Policy in Motion: Key Takeaways from the 2026 CSPEN Annual Higher Education Policy Meeting

Washington, D.C. is rarely short on activity — but the 2026 CSPEN Annual Higher Education Policy Meeting arrived at a particularly pivotal moment. With negotiated rulemaking sessions underway, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OB3) driving implementation timelines, and a newly reorganized Department of Education signaling its priorities, the conversations in the room felt less like policy speculation and more like operational planning.
For our team at McClintock & Associates, attending CSPEN is about more than staying informed — it’s about bringing the most current, grounded guidance back to the institutions we serve. Below are the most consequential takeaways from this year’s sessions, organized by the areas most likely to affect your institution’s planning and compliance posture in the months ahead.

1. Negotiated Rulemaking: RISE and AHEAD — Don’t Wait for Congress to Ride to the Rescue

Perhaps the most urgent message delivered at CSPEN came during the RISE and AHEAD negotiated rulemaking sessions: institutions should not assume Congress will delay or overturn these regulations. The time to prepare is now.

RISE Committee

The RISE (Reimagining and Improving Student Education) Committee’s sessions provided important clarity on several implementation questions — and raised new ones. Among the most notable clarifications: a confirmed enrollment change in the final payment period of an academic year does not require a change in funding if it occurs after the disbursement date. This is a meaningful operational data point for institutions managing enrollment fluctuations close to disbursement windows.

A few RISE-related implementation considerations institutions should be actively working through:

• Less-than-full-time prorated loans do not follow the same rules as Pell Grant recalculations and enrollment intensity.
• Institutions should ensure their financial aid teams understand the distinctions and are not applying the same logic across both.
• The final rule could be published as late as June 1, 2026. Because OB3 is an act of Congress — not a standard regulatory action — the normal master calendar requirements do not apply. This compressed timeline makes early readiness work essential.
• Legacy loan program management is a critical near-term task. Institutions need a clear picture of loans that are active, packaged, or disbursed prior to June 30, 2026, as these will continue under legacy rules through June 30, 2029.
• Private lenders are currently approving loans on a one-year basis rather than multi-year. This has downstream implications for students’ FICO scores — and therefore their borrowing eligibility — in years two and three of a program.

Strategically, negotiators offered a direct piece of guidance for those engaged in the comment process: don’t waste political capital arguing against provisions that are embedded in OB3 itself. Focus on bringing specific data and implementation feedback where it can actually move the needle.

AHEAD Committee

The AHEAD (Accreditation and Higher Education Accountability and Deregulation) Committee sessions produced some of the more nuanced and forward-looking discussion at this year’s meeting. The Department signaled it is more willing to compromise during this round of negotiated rulemaking than in prior administrations — but institutions should not interpret that flexibility as an invitation to push back broadly. On the upcoming accreditation negotiated rule making session, specifically, attendees were cautioned that ED will pursue its goals regardless of whether consensus is reached at the negotiating table.

Key AHEAD takeaways for institutions:

• The Accountability “Do No Harm” framework is likely here to stay. It may evolve incrementally, but the underlying approach is not going backwards. Institutions should be building compliance and operational strategies around its permanence, not its potential elimination.
• The AHEAD NegReg website contains charts and program-level data showing which programs are likely to fail accountability standards. Institutions are strongly encouraged to review this data now and evaluate program viability proactively.
• The inclusion of governors in Workforce Pell program approval structures is widely viewed as a deliberate nod toward returning more responsibility to the states — a theme that ran throughout many sessions at this year’s meeting.

2. OB3 Accountability and Workforce Pell: Opportunity With Real Constraints

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act introduces both meaningful opportunity and significant operational complexity. CSPEN sessions provided granular context on both dimensions that institutions need to be working through now.

Accountability Standards

The broader picture on OB3 accountability is more favorable than many institutions initially feared: approximately 95% of programs — weighted by enrollment — are expected to pass the earnings threshold. However, that aggregate figure should not create complacency. The 5% of programs that fall short could represent significant exposure depending on institutional concentration, and the first rates will be issued in early 2027, with a second round in early 2028.

Priority action items for institutions right now:

• Review the Preston Cooper spreadsheet identifying programs likely to fail the earnings threshold. (A link will be distributed through CSPEN channels.) This is one of the most practical tools available for institutions conducting their own program-level risk assessment.
• Model the impact of new loan limits on your student population. Evaluate which students are currently borrowing above those limits and begin planning for the enrollment, advising, and financial implications.
• Understand the voluntary teach-out option in year one. Schools that elect this path can maintain Title IV aid through the full student teach-out period, which may be a critical strategic decision for programs at risk.
• Cosmetology programs warrant specific scrutiny under the Do No Harm framework. If your institution offers cosmetology, this should be a near-term focus area for your compliance and program review teams.

Workforce Pell: Significant Promise, Substantial Hurdles

Workforce Pell was a consistent topic across multiple sessions — and the overall assessment was candid. The program offers real potential, particularly for employer-driven partnerships, but the regulatory burden is substantial relative to the likely Pell dollar impact for many institutions. AHEAD negotiators expressed genuine concern that the program as currently structured may not be worth the administrative cost for smaller schools.

Several structural constraints institutions must internalize before pursuing Workforce Pell:

• The 70/70 rule, earnings test, student eligibility requirements, and the governor’s role in determining in-demand programs all create a multi-layered eligibility framework that is not easily navigated.
• There is no state reciprocity for licensure under Workforce Pell — no equivalent of NC-SARA exists for this program. Interstate delivery models will require state-by-state qualification analysis.
• The program may be most viable when structured around employer partnerships, where the employer is effectively a co-sponsor and the program is designed to be financially sustainable even without Pell eligibility.
• Congress has been asked to revisit and simplify Workforce Pell requirements in future legislation. Negotiators expressed hope for reform, but institutions should plan around the rules as they exist today.

3. Department of Education Enforcement: Real Changes to Watch

Acting Branch Chief Jeremy Early of the Office of Enforcement provided a thorough update on operational changes at ED that have direct, practical implications for institutions navigating change-in-ownership approvals, ECAR requests, and program reviews.

The most significant structural change: ED has moved from eight regional offices to a single centralized enforcement office. Staff levels have been reduced in the transition, but the intended outcome is more consistent guidance and faster resolution. Whether institutions experience that consistency will depend heavily on how well the new model is operationalized.

Key operational updates for institutions:

• Change in Ownership (CIO) backlog is a declared high priority. ED has processed more CIO requests in recent months than in the entire prior year. Those in queue should be tracking status proactively
• Use CaseTeam@ed.gov for updates on ECAR requests, which is now staffed continuously.
• ECAR automation is coming to Partner Connect in April 2026. Applications that require only ED acknowledgement — not full approval — will benefit from built-in automation, which should accelerate routine processing.
• Letters of Credit will default to 10% unless ED identifies institution-specific risk. ED is actively reviewing LOC decisions made under the prior administration and reducing some to the statutory minimum. This is a meaningful shift for institutions carrying elevated LOC obligations.
• Growth restrictions tied to a CIO cannot be fully lifted until the next PPA renewal. However, ED may allow limited growth where an institution is willing to post an LOC. Schools in this situation should be in active dialogue with their case team.
• Program reviews are being opened only for cause — fraud risk or clear necessity. ED is prioritizing closing out its existing review backlog. For institutions with older unreviewed financial statements, the plan is to archive those and review only the most recent audited financials.
• HCM2 processing is now being completed within 30 days of submission, a significant improvement over prior timelines.

4. Audit Compliance: Common Deficiencies That Are Getting Schools Flagged

Amy Bales, Assistant Director of the Non-Federal Audit Team at the Office of Inspector General, provided a direct and useful summary of the most common deficiencies her team is identifying. Given that ED received an unmodified opinion on its own financial statement audit by KPMG — for the first time in many years — the bar for institutional audit quality is only going up.

Recurring audit performance deficiencies include annual security report (ASR) issues, placement rate accuracy, and 90/10 documentation. On 90/10 specifically, institutions should be documenting how they are ensuring federal funds provided directly to students are included in the calculation if the student makes cash payments to the institution and ensuring compliance with the disbursement rule is explicitly documented — not assumed.

Reporting deficiencies that are generating findings include:

• Related party transactions missing from footnotes. Every related party transaction must appear in the RP footnote even if it is disclosed elsewhere in the financial statements.
• Audit reports describing incorrect compliance requirements or missing required finding details.
• Prior year findings without adequate commentary. The summary of prior audit findings must include substantive commentary on any repeat findings — a one-line reference is not sufficient.
• Incorrect assertions in the opinion. This is a foundational error that draws immediate attention.

On the Single Audit Guide: it is significantly delayed with no current plan for blanket extensions. Institutions and their audit firms should be planning around existing requirements and not anticipating relief.

Additionally, a new audit guide is in early development, but getting the right stakeholders aligned has proven difficult.

One forward-looking note that should be on every compliance officer’s radar: auditors will be evaluating changes to Title IV programs driven by FAFSA Simplification and OB3. Institutions must ensure their audit teams and external auditors are current on how those changes affect testing procedures and compliance requirements.

5. Department Priorities and the Broader Policy Direction

Sessions with Under Secretary of Education Nicholas Kent and Acting Secretary of Post-Secondary Education Chris McCaghren provided a clear window into the administration’s posture on higher education — and what institutions can expect from the Department in the months ahead.

Under Secretary Kent was direct about his priorities: return education governance to the states, reduce ED’s footprint where other federal agencies are better positioned to act, and eliminate regulatory burden that is not grounded in statute. Critically for proprietary institutions, he called out anti-competitive regulations that have disproportionately penalized for-profit and religious-based schools as a specific area of focus. A 90/10 FAQ update is in the works as an interpretive rule, incorporating public comments received on the disbursement rule and non-Title IV program inclusion.

The “regulatory whiplash” problem was also directly addressed. The administration is actively seeking three-consensus-vote outcomes in negotiated rulemaking as a mechanism for creating more durable rules — ones that are harder for a future administration to simply reverse. This has real implications for how institutions engage in the NegReg process: advocacy with specificity and data has a genuine audience right now.

Acting Secretary McCaghren’s session introduced what may be one of the more consequential structural shifts on the horizon: a formal transition of certain functions from ED to the Department of Labor, with a focus on workforce development (non-Title IV). The DOL is investing heavily in AI, and McCaghren expressed the view that for-profit institutions are structurally better positioned to adopt new technologies quickly relative to traditional schools — framing this as a competitive advantage for the sector.

Additional near-term policy signals to track:

• More guidance on institutional obligations to support student loan repayment is coming soon. CDR monitoring will continue, and institutions are advised to maintain collections activity rather than assuming ED will take future action.
• The Workforce Pell NPRM is currently with OMB for review.
• The AIM (Accreditation and Innovation in Mission) NegReg is on the horizon, with a stated goal of introducing more competition among accreditors and reducing what the administration views as monopolistic programmatic accreditation structures.
• A Change in Ownership NegReg is expected later this year. This is a significant development for any institution involved in or contemplating a transaction.

6. SIS Landscape and Cybersecurity: Operational Considerations

A well-attended SIS workshop covered the current vendor landscape, CRM integration approaches, and what institutions should be thinking about as they evaluate or transition platforms. A few notable data points: Ellucian added 700 employees through the Anthology acquisition and is keeping those SIS platforms separate for now; Orbund is spreading implementation costs over three years and has a strong compliance reporting focus; and LeadSquared appears to be the dominant CRM that SIS vendors are partnering with rather than building natively.

On cybersecurity, FSA’s Chief Information Security Officer Davon Tyler offered a pragmatic message: ED’s primary concern under GLBA is that qualified individuals — either at the institution or through a third-party servicer — are making risk-based decisions. ED understands that institutions have resource constraints and must prioritize. The expectation is that institutions address their highest-risk areas first, not that they achieve a gold standard that may be financially out of reach.

Institutions should ensure any cybersecurity breaches are reported to ED and that their GLBA compliance documentation reflects active, defensible decision-making about where resources are deployed.

What Institutions Should Do Now

The common theme across virtually every CSPEN session this year was the same one we bring back to our clients after every major policy convening: the institutions that fare best are those that treat regulatory change as a planning problem, not a waiting problem.

For most institutions, the near-term priority list should include:

• Conducting a program-level OB3 accountability risk assessment using available ED data and the Preston Cooper earnings threshold tool.
• Mapping your legacy loan portfolio to understand which active, packaged, and disbursed loans will operate under legacy rules through 2029.
• Reviewing your most recent audit for the common deficiencies identified by OIG — particularly related party footnotes, 90/10 documentation, and prior finding commentary.
• Monitoring the 90/10 FAQ update for interpretive guidance on disbursement rule compliance and non-Title IV program inclusion.
• Beginning to engage in NegReg comment processes with specific data — ED is listening, but anecdote without evidence is not moving the needle.

Join Us: From Rulemaking to Readiness — March 26 Webinar

On Thursday, March 26 from 2:30–3:30 PM ET, McClintock & Associates will host a live webinar: From Rulemaking to Readiness Under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. This session translates the negotiated rulemaking outcomes from RISE and AHEAD into clear, practical implementation steps for institutions ahead of the July 1, 2026 effective date. We’ll cover what’s been clarified, what remains open, and what your institution should be doing right now.

Register HERE — space is limited.

______________________________

Sign-up for our newsletter to stay up to date or schedule a consultation with our experts to model your impacts, develop strategies, and implement solutions.