Which programs were affected by the reclassification and what new degree titles replaced the old ones?

1. Project 2025 and the federal civil‑service reclassification: politicizing the personnel system

Project 2025, a conservative blueprint associated with the Heritage Foundation and allied groups, proposes reclassifying “tens of thousands” of federal civil‑service positions into a new, politicized category commonly referred to as “Schedule F,” which would effectively make many career positions subject to political hiring and firing; commentators and unions warn this would allow replacement of merit‑system staff with political loyalists ^{[1] [2] [3]}. The sources describe Schedule F as a personnel reclassification rather than a change to academic degree titles; they specify the goal of recategorizing employees whose work touches on policy so they could be treated like political appointees ^{[1] [2]}.

2. Hemp reclassification: legal status of products becomes “marijuana” (Schedule I)

Congressional language in a 2025 appropriations bill would redefine “hemp” so that many hemp‑derived THC products — including synthetic/manufactured cannabinoids and products exceeding statutory thresholds — would be reclassified as Schedule I marijuana under federal law, making them federally illegal and subject to state cannabis regulatory regimes and other penalties starting on an implementation date one year after enactment (effective November 12, 2026, if the language remains) ^[4]. This is a statutory redefinition of a product category, not an academic degree renaming, and the source warns states would need to amend hemp programs to align with the new federal status ^[4].

3. K–12 English‑learner reclassification: EL → RFEP and monitoring after exit

State and district education materials outline routine reclassification of individual students from English Learner (EL) status to labels such as Reclassified Fluent English Proficient (RFEP) or “former EL” once they meet proficiency and academic criteria; reclassified students are exempted from EL‑specific services and are monitored for multiple years after exit (California, San Francisco USD, Pennsylvania, Texas all describe this process) ^{[5] [6] [11] [12]}. These documents show the “program” affected is the student’s classification within bilingual/EL services and the replacement title is RFEP or equivalent — again, not a change to a degree name ^{[5] [6]}.

4. Athletics, schools and personnel reclassification: policy and procedural change, not degree renaming

Athletic governance and school classification processes also use “reclassification” language: the NCAA adopted new objective criteria for schools in Divisions II and III seeking to reclassify to Division I (i.e., changing institutional athletic classification) ^[7], while state high‑school athletic associations (GHSA) were releasing 2026–2028 classification proposals and hearing appeals about school placements ^{[8] [9]}. The Philippines’ DepEd issued a 2025 reclassification of teaching and principal positions to create promotion pathways ^[10]. All of these are organizational or personnel category changes — the sources do not indicate any academic degree titles being replaced ^{[7] [8] [9] [10]}.

5. What the sources do and do not say about “programs affected” and “new degree titles”

Across the supplied items, “reclassification” refers to personnel categories (Schedule F), product legal status (hemp → Schedule I marijuana), student language‑proficiency status (EL → RFEP/former EL), athletic/institutional classification (Division moves; GHSA classifications), and teacher/principal promotion tracks ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [10]}. None of the provided sources report a set of academic programs whose degree titles were renamed across a system, nor do they list new degree names replacing old ones; available sources do not mention any wholesale replacement of degree titles (not found in current reporting) ^{[8] [4] [5] [7]}.

6. Competing perspectives and implicit agendas

Sources tied to Project 2025 and Schedule F are described differently depending on viewpoint: the Project’s advocates present reclassification as a way to make government more responsive to elected leadership, while unions and some analysts frame it as politicization that would enable loyalty‑based hiring and large staff turnover ^{[1] [2] [3]}. The hemp reclassification is presented in legal advisory terms (Vicente LLP) emphasizing downstream compliance and tax consequences; opponents (e.g., some senators) sought amendments but lacked votes, indicating political tradeoffs in the appropriations process ^[4]. Education and athletics materials are procedural and administrative, reflecting local/state policy needs rather than ideological battles ^{[5] [6] [7]}.

Conclusion: The supplied reporting shows many disparate reclassification efforts (personnel categories, product legal status, student/athletic classifications) with specific replacement labels like “Schedule F” for federal positions and “RFEP” for reclassified English learners, and hemp products reclassified as Schedule I marijuana; none of the sources describe a coordinated renaming of degree programs or list new academic degree titles replacing old ones ^{[1] [2] [3] [5] [4] [6]}.