Regulatory Framework for Higher Education Reform and Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

The Department of Education has initiated a yearlong regulatory process to implement the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” a significant piece of legislation aimed at reforming higher education. This process, conducted through negotiated rulemaking, seeks to address critical gaps in the new law. The reforms and subsequent stakeholder discussions directly engage with several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), primarily SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

Key Legislative Provisions and SDG Implications

The act introduces several major changes to the higher education landscape, each with profound implications for achieving the SDGs:

• Capped Federal Student Loans and New Repayment Plans: By addressing the affordability of higher education, these measures support SDG 4.3, which aims to ensure equal access for all women and men to affordable and quality technical, vocational, and tertiary education. This also contributes to SDG 1 (No Poverty) by mitigating the risk of unmanageable debt for graduates.
• Pell Grant Extension for Workforce Programs: This provision directly aligns with SDG 4.4, which seeks to substantially increase the number of youth and adults who have relevant skills, including technical and vocational skills, for employment, decent jobs, and entrepreneurship. It also promotes SDG 8 by fostering a skilled workforce.
• New Institutional Accountability Measures: The introduction of an earnings test to hold institutions accountable for student outcomes is a mechanism to enforce SDG 4’s call for “quality education” and ensure that educational investment leads to economic empowerment, a core tenet of SDG 8.

Stakeholder Concerns in the Negotiated Rulemaking Process

The negotiated rulemaking process itself is an exercise in building effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions (SDG 16). However, stakeholders have highlighted several areas where the proposed implementation could fall short of its goals, particularly concerning equity and quality.

Committee Representation and Inclusive Decision-Making (SDG 10 & SDG 16)

A primary concern is the composition of the advisory committees responsible for negotiating the new rules. The lack of adequate representation threatens the principle of inclusive decision-making central to SDG 16.7 and could exacerbate existing disparities, working against SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

• Financial Aid Administrators: The exclusion of financial aid professionals, who are responsible for the practical implementation of policy, risks the development of rules that are difficult to administer and may have unintended negative consequences for students.
• Underrepresented Groups: Stakeholders have called for greater inclusion of representatives from civil rights organizations, apprenticeship programs, and minority-serving institutions to ensure that the regulations are equitable and address the needs of diverse student populations, in line with SDG 10.2.

Defining Professional Programs: Ensuring Access and Economic Viability (SDG 4 & SDG 8)

A significant point of contention is the legislative ambiguity in defining “professional programs,” which are subject to a higher federal loan cap ($200,000) than “graduate programs” ($100,000). This distinction will critically impact the accessibility of certain fields of study, affecting both quality education pathways (SDG 4) and the supply of skilled labor for key economic sectors (SDG 8).

1. Public Service Professions: Advocates argue that master’s degree programs in fields such as social work, nursing, and education provide essential professional preparation for critical public services and should be categorized as professional programs to ensure a steady pipeline of qualified graduates.
2. High-Cost Technical Programs: Representatives from the aviation industry noted that bachelor’s programs for pilots involve costs comparable to graduate school. Failing to provide a higher loan cap could create a severe pilot shortage, jeopardizing transportation infrastructure and economic health, thereby impacting progress toward SDG 8.

Accountability Measures and Protecting Learners (SDG 4 & SDG 1)

Policy experts have raised alarms that the new accountability framework may create a significant loophole that undermines the goal of quality education. The new earnings test does not apply to certificate programs, which data suggests are more likely to provide a poor return on investment.

• Risk to Students: According to research from the Postsecondary Education and Economics Research Center, while only 1% of degree programs would fail the new earnings test, approximately 19% of certificate programs would. Exempting these programs from accountability could lead students into debt without providing the skills for gainful employment, directly contradicting the aims of SDG 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 1 (No Poverty).
• Proposed Solution: To ensure all postsecondary education leads to valuable outcomes, policy analysts advocate for maintaining the existing “gainful-employment” rule, which specifically applies to certificate and for-profit programs, as a complementary accountability measure.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article on the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” and its implementation addresses several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by focusing on the accessibility, quality, and outcomes of higher education, as well as the governance processes involved in policy-making.

• SDG 4: Quality Education

  This is the most central SDG. The article revolves around reforms in higher education, specifically aiming to improve its quality, affordability, and relevance. It discusses extending Pell Grants, capping student loans, and creating accountability measures to ensure that postsecondary education is effective and accessible.

• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

  The article directly links education to employment outcomes. The emphasis on aligning “program offerings with employer needs,” extending grants to “short-term workforce programs,” and debating which degrees lead to high-return careers (like pilots) connects educational policy to the goal of achieving productive employment and decent work.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  The article touches upon this goal by highlighting concerns about equitable representation in the policy-making process. The call for including representatives from “minority-serving institutions” and “civil rights advocates” on advisory committees points to an effort to ensure that the new regulations do not create or exacerbate inequalities and that diverse interests are considered.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  This goal is relevant through the article’s focus on the “negotiated rule making” process. The discussion about who is included on the decision-making committees (“Who’s Making the Decisions?”) and the call for a more inclusive and representative process directly relate to building effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the issues discussed in the article, several specific SDG targets can be identified:

1. Target 4.3: Ensure equal access for all women and men to affordable and quality technical, vocational and tertiary education, including university.

   The article directly addresses this target through its discussion of policies designed to make higher education more affordable and accessible. The “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” is described as an effort to return “affordability and quality to postsecondary education.” Specific measures mentioned include capping federal student loans and extending the Pell Grant, which are mechanisms to improve financial access to tertiary education.

2. Target 4.4: Substantially increase the number of youth and adults who have relevant skills, including technical and vocational skills, for employment, decent jobs and entrepreneurship.

   This target is addressed by the law’s provision to extend “the Pell Grant to include short-term workforce programs.” Furthermore, the article highlights the administration’s goal of “aligning program offerings with employer needs” and the debate over programs like aviation that train students for specific, in-demand jobs, such as pilots. This shows a clear focus on ensuring education provides relevant skills for the job market.

3. Target 8.6: Substantially reduce the proportion of youth not in employment, education or training.

   The focus on workforce-oriented education and accountability for career outcomes connects to this target. By making short-term workforce and vocational programs (like aviation) more accessible and affordable, the policy aims to create clearer pathways from education to employment, thereby reducing the number of young people who are disconnected from both.

4. Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.

   The section “Who’s Making the Decisions?” is a direct reflection of this target. The concerns raised by groups like the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators about the exclusion of financial aid professionals from the advisory committees, along with calls for “better representation of civil rights advocates, apprenticeship program leaders and minority-serving institutions,” highlight the demand for a more inclusive and representative policy-making process.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, the article mentions or implies several indicators that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets.

• Debt-to-Earnings Ratios and Earnings Tests

  The article explicitly mentions accountability tools that serve as direct indicators. The “gainful-employment rule” uses “debt-to-earnings tests” to evaluate programs. The new law introduces a “new earnings test to evaluate colleges’ eligibility for federal student loans.” These metrics are used to measure whether the cost of a degree is justified by the subsequent income of graduates, directly indicating the economic value of the education (relevant to Targets 4.4 and 8.6).

• Program Failure/Success Rates

  The article provides a quantitative example of an indicator by citing a report from the PEER Center: “about 19 percent of certificate programs would” fail the new earnings test. This percentage of programs failing or passing an accountability metric is a clear indicator of the overall quality and return on investment of educational offerings (relevant to Target 4.3).

• Student Loan Amounts

  The new policy “caps loans for professional degrees at $200,000 and limits loans for graduate programs to half of that.” The amount of debt students take on is an implied indicator of affordability. Monitoring the average student loan debt under these new caps would measure progress toward making education more affordable (relevant to Target 4.3).

• Composition of Decision-Making Bodies

  A qualitative indicator for Target 16.7 is the composition of the “advisory committee” for negotiated rule-making. The article notes the absence of “a representative from the financial aid community” and calls for the inclusion of “civil rights advocates” and representatives from “minority-serving institutions.” Tracking the diversity and professional representation on these committees would be an indicator of how inclusive and participatory the decision-making process is.

• Number of Graduates in Critical Workforce Areas

  The article implies this indicator in the discussion about aviation programs. The warning that America could see a “steep shortage of pilots” and that the “current training pipeline is not equipped to meet that demand” suggests that the number of students trained and certified in such critical fields is a key measure of whether the education system is meeting workforce needs (relevant to Target 4.4).

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: insidehighered.com