What specific factors did the 2025–2026 Department of Education guidance list for classifying employees as 'professional' vs 'nonprofessional'?
Executive summary
The Department of Education’s 2025–26 rulemaking framed a “professional degree” around three specific attributes: [1] completion of academic requirements for beginning practice in a profession and a level of professional skill beyond a bachelor’s degree, [2] having a four‑digit Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) code that aligns with specified professional fields, and [3] including a path to professional licensure — language the Department used in its initial framework and cited by professional organizations reacting to the proposal [4] [5]. Coverage shows controversy over which fields the Department’s list actually includes or excludes (notably nursing, public health, social work and others), and professional groups say the narrow interpretation will limit student loan access for affected programs [6] [7].
1. A definition built on three criteria — and who first described it
The working definition used in the Department’s negotiated rulemaking described a “professional student” as someone in a program that (a) requires completion of the academic requirements for beginning practice and a level of professional skill beyond what a bachelor’s degree typically requires; (b) corresponds to a four‑digit CIP code; and (c) includes a path to professional licensure [4]. New America’s review of the rulemaking likewise notes the Department relied on an older regulatory approach (the regulation as of July 4, 2025) and then listed particular fields that would qualify, expanding some psychology categories via CIP alignment [5].
2. CIP codes as a gatekeeper: technical but consequential
Multiple organizations point out the Department’s heavy reliance on 4‑digit CIP codes to determine which programs fall into the “professional” bucket [4] [5]. Using CIP codes makes the rule mechanically tidy — programs sharing a CIP with listed fields can qualify — but critics warn it also freezes professions into coding categories that don’t always reflect modern program structure or new credentials [4]. The Council on Social Work Education and public health organizations argued CIP coding would create “unjustified distinctions” and might exclude essential public‑service degrees [4] [7].
3. Licensure and “beginning practice” as a threshold for value
The Department’s draft framework ties professional status to whether programs lead to licensure and whether they prepare graduates for “beginning practice” at a level beyond a bachelor’s degree [4]. Advocates for health and social professions contend this sounds reasonable on paper but can be interpreted narrowly — for example, the Department’s approach reportedly excludes many graduate nursing, public health, and social work degrees that do lead to practice and licensure in real‑world settings [6] [7].
4. What the Department actually listed — fields and exclusions in the draft
New America and reporting around the rulemaking show the Department enumerated specific fields (including certain clinical psychology programs) and then allowed other programs to qualify if they shared the same 4‑digit CIP codes [5]. Independent fact‑checking and news coverage identified a list of programs the Department said it would no longer treat as “professional” — including nursing, education (teaching master’s), social work, public health, and several allied health degrees — which sparked immediate pushback [6] [8].
5. Financial stakes: why the classification matters
The professional/non‑professional distinction affects federal borrowing limits established by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) — professional students would be eligible for higher annual and lifetime caps (for example, the rulemaking references a $50,000 annual limit for professional degrees in context) — so being excluded from the professional category could materially reduce students’ access to loans [5] [9]. Organizations representing nursing, public health, and social work warned that excluding their programs would constrain workforce pipelines and make essential fields cost‑prohibitive [8] [7] [4].
6. Competing perspectives and the politics behind the pushback
Professional associations (AACN, CSWE, ASPPH) argue the Department’s interpretation is both narrower than modern practice and harmful to public‑interest professions; they urge inclusion on the grounds that their programs meet the “licensure and beginning practice” test and often share CIP codes with recognized professions [4] [7] [8]. The Department, and observers like New America, defend using the older regulatory text and CIP structure to create a stable, administrable rule — a viewpoint that emphasizes rule‑consistency over program‑by‑program judgment [5].
7. Limits of current reporting and what’s next
Available sources document the draft framework and the immediate fallout but do not provide a final, published regulation text in these items; several notices (including the expected Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) and public comment periods were projected in reporting [7] [5]. For readers seeking the final, authoritative list or exact regulatory language, available sources do not mention a finalized rule text beyond the RISE committee’s consensus documents and the Department’s initial framework [5] [4].
If you want, I can pull together the specific lists cited by Newsweek, Snopes, New America and professional groups into a side‑by‑side comparison showing which programs each source says would be included or excluded under the Department’s framework (using only these sources).