By Maria Carrasco, NASFAA Staff Reporter ,  Megan Walter, Senior Policy Analyst

The Accountability in Higher Education and Access through Demand-driven Workforce Pell (AHEAD) Committee reached consensus on Friday on the Department of Education’s (ED) entire package of seven issue topics, which primarily focuses on creating a new Workforce Pell program (WFP). 

Friday’s session began with David Musser, ED’s federal negotiator, outlining new, and mostly final, amendments to ED’s entire proposal package.

The committee reviewed updates addressing the Components Determined by Governors, beginning with a proposal to shift from using 4-digit to 6-digit CIP codes and the addition of SOC codes to better align program classifications with workforce needs. Another addition would require governors to consider program cost and anticipated industry wages before the initial determination of a program’s value-added earnings (VAE). 

Several negotiators expressed concern that this effectively asks states to conduct a “junior” VAE analysis without apparent statutory authority. They questioned whether institutions, not states, should be responsible for ensuring the financial viability of the programs they choose to offer. Department counsel responded that the language does not impose a substantive requirement, but instead asks states to document what they considered, noting that many states already review these factors.

The department also formally added students who become incarcerated to the groups excluded from the 70/70 completion and job placement metric.

“We also added a category of individuals who become incarcerated, either while enrolled for the completion rate, or after exiting or completing for the placement rate,” Musser explained. “The idea here being that it is something out of the individual's control that would cause them to not be a good candidate to be in those rates.”

Aaron Lacey, a negotiator representing private nonprofit institutions of higher education, again raised concerns about institutions potentially designing programs that lead primarily to further credentials rather than immediate employment, which could undermine the intent of the Workforce Pell program. Lacey urged the department to communicate clearly, potentially in the preamble, that the primary purpose of WFP is workforce entry, with stackability as a secondary benefit.

Eric Atchison, a negotiator representing students currently enrolled and receiving assistance from Title IV programs, emphasized the need for clear guidance so that schools, students, and counselors understand that Workforce Pell is an extension of Pell, not a separate program with distinct lifetime eligibility usage (LEU) or eligibility rules. 

“This type of program is being referred to as Workforce Pell, and oftentimes, when someone hears the same program under two different names, they might consider them to be two different types of programs, two different pots of money,” Atchison said. “We're talking about the same eligibility across both. So any regulatory or subregulatory guidance that the department can provide here would be extremely helpful for both institutions, guidance counselors, parents, and students.”

Musser said the department will commit to publishing guidance on this concern. 

The committee then turned to changes made under the VAE section. ED added language that would address the scenario where more than half of program completers are not located in the institution’s state. ED proposes using national price parity instead of state or metropolitan adjustments, which the department characterizes as a fairness measure. 

Negotiators sought clarification on how “located” would be interpreted, emphasizing that earnings should reflect where students are working at the time earnings are measured — not where they lived when they filed the FAFSA. Jeffrey Andrade, ED’s deputy assistant secretary for policy, planning, and innovation for the Office of Postsecondary Education, said they would work on this language during the next break, as the department understands the concern. 

Finally, Tamar Hoffman, a negotiator representing legal assistance organizations that represent students and borrowers, consumer advocates, and civil rights groups that represent students, inquired about the reason her proposal for an alternative 70% completion standard for Prison Education Programs (PEP) was rejected. 

The department reiterated that PEP programs should be held to the same standards as other programs. While acknowledging the additional employment challenges faced by this population, ED emphasized that institutions must respond to these realities and avoid creating programs that fail to lead to employment in any sector.

After a break for the department to review the remaining negotiator concerns and finalize the proposed text, ED called for a final consensus vote on the entire package of proposals discussed during the first week’s session – meaning that if just one negotiator votes against it during the vote, consensus cannot be reached. As a reminder, negotiators can signal a sideways thumb to register an abstention, a neutral option that does not affect the outcome of the package vote. Additionally, if the committee reaches consensus, ED is required to use the agreed-upon language in its proposed regulations.

Musser confirmed that this consensus vote is only relevant on the topics discussed during the first week’s session and does not impact the committee’s next session, which is slated for January. 

In the final vote, the AHEAD committee reached consensus. All negotiators held up their thumbs in support of the entire package, with the exception of Randy Stamper, representing state higher education executive officers, state authorizing agencies, and other state regulators, who held his thumb sideways. 

“A big thank you to all the negotiators around the table for your level of professionalism, collegiality, and your hard work this week,” Musser said. “I really appreciate all of the work that you guys have done.”

Nicholas Kent, Under Secretary of Education, joined the committee to thank the negotiators and the department for their work in such a tight timeframe.

“We reached consensus in just four and a half days, when many doubted our condensed timeframe – think tanks, blog writers, and even the media predicted that we would need weeks, if not months, to get this right,” Kent said. “But here's the reality, when you come to the table prepared with smart and dedicated people that are focused on a clear goal, you can move quickly and intentionally without sacrificing the thoroughness and the careful deliberation that this process deserves. We have proven that speed and quality are not mutually exclusive.”

The AHEAD committee will meet again in-person for its second session, on January 5-9, where the committee will focus on other issues enacted in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, including changes in institutional and programmatic accountability measures, financial value transparency (FVT) and gainful employment (GE), and the exclusion of Pell Grant eligibility for students with a high Student Aid Index (SAI). 

After the January session, ED will draft a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) reflecting the regulations negotiated during both sessions. Once published in the Federal Register, the NPRM will undergo a public comment period. ED will then issue the final rules, with a target timeline of late spring.

Stay tuned to Today’s News for updates on the AHEAD negotiated rulemaking committee and the WFP program.

Publication Date: 12/15/2025

Comments Disclaimer: NASFAA welcomes and encourages readers to comment and engage in respectful conversation about the content posted here. We value thoughtful, polite, and concise comments that reflect a variety of views. Comments are not moderated by NASFAA but are reviewed periodically by staff. Users should not expect real-time responses from NASFAA. To learn more, please view NASFAA’s complete Comments Policy.