������Ƶ

Dear Mr. Washington:

On behalf of the American Council on Education (ACE) and the undersigned higher education associations, we write to offer comments on the Department of Education’s (Department) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) titled, “Accountability in Higher Education and Access Through Demand-Driven Workforce Pell: Pell Grant Exclusion Relating to Other Grant Aid; and Workforce Pell Grants.” This NPRM would implement key elements of H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) Act, which was signed into law on July 4, 2025.¹ Passage of the OBBB represented a major overhaul of the nation’s student loan and repayment systems, institutional accountability framework, and federal student aid programs.

This NPRM focuses primarily on the new Workforce Pell Program created in OBBB and the changes to how the Pell Grant is calculated for students when higher education institutions package aid. While there are policy provisions in OBBB that we do not fully support, these comments focus on the Department’s implementation of the law rather than the underlying statutory provisions.²

Before we offer our comments, as we have shared before, we urge the Department to allow more time for future negotiated rulemakings.³ We strongly believe that the experts selected by the Department to serve as negotiators should have an adequate amount of time to understand the issue, communicate with their stakeholders, present well-informed arguments at the table, and participate with a goal of consensus.⁴

In addition, we would like to reiterate the importance of ensuring a comprehensive representation of institutions of higher education on the negotiated rulemaking committee. At the very least, we strongly encourage the Department to include the following representation:

• Institutions of higher education eligible to receive federal assistance under Title III, parts A, B, and F, and Title V of the Higher Education Act (HEA), which include Historically Black Colleges and Universities, American Indian Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities, Hispanic-Serving Institutions, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions, and other institutions with a substantial enrollment of needy students as defined in Title III of the HEA;
• Two-year public institutions of higher education;
• Four-year public institutions of higher education;
• Private, nonprofit institutions of higher education;
• Private, proprietary institutions of higher education; and
• Financial aid administrators at postsecondary institutions.

With this in mind, we offer the comments below.

Students Enrolled in a Program Should Not Count in the Job Placement Rate

The statute states that after a governor decides that a potential Workforce Pell Program meets certain requirements, the Secretary of Education (Secretary) must determine that the program has a verified job placement rate of at least 70 percent measured 180 days after completion for each award year. Because this program is new, data does not yet exist on how this measurement will impact the ability of Workforce Pell Programs to access the Pell grant. However, we believe that students who choose to continue their education after completing a Workforce Pell Program should not be counted in the job placement rate.

Because the eligibility standards of a Workforce Pell Program are high, we fear that many institutions will be disincentivized to participate. To qualify, programs at institutions of higher education must (1) meet a 70 percent completion rate and job placement rate; (2) pass a value-added earnings test; (3) be approved through a process by the governor in a state; and (4) be approved through a process by the Secretary. The preamble states that job placement rates are calculated as the “percentage of students who are employed in the occupation(s) for which the program prepares students . . . or in a comparable high-skill, high-wage, or in-demand occupation during the second quarter after successfully completing the program.”⁵

When using discretion to implement this provision, we strongly believe that an exception should be made for students who continue their education after completing a Workforce Pell Program. Recent data shows that certificate holders that continue their education to obtain an associate degree increased by 28 percent over the last decade, and 63 percent of completers with a certificate continue on with their education.⁶ Institutions have no way of controlling the decisions of the students who complete the program, and continued education ideally should be rewarded, especially given Congressional intent for Workforce Pell students to pursue future postsecondary educational opportunities, as indicated by the stackability requirements for the programs. An institution should not suffer a lower job placement rate if students choose to enroll in another program post- completion when the program is designed to facilitate this.

Basic Elements of an Appeals Process Should be Standardized

The NPRM requires the governor of a state to establish a process to determine whether a future Workforce Pell Program meets four key metrics. Throughout this process, an institution is given the ability to request a determination by the governor and to appeal that determination. While we appreciate the ability to appeal a determination, we fear that because the regulation does not set a standard for appeals, we could end up with 50 different processes for institutions, which could be especially tricky considering branch and online campuses.

We believe that the regulation should, at the very least, standardize the basic elements of an appeals process to ensure that institutions have a better idea of what to expect in each state.⁷ As a baseline, an appeals process should be established in regulation that allows for institutions to appeal (1) the job and completion rate data; (2) the determination by the governor, with the ability to provide alternative data and documentation where relevant; (3) the value-added earnings calculation by providing alternative earnings data; and (4) any determination by the Secretary that is separate from the governor. In addition, institutions should be given a minimum of 30 days to submit any additional data and/or documentation in any appeals process.

We appreciate the language in the NPRM stating that the appeals process at the state level must have “clear, transparent and timely procedures that are applied consistently and equitably at all eligible institutions.”⁸ We agree with this statement and encourage the Department to ensure that no governor allows for institutional bias when implementing an appeals process and certifying future Workforce Pell Programs.

Students Should Have Access to the Pell Grant

Currently, over 7 million students access the Federal Pell Grant.⁹ The statute altered the way that institutions can package the Pell Grant by requiring financial aid administrators to consider all non- federal scholarship and grant aid first to determine whether that aid meets or exceeds the cost of attendance for a program before allowing a student access to the Pell Grant. In implementing this provision, the Department requires institutions to either lower the amount of non-federal scholarship or grant aid or completely return all Pell Grant funds awarded to the students for the full award year, plus cancel any future Pell Grant disbursements, if the non-federal grant aid met or exceeded the cost of attendance for a program.

While we understand that the Department is trying to close any potential loopholes and ensure that Pell Grant dollars are not flowing improperly to students, we fear that this proposed language would present problems for future Pell Grant recipients. For instance, the proposed rule suggests that a student could be on their second disbursement for the academic year, but a determination has been made that that student, ahead of the second disbursement, has received non-federal grant or scholarship aid that meets or exceeds the cost of attendance. If this is the case, this could trigger an institutional overpayment of the Pell Grant and require the student to return all Pell Grant dollars that the student has received for the academic year and would be ineligible for any future Pell Grant disbursements for that academic year.

Students who use the Pell Grant are the very students that we want to receive the level of funding needed to access postsecondary education and persist through to completion. Making students liable for repaying all their Pell Grant dollars for the year and potentially cutting off all Title IV funding until the matter is resolved would be extremely burdensome on the student with significant negative consequences for their ability to complete.

The Department Should Abide by the Master Calendar

The Department states in the preamble that if there is a conflict between a general provision and a specific provision, the specific provision prevails.¹⁰ This statement is in relation to the implementation timeline for OBBB; however, whenever Congress has historically wanted to waive the master calendar requirements, their intention to do so has been specifically stated in the statute.¹¹

Given this, the final rules issued in 2026 should have an implementation date of July 1, 2027, at the earliest.¹² Abiding by the master calendar gives institutions the proper amount of time to prepare for the changes implemented by the Department, adequately inform students and families of the changes to their student aid, and plan for the smoothest possible transition.

Thank you for your careful consideration of this response. We hope that the Department addresses our concerns and works with us to improve the regulatory text.

Sincerely,

Ted Mitchell President

On behalf of:

AACTE-American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education

ACPA-College Student Educators International

American Association of Colleges and Universities

American Association of Colleges of Nursing

American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers

American Association of State Colleges and Universities

American Association of University Professors

American Association of Veterinary Medical Colleges

American Council of Learned Societies

American Council on Education

American Indian Higher Education Consortium

Association for Institutional Research

Association of American Universities

Association of Community College Trustees

Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges

Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities

Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in Massachusetts

Association of Independent Colleges and Universities of Pennsylvania

Association of Independent Colleges and Universities of Rhode Island

Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health

Career Education Colleges and Universities

Complete College America

Connecticut Conference of Independent Colleges

Council for Opportunity in Education

Council on Social Work Education

EDUCAUSE

Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities

Maryland Independent College and University Association

Middle States Commission on Higher Education

NASPA-Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education

National Association for College Admission Counseling

National Association of College and University Business Officers

National Association of Colleges and Employers

National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education

National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators

National Council for Community and Education Partnerships

New England Commission of Higher Education

North Carolina Independent Colleges and Universities

UPCEA-The Online and Professional Education Association