Published by: WCET | 10/30/2025
Tags: Digital Learning, Distance Education, Managing Digital Learning, Negotiated Rulemaking, Online Learning, Regulation, SAN, State Authorization, U.S. Department Of Education
The U.S. Department of Education will soon enter the second and final week of negotiated rulemaking for the Re-imagining and Improving Student Education (RISE) Committee, which is developing changes to the Federal student loan programs as directed by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OB3). As we prepare for the final week of discussions, we offer a look back at week one, highlighting key topics that may affect the digital learning and interstate compliance community. We’ll also note a few procedural changes in this rulemaking process compared to those held under the previous administration.
As background, in late July 2025, the Department published the announcement: Public Hearing; Negotiated Rulemaking Committees, announcing the formation of two committees to draft proposed regulations affecting Title IV Federal Student Aid programs. Because these regulations implement statutory provisions under the Higher Education Act (HEA), the Department must follow a specific process called negotiated rulemaking. This process brings together a committee of stakeholders—nominated by the public—to collaboratively discuss, negotiate, and draft the proposed rules.
Within a few months after the negotiated rulemaking sessions are concluded, the Department will prepare and release the proposed regulations for public comment. For those interested in a concise overview of this process, we encourage you to review our one-page SAN Resource, U.S. Department of Education Rulemaking Process.
The RISE Committee first convened on September 29, just two days before the start of the federal government shutdown. As previously noted, the purpose of this negotiated rulemaking is to develop regulations to implement the Federal student loan program provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OB3), enacted July 4, 2025.
Based on public hearing testimony this summer and coverage in higher education publications prior to the meetings, one of the most closely watched issues was to be the definition of “professional student.” Under OB3, Congress established separate annual and aggregate loan limits for graduate and professional students. The Federal statute now directs that Graduate students have an annual loan limit of $20,500 and an aggregate limit of $100,000, while professional students are eligible for $50,000 annually and an aggregate limit of $200,000. Naturally, stakeholders are concerned about how this new distinction will affect both students and institutions.
The Department posted initial draft language on its Negotiated Rulemaking for Higher Education 2025 webpage to serve as the starting point for committee discussion. From the outset, it was clear that the Department intended to interpret the statutory language strictly, showing little flexibility in defining who qualifies as a professional student. Please note that although the Department typically shared draft language on the website provided above, due to the Federal Government Shutdown, that website is not currently updated.
——–
The new OB3 federal statute language:
SEC. 81001. ESTABLISHMENT OF LOAN LIMITS FOR GRADUATE AND PROFESSIONAL STUDENTS AND PARENT BORROWERS; TERMINATION OF GRADUATE AND PROFESSIONAL PLUS LOANS.
Section 455(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087e(a)) is amended—
‘‘(C) DEFINITIONS.—
‘‘(i) GRADUATE STUDENT.—The term ‘graduate student’ means a student enrolled in a program of study that awards a graduate credential (other than a professional degree) upon completion of the program.
‘‘(ii) PROFESSIONAL STUDENT.—In this paragraph, the term ‘professional student’ means a student enrolled in a program of study that awards a professional degree, as defined under section 668.2 of title 34, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on the date of enactment of this paragraph), upon completion of the program.
The Federal regulation referred to in the new OB3 Federal statute is as follows:
34 CFR 668.2 General Definitions.
Professional degree: A degree that 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. Professional licensure is also generally required. Examples of a professional degree include but are not limited to 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.), and Theology (M.Div., or M.H.L.).
—————
During the first week, several negotiators questioned whether the Department’s interpretation unduly limited which programs could qualify as professional. The Department initially insisted that the regulatory list of degrees was exhaustive, and that any additions would require a future negotiated rulemaking, which it had no plans to convene.
Negotiators strongly disagreed, pointing to the “include but are not limited to” language in the regulation as clear evidence that the list was meant to be illustrative. After continued discussion and a caucus among negotiators, the Department reconsidered its position and agreed to revisit the issue later in the session.
On the third day, the Department introduced draft language for an “interim definition of professional student,” allowing limited expansion of eligible programs through July 1, 2027, pending potential future rulemaking. The proposed interim definition included programs that:
In response to negotiators’ feedback, the Department later added a requirement that institutions also report program information to the Department, such as through IPEDS.
By the end of week one, negotiators remained divided. Some advocated for expanding the list of eligible professional programs to reflect current academic and workforce realities, while others argued that Congress intended a narrow interpretation to limit borrowing to traditionally recognized professional fields.
While several loan-related topics were discussed, including loan limits and grandfathering provisions under OB3, the definition of professional student proved to be the most contentious issue. The Committee is expected to revisit this topic during the second week of rulemaking in November.
This rulemaking included some procedural changes that are confusing and concerning. The changes below are listed from most impactful to less impactful.
During day one of the RISE Committee meetings, the Department indicated that the Master Calendar Rule would be waived for purposes of determining the effective date of regulations developed through this rulemaking.
As discussed in prior SAN resources and WCET Frontiers , when developing regulations to implement Title IV of the Higher Education Act (HEA), the Department must follow specific statutory procedures that go beyond the general rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). In addition to convening a negotiated rulemaking committee, the Department is also required to adhere to the Master Calendar Rule, a timing provision established in HEA Section 482.
Under the Master Calendar Rule, the Department must publish final regulations by November 1 for those regulations to become effective on the following July 1. This schedule ensures that institutions have sufficient time to update systems, policies, and financial aid processes before implementing new federal student aid regulations.
However, for this negotiated rulemaking, the Department stated that the Master Calendar requirement will not apply. Initially, the Federal negotiator suggested that the Secretary of Education had waived the rule, but a Department attorney quickly clarified that the rule had not been waived by the Secretary. The Secretary does have authority under HEA Section 482(c)(2) to permit (but not require) institutions to implement a regulation early. However, the situation here is different: Congress itself effectively waived the Master Calendar for the new provisions by establishing in OB3 statutory effective dates of July 1, 2026.
Ordinarily, to meet the Master Calendar timeline, the Department would need to publish final regulations by November 1, 2025, meaning that proposed rules would have to be
issued for public comment and then finalized with responses to comments before that date. Given the complexity and timing of this rulemaking, that schedule is not feasible.
Some legal scholars have noted the unusual nature of an implicit congressional waiver of the Master Calendar provisions. More broadly, this accelerated timeline raises concerns about implementation readiness, including potential confusion and administrative burden for institutions and the possible negative impact on students as the new rules take effect.
As a reminder, the primary goal of a negotiated rulemaking committee is to reach consensus on proposed draft regulatory language. Under the Department’s definition, consensus means that no committee member dissents from the agreed-upon language. Members may abstain, but any active disagreement means consensus has not been achieved.
If the committee reaches consensus by the end of the rulemaking meetings, the agreed-upon language typically becomes the proposed regulation that the Department publishes for public comment. If consensus is not reached, the Department retains the authority to draft the proposed rule independently, though it generally considers the committee’s discussions and feedback in doing so.
During negotiated rulemaking under the previous administration, consensus was often sought by issue area, for example, separately on topics such as Gainful Employment, Change of Ownership, or Certification Procedures. In contrast, the current administration has stated that consensus for the RISE Committee will apply to the entire regulatory package. This means the committee must reach unanimous agreement across all issues addressed in the rulemaking to achieve consensus.
The same “whole-package” approach is expected to apply to the upcoming AHEAD Committee rulemaking sessions scheduled for December 2025 through January 2026.
In previous negotiated rulemaking sessions across several administrations, the end of each day was typically reserved for public testimony. This practice allowed members of the public to share comments and perspectives on the issues under negotiation, often providing the committee with valuable practical insight.
For this rulemaking, however, Deputy Assistant Secretary Jeffrey Andrade, from the Office of Postsecondary Education’s Policy, Planning, and Innovation division, announced on the first day that there would be no public testimony during the RISE Committee meetings. Andrade explained that there had already been ample opportunity for public input through the public hearing and written public comments submitted in August, and that additional opportunity for comment will occur when the proposed regulations are published, consistent with the Higher Education Act (HEA) requirements.
He also noted that during the previous rulemaking session held in July, many public comments had been “off topic,” suggesting that the decision aims to maintain focus on the committee’s formal negotiations.
It is worth noting that SAN and WCET have historically provided public testimony during these end-of-day opportunities in prior negotiated rulemaking sessions.
Days three through five of the rulemaking took place during the first three days of the federal government shutdown. The Department determined it could continue operations despite the shutdown because this rulemaking pertains to appropriations-related activities. Officials stated, however, that updates to the Department’s website, including the posting of draft regulatory language, would be paused during the shutdown. Public livestreaming of the sessions continued through the first week.
Looking ahead to the November rulemaking sessions, the Department indicated that the RISE Committee will proceed as planned. Public livestreaming of week two will be available. You can register to view the November rulemaking sessions here.
WCET and SAN will continue to monitor, analyze, and share timely updates as these rulemakings progress. Additionally, you may wish to review the new WCET and SAN Policy Tracker which provides a centralized resource for timely updates on federal statutes, regulations, guidance, judicial actions, and executive orders relevant to the digital learning community.
We encourage our community to continue following WCET and SAN for updates on the status of the rulemaking sessions and any developments in draft regulatory language. We also invite our members to engage in discussion about the potential implications of the forthcoming regulations, both from this RISE Committee and from the upcoming AHEAD Committee, scheduled to begin December 8, 2025, which will address several issues of particular importance to our community, including Workforce Pell and program accountability. We will advise the community when public comment opportunities become available. Your input will be important!
This post was written by Cheryl Dowd, State Authorization Network
