Category: FAFSA

  • Your Guide to the Financial Aid Appeals Process

    Your Guide to the Financial Aid Appeals Process

    As the leaves begin to turn across Central Ohio and your students head back to campus in the fall each year, we often focus on the excitement of the new semester — the football games, the homecoming dance, and the bright futures ahead. But as financial planners, we also know that life can change in an instant.  

    A few years ago, I witnessed a tragedy that hit close to home. A local family was suddenly upended when a father — the sole breadwinner of the household — passed away unexpectedly during his son’s sophomore year of college.

    The family was left reeling, navigating a dual crisis: the emotional weight of their loss and the financial reality of how to keep their son in school.

    The Silent Hero: A Proactive FAFSA filing

    While the family’s previous income level had originally disqualified them from receiving need-based aid, they had made one critical, proactive decision: they filed the FAFSA earlier that year.

    Because that document was already on file, the university didn’t have to start from scratch. They had a baseline — a “before” and “after” snapshot of the family’s reality. This allowed the school to move swiftly, recalculating the student’s eligibility in real-time.

    The “Angel” in the Financial Aid Office – A Lifeline in Record Time

    When the tragedy struck, a compassionate financial aid administrator stepped in. Because the FAFSA was already on file, the university had an immediate baseline. They collected additional information, of course, but they didn’t have to wait for new tax returns or start from scratch.

    Within just a few weeks, the university awarded the student an additional $8,000 per semester. That grant allowed the son to stay in school, providing a sense of stability when everything else felt like it was falling apart. It was the difference between the student dropping out or taking on a mountain of debt.   

    What is a “Special Circumstance Appeal”?

    In the world of higher education, the story above is a perfect example of what is known as a Special Circumstance Appeal (sometimes called “Professional Judgment”).

    Many families believe that once a financial aid package is set, it’s written in stone. In reality, financial aid offices have the authority to adjust your aid if your current financial reality no longer matches the “prior-prior” tax year data used on the FAFSA.

    New Federal Requirements: The Law is on Your Side

    Under the FAFSA Simplification Act (fully implemented for the 2024-2025 and 2025-2026 cycles), the federal government now mandates that every college have a process for “Professional Judgment.”

    Colleges are no longer allowed to have a “no-appeal” policy. They are required by law to:

    1. Publicly disclose that students can request an adjustment for special circumstances.
    2. Review every request on a case-by-case basis.
    3. Provide a clear process for families to submit their documentation.

    As a reminder, ALWAYS file the FAFSA. Even if you think you make “too much” for aid, filing creates a financial “snapshot” that serves as an insurance policy of sorts if your circumstances change mid-year. And also, keep your records organized. Having easy access to tax returns and financial aid forms allows you (or your advocate) to act swiftly during a crisis.

    How the Process Works

    If your family experiences a significant financial shift, you don’t need to “wait until next year.” As the story above shows, you should reach out to the college’s financial aid office to request a review as soon as possible. You will typically be asked to:

    • Write an Appeal Letter: Factual and concise, explaining the change in circumstances. Most schools have a form that you will be required to fill out, or a section of the school’s student portal.  
    • Provide Documentation: Such as termination letters, medical bills, or death certificates.
    • Complete a Verification: The school will verify your current income to determine a new, more accurate “Student Aid Index.”

    What Qualifies? (It’s more than you might think)

    While the loss of a parent is a clear catalyst for an appeal, schools can also reconsider your aid for several other reasons:

    • Job Loss or Significant Income Reduction: A layoff, a forced career change, or even a major reduction in overtime pay.
    • Unreimbursed Medical Expenses: High out-of-pocket costs (usually exceeding 7.5–11% of your income) that weren’t covered by insurance.
    • Divorce or Separation: When a household splits after the FAFSA has already been filed.
    • Natural Disasters: Costs associated with repairing a home or business after a flood, fire, or storm.
    • One-Time Income Spikes: If a one-time IRA distribution or inheritance artificially inflated your income on your tax return, you can ask for it to be excluded.

    Our Role as Your Partners

    If there is one thing we know for sure, it is that life is going to throw us curveballs. No one can control the future, but as financial planners, we help prepare for the worst and hope for the best. At Capstone, we don’t just manage portfolios and push paper; we help you navigate these complex life transitions.

    If your family is facing a change in circumstances, book a Complimentary College Consultation with me. I can help you gather the necessary documentation and coordinate with financial aid offices to ensure your student’s education stays on track.

    Source link

  • What the DOJ Opinion Means for FAFSA Data Sharing and MSIs

    What the DOJ Opinion Means for FAFSA Data Sharing and MSIs

    In a dramatic reversal of long-standing federal support for minority students, the Department of Justice has declared that key programs serving historically Black and Hispanic-serving institutions are unconstitutional. The ruling targets race-conscious scholarship access and federal aid data sharing, effectively dismantling decades of policy designed to close educational gaps. For many MSIs and their students, the shift represents a Trump-era rollback of racial equity in higher education, leaving institutions scrambling to protect access and funding in a suddenly hostile legal landscape.

    The U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel has delivered what may be one of the most consequential legal opinions affecting federal education policy in decades: a sweeping conclusion that a suite of federal programs tied to minority‑serving institutions (MSIs) and race‑specific scholarships are unconstitutional under current equal‑protection jurisprudence. 

    At the center of this interpretation is a fundamental shift in how federal racial criteria are viewed post-Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard/UNC. In that landmark affirmative‑action decision, the Supreme Court significantly tightened the permissible bounds of race‑conscious decision making. The DOJ memo applies that framework beyond admissions, asserting that programs awarding federal funds based on racial or ethnic enrollment thresholds — including MSI grant programs — “effectively employ a racial quota.” 

    One particularly striking aspect of the opinion is its treatment of access to Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) data by the United Negro College Fund and the Hispanic Scholarship Fund — organizations that award scholarships targeted to students of specific racial or ethnic backgrounds. The opinion deems it unconstitutional for these groups to receive FAFSA applicant data because the statute enabling such sharing confers access only to entities that grant race‑specific awards. 

    Supporters of aiding historically marginalized students and institutions view this as an unprecedented restriction that could severely constrain outreach and support for those populations. Critics charge the move fits a broader administrative pattern of dismantling federal race‑conscious programs and argue that it disregards the statutory authority Congress explicitly provided — including the discretionary authority vested in the Education Secretary to administer FAFSA data sharing.

    As one expert aide pointed out in private correspondence, the statutory provision that enabled FAFSA access was framed with Secretary discretion in mind — meaning it was lawful as written. But with DOJ now labeling such practices as impermissibly discriminatory, liability has been reallocated onto the administrative apparatus itself. That shift, in effect, insulates senior officials — including the Secretary — from culpability once the practice ends, leaving career bureaucrats to unwind systems built over years.

    The Policy and Legal Stakes

    For nearly four decades, the federal government has maintained a suite of targeted programs intended to close longstanding educational opportunity gaps. These include grants for MSIs, race‑specific scholarships, and data‑sharing mechanisms like FAFSA access that enable outreach to underrepresented students seeking financial aid.

    Beginning in July 2025, the Department of Education began scaling back discretionary grants to MSIs after the U.S. Solicitor General declined to defend race‑based criteria in court, particularly the Hispanic‑Serving Institutions definition requiring at least 25% Hispanic enrollment. By September, the Department officially announced the planned termination of most MSI discretionary grant funds for FY2025 — a decision informed by the constitutional concerns later articulated in the DOJ opinion. 

    Until now, many observers assumed that statutory authority and congressional backing provided a stable legal foundation for such programs. But the OLC’s memo challenges that assumption, concluding that race‑based eligibility criteria — whether for institutional support or student scholarships — are no longer defensible under current constitutional interpretation. 

    The implications extend far beyond MSI grants. If organizations that provide targeted scholarships based on race or ethnicity can no longer receive key federal administrative data, the practical capacity of those groups to serve students could be significantly hampered.

    Political and Institutional Reactions

    The DOJ opinion has drawn sharply polarized responses. Administration officials frame the memo as an affirmation of equal protection and a necessary correction to federal programs that, in their view, relied on impermissible racial criteria. Congressional allies of the Administration characterize the changes as ending “racial discrimination” in federal education policy.

    Conversely, Democratic legislators and MSI leaders condemn the opinion as ideologically driven and harmful to institutions that serve historically underserved populations. Critics say the analysis ignores longstanding bipartisan congressional support for such programs and portends deep cuts in educational opportunity. 

    Institutional leaders at a range of MSIs have expressed alarm, underlining that funding and support mechanisms now in jeopardy are “vital” to student success and campus mission. Many campuses are scrambling to assess fiscal exposure and consider contingency planning.

    Looking Ahead

    With federal policy in flux and several legal questions unresolved, higher education professionals face an uncertain environment. Institutions historically supported by race‑conscious federal programs may need to rethink recruitment, financial aid outreach, and partnerships with scholarship providers. Meanwhile, advocates and lawmakers may pursue legislative fixes or constitutional litigation to reshuffle the legal landscape once more.

    Whatever the outcome, the DOJ opinion marks a pivotal moment in federal student aid policy — one likely to reshape how race, equity, and opportunity are legally navigated in the years to come.

    HEI Reader Context: What This Means for MSIs

    • Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs): Loss of FAFSA data access and potential cuts to discretionary MSI grants could disrupt scholarship outreach, enrollment initiatives, and pipeline programs designed to recruit and retain underrepresented students. HBCUs may need to develop alternative channels for financial aid outreach, including direct partnerships with donors and private scholarship organizations.

    • Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs): Many HSIs rely on federal discretionary grants to supplement state funding and support programs for first-generation and low-income students. The DOJ opinion may force HSIs to reallocate institutional resources to cover programs previously funded through race-conscious federal grants.

    • Scholarship Organizations: Groups like the United Negro College Fund (UNCF) and the Hispanic Scholarship Fund (HSF) may no longer receive FAFSA data, limiting their ability to identify eligible students efficiently. Expect increased reliance on outreach campaigns, social media, and partnerships with local school districts.

    • Institutional Planning: MSIs should assess short-term financial exposure, prioritize scholarship communications, and explore private funding alternatives. Legal and policy monitoring will be critical as legislative or judicial responses evolve.

    Sources

    1. Inside Higher Ed. “DOJ Report Declares MSIs Unconstitutional.” December 22, 2025. Link

    2. Higher Ed Dive. “DOJ Says MSI Grant Funding Unconstitutional.” December 22, 2025. Link

    3. ED.gov. “US Department of Education Ends Funding for Racially Discriminatory Discretionary Grant Programs, Minority-Serving Institutions.” July 2025. Link

    4. EducationCounsel. “E-Update: September 22, 2025.” Link

    Source link

  • Will Financial Aid Cover Summer Classes? How To Know If Your Student Can Use Aid In Summer

    Will Financial Aid Cover Summer Classes? How To Know If Your Student Can Use Aid In Summer

    One of the most common questions we hear from parents and students at The College Planning Center is:
     “Will financial aid cover summer classes?”

    The honest answer is:
     👉 Yes, financial aid can cover summer classes—but not always.

    Whether financial aid for summer classes is available depends on:

    • How much aid the student has already used in fall and spring

       

    • How the college structures its academic year

       

    • Whether the summer classes count toward the degree

       

    • The student’s academic standing (especially SAP)

       

    In this guide, we’ll walk through when financial aid covers summer classes, common myths, real-life student stories, and the steps families should take before signing up.

    The #1 Misconception About Summer Financial Aid

    A huge source of confusion is this assumption:

    “FAFSA automatically gives us new aid for summer.”

    This leads to questions like:

    • Does financial aid cover summer classes the same way it does fall and spring?
    • Will my fall financial aid cover my summer classes if I already used it during the year?
    • Can you get financial aid for summer classes without submitting anything extra?

       

    Most families don’t realize:

    • Summer aid usually comes from the same academic year’s funds, not a brand-new pool.
    • Summer is often attached to the prior academic year, not treated as a fresh start.
    • Federal loans do not “refresh” for summer—annual limits still apply.
    • Colleges do not all treat summer the same. Each school sets its own policies.

       

    This is why families are often surprised when they ask, “Will my financial aid cover summer classes?” and the answer is “maybe—depending on what’s left.”

    Who We See Taking Summer Classes (and Why It Matters for Aid)

    At The College Planning Center, we most often advise:

    • Rising high school juniors and seniors taking dual-enrollment summer classes
    • College freshmen and sophomores who need to catch up, boost GPA, or stay on track
    • Students changing majors who must complete prerequisite courses quickly
    • Transfer students trying to finish missing credits before enrolling at a new school
    • Students targeting competitive programs (nursing, engineering, education, etc.)
    • Students trying to graduate early and reduce overall tuition and housing costs

    Our recommendations always depend on:

    • Academic readiness
    • Financial aid eligibility (including summer)
    • Long-term college goals

    When a family asks us, “Can you get financial aid for summer classes in this situation?”, we don’t just check one box—we look at the entire academic and financial picture.

    What Types of Financial Aid Can Cover Summer Classes?

    So, does financial aid cover summer classes at all? In many cases, yes—but with limits.

    Depending on the school and student, financial aid for summer classes may come from:

    1. Federal Aid (FAFSA-Based)

    • Pell Grants – If the student is Pell-eligible and hasn’t used their full annual amount, some may be available for summer.
    • Federal Direct Loans – If the student has not used their full annual loan limit in fall and spring, remaining eligibility may be applied to summer.

    This is often the real answer behind “Will my financial aid cover summer classes?”
     It depends on what’s left in the federal aid bucket.

    2. Institutional Aid

    Some colleges offer:

    • Summer scholarships or tuition discounts for students who stay on track in their major
    • Limited institutional grants for summer enrollment

    Policies vary widely, so you must ask each school directly.

    3. State Aid & Private Scholarships

    • State grants or scholarships sometimes apply to summer—but not always.
    • Private scholarships may or may not allow funds to be used in summer; this depends on the scholarship rules.

    4. Work-Study

    Some schools offer summer work-study positions, but slots are often limited and may require separate applications.

    Real-Life Example: When Summer Aid Was Approved

    Student A – Rising Sophomore at Clemson University

    Question they came in with:
     “Can you get financial aid for summer classes if you still have some loans left?”

    Situation:
     Student A had worked with The College Planning Center through high school. Strong merit scholarships (thanks to improved SAT scores and a standout application) reduced how much they needed to borrow.

    Summer Goal:
     Take two summer courses to stay ahead in their major.

    Why Summer Aid Was Approved:

    • They did not use their full federal loan eligibility in fall and spring.
    • The summer classes were degree-applicable, which is required for federal aid.
    • They were meeting SAP (Satisfactory Academic Progress) with strong grades.

    Outcome:

    The college approved:

    • A portion of their remaining federal loans for summer
    • A small amount of institutional scholarship aid tied to their major progress

    How CPC Helped:

    • Confirmed remaining loan eligibility
    • Verified that selected classes counted toward the degree
    • Compared the cost of taking those courses in summer vs. fall

    In this case, the answer to “Will financial aid cover summer classes?” was a clear yes—because funds and eligibility were still available.

    Real-Life Example: When Summer Aid Wasn’t Available

    Student B – First-Year at University of South Carolina

    Question their family asked:
     “Will my fall financial aid cover my summer classes if we already used everything we were offered?”

    Situation:
     Student B had some merit aid but needed maximum federal loans during the year to cover tuition and housing.

    Summer Goal:
     Take a required math class in summer to get back on track.

    Why Summer Aid Was Denied:

    • They had no remaining federal loan eligibility for that academic year.
    • Their merit scholarship applied to fall and spring only.
    • Their academic record triggered a SAP review, temporarily blocking federal aid eligibility.

    Outcome:

    • The financial aid office denied summer aid.
    • The student delayed the class until fall and focused on academic recovery.

    How CPC Helped:

    • Guided the family through a SAP appeal
    • Created a study and support plan
    • Restructured the fall course load to protect future aid

    Here, the honest answer to “Does financial aid cover summer classes?” was no—because the student had already used up the year’s resources and lost eligibility temporarily.

    Common Pitfalls That Block Financial Aid for Summer Classes

    We see the same problems over and over when families ask, “Why won’t my financial aid cover summer classes?”

    1. Using 100% of Loan Funds in Fall and Spring

    If a student maxes out their annual loan limit during the regular school year, there may be nothing left to apply toward summer.

    2. Dropping Below Half-Time Enrollment

    Many forms of aid require students to enroll at least half-time.
     If a student drops a class or withdraws, they can fall below half-time and lose summer aid they were counting on.

    3. SAP (Satisfactory Academic Progress) Problems

    Low GPA, too many withdrawals, or not completing enough credits can all cause SAP issues.
     If SAP isn’t met, even summer aid may be blocked.

    4. Assuming Scholarships Automatically Apply in Summer

    Most merit scholarships are fall/spring only, even if the letter doesn’t say “no summer” in big bold letters.

    5. Taking Classes That Don’t Count Toward the Degree

    Federal aid usually only covers degree-applicable courses.
     Random electives or “extra” classes may not qualify.

    6. Missing the Summer Aid Request Deadline

    Some colleges require:

    • A separate summer aid application, or
    • An earlier priority deadline

    Missing this can turn a possible yes into a no.

    When Are Summer Classes Financially Wise?

    • At The College Planning Center, we take a balanced, realistic approach. We don’t just ask, “Can you get financial aid for summer classes?” We ask:

      “Does it make academic and financial sense for your student?”

    Summer Classes Are Often Worth It When They:

    • Help a student graduate early, reducing an entire semester of tuition, housing, and fees
    • Protect or restore FAFSA eligibility by maintaining or improving SAP
    • Make a major change possible without delaying graduation
    • Improve GPA for selective programs

    Reduce fall/spring overload, decreasing burnout and grade risk

    Summer Classes May Not Be Wise When:

    • The student has no remaining aid and summer would mean high out-of-pocket costs
    • Tuition per credit is significantly higher in summer
    • The classes don’t count toward the degree

    The student is struggling academically and needs a break more than another course

    Source link

  • Phoenix Education Partners, FAFSA Fraud, and the Familiar Dance of Blame

    Phoenix Education Partners, FAFSA Fraud, and the Familiar Dance of Blame

    When Phoenix Education Partners (PXED) CEO Chris Lynne publicly blamed the U.S. Department of Education for missing fraud in FAFSA applications—fraud that allowed the University of Phoenix to enroll individuals engaged in financial-aid misconduct—he likely hoped to redirect scrutiny away from his own shop. Instead, the maneuver sent up a flare. For many observers of the for-profit college sector, it felt like the return of a well-worn tactic: deflect, distract, and deny responsibility until the heat dies down.

    The pivot toward blaming the Department of Education does not merely look defensive; it echoes a pattern that helped bring down an entire generation of predatory schools. And it raises a simple question: why is PXED responding like institutions that have something to hide?


    The Old Script, Updated

    The University of Phoenix, under PXED’s ownership, carries not just a long memory of investigations and settlements but a structural DNA shaped by years of aggressive enrollment management, marketing overreach, and high-pressure tactics. When the industry was confronted with evidence of systemic abuses—lying about job placement, enrolling ineligible students, manipulating financial-aid rules—the typical industry defense was to claim that problems were caused by bad actors, by misinterpreted regulations, or by a sluggish and incompetent Department of Education.

    Those excuses were not convincing then, and they ring even more hollow now.

    If individuals involved in financial-aid fraud managed to slip into the system, an institution with PXED’s history should be the first to strengthen internal controls, not pass the buck. Schools are required under federal law to verify eligibility, prevent fraud, and monitor suspicious patterns. Pretending that ED is solely responsible ignores the compliance structure PXED is obligated—by statute—to maintain.

    Why Blame-Shifting Looks So Suspicious

    Instead of demonstrating transparency or releasing information about internal controls that failed, PXED’s leadership has opted for a public relations gambit: blame the regulator. This raises several concerns.

    First, shifting responsibility before releasing evidence suggests that PXED may be more focused on reputational management than on institutional accountability. If the organization’s processes were sound, those facts would speak louder—and more credibly—than an accusatory press statement.

    Second, the posture is déjà vu for people who have tracked the sector for decades. Corinthian Colleges, ITT Tech, Education Management Corp., and Career Education Corporation all blamed ED at various stages of their collapses. In each case, deflection became part of the pattern that preceded deeper revelations of systemic abuse.

    When PXED’s CEO adopts similar rhetoric, observers reasonably wonder whether history is repeating itself—again.

    Finally, PXED’s argument undermines trust at a moment when the University of Phoenix is already under skepticism from accreditors, policymakers, student-borrower advocates, and the public. Instead of strengthening compliance, PXED’s messaging signals defensiveness. Institutions with nothing to hide usually take a different approach.

    The Structural Issues PXED Doesn’t Want to Discuss

    PXED acquired the University of Phoenix with promises of modernization, stabilization, and responsible stewardship. But beneath the marketing, core challenges remain:

    A business model dependent on federal aid. The more a school relies on federal dollars, the stronger its responsibility to prevent fraud—not the weaker.

    A compliance culture shaped by profit pressure. For-profit education has repeatedly shown how financial incentives can distort admissions and oversight.

    A credibility deficit. PXED took over an institution known internationally for deceptive advertising and financial-aid abuses. Blaming ED only magnifies the perception that nothing has fundamentally changed.

    A fragile regulatory environment. With oversight tightening and student-protection rules returning, PXED cannot afford to gesture toward the old for-profit playbook. Doing so suggests they are trying to manage optics instead of outcomes.

    What Accountability Would Look Like

    If PXED wanted to demonstrate leadership rather than defensiveness, a different response was available:

    • Conduct and publish a full internal review of financial-aid intake processes
    • Outline steps to prevent enrollment of fraudulent actors
    • Acknowledge institutional lapses—and explain how they occurred
    • Invite independent audits rather than blaming federal partners
    • Demonstrate an understanding of fiduciary obligations to students and taxpayers

    This is the standard expected of Title IV institutions. It is also the standard PXED insists they meet.

    A Familiar Pattern at a Familiar Institution

    Every moment of pressure reveals something about institutional culture. PXED’s choice to immediately fault the Department of Education—without presenting evidence of its own vigilance—suggests that the company may still be operating according to the old Phoenix playbook: when in doubt, blame someone else.

    But in 2025, the public, regulators, and students have seen this movie before. And they know how it ends.

    Sources
    U.S. Department of Education, Federal Student Aid Handbook
    Senate HELP Committee, For-Profit Higher Education: The Failure to Safeguard the Federal Investment and Ensure Student Success
    Federal Trade Commission, University of Phoenix Settlement Documents
    U.S. Department of Education, Program Review and Compliance Requirements
    Higher Education Inquirer archives

    Source link

  • New Might Not Always Mean Improved: The Benefits and Drawbacks of the New FAFSA

    New Might Not Always Mean Improved: The Benefits and Drawbacks of the New FAFSA

    Title: Chutes and Ladders: Falling Behind and Getting Ahead with the Simplified FAFSA

    Authors: Jonathan S. Lewis and Alyssa Stefanese Yates

    Source: uAspire

    Prior to the 2024-25 academic year, the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) underwent significant changes, mandated by Congress through the FAFSA Simplification Act. A recent uAspire survey of 274 students, parents, counselors, and financial aid administrators found the changes to the FAFSA entailed a number of “chutes,” or drawbacks, and several “ladders” that allowed for a more streamlined financial aid filing process.

    Key survey findings regarding the simplified FAFSA’s benefits and challenges include:

    Benefits:

    • Students appreciated the reduced number of questions within the new FAFSA form.
    • The office of Federal Student Aid improved help text and resources, which aided those accessing the form in answering common questions.
    • Some populations had easier experiences with FAFSA, such as those with relatively straightforward finances, and individuals without overwhelming extenuating circumstances.
    • Those with previous FAFSA experience noted a generally easier experience with the changes.
    • Students with access to high school or college counselors often found greater success with the changes, demonstrating the importance of accessibility to help during the process.

    Challenges:

    • More than half of those surveyed reported experiencing technical problems.
    • The delayed FAFSA timeline heightened stress among students and counselors.
    • Insufficient communication and customer service left approximately 4 million calls to the Department of Education’s call center between Jan. 1 and May 31 unanswered.
    • The issues above often compounded, forming intersecting challenges for students and counselors.
    • Individuals without a Social Security number and English language learners felt the challenges with FAFSA more severely, struggling in particular with technical problems and communication barriers, demonstrating that some populations had more difficult experiences than others.

    The authors conclude by recommending several additional changes to the FAFSA. To minimize the compounding negative effects of the chutes, financial aid processing should be completed faster; technical glitches should be fixed; and communication, wording, and form accessibility should be improved. The authors also recommend fortifying the ladders by finding additional opportunities to reduce the time spent and frustration felt by those filing.

    Overall, the survey highlights how the FAFSA changes produced diverse and polarizing effects. Many students found the process to be simple, securing their financial aid with just a few clicks; other students felt extreme stress caused by technical roadblocks and delays, which left them uncertain about how to pay for school.

    To read the full report from uAspire, click here. For additional information and to read about the Jan. 16 webinar with the authors of the report, click here.

    —Julia Napier

    If you have any questions or comments about this blog post, please contact us.

    Source link

  • Good News About the FAFSA

    Good News About the FAFSA

    Millions of current and prospective college students were let down last year when the federal rollout of the new FAFSA form was badly bungled and delayed for months. The fallout from the resulting chaos and uncertainty was well-documented and widespread, including a drop in over 5 percent in first-year enrollment for fall 2024 linked at least in part to the FAFSA problems.

    But now, there is some good news for students, their families, and the institutions working hard to ensure that low- and middle-income students have a path to higher education.

    While we have been harsh critics of the Department of Education’s failed FAFSA rollout, it is important to recognize when they’ve done well. The department committed to making the new FAFSA form work as intended for the next academic year—and they not only have accomplished that, but they have also done it faster than promised, and faster than many expected.

    Education Secretary Miguel Cardona announced Nov. 21 that after four successful rounds of beta testing, the 2025-26 FAFSA form is now available to all students and families. While we would have preferred for the 2025-26 FAFSA to have been available on Oct.1, we applaud that the department’s announcement came 10 days ahead of the promised Dec. 1 date, and the system appears to be performing as expected. In addition, this fully opens the gateway to the other benefits of the new FAFSA form, including allowing hundreds of thousands more individuals to access Pell Grants, the cornerstone of college affordability for so many students.

    This success is mirrored by a rare bipartisan moment in Congress that underscores how important it is to get federal student financial aid determinations to low-income students as early as possible. During the lame-duck session of Congress–and despite the partisan polarization and acrimony of the election season—the House and Senate approved and sent to President Biden legislation  aimed at streamlining the application process for federal student aid by making Oct. 1 the official FAFSA launch date each year.

    ACE and other higher education associations identified how critical this change in date was, and Congress listened. The FAFSA Deadline Act, introduced earlier this year, gives students and families more time to make crucial financial decisions and institutions adequate time to provide clear and transparent aid offers. We pushed Congress to move the legislation as quickly as possible, and lawmakers acted quickly—and in a bipartisan manner—to approve it.

    Passage of this legislation is a vital step toward improving access to financial aid, particularly for low-income students. Ensuring a properly functioning FAFSA form is another.

    There has been much consternation, rightfully so, about the flawed FAFSA roll out, and the consequences remain serious. All of us—the government and colleges and universities—will have to work hard to bring back the students who were not able to attend college this year because the financial aid system failed them.

    Campus leaders can do their part by ensuring that current and prospective students are well informed about the FAFSA and how to best navigate the new form and process. In its Nov. 21 announcement about the release of the 2025-26 FAFSA, the department also included an array of resources that institutions can share with students and their families and college counselors.

    In a difficult political climate, it is great to see both the legislative and executive branches of the federal government working in tandem to better support low- and middle-income students. These twin successes are extremely important and long overdue. We’ll keep urging policymakers to build on this progress in 2025, and we know that our institutions will do their part as well.

    If you have any questions or comments about this blog post, please contact us.

    Source link

  • Troubled FAFSA Rollout Linked to Sharp Decline in First-Year College Enrollment

    Troubled FAFSA Rollout Linked to Sharp Decline in First-Year College Enrollment

    Title: Fewer Freshmen Enrolled in College This Year Following Troubling FAFSA Cycle

    Author: Katharine Meyer

    Source: Brookings Institution, National Student Clearinghouse Research Center

    The rollout of the new FAFSA form last year triggered cascading consequences across the higher education community. The launch was delayed, customer calls remained unanswered, and the number of filings decreased by about three percent. As the form’s issues compounded, experts predicted that the fumbled rollout would likely negatively impact the higher education sector across several metrics, particularly new student enrollment.

    The National Student Clearinghouse Research Center collected data at the beginning of the academic year to begin painting the updated enrollment picture and will follow up with final enrollment numbers for the 2024-25 academic year. The Brookings Institution analyzed the preliminary data and observed large declines in FAFSA filings, followed by a decrease in first-year enrollment.

    Across all institutions, first-year enrollment is down 5.8 percent among 18-year-olds and 8.6 percent among 19-20-year-olds. At public four-year institutions, first-year enrollment declined 8.5 percent, and it declined 6.5 percent at private four-year institutions. White freshman enrollment declined the most (11.4 percent), followed by multiracial (6.6 percent) and Black (6.1 percent) first-year student enrollment. Enrollment at HBCUs, however, increased 5.9 percent from last year and has cumulatively increased 12.6 percent since fall 2022.

    First-year enrollment at four-year schools declined across all levels of Pell Grant recipience. Institutions that experienced the largest declines in first-year enrollment, though, were public and private four-year institutions with the highest shares of students receiving Pell Grants (-10.4 and -10.7 percent, respectively). First-year enrollment at four-year colleges is also down across all levels of selectivity, with the largest decline occurring at very competitive public four-year institutions (-10.8 percent), followed by competitive public four-year institutions (-10.3 percent).

    Despite declines in first-year enrollment, total college enrollment increased three percent, due in part to a 4.7 percent increase in community college enrollment. Interestingly, this increase occurred at certain types of two-year institutions but not all of them. At colleges that predominantly award associate degrees and some bachelor’s degrees, freshman enrollment increased 2.2 percent, and at two-year institutions that enroll a higher proportion of low-income students, first-year enrollment increased 1.2 percent. At community colleges only awarding associate degrees, however, enrollment decreased by 1.1 percent.

    The author notes these insights come with caveats; many factors have contributed to enrollment decline over the last decade, notably falling public confidence in higher education and the ever-growing cost of attending college. The sharp decline in first-year enrollment, however, correlates with the troubled FAFSA launch. Continuing to collect data over time will provide more insight into the implications of recent disruptions to enrollment trends, particularly following the COVID-19 pandemic and the FAFSA rollout. The 2025-26 FAFSA form will be available this December, and its functionality will determine the gravity of the past year’s enrollment decline.

    To view the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center data dashboard, click here. To read the Brookings Institution analysis, click here.

    —Erica Swirsky

    If you have any questions or comments about this blog post, please contact us.

    Source link