Despite frequent media reports about the high cost of college, many students pay much less than the eye-catching sticker price. Students enrolled at four-year institutions living away from their parents face the highest sticker prices. But only around a quarter or fewer of those enrolled at public institutions (for state residents) or private nonprofit four-year institutions pay that sticker price. The remainder receive financial aid. Even most high-income students receive merit-based aid. How are they supposed to know how much they will have to pay?
Here is how colleges and universities could help. They can provide students with tools that lead them through a financial aid “information funnel.” Provide limited financial details (just family income?) and get an instant ballpark estimate at the top of the funnel. Provide a few more details, get a better, but still ballpark estimate. Keep going until you get an actual price. Extreme simplicity at the beginning of the process facilitates entry; the funnel should have a wide mouth. If the result is below sticker price, it can promote further investigation. Along the way, positive reinforcement through favorable results (if they occur) supports students continuing through the funnel.
Courtesy of Phillip Levine
This approach represents a significant advance over past practices, as I detail in a report newly released by the Aspen Economic Strategy Group (AESG). Historically, colleges provided no preliminary estimates. Students filed their financial aid forms (FAFSA and perhaps CSS Profile), applied to a college, and received their admissions decision and financial aid offer (if admitted) at the same time. Who knows how many students didn’t bother to apply because they believed they couldn’t afford it?
This began to change in 2008. The Higher Education Act was amended at that time to require institutions to provide “net price calculators” by 2011 that were intended to provide early cost estimates. Unfortunately, the well-intended policy hasn’t been very effective because these tools often are not user-friendly. They may represent a useful step higher up the funnel relative to the ultimate financial aid offer, but they remain toward its bottom.
Other steps have been taken along the way attempting to provide greater pricing information to prospective students. The government launched new webpages (the College Navigator and the College Scorecard), which provide college-specific details regarding the average “net price” (the amount students pay after factoring in financial aid). But the average net price mainly helps students with average finances determine their net price. Besides, using the median rather than the average would lessen the impact of outliers. It’s a much better statistic to capture the amount a typical student would pay in this context. Additional data on net prices within certain income bands are also available, but they still suffer from the biases introduced by using the average net price as well. What students really want and need is an accurate estimate of what college will cost them.
The most recent advance in college price transparency is the creation of the College Cost Transparency Initiative. This effort represents the response of hundreds of participating institutions to a Government Accountability Office report detailing the inconsistency and lack of clarity in financial aid offer letters. To participate, institutions agreed to certain principles and standards in the offer letters they transmit. It is an improvement relative to past practice, but it also is a bottom-of-the-funnel improvement. It does not provide greater price transparency to prospective students prior to submitting an application.
Institutions have also engaged in other marketing activities designed to facilitate communication of affordability messaging. Some institutions have begun to provide offers of free tuition to students with incomes below some threshold. The success of the Hail Scholarship (now repackaged as the Go Blue Guarantee) at the University of Michigan supports such an approach. Many of these offers, though, do not cover living expenses, which is a particular problem for students living away from their parents. In those instances, such offers may be more misleading than illuminating.
In 2017, I founded MyinTuition Corp. as a nonprofit entity designed to provide pricing information higher up in the financial aid information funnel. Its original tool, now used by dozens of mainly highly endowed private institutions, requires users to provide basic financial inputs and receive a ballpark price estimate. More recently, MyinTuition introduced an instant net price estimator, which is currently operational at Washington University in St. Louis, based solely on family income. Given the limited financial details provided, those estimates include some imprecision; the tool also provides a range of estimates within which the actual price is likely to fall. These tools are an easy entry point into the process, which is what the top of the funnel is designed to accomplish. More such efforts are necessary.
If we could do a better job communicating the availability of financial aid, it would also contribute to better-informed public discussions about college pricing and access. One recent survey found that only 19 percent of adults correctly recognized that lower-income students pay less to attend college than higher-income students. It is a legitimate question to ask whether the price those students pay is low enough. But we cannot even start the discussion with such limited public understanding of how much students across the income distribution pay now. Any step that colleges and universities can take to facilitate that understanding would be helpful. Improving the transparency in their own pricing certainly would be an important step they can take.
Phillip Levine is the Katharine Coman and A. Barton Hepburn Professor of Economics at Wellesley College and the founder and CEO of MyinTuition Corp.
Before starting at his Harlem high school, Jeurry always assumed he was progressing appropriately in school, despite having significant learning challenges.
However, in his freshman year, he began to notice himself struggling to read longer words and more complex sentences.
As he grew increasingly overwhelmed, it became clear that the small classes exclusively for students with disabilities that he had been in since kindergarten had not adequately prepared him for high school.
Still, Jeurry managed to pass nearly all his classes. His final meeting with his Committee on Special Education — which consisted of Jeurry’s mom and several faculty members — took place in December 2016. By then, the senior had earned 45 credits — 44 were required to graduate — and a C+ average, records show.
But Jeurry was devastated to learn that he would not earn a diploma.
The reason was based on a decision the committee made when Jeurry was in sixth grade and, according to records, never revisited while he was in high school. At that time, the educators concluded that Jeurry could not learn grade-level curriculum. They decided he would be “alternately assessed,” or evaluated based on lower achievement standards. New York State students who take alternate assessments through high school cannot earn a diploma, a prerequisite for military service, many jobs, and most degree- or certificate-granting college and trade school programs.
Heartbroken, he begged the faculty to find a solution during the 2016 meeting. “They didn’t even care,” Jeurry said. “They just wanted me to ‘graduate’ and get out.”
Jeurry, who is now 26 and was diagnosed with a mild intellectual disability after graduating high school, requested that his last name be withheld over concerns about the stigma surrounding intellectual disabilities.
Special education advocates say the systemic failures that led to Jeurry’s situation eight years ago continue to jeopardize the futures of similar students. Last school year, 6,116 New York City students took the New York State Alternate Assessment, according to state data. Federal law requires that states offer such assessments for students with disabilities who are incapable of taking state tests. Importantly, it also states that only “students with the most significant cognitive disabilities” can take the alternate assessment, and that schools must fully inform parents of the potential ramifications. (State education departments are responsible for ensuring compliance with these mandates.)
Too often, however, those standards are neither maintained nor enforced, special education advocates, teachers, and families told Chalkbeat. Instead, factors like under-resourcing, nebulous procedures, and a failure to equip parents to make fully informed decisions have led schools to place some students without significant cognitive disabilities on a non-grade-level, non-diploma track. Students who take alternate assessments are typically placed in non-inclusive, low-rigor settings, which can deprive them of academic and socialization opportunities.
At the December 2016 meeting, the members of Jeurry’s special education committee said their hands were tied. According to documentation from the meeting, Jeurry’s mother said “she was not made aware of the long-term effects of alternate assessment when it was first initiated or during any supplemental [meetings].”
“They would always tell my mom, ‘His diploma is going to be real,’” Jeurry said. “She kept believing them.”
Throughout his time as a K-12 student in Harlem, Jeurry received inadequate academic support and struggled to advance past a first- or second-grade reading level.
In response to requests to interview state special education leadership, a New York State Education Department spokesperson said in an email: “NYSED is committed to working with schools and parents to determine the appropriate participation of students with disabilities in [the alternate assessment] and to fully understand the impact it has on these students.”
Since New York’s alternate assessment is used to meet federal special education law requirements, the spokesperson said, “there are very strict criteria for its development, administration, and applicability to students.”
Christina Foti, the city Education Department’s deputy chancellor for inclusive and accessible learning, acknowledged that there is room for more robust safeguards, and she said the Education Department recently recommended that the state consider several alternate assessment-related policy changes. They include clarifying definitions and participation criteria, requiring the use of a decision-making flowchart and checklist, and mandating that special education committees “conduct a complete and up-to-date battery of psychoeducational assessments” before making assessment decisions.
The Education Department is also pursuing local-level reforms, but officials are still in the early stages of developing a “definitive language and shift in practice [and] policy,” Foti said.
Inequitable outcomes for students on non-diploma track
In New York, special education committees determine annually how students will be assessed, usually starting around third grade. Although the state has established participation criteria for the alternate assessment, deciding whether students meet those criteria can be a relatively subjective process.
Data obtained through a public records request show that students placed on the non-diploma track are disproportionately Black or English language learners. Last school year, 29% of New York City students who took the alternate assessment were Black, while Black children represented only 20% of all students and 26% of those with disabilities. More than 29% of students who were alternatively assessed were English learners, while such students accounted for just 19% of the school system’s overall population and 14% of students with disabilities.
There have been some signs of progress toward ensuring that only students with the most significant cognitive disabilities are placed on the non-diploma track. Participation is declining in New York City and statewide, and racial disproportionalities among alternatively assessed students decreased between the 2022-23 and 2023-24 school years, according to the data.
The New York City Education Department has worked to minimize subjectivity in assessment decisions “over the past five or six years,” said Arwina Vallejo, the department’s executive director of school-based evaluations and family engagement.
To more holistically determine students’ aptitude for grade-level learning and test participation, schools now administer “specialized assessments in reading, in writing, in math, in executive functions, in neurological abilities,” Vallejo said.
The Education Department also trains school psychologists in “culturally responsive, non-discriminatory assessment practices” to mitigate the impact of bias, she said.
But special education advocates and families say more must be done. School officials sometimes change the graduation track of children with mild intellectual disabilities or disruptive behaviors when they don’t have the will or means to try other options, said Juliet Eisenstein, a special education attorney and former assistant director of the Postsecondary Readiness Project at Advocates for Children of New York.
“It’s just a box that’s checked and not really talked about, because it’s an easier solution than figuring out a program that fits this more complex student profile,” she said.
Resources that could help such students — like one-on-one tutors or specialized placements — are often limited or nonexistent. This is especially true in New York City, where around 300,000 students qualify for special education services, and government audits have found that the Education Department regularly fails to meet its obligations to them. An estimated 2,300 special-education staff vacancies exist citywide.
Trevlon, 18, has been both alternatively and regularly assessed. He has a history of behavioral problems, an attention deficit hyperactivity disorder diagnosis, and an intellectual disability classification from the Education Department. Trevlon struggled to keep up academically in elementary school and attended a middle school in District 75, a citywide district that caters to students with significant disabilities. There, he received intensive academic and behavioral support and made major strides, but he was not on a diploma track.
Trevlon, who requested that his last name be withheld because a complaint he filed against the Education Department has yet to be resolved, said he was unhappy in the highly restrictive environment. He committed himself to proving that he could be successful at a community high school. By the time Trevlon graduated middle school as valedictorian of his eighth grade class, his special education committee had agreed that he could transition back to the diploma track and into a community school.
However, Trevlon was placed in a school that did not offer the learning environment the Education Department had determined most appropriate for him: a self-contained special education classroom for 15 students. Instead, he attended large classes that integrated students with disabilities and their general education peers. He said he struggled to focus and keep up. As he fell behind academically, he became increasingly frustrated and started acting out.
After his tumultuous freshman year, Trevlon was moved back onto a non-diploma track in a District 75 school, where he felt out of place and insufficiently challenged. He begged for a different placement that might offer a path back to community school — or a diploma, at least — but nothing changed, he said.
Knowing he would never have a “real” high school experience, Trevlon grew disillusioned, started attending school infrequently, and finally dropped out last year.
“It’s not just, ‘Oh, I stopped going to school because I don’t like school,’” Trevlon said. “I feel like the system gave up on me to a certain extent, as a Black male. … All I ever really wanted to do was to work and sit down and be like everybody else.”
Parents often unaware of children’s placement on non-diploma track
Schools are legally mandated to inform a student’s parents abou
When Jeurry was in middle school, the faculty members of his Committee on Special Education pointed to his lack of academic progress and recommended that he be “alternately assessed.” Although his mother agreed to the change, she did not realize that the decision would take away her son’s opportunity to earn a high school diploma. (Sarah Komar for Chalkbeat)
t the long-term ramifications of the alternate track. However, special education advocates said they regularly work with parents who had no idea their children were on a non-diploma path — often until it was too late.
“Many parents do not even know to ask questions about alternate assessment, because they’re never informed,” said Young Seh Bae, executive director of the Queens-based Community Inclusion and Development Alliance and a parent of a student with disabilities. It’s only when graduation approaches that many parents say, “‘Oh, I didn’t realize my child wouldn’t receive a high school diploma … The school didn’t explain my child never will be able to go to college or get a license for certain things.’”
In New York, diploma-track students must pass a certain number of Regents exams, making it one of eight states that require high school seniors to pass standardized tests to earn a diploma. (New York State is planning to phase out Regents as a graduation requirement in fall 2027.)
Because Jeurry was on a non-diploma track and never took his Regents, he could only earn a Skills and Achievement Commencement Credential, which cannot be used to apply for college, trade school, the military, or many jobs.
Jeurry was reading and doing math on a first-grade level by the start of middle school and on second- to third-grade levels by the end of high school, records show. Over the years, the Education Department classified him with several different kinds of disabilities, including a learning disability at one point and an intellectual disability at another. While he was a student, he was not evaluated by an outside provider, which some families pay for if they think their children have been improperly classified by district professionals. Faculty members repeatedly told Jeurry’s mother he was incapable of progressing academically, his academic records show, and they eventually used his lack of progress to justify placing him on the non-diploma track.
From kindergarten through eighth grade, he remained in self-contained classes, receiving only speech language therapy as a supplementary service. In high school, Jeurry moved from a self-contained setting into integrated classrooms, which benefited him socially but only further highlighted how far his academics lagged behind his peers.
At no point did Jeurry’s special education committee suggest additional services or more intensive support, records show. Federal law mandates more intensive intervention if a special education student is not making progress toward his goals.
Kim Swanson, the principal of Jeurry’s high school who overlapped with him during his last year there, declined to comment on Jeurry’s situation. She said her school “always follows state guidance.”
The school’s special education committees have always informed parents of the ramifications of alternate assessment, but the school has implemented additional safeguards during Swanson’s 11-year tenure as principal, she said. These include sending home a form letter that was developed by the state with input from the city Education Department (a requirement of all New York schools since 2019), and ensuring that faculty members discuss students’ progress toward their goals before special education committee meetings.
Vallejo, who oversees school-based evaluations, said the Education Department worked with the state to develop the form letter because “there was a point where little information was available to students and families regarding alternate assessment and the impact of that designation.” Education Department faculty are committed to fully involving students’ parents in assessment decisions and revisiting them annually, Vallejo said.
Special education advocates have lobbied the state for specific alternate assessment reforms for years, with little success — including a 2022 push for policy changes that could have helped demystify the assessment decision-making process.
In August 2024, for the first time in at least five years, the state proposed policy tweaks of its own, including seeking feedback from special education advocates and families on how to clarify the existing eligibility criteria for alternate assessment and update existing decision-making tools and training materials.
In the future, Jeurry hopes to earn a four-year degree and go into marketing before someday opening his own restaurant.
After legal battle, NYC pays for more than 1,300 hours of services
Knowing that he wouldn’t receive a diploma, Jeurry skipped his June 2017 graduation.
He then languished in a city-funded GED program for more than a year. In fall 2018, on the recommendation of a teacher, Jeurry contacted Advocates for Children. Within months, a pro-bono legal team arranged by the organization filed an action against the city school system, accusing it of denying Jeurry a free, appropriate public education as required by law.
While the legal process unfolded, Jeurry’s advocates helped him apply for his diploma through a “superintendent determination,” a safety net for students with disabilities who are unable to earn the Regents scores needed for graduation but meet all other requirements. In June 2019, he received his high school diploma.
As part of the 10-month legal process, a neuropsychologist evaluated Jeurry and diagnosed him with a mild intellectual disability, concluding that he could have benefited from more rigorous support, such as one-on-one literacy tutoring.
The city ultimately agreed to compensate Jeurry for what he missed during his 14 years of school by paying for 1,308 hours of academic tutoring, life skills training, and transition services. For more than a year, he attended all-day tutoring sessions that started with phonics and built upward.
“At first, I was like, ‘It’s not helping,’” Jeurry said. But then, little by little, I started noticing my reading level going up … and I was like, ‘Oh, it is working!’”
Although it has required him to work through significant education-related trauma, Jeurry now attends community college online while working full time. He’s considering transferring to a four-year institution after he earns his associate degree in business administration.
“I didn’t want to go back, but I had to do it, you know?” Jeurry said. “I needed to get a better education.”
Sarah Komar is a New York City-based journalist. She reported this story while at the Toni Stabile Center for Investigative Journalism at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism.
Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools.
OKLAHOMA CITY — As state officials anticipate a smaller budget in the next fiscal year, lawmakers on Tuesday appeared doubtful of requests to spend millions on Bibles for public schools and salary increases at the Oklahoma State Department of Education.
The agency’s leader, state Superintendent Ryan Walters, again asked for $3 million to purchase copies of the Bible, the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution to place in every public school classroom. He also requested $2.3 million for a 6% cost-of-living salary bump for Education Department employees, who last saw a pay raise in 2019.
Although his total budget request would increase the agency’s funding by $113 million, Walters hinted at “potential staff cuts” to limit the Education Department’s operational expenses during a meeting Tuesday with the Senate Appropriations Committee.
“I do believe we can save $1.3 million in some of the costs that we’ve been able to absorb through rolling positions together, cutting positions that are duplicated in their services,” Walters said during the meeting.
Members of the influential appropriations committee heard Walters’ budget requests for the 2026 fiscal year. The state is required to pay some of the projected expenses, such as an extra $88.6 million for the rising cost of health insurance for public school employees.
Another $4 million would increase the teacher maternity leave fund, which Walters said is growing in popularity. He also asked for $500,000 to offer firearms training to teachers.
Senators of both parties questioned Walters’ request for $3 million to buy 55,000 copies of the King James Version Bible, which they suggested could be donated to schools or found for free online.
The state superintendent has advocated for more instruction on the Bible to help contextualize American history and the beliefs of the country’s founding fathers. He said he doesn’t intend for schools to preach Christianity to students.
Last year, he ordered all school districts in the state to incorporate the Bible into their lesson plans and proposed new academic standards for social studies that would mandate instruction on biblical stories. His agency already spent under $25,000 on 532 copies of Lee Greenwood’s God Bless the USA Bible, which is informally known as the Trump Bible because it has the president’s endorsement.
Walters’ Bible instruction mandate already faces a legal challenge on church-state separation grounds.
Sen. Brenda Stanley, R-Midwest City, said she never encountered a classroom that didn’t have a Bible available to students during her 43-year career in education.
Sen. Dave Rader, R-Tulsa, encouraged Walters to exhaust all resources for Bible donations before having the Legislature consider spending $3 million.
“We could take the $3 million elsewhere, if somebody is willing to make those available to us at no cost,” Rader said during the hearing.
The Senate committee also appeared dubious of funding a COLA increase for an agency that has lost dozens of employees over the past two years. Walters told the committee the Education Department employed 520 people when he took office in January 2023 and that it now counts 460 employees.
“If you have decreased your (full-time employees), it would appear to me that there are already dollars inside your operating budget to offer salary increases,” Sen. Kristen Thompson, R-Edmond, told Walters during the hearing.
Walters disagreed that staff departures would be enough to fund the increase. A complicating factor is the large number of federally funded salaries at the agency, he said.
The projection is preliminary, and the Board of Equalization will meet again this month for updated numbers.
“After the last Board of Equalization meeting, we really went in and tried to do a deep dive into can we continue to see cuts, and we believe that we do need to be able to do that,” Walters said.
Legislative leaders are preparing to limit expenses in light of the budget projections, especially as Gov. Kevin Stitt pushes for further tax cuts, flat agency budgets and “eliminating wasteful government spending.”
House Speaker Kyle Hilbert, R-Bristow, said Monday that he shares many of the governor’s priorities “as we seek to tighten our belt fiscally this year.” Senate President Pro Tem Lonnie Paxton, R-Tuttle, echoed Stitt’s tax-cut message when he endorsed “improving the lives of Oklahomans by allowing them to keep more of their hard-earned money.”
Oklahoma Voice is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Oklahoma Voice maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Janelle Stecklein for questions: [email protected].
In a move that sparked swift outrage from the higher education sector, the National Institutes of Health announced late Friday that it is dramatically cutting funding for grant recipients’ “indirect costs” of conducting medical research at universities, including hazardous waste disposal, utilities and patient safety.
“It is difficult to overstate what a catastrophe this will be for the US research and education systems, (particularly) in biomedical fields,” Carl Bergstrom, a biology professor at the University of Washington, posted on Bluesky. “It is deliberate and wanton devastation entirely out of scale with any concern about DEI activities on campuses. The goal is destroy US universities.”
Effective Monday, the NIH is planning to cap funding of indirect costs at 15 percent of all grants, down from the average of 27 to 28 percent. The change means that colleges and universities are on the hook for millions of dollars. They’ll likely have to cut their budgets or reduce research activities to make up the difference.
Republicans and President Trump have long sought to limit funding for indirect costs. The latest proposal is similar to a recommendation included in Project 2025, a conservative playbook for the second Trump administration that the president has disavowed. Project 2025 authors said the cap would “reduce federal taxpayer subsidization of leftist agendas.”
Last year, $9B of the $35B that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) granted for research was used for administrative overhead, what is known as “indirect costs.” Today, NIH lowered the maximum indirect cost rate research institutions can charge the government to 15%, above… pic.twitter.com/FSUYpEGKsr
Historically, universities have been able to negotiate reimbursement rates for those indirect costs, with institutional reimbursements averaging nearly 28 percent. Some of the nation’s leading research institutions, including Harvard, Yale and Johns Hopkins Universities, receive reimbursements of more than 60 percent. NIH said in a social media post that it expects to save $4 billion from the change; an Inside Higher Ed analysis of fiscal year 2024 grant data shows that colleges would lose about $4.3 billion in NIH reimbursements if indirect costs were capped at 15 percent.
Previously, if a college or university received a $5 million grant, they could also be reimbursed up to $1.4 million to pay for related costs, such as renting space for a lab. Under this new policy, that will be capped at $750,000.
“The United States should have the best medical research in the world,” the NIH said in its announcement. “It is accordingly vital to ensure that as many funds as possible go towards direct scientific research costs rather than administrative overhead.”
While the NIH said it has the authority to cap indirect costs, Senator Patty Murray, a Democrat from Washington, said on social media Friday that the proposal is illegal.
“It will mean shuttering labs across the country, layoffs in red & blue states, & derailing lifesaving research on everything from cancer to opioid addiction,” Murray wrote.
Cuts to ‘Life-Saving’ Research
While the NIH is casting indirect costs as a burden, Association of American Universities President Barbara R. Snyder said in a statement that they are “real and necessary costs of conducting the groundbreaking research that has led to countless breakthroughs in the past decades.”
A $4 billion cut to reimbursements for NIH grants, she added, “is quite simply a cut to the life-saving medical research that helps countless American families.”
NIH has worked feverishly in recent weeks to comply with President Trump’s executive orders to eliminate all support for diversity, equity and inclusion and “gender ideology.” Grant reviews stopped for two weeks, alarming researchers who rely on federal funding, and some scientists worried about the future of their funding under the agency.
But researchers and their advocates say an abrupt $4 billion cut to NIH funding—which has not been approved by Congress—has dire implications for the future of the United State’s scientific research enterprise and will undermine the NIH’s stated goal of producing superior medical research.
“Cuts to reimbursement of these costs are cuts to medical research and represent the federal government stepping back from commitments it has made to world-leading researchers,” Mark Becker, president of the Association of Public Land Grant Universities, said in a statement. “This action will slow advances for millions of patients who desperately need critical breakthroughs and imperil the U.S.’s position as the world leader in biomedical innovation.”
The NIH is the largest federal funding source for research universities, and has supported breakthroughs in medical technology and treatments for diseases like cancer and Alzheimer’s.
Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, said the decision was “short-sighted, naive, and dangerous.”
“It will be celebrated wildly by our competitors, who will see this for what it is—a surrender of U.S. supremacy in medical research,” Mitchell said. “It is a self-inflicted wound that, if not reversed, will have dire consequences on U.S. jobs, global competitiveness, and the future growth of a skilled workforce.”
Just last month, Lorena Tule-Romain was encouraging families with mixed citizenship to fill out the Free Application for Federal Student Aid. She and her staff at ImmSchools, a nonprofit dedicated to improving educational access for immigrants in Dallas, walked students and parents through the complicated federal aid process. Along the way, they offered reassurance that information revealing their undocumented status would be securely held by the Department of Education alone.
Two weeks ago, ImmSchools stopped offering those services. And Tule-Romain said they’re no longer recommending families fill out the FAFSA.
That’s because the Department of Government Efficiency, a White House office run by Elon Musk, now has access to Education Department data systems, potentially including sensitive student loan and financial aid information for millions of students, according to sources both outside and within the department who spoke with Inside Higher Ed.
With immigration officers conducting a blitz of deportations over the past few weeks—and the new possibility of ICE raids at public schools and college campuses—Tule-Romain is worried that applying for federal aid could put undocumented families in jeopardy. Instead of answering parents’ questions about the FAFSA contributor form, she’s hosting Know Your Rights workshops to prepare them for ICE raids.
“Before, we were doing all we could to encourage families to apply for federal aid, to empower students to break cycles and go to college,” she said. “Now we are not in a position to give that advice. It’s heartbreaking.”
Student data is technically protected by the Privacy Act of 1974, which prevents departments from sharing personally identifying information unless strict exceptions are met or a law is passed to allow it. The FUTURE Act, for example, gave the IRS access to financial aid data to simplify the FAFSA process.
Karen McCarthy, vice president of public policy and federal relations at the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, told Inside Higher Ed that because DOGE has not said why they might be interested in department data or what data they have access to, it’s unclear if they’re acting in accordance with the law.
In the past, that law has been strictly enforced for federal employees. In 2010, nine people were accused of accessing President Barack Obama’s student loan records while employed for an Education Department contractor in Iowa. The charges levied against them in federal court were punishable by up to one year in prison and a fine of up to $100,000, according to the Associated Press.
On Thursday, Democratic Representative Bobby Scott of Virginia wrote to the Government Accountability Office requesting a review of the Education Department’s information technology security and DOGE’s interventions in the department in order to determine their legality and the “potential impact on children.” On Friday, a group of students at the University of California sued department officials for allowing potential privacy act violations.
“The scale of the intrusion into individuals’ privacy is massive, unprecedented, and dangerous,” the plaintiffs wrote.
In recent days, labor unions and other groups have sued to block DOGE”s access to databases at several federal agencies and have secured some wins. Early Saturday morning, a federal judge prohibited DOGE from accessing Treasury Department data, ordering Musk’s team to “immediately destroy any and all copies of material” from the department’s systems.
Concerns about DOGE’s use of private student data come as Musk and his staff take a hacksaw to agencies and departments across the federal government, seeking to cut spending and eliminate large portions of the federal workforce. The Trump administration has singled out the Education Department in particular, threatening to gut its administrative capacity or eliminate the department all together.
Spokespeople for DOGE did not respond to a list of questions from Inside Higher Ed. Madi Biederman, the Education Department’s deputy assistant secretary for communications, wrote in an email that DOGE staff “have the necessary background checks and clearances” to view department data and are “focused on making the department more cost-efficient, effective and accountable to the taxpayers.”
“There is nothing inappropriate or nefarious going on,” she added. She did not respond to questions about what data DOGE has access to or how they plan to use it.
A ‘Gaping Hole’ in Data Security
The Education Department’s student financial aid systems contain unique private information that families submit through FAFSA: not only social security numbers but also addresses of relatives, property taxes, sources of income and more. The National Student Loan Database, which tracks loan borrowers’ repayment history and which DOGE may also have access to, includes a wealth of personally identifying information for many more millions of current and former students.
A current department staffer provided Inside Higher Ed with a screenshot from the department’s email address catalog containing the names of 25 DOGE employees who may have access to student data—including a 19-year-old who, according to a Bloomberg report, was once fired by a cybersecurity firm for allegedly leaking internal data. And the Washington Post reported that DOGE employees fed sensitive education department data through artificial intelligence software.
“It could become a gaping hole in our cybersecurity infrastructure,” a former department official said. “I cannot stress enough how unusual it is to just give people access willy-nilly.”
Two former department officials told Inside Higher Ed it is unclear how the DOGE officials could have legally gained access to department data. McCarthy compared DOGE’s murky activity in the department to a “massive data breach within the federal government.”
“Normally, there’d be a paper trail telling us what they’ve requested access to and why,” she said. “We don’t have that, so there’s a lot of uncertainty and fear.”
A current department official told Inside Higher Ed that DOGE staff have been given access to PartnerConnect, which includes information about college programs that receive federal financial aid funding; and that they have read-only access to a financial system. Neither of those databases contain personally identifying information, but the official wasn’t sure DOGE’s access was limited to those sources—and said department staff are worried sensitive student information could be illegally accessed and disbursed.
“It just creates a kind of shadow over the work that everyone’s doing,” a prior department official said.
Fears of a FAFSA ‘Chilling Effect’
Families with mixed citizenship status were some of the hardest hit by the error-riddled FAFSA rollout last year, with many reporting glitches that prevented them from applying for aid until late last summer.
Tule-Romain said mixed-status families in her community had only just begun to feel comfortable with the federal aid form. In the past few weeks that progress has evaporated, she said, and high school counselors working with ImmSchools report a concerning decline in requests for FAFSA consultations from mixed-status students.
“If they weren’t already hesitant, they are extremely hesitant now,” Tule-Romain said.
It’s not just mixed-status families who could be affected if data is shared or leaked. McCarthy said that concerns about privacy could have a wide-spread “chilling effect” on federal aid applications.
“There have always been parents who are reluctant to share their information and the counterargument we always fall back on are the privacy laws,” she said. “A lot of Pell money could get left on the table, or students could be discouraged from going to college altogether.”
Kim Cook, CEO of the National College Attainment Network, said that after last year’s bungled FAFSA rollout, community organizations and government officials had worked hard to rebuild trust in the system and get completion rates back to normal. She worries that fears about privacy could set back those efforts significantly.
“Chaos and uncertainty won’t give us the FAFSA rebound we need,” she said.
The confusion could also affect current college students who need to renew their FAFSA soon. Tule-Romain said one undocumented parent who filled out her first form with ImmSchools last year came back a few weeks ago asking for advice.
She was torn: on the one hand, she didn’t trust Musk and Trump’s White House not to use the information on the form to deport her. On the other, if her son didn’t receive federal aid, he’d have to drop out of college. Ultimately, she chose to renew the application.
“If you came [to America] for a better life, you cannot let fear stop you from pursuing that,” Tule-Romain said. “Instead, you arm yourself with knowledge and you move forward—maybe with fear, but you move forward anyway.”
The Department of Education is ordering an end to all spending and programs that “promote gender ideology,” according to an internal email sent to all department employees and obtained by Inside Higher Ed.
The email lays out steps the department will take to uphold President Trump’s executive order “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.” Those steps include a “thorough review and subsequent termination of Departmental programs, contracts, policies, outward-facing media, regulations and internal practices that fail to affirm the reality of biological sex.”
The email also prohibits employee resource groups that “promote gender ideology” from meeting on government property or during work hours.
The email appears to be targeted primarily at internal department activities and spending, as opposed to schools and universities that receive federal funding. But the Trump administration has in recent days launched investigations into colleges over the participation of trans athletes in women’s sports, and Trump’s executive order attacking diversity, equity and inclusion could have wide-reaching effects on college programs and curricula.
A spokesperson for the department did not respond to Inside Higher Ed’s request for clarification or comment in time for publication.
Another Florida Republican is reportedly destined for a college presidency.
Florida International University is expected to name Lieutenant Governor Jeanette Nuñez as interim president at a meeting Friday, The Miami Herald reported. Nuñez, who earned undergraduate and master’s degrees at FIU, is expected to resign from her position Friday to take the job.
Nuñez, who has served as lieutenant governor since 2018, was previously an adjunct professor at FIU but does not appear to have prior administrative experience in higher education. As a member of Florida’s House of Representatives, Nuñez pushed for legislation to allow undocumented students to pay in-state tuition but has backed off on her support for that idea in recent years.
If hired, it seems Nuñez will step into the job right away.
One anonymous source told the newspaper that the board is seeking to act quickly on the appointment so Nuñez is in place before the Florida legislative session begins on March 4. The thinking behind the move, that source said, was that she can extract more state dollars for FIU.
FIU is currently led by Kenneth Jessell, who was named interim in January 2022 after then-president Mark Rosenberg resigned amid allegations of sexual harassment. The interim tag was later lifted, and Jessell is on a three-year contract that is set to expire in November.
If hired, Nuñez will be one of several Republican former lawmakers tapped to lead a Florida university in recent years. Others include Ben Sasse, a U.S. senator from Nebraska—who briefly served as president of the University of Florida but resigned abruptly last fall and has been dogged by questions about his spending—and former state lawmakers Richard Corcoran at New College of Florida, Fred Hawkins at South Florida State College and Mel Ponder at Northwest Florida State College. Ray Rodrigues, another former lawmaker, was hired as chancellor of the State University System of Florida in 2022 following a search that yielded eight applicants.
Another Republican former lawmaker, Adam Hasner, was recently named as a finalist for the Florida Atlantic University presidency. That search was scuttled by state officials who raised concerns about “anomalies” after FAU did not hire Republican lawmaker Randy Fine last year.
Florida International University did not respond to a request for comment from Inside Higher Ed.
Kristin Comrie is set to graduate this semester with a master’s in health informatics from a fully remote program that she balances with a full-time job. But the federal hiring freeze has thrown a wrench into her plans, prompting the Veterans Health Administration to cancel her unpaid internship, which she needed to fulfill a graduation requirement.
It wasn’t easy to find an opportunity that fit in with her job and schoolwork, but the VHA internship sounded ideal; she could work remotely, and the team at the VHA seemed happy to accommodate her busy schedule. Slated to start Feb. 10, she had just finished her background check and fingerprinting when she received notice that the internship had been canceled.
“I got a generic email that they were rescinding the offer because of the federal hiring freeze,” Comrie recalled.
The news left her “scrambling” to find another internship that she could finish in time to graduate in May. Two weeks later, she hasn’t yet found a new position but said she might be able to coordinate with her current employer to take on additional responsibilities in order to fulfill the requirement.
Comrie isn’t the only student to have had a federal employment opportunity abruptly rescinded. The hiring freeze appears to have forced federal agencies to cancel numerous internships; most prominently, thousands of legal internships and entry-level positions within the Department of Justice and beyond have been impacted, according to reports on social media and in news outlet like Reuters and Law360.
“We’ve most definitely seen impacts of the federal hiring freeze and subsequent actions related to college recruiting and internships. We’re hearing from colleges that there have been internships that have been canceled and we have heard that federal agencies have pulled out of going onto campuses to recruit,” said Shawn VanDerziel, executive director of the National Association of Colleges and Employers, an advocacy group for campus career centers and the businesses that work with them. “I would hope once the dust settles over the coming weeks and months that we will have many more answers and that the trajectory will be more positive.”
It represents a stark contrast from just a year ago, when the federal government finalized regulations to expand internship opportunities in an effort to hire younger talent. Government employees skew Gen X and older, with those over 55 making up a third of federal workers and those under 30 composing just 8 percent. To keep the government well staffed as the aging workforce retires, officials vowed to cultivate a younger demographic.
“Early career programs are critical to recruit the next generation of government leaders,” then–Office of Personnel Management director Kiran Ahuja told Government Executive, a publication focused on the federal government, in a statement. “The updates to the Pathways Programs will increase opportunities and remove barriers to hire interns, fellows, apprentices, recent students and trainees, which will help federal agencies boost their talent pipelines to serve the American people. No matter what your interests are, the federal government offers opportunities in nearly every sector and every industry.”
Those rules, finalized last April, went into effect in December, meaning they were in place for just over a month before the hiring freeze began on Inauguration Day.
For students, working in government is a rare opportunity to explore certain career specializations that are difficult to study elsewhere, like diplomacy. Federal internships often allow students to experience America’s center of government firsthand—and to get their foot in the door for a dream job.
“If you got a federal government internship, it means you’re quite capable,” said Brian Swarts, director of Pepperdine University’s D.C. program, one of approximately 40 satellite campuses in the capital dedicated to supporting and educating student interns. “It’s much more advanced than other internships. Generally speaking, students who have acquired a government internship are very excited about those opportunities … they’re seeing this as their one opportunity to move forward with a future role in the government.”
Inside Higher Ed reached out to a handful of the agencies that have reportedly cut internships—the Department of Justice, the Environmental Protection Agency, Health and Human Services, and Veterans Affairs.
In response to a series of questions, an EPA spokesperson responded,“There have been no mass cancellations of EPA internships. The EPA is diligently implementing President Trump’s executive orders and associated guidance.”
The other three offices did not respond to requests for comment.
Since the hiring freeze went into effect, the administration has carved out some exceptions, saying that agencies are “permitted” to make allowances for internships through the Pathways Programs, centralized programs that install interns, recent graduates and midcareer fellows across various agencies, aiming to convert them into full-time employees.
But the majority of interns for federal agencies are not part of the Pathways Programs.
Other exceptions would have to be carved out by the agencies themselves on a case-by-case basis, McLaurine Pinover, a spokesperson for OPM, said in an email.
Katie Romano, executive director of the Archer Center, which supports students from the University of Texas system in pursuing internships in D.C., told Inside Higher Ed that two current Archer fellows had spring semester internships rescinded—one a full-time and one a part-time position—but both have been able to transition to other opportunities in the city.
A director of another college’s D.C. program, who asked to remain anonymous, said no students from her institution had lost federal internships this spring. But she said that’s likely because several students backed out of opportunities with federal agencies after Trump was elected because they disagreed with his politics or feared chaos under his administration.
“My fear from a macro level is we’re going to turn off an entire generation of young people from civil service as they’re watching all of this. If you were 21 and thinking about what you were going to do after graduation and looking for an internship that would set you up for success and you see this going on, you might just choose to pivot your entire plan,” she said.
‘It’s Been Very Stressful’
Law students, in particular, have found themselves struggling to find new opportunities; since most law interns are hired months before their onboarding date, few private firms have spots left, leaving those who lost internships with minimal options for summer work.
“In the law school world, not working on your summers is not necessarily going to destroy your future career, but a lot of postgrad employers look at that quizzically,” said Dylan Osborne, a second-year Brooklyn Law School student who was slated to work at the Internal Revenue Service this summer until he received an email that the internship had been canceled due to the hiring freeze.
Moreover, many of the students with federal job offers in hand had already begun making arrangements to live in D.C. for the summer.
One second-year law student said that while she was fortunate not to have signed a lease in D.C. before her internship offer was rescinded, she’d already told her current landlord she would not be renewing her lease, which expires in May.
Now, with no job on the horizon, the student, who requested anonymity out of fear of jeopardizing her career, said she is “in limbo,” unsure where she will live or how much money she will earn over the summer.
Since she received notice that her internship was canceled, she now spends as many as five hours a day applying for positions and talking on the phone with firms.
“It’s been very stressful, especially because I took on extra responsibilities knowing I didn’t have to worry about the [job] application process,” she said. “It’s like taking on another job in itself.”
Andrew Nettels, a third-year law student at George Washington University whose permanent job offer from the DOJ was rescinded, has organized a massive group chat of law students and new lawyers whose employment prospects were impacted by the hiring freeze. He said few members of the group—which maintains a document of opportunities and firms taking interns—have had success finding replacement positions.
“I’m not personally aware of anyone finding anything new. I’m aware of maybe three people who have had interviews,” he said, noting that members of the chat are encouraged to share their successes. “This isn’t to place any blame at all on the private sector—we’re already several months off the recruitment cycle … their hiring committees have been trying to figure out whether they’d be in a financial position as a firm to commit to hiring one or two or however many students for the summer, and even postgraduates—it’s a huge commitment.”
Professors, administrators and career center specialists are also working diligently to help students secure replacement positions, with some reaching out to their networks on social media in the hopes of finding leads.
“The old saying ‘it takes a village’ could not be more appropriate right now. I have no doubt my LinkedIn ‘village’ can help not just William & Mary Law School students but also students at other schools who are anxiously and unexpectedly having to pivot as a result of the hiring freeze,” wrote Michael Ende, associate dean for career services at William & Mary Law School, in a LinkedIn post.
According to an emailed statement from William & Mary Law School dean A. Benjamin Spencer, 13 students lost their summer internships due to the hiring freeze, and others likely would have secured positions at federal agencies in the coming months.
“We have met or will be meeting with every student who lost their positions with federal agencies (including graduating 3Ls who lost post-graduation offers). We are helping them to restart their job searches, which includes helping them figure out what types of positions to target and getting them connected to alumni and others in the profession who have been offering their assistance by sharing internship and job openings and expressing a willingness to speak with impacted students to guide them in this time of need,” Spencer wrote.
Osborne said that he has heard from some law students who are still hoping that their positions might be reinstated after the hiring freeze is slated to end in late April. But it’s a gamble most, including Osborne, aren’t willing to take.
“There are some people who are hoping to wait the spring out and see if their positions are unfrozen, so to speak,” he said. “But given the attitude the administration has towards the IRS, I don’t think I’m going to be one of those people.”
Linda McMahon, President Donald Trump’s nominee for education secretary, will appear before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee next week—a key step in her confirmation process.
And though the former business mogul was originally expected to sail through the confirmation process, she’ll likely have to answer questions at the hearing next Thursday about recent upheavals in the Education Department and the president’s plan to get rid of the agency.
In the last week, news broke that the Trump administration put dozens of department employees on paid leave and is planning an executive order to shut down the department, setting off alarm bells across the higher ed sphere. At the same time, Trump’s attempts to freeze thousands of federal grants and push agency staff toward “deferred resignation” are caught up in court. Education advocacy groups say that halting the grants violates the constitutional principle of separation of powers and that cutting the number of unionized agency staff is not only illegal but also could hinder key operations like the federal student aid program.
But while many of Trump’s executive orders remain in limbo, department appointees who don’t require confirmation are quickly moving behind the scenes to carry out Trump’s education agenda. They’ve opened multiple civil rights investigations into colleges over antisemitism and transgender participation in women’s sports, announced changes to the federal aid application, and removed more than 200 DEI-related webpages from the department’s website.
Trump has yet to announce who will join McMahon and fill other key agency roles, such as under secretary and head of Federal Student Aid, nor has he formally named all the acting officials who will fill those roles in the meantime. The lack of transparency regarding who will lead the department and who is currently serving in temporary roles now has only heightened concerns among higher education officials, policy experts, lobbyists and advocacy groups. The lack of clarity makes it hard to decipher what Trump’s regulatory priorities will be and how colleges, universities, accreditors, students and others should prepare for the next four years. But many are hopeful that McMahon’s hearing will shed some light on the subject.
The secretary-designate, who is best known as the former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment, has limited experience in education policy aside from serving for one year on the Connecticut State Board of Education and a long-running tenure on the Sacred Heart University Board of Trustees. And to this date, she has made little comment about her views on public education.
She does, however, have some experience working in Washington. McMahon served as director of the Small Business Administration during Trump’s first term. Then, in 2021, as the president reluctantly left office, she helped found the America First Policy Institute, a pro-Trump think tank.
Now, the billionaire is likely to lead the very department Trump has said he wants to see dismantled. The president told White House reporters Tuesday that he told McMahon, “I hope you do a great job and put yourself out of a job.
The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post reported earlier this week that the new administration is preparing an executive order about the department’s future, though the specifics are still in the works.
Sources told the Journal that the order could “shut down all functions of the agency that aren’t written explicitly into statute or move certain functions to other departments,” but other sources familiar with talks about the order told Inside Higher Ed that the order could direct McMahon, once confirmed, to come up with a plan to break up the department entirely. (The second suggested order, and its resulting plan, would have to include legislative action from Capitol Hill, as the department’s existence is written into law.)
But for now, McMahon is awaiting confirmation and the department still exists. So who’s running the agency and carrying out its statutory duties?
So far, the White House has only formally announced an acting secretary, Denise Carter, who had previously served as acting head of the Federal Student Aid office. A news release from the department several days later listed 10 other appointees, ranging from chief of staff to deputy general counsel. On Thursday, the department shared the names of six more officials, including deputy under secretary and senior adviser of the communications office.
But the department’s announcements about appointees haven’t indicated who is temporarily filing some of the top jobs at the department, such as under secretary. Under federal law, the default acting official is the first assistant to the vacant position or the top deputy for that office, though the president can designate someone else who meets the criteria. Details about who is serving as those acting officials has instead come from other department statements.
For example, James Bergeron—president of the National Council of Higher Education Resources and a Republican former House policy adviser—was named deputy under secretary Thursday. But on Tuesday, the department identified him in a news release as acting under secretary. Before Tuesday’s release, Bergeron had not been listed as an appointee at all. Thursday’s announcement only referred to him as deputy under secretary, not acting.
In another instance, the department named Craig Trainor—who worked under Trump’s attorney general Pam Bondi as an AFPI senior litigation counsel—deputy assistant secretary for policy in the Office for Civil Rights. And then, in later news releases, the agency identified Trainor as the acting assistant secretary for civil rights.
Although the department has yet to announce an acting chief operating officer for FSA, a department official told Inside Higher Ed that Carter is wearing two hats and continuing to lead FSA while serving as acting secretary. Phillip Juengst, a longtime FSA official, they said, is also helping lead the agency.
The Education Department did not respond to Inside Higher Ed’s request for further detail about who is serving in what acting role and why it hasn’t formally been announced. Instead, they pointed reporters back to the news releases mentioned prior.
Most of the appointees so far are unfamiliar faces to D.C. area policy experts and former department staffers.
Bergeron, however, is an exception. He worked at the National Council of Higher Education Resources starting in 2014, advocating for higher education service agencies that work in the student loan space. Some debt-relief groups raised concerns about Bergeron’s appointment. But former department officials described Bergeron as a competent and more reasonable choice than some other Trump appointees. Before serving as president of NCHER, he worked as a staffer on the House Education and the Workforce Committee.
Emmanual Guillory, senior director of government relations at the American Council on Education, said the day after Trump took office that the initial lack of clarity about who was serving in what role didn’t concern him. He didn’t expect Carter or other acting appointees to carry out substantial policy actions before confirmed appointees took control. Guillory said Thursday that his comments haven’t changed, so he remains unconcerned two weeks later.
Republicans’ long-sought goal of shuttering the Education Department got a boost this week as several media outlets reported the Trump administration was finalizing plans for an executive order to wind down the agency.
Trump added to the speculation, telling reporters Tuesday he wanted his education secretary nominee, Linda McMahon, to put herself out of a job. Then, on Wednesday, House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, said getting rid of the department is “an idea whose time has come.”
The specifics and timing of the executive order are still unclear, though media reports say the directive could instruct department officials to shut down some programs not directly approved by Congress or come up with a plan to move functions to other departments in the federal government. At the very least, the Trump administration wants to see a much smaller version of the department, particularly because only Congress can actually eliminate the agency.
More than 4,000 people currently work for the department, which was created in 1979. In fiscal year 2024, the department had a $80 billion discretionary budget. Its spending makes up just over 2 percent of the federal budget.
Some conservative think tanks have been planning for the department’s demise for years. Most recently, Project 2025, a policy manual for the second Trump administration, detailed how to dismantle the agency—from which offices to shutter to which ones to move.
While those plans delve into all the department’s functions, much of the recent commentary about why the agency could go revolves about its role in K-12 education, largely ignoring how shutting it down could affect higher education.
But the federal government is deeply embedded in higher education, thanks to the billions it sends to colleges and universities each year. Unwinding the department would be complex and likely disruptive for colleges and the students they serve.
“That’s not something our community could handle at this point in time,” said Karen McCarthy, vice president of public policy and federal relations at the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, on an episode of the organization’s podcast this week. “From our perspective, it’s highly unlikely that such a transition would be quick or smooth.”
As talks ramp up about the department’s future, here are the five key roles the department plays in higher education—and what could happen to them if the agency is shuttered.
Each year, the Education Department issues about $100 billion in student loans and doles out more than $30 billion in Pell Grants to more than six million low-income students. More than 5,000 colleges and universities are eligible for federal financial aid.
The department’s Office of Federal Student Aid manages the government’s $1.7 trillion student loan portfolio, oversees contractors who service those loans, carries out many of the regulations related to higher education and holds colleges accountable. Under the Biden administration, for example, FSA issued $61.7 million in fines and cut off aid to 35 colleges for violating federal law and rules.
The Trump administration hasn’t said what would happen to federal financial aid programs, or to the more than 1,600 employees who work for the Office of Federal Student Aid, if the department goes away. But some conservative plans recommend moving the whole system to the Treasury Department.
Proponents argue that moving the system to the Treasury makes sense given that the department already deals with money and lending. Additionally, they say the switch shouldn’t be too disruptive or leave students and colleges worse off. Critics of that plan disagree and question whether the Treasury has the capacity to administer the federal student aid program.
Enforces Students’ Civil Rights
While federal financial aid is key to helping students access college, the department’s Office for Civil Rights helps to ensure they are protected from discrimination once on campus.
The OCR can have a direct impact on students and colleges through investigations of complaints or guidance that prompts institutions to change their policies or rethink their civil rights offices. Colleges watch the agency’s actions closely to avoid running afoul of federal law.
In recent years, the office has seen a record number of complaints from students who allege violations of their civil rights, though the agency has struggled to keep up with the growing caseload. Biden administration officials pleaded with Congress last spring for more funding to hire 86 employees who could investigate complaints. As of last March, 557 employees worked for OCR, according to department budget documents.
The office received 22,687 complaints in fiscal year 2024, and the Biden administration projected that number to grow to nearly 24,000 in 2025. Most of the complaints in the past year related to sex-based discrimination, while 37 percent alleged discrimination based on disability. In many cases, seeking help from the federal office can be a last resort for students.
Project 2025 recommended moving OCR to the Justice Department and limiting enforcement to litigation.
Manages Grant Programs
The Education Department sends millions of dollars appropriated by Congress to colleges and universities that help to support student success, childcare on campus and other priorities for lawmakers.
In fiscal 2024, Congress allocated $3.3 billion toward higher education programs. That includes a $400 million fund to directly support historically Black colleges and universities as well as a $229 million grant program for Hispanic-serving institutions.
The department also spends about $2.14 billion on Federal Work-Study and supplemental grants to directly support low-income students.
Some institutions rely on federal support to stay open. For instance, Gallaudet University, a school for the Deaf in Washington, D.C., gets its own line item in the federal budget. The university was created by Congress and received $167.3 million in fiscal 2024, which was about 65 percent of Gallaudet’s annual revenues, Forbes reported this week.
Trump sent a shock wave through higher ed last week when his administration threatened to freeze all federal grants and loans. College administrators and lobbyists representing them warned of devastating consequences if that source of funding was turned off.
While a federal judge blocked the freeze from taking effect, the Education Department is reviewing many of the grant programs for compliance with Trump’s recent executive orders that target diversity, equity and inclusion. That review could threaten to shut off some of the programs, though technically only Congress has that authority.
Gathers Data on Students and Institutions
Researchers and policymakers rely on reams of data that the Education Department collects about students and institutions in order to better understand higher ed. As some federal databases have gone dark in recent weeks, some advocates and researchers have worried about the future and security of the department’s data.
From annual surveys conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics to the National Student Loan Data System, the data offers insights into student enrollment, graduation rates, earnings, student lending and more. In 2015, the department made that data more accessible when it launched the College Scorecard.
The future of those databases is unclear if the department goes away. Project 2025 and other analysts have recommended moving the National Center for Education Statistics to other agencies—the Bureau of Labor Statistics, perhaps, or the Department of Commerce’s Census Bureau.
But few proposals suggest getting rid of the data-collection responsibilities altogether. In fact, Project 2025 declares that the federal government’s only role in education policy should be “that of a statistics-gathering agency that disseminates information to the states.”
Oversees Colleges and Universities
The federal government works with states and accreditors to oversee colleges and universities—a three-pronged system referred to as the triad. Getting rid of the Education Department would throw the triad into flux. That would likely mean less red tape for colleges but fewer protections for students.
The department recognizes accreditors who in turn recognize colleges. Institutions can only access federal financial aid if they are accredited by a department-recognized accrediting agency and have the necessary approval from state authorizing agencies.
The Biden administration sought to require accreditors to set benchmarks for student achievement and give states more authority over distance education. Neither of those proposals moved forward, but the push shows the federal government’s role in overseeing other members of the triad in addition to colleges.
Project 2025 proposed to remove accreditors from the triad or give states more authority to authorize accreditors, breaking the federal government’s hold over the process.
