Judge Halts Federal ‘Bare Minimum’ Rule for Career Training Programs

U.S. Department of Education building in Washington on July 6, 2023. (Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times)

A federal judge in Texas has put on hold a rule that limits the length of career training programs that qualify for federal student aid, a key component of the federal government’s effort to tighten oversight of for-profit schools.

In a decision handed down on June 21, U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman of the Northern District of Texas sided with a national association of for-profit colleges, granting them a temporary restraining order against the federal rule that is set to take effect on July 1.

The so-called “bare minimum” rule prohibits education programs that lead to professional licensure or certification from being longer than the minimum number of clock hours required by a state for someone to practice in the field. If they exceed the minimum, the entire program would lose eligibility for federal student aid.

The current federal student aid rule, which has been in place since 1994, allows programs to remain eligible if they are no longer than 150 percent of the state minimum. For instance, if a state requires 500 hours of training to become a licensed massage therapist, a student may use federal student aid to pay for a massage therapy program that’s anywhere between 500 hours and 750 hours long.

Under the new rule, however, if that massage therapy program requires the student to put in 600 hours but the state requires just 500, the student enrolling the program would not be able to take federal loans or grants to cover expenses.

The change, which essentially turns state floors into a federal ceiling, is part of a package of regulations finalized by the U.S. Department of Education in October 2023. The Education Department has said that it will provide a grace period of six months, through the end of 2024, so that for-profit colleges have enough time to overhaul affected programs.

Concern About ‘Course Stretching’

In defense of the change, the Education Department said it listened to public concerns that program lengths have been deliberately inflated in some states. The long-standing 150-percent rule, it said, has created a situation ripe for abuse, with excessively long programs requiring students to spend more time and money than needed to complete their professional training.

“The Department had relied on the notion that the 150 percent limitation gave latitude for institutions to provide quality programs and furnishes a sufficient safeguard against the abuses of course stretching,” it explained. “However, a program that exceeds length requirements by 50 percent is costing students and taxpayers a substantial amount for training that is not necessary to obtain employment.”

The move was met with fierce opposition from the for-profit education industry.

In May, a Texas-based cosmetology school chain sued to block the “bare minimum” rule, arguing that the Education Department had no authority to make the change and failed to follow the appropriate rule-making procedures.

In the June 21 decision, Judge Pittman agreed with the argument, although he told the plaintiffs they will face “an uphill battle” to prove that the Education Department lacks the authority to set the conditions required for institutions to receive federal financial aid.

“This is not to say the Schools cannot win on this claim,” he wrote. “But the schools must clearly carry their burden on each injunctive-relief element.”

Career Education Colleges and Universities (CECU), the nation’s most prominent for-profit trade association and a plaintiff in the case, said it is pleased with the court order.

“We are pleased the Court has agreed that the Department of Education has once again egregiously overstepped its authority,” CECU’s president Jason Altmire said in a statement. “This nonsensical rule would hurt the students most in need and deny them the necessary preparation to succeed. The Department should take this opportunity to withdraw the rule entirely.”

The Biden administration can appeal the order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.