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.
How might the DOE revisions affect continuing education, certification requirements, and interstate licensure compacts?
Executive summary
The Department of Education’s recent moves to transfer many programs to other federal agencies and to pursue negotiated rulemaking for Higher Education create uncertainty for continuing education, certification, and interstate licensure compacts because responsibilities, enforcement, and funding could shift between agencies (see DOE restructuring announcements and negotiated rulemaking page) [1][2]. Reporting shows the administration is already shifting “many” K‑12 and higher‑education programs out of ED and framing this as part of a broader downsizing effort, which advocates warn could disrupt oversight that supports state compliance and program continuity [3][4].
1. Who’s moving what — and why it matters
The Trump administration has announced interagency agreements that move multiple DOE programs to other agencies as part of an effort “to break up the federal education bureaucracy,” and officials say states and grantees shouldn’t expect programmatic disruptions; nevertheless, those moves change which agency sets policy priorities and enforces rules that undergird professional training, certification, and cross‑state agreements [1]. Education Week and Politico reporting emphasize the scope of the transfers and the administration’s long‑term goal to downsize ED—an agenda that could affect federal coordination roles that matter for licensure and continuing education [3][4].
2. Immediate regulatory process: negotiated rulemaking could alter requirements
The Department has opened a negotiated rulemaking process for higher education in 2025–2026, which is the formal venue to propose regulatory changes to Title IV and related matters; changes produced through that process can alter continuing education expectations for institutions and students by revising federal regulatory text and compliance norms [2]. Because negotiated rulemaking involves stakeholders and a public schedule, it provides a formal way to reshape requirements—however, the content and scope depend on what negotiators propose and what regulators finalize [2].
3. Certification requirements: federal role vs. state control
Available sources show the administration’s stated aim is to return more authority to states and to move programs between federal agencies; they do not detail specific changes to professional certification standards. Education Week and advocacy groups warn that removing or reassigning federal oversight could weaken decades of federal enforcement and coordination—particularly for programs historically monitored by ED—potentially creating patchwork approaches to continuing education and credential recognition [3][5]. Not found in current reporting: explicit new federal certification criteria or concrete plans to rewrite professional licensure rules.
4. Interstate licensure compacts: stability at risk, but pathways remain unclear
Interstate compacts (e.g., for teachers, health professionals) rely on state participation and sometimes federal facilitation or funding; sources note program transfers and agency downsizing but do not describe direct actions targeting specific compacts [4][3]. Advocates express concern that shifting enforcement or technical assistance away from ED could undermine consistent federal support that helps states implement compacts, but available reporting does not confirm any immediate disruption to existing interstate compacts [5]. If federal technical assistance or funding streams change, states may need to take on more coordination themselves [4].
5. Funding and workforce impacts that underpin continuing education
Multiple reports flag large staffing reductions and organizational changes at ED earlier in 2025 and the potential for programs to be moved or reduced—actions that can slow grant processing, technical support, and program audits that sustain continuing‑education systems [6][7]. Forbes reporting on student loan and program backlogs illustrates how administrative disruptions ripple into program delivery; analogous effects could occur for federal supports tied to certification and continuing learning though specific examples for those areas are not provided in current reporting [8].
6. Competing perspectives and stated agendas
The administration frames transfers as efficiency and state‑empowerment moves (DOE’s interagency agreement messaging), while critics—including advocacy groups and education reporters—frame the actions as part of a conservative, long‑term project to shrink federal education roles and erase protections enforced by ED [1][3][9]. Advocacy groups for special education explicitly warn that moving enforcement away from ED would “erase decades of progress,” though current announcements stopped short of moving IDEA immediately [5][10].
7. What stakeholders should watch next
Track negotiated rulemaking outputs and meeting schedules on the DOE’s official page for concrete regulatory proposals [2], watch agency announcements about which programs and funds are transferred [1], and monitor Education Week, Politico, and advocacy group responses for practical impacts on enforcement, technical assistance, and grant continuity [3][4][5]. If you represent a profession or state education office, request clarity from both ED and the receiving agency about who will handle certification guidance, continuing‑education approvals, and compact support—current reporting signals change but does not specify operational plans [1][4].
Limitations: reporting documents major structural announcements and procedural steps but does not provide detailed, itemized plans for how continuing education rules, specific certification standards, or individual interstate compacts will be rewritten or administered after transfers; those specifics are not found in current reporting [2][1][4].