CAI Policy Insights: Fall Rulemaking Recap
Welcome to CAI Policy Insights, a monthly policy digest covering the latest legal and policy updates impacting online and hybrid learning and the use of educational technologies. By staying up to date on news and emerging controversies in these areas, we believe faculty, administrators, learning experience designers, and academic leaders can all make more informed decisions regarding program development, technology integrations, student engagement and assessment strategies, and more. Topic-by-topic breakdowns of key regulatory issues can also be found on the Online Teaching Compliance Page.
Summary and Insights
This edition of CAI Policy Insights covers both the months of November and December, which had two closely related policy developments that we chose to combine in one feature story. Specifically, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) rulemaking sessions held in November and December both culminated in consensus among negotiators—meaning, the draft of proposed rules shared in these committees will closely mirror proposed rule packages to be unveiled over the next few months. These proposed rules, once available, will still be subject to a public comment period of 30 days (at least assuming recent precedent is followed).
The first of these sessions to end in consensus, week 2 of the Reimagining and Improving Student Education (RISE) committee, focused on implementing One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) changes to federal student loan programs and repayment options. The central debate in this session was over the definition of a “professional degree.” Consensus was ultimately reached after ED agreed to at least slightly expand on what would otherwise be considered a very narrow definition based on existing regulations that provide a nonexhaustive list of examples.
Meanwhile, the first of two sessions of the Accountability in Higher Education and Access through Demand-driven Workforce Pell (AHEAD) committee, with meetings held Dec. 8-12, also resulted in a consensus vote on the topics addressed. This session focused only on implementing regulations for the new Workforce Pell program established under OBBBA, with more work still to be done in January on other OBBBA changes—namely a new accountability framework that will see programs lose Title IV eligibility if their graduates fail to meet certain income thresholds.
While each of these updates impact programs offered by institutions of higher education regardless of modality, distance education programs will face additional challenges with meeting upcoming requirements due to Workforce Pell eligibility requiring state-by-state program recognition (unless subject to a chain of bilateral agreements) as well as unique student location and income considerations. These factors can both complicate reporting and impact value-added formulas for continued eligibility. Similar complicating factors for distance education programs are very likely to make an appearance in January’s AHEAD committee meetings as well due in large part to the same challenges when crafting policy that accounts for differences in wages based on region and applying those fairly to programs that may have no geographic boundaries.
Feature Policy Update: Rulemaking Recap and Preview
While reaching consensus during negotiated rulemaking sessions is generally considered rare, it has now happened twice, with two separate rulemaking committees, in just over a month’s time. With both RISE and session 1 of the AHEAD committee now concluded with consensus reached, we have a very good preview of what forthcoming proposed regulations will include.
The implications for higher education, and online learning in particular, of the work of these committees was addressed at length in a previous edition of CAI Policy Insights. We are now beginning to see a clear outline of how OBBBA will be implemented in practice, but it is important to note that these proposals remain just that, and will still be subject to public comment and revision.
Despite additional procedural steps still needing to take place, advance notice of these proposed rules is critical, particularly since ED may cite OBBBA’s July 1, 2026 effective date as offering an implied waiver of what would otherwise be a rigid and far longer required notice period of at least eight months for this type of rulemaking. In other words, ED may at least attempt to set the effective date of the rules coming out of these committees to July 1, 2026 instead of July 1, 2027 like we would ordinarily assume to be the case. Such a move could prompt legal challenges, but the possibility of a rapidly approaching effective date for the proposals outlined below should not be overlooked.
RISE
Central to the RISE’s second week of meetings was ED’s proposed definition of “professional degree” and “professional student,” which included rigorous academic and licensure requirements. The stakes of being on the “wrong” side of this professional vs. graduate program are high in consideration of the new federal borrowing caps, which are roughly twice as high per year for professional degrees.
The current definition of “professional degree” encompasses a mix of doctoral-level programs and other graduate programs that generally are associated with professional licensure. After much deliberation, the new proposed definition is still not as expansive as what some negotiators would have preferred (e.g., nursing programs would still not qualify despite close alignment with many of the factors considered). However, a compromise was reached, resulting in the inclusion of at least clinical psychology programs while still largely addressing concerns over creating an overly broad and discretionary (potentially inconsistently applied) definition and worries about misalignment with statute and legislative intent.
Of course, other topics were also discussed in this session—perhaps most notably the elimination of the Graduate Plus plan and the architecture of the new OBBBA loan repayment plan, the Repayment Assistance Plan or “RAP.” We recommend WCET’s From RISE to AHEAD: What We Learned and What Comes Next in Federal Rulemaking and NASFAA’s You Have Questions; We Have Answers: Making Sense of the Student Loan Changes from OBBBA’s RISE Committee for additional coverage of these topics.
AHEAD
The AHEAD Committee reached consensus on a comprehensive proposal package, primarily centering on the creation of a new Workforce Pell program, on Dec. 12, with one negotiator abstaining. This was only the first of two sessions, however. While the committee’s work has concluded with regard to Workforce Pell, a number of other topics remain for when it next meets, starting on Jan. 5, 2026.
This consensus package includes proposals that align with the statutory criteria for Workforce Pell program eligibility in OBBBA (e.g., length of at least eight but less than 15 weeks, in operation for at least a year, 70% completion and job placement rates). Relevant to distance education programs, the proposed language would not provide an explicit pathway for Workforce Pell programs to be approved nationwide. Each state where the program would be offered would need to approve the program for eligibility; though, this can be facilitated through bilateral (but not multilateral) agreements. ED implied that something similar to a multilateral agreement could take shape in theory as long as the governors of each state are still able to separately enter into an agreement for each instance of the program’s eligibility in their own state.
Other major topics of deliberation, which would be more broadly applicable to all Workforce Pell programs regardless of modality, included concerns of institutions essentially being penalized if graduates stayed on to continue their education after completing their Workforce Pell program based on how the value-added test has been constructed, as well as concerns over the complex approval structure of these programs in general, with obligations shared among institutions, states, and ED with regard to the approval of each program. NASFAA has been providing summaries of each day of these deliberations for those interested in learning more about these other topics.
The next committee session in January will address additional topics such as the new OBBBA accountability framework along with existing, related accountability frameworks (i.e., financial value transparency and gainful employment). While the proposals that have already been negotiated are sure to have a major impact, January’s session will likely prove to be the most impactful for by far the most programs, encompassing all Title IV eligible programs at all institutions.
Key Takeaways
The RISE and AHEAD committees reached consensus on a number of critical topics that will recalibrate core financial aid programs and repayment plans. For distance education programs, especially those at the graduate and doctoral levels, these regulatory changes could have considerable implications on program design as well as federal student loan program eligibility. As ED continues to move forward with implementation and the AHEAD committee meeting next month, it will remain important to stay informed and consider preparing comments if wishing to participate in the rulemaking process—particularly with consensus already being reached on a number of major topics—along with exploring within your unit or institution what the potential impact of these changes will be for your programs and students.
Past Editions
Looking for news that first broke in a prior month or perhaps for historical context of a story featured in this article? Links to past editions of CAI Policy Insights are provided below.
