In late June, House Republicans aired a promotional video about their budget reconciliation bill, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, claiming it will “make the American dream accessible to all Americans again.” That dream—that anyone in this country can achieve prosperity and success through hard work and determination—is what leads people to come to America and stay. It’s no wonder that politicians invoke this promise as part of the reason for needed change.
Higher education has long been seen as one of the surest paths to economic security in America—it is one foundation that dream rests on. It feels consequential, therefore, that President Trump and congressional Republicans are looking to undercut this vision of the American dream. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act will reshape federal student aid in ways that transform access to higher education and shut everyday Americans out.
Forthcoming nationally representative survey data from New America, a nonpartisan think tank, shows Americans are clear-eyed about what it really takes to keep the dream alive: an affordable higher education. But they see college falling further out of reach. Nearly nine out of 10 believe college cost is the biggest factor that prevents families from attending college. And three-quarters of Americans agree that the federal government should spend more tax dollars on educational opportunities after high school to make them more affordable, including majorities of both Republicans and Democrats.
Americans also believe in accountability for this investment. They want a system that rewards effort, responsibility and outcomes—basic values that align with the American dream. Majorities from both parties say colleges and universities should lose access to taxpayer support if their students don’t earn more than a typical high school graduate or if they struggle to pay down their student loan debt.
Once enacted, the new law will trim the Pell Grant program, making some middle-income families ineligible who used to qualify for small amounts of the Pell Grant. Federal student loans will look vastly different, with big cuts to graduate, parent and lifetime borrowing limits and less generous repayment options for borrowers who fall on hard times. These changes will close one door for many low- and moderate-income Americans, the one that leads to an affordable associate or bachelor’s degree. At the same time, by expanding Pell Grants to short-term job training programs, the law opens another door to very short credentials as few as eight weeks long with little oversight and consumer protection. Our research has showntimeandagain that these very short credentials will not deliver economic stability nor improve employment prospects.
And while the law will take meaningful steps toward accountability and will cut off from federal loans associate, bachelor’s and graduate programs that fail to give students an earning boost, those measures exclude all undergraduate short-term certificate programs, which tend to have the worst outcomes. It will also allow programs to continue to operate, even if most of their students struggle to repay their loans.
While the president and congressional Republicans say these cuts are necessary under the auspices of extending tax cuts, improving fiscal responsibility and reforming higher education, the truth is this law will achieve none of this. It will add at least $3 trillion to our deficit by expanding tax cuts to wealthy Americans, all while stripping funding from critical programs everyday Americans rely on like Medicaid, SNAP and student aid. It does nothing to fix the underlying problems that drive college costs. It ignores targeted solutions that would promote affordability and expand accountability. That type of thoughtful reform would require bipartisan reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, which is more than a decade overdue.
Despite what Republicans in Washington say about making the American dream accessible again, this law will only put it further out of reach. The changes will fall hard on all students trying to obtain education after high school—from welders to electricians, nurses, teachers and medical doctors. These are not “elites,” but core constituents. They are working adults, veterans and parents looking to make a better life for their children, hoping that the American dream is still achievable. Instead, they will find that their own government has abandoned them.
In his inaugural address in January, President Trump said, “The American dream will soon be back and thriving like never before.” But, in truth, it is being suffocated. It’s too late to change this new law, but moving forward Congress and the Trump administration must center everyday Americans and act cautiously before making such seismic cuts. This is not a partisan issue, but a matter of national interest and prosperity. Failing to think about future legislation that makes meaningful student-centered reform to higher education will have political and generational consequences for years to come. It sends a message to future students that only familial wealth will bring college opportunities, and it won’t matter how much hard work they put in or determination they have.
Rachel Fishman is the director of the higher education program at New America.
Once the world’s largest source of international students, China is no longer expected to fuel further student growth in the ‘big four’ destinations, according to predictions from Bonard Education shared in a recent webinar.
“China is no longer the easy goldmine it once was”, Bonard senior research consultant, Su Su, told attendees, highlighting the “visible trend” of Chinese students choosing alternative options closer to home.
The US has seen the most noticeable decline in Chinese enrolments, which broadly started across traditional destinations in 2020/21 and has continued in the US over the past five years, according to Bonard data.
Amid the downturn in Chinese mobility to the US, India surpassed China as America’s largest sending country in 2023 and new government data has shown this gap continue to widen.
Source: BONARD
The UK, however, is bucking the trend and has witnessed continued modest growth in Chinese students since 2020, though this cohort’s visa approval rate saw a 6% year-on-year decline in 2024.
Elsewhere, Canada experienced a 21% drop in Chinese visa approvals last year as the impact of the government’s study permit caps took hold, but university enrolment nevertheless remains stable, signalling the visa decline is concentrated in non-university level students.
Meanwhile, Australia and New Zealand saw a modest rebound in Chinese enrolment in 2023/24, with Su maintaining that China was still a “pivotal” source market despite fluctuations.
The waning dominance of China as a source market can partly be attributed to the state of the economy, with financial pressure becoming the most cited factor impacting study decisions, according to Bonard’s agent network.
“Middle class families are experiencing slower financial growth, and, as a result, are more economically conscious,” explained Su, fuelling a rise in shorter term English language courses as well as impacting the post-secondary sector.
What’s more, China’s urban unemployment rate among 16-24-year-olds jumped to an all-time high of 19% last year, pushing career outcomes up the priority list for students and their families, said Su.
Given the financial context, “families are determined to make every RMB count”, said Su, with more affordable Asian destinations becoming increasingly attractive in China.
The PIE News has previously reported on the rise of intra-Asian mobility, with countries in the region increasingly seeing internationalisation as critical to sustaining economic growth, plugging workforce gaps and driving innovation.
In particular, the National Universities of Singapore and Hong Kong were highlighted as hitting the sweet spot by offering highly regarded international degrees at a lower price than traditional destinations – catering to families who still value prestige and the merits of an international education, but who are shopping “smarter”.
Elsewhere, Japan, South Korea and Malaysia are on the rise, with the Japanese government pursuing an ambitious goal of attracting 400,000 international students by 2033 and Malaysia streamlining international admissions through a new centralised system.
But it’s not just affordability that is changing the landscape: perceived policy volatility “can shape perspective just as much as the price”, said Su, highlighting the damaging impact of Donald Trump’s erratic policy announcements in the US.
“Recent headlines in the US are raising serious concerns among families, whether or not the policies are enacted,” Su warned.
By comparison, despite some restrictions in the UK: “It feels more stable… agencies are describing the UK as the safest bet due to its clear communication of policies,” attendees heard.
That being said, political environments tend to have a temporary impact on student decision-making, with agencies and institutions advised that now is the time to “adapt and rethink” rather than turning away from the Chinese market.
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
The “One, Big, Beautiful Bill,” a major tax and spending package narrowly passed by Congress and signed by President Donald Trump on July 4, includes a Republican-led national school choice provision that public school advocates and some researchers say will disrupt the traditional public school K-12 model by driving more competition with public schools.
This controversial issue has been debated at the local, state and national levels for decades, but this is the first federally funded, nationwide private school choice program. While unknowns remain about how many students, schools and states will participate, reaction has been swift, with opponents calling the law harmful to public schools and supporters labeling it as a historic move for educational freedom.
“Parents should decide where their kids go to school. This bill helps them do that,” said Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., author of the Educational Choice for Children Act included in the “One, Big, Beautiful Bill” and chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, in a Thursday statement.
Here’s what you need to know about the newly enacted measure:
What the new school choice provision says
The law provides a federal tax incentive to generate funds for families’ educational expenses, including private school tuition at secular and religious schools, as well as costs incurred for children at public and private schools such as fees, tutoring, educational therapies, transportation, technology and other expenses. It would also apply to homeschooling costs.
To be eligible, families’ household incomes must not exceed 300% of the median gross income for their locality. The means, for example, students in Memphis living in households with incomes of up to $364,400 could be eligible, based on a median family income of $91,100.
States, however, can opt out of participating, meaning none of the students in that state would be eligible for the program. It was not immediately clear which state agency or leader decides this.
Under the new school choice law, any taxpayer who donates up to $1,700 annually to a scholarship granting organization — a 501(c)(3) charity organization — would be eligible for a 100% federal income tax credit for their contribution, or the equal amount in a reduction of taxes owed. According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, there is no other charitable giving structure that allows this type of dollar-for-dollar tax incentive.
ITEP’s analysis of Internal Revenue Service data shows that more than 138 million people could use this tax credit in 2027 if they choose to. But some might not participate because of the paperwork involved or because they disagree with private school vouchers, ITEP said.
If 43% of taxpayers — which would be about 59 million people — participate, the cost to the federal government would be $101 billion per year, according to ITEP.
The law does not cap the program’s cost, despite earlier versions of the bill limiting it to $4 billion or $5 billion per year. In addition, the program is permanent with no expiration date.
The scholarship-granting organizations that will distribute tuition vouchers for education expenses must be independent entities and cannot be affiliated with a school, according to ACE Scholarships, a nonprofit scholarship-granting organization that has analyzed the law. The organization, in an FAQ, also said parents cannot direct their tax credit directly to their child’s education expenses.
Rather, the scholarship-granting organizations will be charged with independently determining students’ eligibility.
Protestors participate in a “study-in” in front of the U.S. Department of Education on March 21, 2025, in Washington, D.C.
Kayla Bartkowski via Getty Images
What people are saying
Reaction to the law was swift, with critics voicing concern about the impacts on public school budgets and supporters applauding what they call a significant step toward parental empowerment in K-12 education.
Robert Kim, executive director of the Education Law Center, blasted the new program. Studies have shown private school vouchers “sweep aside civil rights protections, support segregation, decimate public school budgets, and do not improve student outcomes,” Kim said in a statement.
He added, “Vouchers undermine public education, the cornerstone of our democracy, and have no place in federal policy.”
EdTrust, a nonprofit organization that works to improve outcomes for students of color, lambasted the law as an “extremely costly federal voucher program that will spend billions in public money to subsidize wealthy families accessing private schools.” and will operate with “little oversight.”
EdTrust has nicknamed the law the “Great American Heist” for its private school choice provision and changes to Medicaid, food stamps and college loan repayment programs. The law “would dismantle the very programs that make education and economic advancement possible for students of color, first-generation college students, and low- and middle-income families,” EdTrust’s statement said.
Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said in a statement that the school choice program “will divert billions of taxpayer dollars to private religious schools that indoctrinate and can discriminate against students and their families based on the schools’ beliefs.”
Supporters of private school choice, however, struck a different note. They said parents have become frustrated at disappointing student academic performances in public schools and want more options for their children.
“This is a huge victory for American families that have been praying and hoping for a financial lifeline to provide their children with the education they need to thrive,” said Anthony J. de Nicola, chairman of the board of Invest in Education Coalition, an organization that has promoted a federal school choice program, in a statement.
Tommy Schultz, CEO of the American Federation for Children, a school choice advocacy organization, said the law’s passage will “supercharge” school choice across the country.
“For a generation, our movement has fought to give all families, especially lower-income families, the freedom to choose the best K-12 education for their sons and daughters, and now President Trump has signed into law the single biggest advancement of that goal,” Schultz said in a statement.
Even with the praise, however, some supporters urged caution.
In an interview with Catholic News Agency published July 3, John DeJak, executive director of the Secretariat of Catholic Education for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, applauded the law’s passage but also pointed to “unknowns” like how the program would address religious liberty protections.
Success! Not only does the OBBB include historic tax cuts and cost savings for American families – the bill also
Includes massive expansion in school choice
Adds accountability measures for higher ed institutions
Reduces federal student loan borrowing amounts to help…
— Secretary Linda McMahon (@EDSecMcMahon) July 3, 2025
What happens next
The tax incentive starts with the taxable years ending after Dec. 31, 2026, — and there’s a lot to work out before then.
For starters, the new law says that the U.S. secretary of education must draft regulations for how the program will operate, including recordkeeping and reporting, as well as enforcement of a state’s certification of scholarship-granting organizations.
The U.S. Department of Education did not provide a time frame for this by press time on Monday.
Details such as state participation and how the national private school choice program would operate in conjunction with state-level choice programs also need to be worked out. According to EdChoice, an organization that advocates for school choice, 35 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have private school choice programs that together serve nearly 1.3 million students.
It’s also unclear how this new school choice program will meld into Republican-led plans to close the Education Department.
In the meantime, school choice advocates and supporters of public schools vow to continue advocating for and against the controversial law.
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
The American higher education system is in for a big shake-up with the enactment of Republicans’ massive bill full of tax and spending cuts.
The Senate voted 51-50 on the package, with Vice President JD Vance casting the deciding ballot, after which the bill passed the House by a four-vote margin. President Donald Trumpsigned it into law on Friday, the deadline he had set for lawmakers.
One of the architects of the bill’s higher ed provisions, Sen. Tim Walberg, a Michigan Republican who chairs his chamber’s education committee, called it “the first set of significant conservative reforms to the higher education landscape in two decades,” adding that it would “maintain America’s world-class higher education system.”
The new law means higher taxes for some university endowments and a new college accountability system tied to financial aid, as well as several changes to the federal student aid program — including ending the GRAD Plus loan program and capping student borrowing overall — that advocates say will limit college access.
The American Council on Education on Thursday described the bill as “a significant improvement” over an earlier House version, but added that it “combines major tax changes with deep spending cuts that will carry significant negative consequences for campuses and students.”
Sameer Gadkaree, president and CEO of The Institute for College Access & Success, said in a July 3 statement, “This bill can only be described as one big mistake — the consequences of which will negatively affect college students, borrowers, and their families for years to come.”
The law cuts $300 billion in federal support to students over 10 years, including by limiting borrowing to graduate students — to $100,000 per borrower, or $200,000 for those in professional programs such as law or medicine. It would also cap Parent PLUS loans to $65,000 per student.
The caps on federal student lending will likely lead more borrowers “to pursue riskier private loans or forego further education,” Gadkaree said.
At the same time, the law culls a handful of federal student loan repayment programs down to just two choices. That reduction — billed as a simplification by supporters — which will leave many borrowers on the hook for larger monthly payments, according to TICAS.
“By increasing the amount, riskiness, and duration of student loan debt, the law directly reduces the likelihood that current borrowers and future students can do better financially than their parents,” Gadkaree said.
Aissa Canchola Bañez, policy director of the Student Borrower Protection Center, decried the law as one that will “push millions off their healthcare, leave children to go hungry, and push dreams of a college education even further out of reach for working people across this country.”
Walberg, meanwhile, said the loan system changes “increase simplicity and affordability so students don’t borrow excessive debt they can never repay.”
Changes to the federal student aid program will also bring financial impact to colleges.
Combined with higher tax rates on the wealthiest private college endowments, the bill’s aid cuts “will force even more difficult decisions on chief business officers and further strain revenue that helps make college affordable for students and families,” Kara Freeman, CEO and president of the National Association of College and University Business Officers, said in a July 3 statement.
Colleges could also be rendered ineligible to receive student loan funds entirely if their former students don’t meet new earnings measures in the bill.
However, changes to the bill narrowed the funds at stake for colleges from a previous version and tweaked the metrics to include only graduates of the programs in question. The accountability system “represents a more targeted and data-informed alternative” to the “punitive” risk-sharing proposal in an earlier House version of the bill, the American Council on Education said on July 3.
As for the endowment tax, the bill creates tiered rates that start at the current levy of 1.4% on investment earnings that rise to 4% and then 8% based on endowment assets per student. While the tax won’t cover many institutions, some colleges will now owe millions to the government each year starting in 2026.
Yale University, for example, estimated it will pay $280 million just in its first year, according to institutional leadership. Such a tax bill represents a significant break in the historic relationship between nonprofit entities and the federal government.
“This is money that would otherwise support our students, faculty, staff, and local partnerships with the city of New Haven,” Yale President Maurie McInnis said in a July 3 community message.
She added, “Taxing universities undermines the education and research that fuel life-saving medical breakthroughs, life-changing innovations, and economic growth in communities across the country and around the globe.”
Along with cuts to the federal aid program, the law expands Pell Grants to short-term programs between eight and 15 weeks in length.
TICAS argued that the law “opens eligibility for potentially high-cost, low-quality short-term programs” that could exacerbate funding pressure on the Pell program.
That assessment came even after the Senate took out a controversial provision that would have permitted Pell eligibility for unaccredited institutions. The chamber’s parliamentarian had concluded it would have violated rules governing the reconciliation process, which the Senate used to sidestep the filibuster and pass the budget bill with a simple majority vote.
ELKHART, Ind. — Ever since Ty Zartman was little, people told him he had to go to college to be successful. “It was engraved on my brain,” he said.
But despite earning straight A’s, qualifying for the National Honor Society, being voted prom king and playing on the high school football and baseball teams, the teen never relished the idea of spending another four years in school. So in fall 2023 he signed up through his Elkhart, Indiana, high school for an apprenticeship at Hoosier Crane Service Company, eager to explore other paths. There, he was excited to meet coworkers who didn’t have a four-year degree but earned good money and were happy in their careers.
Through the youth apprenticeship, Ty started his day at the crane manufacturing and repair business at 6:30 a.m., working in customer service and taking safety and training courses while earning $13 an hour. Then, he spent the afternoon at his school, Jimtown High, in Advanced Placement English and U.S. government classes.
In June, the 18-year-old started full-time at Hoosier Crane as a field technician.
“College is important and I’m not dissing on that,” Ty said. “But it’s not necessarily something that you need.”
Elkhart County is at the forefront of a movement slowly spreading across Indiana and the nation to make apprenticeships a common offering in high school.
In 2019, as part of a plan to boost the region’s economic prospects, county leaders launched an effort to place high schoolers in apprenticeships that combine work-based training with classroom instruction. About 80 students from the county’s seven school districts participated this academic year, in fields such as health care, law, manufacturing, education and engineering. In April, as part of a broader push to revamp high school education and add more work-based learning, the state set a goal of 50,000 high school apprentices by 2034.
Tim Pletcher, the principal of Jimtown High, said students are often drawn first to the chance to spend less time in class. But his students quickly realize apprenticeships give them work-based learning credits and industry connections that help them after graduation. They also earn a paycheck. “It’s really causing us to have a paradigm shift in how we look at getting kids ready for the next step,” he said.
Related: Become a lifelong learner. Subscribe to our free weekly newsletter featuring the most important stories in education.
This “earn and learn” model is taking hold in part because of deepening disillusionment with four-year college, and the fact that well-paying jobs that don’t require bachelor’s degrees are going unfilled nationally. The past three presidential administrations invested in expanding apprenticeships, including those for high schoolers, and in April, President Donald Trump signed an executive order calling for 1 million new apprentices. In a recent poll, more than 80 percent of people said they supported expanding partnerships between schools and businesses to provide work-based learning experiences for students.
Yet in the United States, the number of so-called youth apprenticeships for high schoolers is still “infinitesimally small,” said Vinz Koller, a vice president at nonprofit group Jobs for the Future. One estimate suggests they number about 20,000 nationally, while there are some 17 million high school students.By contrast, in Switzerland — which has been praised widely for its apprenticeship model, including by U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon — 70 percent of high schoolers participate. Indiana is among several states, including Colorado, South Carolina and Washington, that have embraced the model and sent delegations to Switzerland to learn more.
Elkhart, Indiana, known as the “RV capital of the world,” saw widespread unemployment during the Great Recession. That led community leaders to focus on apprenticeships as a way to diversify their economy. Credit: Camilla Forte/The Hechinger Report
Experts including Ursula Renold, professor of education systems at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) Zurich, note that importing the model to the United States at a large scale won’t be simple. Most businesses aren’t accustomed to employing apprentices, parents can be resistant to their students trading four-year college aspirations for work, and public transportation to take students to apprenticeships is limited, especially in rural areas. Many high schoolers don’t have a driver’s license, access to a car or money for gas. School districts already face a shortage of bus drivers that makes transporting students to apprenticeships difficult or impossible.
Still, Renold, who is known as the “grande dame of apprenticeships,” said Indiana’s commitment to apprenticeships at the highest levels of state government, as well as the funding the state has invested in work-based learning, at least $67 million, seem to be setting the state up for success, though it could take a decade to see results.
“If I had to make a bet,” said Renold, “I would say it’s Indiana who will lead the way.”
Elkhart County’s experiment with apprenticeships has its roots in the Great Recession. Recreational vehicle manufacturing dominates the local economy, and demand for the vehicles plummeted, contributing to a regional unemployment rate at that time of nearly 20 percent. Soon after, community leaders began discussing how to better insulate themselves from future economic instability, eventually focusing on high school education as a way to diversify industries and keep up with automation, said Brian Wiebe, who in 2012 founded local nonprofit Horizon Education Alliance, or HEA, to help lead that work.
Elkhart County, Indiana, was the first community in Indiana to encourage businesses to employ high school students as apprentices, where they can earn work-based learning credits and make industry connections that help them, even if they decide to go on to college. Credit: Camilla Forte/The Hechinger Report
That year, Wiebe and two dozen local and state political, business, nonprofit and education leaders visited Switzerland and Germany to learn more about the apprenticeship model. “We realized in the U.S., there was only a Plan A, a path to college,” he recalled. “We were not supporting the rest of our young people because there was no Plan B.”
HEA partnered with Elkhart County school districts and businesses, as well as with CareerWise, a youth apprenticeship nonprofit that works nationally. They began rolling out apprenticeships in 2019, eventually settling on a goal of increasing participation by 20 percent each year.
In 2021, Katie Jenner, the new secretary of education for Indiana, learned about Elkhart’s apprenticeships as she was trying to revamp high school education in the state so it better prepared students for the workforce. Elkhart, as well as six other apprenticeship pilot sites funded by Indianapolis-based philanthropy the Richard M. Fairbanks Foundation, provided a proof of concept for the apprenticeship model, said Jenner.
In December, the state adopted a new diploma system that includes an emphasis on experiential and work-based learning, through apprenticeships, internships and summer jobs.
On a weekday this winter, 17 sophomores at Elkhart’s Concord High School were sitting at computers, creating resumes they planned to use to apply for apprenticeships. The students were among some 50 sophomores at the high school who’d expressed interest in apprenticing and met the school’s attendance and minimum 2.5 GPA requirements, out of a class of roughly 400. They would receive coaching and participate in mock interviews before meeting with employers.
Becca Roberts, a former English teacher who now oversees the high school’s college and career programs, said apprenticeships help convince students of the importance of habits like punctuality, clear communication and regular attendance. “It’s not from a book,” she said. “They’re dealing with real life.”
Becca Roberts, who oversees college and career programs at Concord High School in Indiana, helps students research different companies offering apprenticeships, including job descriptions, work schedules and commuting distances. Credit: Camilla Forte/The Hechinger Report
One student, Ava Cripe, said she hoped for an apprenticeship of some sort in the health care field. She’d only been a pet sitter and was nervous at the thought of having a professional job. “You’re actually going out and working for someone else, like not for your parents or your grandma, so it’s a little scary,” she said.
CareerWise Elkhart has recently beefed up its support for students and businesses participating in apprenticeships. It employs a business partnership manager and customer success managers who help smooth over issues that arise in the workplace — an apprentice who isn’t taking initiative, for example, or an apprenticeship that isn’t sufficiently challenging. “Before, if an issue came up, a business would just fire a student or a student would leave,” said Sarah Koontz, director of CareerWise Elkhart County. “We’re now more proactive.”
In Elkhart and across the state, the embrace of work-based learning has worried some parents who fear it will limit, not expand, their children’s opportunities. In previous generations, career and technical programs (then known as vocational education) were often used to route low-income and Black and Hispanic students away from college and into relatively low-paying career paths.
Anitra Zartman, Ty’s mother, said she and her husband were initially worried when their son said he wanted to go straight to work. They both graduated from college, and her husband holds a master’s degree. “We were like, ‘Don’t waste your talent. You’re smart, go to college.’” But she says they came around after seeing how the work experience influenced him. “His maturity has definitely changed. I think it’s because he has a responsibility that he takes very seriously,” she said. “He doesn’t want to let people down.”
Her eldest daughter, Senica Zartman, also apprenticed during her final two years of high school, as a teacher’s assistant. She is now in college studying education. “The apprenticeship solidified her choice,” Anitra Zartman said, and it helped her decide to work with elementary students. Anitra Zartman said she would encourage her two youngest children to participate in apprenticeships too.
Ty Zartman works from 6 a.m. to noon at his apprenticeship at Hoosier Crane Service Company before he goes to school for afternoon classes. Credit: Camilla Forte/The Hechinger Report
Sarah Metzler, CEO of the nonprofit HEA, said apprenticeships differ from the vocational education of the past that tended only to prepare students for relatively low paid, entry-level jobs. With apprenticeships, she said, students must continually learn new skills and earn new licenses and industry certifications as part of the program.
Litzy Henriquez Monchez, 17, apprentices in human resources at a company of 50 people, earning $13.50 an hour. “I deal with payroll, I onboard new employees, I do a lot of translating. Anything that has to do with any of the employees, I deal with,” she said. She’s also earning an industry-recognized certification for her knowledge of a human resources management system, and says the company has offered to pay for her college tuition if she continues in the position.
Koontz said most companies pay for their apprentices to attend Ivy Tech, a statewide community college system, if they continue to work there. One is even paying for their apprentice’s four-year degree, she said.
Attracting employers has proven to be the biggest challenge to expanding youth apprenticeships — in Elkhart and beyond. In total, 20 companies worked with the Elkhart school districts last year, and 28 have signed on for this coming school year — only enough to employ about a third of interested students.
The obstacles, employers say, include the expense of apprentices’ salaries, training and other costs.
Metzler and others, though, point to studies showingbenefits for employers, including cost savings over time and improved employee loyalty. And in Indiana, the Fairbanks foundation and other organizations are working on ways to reduce employer costs, including by developing a standard curriculum for apprenticeships in industries like health care and banking so individual companies don’t bear the costs alone.
Business leaders who do sign on say they are happy with the experience. Todd Cook, the CEO of Hoosier Crane Service Company, employs 10 high schoolers, including Ty Zartman, as engineering and industrial maintenance technician apprentices, approximately 10 percent of his staff. He said the pipeline created by the apprenticeship program has helped reduce recruiting costs.
“We’re starting to build our own farm system of talent,” he said. Students initially earn $13 an hour, and finish their apprenticeship earning $18. If they continue with the company, he said, they can earn up to $50 an hour after about five years. And if they go on to become trainers or mentors, Cook said, “Honestly, there is no ceiling.”
Transportation has been a limiting factor too. There’s no public transit system, and students who can’t rely on their parents for rides are often out of luck. “We’d love to offer a bus to every kid, to every location, but we don’t have people to run those extra bus routes,” said Principal Pletcher.
The state has tried to help by investing $10 million to help students pay for costs such as transportation, equipment and certifications. Each school that provides work-based learning opportunities also receives an additional $500 per student.
Indiana has a goal to employ 50,000 high school students as apprentices by 2034. State leaders in business, education, government and nonprofits are working closely with Swiss experts to adopt a youth apprenticeship program similar to the one in that country. Credit: Camilla Forte/The Hechinger Report
Trump’s executive order called for the secretaries of education, labor and commerce to develop a plan by late August for adding 1 million new apprenticeships. The order does not set a date for reaching that milestone, and it applies to apprentices of all ages, not just high schoolers. Vinz Koller of Jobs for the Future said the goal is modest, and achievable; the number of youth apprenticeships has doubled just in the past few years, he said, and California alone has a goal of reaching 500,000 apprenticeships, across all ages, by 2029.
Still, the order did not include additional funding for apprenticeships, and the Trump administration’s proposed budget includes major cuts to workforce development training. In an email, a White House spokesperson said the administration had promoted apprenticeships through outreach programs but did not provide additional information including on whether that outreach had a focus on youth apprenticeships.
Back in Elkhart, Ty Zartman, the Hoosier Crane apprentice, has begun his technician job with the company after graduating in early June. He is earning $19 an hour. He is also taking a class at the local community college on electrical work and recently received a certificate of completion from the Department of Labor for completing 2,000 hours of his apprenticeship.
Anitra Zartman said she wishes he’d attended more school events like pep rallies, and sometimes worried he wasn’t “being a kid.” But Ty said his supervisor is “super flexible” and he was able to go to the winter formal and prom. “I think I still live a kid life,” he said. “I do a lot of fun things.”
Of his job, he said, “I love it so much.”
Contact editor Caroline Preston at 212-870-8965, via Signal at CarolineP.83 or on email at preston@hechingerreport.org.
The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.
Following a flyover by a B-2 bomber, President Donald Trump signed a sweeping policy bill into law Friday, celebrating the Fourth of July and commending congressional Republicans for meeting his self-imposed deadline.
The legislation, which narrowly passed the House on Thursday, promises to significantly change how colleges operate. Higher education groups and advocates warned that the bill will hurt low-income families while proponents praised the changes as necessary reforms.
Much of the debate over the bill dubbed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act centered on the nearly $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid, as well as changes to the tax code that will benefit the very rich. But the 870-page piece of legislation also overhauls higher education policy to cap some student loans, eliminate the Grad PLUS program and use students’ earnings to hold colleges accountable. Taken together, higher education experts say, the legislation would transform the sector, hurt universities’ finances and hinder college access.
But the legislation doesn’t include some of the proposals that most worried college leaders, such as cuts to the Pell Grant program and a 21 percent endowment tax rate. Wealthy private colleges will still face a higher tax rate on their endowments, up to 8 percent. (The current rate is 1.4 percent.)
Some higher ed lobbyists commended Republicans for backing off some of the deeper cuts, but they are worried about a number of changes in the bill.
Eliminating Grad PLUS loans could mean fewer students attend graduate school, which would be a hit to universities’ bottom lines, especially at institutions that rely heavily on graduate programs for tuition revenue. Similarly, capping Parent PLUS loans at $65,000 per student could hurt Black and Latino families, who disproportionately use the loans. The legislation also consolidates repayment plans, giving future borrowers two options. Consumer protection advocates worry the bill will exacerbate the student debt crisis and drive students to private loans.
The student loan changes take effect July 2026.
Catch Up on Our Coverage of the Bill
Lawmakers also agreed to expand the Pell Grant to short-term job-training programs, achieving a long-sought goal for community colleges and other groups. In a last-minute change, the expansion excludes unaccredited providers.
“While somewhat improved over its original version, [the bill] contains a mix of new taxes and spending cuts that will force even more difficult decisions on chief business officers and further strain revenue that helps make college affordable for students and families,” said Kara Freeman, president of the National Association of College and University Business Officers. “The long-term implications of this legislation for higher education and American innovation are likely to be profound.”
Over all, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act will add about $3.3 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Republicans said they had hoped to curb spending and address the growing deficit with the legislation, and some conservatives balked at the price tag. Still, pressure from the president to deliver a legislative victory won out, even as some lawmakers waffled for hours over whether to support the bill. Politicoreported that Trump called lawmakers and met with them in person to make his case.
Republicans lawmakers and Trump administration officials praised the legislation, saying it would lower the cost of college and boost accountability. One of the major changes ties colleges’ access to federal student loans to students’ earnings. Programs that fail to show their graduates earn more than an adult with only a high school diploma could be cut off from loans. One rough analysis found that fewer than half of two-year degree programs would pass the earnings test, but community colleges are less reliant on loans.
“Overall, the Senate’s ‘do no harm’ proposal would strengthen the higher education system,” wrote Preston Cooper, a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, who conducted the analysis. “But the current political environment presents a once-in-a-generation chance to fix the broken federal role in higher education. Lawmakers shouldn’t miss the opportunity to go further.”
Another analysis from the Postsecondary Education and Economics Research Center at American University found that programs that would fail the earnings test enroll about 1 percent of students. But the test wouldn’t apply to certificate programs, where one in five students are pursuing a credential that doesn’t provide the necessary earnings boost, according to the PEER Center. Other experts have argued that the accountability plan should’ve taken into account the cost of programs and students’ debt loads.
Colleges generally preferred the earnings-based accountability plan, which is similar to the Biden administration’s gainful-employment rule, though lobbyists had wanted lawmakers to make some changes. House Republicans had planned to make institutions pay an annual penalty based on students’ unpaid loans, which could’ve cost colleges billions.
Jason Altmire, president of Career Education Colleges and Universities, the national trade association representing for-profit institutions, congratulated Congress in a statement Thursday for passing the “monumental legislation.”
He praised the short-term Pell expansion as well as the “no tax on tips” policy, among other provisions. But he’s concerned about parts of the new accountability framework, though “we strongly support the fact that the measure applies equally to all schools in all sectors of higher education, a longtime CECU priority.”
Altmire and CECU oppose the loan caps and eliminating Grad PLUS loans. “These cuts will negatively impact students and limit access for those who are most in need,” he said in the statement. “These provisions are ill-advised and we hope Congress will revisit them in the future. Overall, we are grateful that our voice was heard and so many of our longtime priorities were included in the final bill. We look forward to working with Congress to make improvements through future legislation.”
Charles Welch, president of the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, said in a statement that the cuts to Medicaid and other programs will hurt regional public universities, which are typically “the first victim of tightened budgets.”
“Never has the federal government divested itself of financial responsibility to such an extent, imperiling previously stretched state and local budgets as they seek to cover newly obligated burdens,” Welch said.
Welch added that colleges in the association must put their “profound disappointment in the reconciliation bill aside” to focus on the appropriations process, which will kick into high gear this month. The appropriations bills in Congress set the spending limits and direct agencies how to dole out federal dollars. The Trump administration has proposed deep cuts to the Education Department’s budget, including zeroing out college-access programs like TRIO.
“The American Association of State Colleges and Universities urges Congress to reassert its constitutionally endowed authority over government expenditures, eliminating executive overreach and fully funding the programs, grants, and institutions that serve our nation’s postsecondary students,” Welch said.
It is hard for universities to see beyond their own sector crisis right now, but the crisis facing the youth sector today will be the problem of universities tomorrow.
The youth sector in the UK greatly contributes towards supporting students and graduates of the future, but it is currently under threat and the deepest impact will come for those young people who face the highest barriers to accessing higher education.
The youth sector engages young people to develop their critical skills for life, including how to build relationships with peers; resilience and developing social and emotional skills; and how to integrate into a community. Many within the higher education sector will recognise these as areas which students and graduates are also struggling with.
At a time where universities are being called upon to widen access for young people, the reality is young people are facing narrower opportunities than ever. The challenge for widening participation teams will be multifaceted, including supporting attainment raising in schools; tackling entrenched views from schools and families of expectations of what their children can achieve; and providing the support needed for widening participation students to progress well once in higher education.
So how can the higher education sector help ensure that the challenges the youth sector are facing today don’t become a nightmare for widening participation teams to tackle in the future?
What is happening in the youth sector?
The youth sector includes large organisations such as UK Youth, Scouts and Girlguiding, to smaller grassroots organisations who run clubs and activities in and out of schools and community centres across the country.
There are many similarities between the crises facing the higher education sector and that of the youth sector. Much like universities, the youth sector has faced years of substantial defunding. A YMCA England and Wales report on The state of funding for youth services found that “local authority expenditure on youth services has fallen 73% in England and 27% in Wales since 2010-11” which “represents a real-term cut of £1.2bn to youth services between 2010-11 to 2023-24 in England, and £16.6m in Wales.”
At the same time as these cuts, the rate of young people who are NEET (not in education, employment or training) is growing, with 13.2 per cent of 16-24 year olds reported as NEET in 2024, and 15.6 per cent of 18-24 year olds NEET. Both figures have increased compared to previous years, particularly in young men. These young people need support and youth services are increasingly unable to provide it.
Organisations and charities who have been supporting the youth sector are closing at a rapid rate. The National Citizen Service (NCS), a national youth social action programme which has been running since 2009, has been cut by the Labour Government. Student Hubs, the social action charity I worked with which supported students to engage in social and environmental action, has closed. YMCA George Williams College, an organisation which supported the youth sector to improve monitoring, evaluation and impact of their activities closed on 31 March 2025 to the shock of many across the youth sector.
Whilst the Government’s National Youth Strategy announced in November 2024 is welcome, it will not fix years of systematic underfunding of youth sector services.
This comes at a time where there is greater expectation by the government and the regulator for universities to be proactive in supporting students’ and young people’s skills, learning and access to opportunity. In February the Office for Students announced successful providers in their latest funding round to deliver projects which tackle Equality of Opportunity Risk Register areas. The register supports universities to consider barriers in the student life cycle and how they might mitigate against these.
Seeing the range of projects which have been awarded funding, it is clear that universities are being pushed to go further in imagining what their role is in shaping the lives of the students they engage, and it starts significantly earlier than freshers’ week. This funding shows that more emphasis is being put on universities to address barriers to participation by the Office for Students, and with the youth sector in crisis, this may need to become even wider if universities are to fulfil their access missions.
Thankfully, there are actions universities can take now which will make a difference both to young people and widening participation teams.
Tackling the problems together
The youth sector cannot afford to wait. If universities want to be ready to meet the challenges of tomorrow, they need to build strong collaborative relationships with organisations already situated in communities whilst they are still here. Partnership with the youth sector offers an opportunity to enhance university strategic activity whilst making genuine social and economic impact.
Universities could be doing more to provide expertise on monitoring and evaluation of youth activities, enhancing quality of local activities, and conducting research to support future outcomes. There’s an opportunity for universities to learn from these partnerships too, particularly because the youth sector has a range of expertise which is highly applicable to the work the sector is doing in broadening their widening participation and civic strategies. These partnerships will sometimes be informal and sometimes they might be formalised through knowledge exchange programmes like student consultancy.
Students can play a big role in linking universities and youth services. Research conducted by the National Youth Agency in 2024 found “that fewer than seven per cent of respondents to a national survey of youth workers are under 26 years old”. There is a desperate need for youth workers and particularly under-30s to support the sector. Student Hubs’ legacy resources detail the approach we took to supporting students to volunteer in local schools, libraries and community centres to provide free support to young people as part of place-based programmes with universities.
Universities and students’ unions have spaces they are looking to commercialise, whilst also trying to give students jobs on campus. Universities and students’ unions could work collaboratively with community groups to use spaces on campus, provide student work through staffing them, and in turn support young people and families to access campus facilities.
The time is now
One of the hallmarks of a crisis is communities coming together to meet challenges head on, and universities shouldn’t wait to be invited. Trust will need to be built and relationships take time to forge.
The best time to start is now. Universities should mobilise whilst there is still a youth sector left to support, or the void left by the lack of youth services means universities’ involvement in young people’s lives is going to become even larger.
By Peter Ainsworth, a consultant and writer on higher education finance, known for advocating structural reform that aligns university incentives with real-world graduate outcomes.
Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” may sound absurd to British ears, but beneath the “very stable genius’s” promotional gloss lies a legislative change designed to reset the relationship between the US Higher Education sector and the state. The bill, which passed the U.S. House of Representatives on 22 May 2025, includes the Student Success and Taxpayer Savings Act (SSTSA) – which, if passed by the Senate, would be the world’s first statutory implementation of institutional risk-sharing in student loans.
Historically, in both the US and UK, universities have been financially rewarded for their enrollment of students rather than for the practical benefits delivered to their customers. Success arises out of customer acquisition rather than service value-add. Students take out government-backed loans to pay tuition; institutions receive the money upfront regardless of whether or not their degrees lead to economic success. The result is a moral hazard: an incentive (payment) structure for universities that is not aligned with the employability gain that students want and taxpayers need. Systematically falling graduate premiums on both sides of the Atlantic reflect the impact of insulating universities from the employment risk their students face in a rapidly changing economy.
The American reform seeks to realign incentives to better align risks and objectives. It introduces an Earnings-to-Price Ratio (EPR):
EPR = (Median Value-Added Earnings) / (Median Total Price)
Institutions with low EPRs – indicating poor graduate earnings relative to costs – will face a financial penalty in the form of an invoice from the US Treasury to cover the estimated student loan losses for the relevant cohort. If the Senate passes the reform, US universities will have a powerful incentive to transform their offer to ensure meaningful real-world earnings gains for their students.
The SSTSA is an advance on the existing Cohort Default Rate (CDR) system, which merely threatened to deny access to federal loans to students of institutions with very high default rates. But there was no direct financial risk. Congress deemed it ineffective and so now proposes something more market-oriented.
Meanwhile, the UK is two steps behind, only now looking to implement a version of the CDR model which the US is already moving away from. A recent Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) paper proposes regulating universities based on early-career graduate earnings proxies – like the CDR it is recognising the importance of career earnings outcomes but measuring them indirectly and using regulatory sanction rather than financial cost as the stick. The IFS proposes to use earnings in a three- to five-year window post-graduation to drive regulatory response. Like the CDR’s reliance on a technical definition of default, this short, near-term window will create heavily biased statistics, diminishing the value of professions with delayed earnings trajectories such as medicine and academia.
Further, the IFS proposes to exclude from consideration graduates with very low earnings. This favours institutions whose graduates earn just below an arbitrary threshold level. They also rely on UK tax data which omits emigrants, undervaluing universities that succeed in preparing graduates for global careers.
As Friedrich Hayek argued, complex systems cannot be centrally managed through proxies and aggregated metrics. Graduate career trajectories are dynamic, diverse, and unpredictable — precisely the kind of outcomes that defy simple measurement. Accepting that lifetime earnings are the relevant metric leads inevitably to the conclusion that no bureaucratic proxy will suffice.
There is a cleaner alternative. Universities could be required to issue the loans themselves, something that Buckingham, for example, already does on a small scale. Where needed, to support cash flow, the government could lend to institutions rather than students. This would internalise the financial risk: institutions would have a direct, long-term stake in the earnings success of their graduates. Universities could be freed to set fees and loan terms based on the economic value they expect to deliver and would be incentivised to provide ongoing support — career services, retraining, alumni engagement — to minimise loan defaults over the full life of the loan.
Such a model also addresses bigger challenges facing the higher education sector. Edward Peck, the new Chair of the Office for Students, recently argued that AI is making traditional assessment ineffective and universities must move from testing what students know to what they can do. Meanwhile, Diana Beech and André Spicer, writing for HEPI, have highlighted that universities now employ an average of 17.6 staff solely to handle regulatory compliance and warned that regulation is “multiplying and becoming less predictable.” In this context, risk-sharing offers a route back to institutional autonomy: tying funding to real-world success rather than the IFS’s proposal for even more bureaucratic box-ticking.
Finally, political and fiscal realities support this innovation. A shift to institutionally issued loans would remove the student loan portfolio from the government’s balance sheet, reducing annual write-downs by around £15bn per annum – a present value of around £300bn. That would go a long way to address the various fiscal challenges faced by the Labour government. With less bureaucratic interference, more strategic freedom, and appropriate incentives, the sector should be able to make student loans pay, ensuring a sustainable and prosperous future, and letting British universities blow past their American rivals like nobody’s seen before.
Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-Louisiana, spearheading the Senate plan for higher education reform.
Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images
Senate Republicans want to eliminate so-called “inflationary loans,” stop federal aid to degrees that leave students worse off and expand the Pell Grant to workforce training programs as part of a draft plan released late Tuesday evening to overhaul higher education policy.
The 71-page legislation is part of the Senate’s response to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which passed the House last month and is designed to fund President Donald Trump’s tax cuts, his crackdown on immigration and other top agenda items.
The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee drafted the higher education portion of the legislation. As expected, the plan mirrors the House bill in many ways as it calls for significant changes to the federal student loan system. For instance, both plans would end the Grad Plus loans and restrict the Parent Plus program.
But the Senate has a different plan to hold colleges accountable, nixing the House’s proposed risk-sharing model, under which colleges would have to pay a fee for their graduates’ unpaid loans, for a measure like gainful employment. Under the Senate plan, colleges would have to report their average postgraduate income levels and could lose access to federal aid, depending on students’ earnings and debt. The Senate bill also omits a provision from the House bill that would exclude part-time students from the Pell grant. Overall, the changes in the Senate bill would save $300 billion over 10 years compared to the House bill, which would save $350 billion.
“American higher education has lost its purpose. Students are graduating with degrees that won’t get them a job and insurmountable debt that they can’t pay back,” said Sen. Bill Cassidy, the Republican chair of the HELP committee, in a news release. “We need to fix our broken higher education system, so it prioritizes student success and ensures Americans have the skills to compete in a 21st century economy. President Trump and Senate Republicans are focused on delivering results for American families and this bill does just that.”
Lawmakers are using the process known as reconciliation to advance the legislation, so it only needs 51 votes to pass the high chamber instead of the typical 60 votes. But before senators can vote, the Senate Budget committee and then the parliamentarian will have to scrutinize the various provisions and ensure they adhere to the reconciliation rules. For example, the policy changes must have a budgetary impact and be within the jurisdiction of the committee that proposed it.
President Donald Trump has set an ambitious July 4 deadline to sign the measure into law, which would require quick action from the Senate.
From the beginning of the Trump administration in January, House Republicans have been pushing a more radical plan with steep cuts to key welfare programs like Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and, most recently, student financial aid like the Pell Grant. Meanwhile, senators have talked about more modest, though still significant, spending cuts.
Now, Republicans from both chambers will have to get on the same page if they want to meet their deadline. All the while, lobbyists, policy analysts and political figures—including ex-Trump advisor, Elon Musk—are expected to come at the bill from every angle with critiques.
Math anxiety isn’t just about feeling nervous before a math test. It’s been well-known for decades that students who are anxious about math tend to do worse on math tests and in math classes.
But recently, some of us who research math anxiety have started to realize that we may have overlooked a simple yet important reason why students who are anxious about math underperform: They don’t like doing math, and as a result, they don’t do enough of it.
We found that highly math-anxious students went on to perform worse not just in math classes, but also in STEM classes more broadly. This means that math anxiety is not something that only math teachers need to care about — science, technology and engineering educators need to have math anxiety on their radar, too.
We also found that students who were anxious about math tended to avoid taking STEM classes altogether if they could. They would get their math and science general education credits out of the way early on in college and never look at another STEM class again. So not only is math anxiety affecting how well students do when they step into a STEM classroom, it makes it less likely that they’ll step into that classroom in the first place.
This means that math anxiety is causing many students to self-sort out of the STEM career pipeline early, closing off career paths that would likely be fulfilling (and lucrative).
Our study’s third major finding was the most surprising. When it came to predicting how well students would do in STEM classes, math anxiety mattered even more than math ability. Our results showed that if you were a freshman in college and you wanted to do well in your STEM classes, you would likely be better off reducing your math anxiety than improving your math ability.
We wondered: How could that be? How could math anxiety — how you feel about math — matter more for your academic performance than how good you are at it? Our best guess: avoidance.
If something makes you anxious, you tend to avoid doing it if you can. Both in our research and in that of other researchers, there’s been a growing understanding that in addition to its other effects, math anxiety means that you’ll do your very best to engage with math as little as possible in situations where you can’t avoid it entirely.
In some of our other work, we found that math-anxious students were less interested in doing everyday activities precisely to the degree that they thought those activities involved math. The more a math-anxious student thought an activity involved math, the less they wanted to do it.
If math anxiety is causing students to consistently avoid spending time and effort on their classes that involve math, this would explain why their STEM grades suffer.
What does all of this mean for educators? Teachers need to be aware that students who are anxious about math are less likely to engage with math during class, and they’re less likely to put in the effort to study effectively. All of this avoidance means missed opportunities for practice, and that may be the key reason why many math-anxious students struggle not only in math class, but also in science and engineering classes that require some math.
Giving students clear structure on how they should be studying (trying lots of practice problems) and how often they should be studying (spaced out over multiple days, not just the night before a test) was effective at helping students overcome their math anxiety and perform better.
Especially heartening was the fact that the effects seen during the study persisted in semesters beyond the intervention; these students tended to make use of the new skills into the future.
Math anxiety researchers will continue to explore new ways to help math-anxious students fight their math-avoidant proclivities. In the meantime, educators should do what they can to help their students struggling with math anxiety overcome this avoidance tendency — it could be one of the most powerful ways a math teacher can help shape their students’ futures.
The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.
Includes massive expansion in school choice
