Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Workforce Pell topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Airlines, colleges and apprenticeship groups push for workforce Pell guardrails and loan access for flight training
Summary
Industry groups and colleges told the Education Department hearing that workforce Pell must include clear definitions and guardrails, and several witnesses argued that FAA Part 141 undergraduate flight training meets the regulatory test for professional degrees so students can access larger loan limits.
Airlines, accredited flight programs, apprenticeship advocates and several higher‑education associations used the Department of Education’s hearing to press for implementation choices that would broaden access to workforce‑aligned training while safeguarding students.
Multiple witnesses asked the department to make workforce Pell apprenticeship‑friendly and to set clear, verifiable definitions for short‑term program eligibility and value‑added earnings metrics. John Colburn (Apprenticeships for America) urged that the AHEAD committee include apprenticeship practitioners and that Workforce Pell accommodate training delivered over noncontinuous periods for apprenticeships. Senator Jim (Maryland) noted state efforts to make apprenticeships Pell‑friendly and asked the department to support such adaptation.
On flight training, Sharon DeVivo (Vaughn College), Carlos Zendejas (Horizon Air) and Faye Malarkey Black (Regional Airline Association) argued accredited Part 141 undergraduate flight programs meet the 34 CFR 668.2 professional‑degree standard — skills beyond a bachelor’s degree and professional licensure — and therefore should be recognized for higher professional loan limits. They highlighted high training costs ($80,000–$100,000 beyond a standard undergraduate degree) and a looming pilot shortage that could imperil air service to smaller communities.
Institutional speakers suggested using administrative matches (NSLDS to IRS and state UI data) to measure value‑added earnings, and several urged the department to create shared definitions and data verification processes to minimize state and institutional burdens. Accreditors warned that too‑stringent earnings bars could inadvertently cut programs that serve critical workforce or community needs.
Ending: The department invited written comments and will form negotiating committees to consider these implementation questions; no final determinations about professional classification or apprenticeship eligibility were made at the hearing.
