Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Which specific criteria did the Department of Education use in 2025 to reclassify programs as non-professional?
Executive summary
Available reporting shows multiple 2025 “reclassification” efforts but they refer to different systems: U.S. state K–12 reclassification of English learners (California guidance listing four statutory criteria) and the Philippines’ Department of Education (DepEd) reclassification of teacher/school‑head positions under new DepEd/DBM guidance (expanded career progression and specific matrices). The California Department of Education requires that every reclassified EL meet four criteria set in Education Code Section 313(f) (see CDE reclassification page) [1]; DepEd’s 2025 materials set qualification standards, matrices, and forms for position reclassification tied to DepEd Order No. 024 and DBM‑DepEd JC 01, s.2025 [2] [3] [4] [5].
1. Two different reclassification meanings — students vs. positions
“Reclassification” in the sources is not a single federal 2025 Department of Education policy; it appears in at least two distinct contexts. California’s Department of Education discusses reclassification of English learners (ELs) to RFEP status using four statutorily required criteria (CDE guidance) [1]. Separately, the Philippine Department of Education launched reclassification of teaching and principal positions in 2025—an administrative career‑progression and salary‑grade process tied to DepEd orders and DBM joint circulars [2] [3] [4] [5]. Treat these as separate policy families; the sources do not connect them into a single “Department of Education” action [1] [2].
2. What California’s 2025 reclassification criteria look like
California law requires each local educational agency to adopt a process ensuring an EL meets four criteria in Education Code Section 313(f) before reclassification to RFEP; the CDE page explicitly says each criterion must be met for every student who is reclassified [1]. The page also highlights that LEAs must continue annual English proficiency testing until students exit and provides related administrative guidance and reporting requirements [1]. The exact four criteria text is summarized on the CDE site and is the controlling standard for K–12 EL reclassification in California [1].
3. How DepEd’s 2025 position reclassification is framed
DepEd’s 2025 reclassification initiative is aimed at teachers and school heads and is implemented through DepEd Order No. 024 and related memoranda; reporting and press pieces say the effort uses an Expanded Career Progression (ECP) System with prescribed mechanisms, matrices, and qualification standards [2] [4] [5]. Commentaries and download sites mention a DBM‑DepEd joint circular (JC 01, s.2025) and forms for reclassification applications; the criteria include qualification standards, quotas, documentation, and evaluation procedures for movement between teacher/leader ranks [3] [6] [5].
4. Which specific “non‑professional” reclassification rules did ED use in 2025? — not found
The search results do not contain a 2025 U.S. Department of Education rule that reclassifies programs as “non‑professional” or lists criteria for doing so. Materials about program classification in higher education (e.g., ED rulemaking on professional degree definitions discussed by NASFAA) indicate ED considered defining “professional degree” by 4‑digit CIP codes and an enumerated list of fields—raising concerns that some programs (like advanced nursing) would be excluded if they don’t share CIP codes with the 11 designated professional fields [7]. However, the provided results do not state a finalized ED 2025 reclassification that labels programs “non‑professional” with an explicit criteria set; available sources do not mention a specific 2025 ED reclassification rule using the label “non‑professional” beyond the CIP/code context [7].
5. Competing viewpoints and implications in the sources
CDE frames reclassification of students as legal, locally implemented criteria that require meeting all statutory elements and continued assessment until exit [1]. DepEd materials emphasize merit, transparent assessment matrices, and funding commitments to support career progression for teachers and principals [2] [3]. NASFAA commentary flags a dispute: ED’s reliance on CIP codes and a fixed list of “professional” fields could exclude programs that otherwise meet licensure and degree criteria (an equity and access concern for fields like advanced nursing) [7]. These are distinct policy debates but the tension is similar: definition thresholds (statutory criteria, CIP codes, or qualification matrices) can have major consequences for people affected [1] [7] [2].
6. Limitations and what’s missing from current reporting
The provided documents do not include a single, explicit 2025 U.S. Department of Education rule that reclassifies academic programs as “non‑professional” with a numbered set of criteria; the closest material references ED’s negotiated‑rulemaking discussions about professional‑degree definitions and using CIP codes [7]. If you seek the exact ED regulatory text, federal register notices, or a definitive list of “non‑professional” program criteria from 2025, those specific primary documents are not present in the current results — not found in current reporting [7].
If you want, I can: (A) pull up the CDE’s four reclassification criteria language in full from [1]; (B) gather the DepEd orders/matrices referenced [2] [5]; or (C) locate the ED negotiated‑rulemaking or Federal Register entries that explain the CIP‑based professional‑degree proposals discussed in the NASFAA piece [7]. Which would you prefer?