A Rule You Haven't Heard Of Could Reshape How Your Adult Education Program Operates
If you run an adult education program, administer a WIOA Title II grant, or work in the continuing education division of a community college, you've probably never heard of "EDGAR." But right now, the U.S. Department of Education (ED)is proposing significant changes to the administrative rules that govern how your federal dollars work — and the public comment window closes today.
Here's what's happening, why it matters, and what NAFTAE is doing to advocate for adult education programs and learners across the country.
What Is EDGAR, and Why Should You Care?
EDGAR stands for Education Department General Administrative Regulations. It's not a person or a program — it's the legal rulebook that governs how federal education grants are administered. Think of it as the operating manual for virtually every grant that flows from ED: how costs are calculated, how programs buy goods and services, how audits work, and who is responsible for what.
If your organization receives funding under the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA) — the statute that authorizes WIOA Title II — then EDGAR applies to you. The same is true for community colleges that administer Title II subgrants or serve adult learners through federally-funded programs. EDGAR is the framework underneath your grant, whether you know it by name or not.
What Is the Department Proposing to Change?
On August 24, 2026, the Department published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register that would revise two sets of regulations: 2 CFR Part 3474 (which applies specifically to EDgrants, including adult education) and 2 CFR Part 3485 (which covers procurement).
The proposed changes fall into three main areas:
Funding Uncertainty – New Discretion to Terminate or Pull Back Grant Awards
The proposed rule would give ED the authority to terminate discretionary awards at any point for convenience, reduce or eliminate continuation awards without regard to grantee performance, and de-obligate excess unspent funds from a grantee during the award period. The proposed rule would align ED grant procurement requirements more closely with the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) — the same procurement framework used by for-profit federal contractors. That's a significant shift for nonprofit adult education providers and community colleges, which are not contractors and have never been expected to operate like ones. Additionally, the proposed rule would require grantees to comply with all Executive Orders before such orders have become settled law.
Essentially, these proposed changes would create unnecessary uncertainty around funding and program continuity. This has the potential to disrupt critical services, undermining the progress adult learners have made. Reductions, termination, or de-obligations of funding risk wasting taxpayer funds and the efforts that programs went through to receive and implement the grant award.
What does this mean in practice? Loss of funding. Loss of critical program supports. More documentation. More competitive bidding requirements. More administrative burden on already-stretched program staff. For an organization whose core mission is helping adults gain literacy and workforce skills, time spent on procurement paperwork is time not spent on instruction.
Indirect Cost Rates — Who Pays What
When your organization administers a federal grant, you incur real costs that don't show up neatly in a program budget: electricity, administrative staff, IT systems, building space. These are called indirect costs, and federal grants are supposed to help cover them through something called an indirect cost rate.
The NPRM proposes changes to how indirect costs are calculated and applied. The Department's own regulatory impact analysis estimates these changes could shift approximately $60,000 per award in costs — costs that grantees and subgrantees would be expected to absorb rather than recover through the grant. For many community-based adult education providers operating on thin margins, $60,000 is not a rounding error. It can mean the difference between keeping a site open or closing it.
Other Administrative Changes
The NPRM also includes revisions to audit requirements and other grant management provisions. While the full scope of these changes is still being analyzed by the field, the consistent thread is increased administrative complexity with costs that flow downward — from the Department to states, from states to local grantees, and from grantees to community-based providers.
Why Does This Matter Specifically for Adult Education?
Adult education is a uniquely vulnerable part of the federal education system, and that vulnerability makes this rule land harder for Title II than for many other programs.
The dollars are already limited. Congress appropriated $715.45 million for AEFLA state grants in FY2026. That sounds like a substantial number — and it funds critical services for millions of adults — but it is spread across all 50 states, U.S. territories, and thousands of local providers. Shifts in administrative cost treatment don't happen in a vacuum; they reduce the share of each dollar that can be spent on instruction, tutoring, and support services for learners.
The providers are often small. Many WIOA Title II providers are small nonprofits, community-based organizations, or continuing education departments operating within larger institutions. They have limited administrative capacity to absorb new compliance requirements or cost shifts.
The learners have limited alternatives. Adults enrolled in basic education, English language acquisition, and high school equivalency programs are not choosing between this program and a comparable one down the street. For many, this is the only path to economic mobility available to them. When providers are stretched thin by administrative burden, it is learners who feel the impact first.
What About Community Colleges?
Community colleges occupy a particularly complicated position in the adult education ecosystem. Many serve as the fiscal agent or direct grantee for WIOA Title II state formula grants, while also delivering instruction through their continuing education or workforce divisions. That means they often sit at multiple levels of the funding chain simultaneously — subject to grant requirements as a recipient and responsible for passing those requirements down to partner organizations.
For community colleges, the proposed procurement alignment with FAR is especially worth scrutiny. Community colleges already operate under their own state procurement laws and institutional policies. A new layer of federally-mandated procurement requirements — designed for a contractor context that doesn't reflect how community colleges operate — creates real risk of confusion, duplicative compliance costs, and unintended barriers to working with community-based partners.
The Comment Window Is Short
The Department published this NPRM on August 24 and set a comment deadline of September 23, 2026 — just 30 days. That is a compressed timeline for a rule that touches every aspect of how federal education grants are managed. Many organizations in the adult education field may not have seen it yet, or may have assumed it applied only to higher education institutions.
As the voice of adult learners, NAFTAE submitted a comment to the Department on behalf of adult education programs and learners across the country. We expressed our concern for the proposed changes outlined above and advocated on behalf of adult education practitioners everywhere. You can read the submitted comment letter (file below).
What Can You Do?
Read the NPRM.
The full text is available at the Federal Register: [federalregister.gov/documents/2026/08/24/2026-17239](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/08/24/2026-17239/education-department-general-administrative-regulations). Focus especially on the sections covering indirect costs and procurement.
Ask for a comment period extension.
We know that some of our programs do not have the flexibility or ability to comment directly on proposed regulations from the Department. However, by just asking for an extension on the comment period, you are contributing to a greater cause and allowing more individuals the opportunity to advocate for adult education and other programs that are impacted by this rule.The 30-day window for a rule of this complexity is insufficient. Comments asking the Department to extend the comment period to at least another 30days are appropriate and important to submit quickly.
Engage your adult education state director.
State agencies administering WIOA Title II formula grants also have standing to comment and significant expertise in how these administrative requirements play out on the ground. Reach out to your state director to see if they have submitted a comment or if they have begun to have conversations around how to approach this regulation if it is implemented.
Connect with NAFTAE.
We are tracking this rule and can provide additional guidance and coalition support.
The Bottom Line
The EDGAR NPRM is not a headline-grabbing rule about curriculum or program eligibility. It is an administrative regulation — exactly the kind of rule that goes unnoticed until it takes effect and organizations start feeling the impact. For adult education programs and community colleges, the proposed changes to indirect cost treatment and procurement requirements could reduce the resources available for instruction and increase the administrative burden on organizations that are already operating lean.
---
For more information, contact NAFTAE at info@naftae.org.
Federal Register citation: 91 FR 54666 (Aug. 24, 2026) | Docket: ED-2026-OPEPD-2542 | RIN: 1875-AA14
