Inside the Rulemaking Room: Ritchie Morrow’s Front-Row Recap - Day 4
March 21, 2026
📅 December 12, 2025
Dear Colleagues … Day Four Picked Up Speed (and Pressure)
By J. Ritchie Morrow, BAEd, MSEd
Financial Aid Officer
Coordinating Commission for Postsecondary Education
Dear Colleagues,
Greetings from Day 4 of AHEAD, where the pace slowed at the start… and then quickly made up for it.
The morning opened with a delay as FSA worked through a growing stack of proposals. To put that into perspective, the committee has already submitted 80 proposals in just three days. For comparison, that is more than is often seen in an entire negotiated rulemaking session.
So yes… there is a lot on the table.
Once the revised language was ready, the group reconvened to review updates, with the understanding that some proposals are still under review and may surface later.
“What changed in the draft regulations?”
Several notable updates came forward:
- A reference to § 690.79 (Return of Funds) was added
- Two new definitions introduced:
- Cohort Period
- Earnings Measurement Period
- Apprenticeships were clarified as Registered Apprenticeships
All straightforward on paper… but the conversations around them were anything but.
“Where did the conversation get complicated?”
State authorization and student location took center stage.
New language specifies that the Governor's approval applies to programs “offered to students in that State.” It also allows for bilateral agreements between states for cross-state enrollment.
That opened the door to a bigger question:
➡️ What about students enrolled online from another state?
ED clarified:
- “Students located in another state” refers only to distance education students
- It does not include students physically commuting across state lines
That distinction matters.
Because once you start tying value-added earnings (VAE) to outcomes, things get messy:
➡️ Institutions could be measured using their own program data…
➡️ Against wages earned by students working in entirely different states
And that raised more than a few eyebrows.
“Any movement on timelines or outcomes?”
Yes—on both fronts.
- Governors now have an extended timeline through 2028–29 to determine program standards
- Additional exclusions were added for outcomes calculations:
- Death
- Medical conditions preventing employment
- Active-duty military service
But one question lingered:
➡️ Should students who continue their education also be excluded?
Given that Workforce Pell programs are intended to be stackable pathways, many argued that continuing education should not count against earnings outcomes.
That conversation is still very much alive.
“What happened behind the scenes?”
The afternoon shifted back into caucuses, where several key issues were worked through:
- Lack of exclusions for continuous enrollment in earnings calculations
- CIP/SOC alignment is tied to programs losing and regaining eligibility
- Broader accountability measures
- Coordination with:
- State agencies
- Governors
- Accreditors
- Institutions
In other words, the structural pieces that will determine whether this works in practice.
“So where are we heading?”
Tomorrow is where it gets real.
➡️ Final language review
➡️ Closing discussion
➡️ A vote on Workforce Pell
After four days of building, debating, revising, and negotiating… we are approaching decision point territory.
Final thought from Day Four
The volume of proposals tells you one thing.
The depth of discussion tells you another.
This is not surface-level policy work.
This is framework-setting, line-drawing, consequence-defining territory.
And we are almost at the moment where it starts to lock in.
More to come after tomorrow’s vote.
As always, if there is something you want me to watch closely as we head into the finish line, let me know.
Until the final recap,
Ritchie