AHEAD Committee Reaches Consensus On Entire Accountability Package
By Maria Carrasco, NASFAA Staff Reporter , Megan Walter, Senior Policy Analyst
Amidst much debate over the new accountability framework, negotiators of the Accountability in Higher Education and Access through Demand-driven Workforce Pell (AHEAD) Committee reached consensus on Friday on a package of accountability measures proposed by the Department of Education (ED) related to changes enacted under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA).
ED began the session by reviewing some of the changes it made to the proposed language, first focusing on the added provision that would allow for a voluntary program closeout. As a reminder, the voluntary orderly program closure proposal would allow an institution whose program fails the accountability test once to opt into an addendum to its Program Participation Agreement (PPA), committing to cease all new enrollments in that program and teach out the existing cohort.
ED would still calculate and publish the program’s second-year accountability rate, but would not move to terminate the program based on that second failure. ED added more restrictions to this provision, which would permit the program to continue participating in the Direct Loan Program only up to the lesser of three years or the program’s normal full-time length, if the Secretary determines that the arrangement is in the best interest of the students.
In response to concerns from negotiators about guardrails and student protections, several conditions were added. ED must review whether any circumstances suggest that the closure plan might not benefit students. While institutions may need to respond to those concerns, such a review is only triggered if ED identifies a potential issue; if not, approval is granted.
Institutions seeking to use this option must now:
-
Notify their state authorizing and accrediting agencies and meet all related closure requirements
-
Formally acknowledge that the program has been voluntarily discontinued, including substantially similar programs;
-
Place the program in a warning status and continue issuing warnings to students; and
-
Agree not to restart the same or a substantially similar program for at least two award years and provide academic and financial pathways for students to transfer into a program that has not failed the earnings premium test — at the same or another institution — that can accept all of the credits the student has earned to date in the program.
Institutions must also be in good standing with their accreditor and ED, as institutions or programs under sanctions, such as probation or heightened cash monitoring 2 (HCM2), cannot take advantage of the orderly closure pathway.
The department also added new requirements to the warning process for students enrolled in programs at risk of losing Direct Loan eligibility for the next award year due to their final earnings-premium measure. Institutions would now be required to send a separate warning specifically to enrolled Pell-eligible students. This notice would need to include a description of the student’s remaining lifetime Pell Grant eligibility and an explanation that any Pell Grant funds received while enrolled in the program will count against the student’s future lifetime eligibility.
The session then broke for a caucus, and upon its resumption, the department returned with a proposal negotiated with the committee to amend the existing standards of administrative capability to place additional penalties on institutions where a majority of their Title IV recipients or Title IV dollars come from failing programs. The new language would consider an institution to meet administrative capability standards only if at least half of the institution’s Title IV recipients and half of the institution’s total Title IV funds are not from programs that fail the earnings premium metric (are not “low-earning outcome programs”) in two of three consecutive years.
The Program Participation Agreement (PPA) regulations are also amended to state that an institution that did not meet this new administrative capability standard in two of three consecutive award years would be placed on provisional certification status and the institution’s low earning outcome programs would lose eligibility for all Title IV aid programs, not just direct loans.
Ultimately, the AHEAD committee reached consensus on the entire proposal package. All negotiators voted in support of the proposal except Tamar Hoffman, a negotiator representing legal assistance organizations, consumer advocates, and civil rights groups, who abstained from the vote.
Dave Musser, ED’s federal negotiator, and Nicholas Kent, ED’s under secretary, both thanked negotiators and department staff for their hard work during the week. Kent congratulated negotiators for reaching consensus, and called this new accountability package a “game changer.”
“For years, we have been bogged down in ineffective measures that simply failed to capture the full picture of how all programs were actually performing,” Kent said. “This new framework is different. It's about ensuring that all programs meet a baseline for financial value, a baseline that reflects the needs of students and taxpayers alike.”
Since the committee reached consensus, ED must use the agreed-upon language from the negotiations in its forthcoming Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), which is expected to be published in the coming months. Following a public comment period, the ED will draft final regulations, and the rule will become effective on July 1, 2026.
This is the final scheduled negotiated rulemaking session regarding provisions established in the OBBBA. The first committee, the Reimagining and Improving Student Education (RISE) Committee, reached consensus in November on ED’s entire package of proposals regarding loan limits, repayment plans, loan reduction, and loan rehabilitation and deferment. The NPRM for these provisions is due sometime this month.
The AHEAD Committee in December also reached consensus on ED’s package of proposals regarding the creation of a new Workforce Pell Grant Program during its first week-long session. This week's proposal and the proposal from early December will be published as separate NPRMs.
Stay tuned to Today’s News for more updates on this negotiated rulemaking session and read our previous recaps.
Publication Date: 1/12/2026
Christopher F | 1/12/2026 1:8:56 PM
Also, what's the word on FSEOG which was supposed to be eliminated?
Christopher F | 1/12/2026 1:8:24 PM
I love the line: "Institutions must also be in good standing with their accreditor and ED"
We submitted a CIO E-App update back in 11/2024, STILL no word. 2024 Audit submitted by 6/30/25, STILL no word, and we're about to start audit for FY2025. Our accreditor and state agency are both waiting until ED responds to give us their approvals, so everything is stuck.
Peter G | 1/12/2026 12:31:12 PM
I know Administrative Capability already incorporates CDR metrics, but I'm a bit concerned program/graduate performance is getting couched in this way.
Yes, it makes a nifty magic trick for getting where they wanted in the moment, but it really has nothing to do with 'administrative' capability at all conceptually. In the long run I think this conceptual incoherence is a problem.
Marvin S | 1/12/2026 11:56:05 AM
Great job Maria and Megan on your coverage. I thought there was talk of the "Do No Harm" metric replacing Gainful Employment program metrics. Hoping NASFAA can elaborate on this idea and whether that would require a change in statute.
You must be logged in to comment on this page.