This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Dive Brief:
Only four-year institutions would be subject to significantly stepped-up reporting requirements for admissions data disaggregated by race and sex, under a notice issued by the Trump administration on Wednesday.
The plan, first introduced in August, would require affected colleges to submit six years worth of application and admissions data — disaggregated by student race and sex — as part of the next reporting cycle.
The updated terms would exempt two-year colleges and open-enrollment institutions that only award aid based on financial need from having to report this data to the National Center for Education Statistics, which oversees the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System.
Dive Insight:
The U.S. Department of Education currently only requires institutions to submit data disaggregated by race for enrolled students.
But under the Trump administration’s proposal, colleges would have to disaggregate data for applicants, those admitted and enrolled students by race and sex. They would also have to cross-reference the data with each individual’s admissions test scores, GPA, family income, Pell Grant eligibility and parents’ educational level.
Colleges would be required to submit this information for every academic year dating back to 2020-21 for the first IPEDS reporting cycle of the new plan, currently proposed as 2025-26.
The administration intends to use the data points to “indicate whether institutions of higher education are using race-based preferencing in their admissions processes,” according to the Federal Register notice filed by Ross Santy, data officer at the agency’s Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down the use of race-conscious admissions practices in 2023.
The plan would also mandate that colleges submit their graduation rates from 2019-20 to 2024-25.
In its August notice, the Education Department said it expected to focus these additional reporting requirements on four-year institutions with selective admissions processes. It said these colleges “have an elevated risk of noncompliance with the civil rights laws,” both in admissions and scholarships, while it considered community colleges and trade schools at low risk for civil rights noncompliance in admissions since they admit all or virtually all of their applicants.
The department at the time sought public comment on which institutional types should be subject to the new reporting proposal. This week, it made revisions based on that input, according to Santy.
Since the Trump administration first announced the proposal, higher ed groups and colleges have raised concerns about the administrative burden it would put on institutions and the rapid turnaround time necessitated by a 2025-26 start date.
Wednesday’s update would bring relief for two-year institutions and many of those with open enrollment policies. But many of the sector’s concerns went unaddressed, including comments about unclear language in the proposal, issues around student privacy and unease that the Trump administration would construe the data with the intent of attacking colleges further.
Since President Donald Trump began his second term in January, the federal government has alleged that colleges supporting diversity efforts or permitting student protests are in violation of civil rights law and has opened numerous investigations on these grounds.
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
More than three dozen higher education organizations, led by the American Council on Education,are urging the Trump administrationto reconsider its plan to require colleges to submit years of new data on applicants and enrolled students, disaggregated by race and sex.
As proposed, the reporting requirements would begin on Dec. 3., giving colleges just 17 weeks to provide extensive new admissions data, ACE President Ted Mitchell wrote in an Oct. 7 public comment. Mitchell argued that isn’t enough time for most colleges to effectively comply and would lead to significant errors.
ACE’s comment came as part of a chorus of higher education groups and colleges panning the proposal. The plan’s public comment period ended Tuesday, drawing over 3,000 responses.
A survey conducted by ACE and the Association for Institutional Research found that 91% of polled college leaders expressed concern about the proposed timeline,and 84% said they didn’t have the resources and staff necessary to collect and process the data.
Delaying new reporting requirements would leave time for necessary trainings and support services to be created, Mitchell said. The Education Department — which has cut about half its staff under President Donald Trump — should also ensure that its help desk is fully crewed to assist colleges during implementation, Mitchell said.
Unreliable and misleading data?
In August, Trumpissued a memo requiring colleges to annually report significantly more admissions data to the National Center for Education Statistics, which oversees the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System.
The Education Department’s resulting proposal would require colleges to submit six years’ worth of undergraduate and graduate data in the first year of the IPEDS reporting cycle, including information on standardized test scores, parental education level and GPA.
In a Federal Register notice, the Education Department said this information would increase transparency and “help to expose unlawful practices″ at colleges. The initial multi-year data requirement would “establish a baseline of admissions practices” before the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling against race-conscious admissions, it said.
But the department’s proposal and comments have caused unease among colleges, higher ed systems and advocacy groups in the sector.
“While we support better data collection that will help students and families make informed decisions regarding postsecondary education, we fear that the new survey component will instead result in unreliable and misleading data that is intended to be used against institutions of higher education,” Mitchell said in the coalition’s public comment.
The wording of the data collection survey — or lack thereof — also raised some red flags.
Mitchell criticized the Trump administration for introducing the plan without including the text of the proposed questions. Without having the actual survey to examine, “determining whether the Department is using ‘effective and efficient’ statistical survey methodology seems unachievable,” he said.
The Education Department said in the Federal Register notice that the additional reporting requirements will likely apply to four-year colleges with selective admissions processes,contending their admissions and scholarships “have an elevated risk of noncompliance with the civil rights laws.”
During the public comment period, the department specifically sought feedback on which types of colleges should be required to submit the new data.
The strain on institutions ‘cannot be overstated’
Several religious colleges voiced concerns about the feasibility of completing the Education Department’s proposed request without additional manpower.
“Meeting the new requirements would necessitate developing new data extracts, coding structures, validation routines, and quality assurance checks — all while maintaining existing reporting obligations,”Ryon Kaopuiki, vice president for enrollment management at the University of Indianapolis, said in a submitted comment.
The religious college’s Office of Institutional Research has just two staff members, Kaopuiki said. The Education Department would not provide additional funding and did not suggest it would offer technical support.
Vanguard University of Southern California, another religious institution, said in a public comment that the new work would fall on just one staff member.
A majority of the college leaders surveyed by ACE and AIR said it would take their institution between 250 to 499 hours of work to comply with the new reporting requirements.The federal proposal estimated that the changes will create over 740,000 hours of additional work across the higher ed sector.
But the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities said required labor will be much worse.
“The strain this collection will place on institutions cannot be overstated,” NAICU, which signed on to ACE’s letter, said in a separately submitted comment. “The proposal greatly underestimates both the burden and timeframe, particularly for colleges with limited staff, infrastructure, and resources already stretched thin” by other new reporting requirements.
Vanguard and the University of Indianapolis urged the department to delay implementing the new requirements until the 2027–28 collection cycleand to test them via a pilot with volunteer institutions before rolling them out nationally.
The institutions also proposed an exemption for small colleges, though they suggested different enrollment cut-offs — the University of Indianapolis suggested fewer than 750 full-time students, while Vanguard pitched fewer than 3,000.
Other concerns from colleges
The University of Texas System, along with the University of Alabama System and the ACE coalition, raised concerns about student privacy and the feasibility of collecting graduate-level data.
“Graduate admissions are inherently decentralized and vary by program,” Archie Holmes, the Texas system’s executive vice chancellor for academic affairs, wrote in a public comment. “Required data elements such as program-level GPA and test scores are not uniformly collected and may not be directly comparable.”
He recommended that the Education Department focus on undergraduate data until the process has been standardized.
Holmes also flagged that colleges risk inadvertently sharing private student data by disaggregating it so significantly, especially in smaller programs.
The University of Alabama System likewise warned of “significant legal and privacy risks” if the Education Department did not provide “clear federal guidance” on privacy protections.
The presidents of Capella and Strayer universities, two for-profit institutions owned by the same company, asked that the Education Department exclude noncompetitive scholarships from its reporting requirements for colleges that accept all or a “vast majority” of their applicants.
For example, a scholarship “whose only eligibility requirement is student persistence” does not “bear any connection to race” and reporting data on its recipients “would not advance the Department’s goal of detecting or preventing racial discrimination,” they said in a joint comment. But it would add an unnecessary administrative burden for colleges, they said.
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
The U.S. Department of Education is proposing to remove a requirement for states to collect and report on racial disparities in special education, according to a notice being published in the Federal Register on Friday.
The data collection is part of the annual state application under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The application provides assurances that the state and its districts will comply with IDEA rules as a condition for receiving federal IDEA funding.
The data collection for racial overrepresentation or underrepresentation in special education — known as significant disproportionality — helps identify states and districts that have racial disparities among student special education identifications, placements and discipline. About 5% of school districts nationwide were identified with significant disproportionality in the 2020-21 school year, according to federal data.
The Education Department said it wants to remove the data collection because the agency anticipates it will reduce paperwork burdens for the states. According to several state Part B applications filed earlier this year, the significant disproportionality data collection adds more hours in paperwork duties.
For example, Florida’s application said it records an average of 25 additional hours for responses reporting data related to significant disproportionality in any given year, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Alabama’s and Oregon’s applications also cite an additional 25 hours each for the collections.
The department has not said it wants to rescind or pause the significant disproportionality regulation, a rule known as Equity in IDEA, which was last updated in 2016.
However, under the first Trump administration, the rule became a hot button issue when then-U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos said its implementation would be delayed.
The Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, a nonprofit supportive of education rights for students with disabilities, sued the Education Departmentand won, and by April 2019, the rule was back in full effect.
Denise Marshall, CEO of COPAA said in a Thursday email to K-12 Dive that the proposal to remove the Equity in IDEA federal data collection was “yet another unlawful attempt by the Administration to shirk its obligations under the law to students of color.”
Marshall added that the data collection fulfills a critical role in enforcing the significant disproportionality requirement in IDEA. The collection allows states and districts to examine the data, determine if there is racial disproportionality, and develop measures to address the problem. Marshall points out that IDEA does not declare significant disproportionality unlawful. Rather, the law and regulations provide a method for states and districts to address systemic racial disproportionality in special education.
Robyn Linscott, director of education and family policy at The Arc, an organization that advocates for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, said that even if in the future there is no longer a data collection for significant disproportionality at the federal level, the information would still need to be collected by states and districts as required by IDEA.
But the loss of the central repository of information on significant disproportionality in schools will make it more difficult for advocacy groups and technical assistance centers to support school and district efforts to reduce racial disparities in special education.
In the absence of the data being available at the federal level, it will be “much more difficult” for people not within a state education agency to be able to access the data, Linscott said.
Correction: A previous version of this article erred in spelling out the IDEA acronym. It stands for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. We have updated our story.
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
The U.S. Department of Education is proposing to abandon data collection on transgender and nonbinary students, including on whether they are victims of harassment and bullying and whether school districts have policies prohibiting those incidents, according to a Federal Register notice published this month.
The changes come as part of the Civil Rights Data Collection for the 2025-26 and 2027-28 school years, a mandated survey of all public school districts that has been administered for almost six decades. The department noted on its website that the CRDC has “captured data on students’ equal access to educational opportunities to understand and inform schools’ compliance with the civil rights laws enforced by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights.”
The proposed changes to the upcoming collections also struck transgender students from the department’s definition of “rape” and “sexual assault.”
Whereas previous collections defined rape as something that could be done to “all students, regardless of sex, or sexual orientation, or gender identity,” the proposed collection says, “All students, regardless of sex, or sexual orientation can be victims of rape” — explicitly striking “gender identity” from the older definition.
The change “really sends a frankly terrible message to how schools should be responding to allegations of sexual assault and how they should be documenting that and bringing that data forward,” said Brian Dittmeier, director of LGBTQI+ equality at the National Women’s Law Center.
The department, however, maintained in an email to K-12 Dive that “the definition of rape and sexual assault remains virtually unchanged.”
“All students means all students, period,” said an Education Department spokesperson on Thursday.
The department submitted the proposed changes to the Office of Management and Budget for review on Aug. 7 and is accepting comments on the notice until Sept. 8.
The changes are being proposed to comply with the 2020 Title IX rule, which excludes LGBTQ+ students from sex-based discrimination protections. President Donald Trump’s Education Department told districts in January to follow that rule — published during his first term — as opposed to the 2024 rule finalized under the Biden administration, which protected LGBTQ+ students under the sex discrimination civil rights statute.
The Education Department is also proposing a change in its Civil Rights Data Collection to exclude transgender and nonbinary students in light of Trump’s January 2025 executive order “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.” That executive order directed federal agencies to only recognize two sexes, male and female, and said, “These sexes are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality.”
The Education Department has since adopted that stance, and it has attempted to include the definitions “male” and “female” in state policies through its resolution agreements and to exclude transgender students from teams and facilities aligning with their gender identities.
The decision to now strike those students from the CRDC means the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights — under the current administration and future ones — would have less data on how transgender and nonbinary students fared in the 2025-26 and 2027-28 school years.
“OCR uses CRDC data as OCR investigates complaints alleging discrimination to determine whether the federal civil rights laws it enforces have been violated, initiates proactive compliance reviews to identify particularly acute or nationwide civil rights compliance problems, and provides policy guidance and technical assistance to educational institutions, parents/guardians, students, and others,” a July 22 statement from the U.S. Department of Education to the Office of Budget and Management said. Other federal agencies, researchers and policymakers also use CRDC data, the department said.
Transgender and students questioning their gender identity showed higher rates of bullying and poor mental health, as well as the lowest rates of school connectedness, when compared to their cisgender peers, according to the first nationally representative survey data on transgender students released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention last year.
An overwhelming majority of LGBTQ+ students also said in 2024 that anti-LGBTQ+ policies had impacted their mental health, according to an annual survey released by The Trevor Project, a nonprofit that provides crisis support services for LGTBQ+ people.
“We’ll have less data to contextualize the problem and provide a clear picture to schools of what the experience of transgender and gender-nonconforming students is in school currently,” Dittmeier said. “And that will unfortunately make it more difficult to implement interventions that are needed to ensure a safe school environment for all.”
IPEDS is the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. It is a system of interrelated surveys conducted annually by the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). IPEDS gathers information from every college, university, and technical and vocational institution that participates in the federal student financial aid programs. The Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, requires that institutions that participate in federal student aid programs report data on enrollments, program completions, graduation rates, faculty and staff, finances, institutional prices, and student financial aid. These data are made available to students and parents through the College Navigator college search Web site and to researchers and others through the IPEDS Data Center. To learn more about IPEDS Survey components, visit https://nces.ed.gov/Ipeds/use-the-data/survey-components.
How is IPEDS Used?
IPEDS provides basic data needed to describe — and analyze trends in — postsecondary education in the United States, in terms of the numbers of students enrolled, staff employed, dollars expended, and degrees earned. Congress, federal agencies, state governments, education providers, professional associations, private businesses, media, students and parents, and others rely on IPEDS data for this basic information on postsecondary institutions.
IPEDS forms the institutional sampling frame for other NCES postsecondary surveys, such as the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study.
Which Institutions Report to IPEDS?
The completion of all IPEDS surveys is mandatory for institutions that participate in or are applicants for participation in any federal student financial aid program (such as Pell grants and federal student loans) authorized by Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (20 USC 1094, Section 487(a)(17) and 34 CFR 668.14(b)(19)).
Institutions that complete IPEDS surveys each year include research universities, state colleges and universities, private religious and liberal arts colleges, for-profit institutions, community and technical colleges, non-degree-granting institutions such as beauty colleges, and others.
To find out if a particular institution reports to IPEDS, go to College Navigator and search by the institution name.
What Data are Collected in IPEDS?
IPEDS collects data on postsecondary education in the United States in eight areas: institutional characteristics; institutional prices; admissions; enrollment; student financial aid; degrees and certificates conferred; student persistence and success; and institutional resources including human, resources, finance, and academic libraries.
Department of Education[Docket No.: ED-2025-SCC-0002]
AGENCY:
Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).
ACTION:
Notice.
SUMMARY:
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Department is proposing a revision of a currently approved information collection request (ICR).
DATES:
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 18, 2025.
ADDRESSES:
Written comments and recommendations for proposed information collection requests should be submitted within 30 days of publication of this notice. Click on this link www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain to access the site. Find this information collection request (ICR) by selecting “Department of Education” under “Currently Under Review,” then check the “Only Show ICR for Public Comment” checkbox. Reginfo.gov provides two links to view documents related to this information collection request. Information collection forms and instructions may be found by clicking on the “View Information Collection (IC) List” link. Supporting statements and other supporting documentation may be found by clicking on the “View Supporting Statement and Other Documents” link.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Carolyn Rose, 202-453-5967.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Department is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Title of Collection: Borrower Defense to Loan Repayment Universal Forms.
OMB Control Number: 1845-0163.
Type of Review: A revision of a currently approved ICR.
Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals and Households.
Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 83,750.
Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 217,750.
Abstract: On April 4, 2024 the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Fifth Circuit granted a preliminary injunction against 34 CFR 685.400 et seq. (“2023 Regulation”) enjoining the rule and postponing the effective date of the regular pending final judgment in the case. The current Borrower Defense to Repayment application and related Request for Reconsideration are drafted to conform to the enjoined provisions of the 2023 Regulation. This request is to revise the currently approved information collection 1845-0163 to comply with the regulatory requirements of the borrower defense regulations that are still in effect, 34 CFR 685.206(e) (“2020 Regulation”), 34 CFR 685.222 (“2016 Regulation”), and 34 CFR 685.206(c) (“1995 Regulation”) (together, the “current regulations”). These regulatory requirements are distinct from the 2023 Regulation’s provisions. The revision is part of contingency planning in case the 2023 Regulation is permanently struck down. The Department of Education (“the Department”) is attaching an updated Borrower Defense Application and application for Request for Reconsideration. The forms will be available in paper and electronic forms on studentaid.gov and will provide borrowers with an easily accessible and clear method to provide the information necessary for the Department to review and process claim applications. Also, under the current regulations, the Department will no longer require a group application nor group reconsideration application.
Dated: May 13, 2025.
Brian Fu,
Program and Management Analyst, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development.
Borrowers in default could see their tax refunds or other federal benefits withheld once collections resume.
J. David Ake/Getty Images
The Education Department will resume collecting on defaulted student loans early next month, restarting a system that’s been on hold since spring 2020, the agency announced Monday.
Starting May 5, the department will withhold tax refunds or benefits such as Social Security from borrowers who are in default. Later this summer, the department will begin garnishing the wages of defaulted borrowers, a move consumer protection advocates have criticized as out of control.
About 38 percent of the nearly 43 million student loan borrowers are current on their payments, and a record number of borrowers are at risk of or in delinquency and default, the department said Monday. Borrowers default when they miss at least 270 days of payments.
When the Biden administration restarted student loan payments in September 2023, it offered a one-year grace period for borrowers during which those who didn’t make payments were spared the worst financial consequences, including default.
Research into borrowers who default and other data shows they typically fall behind on their payments because other loans take a higher priority or they can’t afford their payments, among other reasons. And borrowers in default usually don’t have the ability to repay their loans. A survey from the Pew Charitable Trusts found that unemployed borrowers were twice as likely to default compared to those who worked full-time. Additionally, borrowers who didn’t complete the education they took out loans to pay for are more likely to default than completers.
“The folks who fall behind on their payments are those who are least well served by the higher education and repayment systems,” said Sarah Sattelmeyer, project director for education, opportunity and mobility in the higher education initiative at New America, a left-leaning think tank. “A lot of those folks did not receive a return on their higher education investment … These aren’t people who overwhelmingly do not want to pay their loans.”
About 5.3 million borrowers have defaulted on their loans, and many have been in default for more than seven years, according to the department. Another four million borrowers are in “late-stage delinquency,” or 91 to 180 days behind on their payments. The department expects about 10 million or nearly one-quarter of borrowers to default by the fall.
“We think that the federal student loan portfolio is headed toward a fiscal cliff if we don’t start repayment and collections,” a senior department official said on a press call Monday. “American taxpayers can no longer serve as collateral for student loans.”
The official didn’t take questions, and a department spokesperson referred reporters to Education Secretary Linda McMahon’s recent op-ed in The Wall Street Journal. She’s also slated to appear on CNBC and Fox Business to discuss the restart in collections.
In her public statements Monday, McMahon blamed the Biden administration and colleges for the current situation.
“Colleges and universities call themselves nonprofits, but for years they have profited massively off the federal subsidy of loans, hiking tuition and piling up multibillion-dollar endowments while students graduate six figures in the red,” she wrote in the Journal.
Beyond the immediate restart, the senior department official said the department is planning to work with Congress to fix the system so that students can afford their loan payments and to lower the cost of college.
Former Biden administration officials, borrowers and debt-relief advocates havesaid that efforts to forgive student loans were a way to address systemic failures in the student loan system and to help vulnerable borrowers who were likely to never repay their loans.
The department is planning a “robust communication strategy,” the senior official said, to spread the word to borrowers and share information about their options, such as enrolling in an income-driven repayment plan or loan rehabilitation.
Currently, about 1.8 million borrowers have pending applications for an IDR plan, but the department intends to clear that backlog over the next few weeks, the official said. The department also is planning to email borrowers individually about their options. The outreach plan also includes extending the loan servicers’ call center hours on weekends and weeknights.
Sattelmeyer, who worked in the Office of Federal Student Aid during the Biden administration, said it will be important to ensure borrowers have access to information and the tools such as IDR plans to either get out of or avoid default and then stay on track. She questioned whether the department has enough staff to restart collections effectively, given the recent mass layoffs at the agency.
“The issue is that the system is in disarray right now and there have not been a consistent set of options available for borrowers at the same time that we’re turning back on collections,” she said. “At the end of the day, I think the most important thing is that it does not feel like we have the resources and the staffing in place to make this go smoothly and to ensure that borrowers have support and access to resources and tools.”
Native American student enrollment has been on the decline for the past decade, dropping 40 percent between 2010 and 2021, a loss of tens of thousands of students. Of the 15.4 million undergraduate students enrolled in fall 2021, only 107,000 were American Indian or Alaska Native, according to the National Center for Education Statistics.
Researchers argue that the small population is not as small as it seems, however, due in part to federal practices of collecting data on Native populations, according to a new report from the Brookings Institute, the Institute for Higher Education Policy and the Urban Institute.
Federal measures of race and ethnicity in postsecondary education data undercount the total population of Native American students, in part due to insufficient sampling, lack of data on tribal affiliation and aggregation practices that erase Native identities, researchers wrote.
“For too long, Native American students have been severely undercounted in federal higher education data, with estimates suggesting that up to 80 percent are classified as a different race or ethnicity,” Kim Dancy, director of research and policy at IHEP, told Inside Higher Ed. “This chronic data collection failure renders Native students invisible in federal data systems and prevents clear assessments of the resources necessary to support student success.”
In May 2024, the federal government announced new standards for collecting data on American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) populations, which would improve the inclusivity and accuracy of data for students from these groups.
The Obama administration introduced similar changes in 2016, but they were never implemented under the first Trump administration in 2017. Researchers worry a similar pattern may follow under the second Trump administration.
“The second Trump Administration has demonstrated reluctance to prioritize data transparency, which could further jeopardize these efforts and stall progress,” Dancy said. “Without strong implementation of these standards, Native students will continue to be overlooked in federal policy decisions.”
“It is critical that the Trump administration allow the revised SPD 15 standards to remain in effect, and for officials at ED and elsewhere throughout government to implement the standards in a way that provides Native American students and communities with the same high-quality data that all Americans should be able to access,” report authors wrote.
Data Analysis at Risk
The Education Department has canceled dozens of contracts in recent weeks, tied to the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency. Many of these contracts related to student data analysis in both K-12 and postsecondary education.
State of play: Degree attainment for Native Americans is bleak, according to data presently available. Twenty-six percent of Native American adults in the U.S. hold an associate degree or higher, and only 16 percent hold a bachelor’s degree or higher, according to 2024 data from the U.S. Census Bureau. In comparison, bachelor’s degree attainment by all other races is higher: 20 percent for Latino, 25 percent for Black, 38 percent for multiracial, 40 percent for white and 61 percent for Asian American students.
Of the 58 percent of American Indian/Alaska Native students who enrolled in higher education beginning in 2009, over half (55 percent) didn’t earn a credential. In 2023, the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center reported six-year completion rates had fallen two percentage points among Native Americans, to 47.5 percent—21 percentage points lower than their white peers and 27 percentage points lower than Asian students in the 2016 cohort.
Data collection is not the only barrier to Native student representation and completion in higher education, researchers wrote, “but until data on Native American students are more accurate, accessible, and meaningful, it will prove difficult to address these issues,” which include affordability, disparities in access and retention, and a lack of culturally informed wraparound services.
Digging into data: Data collection at the U.S. Department of Education has several problems that disadvantage Native students more than other groups, according to the report. Native student data is often “topcoded” as Hispanic or Latino, essentially erasing Native student identities, filed under “more than one race” without further detail, or coded without tribal affiliation or citizenship.
While topcoding students as Latino or Hispanic or categorizing learners as more than one race applies to all racial categories, Native American individuals are categorized this way at a higher rate than any other major group, which diminishes their representation.
Additionally, ED independently makes decisions to not disaggregate or provide detailed data on racial and ethnic subgroups, such as topcoding Latino or Hispanic students, that is not modeled at other federal agencies, such as the Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The last time the Office of Management and Budget revised data-reporting processes for colleges and universities, which allowed individuals to identify as more than one racial group, final implementation took place in the 2010–11 academic year.
In the decade and a half since, Native American student enrollment has declined, and researchers say, “The limitations of ED’s student data made it challenging to discern whether this decline represented an actual change in enrollment trends or was due to the new reporting practices’ undercounting of Native college students.”
A lack of data impacts institutions, tribes and others tracking student outcomes, reducing opportunities to support learners, and the challenges may perpetuate continued misperceptions of Native students’ journeys through higher education.
New policies: In 2024, OMB created new federal standards around collecting data on race and ethnicity that would enhance data collection when it comes to Native populations. Federal agencies are required to create plans for implementation by September 2025 and be in full compliance by March 2029, leaving the Trump administration responsible for implementation of the revised standards.
OMB outlined three approaches for agencies on how they might consider presentation of aggregated data on multiracial populations:
Alone or in combination, which includes students who identify with more than one racial or ethnic group in all reporting categories.
Most frequent multiple responses, reporting on as many combinations of race and ethnicity as possible that meet population thresholds.
Combined multiracial or multiethnic respondents into a single category.
This third option would be most harmful to Native students, because it would perpetuate undercounts, researchers caution, and therefore policymakers should avoid it.
Moving forward, report authors recommend ED and Congress collect and publish disaggregated data on Native American students, partner with tribal governments to increase data transparency and provide guidance and resources to institutions to improve their quality of data.
“We encourage the Education Department to continue seeking input from Native communities, including voices that have been historically excluded from policy-development efforts,” Dancy said. “Accurate data alone won’t eliminate the structural inequities Native students face. But without the data, we cannot begin to dismantle the inequities.”
Get more content like this directly to your inbox every weekday morning. Subscribe here.
