Aaron was reading.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. Thank you. 

I am happy that you were able to join us today. Did you 

want to just give us a brief introduction? I introduced 

you yesterday, but you weren't you weren't on. So do you 

want to give a brief introduction?

 MS. DAGGETT: I'm sure that whatever 

you said is fine. I'm an analyst with the accreditation 

group. My name is Elizabeth Daggett. And I've been with 

the group for over 10 years. And I'm happy to provide any 

resources regarding accrediting agency requirements and 
7

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

regulations that are outside of the area, which you're 

looking at right now.

 MS. MCARDLE: Belinda.

 MS. WHEELER: Thank you for that. I 

just wanted to speak back to, to that. We were just 

looking when I was talking with accreditation agencies, 

just the FAFSA simplification act from that language in 

in December. And that that specificity that you have 

provided that we can direct them back to that that's I 

think that will actually allay any kind of concerns, 

because when we're looking at the FAFSA simplification 

act specifically in isolation with prison education 

programs, we didn't see that reference. So I think you've 

addressed that. Thank you very much. 

 MS. MCARDLE: Aaron.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you, Belinda. 

So, Belinda, are you suggesting to cross reference back 

to the definition? So a final accreditation action as 

defined and 600., 602.3, is that, that's essentially- 

 MS. WHEELER: If that is possible, 

like again, just kind of like that same thing that we did 

with what was that one that we did earlier today? 

 MR. WASHINGTON: Location. 

 MS. WHEELER: Yeah, additional 

location, I think any time where things can be crystal 
8

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

clear, especially given the fact that we have different 

stakeholders in this space now for example corrections, 

and that we're also having conversations with 

accreditation agencies of educational institutions, but 

also accreditation agencies of correctional institutions. 

I would certainly appreciate any extra kind of you know, 

looping everyone back so that you know, when we do talk 

about accrediting action, particularly as you know 

conversations are continuing with corrections and 

corrections on accreditation, I think that specificity 

would certainly not hurt anyone.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Okay, we can we can 

definitely take that back. Thank you so much.

 MS. MCARDLE: I don't see any hands 

but I don't know if we were able to solve the problem for 

Stan.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Okay, and then 

Belinda?

 MS. WHEELER: Yes, sorry. I was just 

looking back to that he just read reached out to me and 

said that he is currently got no access. So I'm not sure 

if there's some other things behind the scenes that can 

happen with that.

 MS. MCARDLE: Thank you.

 MS. WILSON: Is this for Stanley or 
9

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

Dr. McTier?

 MS. WHEELER: Sorry, McTier, Dr. 

McTier.

 MS. MCARDLE: Sorry, McTier, yes. 

 MS. WILSON: Okay. He should have it 

now. If you log subcommittee members, if you log off and 

you log back in, your access doesn't come automatically. 

So that's one thing to be aware of. But he should have it 

now. 

 MS. MCARDLE: Dr. McTier? 

 DR. MCTIER: I'm good, thank you. 

 MS. MCARDLE: Okay. Alright. No other 

hands right now then.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Okay, so let's move 

on to the next paragraph romanette three, this language 

is also mirrors the statute. So I'll I know we do have 

representatives from SHEEO organizations. I don't know if 

we if there are any, if there. If the subcommittee has 

any comments on this, it does mirror the statue. But 

perhaps the committee members will want to weigh in if 

there's more clarification needs to be provided.

 MS. MCARDLE: I see no hands.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. So the next, 

the next part of the statute moving on to paragraph 

number seven. Oh, sorry, the regulation. We say that it's 
10

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

offered by an institution that is not subject to a 

current initiated adverse action. If an agency initiates 

an adverse action, institution cannot begin its first or 

subsequent prison education program unless and until the 

initiated adverse action has been rescinded. And so if it 

if an accrediting agency initiates an adverse action 

against the school or program, the school can't begin 

prison education program until that initiated adverse 

action is rescinded. So for example, the school appeals 

and the school appeals and through the agency's due 

process procedures, the initiated adverse action has been 

rescinded. So that's what we're saying here that if 

there's an initiated adverse action against a given 

institution that the institution would not be able to 

begin any prison education programs. I'll pause for 

comment.

 MS. MCARDLE: I see no hands. Oh, 

wait, there's one. Kim, please. 

 MS. CARY: Thank you. It's not related 

really to the accreditation. But I do have a question for 

Department of ED. I know there's a limitations for 

schools who are in a program review and have not 

finalized that program review. Would they be allowed to 

initiate the prison education program during their open 

review? Or they have to wait for it to end?
11

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

 MR. WASHINGTON: It's a great 

question, Kim. I can take that back and talk with the, 

I'll talk with my colleagues about whether we should 

include that.

 MS. MCARDLE: I see no other hands. 

 MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. Moving on into 

the romanette two, if so, this we're saying here that if 

the institute if the institution currently offers one or 

more prison education programs and is subject to an 

initiated adverse action, the institution must submit a 

teach out plan as described under 34 CFR 600.2 to the 

institution's accrediting agency. And so here what we 

mean by that is, if any, if an accrediting agency 

initiates an adverse action against a school or program, 

and the school already offers one or more eligible prison 

education programs, then the school must submit a teach 

out plan. A teach out plan is a written plan developed by 

an institution that provides for the equitable treatment 

of students if an institution or an institutional 

location that provides 100% of at least one program 

ceases to operate our plans to cease operations before 

all enrolled students have completed the program of 

study. A teach out plan is already required under 602 24 

small c two romanette three for an initiated adverse 

action. With this provision, we seek to ensure that there 
12

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

is a plan but the Department still seeks input as any 

special considerations or clarifications that might be 

necessary for teach out plans in prison education 

programs.

 MS. MCARDLE: Belinda.

 MS. WHEELER: I just wanted to go on 

the record to say that this is so vital. And I'm so 

grateful that ED has actually put the teach out plan, 

like specifically kind of relisted here because they're, 

you know, right now there are potential kind of loopholes 

in this space. And I think that this when we look at 

quality for students, I think that this is really, really 

valuable to kind of make sure that the students’ best 

interests are indeed being met. So I just wanted to go on 

the record as saying I appreciate ED adding this, it's so 

important.

 MS. MCARDLE: And Aaron. 

 MR. WASHINGTON: Belinda, I wonder, do 

you have any input on any special considerations or 

clarification that we might need to make that might be 

necessary for teach out plans and prison education 

programs?

 MS. WHEELER: Thanks for that. I don't 

believe so. I think that, you know, again, with the work 

that we've been doing, and talking with accreditation 
13

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

agencies and looking specifically at their teach out

plans, I know as we are moving, you know, we've moved 

from regional accreditation agencies now to everyone 

being national, and we're going to go from nine 

accreditation agencies now to you know, potentially, you 

know, hundreds of whether it's program or otherwise, 

there could be some slippages there as we move forward, 

but I don't think that we could kind of, being proactive, 

I don't think that we can actually envision anything now 

when it comes to language. I feel pretty confident. I'm 

worried to say that, but I feel pretty confident that you 

know, the existing policies that the accreditation 

agencies that I've seen right now on the Second Chance 

Pell experimental site space have really good policies 

for teach out. So fingers crossed.

 MS. MCARDLE: Terrell.

 MR. BLOUNT: Yeah, Aaron, can you 

reiterate, what the teach out plan is and also its impact 

on the prison education programs?

 MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah, so the teach 

out plan is defined in regulation. And I'll just read it 

again. So let's see, a tech out plan is a written plan 

developed by an institution that provides for the 

equitable treatment of students, if an institution or an 

institutional location that provides 100% of at least one
14

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

program, for example, a prison education program, ceases 

to operate or plans to cease operations before all 

enrolled students have completed their program of study. 

And so essentially, we're saying that if there's an

initiated adverse action, so if the accrediting agency 

seeks to initiate suspension or revocation of an 

institution's accreditation, then they would be required 

to create a teach out, a teach out plan, if they already 

have prison education programs at that institution. What 

that prison education plan looks like I would call on my 

colleague Beth to maybe give an example of if she has any 

examples of what are some components of a teach out plan 

that she may have seen.

 MS. DAGGETT: Happy to Aaron. So a 

teach out plan usually is something that an organization, 

institutions put together to determine really what 

programs they offer. If they're going to stop offering 

those programs or cease a location, then their job is to, 

first of all have a list of their currently enrolled 

students when they anticipate graduation or completion 

for those students. And then they would look at what 

either institutions around them or if it's, you know, via 

distance education, and they might offer it that way. But 

they do have to offer it in try to offer it in the manner 

that in which it was offered previously. So I'm not 
15

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

exactly sure. I think that there would be obviously some 

more give and take with a prison education program that 

was closing that if there would then be another 

institution that wanted to come in to provide the program 

that they could do like they could teach that program out 

for them or something, you know, if they have a similar 

program nearby. That might be something that might be 

part of the teach out plan element, but it would be 

something that would be reviewed by the accrediting 

agency and they would be looking exactly what it is 

exactly what Aaron has said, which is the equitable 

treatment of the students, so.

 MR. BLOUNT: Got it so it sounds like 

this is something that could have come in handy pre 1994 

ban when the well I guess, on the heels of the 1994 ban 

when, according to formerly incarcerated students at that 

time that were using Pell Grants, they said essentially, 

like once the ban was put in place, the courses stopped 

like shortly after that, and there was no real plan to 

continue, you know, courses or even fill out the rest of 

the semester, according to some people. So if a teach out 

plan was in place then, it would look like hey, this is I 

don't know, March where we're finding out that we have to 

end this program. But as part of our plan, you know, we 

may continue throughout December or something like that, 
16

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

or whatever next steps that entails. Am I right? 

 MS. DAGGETT: Yeah, the whole I mean, 

the whole point of a teach out plan is to protect the 

students.

 MR. BLOUNT: Got it.

 MS. MCARDLE: Okay, no, no further 

hands at this point.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you Sophia. 

Thank you Beth as well. So we're gonna move on to 

paragraph eight. So, paragraph eight is also mirrors the 

statue, there were no changes made to this paragraph. So 

I won't read the paragraph to you because there were no 

changes made. But I wanted, I wanted to say that the 

paragraph is linked to a disclosure that we're going to 

jump to. But before we jump to that disclosure, we would 

like input on who should make the determination of the 

state in which most individual most confined or 

incarcerated individuals will reside upon release. So 

just to back up a little bit, maybe I should read it so 

so we can all get understanding where we are. So 

satisfies any applicable educational requirements for 

professional licensure or certification, including 

licensure or certification examinations needed to 

practice or find employment in the sectors or occupations 

for which the program prepares the individual in the 
17

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

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 or 

incarcerated in such facility will reside upon release. 

And so my question was really centered on that. Who 

should make the determination of the state in which most 

individuals will reside upon release? How should that 

determination be made? And when I say who should it be 

the Bureau of Prisons, Department of Corrections, the 

institutions, the postsecondary institutions offering the 

program? So I'll pause there, open it up for discussion.

 MS. MCARDLE: Dr. McNear?

 DR. MCTIER: Dr. McTier. 

 MS. MCARDLE: Sorry, Dr. McTier, 

sorry. 

 DR. MCTIER: So just just for clarity, 

so you're asking, can you repeat the question one more 

time? 

 MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah. So the statute, 

I think the statute says Vanessa, can you highlight where 

it says “in the case” is so start at “in the case of a 

Federal Correctional Facility” in the, yeah, so that's so 

I'm talking about right there. So the, if the program is 

designed to lead to licensure, or certification, the 

statute states that if the program is offered at a 
18

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

Federal Correctional Facility, that the program has to 

satisfy the educational requirements in the state that 

most individuals or most individuals are likely to reside 

upon release. So let's say for example, I was going to 

institution partnered with a Federal Correctional 

Facility and offered English. I think we talked about 

English with no English wouldn't be licensed for a 

certification. Let's say plumbing, right, let's say let's 

say plumbing. Right, and it led to a license or license 

or certification in plumbing. They the institution would 

have to make sure that the program fulfilled the 

educational requirements of the state that the 

institution or the, the the correctional facility believe 

that most, most students will reside upon release. If 

that institution, let's say the correction the 

correctional facility is located in New York State and 

it's determined that most students will reside within New 

York State upon release, then the program would have to 

ensure that the plumbing program would have to meet the 

educational requirements professional license or 

certification in New York State. If it's a federal 

facility in New York, and they determine that most 

students will reside in New Jersey upon release, you 

know, then the federal facility would have to ensure that 

program met the educational requirements for licensure 
19

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

certification in New Jersey, and so what we're trying to 

do here is the question from the Department is who should 

will make the determination of most likely to reside upon 

release for those programs offered in a Federal 

Correctional Facility. And if regulations are necessary 

to further clarify that, could we clarify that in 

preamble language or potentially other subregulatory 

guidance like a Dear Colleague letter or electronic 

announcement? 

 DR. MCTIER: Got it. I don't think it 

should be the federal facility. I think it should be the 

educational institution that's offering the degrees 

because again, we're the experts in what the educational 

requirements are. And then we just have to keep in mind 

that just because a federal facility, every state doesn't 

have a federal facility. And then people in federal 

facilities, just because they're in that particular 

state, they could do another interstate compact to 

another, another state, that's when their cases are 

transferred from one state to another. So there's, it 

shouldn't be the federal facility. I can tell you that 

much.

 MS. WILSON: Belinda.

 MS. WHEELER: Yes, I agree 100%, I do 

believe that it should be the educational institution, as 
20

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

someone who used to direct the program in South Carolina, 

you know, it's part of the advising, you know, if an 

educational institution, you know, wants to provide X 

program, plumbing, you know, in South Carolina, at a 

federal facility, and as they're, as they're talking with 

potential students, asking them, you know, where are you 

planning on, you know, it's all about trying to get to 

know your students, where are you once you complete this 

sentence, where are you planning on locating? And then if 

the student says, you know, well, right now I'm thinking 

South Carolina, then the education, the educational 

institution can make sure that there's compliance. If the 

student says they're going to go to California, then 

again, it's up to that, at that advising mechanism. I 

think that, you know, as a former educator, there are 

systems in place to make sure of that. And also, I think 

that there's, not only is there a student responsibility 

to students, but there's also that fiscal responsibility 

if if an educational institution is going to receive 

those Pell funds from the government, with the agreement 

that they're going to offer this educational program, 

then they need to make sure that the resources are there 

and not to overburden I think this is an existing policy. 

So even for small programs, small schools, I think this 

is equitable, because again, it's just a simple part of 
21

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

that advising before students are registered in classes 

to kind of let them know so just my two cents.

 MS. MCARDLE: Terrell.

 MR. BLOUNT: My comments were already 

shared. 

 MS. MCARDLE: Kim. 

 MS. CARY: I agree with Belinda, the 

(inaudible) has to happen up front and it also has to 

happen throughout their, their program. And especially at 

the end, those institutions, especially those that are 

along border states are going to know very quickly, where 

the students could potentially, you know, Missouri and 

Kansas are just right there. And there's a you know, 

Kansas City is right there on both. So we have a lot of 

students who go into Kansas, some are in Missouri, so 

those licensures could be a lot different. Those border 

state institutions are going to really know what those 

requirements are, and will be beneficial to students as 

they finish up. 

 MS. MCARDLE: And we have Dr. McTier.

 DR. MCTIER: I think it's also 

important just to know that most higher education and 

prison programs are not offering licensure programs on 

the inside, because of the extra requirements that are 

needed, such as the internships, the hours of I'm 
22

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

blanking out, but there's hours that they will have to 

complete. And they wouldn't necessarily be able to do 

that on the inside. So I just want us to consider that 

point as well. Most of them are going to be liberal arts 

programs or programs that are not that require licensure, 

because we wouldn't be able to fulfill that on the inside 

anyway.

 MS. MCARDLE: No further hands.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. Yeah. And 

just to respond to Dr. McTier, I think I think that that 

any applicable like kind of gets us there, I hope. Let me 

know if you think that there are more languages 

necessary. But I think that any applicable congress was 

kind of noting that not every program has to lead to 

licensure certification, it could be you know, more 

liberal arts type programs.

 MS. MCARDLE: We had Stan raise a 

hand.

 DR. ANDRISSE: Yeah, sorry. Come in 

kind of late on that point. But I think to this, we also 

need to I know, a lot of my fellow committee members 

expressed what's going on now, I think, you know, we 

should be thinking, kind of be forward thinking in that 

currently there are not very, there aren't really, you 

know, put, you know, higher education in prison programs,
23

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

offering nursing, for instance. But you know, why, what's 

stopping us from thinking right now about those higher 

education and prison programs, offering that in the 

future, to where we move to a space where we, you know, 

can put a student, an incarcerated student on work 

release, so they can get out and go fulfill the 

requirements of the clinical side of a nursing 

certificate? For instance, if you're doing a CNA 

licensing. You know, so I mean, how do we think about 

that, and be forward thinking to think about expanding 

what's offered within higher education in prison right 

now, to include such programs instead of right language 

that would exclude them from even being thought about?

 MS. MCARDLE: I think Dr. McTier was 

first and then we have Belinda.

 DR. MCTIER: I agree with you, Stan. I 

think that for me, I'm just thinking about the 

intricacies of the clinical requirements and the other 

requirements that students would have to engage in. I 

don't know. And I am thinking about right now, so and I 

will be honest about that. I don't know if our 

institutions would be willing to offer those 

opportunities. So but I do recognize your point. And I 

do, I do agree, I think we do need to be forward thinking 

when writing this. But the other side of me is the other 
24

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

logistical components. So I'm a little (inaudible).

 DR. ANDRISSE: Yeah, I mean, you know, 

when I think of this is when I think of this process, I 

think of it sticking, like in my head accurate or not, 

you know, I think of it potentially sticking for 25 

years, like the previous process did. So you know, are we 

thinking 25 years ahead, where, you know, we offer 

language that makes it possible for prisons, and 

departments of correction to, you know, move in that 

direction. I mean, think about what COVID did to prisons. 

You know, many of them didn't have video capabilities. 

Now, almost every prison has opened up that opportunity 

to, you know, do video conferencing.

 MS. MCARDLE: Belinda.

 MS. WHEELER: Yes, I think that this 

is actually one of those, as someone who used to wear the 

educator hat, this is actually one of the areas that I'm 

actually a little bit more potentially excited about with 

the collaboration between education and correctional 

facilities, because I do think that we are, you know, we 

have to be proactive. And I think, you know, if an 

educational if there's like, say, for example, five 

different educational institutions that want to come into 

a correctional facility, and depending on what programs 

they have, just say, for example, all of them just to use 
25

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

nursing, as you had mentioned, Stan. You know, if all of 

them are offering nursing, then there's an opportunity 

for engagement to take place between corrections and 

education, to say, look, okay, well, if you're planning 

on offering this degree, we realize that for licensure, 

you know, there are certain things that are going to have 

to take place. Has your educational institution thought 

about these things, so that we can provide more access? 

So I actually think this is a this is one of those 

opportunities, where I think it's exciting for both 

education, you know, for education with partnership, this 

partnership that's been forced with statutory language, 

but could be a real benefit is that the we're seeing that 

educational institutions will be forward thinking about, 

you know, look, this is a licensure that we've never 

actually noted. I think it comes back to that the 

advising kind of aspect too and also just these general 

collaborations between corrections, education and the 

community with wraparound services. But you know, if, if 

an institution is thinking of a program, as they're 

looking at the advising, potentially, if students are, 

you know, voting with their feet, so to speak, you know, 

that look, you know, this institution is only offering 

this but this other institution is offering this and 

they're going to provide, you know, this additional 
26

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

support. I think that this unless you know the way that 

I'm reading, and I think that the current language that 

ED has provided is providing that opportunity for 

educational institutions to step up their game to provide 

those additional, you know, opportunities for students, 

because you're right. You know, there's a lot of programs 

that need to be expanded upon. You know, we've got 

different parts of the country right now, both in Second 

Chance Pell experimental sites, and not that are 

providing licensure, yes, they're small in number right 

now. But I'm sure, as you know, Pell For All becomes 

available, that we're going to see significant movements 

in this space. So I'm hoping this is a good moment for us 

being proactive moving forward. Thank you.

 MS. MCARDLE: Next, we have Kim, and 

then Stan. 

 MS. CARY: Thank you, I would again go 

back to the partnerships that we're going to have to have 

within our communities. I know one of the licensure 

pieces that we looked at, when we started our Second 

Chance Pell program was a welding program. But again, it 

comes down to the space allowed within the correctional 

facility, whether that's available or not. And it comes 

down to the resources of working with either using 

institutional resources to provide that equipment or 
27

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

working with industry partners, to have that donated. So 

just as we we talked about it, just the partnerships are 

so very important. And if you can't fit the space within 

the correctional facility is really what it comes down to 

is is there going to be availability to put equipment and 

things like that, so that if you're not allowed to move 

into a work release type situation, then they can receive 

everything there that they need. Thank you. 

 MS. MCARDLE: Stan.

 DR. ANDRISSE: I think I lost part of 

my thought that I was thinking, but I would just say that 

I mean, I, I feel I would like to hear, you know how the 

Department of Corrections feels about, you know, some of 

these barriers and thoughts on how they would attack or 

not attack, but how they would approach licensure type of 

issue. Like would they be willing and amendable to what 

Belinda as you were mentioning, it's exciting to think 

about, that the educational institutions will start 

expanding their programming. But that needs to be met 

with excitement from DOC with the willingness to, you 

know, create access to different things. Because I know, 

you know, the example that I provided of, you know, 

providing work release to someone to go to a program, 

would need approval from the DOC. So that's just a 

thought that I feel like, you know, that perspective 
28

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

needs to be present. 

 MS. MCARDLE: Marisa.

 MS. BRITTON-BOSTWICK: So I think the 

main thing is that, I don't think anyone should be pigeon 

holed. And if we I think we need to be realistic and not, 

you know, dress people up with no place to go. But I also 

think that they should be able to do a lot of different 

things. You know, women don't have to go into the 

hospitality industry. And felons don't have to go and be 

a dishwasher. And if we keep doing that, we're never 

going to see huge growth. And so I think corrections 

needs to be open to it. But then you really have to have 

that realistic side. So it's this kind of, I think it's 

really something to look into. And I think the other 

thing is, that's huge is having partnerships with 

Department of Labor that tells you the employment gaps, 

so that you can start funneling offenders that are going 

back into the community into jobs that are sustainable, 

that they can have sustainable income and raise a family 

and things like that. But I think we need to be 

realistic, but we also, I mean, need to look at the 

licensure and see what what is realistic, but not push 

people into anymore you know, hospitality jobs and things 

like that. So I'm so glad you brought this up. And I'm 

very open to it. And I know a lot of correctional 
29

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

facilities are open to it. But it's hard to it's hard to 

say to a sex offender that you can get a CNA licensure or 

you know, go work in a hospital when they can't get it. 

So that's where I'm at and I'm open to discussion on it, 

but it's really a hard balance.

 MS. MCARDLE: Aaron.

 MR. WASHINGTON: I'll let Stanley go 

before me. He may have wanted to respond.

 DR. ANDRISSE: Yeah, I just want to 

say I appreciate that and, you know, agreement of I think 

we're on agreement in terms of the idea of the approach. 

I just also want to, you know, put it out there. And I 

know, this was something that I said at the full 

committee. And it's important, and it's been good within 

the language, but I also just encourage our fellow 

committee members, you know, to stay away from words such 

as felon, convict, criminal, you know, and refer to the 

individuals as individuals, people, students, is all that 

I wanted to add.

 MS. MCARDLE: Aaron. 

 MR. WASHINGTON: So, essentially what 

I've heard in regard, Stan, did you want to, did you have

something else to add, Stan? Okay. So what I've heard, 

you know, based on the Department's directed question, is

that the actual postsecondary institution, well, there's 
30

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

general agreement from everybody, but there's no 

agreement that the actual post postsecondary institution 

offering the program should be the should be the entity 

to define or determine where most students will reside 

upon release. Okay. Thank you for that. So we can I 

think, with that, we can move on into paragraph nine. So 

this is this is this is also paragraph nine, not the 

romanettes, but the actual paragraph was also directly 

mirrors the statute, it was copy and pasted from the 

statute in this paragraph. Well, actually, you know what? 

I think before we do that, let's move to disclosure 

because from we have a disclosure that we're going to 

propose for paragraph eight about the education 

requirements. So before we move into the prohibition on 

licensure employment, I wanted to move to the actual 

disclosure that links in paragraph number eight. So 

Vanessa, could you scroll down to 34 CFR 668.43? Alright, 

so here in in in relation to that, the statutory text and 

the regulatory text that we're proposing, we're proposing 

a disclosure for students. So upon requests, they will 

provide any information available regarding whether 

completion of the prison education program meets the 

educational requirements for professional licensure

certification, including licensure and certification 

examinations needed to practice or find employment in the 
31

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

sectors or occupations for which the program prepares the 

individual. And so we have A, we separated it out because 

that's kind of how the statute flows, we have A in the 

state in which the correctional facility is located. And 

and so that's for the state Correctional Facility, a 

local jail or reformatory or work farm. And then we have 

B, if it's a federal facility in the state in which most 

individuals in which the individual is confined or 

incarcerated, in which the individual is confined or 

incarcerated in such facility plans to reside, plans to 

reside upon release. And you'll note that, one second. So 

here we said, the, for the federal piece, we said the 

instead of where most students are likely to reside upon 

release, therefore, upon request, the school would need 

to provide the student with information about the state 

in which the individual student will reside, as opposed 

to the state that most individuals will reside. So for 

the statutory language, the Committee has proposed that 

the postsecondary institution will like analyze and 

determine where most individuals will reside will reside 

upon release and, and educational requirements will 

reflect that state, right? But here we're saying if, if 

the if the for Federal Correctional Facility if the 

student enrolls in a program, they can still enroll in 

the program. But let's say it's a correctional federal 
32

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

facility in New York, and they determine that most of us 

will return to New Jersey, but the individual student 

says, hey, I want I'm going back to Maine, I want 

information about Maine, the the school, the 

postsecondary institution will be required to provide the 

student with educational information or the educational 

requirements about Maine. And I think this will help 

avoid schools having to know upfront about every single 

state law, but if the student actually says I want to 

know about that state, because that's why I want to 

enroll in this program and that's where I plan to return 

then they would have to the school would have to do some 

further research and provide them that information if 

it's located in a federal facility. So your thoughts on 

just the the just this disclosure.

 MS. MCARDLE: Terrell.

 MR. BLOUNT: Yeah, so while that 

sounds, it sounds sound, right. I think the issue may be 

oversight. So let's say this is in place, students are 

requesting that information. The colleges aren't 

delivering that information. Where does that like leave 

the put in either here or as you mentioned some other way 

whether it's Dear Colleague letter or it has to exist 

somewhere else where there's oversight to make sure that 

colleges are providing students with that information.
33

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

 MR. WASHINGTON: If David Musser is 

on, I wonder would he mind responding to the oversight 

piece of for any regulation?

 MS. MCARDLE: Dave.

 MR. MUSSER: Sure, the Department 

enforces the requirements for the Title Four programs in 

a variety of different ways. Many of them, as I think 

you're pointing to, in your question, are designed to 

address institutional policies when we do non-federal 

audits which are required annually. Auditors look at a 

series of things that are prescribed in audit guides, 

things like how the how the school completes various 

reporting requirements, application requirements, how it 

how it reviews student FAFSA information, but there are 

some requirements that really can't be addressed in those 

kinds of compliance reviews, at least not 

comprehensively. So for example, another kind of 

enforcement is done under FERPA where the FERPA office 

acts on complaints that are that are made by individuals 

when they believe that their FERPA rights have been 

violated. And FSA maintains a website and mechanisms to 

accept complaints other than the website as well, that 

allow students to complain when their postsecondary 

institutions have failed to comply with federal 

requirements. And the department then does followup to 
34

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

determine whether noncompliance does does indeed appear 

to have occurred. And if we determine that there is a 

problem, we could initiate a program review, and a 

program review or an audit or those formal compliance 

oversight procedures can result in monetary liabilities, 

fines, and other kinds of significant actions taken by 

the Department. So this would likely be one of those 

kinds of areas where the Department would really only 

become aware of it if the individual complained. And in 

that case, we would have to ensure that there was 

adequate information provided to the individual about 

their ability to complain, and to whom and, and, and what 

process they needed to go through, et cetera. 

 MS. MCARDLE: Belinda.

 MS. WHEELER: Just to take up the 

excellent point that Terrell had made here. Since we are 

speaking of licensure and given another excellent point 

that a colleague had made, I forget who made it, I 

apologize for not lifting your name, had had mentioned 

about the Department of Labor? Couldn't there just be 

because I, I'm concerned about an individual student 

having to advocate for themselves in while they are 

incarcerated. Because while there is definitely a process

right now, it's time-consuming. It's very onerous on the 

student. very stressful. Given that licensure is 
35

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

something that, unless I'm mistaken, is like a state by 

state. And if we are making partnerships, like continuing 

to expand this partnership for this community that we're 

that we're invested in serving in in more ways than we've 

done in the past, couldn't we just make sure that each 

educational institution, say for example, they want to do 

plumbing in in the state of New New York, that that 

educational institution, as they're having a conversation 

with Corrections, they make sure that the advisors or 

whomever, again, equity here, can then have access to the 

Department of Labor Statistics so that again, the student 

has that information, the adviser has that information, 

Corrections, it's just there. So that we don't actually 

have to put, I think that approach like that Terrell is 

mentioning here and a colleague had mentioned with 

Department of Labor would be much more proactive than 

having to be reactive to individual students not getting 

the information that they see. I think there's 

potentially more slippage that students could potentially 

be entered into programs if that advising partnership is 

not really good, and getting a licensure in a degree 

program that wouldn't work for them when they go back to 

their home state. So I just wonder if there's a way that 

we could re-see this as just being proactive with the 

data that we have, again, assuming that licensure is like 
36

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

a state by state and not a county by county, that this 

would seem an easy lift that we might be able to leverage 

with Department of Labor, just my two cents.

 MS. MCARDLE: I see no hands.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you, Sophia. I 

just wanted to get confirmation from the negotiators that 

the interest in having institutions and making the 

determinant, the determination about licensure, is 

specifically related to the question about where the 

majority of students will reside upon release from a 

federal facility. So who is making a determination about 

whether students are about where the students are, are 

going to reside upon release? Is that is that information 

that the school would have? Or is that information that 

the Bureau of Prisons, State Department, State Department 

of Corrections are more likely to have? I mean, I guess 

to expand on that, if you're, if we're looking at the 

totality of the individuals incarcerated in a federal 

facility, would a school have access to the state that 

most individuals are likely to reside upon release? Or 

are you just talking about or is the Committee saying 

just for the students that are that they potentially 

think are going to enroll in the program or are enrolled 

in the programs will reside upon release?

 MS. MCARDLE: Terrell.
37

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

 MR. BLOUNT: Well, there's a number of 

things that I'm thinking about with this right. So one, 

is that, in regards to your question, the Federal 

facility should be in communication with incarcerated 

people, if they have a proper prerelease planning 

component in place, they should know where folks are 

being paroled to or headed to, if that particular federal 

or state Department of Corrections does not prohibit the 

college staff, from interacting with students, in such a 

way where they can learn about, you know, where they're 

returning home to, I think that would be a great 

situation where both institutions, the educational piece, 

and the correctional facility are, you know, kind of 

keeping that information. I think secondly, in regard to 

the licensure, I think it is a better fit for State 

Department of Correction and colleges within the state to 

offer that licensure to make sure that folks that are 

leaving that state facility are also returning within 

that state, I think it's just really touchy, as Dr. 

McTier mentioned, with prison education programs and 

federal facilities where you have people from all over 

the country. And, I mean, my thoughts are that maybe the 

program should stop just short of like any state 

specific, licensing, if that's possible, if that is 

helpful to students and not, you know, using any Pell 
38

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

dollars toward a program that won't result in you know, 

employability within the state they're going home to, but 

just my thought.

 MS. MCARDLE: Kim. 

 MS. CARY: Thank you for that. Just to 

follow up on what you just said, I think it's part of the 

onboarding or should be part of the onboarding process 

for schools, as they partner with with the prison 

education programs. We're going to have to have 

conversations with students, we're gonna have to get 

their financial aid in place. And part of that 

conversation is finding out throughout their process, 

where they're going to land, or what their thoughts are 

on landing, and maybe that's several places, they're not 

sure yet. But you have to, you have to do that early, and 

throughout their program because things could change. 

They may be planning to go home to a state where their 

family resides and then by the time they are allowed to 

be released, their family is no longer there, so then 

they have to shift gears. So I think there's just part of 

the onboarding process that institutions should be glad 

to take on because it's just going to help the student in 

the end. It's going to help with the completion rates at 

the schools. It's just going to make it a more successful 

program if they follow through. To tie back to the 
39

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

question of what if schools do not follow through with 

the student's request. I'm not sure how we could do that 

short of part of their application process. And just 

making sure that they upfront tell us the possibilities 

of where they would like to end, which states and then 

that allows us to say definitively off of what the 

student conversations with us, here's the ones we offered 

up and expressed to the student. And I don't know how we 

would, we would, should be monitoring that as we move 

through with the student. But at least we would have 

something in writing, explaining what their their hopes 

are, which state to land in and which ones we've 

provided. Thank you. 

 MS. MCARDLE: I see no further hands 

at this moment.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you for the 

thank you for those ideas, Kim. I think David wants to 

say something.

 MS. MCARDLE: Yeah, we just got Dave.

 MR. MUSSER: I promise I won't take 

too long. I want to follow up on what Kim proposed about

an institution making this determination in consultation

with the student. There is a similar set of provisions 

that comes to my mind. That is the Department uses to as

institutions to determine of where students are located 

k 
40

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

when they're when they're receiving instruction through 

distance education. And essentially, what happens in that 

process is that the institution has to develop policies 

and procedures for how they'll make this determination, 

which I guess in this case, would be asking the 

incarcerated student to identify the place that they 

intend to go. And then they they apply that and they 

apply it in and they can just make sure that it's it's 

clearly stated, and they ask every individual before they 

enroll them, so they have a specific time and place that 

they obtain this information. And then they'd have to 

document their procedures for obtaining the information 

so that they can so that the Department could review it 

after the fact. Is that I wanted to just pose that to the 

subcommittee, is that a process that you guys think would 

be would fulfill this? Or does it need to be something, 

something else to get at where the individuals are 

actually going to end up?

 MS. MCARDLE: I see no hands. 

 MR. MUSSER: Okay, we'll, we'll take 

that back.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah, maybe maybe 

people take the time to think about it, David, and we can

circle back, you know, this most likely reside language 

appears in several paragraphs. So we can probably circle 
41

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

back on this maybe even before the end of the day, or 

maybe tomorrow morning.

 MR. BLOUNT: We have the opportunity 

to say how it's how it's to be done? Is that what we're 

talking about? Because I think if, if that's the case, 

again, speaking to federal facilities, and licensure, 

those two things tied together, talking about state 

licensure, if BOP along with the college, can make sure 

that incarcerated students when they're closer to release 

can then be in a facility in the state that they're 

returning to, where they can then complete the rest of 

that program so that they know now okay, if I'm returning 

to Wyoming then and I'm currently in a facility in New 

York, I know that I don't know a year short of me 

returning home, I will then instead of just being bounced 

around the system, I'm now intentionally being put in a 

facility where in the state that I'm returning home to 

and now I can wrap up my last two semesters as opposed 

to, you know, just taking something general and having to 

wait till you return home to complete those studies, 

which will definitely be an uphill battle in most cases.

 MS. MCARDLE: And I do not see any 

hands.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Okay, let's move on 

to paragraph nine. So this is also coming directly from 
42

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

the statute and the prison education program does not 

offer education that is designed to lead to licensure or 

employment for a specific job or occupation in the state. 

If such job or occupation typically involves prohibitions 

on the licensure or employment of formerly incarcerated 

individuals 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 or incarcerated in such facility 

will reside upon release. So this paragraph mirrors the

statute. This paragraph is also linked to a proposed 

disclosure. But before we get to the proposed disclosure, 

we've added a couple of clarifying paragraphs to just 

expand on the statutory language. And so the Department 

seeks to ensure that postsecondary institutions do not 

offer programs to students if state or federal laws would 

ban, exempt or prohibit formerly incarcerated students 

from licensure or employment. We know that Pell is 

limited, you know, you can, it's limited to-- a student 

can't receive Pell forever. So if a student attends full 

time for the full academic year, six years in a row, then 

the student would no longer be eligible eligible for a 

Pell Grant after that. So we want to make sure that 

students don't exhaust their Pell Grant on a prison 

education program that would not benefit them. So our 
43

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

current proposal does not account for situations where 

industry norms restrict employment for people who have 

been incarcerated, but where those restrictions are not 

codified in state or federal law. Including those 

restrictions may be difficult to operationalize, and may 

overtly restrict formerly incarcerated individuals from 

certain occupations. In addition, those norms are 

changing rapidly. However, offering a student a program 

of study where the reality may be that a student cannot 

find employment in that field is not a desirable, 

desirable result. So we do seek input on how the 

Committee views the balance of whether additional and 

whether additional language to address these situations 

is warranted. So you'll see in the romanettes we've 

broken it out in the case of a state in in the case of 

state and local correctional facilities, a postsecondary 

institution does not enroll any student in the prison 

education program. But any federal or state law in which 

the correctional facility is located, bans, bars, or 

prohibits licensure employment based on any criminal 

conviction or specific types of criminal conviction for 

that specific prison education program or, in the case of 

a Federal Correctional Facility, the postsecondary 

institution does not enroll any student in a prison 

education program at any federal or state law in which 
44

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

more than half of the individuals confined or

incarcerated in such facility will reside upon release

bans bars or prohibits licensure or employment based on 

any criminal conviction or specific type of criminal 

conviction for that program.

 MS. MCARDLE: Dr. McTier.

 DR. MCTIER: And just for clarity, 

you're saying this is already a statute? Am I correct? 

 MR. WASHINGTON: No. So the the the 

roman, the two romanettes are not in statute. That was 

more clarification that the Department wanted to provide 

and proposed to provide in regulation, but only number 

nine, only number nine is actual statutory language.

 DR. MCTIER: Got it. Okay. 

 MS. MCARDLE: I see no other hands. 

 MR. WASHINGTON: So this is I think 

that- 

 MS. MCARDLE: Wait a minute, Dr. 

McTier again.

 DR. MCTIER: Yeah, again. Sorry. I 

mean, this is a little a little bit tricky. And it's 

unfortunate that, you know, this was made as a statute 

because it really ties our hands and what we can really 

do. And I'm thinking about, you know, the trend of where 

our students end up going, or the degrees that they 
45

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

actually pursue. So we see the liberal arts, but we also 

see that a large number of our students pursue social 

work degrees at the Baccalaureate level. They pursue drug 

related programs or those counseling programs. And those 

are the programs where we really want the individuals 

with lived experience. And so it seems like our hands are 

really tied with this component. You know, with the 

statute in place. 

 MS. MCARDLE: Aaron.

 MR. WASHINGTON: So Dr. McTier, I just 

wanted to clarify that we're not saying like, I don't the 

statutory language is not saying the school can't offer 

the program at all. It's saying that it couldn't enroll 

that specific student in the program, if there are any, 

if there are any prohibitions on licensure or employment, 

for that, for that for that student, and that would be in 

the state. If it's, if it's anything other than a Federal 

Correctional Facility in the state that the facility is 

located in or if it's in the federal facility, again, 

that language about where where where the state where 

most students will reside, and then all federal laws for 

all facilities. So it's not that they can't offer the 

program, it's just that they couldn't enroll this 

specific student in the program. 

 MS. MCARDLE: Dr. McTier.
46

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

 DR. MCTIER: What is that specific 

student? Because I feel like that's what you all are 

thinking of that particular type of student, I'm curious 

to know, what specific student is actually being excluded 

from because it's not clear.

 MR. WASHINGTON: So the language says 

that so we say in the language, based on any criminal 

conviction or specific type of criminal conviction. So 

if, let's say, for example, if the student has a drug 

conviction, and, you know, in the state in which the 

correctional facility is located, the student would be 

prohibited from obtaining licensure or employment, to be 

a pharmaceutical tech, the school could still offer the 

program, they just could not enroll that specific student 

in the program, because the state law or potentially 

federal law would ban a student from attaining licensure 

or employment in that field. 

 DR. MCTIER: But but how does the 

student how does the student receive agency to challenge 

that system? I feel like if anything is going to change, 

we need to be able to give the students the ability to 

push the system. And it seems like we're stripping that 

ability for them to do that. I've seen where, you know, 

there were states that have laws that students couldn't 

practice law or receive their law license, but because of 
47

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

the tenacity and the grit that they had, they were able 

to, you know, change the system. And so I feel like this 

is kind of restricting it in that in that manner. Yeah, 

just want to put that out there.

 MS. MCARDLE: Aaron. 

 MR. WASHINGTON: So this is this is a 

statutory standard. And what we try to do is, you know, 

expand on it with some added language. Dr. McTier, if you 

have any language that you'd like to propose to clarify 

the language, maintaining, you know, maintaining 

understanding that we do have a statutory framework that 

we have, that we are required to follow. But if you have 

any reg language that you'd like to propose, that would 

be, that would be great.

 MS. WILSON: Belinda.

 MS. WHEELER: I really enjoy this 

conversation. And I appreciate both of you bringing 

these, these great perspectives to it. I wonder, Dr. 

McTier, if this is a potential place where just like 

earlier today, you'd put in that language about, you 

know, partnerships, or, you know, things of that nature 

for a rule that was completely different to this one, but 

I wonder if there may potentially be a way, because I see 

how ED is trying to make sure that you know, predatory, 

you know, institutions don't just come in and say, hey, 
48

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

yeah, sure, exactly. You know, you've you've, you've got 

convictions for drug offenses, but let's sign you all up 

in pharmacy, and we will promise to do this. And the 

school saying, yes, we're gonna help you kind of buck the 

system for the situation, but not really knowing whether 

or not they're really going to follow through with those 

promises on the back end, as long as they're getting the 

money from the students on the front end. I wonder, with 

your great case in point, because you're right, the the 

law degree is a perfect example of what we've seen in New 

Jersey, New York and other and other places, too. I 

wonder, yeah, if there's a way that perhaps it could be 

written that, like on the front end, students aren't 

unnecessarily signed up for these classes to start and 

the Pell monies to start yet until such time as you know, 

I I'm trying to see whether or not there's a way that we 

can bring together the excellent point that Dr. McTier 

said with the, with the language with the Department of 

ED, because I, I do think there's an opportunity. I just, 

I'm very nervous about this whole, you know, predatory 

institution coming in, you know, giving these students 

and that's why we've seen a lot of the lawsuits that we 

have for students that have gotten degrees and the 

government has had to come in. But I do like the idea of, 

you know, educational institutions, working to advocate 
49

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

for students for that particular licensure, for example, 

in a particular state and using their power to advocate 

for the students. Maybe in that particular case, students 

could be signed up for the gen ed courses only so that 

they're not restricted and that there could be an 

opportunity to pivot with advising, if you know, if 

things can't be changed beforehand. This is a really 

interesting one. So I'd be interested to see what other 

people have to say on this.

 MS. MCARDLE: Stan.

 DR. ANDRISSE: Yeah, this is, yeah, I 

find it to be problematic for a couple of reasons that 

were mentioned. We, you know, maybe there's a way to word 

this differently. But when we think about just blatantly

and blankly saying that it does not offer education 

designed to, you know, move towards some particular type 

of degree, that completely takes away the agency of the 

student, who may want to challenge that particular avenue 

of employment, like they may want, you know, there's, 

there's stories, like Sean Hopwood, who, you know, became 

a lawyer, after leaving from prison, their stories, like, 

you know, individually, we have individuals within our 

program that are in medical school, pursuing medical 

education, we have individuals in our program that are in 

nursing that have these bans, but they have worked to 
50

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

basically, you know, bust through that glass ceiling. So 

I would just say that we should leave it, it should, I 

would encourage language that says that maybe that you 

will advise the student, but if the student chooses to 

move forward in that career, then you know, the student 

is making that decision, I don't think that we just take 

that decision away from the student. So yeah, I, this is 

a problematic clause for me, I think it needs to be we 

need to think of wording that is less exclusive, and 

moves more towards inclusivity. 

 MS. MCARDLE: Terrell.

 MR. BLOUNT: Apparently Belinda, Stan, 

and Dr. McTier have it out for me, and I just taken 

everything that I've been wanting to say, while I'm 

waiting for my hand to be lowered, but exactly what I was 

going to say I don't think it's so much about telling the 

educational institution that they need to not enroll the 

student, I think it's more so about informing them on, 

you know, their particular situation. And again, that's 

where I think it was like letter G in whatever section 

that was about the proper and relevant student advising 

that needs to take place, and just letting the student 

know, like, what they'll be up against with their certain 

conviction, but then you also spill into, you know, what 

it is on the college's side, and on that particular 
51

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

prison education program not wanting to enter 

conversations or, you know, receive information on what a 

particular student has been convicted on. So that kind of 

places a barrier, and in that mix sometimes because, you 

know, it is a value in practice to some great extent to 

not even, we're here specifically for educating, you 

know, learners, incarcerated learners.Don't want to know, 

don't care about what you did. So if that is the 

framework in which a program is working, then then you 

know, it is challenging, I guess, to figure out who to 

give that information to. So I just wanted to raise that 

point, which is a little different than what was said 

previously.

 MS. MCARDLE: Aaron, do you want go, 

or if not, Kim.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Whoever whoever had a 

hand up first, Sophia.

 MS. MCARDLE: It was, I think you. 

 MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. As, Terrell, I 

mean, Terrell, you had made a point earlier about who 

would provide oversight, you know, to ensure that certain 

processes are actually happening. And I just wonder, 

like, would you have that same thought for this if we're 

saying, well, you know, the school is going to advise the 

student but then the student can still enroll in it 
52

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

later. Wouldn't that same would there be that same 

concern that the who the guy who's providing the 

oversight and make sure that the school properly inform 

the student that, hey, this program doesn't you know, 

you'll be prohibited from getting licensure employment 

in this state, but, but we’ve told you about it? Like, 

how do you? How does how does somebody, how do you how do 

you provide oversight to make sure that the school is 

really providing that information to the student in a 

counseling session?

 MR. BLOUNT: Yeah, I mean, just by 

listening to these conversations, I'm seeing myself the 

role that FICGN could play in providing, like ombudsmanlike or -esque services for incarcerated students, so 

that they can report if they aren't receiving the type of 

academic advising that they, you know, is pertinent and 

relevant to their educational journeys, because relying 

on the same system that is oppressing individuals to

provide that avenue to speak to folks which we, you know, 

the folks that work in like, you know, justice reform, 

know that an ombudsman that is provided through the 

prison, you could call and write letters all day, 

regarding, like, any type of abuse or mistreatment that 

you're receiving, and you won't hear anything back until 

a justice reform organization or community-led 
53

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

organization catches wind, and then they make it a big 

situation, you know, that we can't rely on that type of 

oversight. So I think community organizations, and those 

that are, you know, subject matter experts in prison 

education programming, maybe those, and again, it goes 

back to that the conversation about partnerships, and 

this being a collective effort, and not just like two 

entities, meaning the education institution and DOC, so 

maybe it's, it's, you know, external partners that can, 

you know, hear from students on what they're 

experiencing, and try to, you know, eliminate those 

barriers.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Sophia, I know, I see 

two, probably have two hands up. I just wanted to see if 

Vanessa can just throw up the statutory language really 

quickly, because I think that there's some concerns with 

the language. But I just I want to see if she can throw 

up the statutory language really quickly. And so the 

subcommittee can see that what the statute says, and 

maybe the subcommittee will be able to provide some 

language. I will give Vanessa a second and then maybe 

Sophia, we can throw it to the next people in line. And 

we give Vanessa a chance to pull that up. Thank you, 

Vanessa. So if you just, she has it up already, so if you 

scroll to scroll down a little bit, “does not offer” I 
54

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

think it's right there. Alright. So paragraph seven, 

Vanessa, if you can, it says “does not offer education” 

if you just highlight that. So this, so just so the 

subcommittee can see that this was taken directly from 

from the statute, and we just tried to expand on it 

further. I'm done, Sophia, thank you.

 MS. MCARDLE: Sure. Next we have Kim 

and then Dr. McTier. 

 MS. CARY: Thank you. Just to follow 

up on several things that individuals have said, and 

working with regulations. 

 MS. MCARDLE: (interposing)I'm not 

sure, did you hear me? Next we have Kim and then Dr. 

 MS. CARY: Can you hear me?

 MR. WASHINGTON: Sophia may have 

frozen. So we have Kim next, Yep.

 MS. CARY: Okay. Just a follow up on 

some things and having working with I work with 

regulations every day. So very familiar with the do's and 

don'ts. Several things. We've talked about job 

placement. So Terrell, I understand what you're saying as 

far as we don't, we don't need to know why someone is 

incarcerated. It may be a matter of a blanket statement 

that we provide to incarcerated students when they're 

choosing a program that we're offering, to say these are 
55

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

the things that, based on statute, we're not allowed to, 

to provide. And so that's a challenge if we if we don't 

know what their their situation is, how do we take care 

of the statute that we're required to, to monitor but at 

the same time, we want to, to Stan's point we want to not 

pigeon hole them into not being allowed to take that 

program, because things could change. So if we allow that 

piece, then what does that do to our job placement rates? 

So it's kind of a never ending circle of, we might be 

opening up possibilities for a student one way but then 

hurting end results, one with job placement if they're 

not actually able to go into those fields that they 

received their education for. So just things to think 

about how we when we come back to how are we supposed to 

implement this from an institutional perspective? Thank 

you. Thank you. 

 MS. MCARDLE: We next have Dr. McTier 

followed by Stan.

 DR. MCTIER: I yield.

 DR. ANDRISSE: So I just wanted to 

raise the point of I know we've mentioned, so two points. 

One point I'll start with is, you know, I would ask the 

Department of ED, to refer back to language that they 

created, a term beyond the box, which was a guidance that 

was created under the Obama administration that was tart, 
56

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

you know, was telling the education community to help 

remove barriers for people with criminal convictions. And 

it addressed this particular issue of licensure, and how 

we should be working and how ED is devoted and committed 

to working to reduce barriers. Yet, this here itself, is 

creating a barrier. So you know, in terms of language 

that, you know, came from your department, I understand 

that this administration, but nonetheless, from your 

department, stating that it should be working to reduce 

barriers for this population. So to my second point, so I 

dropped that to say, you know, ED says they're committed, 

but are you really committed? And then so the other point 

that I would say is, you know, we've talked about Dear 

Colleague letters and things of that nature. So if this 

is statute, the way I read it, I see the word “typical” 

in there. So it says “typically does not result in 

employment for these individuals.” That is, to me not a 

definite. That is, to me a room, you know, that leaves 

room for a Dear Colleague letter to further explain 

beyond the statute that says that actually ED encourages, 

you know, to create language that says, we encourage you 

to, if it's on the fence, for instance, like, you know, 

encourage your student that this is this, you know, this 

job typically, may not, but that doesn't mean that you 

can't be the one to break that ceiling. And, you know, I 
57

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

think the statute offers that room, and the department 

should stand on, you know, the values that it says, you 

know, it promotes.

 

 MS. MCARDLE: Belinda.

 MS. WHEELER: Yeah, thank you. Thanks 

for pointing that out, Stanley. I, so let me clarify with 

you, Aaron, with those two Roman numerals one and two 

there. Would they negate the “typically,” or, because 

unless I'm mistaken, this is the English major and me 

coming through here, but I do not see “typically,” or a 

synonym of “typically” in those other, you know, one and 

two, like, I'm assuming that one and two won't negate 

nine, because that's already the statute. But that is, 

that is a good point that Stanley mentions there. I think 

this could be one, you know, just for the record, like 

pressure check, this is one like this for me(sideway 

thumb), because there is a lot of, there is a lot of 

issues here. I would hope that as Pell For All becomes 

available, that partners that really want to move the 

needle forward, will be trying, you know, with community 

organizations, employers to break down a lot of these 

bars so that eventually hopefully, something like nine 

will just end up getting taken out eventually, because 

there won't be those kind of bans or it'll stay there but 
58

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

nothing will be excluded. Very interesting. But yeah, 

this is one of those for me (sideway thumb). 

 MS. MCARDLE: Aaron.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah. Thank you for 

that Kim, and Stan. I think that, you know, what we were 

trying to do here was ensure that the student wasn't, you 

know, exhausting their limited Pell Grant funds on a 

program that was meant to lead them to licensure or 

employment. And that's kind of where we started from, but 

hearing from Stan and hearing from Belinda, and I think 

that if you all had any language that you would like to 

propose, I think that we can review that and take that 

back, I hear a I heard a concept from Terrell that, you 

know, there could be some sort of advising to the 

student, that the program may, you know, that you may be, 

you know, barred or prohibited from licensure or 

employment in the state if you continue with the program. 

But if the student is is advised of that, then they 

should be able to enroll in the program. Anyway, but I 

think we'll have to take that back and we will, we'll 

discuss it further. But again, we have a general concept 

from several subcommittee members. And and I think we can 

I think we have enough, I think we have enough 

information to either propose some changes to the 

amendatory language, or, or if the subcommittee actually 
59

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

wants to propose the actual language, we can take that 

back and review it with our colleagues to see if it if it 

fits within the confines of the statute.

 MS. MCARDLE: Stan.

 DR. ANDRISSE: So thank you, Aaron. I, 

I think that I'm okay with what you suggested. I just 

wanted to add that maybe, you know, we can certainly 

think up language to, you know, to address this, but what 

if, what if we think about somehow incorporating maybe 

not here, but somewhere, I mean, I know, we incorporated 

the idea of what Dr. McTier brought up earlier this 

morning, about having stakeholders involved in the 

process of the oversight. But what about somehow 

involving stakeholders to what Terrell was mentioning, as 

kind of this advisory committee that, you know, is not a 

requirement but is encouraged for states to create? I 

know, I don't know if Dr. McTier pointed out that Kansas 

has a similar type of advisory committee that they've put 

together of various stakeholders, and Connecticut has 

something similar. And in that way, Terrell, you know, 

that could include groups such as FICGN that helps create 

best practice language for interpreting the statutes and 

providing guidance to what's in the statutes. 

 MS. MCARDLE: Aaron.

 MR. WASHINGTON: I mean, Stan, if you 
60

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

have, if you wanted to reach out to those, as a 

representative of your constituency, if you wanted to 

reach out to any stakeholder and work with them to craft, 

develop, or provide language to the subcommittee, I think 

that we would we would definitely accept that language 

and then discuss it and see that, and ensure that it was 

in line with the statute and the intent of the statute. 

And then, you know, potentially, potentially if it is, 

adopt that language.

 MS. MCARDLE: Dr. McTier.

 DR. MCTIER: Yes. Terrell Blount was 

knocked off. If we can give him access to the camera and 

mic, that'd be great.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Alright. So, I think, 

nobody else, Sophia?

 MS. MCARDLE: No, but we're wait, I 

just wanted to give one second to see if we could get 

Terrell back on. If not, then, he can't for the moment. 

No, go ahead, Aaron.

 MS. WILSON: I'm giving him access 

right now.

 MS. MCARDLE: Okay, thank you, Amy.

 MR. WASHINGTON: So and so if we have 

further comments on nine, I think we can if we have no 

further comment on I think we can move into paragraph 
61

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

ten. We're going back into accreditation. You have any 

comments? Okay. Alright. So paragraph ten is about 

accreditation requirements. This this language paragraph 

ten does not appear in statute. So this is language the 

department is proposing and regulation as an 

interpretation of our statutory authority. And so, if the 

subcommittee is familiar with direct assessment, you'll 

see that we've kind of tried to tie similar elements to 

provide consistency across regulations to what 

accreditors would have to do in reviewing or evaluating 

these programs. So paragraph ten is a prison education 

program that is not consistent with the requirements of 

institute of institution's accrediting agency or state 

approval agency is not an eligible program under 668, I 

think we should probably put O there in order in order 

for any prison education program to qualify as an 

eligible program the accrediting agency must have and we 

say evaluated at least the first prison education program 

at the first two additional locations to ensure the 

institution's ability to offer and implement the program 

based on the agency's accredited accreditation standards, 

and include it in the institution's grant of 

accreditation, or reaccreditation. And, you know, I will 

I'll stop there. Before I get into the other 

requirements, just in case we had any comments about, 
62

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

about the first romanette. We are open to subcommittee 

feedback on the number of PEPs that prison education 

programs that have to be reviewed by their accreditor. 

But we, in essence, want to ensure that the prison 

education programs are are high quality and meet the 

accreditor standards and and this will, we will see also 

that this will mirror the review that we propose by the 

Department of Education so it will be the first prison 

education program at the first two additional locations.

 MS. MCARDLE: Okay, we have Belinda.

 MS. WHEELER: Yes, thank you for that. 

Point of clarification,so when we're saying so, these are 

specifically just for the additional location, correct? 

Like, we're not talking about like an online, like this 

is the going back to the traditional accreditation 

description of you know, substantive change additional 

location, so like bricks and mortar physical. And it's 

not encompassing online education, correct? Or am I 

incorrect with that?

 MR. WASHINGTON: This is encompassing 

any prison education program provided through any format. 

So- 

 MS. WHEELER: Okay, so so then just to 

follow up, and I hope this isn't getting into the weeds, 

but it's a part of another thing that when speaking with 
63

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

accreditation agencies right now, if institution X has a 

Bachelor's bachelor's degree in English that's been 

approved for an online location, currently before COVID, 

COVID is not a factor here, if that educational 

institution has that online program, and they want to 

make it available in different carceral spaces, the 

current accreditation process is that accreditors do not 

need to currently have those additional locations that 

happen to be in carceral spaces kind of reviewed, because 

that's the current procedure for accrediting of online 

programs. That is actually something that we've been 

talking about as being a potential issue because a 

traditional online student is certainly not the same as a 

traditional online student who happens to be in a 

carceral space. So just to get back to that further 

clarification, then with that, are we now saying if we're 

introducing this a statute, statutory language, that that 

would include two additional locations that could be 

online, and therefore this would be a different we're 

seeing ED kind of, perhaps, update policies and 

procedures to reflect that, for example, online education 

on the outside is very different to online education on 

the inside. So just want to double check.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Well, I can provide 

an example. If there if a if an institution wanted to 
64

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

provide distance education at an additional location. The 

regulation currently says that that program would have to 

be reviewed, the first program would have to be reviewed 

and evaluated in fact, as it says, by the accreditor. If 

they wanted to offer the distance education program at 

another additional location, that second additional 

location would also have to be evaluated by the 

accreditor. Beyond that, there will be a shortened 

applicate application process to the Department. But the 

first two additional locations the first two correctional 

facilities that that distance education program will be 

offered it would have to be reviewed, evaluated, I'm 

sorry, I keep saying reviewed, but evaluated by the 

accreditor. Does that answer your question?

 MS. WHEELER: Yes, that does and I 

just wanted to say that that is actually something very 

good that a lot of accreditation agencies have actually 

wanted to take place.

 MS. MCARDLE: Stan. Stan, I think 

you're on mute.

 DR. ANDRISSE: Yes. I was just wanting 

to ask a question, was there a policy think tank that was 

consulted for putting this language together?

 MR. WASHINGTON: So I think I 

mentioned earlier, Stan, that we, we mirrored the 
65

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

regulation after the direct direct assessment regs. So, I 

mean, I can just tell you what a direct says I keep 

saying direct assessment program. But a direct assessment 

program is a program that in lieu of clock or credit 

hours as a measure of student learning utilizes direct 

assessment of student learning, or recognizes the direct 

assessment of student learning by others. And so we have 

regulations as 668.10 about direct assessment programs. 

And we do require in those regulations, that the first 

direct assessment program is evaluated or by the by the, 

by the accrediting agency. So we actually say, in order 

for any direct assessment program to qualify as an 

eligible program, that accrediting agency must have 

evaluated the program based on the credit accrediting 

agency standards and criteria, and included it in the 

institution's grant or accreditation, or reaccreditation.

 MS. MCARDLE: Aaron, I think you may 

be muted.

 MR. WASHINGTON: I did sorry. And so 

you know, some of the Department's rationale behind that 

and we kind of anticipated a question on why to prison 

education programs would be subject to approval when only 

one direct assessment program is, and we thought that 

multiple directs multiple direct assessment programs 

offered by a single institution are likely to have more 
66

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

similarities than programs offered by two different 

prison facilities. So that was the rationale behind it. 

If you had information from a policy institute that you'd 

like to share with us, we'd be more than willing to hear 

that information.

 MS. MCARDLE: I believe we had 

Elizabeth next.

 MS. DAGGETT: I was just going to 

clarify what Aaron had said earlier is that and trying to 

clarify for Belinda which, which is, the way the language 

has been proposed is that it would be the first program 

at the first two additional locations and whether that 

additional location is defined as a brick and mortar 

location, or a distance education or correspondence that 

that would be the determination of whatever the program 

that's being offered, but it'd be the first two 

additional locations. So I just I had wanted to provide 

that clarification. And also, I will just add on that, I 

worked with Aaron on doing the rep, creating this 

language. And we did use the direct assessment language 

as guide because that's really the closest thing that we 

have that we would look at an evaluation and what we 

require an accrediting agency to do for a specific type 

of program.

 MS. MCARDLE: Dr. McTier.
67

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

 DR. MCTIER: So to be clear, because I 

think Stanley asked a really good question. So no one 

outside of you two or the Department was consulted with 

writing the language? Because I think when he asked that 

question, you went on a tangent with something else.

 DR. ANDRISSE: If I could add into 

clarification, and, you know, I appreciate, Aaron for, 

you know, going into the details, I think, as Dr. 

McTier's, you know, offering clarification to what I 

think you you thought that I was saying was that this is 

different than that, though, you know, this is a very 

specific population. And so as Dr. McTier was referring, 

I think it would be valuable to, you know, consult with 

and I appreciate that you're putting this group together, 

which is, you know, a group of people and experts and 

constituency groups. But I think you know, it certainly, 

I was asking because this is a very different population. 

So I feel as if I was just wondering whether there was an 

expert consultant that came in to help with this very 

different type of population than what all your other 

regulations, you know, typically deal with.

 MS. MCARDLE: Aaron, would you like to 

respond? Or should we go to Belinda?

 MR. WASHINGTON: I think Belinda is 

waiting, so I'll respond after Belinda.
68

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

 MS. WHEELER: Thank you. So just want 

to piggyback again, with the additional locations in the 

Roman numeral I, I know earlier, we had looked at 34 CFR 

600.2 as the definition of additional location. So again,

I just wanted to make sure that with this language, that 

it won't be misread by accreditation agencies, as you 

know that what has been happening with additional 

location as a bricks and mortar, it's great that you're 

bringing in that, that technology like online components.

So point of clarification, do we need to perhaps revise 

additional location here so that it may not be read back 

to that other earlier definition, which is talking about 

geographically apart, which might make people assume that

we're talking about a bricks and mortar? So I wonder 

whether or not that particular additional location could 

be potentially tweaked with so that there isn't that 

conflict. And then also, I just wanted to double check, 

when, as we're going into this space, and we're going to 

see a number of different educational institutions into 

this space, some of them quite substantial. I want to 

make sure that we're not with with these two additional 

locations, that we're not providing a potential loophole 

where an educational institution might be like, we'll do 

the first two as online. And then our third one, we're 

going to make sure as the bricks and mortar, but we've 
69

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

already qualified, you know, with with getting clearance 

on this other way, or vice versa, as opposed to two 

additional locations being technology online component 

and two additional locations being actual, like bricks 

and mortar, because we have seen some loopholes here, 

which are a little scary. So just wanted to kind of 

clarify both of those, please.

 MS. MCARDLE: Aaron, Aaron, I think 

you're on mute again.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Beth, did you want to 

go first and maybe provide accreditation perspective, and 

then I can? 

 MS. DAGGETT: Sure. So there is a 

difference, Belinda. So in the requirements of what 

accrediting agencies are required to review for 

additional locations, it is different. I do believe that 

the change and I'm not sure if-- I think you've talked 

about the change in the definition of an additional 

location. Forgive me, I wasn't here, when you started 

yesterday, that it would include that specific language 

that would define any prison education program was no 

matter how it is delivered as a additional location. So 

there would not be quote, a loophole, but it would only 

that particular part where we're looking at the delivery 

method of distance or via correspondence would only be 
70

applicable to prison education programs. And it would 

then further be defined by this particular regulation 

we're talking about now to require the review by 

accrediting agencies of those first of the prison 

education program at the first two additional locations. 

To your point, it could happen, at least as it's written 

right now that in a institution could offer up two 

additional locations exactly as you said, via distance at 

two different, you know, two different correctional 

facilities, and then offer another one that's a brick and 

mortar at a different location, and that would be outside 

of the required review listed and regulation here. You 

know, I believe that the Department would be interested, 

is obviously interested to hear any feedback you might 

have. Part of just to give you part of the rationale for 

the limitation for two, the first two is that there's a 

definite understanding and if you've been talking with 

accrediting agencies, I'm sure you're aware of the 

workload that would be required to then take this on and 

so there was trying to be a give and take of how many 

programs do you want to be implemented and how fast do 

you want them implemented versus, you know, the oversight 

that you and, you know, review that's necessary to 

determine, you know, the educational quality of those 

programs. So that was, you know, part of what was taken 

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21
71

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

into account when putting together this proposed 

language.

 MS. MCARDLE: Belinda.

 MS. WHEELER: Yes, thank you very much 

for that. Yeah, this is a very interesting space for 

sure. I wonder, just to offer up, because I know that the 

with the accreditation, we've got the additional 

location, one of the things that, you know, with the nine 

different accreditation agencies that are currently 

serving educational institutions in the Second Chance 

Pell space, one of the things that has been discussed is 

another way to look at the student demographic, in 

addition to location is substantive change student body. 

And that was one that, you know, has been interesting 

talking with constituents about, particularly when it 

came to, you know, that online program, because, you 

know, previously, educational institutions have just 

seen, you know, Bachelors of English degree, it's 

approved online on a main campus, and it doesn't matter 

if you're international wherever that, you know, things 

are kind of definitely different. I just wonder whether 

or not that could be something, you know, in addition to 

the idea of additional location, maybe like student 

student population with the purpose of the online, not to 

discriminate against that student body, but to make sure 
72

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

that the educational institution, you know, when when 

your faculty members are going into a prison setting for 

this, it's very clear to them that they are totally in a 

different location and they've really got to think about 

those students support services for students. Sometimes, 

you know, what we're seeing is that when it comes to 

online, a lot of times faculty and other community 

members on a on a college campus may not necessarily be 

thinking, it's not as in in your face, so to speak, as a, 

you know, face to face college program. So that was one 

of the things that we were, you know, potentially talking 

about is, you know, student change of student body to 

kind of have people think about, particularly for that 

online, because we can see that there's going to be a lot 

of educational institutions that particularly are very 

excited about offering online programs to students, but 

this whole cut and paste of an online degree on a main 

campus versus cut and paste into a carceral space will 

not will not work.

 MS. MCARDLE: Aaron.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you, Belinda. 

So was there a recommendation in there? I know that 

sounds like the recommendation could be that was that we 

would consider adding language around, I guess, modality 

of instruction and saying that well, if the first you 
73

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

know, like, that the accreditor would have to evaluate 

brick and mortar. And if if there's a distance program, 

even if that the first two were the first the first 

program, and the first additional locations was brick and 

mortar, if the third program at the third additional 

location was distance, then that would have to be 

evaluated as well, because it was a different means of 

instruction.

 MS. WHEELER: Yes. Yes, sir. Yes. 

 MR. WASHINGTON: Just wanted to make 

sure I got that. Thank you so much for that 

recommendation. Beth, did you want to add anything? I saw

you shake your head. So I want to circle back to Stan's 

point. We did work with many people at the Department of 

Education. It was Beth, myself, and there were also other 

people, we had an entire team of people, in fact, work on 

these regulations that brought in their experience from 

outside of the Department and brought in relevant work 

experience or experiences before, you know arriving at 

the Department in order to craft these regulations. These 

are proposals, Stan, and what we've done here, which you 

mentioned is try to bring together experts in the field. 

So if you have, I keep saying it, but if you have, you 

know, information that could further inform this, you 

know, let it let us know or if you have especially-- this 
74

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

is not in the statute, this is something that the 

Department believes is our believes we have authority to 

regulate under the statutory framework. And so you can 

propose some language changes here. I know we've said 

before where we have stuff that's copy and pasted from 

the statute there's not much wiggle room but I think that 

if you wanted to propose some some language here, you 

know, we can we can take we can present that to the 

subcommittee and review and just like Belinda has 

submitted about cross referencing more to 602.3 or 600.2 

or just like Dr. McTier has recommended.

 MS. MCARDLE: Stan.

 DR. ANDRISSE: Yes. And I appreciate 

that and that that I was you know, more so just asking 

for clarification than anything but I appreciate that, 

that you've brought us together. And that you, you know 

that the Department has opened this opportunity for the 

negotiated rulemaking session, you know, both this 

subcommittee and the full committee, which, you know, I 

also sit on, and that also that that kind of just and to 

your point, we do have, we have a whole, you know, I'm 

pretty up to, I'm pretty up to speed on all this. But I, 

you know, I would be remiss if I didn't say, that we've 

put together a whole constituency advisory team to help 

us out that are watching along. So you know, we've 
75

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

already done that, Aaron, and we do, I would say, you 

know, we do have language that we are planning to send 

over, I was waiting till the end of the third day really 

to send it over. Because I do find it to be more 

challenging to send the email as opposed to the chat like 

we have on the full committee. But then my other question 

was, we are able to caucus on the full committee. Are the 

caucusing rules still the same for this subcommittee? Not 

that I'm not trying to call a caucus right now. But do 

they still apply into the point of being like private?

 MR. WASHINGTON: We had not 

anticipated that the subcommittee would be caucusing. So 

the because of our, our limited time, six days, we wanted 

to- 

 DR. ANDRISSE: Right, no, I 

understand. I just was asking. But you know, to the full 

committees, you know, we had the in the full committee, 

we can caucus during the meeting, but we also can caucus 

after the meeting, if I understand the rules correctly. 

So I mean, we we kind of have our own little I just 

mentioned, because we've gathered some thought leaders 

together and have our own kind of private advisory 

caucus. So I was just, you know, to your point of getting 

people together to experts together, we've already done 

that. We came to the table with the experts with us.
76

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

 MR. WASHINGTON: That's that sounds 

great. I mean, yeah. And there's, and there's no, there's 

no prohibition on, you know, subcommittee members getting 

together, you know, at any point to talk amongst 

yourselves. I mean, there's-- the Department is not

prohibiting that, it's just that we won't, we don't we 

don't we won't be caucusing during the actual sub, the 

actual during times of the subcommittee. It's 2:52. I let 

you know what let's just I think we've got a lot of 

information. Thank you for your recommendation, Belinda, 

and Stan is going to get back to us with some more 

language on on this section. Let's look at the second the 

second clause, we'll look at the second clause. So and 

then maybe we can if we have a lot of comments, then we 

will, you know, table the discussion for for tomorrow, 

for tomorrow. So we we're going to hear we're proposing 

to require the the agency to perform a site visit as soon 

as practicable practicable. But no later than one year 

after initiating the first prison education program at 

the first two additional locations. And just to provide a 

little background, I think there are some, and Beth will 

correct me if I'm wrong, but there are some situations in 

which a site visit is required. That would be if there's 

a change in ownership or control, or if there's an 

addition of a branch campus. Beth, shake your head yes or 
77

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

no. Thank you. Those are six months. And so here we 

decided to provide a year because, you know, we know that 

there, there's a there's, there may be some things that 

accrediting agencies need to do behind the scenes to 

enter the correctional facility. So we wanted to provide 

like six months' additional time for them to get in there 

and do that site visit. It could happen before then 

before the year mark as well. So maybe a couple of 

minutes before and (inaudible).

 MS. WHEELER: Yes, thank you. I just 

wanted to say that I think that that's a really good 

addition. I think that you know, I and it's good to know 

that ED has spoken with accreditation agencies too, like 

I know this is an equity situation and it's going to be 

to be a lift here. You know, but I think it's very good 

to make sure that you know, we are getting those site 

visits in in a timely in a timely manner too. So thank 

you for adding that language.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Any the other 

comments on that?

 MS. MCARDLE: I see no other hands.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Okay, and the last 

one, I'll just go quickly go over it. Based on the 

indicators that we discussed earlier, the best interest 

indicators, we're going to ask or require in the 
78

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

proposing requirement regulations that the accreditors 

review the methodology behind the teacher turnover, 

credentialing, the transferability of credit and the 

offering of academic and counseling services, we're going 

to ask the accreditor to review the methodology behind 

that 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. So they're going to review and improve the 

methodology for how the Bureau of Prisons or the BOP or 

DOC made that determination. So, do you have any comments 

on that? Belinda? Sorry, I'm taking Sophia's job. 

 MS. MCARDLE: Belinda.

 MS. WHEELER: I'm not sure. Was that 

for me to speak? Sorry. 

 MR. WASHINGTON: Yep. 

 MS. WHEELER: Okay, thank you. Yes. So 

I just again, I think this is a really good. This is a 

really good turn of events. And I'm glad that ED is 

considering this. I know that as accreditation agencies 

and educational agencies work in partnership with 

corrections in this space, that, you know, this is 

something that accreditation agencies haven't had to do 

en masse since before 1994. And, you know, I think this 

is, this is one good way it'll be interesting to see how 
79

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

it how it actually pans out. But I think that this is a 

good start to the conversation with this to try to bring 

accreditation, educational institutions, corrections, and 

eventually community partners together with this.

 MS. MCARDLE: Terrell.

 MR. BLOUNT: Yeah, I just want to make 

sure this was this is in regard to corrections 

departments providing their methodology on how a prison 

education program was determined to be in best interest 

of the students? 

 MR. WASHINGTON: So correct. So this 

is in regards. Yes. So the the determination that the 

Bureau of Prisons is making. So and it's specifically in 

regards to three of the input indicators, we haven't 

actually spoken about them yet, because we kind of we 

only talked about the output so far. But we'll talk about 

the inputs tomorrow. And so where we're essentially what 

we were saying is that for teacher turnover, 

credentialing for transfer related credit, and for 

academic counseling, and advising services that the 

Department's proposing that they offer similar services, 

in prison education programs, to other eligible programs 

that the institution offers that are not prison education 

programs. And so we want the accreditor to review those 

specifically, those specific indicators, and the 
80

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

methodology behind which how the Bureau of Prisons came 

to those determinations. So when I asked them what their 

accreditors approve it to approve their I guess we are, 

we're review and approve, approve the methodology for how 

yeah, yeah, so we're asking the accreditor to look at 

look at the methodology behind how the Bureau of Prisons 

approved those indicators.

 MR. BLOUNT: Okay, got it. I just want 

to end with one thought that I've kind of come to over 

the course of these discussions and just reviewing the 

document. I think, you know, some of the a lot of what's 

being put in place, appears to be, you know, protecting 

the student as well as, you know, ED just doing their due 

diligence, and any other accrediting bodies or 

institutions, providing oversight, to make sure that 

people are doing what they should be doing in regard to 

providing education on the inside. But I can't help but 

think about how some of these things that are being put 

in place are going to be even more of a challenge for 

educators of color that work for colleges, that are 

trying to create college in prison programs, they already 

run into a number of challenges and getting those 

necessary partnerships that need to be in place. And it's 

not always because of the institution it’s because of the 

bad actors within these institutions that will give the 
81

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

green light to another program because of who it's led by 

versus or maybe even the content that's being provided, 

versus that educator of color who may be offering 

something that is less desirable to that Department of 

Corrections. And the people that you are the information 

that's going to be provided to those incarcerated 

individuals. So and that's just one piece of it, I think 

that's something that hasn't really been looked at. And I 

think maybe, you know, well not maybe on my side, I think 

I will reach out to, you know, people of color who are, 

who have run into a lot of these barriers and some of 

these things that have been proposed and then see how 

they perceive that may be a challenge for them.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you Terrell. 

Because we reached the 3:00 hour, I think you, if you we 

can pick back up on that comment tomorrow. I think it's 

an important comment. And I want to make sure that we 

have we provide others on the subcommittee a chance to 

respond to that. So Terrell, I'll try to remember but if 

you remember, can you please make sure to make that, that 

that point tomorrow morning, so that we can have a more 

general discussion about it? Thank you very much. So it's 

3:01. That concludes our day two of the prison education 

program subcommittee. Thank you all for joining us today, 

including those members of the public that viewed, that 
82

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

were with us on the viewing side, and we will pick back 

up tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. Thank you.
83

Subcommittee Meetings- 10/19/21