Major Updates

U.S. Department of Education Provides Workforce Pell Grant FAQs
The U.S. Department of Education has released FAQs on Workforce Pell Grants for short-term programs. The guidance covers items like the baseline eligibility standards: programs be at least 8 but fewer than 15 weeks or 150 to 599 clock hours and operational for a year, as well as be certified by a governor before approval. Beyond what the law was already clear on, the FAQs answer a few more nuanced areas the legislative text did not clarify, including:

  • Noncredit programs are treated as clock-hour programs, with the attendance-tracking and disbursement rules that implies.
  • Each version of a program with a different length needs its own application.
  • Bachelor’s degree holders may receive Workforce Pell; graduate credential holders may not.
  • Through the 2028–29 award year, any job counts toward the 70% placement threshold; after that, only employment in the field the program seeks to employ students in counts.
  • Participation in the SARA does not allow a program to enroll Workforce Pell students from other states. Only bilateral agreements between states’ governors, with data-sharing provisions, do.

While UPCEA previously reported on this last item, for administrators of online and continuing education units, it is worthwhile to again restate this as a major difference between traditional programs and short-term Workforce Pell-eligible programs. A governor-certified program cannot rely on SARA to serve Workforce Pell students elsewhere, so online offerings will be limited to in-state learners until states negotiate bilateral agreements. Noncredit units should confirm that their attendance systems can meet clock-hour requirements and that each program has a documented pathway to academic credit, such as an articulation agreement, before seeking state certification. UPCEA’s Workforce Pell resource hub provides a slew of information on this new federal aid program to help institutions navigate compliance and program review. Read the Department’s full FAQ.


Court Order Adds Naturopathy to the Professional Degree List as Litigation Over Loan Limits Continues
Courts are increasingly writing the list of programs ED treats as “professional.” That list decides whether students can borrow up to $50,000 a year and $200,000 in total, rather than the graduate limits of $20,500 and $100,000. On October 23, FSA updated its interim list of professional degree programs to add Doctor of Naturopathy (N.D.) and Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine (N.M.D.) programs. The change followed a ruling by Judge Michael Simon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, who granted a preliminary injunction on October 16 in a suit brought by three naturopathic medicine associations. He found the associations likely to succeed in arguing that ED applied criteria beyond the statute. The interim list exists only because a federal court in Washington, D.C., stayed parts of the Department’s definition on June 24, a fight UPCEA’s June Policy Matters covered in detail. The Department says it will continue to defend the rule. At least five other suits over excluded degrees are pending, several on schedules expected to conclude before year-end.

For administrators of online and professional graduate programs, naturopathy itself touches few units, but the mechanics FSA spelled out apply to any program whose status shifts. To lend at professional limits, institutions must report a professional student level when originating the loan. Amounts already disbursed need not be reversed if a designation changes, but later disbursements may not be made at the higher limit. FSA also suggests institutions consider capping loans for temporarily designated programs at graduate-level amounts to spare borrowers disruption. Institutions with programs whose status rests on litigation should decide now whether to use that discretion, and should tell enrolled students plainly that their borrowing limits could change. Read more.

Other News

 

Major Updates

Workforce Pell Moves from Rules to Reality: State Approval Pipelines Mature, ED Launches Training, and Labor Awards $65 Million
Nearly three months after Workforce Pell Grants (Pell awards for programs of 150–599 clock hours, or 8 to fewer than 15 weeks) became available on July 1, the rollout is moving at very different speeds from state to state. UPCEA’s September blog post on state Workforce Pell readiness found over 30 jurisdictions with working approval pipelines, over a dozen still building them; the Opportunity Data implementation tracker now counts 36 operational jurisdictions. A governor must approve a program before an institution can submit it to ED, so state occupation lists effectively decide what can be built. Those lists range from 19 eligible occupations in Pennsylvania to 434 in Colorado. Federal approvals are still scarce: fewer than two dozen programs, all at community colleges in five states, had cleared ED review by late September.

Two federal developments add capacity for institutions to understand and build these programs. Earlier this month, ED’s Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA) released a free, self-paced Workforce Pell learning track. It covers program eligibility, the state and federal approval processes, keeping eligibility, and awarding aid. Companion modules cover adding workforce programs to the institutional eligibility application and flagging eligible students in the FAFSA Partner Portal. On September 23, the Department of Labor (DOL) awarded $65 million in Strengthening Community Colleges Training Grants to consortia in seven states (Colorado, Iowa, Mississippi, Missouri, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Texas) to build short-term programs designed to qualify for Workforce Pell.

For administrators of online and professional continuing education units, especially at four-year institutions, the early pattern is telling: every approval so far and all of the new DOL money have gone to community colleges. Continuing education leaders should confirm where their state’s occupation list and application window stand. They should also have financial aid and program staff take the FSA track together, and check existing noncredit offerings against the 70 percent completion and job placement thresholds that apply through the 2028–29 award year. UPCEA’s guidance on preparing four-year institutions for Workforce Pell is a useful starting point, as are all of our Workforce Pell Resources.

Other News

Major Updates

ED Releases Proposed Accreditation Rule; Comments Due September 21
The U.S. Department of Education published its proposed accreditation rule, Accreditation, Innovation, and Modernization: The Secretary’s Recognition of Accrediting Agencies, on August 20, following the AIM negotiated rulemaking committee’s consensus agreement in May (which we previously covered in our May Policy Matters newsletter). The proposal represents a significant reworking of the federal accreditation framework. Among other provisions, it would eliminate remaining geographic-scope distinctions among recognized accreditors, make it easier for institutions to change or use multiple accrediting agencies, strengthen separation and conflict-of-interest requirements between accreditors and affiliated trade or professional associations, and require accrediting decisions to be neutral with respect to viewpoint and ideology, with an exception for agencies with a religious mission.

Perhaps most consequential for institutions, the proposal would also place considerably greater emphasis on student outcomes at both the institutional and program level. Accreditors would be expected to assess measures such as completion, licensure or certification results where applicable, employment outcomes, and educational and economic returns relative to the cost of attendance. The rule also proposes substantial changes to transfer-of-credit practices. For comparable undergraduate coursework earned at another institution accredited by a federally recognized agency, institutions generally would be expected to presume that credit should transfer unless there is an academic or curricular basis for denial. Students denied credit would receive a written explanation and an opportunity to appeal within 15 days.

These provisions deserve particular attention from online, professional, and continuing education units. The proposal would require institutions to disclose whether credit earned through nondegree or noncredit programs may transfer or articulate into degree programs, and it expressly recognizes credit for prior learning as a potential component of student achievement and accelerated completion. It would also direct accreditors not to categorically prohibit or unreasonably restrict certain short-term programs and would scrutinize whether program length is appropriate to the credential being awarded. Taken together, those changes could shift the federal policy environment for stackable credentials, prior-learning pathways, shorter workforce programs, and adult-learner mobility, and could also require institutions to revisit transfer policies, articulation processes, data infrastructure, and their ability to demonstrate outcomes at the individual program level. Critics have mentioned how these proposals could lead to politicizing the accreditation process, allowing for whatever party is in power to change standards for schools and accreditors. Comments on the proposed rule are due September 21, 2026. If finalized on the anticipated timetable (ahead of November 1, 2026), the earliest the regulations could take effect would be July 1, 2027. Read more and submit comments here. 

 

Secretary McMahon Releases “A National Call to Action” for Universities
Following the Trump administration’s unsuccessful 2025 Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education, Education Secretary Linda McMahon issued a new, substantially less prescriptive appeal to college and university presidents and governing boards on August 3. The “National Call to Action” asks every postsecondary institution, before the end of 2026, ”to describe to the American public your commitments to rigorous teaching, pathbreaking research, and national service — commitments that make our universities a bedrock institution of the American republic,” and to post those statements prominently on their websites. Rather than prescribing a common set of institutional policies, the letter poses seven questions spanning admissions transparency, free speech and intellectual diversity, affordability and student outcomes, academic rigor in the age of AI, research security, and programs serving national workforce and economic needs.

Importantly, the Call to Action is currently voluntary. During an August 19 Department briefing, officials emphasized that there are no direct penalties or awards associated with participation and described the initiative as not being tied to a specific funding “carrot or stick.” At the same time, when pressed about potential future consequences (including OMB’s pending overhaul of government-wide grant funding processes, which could create a policy risk institutions should watch closely) Department officials did not fully close the door on how an institution’s response (or decision not to respond) could factor into the administration’s broader approach to higher education. Officials stressed that the voluntary nature of the initiative does not mean the Department will “cease to hold institutions accountable in other ways,” and suggested that institutions declining to engage could be viewed as recommitting to what the administration considers a broken status quo. For university leaders, the practical question may therefore be broader than whether the Call to Action is technically voluntary: it is also whether the administration may incorporate these stated priorities into its exercise of discretion over federal funding.

For online and professional education leaders, several of the Secretary’s questions are especially noteworthy. The letter puts explicit emphasis on affordability, program-level value, workforce responsiveness, and academic rigor in the age of AI, areas already receiving increased attention elsewhere in federal policy. Institutions considering a response may want to inventory the evidence they can already point to around adult learner outcomes, transparent pricing, workforce-aligned programming, teaching and assessment practices, and the value delivered by individual programs. Even institutions that ultimately choose not to issue a formal response should view the letter as a useful indicator of the themes the Department is likely to continue emphasizing as part of its higher education policy agenda. Read the letter here.

 

Other News

 

Major Updates

Department of Education Issues Final Rule for New Accountability Standards
On June 29, the U.S. Department of Education issued its final rule establishing the Student Tuition and Transparency System (STATS) and Earnings Accountability framework, a sweeping new standard that applies to nearly all programs and sectors regardless of tax status or credential level. Under the rule, undergraduate programs must show that graduates earn more than the typical high school diploma holder, and graduate programs must show graduates earn more than the typical bachelor’s degree holder. Programs that fail this earnings-premium test in two out of three consecutive years lose eligibility for the federal Direct Loan program. And those with consistent failure of programs with at least half of their Title IV funds or at least half of their Title IV recipients associated with low-earning outcome programs could then have those programs lose eligibility to participate in all federal financial aid eligibility (including Pell Grants). The rule also harmonizes this new earnings standard, created under the OBBBA, with the Department’s existing Financial Value Transparency and Gainful Employment regulations.

Notably, the Department made several changes to the final rule in response to nearly 10,000 public comments. It will delay eligibility consequences by at least one year for programs preparing students for tipped-income occupations, so that earnings data reflects tax years when the “No Tax on Tips” policy is in effect (which begins in 2026). The final rule also adds new exemptions from automatic loss of Title IV eligibility: for institutions that don’t currently participate (and haven’t for the last five award years) in the Direct Loan program; for programs where the institution agrees to bar Direct Loan borrowing for at least five years; and for institutions that exclusively serve individuals with documented disabilities. Administrators should review how their programs measure up now, before the accountability consequences take effect. Read the Department’s full press release.

 

Professional Degree Determinations Impacted by Lawsuits, Department Issues Updated Guidance on Which Degrees Count
On June 24, a federal judge in the District of Columbia preliminarily blocked the Department of Education’s definition of “professional degree” under the RISE Final Rule, which had been set to take effect July 1 and would have determined which graduate program’s students can access higher federal loan limits following the implementation in OBBBA. The ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by the American Association of Colleges of Nursing, the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, and an interprofessional coalition of organizations representing nurses, teachers, therapists, and public health practitioners, with the court finding the Department’s definition “likely contrary to law.” In response, the Department issued a June 29 Electronic Announcement via Federal Student Aid (FSA) which was updated July 10 listing the CIP codes it will treat as professional degree programs for the duration of the stay. The interim list restores several fields the rule had excluded (including MSN and DNP nursing programs, physician assistant, occupational and physical therapy, audiology, and speech-language pathology) while noting that the rest of the RISE rule, including the new graduate loan limits and repayment plans, took effect July 1 as planned.

Institutions should expect this interim guidance to govern loan processing for months to come. The court has since set a briefing schedule running through December, with both parties agreeing to resolve the case by summary judgment, meaning a final ruling could come any time after that date absent an appeal or other action by the Department. Notably, plaintiffs have signaled they may amend their complaint by July 30 to ask the court to also review the Department’s interim guidance itself, and the Department has not clarified whether its CIP code list is exhaustive, leaving open the possibility of further updates. In the meantime, financial aid offices can rely on the FSA announcement when originating loans at professional-level limits, though the Department has suggested institutions may want to consider using the new program-level loan limit authority to cap borrowing at graduate levels for temporarily reclassified programs, mitigating potential disruption to borrowers if classifications change as the litigation proceeds. Read more.



Other News

 

Major Updates

What is a “Professional” Degree? Lawsuits and Legislators Push Back against Trump Admin Determinations

The definition of a “professional” degree has quietly become one of the most consequential terms in federal financial aid, and it lands squarely on the graduate and professional programs many continuing education units operate. Under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Grad PLUS is eliminated and new federal loan borrowing caps take effect July 1: students in professional programs may borrow $50,000 per year up to a $200,000 lifetime cap, while other graduate students are limited to $20,500 annually and $100,000 over a lifetime. The Department of Education’s final rule, published in early May, limits the “professional” designation to eleven fields: chiropractic, clinical psychology, dentistry, law, medicine, optometry, osteopathic medicine, pharmacy, podiatry, theology, and veterinary medicine; leaving nursing, physical therapy, physician assistant programs, social work, counseling, and others in the lower-cap “graduate” tier. This is one of several big changes coming to higher education July 1: the new loan limits sit alongside the rollout of Workforce Pell, the wind-down of SAVE loan repayment plan, revised Public Service Loan Forgiveness terms, and new Parent PLUS limits. For administrators, the practical takeaway is that program classification now directly drives how much a student can borrow, and advising, net-price conversations, and enrollment projections for affected programs should be built around that distinction.

The determinations have drawn broad pushback via lawsuits and bipartisan lawmakers. A coalition of two dozen states and the District of Columbia has sued over the narrowed definition, and the regulations have spurred at least three major lawsuits, none yet decided. In Congress, Democrats led by Reps. Mannion, Bonamici, and Underwood and Sens. Merkley and Alsobrooks introduced a Congressional Review Act resolution to repeal the rule, though a measure requiring the President’s signature faces long odds. The more notable movement came on the appropriations side: the House Appropriations Committee advanced its FY 2027 Education funding bill with a bipartisan amendment that would reclassify advanced nursing programs (nurse practitioner, clinical nurse specialist, certified nurse midwife, CRNA, and other APRN programs) as professional degrees. Broader fixes are also in play, including Rep. Lawler’s Professional Student Degree Act (with a Gillibrand companion bill introduced in the Senate) and Rep. Kennedy’s LEAP Act, which would extend professional limits more widely. The timing is the catch: none of this is likely to become law before July 1, and policy analysts caution that even a court order or new law would take time to operationalize, so institutions should plan for the caps to apply this summer while tracking changes that may follow.


Fraudulent Students and Federal Financial Aid – An Increasing Threat to Institutions: How Congress May Act

“Ghost student” fraud (criminals using stolen or fabricated identities to enroll, collect federal aid, and disappear) has become a serious operational and compliance risk, and it concentrates in exactly the open-enrollment and online environments that define much of the UPCEA community. The scale is real: in the first quarter of 2026, California’s 116 community colleges disbursed more than $1.9 million in aid to fake students. The U.S. Department of Education has spent the past year building defenses, beginning with new identity-validation processes announced in June 2025, flagging tens of thousands of applicants for verification, and launching a formal real-time FAFSA fraud-detection system in April 2026 that requires high-risk applicants to verify their identity through a live ID and camera check (or in person at their institution). The Department says these efforts have prevented more than $1 billion in fraudulent aid. On June 10, the House moved to make this permanent, passing the No Aid for Ghost Students Act of 2026 by a 249–172 vote, with 36 Democrats joining Republicans; the bill combines H.R. 7892 and H.R. 7891, would require ED to screen every FAFSA for identity fraud beginning October 1, 2026, mandate in-person or live audiovisual verification before flagged applicants receive aid, and target institutions that show a pattern of disbursing to suspicious applicants. The measure, which the Department supports, now heads to the Senate.

Critics including the financial aid community and student-success advocates warn that the cure may burden the students aid is meant to reach. House Education ranking member Bobby Scott objected on grounds of administrative burden on institutions and data-privacy concerns, and the Hope Center’s analysis (“The Hidden Power Grab in ‘Fraud Prevention’”) argues these legislative packages would hand the Department sweeping new authority to audit schools and withhold aid even as it says existing tools are already working, inject immigration politics into the FAFSA, and risk reversing a decade of bipartisan progress reducing verification burdens that fell hardest on Pell-eligible students. For online and continuing education administrators, the tension is direct: stronger fraud screening protects programs and legitimate students, but added verification steps could slow enrollment and disproportionately affect the working adults these programs serve. UPCEA’s recent snap poll on fraudulent applications shows how widespread the problem has become for members: 93% had encountered suspected or confirmed fraudulent applications in the past year, including 70% with confirmed cases, and only 8% reported no known cases or were unsure. The UPCEA Policy Committee plans to host a Coffee Chat on this topic in October; stay tuned for details to come.

Other News

Major Updates

Workforce Pell Final Regulations Released: What Changed from the Proposed Rule
The Department of Education has released the final rule on Workforce Pell Grants and the new Pell Grant exclusion for students whose non-Federal grant and scholarship aid meets or exceeds their cost of attendance. The Department reviewed approximately 440 comments but, in keeping with its stated intent to track the statute closely, kept the overwhelming majority of its proposed language unchanged. Substantive revisions were confined to a few provisions, some noted below which could be notable for the UPCEA community.

One of the most significant changes responds to widespread pushback on the 25 percent ceiling for instruction delivered through written arrangements with ineligible institutions or organizations. While the Department rejected calls to raise the cap broadly (to 50 percent or higher), they did allow a change that Registered Apprenticeships can have an ineligible entity provide more than 25 percent but less than 50 percent of an eligible workforce program when the program is a related instruction component of a Registered Apprenticeship. Two value-added earnings changes also stand out: a new change excludes students who were enrolled in another educational program during the relevant earnings year — addressing concerns that counting students who “stack” into further education would unfairly depress earnings figures. They also simplified and aligned with the STATS and Earnings Accountability NPRM, combining aggregation steps and dropping the minimum cohort size from 50 to 30 completers. The Department also revised the bar on counting remedial coursework applied to clock-hour as well as credit-hour programs, and concluded the statute did not allow the narrower credit-hour-only approach proposed originally.

For institutions and States, the broader takeaway is what did not change. The Department repeatedly invoked statutory constraints to decline requests to expand program-length limits, bar bachelor’s-degree holders or admit graduate-degree holders, replace bilateral agreements between states with multilateral or SARA-style frameworks, soften the 70 percent completion and job-placement thresholds for high-barrier populations, exclude WIOA or employer-provided assistance from the cost of attendance exclusion, or adopt an interim value-added earnings metric. It likewise rejected proposed new guardrails (categorical bars on “risky” institutions, private-loan/ISA prohibitions, and prescribed OIG audit frameworks), generally finding it lacked authority or that existing program-integrity rules already applied.

Stakeholders should expect any additional flexibility to come from forthcoming sub-regulatory guidance, and the discretion the rule extends to Governors, especially those provided during the first several award years. Read the final rule here.

 

Federal Accreditation Overhaul Clears Negotiated Rulemaking — What You Should Be Watching
On May 21, 2026, the Department of Education’s Accreditation, Innovation, and Modernization negotiated rulemaking committee reached final consensus on a slate of regulatory changes that will substantially rewrite the rules accreditors must follow. The near-unanimous vote (12 of 14 primary negotiators, with student and veteran representatives abstaining) obligates ED to publish a proposed rule that largely tracks the negotiated language. ED is targeting publication and finalization by November, with an effective date of July 1, 2027, though widespread legal challenges are expected. The package implements key pieces of the 2025 executive order on accreditation, easing the path for new accreditors to gain recognition by eliminating the current two-year waiting period and allowing upstart agencies to seek recognition after accrediting just one institution or program, while also forcing programmatic accreditors to sever formal organizational ties and stop sharing personnel, equipment, or infrastructure with affiliated trade associations, a shift that could directly affect accreditors that many professional and continuing education programs rely on.

For administrators of online and professional continuing education units, several specific provisions warrant attention. Standards of student achievement will have to be examined at the program level, with a new required focus on post-completion earnings alongside graduation, licensure, and employment outcomes; a meaningful change for short-term, non-degree, and stackable credentials where earnings data is often thin. Transfer credit is also highlighted, with institutions required to award transfer credit for comparable undergraduate coursework completed at recognized institutions unless they provide a written basis for denial, give students a 15-day window to appeal denials, and publish clear upfront disclosures about how credits are evaluated. Accreditors will also gain new oversight responsibilities around intellectual diversity and viewpoint assessments, including mechanisms to measure student and faculty perceptions (with an exemption for institutions with explicit religious missions), research misconduct procedures covering plagiarism and citation manipulation, verification of consistent enforcement of First Amendment and civil rights policies, and monitoring of institutional expenditures for cost efficiency. Institutional leaders should begin auditing program-level outcomes data, transfer articulation documentation, and faculty evaluation practices now.

Stay tuned for the upcoming proposed rule when it drops this summer or fall, as the public comment window will be the last meaningful opportunity to shape language before the July 2027 effective date. Read more.

 

Other News

Major Updates

DOJ Extends ADA Title II Web Accessibility Deadline to April 2027

On April 20, 2026, the Department of Justice issued an Interim Final Rule extending the ADA Title II digital accessibility compliance deadlines by one year for all state and local government entities, including public colleges and universities. Public institutions serving populations of 50,000 or more (which, because population is calculated at the state level, effectively includes nearly all public universities) now have until April 26, 2027, to bring their websites, mobile applications, and digital course materials into conformance with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1, Level AA. Institutions in jurisdictions under 50,000, such as some community colleges or smaller special districts, have until April 26, 2028. The DOJ cited overestimated institutional capacity, particularly in staffing and technology, as the primary rationale for the extension.

Importantly, the extension changes only to the compliance date, all underlying obligations remain fully in force, and the DOJ has signaled it may pursue additional rulemaking to revisit the technical standards themselves. Disability advocates sharply criticized the delay, and a 60-day public comment period on the Interim Final Rule is open through June 22, 2026. Institutions should resist the temptation to pause their accessibility work, and administrators are encouraged to maintain their WCAG 2.1 remediation plans, prioritizing high-traffic pages and student-facing systems, and document ongoing efforts as a compliance record. Read more.

 

AIM Negotiated Rulemaking Committee Completes First Session; Sweeping Accreditation Changes Under Discussion

The Department of Education’s Accreditation, Innovation, and Modernization (AIM) negotiated rulemaking committee held its first of two scheduled sessions April 13–17, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Negotiators representing institutions, students, accreditors, and taxpayers worked through a draft regulatory proposal that represents one of the most significant proposed overhauls to the federal accreditation framework in decades. The draft reflects priorities outlined in Executive Order 14279 and includes provisions to simplify recognition of new and existing accreditors, require program-level student outcome metrics to define “minimum student expectations,” tie accreditation review to institutional cost and affordability, prohibit institutional representatives from sitting on accreditor decision-making bodies such as commissions, among other changes including items like confirming institutions have policies for transferability of credits to other institutions.

No consensus was reached during the first session. A revised, red-lined draft is expected ahead of the second and final session scheduled for May 18–22, 2026, at which a formal vote on the proposed regulations will occur. If the committee does not reach consensus, the Department may move forward with final regulations independently. Should rules be finalized by November 1, 2026, they could take effect as early as July 2027. The scope of the proposals: touching accreditor recognition, academic freedom, First Amendment compliance, and credit transfer warrants close attention from institutions. Read more.

 

AHEAD Earnings Accountability NPRM Open for Public Comment Through May 20

A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) implementing the earnings accountability framework established under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) was published in the Federal Register on April 20, 2026, with public comments due by May 20, 2026. The proposed rules were developed by the Accountability in Higher Education and Access through Demand-Driven Workforce Pell (AHEAD) negotiated rulemaking committee, which reached consensus in January 2026. The framework would apply a uniform earnings-based accountability metric to virtually all Title IV-eligible programs, from short-term certificates to graduate degrees, regardless of institutional sector. Programs whose graduates do not earn more than working adults with only a high school diploma (for undergraduate programs) or more than bachelor’s degree holders (for graduate programs) in two of three measured years would lose access to the federal Direct Loan program.

The proposed rules also establish the Student Tuition and Transparency System (STATS), require institutions to provide direct warnings to students enrolled in programs at risk of losing aid eligibility, and introduce a voluntary “orderly program closure” pathway for programs that fail initial benchmarks. The Department has indicated final rules are expected in late spring 2026, with an effective date targeted for July 1, 2026, and initial earnings calculations and notifications expected to begin in 2027. Institutions should proactively analyze their program portfolio using the Department’s publicly available AHEAD performance data to identify at-risk programs before the framework goes into effect. Read more and submit your public comments.

 

Other News

Trump order directs federal contractors to dump DEI — or risk canceled contracts (Higher Ed Dive)

AI Governance Takes Shape: Breaking Down Washington’s Latest AI Frameworks (Brownstein)

 

Major Updates

Public Comment Period Opens on Workforce Pell Implementation Rules (Due April 8)

The U.S. Department of Education has officially opened the public comment period on proposed regulations to implement Workforce Pell Grants, with comments due April 8, 2026. These grants offer a new federal financial aid pathway that will allow students to use Pell Grants for high-quality, short-term workforce training programs. The proposed rule outlines details within eligibility for these workforce programs, accountability measures such as completion and job-placement benchmarks, and state approval processes designed to ensure programs align with statutory requirements. Higher education leaders, workforce partners, and stakeholders now have an opportunity to provide feedback before the regulations are finalized. For institutions that offer short-term workforce, professional, continuing, and online programs, the proposal is worth close attention because it would shape how eligible workforce programs are approved, overseen, and measured for value under the new federal aid framework.

The Department offered some directed questions focused on seven specific parts of the regulation for input, including: whether ineligible partners should be limited to providing 25 percent of a workforce program under written arrangements; how to prevent institutions from sidestepping the new Pell restriction when nonfederal grants or scholarships cover a student’s full cost of attendance; whether the Department should use an interim value-added earnings measure before official earnings calculations begin in 2030–31; whether additional groups of students should be excluded from the completer cohort used for earnings calculations; how many years of cohorts should be combined for smaller programs. The two final areas have particular relevance to the online education community: how interstate distance education could best work within bilateral agreements between governors; and how earnings should be handled when large shares of students are located out of state.

Responses from the UPCEA community are encouraged. Keep your comments focused on items within the regulatory framework which are able to be tweaked. Avoid those that are constrained by the language within public law, which the Department is not able to affect change on. View the proposed rule and submit comments ahead of the April 8 deadline.


The Trump Administration and DEI: When One Door Closes with the DCL and its Certification Requirement, Another Door Opens with the GSA’s New Certification Requirement (Thompson Coburn LLP)

“Higher Ed’s battle with the Trump Administration over DEI can feel a bit like whack-a-mole, with the DCL defeat closely followed by the emerging GSA proposed revisions and then the Fourth Circuit’s ruling upholding the DEI Executive Orders. What makes the GSA’s new proposed certification requirement particularly potent for the Government’s anti-illegal DEI campaign is that it controls the federal purse. This may result in a chilling effect—some institutions may stop programs, even if they have been upheld by courts or authorized by Congress—for fear of losing them. For now, the GSA proposed revisions are only that—proposed. They are not final until the notice and comment period ends, and even then only after the final policy is adopted—which may be different from the proposal. Thus, there is not an immediate date on which GSA has stated financial assistance recipients may expect to see the GSA certification in SAM. […]

Although much has happened with the Trump Administration’s war on illegal DEI in the last few months, the bottom line has not changed: the Administration’s anti-illegal DEI efforts will continue, perhaps until the Supreme Court weighs in on the Administration’s broad interpretation of the Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College decision. At the end of the day, even if the DEI Executive Orders are declared unlawful and the GSA proposed rule is struck down after becoming final, what matters most is whether the Government’s view of the Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College decision is the correct one, and how soon the Supreme Court might make that determination.” Read more.

 

Other News

Major Updates

Education Department AHEAD Negotiated Rulemaking Wraps Up; Consensus Achieved on New Accountability Metrics
The Department of Education’s AHEAD negotiated rulemaking committee has now wrapped its winter work with consensus language on the program accountability portion, following the committee’s earlier consensus on Workforce Pell regulatory text. Now that consensus has been reached, ED is positioned to move from negotiated language into one (or likely two or more) Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRMs), with a public comment period expected soon. This matters because the negotiated package is designed to implement major statutory changes adopted in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), with ED moving on an accelerated timeline toward a July 1, 2026 effective date rather than the usual “final rule by November 1” cadence of the federal calendar.

Substantively, the consensus framework is built around a sector-neutral “do no harm” earnings comparison that would apply broadly across Title IV-eligible programs (not just “gainful employment” programs). Programs would be evaluated on whether completers’ earnings meet or exceed the earnings of an identified comparison group (generally working adults ages 25–34 without the same level of education). Importantly, this comparison is calculated without accounting for the previously known debt-to-earnings ratio. Programs that fail the earnings comparison in 2 out of 3 consecutive years would lose eligibility for Direct Loans, creating a materially higher stakes, outcomes-based compliance environment for institutions.

For campus leaders, the immediate to-dos are less about waiting for final thresholds and more about building readiness: identify programs that could be vulnerable under an earnings-based test (initial draft calculations were issued by the Department). Also plan internal governance now—finance, registrar, institutional research, career services, and program leadership will all need aligned processes for monitoring outcomes and responding quickly if a program is trending toward failure as the proposed rules move through notice-and-comment. Read more.

Resources: 

  • Webinar Recording | Decoding Workforce Pell and the New Program Accountability Framework
    UPCEA has a recording and slides available that walk through what negotiators debated on Workforce Pell for short-term credentials as well as the discussions and regulations on the emerging, earnings-based accountability framework. For administrators tracking both program expansion opportunities and Title IV risk, it’s a useful “single-stop” resource to compare the statutory parameters Workforce Pell must follow and the requirements that will apply to almost all programs as part of the new earnings metrics required from OBBBA. Watch the webinar and access the slide deck.

 

Department of Education Seeks Info on State Authorization Student Location Reporting – (Public Comment Deadline March 16th)
ED (Federal Student Aid) has opened a public comment period (due March 16, 2026) on the information collection tied to state authorization requirements under 34 CFR § 600.9. The notice asks for data collection insights on institutions that determine the state in which a student is located when enrolled in distance education/correspondence (including when operating under a reciprocity agreement). This is a good prompt for institutions to review their student-location determination process, documentation practices, and how those workflows map to multi-state authorization/reciprocity obligations—then consider submitting operational feedback during the comment window. Read more and submit a comment. 


Accreditation, Innovation, and Modernization (AIM) Committee: Rulemaking Committee Announced
The Department of Education has formally launched a new 2026 negotiated rulemaking process, the Accreditation, Innovation, and Modernization (AIM) Committee, to pursue potential regulatory changes. The committee’s first negotiating session is scheduled for April 13–17, 2026 in Washington, DC (ED headquarters), with livestreaming available and a second session planned for May 18–22, 2026; registration for attending sessions is noted as “coming soon.” For universities, this is an early signal to issue recommendation for nominators, as well as flag likely accreditation-related regulatory issues that could impact institutional strategy (including oversight, innovation pathways, and modernization efforts), and prepare to engage,either by attending/livestream participation and/or shaping positions for the eventual public comment stage. Read more about the upcoming rulemaking here.

Other News

Major Updates

Workforce Pell Grants for Short-Term Programs: A Primer and Update from Negotiated Rulemaking: Consensus Reached – What’s in the Draft Regulations
We’ve developed a blog that provides a primer and overview of the recent negotiated rulemaking work on Workforce Pell Grants for Short-Term Programs, focusing on the first week of sessions held by the Department of Education’s Accountability in Higher Education and Access through Demand-Driven Workforce Pell (AHEAD) committee. Negotiators reached consensus on draft regulations governing the new Workforce Pell program and related Pell eligibility issues. These draft regulations will serve as the basis for the Department’s proposed rule that will go out for public comment, although public feedback could still shape the final text. The blog underscores that this negotiated language reflects statutory requirements for eligible short-term programs, including duration, alignment with in-demand industries, job placement and completion rates, and a value-added earnings test. 

For administrators planning for institutional readiness, the blog highlights key elements of the draft Workforce Pell framework that universities and colleges should focus on. Eligible programs must meet specific criteria (e.g., 150–600 clock hours, alignment with defined industry needs, recognized credentials, and thresholds for completion and employment) and also satisfy new financial and earnings criteria tied to value added. Governors play a central role in certifying programs at the state level, and institutions will need to understand pathways for compliance, data reporting, and cross-state participation. The article will help campus teams engage with the evolving regulatory landscape as the implementation timeline toward July 1, 2026 continues.

In January (5-9) the committee will shift to negotiating regulations on program accountability metrics. To help you unpack everything that was discussed during these sessions, UPCEA will be hosting a webinar, “Decoding Workforce Pell and the New Program Accountability Framework: Negotiated Rulemaking Insights and Implementation Guidance,” on January 28 at 2:00 p.m. ET, and you can register here. Read our blog for more information.

 

Department of Education Launches New Institutional Earnings Indicator as Part of FAFSA
The U.S. Department of Education has announced the launch of a new earnings indicator embedded in the FAFSA process, designed to give prospective students and families clearer insight into post-graduation earnings outcomes at the institutions they are considering. Using existing, publicly available Department data, the FAFSA will now display average earnings information for each selected institution and generate a “lower earnings” disclosure when an institution’s graduates earn less, on average, than high school completers. The Department positions this addition as a transparency measure amid growing public concern about the value of a college degree and rising student loan debt, noting that more than 2 percent of undergraduates attend institutions with earnings outcomes below the high school benchmark, even as those institutions receive significant federal aid.

For higher education institutions and student support professionals, the indicator is part of a broader federal effort to make postsecondary outcomes more visible at key decision points. The Department emphasizes that the metric is intended to inform student choice and should be considered alongside other factors such as cost, mission, location, and individual goals. Counselors and college access staff are encouraged to use the indicator, in combination with tools like the College Scorecard, to support informed decision-making. Check out these FAQs from our partner Thompson Coburn LLP on the new indicator. The underlying data are now available through the FSA Data Center and will be updated as new earnings information becomes available, signaling continued federal focus on outcomes and value in higher education. Read more. 

 

Other News