Published by: WCET | 12/4/2025
Tags: Distance Education, Managing Digital Learning, State Authorization, State Authorization Network, Student Success, U.S. Department Of Education
The U.S. Department of Education (the Department) completed the first of two negotiated rulemaking committees established to implement the federal statute, One Big Beautiful Bill Act Public Law 119-21 (OB3), enacted July 4, 2025. As we shared in a previous Frontiers Post, the Department first convened the Re-imagining and Improving Student Education (RISE) Committee that recently came to consensus developing regulations to implement statutory changes to student loan programs.
Second, the Department will soon convene the Accountability in Higher Education and Access through Demand-driven Workforce Pell (AHEAD) Committee to address statutory changes to institutional programmatic accountability, the Pell Grant Program, including Workforce Pell, and other changes to Title IV, HEA programs.The Department populates the rulemaking webpage, Negotiated Rulemaking for Higher Education 2025“, with up-to-date draft language and documents to follow the rulemaking. Although during the federal government shutdown the Department was not able to update the rulemaking webpage, the Department appears to be populating the backlog of documents.
In today’s post, we will accomplish three tasks:
The RISE Committee reached consensus, an outcome that is difficult to achieve in negotiated rulemaking. Consensus means that no committee member dissented from the final draft proposal for regulatory language at the conclusion of the meetings. For this rulemaking, the Department chose to use a “whole-package” approach, seeking consensus on the entire set of issues rather than voting issue-by-issue, as the previous administration.
When consensus is reached, the agreed-upon language becomes the language for the proposed regulations (the NPRM) that will be issued for public comment. If consensus had not been reached, the Department would have been free to write its own proposed language.
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OB3) establishes separate loan limits for graduate and professional students. Under the statute:
Because these limits differ significantly, stakeholders were highly focused on which programs qualify as “professional”. This is a distinction newly introduced in federal statute and now requiring regulatory definition.
The Department began with a narrow list of programs already referenced in 34 CFR 668.2 Professional degree. That regulation includes ten professional fields and uses “includes but is not limited to,” signaling the possibility of broader interpretation. Committee members expressed concern that several fields, particularly behavioral health, nursing, and physical therapy, were not included, despite their licensure requirements and doctoral-level training.
In the second week of negotiations, Under Secretary Nicholas Kent introduced revised draft language proposing:
The Department’s proposed draft definition of a Professional student for 34 CFR 685.102 includes the following:
Professional student: A student enrolled in a program of study that awards a professional degree upon completion of the program;
(1) A professional degree is a degree that:
(i) Signifies both completion of the academic requirements for beginning practice in a given profession, and a level of professional skill beyond that normally required for a bachelor's degree;
(ii) Is generally at the doctoral level, and that requires at least six academic years of postsecondary education coursework for completion, including at least two years of post-baccalaureate level coursework;
(iii) Generally requires professional licensure to begin practice; and
(iv) Includes a four-digit program CIP code, as assigned by the institution or determined by the Secretary, in the same intermediate group as the fields listed in paragraph (2)(i) of this definition.
(2) A professional degree may be awarded in the following fields:
(i) Pharmacy (Pharm.D.), Dentistry (D.D.S. or D.M.D.), Veterinary Medicine (D.V.M.), Chiropractic (D.C. or D.C.M.), Law (L.L.B. or J.D.), Medicine (M.D.), Optometry (O.D.), Osteopathic Medicine (D.O.), Podiatry (D.P.M., D.P., or Pod.D.), Theology (M.Div., or M.H.L.), and Clinical Psychology (Psy.D. or Ph.D.).
(3) A professional student under this definition:
(i) May not receive title IV aid as an undergraduate student for the same period of enrollment; and
(ii) Must be enrolled in a program leading to a professional degree under paragraph (2) of this definition.
A “pulse check” after this new proposed draft language was offered showed that negotiators were not immediately ready to support the language, despite acknowledging progress.
On November 6, during the fourth day of the second and final meeting week, the committee formally voted the reach consensus on the Department’s draft language. The Department subsequently issued the press release titled: U.S. Department of Education Concludes Negotiated Rulemaking Session to Implement the One Big Beautiful Bill Act’s Loan Provisions.
Because consensus was achieved, the professional student definition shared above, and the rest of the consensus package, will appear in the forthcoming Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for public comment.
Institutions, accreditors, and organizations should review the definition carefully to assess how the new “professional student” category may affect students, program classifications, and institutional policies.
Here are the key materials you will want to review:
The AHEAD Rulemaking Committee will begin its first week of meetings on December 8, 2025. The rulemaking will conclude the week of January 5, 2026. The documents pertaining to this committee, are as follows:
Registration to stream the meetings is available here. As shared in the Department’s original announcement establishing the rulemaking committee, the Department intends to develop regulatory language to implement the statutory requirements set forth in the recent enactment of OB3. The key areas addressing our community include:
A core focus of AHEAD will be creating a new accountability framework based on graduate earnings, as required by statute. Expect discussion on how earnings will be measured four years after completion, how programs are judged if they “fail” in two out of three years, and how this new system will interact with (or replace) the current Financial Value Transparency and Gainful Employment regulations. This discussion will be especially important for distance education programs, which are more likely to include students participating in programs by interstate distance education and may have their graduates distributed nationally.
OB3 establishes Pell eligibility for short-term, workforce-aligned programs. The committee will need to determine what qualifies as a Workforce Pell program, including program length, instructional modality (online/hybrid), evidence of labor-market alignment, and stackability or pathway requirements. Institutions offering non-credit or continuing education programs, or developing online microcredentials, should expect significant implications. Additionally, state input is required to determine programs of particular demand in that state which also raises questions about determining applicable programs offered by interstate distance education.
AHEAD will define how the Department approves Workforce Pell programs, how it monitors program performance, and what happens when programs fail accountability thresholds. Issues may include teach-out options, phased removal of eligibility, or immediate loss of Title IV approval. This may intersect with accreditor oversight and state authorization rules, particularly for institutions launching online workforce programs in multiple states.
Because the new accountability structure relies on tracking graduates’ earnings, the AHEAD Committee will address new data-submission responsibilities for institutions. This may include reporting requirements for students in short-term or non-credit programs, cross-state data matching for distance learners, and expectations for outcome disclosures. These requirements will be important for institutions with multi-state online enrollment or extensive alternative credential offerings.
WCET and SAN urge our community to keep abreast of the rulemaking updates by monitoring resources and consider playing a meaningful role in influencing the final rules through public comment.
Institutions should begin internal assessments now to understand how the proposed regulations could affect:
These assessments will strengthen your institution’s public comment and inform implementation planning once regulations are finalized.
When the Department publishes the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the public will be invited to submit written comments. This is an important opportunity to share observations, concerns, and practical insights, including potential impacts on students, that can help shape the final regulations. Public comments may express support for the proposed language, raise questions, or offer alternative recommendations.
Effective public comments are concise, constructive, and written in a positive tone. Anyone may submit a comment as a private citizen. However, comments submitted on behalf of an institution or organization must be authorized through the appropriate internal process. Members may find it helpful to consult SAN’s one-page resource, Writing an Effective Public Comment, when preparing their submissions.
Final regulations from both the RISE and AHEAD Committees are scheduled per statute (OB3) to become effective July 1, 2026. This timeline falls outside the statutorily directed master calendar structure, as noted in the October WCET Frontiers Post. The Department must move quickly to meet this deadline. Given these exigent circumstances, the Department might provide a shorter-than-usual public comment period, rather than the standard 30 days.
We encourage the community to begin preparing now. For RISE-related issues, the consensus language is already available, allowing institutions and organizations to start drafting comments in advance of the NPRM’s publication.
As the Department advances these significant regulatory packages, the months ahead will be critically important for institutions, policy leaders, chief online learning administrators, and state authorization professionals. The RISE and AHEAD rulemakings have the potential to reshape program eligibility, accountability frameworks, and workforce-focused pathways for years to come. By staying informed, preparing early, and actively participating in the public comment process, WCET and SAN members can play a central role in ensuring that the final regulations support high-quality educational opportunities while protecting students and helping institutions navigate an increasingly complex policy landscape.
Next