Coalition of 23 State Attorneys General Opposes Proposed Federal Higher Education Accreditation Overhaul

By Katherine D. Brodie, Edward Cramp, Anthony J. Guida Jr., Kristina Gill, Daniel R. Walworth and Jen DeMay

On August 20, 2026, the U.S. Department of Education published a proposed Accreditation, Innovation and Modernization Rule that includes sweeping changes to the federal regulations governing the recognition and oversight of accrediting agencies under Title IV of the Higher Education Act. The proposed rule largely implements Executive Order 14279, “Reforming Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education,” which directed the Department to modernize accreditation standards and reduce regulatory barriers. On September 21, 2026, 23 state attorneys general submitted public comment asserting that the proposed rule is likely to lead to harm to institutions of higher education, students and accrediting agencies, including by incentivizing lowered accreditation standards and oversight.

Read the full Alert on the Duane Morris LLP website.

Takeaways for Institutions: DOE Finalizes Earnings Accountability Framework for Title IV Programs

By Anthony J. Guida Jr., Edward Cramp, Katherine D. Brodie, Kristina Gill and John M. Simpson

On July 1, 2026, the U.S. Department of Education published a final rule implementing a new Title IV-program earnings premium measure established by Congress one year ago in the Working Families Tax Cut Act. The final rule stays close to the consensus language agreed upon in the Department’s Accountability in Higher Education and Access through Demand-driven Workforce Pell negotiated rulemaking, with some important changes noted below after public comment following publication of the notice of proposed rulemaking. The final rule represents a fundamental shift for higher education by implementing for the first time a congressionally mandated earnings-based metric that applies to all Title IV institutions and all of their Title IV eligible programs.

Read the full Alert on the Duane Morris LLP website.

Federal Court Stays Department of Education’s Narrowed Definition of “Professional Degree” for Graduate Student Loan Limits

By Anthony J. Guida Jr., Katherine D. Brodie, Jen DeMay, Kristina Gill and John M. Simpson

On June 24, 2026—just one week before the July 1, 2026, effective date of the new student loan limits—the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a significant ruling in American Association of Nurse Practitioners v. McMahon and the consolidated case PA Education Association v. Department of Education, staying in part implementation of the U.S. Department of Education’s new regulatory definition of “professional degree.” The stay prevents the Department from enforcing its narrowed definition, which would have limited the categories of graduate students eligible for higher federal student loan limits under the Working Families Tax Cuts Act (also known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”), pending resolution of the litigation.

Read the full Alert on the Duane Morris LLP website.

Public Comment Period Open on Proposed Rulemaking to Amend Federal Student Loan Programs

On January 29, 2026, the U.S. Department of Education published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend regulations for federal student loan programs based on the recent enactment of HR 1 (P.L. 1119-21), sometimes referred to as the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (the “Reconciliation Act”). The Department established two negotiated rulemaking committees for the implementation of the Reconciliation Act. The first committee, the Reimagining and Improving Student Education (RISE) Committee, reached consensus on November 6, 2025, on the entire package of loan-related changes, including federal student-loan limits, repayment plans and the elimination of the Graduate/Professional PLUS Loan program.

Read the full Alert on the Duane Morris LLP website.

U.S. Department of Education Releases Draft New Gainful Employment, Financial Responsibility, Administrative Capability, and Ability to Benefit Proposed Rules – 30 Day Public Comment Period

On May 17, 2023, the U.S. Department of Education (Department) released to the public the text of proposed regulations to establish a new iteration of a Gainful Employment (GE) rule, which would terminate access to Federal financial aid for career training programs that leave graduates with unaffordable debt burdens or with earnings that are no higher than workers without any education beyond high school.

The proposed regulations will be published in the Federal Register on May 19, 2023. The public may submit comments on the proposed rule through the Regulations.gov website for 30 days. The Department expects to finalize the rules later this year. Under the master calendar requirements of the Higher Education Act, rules finalized by November 1, 2023, will go into effect on July 1, 2024.

The proposed GE rule applies to all Title IV eligible programs offered by proprietary (for-profit) institutions of higher education and less than 2 year (certificate) programs offered by public and private non-profit institutions. Institutions offering such programs should closely analyze the proposed rule and submit public comments within the 30 day open comment period. We will be publishing a more detailed analysis of key components of the rule in the near future.

The Department also included proposed changes to three other regulatory areas:

  • Financial Responsibility, which includes proposals to make it easier for the Department to secure upfront financial protection when colleges start to exhibit signs of financial struggle, such as when an institution incurs significant debts or liabilities from a lawsuit or is at risk of losing access to Federal financial aid programs.
  • Administrative Capability, which includes proposals to increase requirements for colleges to provide adequate career services and clearer financial aid information, and to limit the employment of individuals with a past history of risky behavior or misconduct related to the Federal financial aid programs.
  • Certification Procedures, which includes proposals to make it easier for the Department to incorporate stronger safeguards into its written agreements with institutions for participating in Federal financial aid programs. These proposals also protect students by allowing the Department to require teach-out plans or agreements when a college is at risk of closure.

Finally, the regulations contain consensus language agreed to during negotiated rulemaking in Spring 2022 that will revise Ability to Benefit rules. These are provisions related to how students without a high school diploma may access Federal aid. In particular, the regulations would provide a more streamlined process for States to approve postsecondary opportunities for these students.

View an unofficial copy of proposed regulations here. A fact sheet on the GE and transparency parts of the rules can be found here and a fact sheet on the other provisions in the regulatory package are here. The Department is also releasing a version of the data that was used to model the effects of the proposed gainful employment and financial transparency rules in the Regulatory Impact Analysis, which can be found on this page.

Department of Education Releases Proposed Rules on Accountability for Certificate and For-Profit Programs and Transparency into Unaffordable Student Debt | U.S. Department of Education

Important April 11, 2023 Update on the Department of Education’s Third-Party Servicer Guidance – ED.gov Blog

On April 11, 2023, U.S. Department of Education Under Secretary James Kvaal posted an important update to Dear Colleague Letter 23-03 –  https://fsapartners.ed.gov/knowledge-center/library/dear-colleague-letters/2023-02-15/requirements-and-responsibilities-third-party-servicers-and-institutions-updated-feb-28-2023D. That February 2023 DCL rocked the higher education and ed tech community by proposing broad changes to the reach of the Title IV Third Party Servicer definition (34 C.F.R. 668.2; 668.25),  Specifically, that DCL described the types of services that would be considered activities of “third-party servicers”, a designation that the Department was seeking to utilize to secure additional transparency into the work of certain companies partnering with institutions of higher education that participate in Title IV, Higher Education Act student financial aid programs.  The Department notes it received more than 1,000 comments in the public comment period after publication of the DCL, and that it continues to review those comments in preparation for release of revised guidance.

Most critically, the Department has decided to delay the effective date of the guidance letter, and the September 1, 2023 deadline for compliance in the DCL will no longer be in effect. The effective date of the forthcoming revised final guidance letter will be at least six months after its publication, to allow institutions and companies to meet any reporting requirements. Deadlines for audit and contractual requirements will follow in fiscal years that begin after the effective date for the reporting requirements.  

The update also lists immediate changes in the interpretation of DCL 23-03 that the Department wanted to communicate immediately:

Specifically, the Department does not consider contracts involving the following activities to constitute third-party servicer relationships:

    • Study abroad programs.
    • Recruitment of foreign students not eligible for Title IV aid.
    • Clinical or externship opportunities that meet requirements under existing regulations because they are closely monitored by qualified personnel at an institution.
    • Course-sharing consortia and arrangements between Title IV-eligible institutions to share employees to teach courses or process financial aid.
    • Dual or concurrent enrollment programs provided through agreements with high schools and local education agencies, which are exempt because they do not involve students receiving Title IV aid.
    • Local police departments helping to compile and analyze crime statistics, unless they write or file a report on behalf of an institution for compliance purposes.
    • The Department will identify any other services that fall into this category as it reviews comments.
    • The Department also intends to remove the provision of the guidance document pertaining to foreign ownership of a third-party servicer. It will consider any further changes in the context of an announced future negotiated rulemaking on Third Party Servicer issues. 
    • The Department will carefully review public comments on areas of confusion or concern and consider clarifying and narrowing the scope of the guidance in several areas, including software and computer services, student retention, and instructional content. These clarifications could include other areas as it continues to review comments and seeks to balance the need for greater transparency and oversight against administrative burden, among other factors.
    • While the Department reviews the comments and prepares revisions to the guidance letter, previous Dear Colleague Letters GEN 12-08, GEN 15-01, and GEN 16-15 (as amended by our March 8, 2017, electronic announcement) remain in effect.

See Update on the Department of Education’s Third-Party Servicer Guidance – ED.gov Blog

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Proposes Mandatory Registration of Terms and Conditions: Nonbank Student Loan Servicers Among Those Potentially Impacted

On January 11, 2023, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB” or the “Bureau”) announced designs to create a public registry of terms and conditions in form contracts. Under the proposed rule (“Rule”), certain nonbank entities, including nonbank student loan servicers, would be required to register and submit information related to its terms and conditions that purport to waive or limit consumer rights and protections, along with identifying company information. The Bureau has opened up the Rule for a sixty-day comment period (closing on March 13, 2023), after which decisions will be made on its final form. Continue reading “Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Proposes Mandatory Registration of Terms and Conditions: Nonbank Student Loan Servicers Among Those Potentially Impacted”

Do College Athletes Have the Right to Join a Union? The Answer is Still “Maybe”

Overview: Back in September 2021, the National Labor Relations Board general counsel issued GC Memorandum 21-08, formally taking the prosecutorial position that certain college and university athletes are employees entitled to all of the rights guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act. This would include the right to engage in certain protected concerted activities, such as strikes, and to organize to join a union. For private colleges and universities, formal, legal recognition of student-athletes as “employees” would significantly change the relationship between schools and athletes.

Discussion: Back in September 2021, General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo of the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”), who leads the enforcement arm of the Board, issued GC Memorandum 21-08, formally taking the prosecutorial position that certain college and university athletes are employees entitled to all of the rights guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act (the “Act”). This would include the right to engage in certain protected concerted activities, such as strikes, and to organize to join a union.

This is not the first time a Board general counsel has taken this position; Richard Griffin, appointed by President Barack Obama, issued a similar memorandum in 2017 that was later rescinded by his Republican successor, Peter Robb, appointed by President Donald Trump. Abruzzo, however, has taken this legal analysis a step further, arguing that “misclassifying” collegiate athletes as mere “student-athletes,” and leading athletes to believe that they do not have statutory protections, violates the Act in and of itself.

For private colleges and universities (the Act does not apply to public institutions of higher education), formal, legal recognition of student-athletes as “employees” would significantly change the relationship between schools and athletes. To start, schools would have to guess whether an athlete qualifies as an employee in the first place. Guessing incorrectly could have expensive consequences, as merely mislabeling the student could risk violating the Act and require defending against the ensuing charge.

As employees, athletes would have the right to engage in collective action, which could clash with school codes of conduct or campus rules. And, should student-athletes choose to organize and vote to join a union, the school would be required to engage in good faith collective bargaining over wages, hours and other terms and conditions of the athletes’ “employment.” The implications of such an arrangement could be significant: Would this require negotiations over the costs of meal plans and housing? What about school-sponsored health insurance plans? Would student-athletes gain the right to have union representation in disciplinary proceedings? Classifying a school’s athletes as employees would undoubtedly unleash a Pandora’s box of issues and questions.

Since publishing the memorandum over a year ago, Abruzzo’s office has yet to prosecute a test case that would give the Board (currently a 3-2 Democrat majority) the opportunity to formally adopt the position that certain student-athletes are employees under the Act. However, private colleges and universities should not assume that this agenda item has been forgotten.

There are a couple of pending cases against the National Collegiate Athletic Association alleging that it has misclassified student-athletes. And, on December 15, 2022, Abruzzo announced that her office found merit in at least one pending unfair labor practice charge case, which could result in a formal charge (giving her a pathway to litigate the issue up to the Board). Meanwhile, there are other legal efforts to classify collegiate athletes as employees through legislative or judicial action.

In short, private colleges and universities should stay alert to this classification issue and keep an eye out for signs of union organizing among college athletes, particularly football players at Division I Football Bowl Subdivision private colleges and universities. Though it is impossible to predict how this battle over collegiate athletes will unfold, one thing is certain: It is not going away any time soon.

For More Information

If you have any questions about this Alert, please contact Elizabeth Mincer, Zev Grumet-Morris, Katherine Brodie, or any of the attorneys in our Education Industry Group or the attorney in the firm with whom you are regularly in contact.

Temporary Expanded SNAP Benefits for College Students

Expanding access to postsecondary education for low income students includes more than just assistance with tuition and fees. Many low income students also need help with daily food costs while they pursue higher education. That need can adversely impact academic progress if not addressed. Needs have been exacerbated by the pandemic and high unemployment, and impact students whether they study on ground or online. Food insecurity among college students is gaining more attention, with the opening of college food pantries and other community support initiatives. The federal government is also stepping up. The U.S. Department of Education, in coordination with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, has issued new guidance to postsecondary institutions to raise awareness about temporarily expanded Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) eligibility for students and urges institutions to make students aware of this resource. The expansion of benefits will be in effect until 30 days after the COVID-19 public health emergency is lifted. The new guidance can be found here: https://ifap.ed.gov/electronic-announcements/022321SNAPbenefitseligiblestudsCOVID19pandemic

 

FY 2018 Draft Cohort Default Rates Released to Title IV Participating Institutions of Higher Education – Time Frame for Appeal Begins March 2, 2021

On Feb. 22, 2021, the U.S. Department of Education distributed the FY 2018 draft cohort default rate (CDR) notification packages to all eligible domestic and foreign schools for those schools enrolled in the Electronic Cohort Default Rate (eCDR) notification process. Any school not enrolled in eCDR may download their cohort default rates and accompanying Loan Record Detail Reports from the National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS®) via the NSLDS Professional Access website.

The time frame for appealing the FY 2018 draft cohort default rates under 34 C.F.R Part 668, Subpart N begins on Tuesday, March 2, 2021 for all schools.

Under the Title IV financial responsibility regulations at 34 C.F.R. 668.171(d)(6), the Department has discretion to determine that a Title IV institution is not able to meet its financial or administrative Title IV obligations (which can lead to a letter of credit requirement or other potential adverse action) if the institution’s two most recent official cohort default rates are 30 percent or greater and such circumstance is likely to have a material adverse effect on the financial condition of the institution, unless the institution has a challenge, adjustment or appeal pending or successfully finalized.

Note that any school that did not have a borrower in repayment, during the current or any of the past cohort default rate periods, will not receive a FY 2018 draft cohort default rate notification package. These schools are considered to have no cohort default rate data and no cohort default rate.

https://ifap.ed.gov/electronic-announcements/022221FY2018DraftCDRDistributedFeb222021

 

© 2009- Duane Morris LLP. Duane Morris is a registered service mark of Duane Morris LLP.

The opinions expressed on this blog are those of the author and are not to be construed as legal advice.

Proudly powered by WordPress