CEDA CEO Melinda Cilento interviewing Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in August last year. Picture: Irene Dowdy
The members who will sit on the council overseeing university governance and advising government on “universities being good employers” have been announced.
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
Jason Clare implemented the direction after his Bill was downvoted by the Coalition and Greens. Picture: Brett Hartwig
Ministerial Direction 111 (MD111) is the new way of processing international student visa applications and has replaced Ministerial Direction 107. It came into effect on December 19, 2024.
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
HESA Spring 2025 kicks off in earnest with a full release of the staff data for 2023-24.
Unlike in previous years, there’s been no early release of the headlines – the statistics release (which provides an overview at sector level) and the full data release (which offers detail at provider level) have both turned up on the same day.
Staff data has, in previous years, generally been less volatile than student data. Whereas recruitment can and does lurch alarmingly around based on strategic priorities, government vacillation about student visas, and the vagaries of the student market – staff employment tends to be something with a merciful degree of permanency. Even if it isn’t the same staff working under the same terms and conditions, it does tend to need broadly the same number of people.
With the increasing financial pressures felt by universities you would expect 2023-24 to be a deviation from this norm.
We’ll start by looking at the numbers of starters and leavers from each provider. This chart shows the change in academic staff numbers year on year between your chosen year and the year before (as the thick bars) and the total number of full and part time staff in the year of your choice (as the thin bars). Over on the other side of the visualisation under the controls you can see total staff numbers, broken down into full and part time as a time series – mouse over a provider on the main chart to change the provider focus here. You can filter by year, and (for the main chart) mode of employment.
What’s apparent is that across quite a lot of the sector academic staff numbers didn’t change that much. There were some outliers at both end – Coventry University had 585 less academic staff in 2023-24 than 2022-23, while Cardiff University has 565 more (yes, the same Cardiff University that confirmed plans for 400 full time redundancies yesterday).
If you’ve been following sector news this may surprise you – last year saw many providers announce voluntary or compulsory redundancies. The Queen Mary University of London UCU branch has been tracking these announcements over time.
Schemes like this take time for a university to run – there is a mandatory consultation period, followed (hopefully) by some finessing of the scheme and then negotiations with individual staff members. It is not a way to make a quick, in year, saving. Oftentimes the original announcement is of a far higher number of staff redundancies than actually end up happening.
If you work in a university or other higher education provider, you’ll know that stuff like this very often happens across particular departments and faculties rather than the whole university. I can’t offer you faculty level from public data, but there is data available by cost centre.
Cost centres are usually used in financial data, and do not cleanly map to visible structures within universities. Here you can select a provider and choose between cost centre groups and cost centres as two levels of detail. I’ve added an option to select contract type – in the main I suggest you leave this as academic (excluding atypical).
I’m sure I say this every year, but not all providers return data for non-academic staff (in England they are not required to), and an “atypical” contract usually refers to a very short period of work (a single guest lecture or suchlike). There is a pervasive myth that these are “zero hours” contracts – even though HESA publishes data on these separately:
Here’s a chart showing the terms of employment and pay arrangements related to zero hours contracts for 2023-24. You can see the majority of these are academic in nature, with a roughly even split between fixed term and open-ended terms. The majority (around 4,075) are paid by the hour.
This represents a small year-on-year growth in the use of this kind of contract – in 2022-23, there were 3,915 academic staff on a zero hour contract
I often wonder about the conditions of academic staff across subject areas, and how this pertains to the age of the academics involved and how much they are paid. This visualisation allows use to view age against salary (relating to groups of spine points on the standard New JNCHES pay scale used in most larger providers).
As you’d expect, overall there is a positive correlation between age and salary – if you are an older academic you are likely to be paid more. This is particularly pronounced in design, creative, and performing arts: where staff are likely to be older and better paid on average. Compare the physical sciences, where more staff are younger and spine points are lower.
This chart allows you to select a cost centre (either a group or individual cost centre), and filter by academic employment function (teaching, research, both…) and contract level (senior academics and professors, others…). There’s a range of years on offer as well.
The main news stories that tend to come out of this release relate to academic staff characteristics, and specifically the low number of Black professors. There is some positive movement on that front this year, though the sector at that level is in no way representative of staff as a whole, the student body, or wider society.
In testimony Monday before a joint committee of the Idaho
legislature, University of Idaho president C. Scott Green seemed a
little less committed to the deal he has relentlessly touted for more
than a year and a half — for his school to buy, for $685 million, the
huge for-profit University of Phoenix from private equity giant Apollo
Global Management.
According to Idaho Education News, Green said the next move was Apollo’s. “We’re waiting to hear what they would like to do,” Green said.
Green’s plan has been thwarted again and again, with negative votes in the Idaho legislature, a successful court challenge by the state’s attorney general, criticism from the state treasurer, and sharp scrutiny from news outlets in the state.
The Green school deal has assumed that operation of Phoenix would
bring millions in new revenue to fund his university. But it ignores
that running a for-profit college, one that has repeatedly gotten in trouble with law enforcement,
would be a tremendous challenge: If Green pushed to end Phoenix’s
predatory practices and improve student outcomes, it probably would
start losing money, because predatory practices, coupled with high
prices and low spending on education, have made up the school’s secret
sauce. But if Green allowed the deceptive conduct to persist, the school
could face more legal peril. And, whatever route he took, Green’s
school might end up assuming massive liability for student loan debt the
government has cancelled based on past abuses at Phoenix.
At its peak, Phoenix was the largest for-profit college in the
country and got upwards of $2 billion a year in federal student aid,
while boasting dismal graduation rates and high levels of loan defaults.
Last summer, the University of Idaho and Apollo agreed to a one-year extension of their purchase deal. That arrangement expires June 10. Meanwhile Apollo has the right to talk with other potential buyers.
Apollo already has sent Idaho $5 million to cover the school’s
high-priced legal and consulting fees in connection with the deal, and
it has agreed to pay up to $20 million to Idaho if the deal falls
through.
Green told the legislature that $20 million would cover his school’s
costs with perhaps $2 to $3 to spare. “I think we’re well-protected,” he
boasted.
Kind of. Green, whose background is in corporate management and
finance, could potentially walk away without losing money for the
school. But he has tied up state university, executive, legislative, and
judicial resources for many hundreds of hours jousting over an effort
that would keep alive a predatory school that has buried thousands of
graduates in debt they can’t afford to repay, while wasting billions in
federal taxpayer dollars, when that time could have been focused on the
real challenges of state higher education.
If Idaho can’t work out a deal, Apollo may run out of options to dump
the school, and this taxpayer-funded multi-billion dollar disgrace may
at last be put down.
[Editor’s note: This article originally appeared on Republic Report.]
As a sector, we should really have a handle on how many students we have and what they are like.
Data Futures – the multi-year programme that was designed to modernise the collection of student data – has become, among higher education data professionals, a byword for delays, stress, and mixed messages.
It was designed to deliver in year data (so 2024-25 data arriving within the 2024-25 academic year) three times a year, drive efficiency in data collection (by allowing for process streamlining and automation), and remove “data duplication” (becoming a single collection that could be used for multiple purposes by statutory customers and others). To date it has achieved none of these benefits, and has instead (for 2022-23 data) driven one of the sectors’ most fundamental pieces of data infrastructure into such chaos that all forward uses of data require heavy caveats.
In short – after seven years of work (at the point the review was first mooted), and substantial investment, we are left with more problems than we started with. Most commentary has focused on four key difficulties:
These four interlinked strands have been exacerbated by an underlying fifth issue:
An independent review was originally announced in November 2023, overlapping a parallel internal Jisc investigation. The results we have may not be timely – the review didn’t even appear to start until early 2024 – but even the final report merely represents a starting point for some of the fundamental discussions that need to happen about sector data.
I say a “starting point” because many of the issues raised by the review concern decisions about the projected benefits of doing data futures. As none of the original benefits of the programme have been realised in any meaningful way, the future of the programme (if it has one) needs to be focused on what people actually want to see happen.
The headline is in-year data collection. To the external observer, it is embarrassing that while other parts of the education sector can return data on a near-real time basis – universities update the records they hold on students on a regular basis so it should not be impossible to update external data too. It should not come as a surprise that when the review poses the question:
As a priority, following completion of the 2023-24 data collection, the Statutory Customers (with the help of Jisc) should revisit the initial statement of benefits… in order to ascertain whether a move to in-year data collection is a critical dependent in order to deliver on the benefits of the data futures programme.
This isn’t just an opportunity for regulators to consider their shopping list – a decision to continue needs to be swiftly followed by a cost-benefit analysis, reassessing the value of in-year collection and determining whether or when to pursue in-year collection. And the decision is that there will, one day, be in-year student data. In a joint statement the four statutory customers said:
After careful consideration, we intend to take forward the collection of in-year student data
highlighting the need for data to contribute to “robust and timely regulation”, and reminding institutions that they will need “adequate systems in place to record and submit student data on time”.
The bit that interests me here is the implications for programme management.
If you look at the government’s recent record in delivering large and complex programmes you may be surprised to learn of the existence of a Government Functional Standard covering portfolio, programme, and project management. What’s a programme? Well:
A programme is a unique, temporary, flexible organisation created to co-ordinate, direct and oversee the implementation of a set of projects and other related work components to deliver outcomes and benefits related to a set of strategic objectives
Language like this, and the concepts underpinning it come from what remains the gold standard programme management methodology, Managing Successful Programmes (MSP). If you are more familiar with the world of project management (project: “a unique temporary management environment, undertaken in stages, created for the purpose of delivering one or more business products or outcomes”) it bears a familial resemblance to PRINCE2.
If you do manage projects for a living, you might be wondering where I have been for the last decade or so. The cool kids these days are into a suite of methodologies that come under the general description of “agile” – PRINCE2 these days is seen primarily as a cautionary tale: a “waterfall” (top down, documentation centered, deadline focused) management practice rather than an “iterative” (emergent, development centered, short term) one.
Each approach has strengths and weaknesses. Waterfall methods are great if you want to develop something that meets a clearly defined need against clear milestones and a well understood specification. Agile methods are a nice way to avoid writing reports and updating documentation.
In the real world, the distinction is less clear cut. Most large programmes in the public sector use elements of waterfall methods (regular project reports, milestones, risk and benefits management, senior responsible owners, formal governance) as a scaffold in which sit agile elements at a more junior level (short development cycle, regular “releases” of “product” prioritised above documentation). While this can be done well it is very easy for the two ideologically separate approaches to drift apart – and it doesn’t take much to read this into what the independent review of data futures reveals.
Recommendation B1 calls, essentially, for clarity:
This is amplified by recommendation C1, which looks for specific clarifications around “benefits realisation” – which itself underpins the central recommendation relating to in-year data.
In classic programme management (like MSP) the business case will include a map of programme benefits: that is, all of the good things that will come about as a result of the hard work of the programme. Like the business case’s risk register (a list of all the bad things that might happen and what can be done if they did) it is supposed to be regularly updated and signed off by the Programme Board – which is made up of the most senior staff responsible for the work of the programme (the Senior Responsible Owners) in the lingo.
The statement of benefits languished for some time without a full update (there was an incomplete attempt in February 2023, and a promise to make another one after the completed 2022-23 collection – we are not told whether the second had happened). In proper, grown-up, programme management this is supposed to be done in a systematic way: every programme board meeting you review the benefits and the risk register. It’s dull (most of the time!) but it is important. The board needs an eye on whether the programme still offers value overall (based on an analysis of projected benefits). And if the scope needed to change, the board would have final say on that.
The issue with Data Futures was clarity over whether this level of governance actually had the power to do these things, and – if not – who was actually doing them. The Office for Students latterly put together quite a complex and unwieldy governance structure, with a quarterly review board having oversight of the main programme board. This QRB was made up of very senior staff at the statutory customers (OfS, HEFCW, SFC, DoE(NI)), Jisc, and HESA (plus one Margaret Monckton – now chair of this independent review! – as an external voice).
The QRB oversaw the work of the programme board – meaning that decisions made by the senior staff nominally responsible for the direction of the programme were often second guessed by their direct line managers. The programme board was supposed to have its own assurance function and an independent observer – it did not (despite the budget being there for it).
Another role of the board is to make what are more generally called “stop-go” decisions, and are here described as “approval to proceed”. This is an important way of making sure the programme is still on track – you’d set (in advance) the criteria that needed to be fulfilled in terms of delivery (was the platform ready, had the testing been done) before you moved on to the next work package. Below this, incremental approvals are made by line managers or senior staff as required, but reported upwards to the board.
What seems to have happened a lot in the Data Futures programme is what’s called conditional approvals – where some of these conditions were waived based on assurances that the remaining required work was completed. This is fine as it goes (not everything lines up all the time) but as the report notes:
While the conditions of the approvals were tracked in subsequent increment approval documents, they were not given a deadline, assignee or accountable owner for the conditions. Furthermore, there were cases where conditions were not met by the time of the subsequent approval
Why would you do that? Well, you’d be tempted if you had another board above you – comprising very senior staff and key statutory customers – concerned about the very public problems with Data Futures and looking for progress. The Quarterly Review Board (QRB) as it turned out, only actually ended up making five decisions (and in three of these cases it just punted the issue back down to the programme board – the other two, for completists, were to delay plans for in-year collection).
What it was meant to be doing was “providing assurance on progress”, “acting as an escalation point” and “approving external assurance activities”. As we’ve already seen, it didn’t really bother with external assurance. And on the other points the review is damning:
From the minutes provided, the extent to which the members of the QRG actively challenged the programme’s progress and performance in the forum appears to be limited. There was not a clear delegation of responsibilities between the QRG, Programme Board and other stakeholders. In practice, there was a lack of clarity also on the role of the Data Futures governance structure and the role of the Statutory Customers separately to the Data Futures governance structure; some decisions around the data specification were taken outside of the governance structure.
Little wonder that the section concludes:
Overall, the Programme Board and QRG were unable to gain an independent, unbiased view on the progress and success of the project. If independent project assurance had been in place throughout the Data Futures project, this would have supported members of the Programme Board in oversight of progress and issues may have been raised and resolved sooner
Jisc, as developer, took on responsibility for technical delivery in late 2019. Incredibly, Jisc was not provided with funding to do this work until March 2020.
As luck would have it, March 2020 saw the onset of a series of lockdowns and a huge upswing in demand for the kind of technical and data skills needed to deliver a programme like data futures. Jisc struggled to fill key posts, most notably running for a substantive period of time without a testing lead in post.
If you think back to the 2022-23 collection, the accepted explanation around the sector for what – at heart – had gone wrong was a failure to test “edge cases”. Students, it turns out, are complex and unpredictable things – with combinations of characteristics and registrations that you might not expect to find. A properly managed programme of testing would have focused on these edge cases – there would have been less issues faced when the collection went live.
Underresourcing and understaffing are problems in their own right, but these were exacerbated by rapidly changing data model requirements, largely coming from statutory customers.
To quote the detail from from the report:
The expected model for data collection under the Data Futures Programme has changed repeatedly and extensively, with ongoing changes over several years on the detail of the data model as well as the nature of collection and the planned number of in-year collections. Prior to 2020, these changes were driven by challenges with the initial implementation. The initial data model developed was changed substantially due to technical challenges after a number of institutions had expended significant time and resource working to develop and implement it. Since 2020, these changes were made to reflect evolving requirements of the return from Statutory Customers, ongoing enhancements to the data model and data specification and significantly, the ongoing development of quality rules and necessary technical changes determined as a result of bugs identified after the return had ‘gone live’. These changes have caused substantial challenges to delivery of the Data Futures Programme – specifically reducing sector confidence and engagement as well as resulting in a compressed timeline for software development.
It’s not enough to conjure up a new data specification and platform – it is hugely important to be sure that your key people (“operational contacts”) within the universities and colleges that would be submitting data are ready.
On a high level, this did happen – there were numerous surveys of provider readiness, and the programme also worked with the small number of software vendors that supply student information systems to the sector. This formal programme communication came alongside the more established links between the sector and the HESA Liaison team.
However, such was the level of mistrust between universities and the Office for Students (who could technically have found struggling providers in breach of condition of registration F4), that it is widely understood that answers to these surveys were less than honest. As the report says:
Institutions did not feel like they could answer the surveys honestly, especially in instances where the institution was not on track to submit data in line with the reporting requirements, due to the outputs of the surveys being accessible to regulators/funders and concerns about additional regulatory burden as a result.
The decision to scrap a planned mandatory trial of the platform, made in March 2022 by the Quarterly Review Group, was ostensibly made to reduce burden – but, coupled with the unreliable survey responses, this meant that HESA was unable to identify cases where support was needed.
This is precisely the kind of risk that should have been escalated to programme board level – a lack of transparency between Jisc and the board about readiness made it harder to take strategic actions on the basis of evidence about where the sector really was. And the issue continued into live collection – because Liaison were not made aware of common problems (“known issues”, in fact) the team often struggled with out-of-date documentation: meaning that providers got conflicting messages from different parts of Jisc.
Liaison, on their part, dealt with more than 39,000 messages between October and December 2023 (during the peak of issues raised during the collection process) – even given the problems noted above they resolved 61 per cent of queries on the first try. Given the level of stress in the sector (queries came in at all hours of the day) and the longstanding and special relationship that data professionals have with HESA Liasion, you could hardly criticise that team for making the best of a near-impossible situation.
I am glad to see that the review notes:
The need for additional staff, late working hours, and the pressure of user acceptance testing highlights the hidden costs and stress associated with the programme, both at institutions and at Jisc. Several institutions talked about teams not being able to take holidays over the summer period due to the volume of work to be delivered. Many of the institutions we spoke to indicated that members of their team had chosen to move into other roles at the institution, leave the sector altogether, experienced long term sickness absence or retired early as a result of their experiences, and whilst difficult to quantify, this will have a long-term impact on the sector’s capabilities in this complex and fairly niche area.
Anyone who was even tangentially involved in the 2022-23 collection, or attended the “Data Futures Redux” session at the Festival of Higher Education last year, will find those words familiar.
The decision on in-year data has been made – it will not happen before the 2026-27 academic year, but it will happen. The programme delivery and governance will need to improve, and there are numerous detailed recommendations to that end: we should expect more detail and the timeline to follow.
It does look as though there will be more changes to the data model to come – though the recommendation is that this should be frozen 18 months before the start of data collection which by my reckoning would mean a confirmed data model printed out and on the walls of SROC members in the spring of 2026. A subset of institutions would make an early in-year submission, which may not be published to “allow for lower than ideal data quality”.
On arrangements for collections for 2024-25 and 2025-26 there are no firm recommendations – it is hoped that data model changes will be minimal and the time used to ensure that the sector and Jisc are genuinely ready for the advent of the data future.
UPDATE: After a federal judge temporarily blocked the Trump administration from freezing federal grants and loans, the White House rescinded its request that distribution of those grants and loans freeze should be paused.
A late-night directive from the White House budget office Monday that appeared to freeze streams of federal dollars that pay for everything from school lunches to university research is facing immediate legal challenges — after first stunning the education world.
“There is no question this policy is reckless, dangerous, illegal, and unconstitutional,” said New York Attorney General Leticia James, one of the first to announce a lawsuit against the Trump administration freeze. “When Congress dedicates funding for a program, the president cannot pull that funding on a whim.”
After widespread confusion, the administration clarified that some education aid would not be affected, specifying Pell Grants and federal student loans. In addition, according to Education Department spokeswoman Madi Biedermann, the pause does not affect Title I funding that supports K-12 schools with many low-income students, IDEA grants for students with disabilities or other so-called formula grants.
Many questions are still unanswered, however. What triggered the confusion: a two-page memo sent to government agencies late Monday by Matthew J. Vaeth, acting director of the White House Office of Management and Budget. It said federal agencies must pause distributing grant or loan money until after they review that spending to ensure it does not run afoul of the executive orders President Donald Trump has issued since he took office last week. Agencies have until Feb. 10 to report back on spending that runs counter to the executive orders, “including, but not limited to, financial assistance for foreign aid, nongovernmental organizations, DEI, woke gender ideology, and the green new deal.”
Related: Become a lifelong learner. Subscribe to our free weekly newsletter featuring the most important stories in education.
White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt later said federal money sent directly to individuals — in the form of Medicare, Social Security benefits, food stamps and welfare benefits, among other aid — also would not be affected by the pause.
Biermann, the Education spokeswoman, said the department “is working with OMB to identify other programs that are not covered by the memo.”
The Hechinger Report is working to decipher some of the effects of the pause. This article will be updated. Send your questions to editor@hechingerreport.org.
The federal grant that funds early childhood programs for low-income children is not at risk under the freeze, according to a memo issued on Tuesday by the Office of Management and Budget and reported by Bloomberg News and other outlets. The clarification ended several hours of speculation and fear among advocates and program officials that the federally-funded early learning program would be cut off from funding.
Still, several Head Start providers who logged into their payment system Tuesday morning found a message that warned payments could be delayed due to “potentially unallowable grant payments,” according to The Huffington Post. But later Tuesday, the National Head Start Association said “Head Start agencies are not included in the list of federal grants and loans whose funds are frozen. Agencies have been able to access funds through the Payment Management System.”
Read more: The Hechinger Report wrote about how Head Start programs are still funded by a formula set in the 1970s.
It is unclear whether the block grant — which provides federal funding for states to improve child care quality and run subsidy programs to help low income families pay for care — will be touched by the freeze. The Administration for Children and Families did not address the question in response to a request for comment.
Some early childhood experts suspect the grant will be affected, which could have repercussions for the children and programs that rely on those funds. “Trump and his administration are going out of their way — even circumventing the law — to deprive children and the people who care for them the resources they need to ensure safe and nurturing environments for our kids,” said Julie Kashen, director of women’s economic justice and senior fellow at The Century Foundation, in a statement.
Read more: The Hechinger Report examined how child care block grant funds are stretched too far to help all the families that are eligible.
School cafeterias rely on monthly payments from the federal government to cover the cost of food labor and supplies. It isn’t clear whether those payments will be affected, the School Nutrition Association, an organization that represents people who work in school cafeterias, said. It was hoping for more clarity from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Grants do pay for other types of school food programs, such as the Farm to School Program, which incorporates local foods into school meals.
Loans and Pell Grants are not affected by the funding pause because their funding goes directly to individual students, according to Biedermann, the U.S. Department of Education spokeswoman.
But Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, which represents more than 1,600 colleges and universities, told the Boston Globe that his team believes that work-study programs are included in the freeze. Many students rely on these programs to earn money to help pay for college.
The Education Department said the freeze will not affect grant programs for historically Black colleges and universities and predominantly Black institutions, the Washington Post reported. The federal government provides these colleges with money for a host of programs, including graduate education, science programs and infrastructure.
A department spokesperson told the Post that “the administration strongly supports HBCUs and MSIs [Minority Serving Institutions]. Funds flowing under those grant programs will not be paused, but we will work to ensure the programs are in line with the President’s priorities.”
Read more: The Hechinger Report dug into schools where Pell Grant recipients have a track record of success.
This story about the federal freeze was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter.
President Trump’s plan to temporarily freeze federal grants and loans set off a wave of confusion and concerns across higher ed Tuesday. But just minutes before it was set to take effect, a federal judge blocked the order.
It is now on hold until next Monday, at least.
College leaders worried they would lose access to a wide variety of federal funds, though the specific programs affected by the pause remained in flux throughout the day. Education Department officials said Pell Grants, student loans and Federal Work-Study would not be subject to the pause. But critical STEM research and student success initiatives were among the thousands of programs whose funding would have been paused until at least Feb. 10, according to the original White House directive released late Monday night.
University lobbyists and administrators predicted earlier Tuesday that the president’s unprecedented action would be blocked in the courts, but they warned of significant consequences as they worked to gather more information about the order. Comparable to a government shutdown, they said, the impact of a freeze, if it ever comes to pass, would largely depend on how long it lasts.
“Obviously it’s of great concern,” said Patricia McGuire, president of Trinity Washington University in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday morning. “Most of us are finding the memo to be so broad and so incomprehensible that we don’t even quite know what the long-term impact is … But it makes no sense. Rather than helping ‘make America great again,’ it absolutely debilitates America.”
Conservative policy experts say Trump’s actions are necessary to combat years of misguided spending and argue that institutions shouldn’t run budgets so razor-thin that a short-term loss of federal funds empties their coffers. But McGuire and other higher ed representatives say the proposed freeze along with other executive actions raises questions about whether they can count on stable federal funding in the long run.
Universities have already seen some disruptions to research funding since Trump took office eight days ago, as the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation canceled meetings to review grant applications last week. Before the federal court released its ruling, the proposed extension of that freeze had only further fueled academics’ initial concerns.
The White House Office of Management and Budget had directed all federal agencies to pause any grants and loans they supervised in order to ensure that federal spending aligns with the president’s priorities, such as cracking down on diversity, equity and inclusion programs and illegal immigration. OMB specifically said it is aiming to cease any funding to activities that “may be implicated by the executive orders, including but not limited to, financial assistance for foreign aid, nongovernmental organizations, DEI, woke gender ideology, and the green new deal,” according to the memo.
The two-page directive specifically exempted Social Security, Medicare and other programs that provide direct financial assistance to individuals. But colleges and universities would still lose access to grants that are targeted at minority-serving institutions, college preparation programs, childcare for student parents, food banks, student retention and graduation initiatives, campus hospital systems, and more. Over all, more than 2,600 grant programs are up for consideration across dozens of agencies, Bloomberg reported.
A follow-up memo was published Tuesday in an attempt to help clarify the president’s orders, but higher ed stakeholders said much uncertainty remains.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said early Tuesday afternoon that the freeze would not be “a blanket pause on federal assistance and grant programs,” and she repeatedly said that direct federal assistance to individuals wouldn’t be affected. But she didn’t have a clear answer about what would happen to federal money that goes to states, organizations or colleges that support individuals. She also pushed back on questions about the legality of the pause and said the move was aimed at ensuring that federal spending aligns with the president’s priorities.
“No more funding for illegal DEI programs,” she said. “No more funding for transgenderism and wokeness.”
Leavitt was asked about funding for minority-serving institutions and said she hadn’t “seen the entire list” of programs either affected or exempted from the pause.
Sarah Spreitzer, vice president and chief of staff for government relations at the American Council on Education, said concerns remain despite the legal injunction.
In the initial memo, OMB instructed agencies to conduct a comprehensive review by Feb. 7 of federal programs to ensure they comply with Trump’s executive orders. White House officials offered more guidance Tuesday about what that would entail. Agencies will have to answer a series of questions for each program listed on the 52-page document by Feb. 7. Those questions include whether the programs fund DEI or support “illegal aliens,” the promotion of “gender ideology” or “activities overseas.”
It’s just going to cause a lot of chaos when it comes to planning. It is definitely a developing story.”
—Sarah Spreitzer, American Council on Education
It’s unclear whether the judge’s order affects the broader review.
To Spreitzer and others, that broader review could threaten more federal programs, as those considered unaligned with the president’s agenda could be altered or cut back entirely.
“If there’s an injunction within a week and everything can start up again, I think that the impact is minimal,” Spreitzer said. But “there’s so much in that [memo] about the examination of all grants going forward … that go beyond just the pause that I think I’d have to see the further implementation instructions to understand the complete impact on the scientific and education enterprise.”
Higher ed officials and student advocacy groups warned throughout the day that the pause, in addition to a recent flurry of executive orders, would cause unnecessary disruption to the primary goals and functions of American colleges and universities and could jeopardize crucial scientific research. The National Association of College and University Business Officers said in a statement that the pause could cause “unnecessary disruption to the lives of tens of thousands of students and families at colleges and universities across the country.”
“The overall impact to programs … could be both significant and chaotic,” NACUBO president Kara D. Freeman said. “College and university chief business officers will be front and center with their presidents, boards, and executive leadership in developing plans to mitigate immediate exposure and impacts. We urge the Trump administration to reconsider and rescind this misguided policy.”
Mark Becker, president of the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, called the memo’s orders “unnecessary and damaging.”
“While we understand the Trump administration wants to review programs to ensure consistency with its priorities, it is imperative that the reviews not interfere with American innovation and competitiveness,” Becker said. “It will have far-reaching impacts in every corner of the country and hamper American innovation at a moment when it’s being fiercely challenged on a global stage.”
Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, said in a statement that she hopes Trump and Republicans on Capitol Hill will see how the pause could hurt American citizens and address the gap by resuming grant distribution.
“Federal programs need to be more efficient, but no one voted for a president to halt their services—services that were appropriated, authorized and extended by Congress,” she said in a statement. “Americans need a federal government that works for them, not against them.”
Democratic lawmakers have also raised the red flag, responding with outrage and “extreme alarm,” warning that the pause would undermine Congress’s authority and have “devastating consequences across the country.”
Reactions from professors and student advocacy groups were swift late Monday and early Tuesday.
“I don’t see how any Democrat can get away with voting to confirm Linda McMahon after this memo. The entire hearing should be focused on how the U.S. government is tearing apart everyday life for regular people,” Mike Pierce, executive director of the Student Borrower Protection Center, wrote on X.
Jody Freedman, a professor at Harvard Law School, took to BlueSky. “What is going on here?” she wrote. “I think what’s going on here is that Russell Vought (perhaps others in the administration too, but certainly him) … are testing the Republicans in Congress on this issue to see if they spring to life.”
“It’s like Hey, the door’s open, no one’s home, let’s rob the place. And by rob I mean, let’s take all the power Congress thinks it has over the appropriations,” she added.
Congressional Republicans have said little in response to the pause, and conservative policy experts say the freeze is a necessary step to address years of “illegal spending” by Democrats to advance their political motives.
Inside Higher Ed reached out to both Senator Dr. Bill Cassidy and Representative Tim Walberg, chairs of the congressional committees that handle education policy, but neither responded with comment.
Michael Brickman, an adjunct fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a right-leaning think tank, said that the Trump administration’s actions—though “aggressive”—are justified decisions aimed to restore the rule of law and ensure that government money “isn’t being set on fire at every turn.”
“What you’re seeing overall across the administration is an attempt to get a handle on the waste and the abuse of taxpayer dollars,” Brickman said.
He went on to say that though it would be ideal to only freeze certain programs and limit the consequences of stalled grants, breadth was a necessity in this scenario.
“We saw during the Biden administration, brazen attempts again and again to ignore the law” when utilizing federal funds, Brickman said. “Why let good money continue to go out the door when we know for the last four years that so much of it has been wasted … I wish it were narrow and targeted, but unfortunately, the abuse is extremely widespread.”
And if colleges don’t have a contingency plan in place for any kind of budgetary disruption, “that’s malpractice on their part,” he added.
McGuire, from Trinity, said the pause would likely affect grants for predominantly Black institutions, which her university uses to provide student advising, new lab materials and certification programs in high-demand areas of the workforce.
Trinity has already received its $250,000 in such grants for the current academic year, so no programs will have to shut down immediately if the freeze is reinstated, she said. But she worries about the reliability of federal funds moving forward. She explained that uncertainty about grants could mean cuts and amendments to the budget for fiscal year 2026.
“We hope for the best but plan for the worst,” she said. “We’re going into budget season right now, so we will probably have to plan alternative support for the programs funded through the PBI [grants].”
Spreitzer, from ACE, echoed the future impact but also noted that certain colleges could pay the price more immediately. Many large research universities require billions of dollars in federal grants to keep their labs and hospitals running every day, she said, and there’s variation in when grant funds are dispersed, so many may have yet to receive the dollars needed to keep the lights on.
“It’s going to depend on whether institutions have existing grants and whether they’re waiting for disbursements. It’s just going to cause a lot of chaos when it comes to planning,” she said. “It is definitely a developing story.”
Higher education is in constant flux, primarily driven by student demographic shifts, economic pressures, and rapid technological advancements. For institutions to stay competitive in this environment, student enrollment strategies must evolve. By embracing a consistent, data-informed, and adaptable enrollment management approach, institutions can navigate current and unforeseen uncertainties and meet their enrollment goals.
Traditional enrollment strategies often rely on rearview analyses, evaluating successes and missteps only at the end of an enrollment cycle. However, the dynamic nature of student recruitment today demands a more proactive approach. Institutions must adopt prescriptive analytics to “look through the windshield,” using real-time data to understand how current strategies are performing and make adjustments on the fly. This forward-thinking approach allows enrollment managers to:
Such adaptability requires not just access to the right data but also the tools and expertise to act on it effectively. The combination of robust technology platforms, such as Liaison’s predictive analytics tool Othot, and experienced partners who understand the nuances of higher education can make all the difference. By integrating analytics and expert guidance, institutions can respond to challenges with precision and agility.
To optimize their student enrollment plans, institutions must evaluate specific metrics at each stage of the recruitment process. This means aligning data evaluation with the student journey, focusing on key performance indicators (KPIs) that matter most at each stage:
· Search phase | Metrics such as inquiry volume, lead conversion rates, and source effectiveness provide insight into initial interest in the institution and the success of outreach efforts.
· Application phase | Metrics such as application volume, completion rates, and demographic trends help institutions understand the reach and appeal of their efforts.
· Yield phase | Yield rates and admitted student feedback provide insights into how students perceive the institution’s value.
· Enrollment phase | Deposit rates and engagement tracking reveal which admitted students are likely to matriculate, enabling targeted follow-ups.
Different variables also emerge during the cycle that require immediate action. For example, when unexpected disruptions such as a sudden change in application deadlines or a major shift in funding policies occur, enrollment leaders must have the tools and knowledge to not only pivot their strategies to address the issues at hand but also effectively predict the results of those changing approaches in real-time. This requires a flexible data infrastructure that can accommodate real-time adjustments.
Flexibility is a nonnegotiable trait for enrollment management teams. The new realities of a post-pandemic world, declining high school graduating classes, and a highly competitive marketplace are significantly challenging existing strategies. The pressure to meet enrollment goals often comes with internal changes—such as staff turnover or shifts in leadership priorities—and external pressures like economic downturns or new legislation.
Strategic flexibility can make the difference between hitting enrollment targets and falling short. Institutions can take several steps to continuously refine their strategies:
1. Monitor trends in real-time | Stay ahead of shifts in student behavior by regularly reviewing metrics such as engagement rates, application trends, and deposit patterns.
2. Incorporate scenario planning | Use predictive tools to simulate how changes in funding, messaging, or outreach might impact enrollment outcomes.
3. Align collaboration across teams | Align data and strategy efforts across departments to create a unified approach to enrollment management.
4. Personalize student engagement | Tailor communication based on individual student data, ensuring that messaging resonates with their unique needs and interests.
By integrating these strategies into their student enrollment plans, institutions can adapt to changing circumstances while maintaining a steady focus on meeting their overall long-term enrollment goals.
Continuous refinement isn’t just about meeting immediate needs—it’s about preparing for the future. Institutions that embrace adaptability, leverage data strategically, and invest in both technology and expertise are better positioned to succeed in today’s competitive higher education market.
Whether it’s managing the challenges of staff turnover, responding to external pressures, aligning all your enrollment tools at hand, or identifying the most effective ways to engage prospective students, institutions must prioritize flexibility and innovation.
With Liaison’s advanced tools and expert partnership, institutions can confidently navigate the complexities of data-driven enrollment management and set the stage for sustained success. Contact us today to get started.
Craig Cornell is the Vice President for Enrollment Strategy at Liaison. In that capacity, he oversees a team of enrollment strategists and brings best practices, consultation, and data trends to campuses across the country in all things enrollment management. Craig also serves as the dedicated resource to NASH (National Association of Higher Education Systems) and works closely with the higher education system that Liaison supports. Before joining Liaison in 2023, Craig served for over 30 years in multiple higher education executive enrollment management positions. During his tenure, the campuses he served often received national recognition for enrollment growth, effective financial aid leveraging, marketing enhancements, and innovative enrollment strategies.
In preparation for another High School Senior 2025-26 Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA®) Week of Action (Jan. 13-17), the U.S. Department of Education (Department) is encouraging high school counselors, principals, and other school leaders; superintendents; parent and community groups; and local and state education organizations to take action raising awareness about the FAFSA, especially focusing on helping students complete the FAFSA application.
In support of critical student and family outreach, the Federal Student Aid (FSA) office is publishing a set of FAFSA guides for non-English speakers in the 10 most spoken languages in the U.S. outside of English and Spanish, as well as making interpretive services available in these languages. Users may access the guides from the FAFSA Support in Other Languages page. Some guides (in Cantonese, Mandarin, Tagalog, Vietnamese, French, Korean, and Russian) are available now, and remaining guides (in German, Arabic, and French Creole) will be published in the coming months.
In addition, FSA shared updated resources, including:
Pro Tips for Completing the FAFSA Form — information for preparing to complete and submit the FAFSA form.
Federal Student Aid YouTube Channel: FAFSA Videos — videos to help students and families understand the importance of the FAFSA form, who is a FAFSA contributor, and what happens after submitting the form.
2025-26 Counselor Resource for Completing the FAFSA Form — a tool for counselors and other advisors with information and resources to help guide students and families through the FAFSA form.
The Department published a new report, The Impact: Fighting for Public Education, demonstrating what can be accomplished by investing wisely in public education. If leaders at every level of government continue to embrace what works for students, we won’t just continue to raise the bar in education—we will create prosperity and lead the world for generations to come.
