The government has been shut down for a month and Congress remains locked in a stalemate. Students are going hungry, veterans have been deserted and vital research has been left in the lurch. The longer the shutdown drags on, the more harm it will do to higher education.
Most urgently, the USDA will not use emergency funds to help cover the costs of the Supplement Nutrition Assistance Program. More than a million college students who rely on SNAP for their basic needs won’t have that support starting Saturday. Mark Huelsman, the director of policy and advocacy at the Hope Center for Student Basic Needs, said the situation will force students and colleges into “an impossible situation” and could lead to many students dropping out.
The crisis extends beyond food insecurity into student support programs, with the shutdown throwing veterans’ education into limbo. Nobody is answering the GI Bill hotline that thousands of veterans use each month to get information on tuition, eligibility and housing allowances. Staff at Veterans Affairs regional offices are furloughed, putting an end to career counseling and delaying GI Bill claims.
As direct services to students falter, colleges are moving into mitigation mode. Gap funds, meant to serve institutions in these circumstances, are dwindling. Inside Higher Edreported last week that institutions are limiting travel, research and job offers in order to preserve cash while hundreds of millions in research funds are on pause. A training program funded by a grant from the Labor Department is on hold because a federal program officer isn’t at work to approve the next tranche of cash.
Ironically, part of Democrats’ resistance to reopening the government is serving to protect higher ed funding. Democrats are trying to prevent Republicans from clawing back approved funding through the rescissions process, like they did this summer with grants to public broadcasting and USAID. The risk to education funds that don’t align with the White House’s priorities is real. In a potentially illegal move of impoundment, the Department of Education has canceled or rejected funding for at least 100 TRIO programs affecting more than 43,000 disadvantaged students. Last month it reallocated $132 million in funds away from minority-serving institutions to historically Black colleges and universities and tribal colleges.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration—never one to let a good crisis go to waste—is using the shutdown to further gut the Education Department. Most of the department has been furloughed, and 10 days into the shutdown the administration fired nearly 500 more Education Department staff. A federal judge indefinitely blocked the layoffs this week, but the administration will likely challenge the ruling. If the cuts happen, the department will have fewer than half the employees it started with in January. The offices that handle civil rights complaints, TRIO funding and special education will be decimated.
The staff cuts set the stage for Education Secretary Linda McMahon to reiterate her plans to shutter the department. In a post on X two weeks into the shutdown, she said the fact that millions of American students are still going to school, teachers are getting paid and schools are operating as normal during the shutdown “confirms what the President has said: the federal Department of Education is unnecessary, and we should return education to the states.”
“The Department has taken additional steps to better reach American students and families and root out the education bureaucracy that has burdened states and educators with unnecessary oversight,” she added.
Policy experts predict the shutdown will end around mid-November, when enough people feel the pain of not getting a paycheck and start to complain to their senators and representatives. But colleges won’t pick up where they left off. A significant pause in funding derails education journeys for disadvantaged students and throttles valuable scientific research. Subject matter expertise and human resources will be lost through Education Department staffing cuts. Already on the defense after nearly a year of attacks on DEI, academic freedom and research funding by the administration, higher ed will struggle to recover from yet another blow.
The University of Arizona is the latest institution to reject an offer to sign on to the Trump administration’s “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” issuing its response on the same day feedback on the proposal was due.
While some universities have rejected the compact outright, Arizona president Suresh Garimella announced the decision in a message to the campus community that sent mixed signals. “The university has not agreed to the terms outlined in the draft proposal,” Garimella wrote. He emphasized the need to preserve “principles like academic freedom, merit-based research funding, and institutional independence.”
At the same time, he said that some of the compact’s provisions “deserve thoughtful consideration as our national higher education system could benefit from reforms that have been much too slow to develop,” noting that many were already in place at Arizona. He added that the federal government said it was “seeking constructive dialogue rather than a definitive written response.”
Indeed, in a letter to Education Secretary Linda McMahon, Garimella indicated an openness to further engagement. “We have much common ground with the ideas your administration is advancing on changes that would benefit American higher education and our nation at large,” he wrote.
Still, he took issue with the administration’s promise of giving signatories preferential treatment in research funding. “A federal research funding system based on anything other than merit would weaken the world’s preeminent engine for innovation, advancement of technology, and solutions to many of our nation’s most profound challenges,” he wrote to McMahon. “We seek no special treatment and believe in our ability to compete for federally funded research strictly on merit.”
Arizona was one of nine universities the Trump administration reached out to on Oct. 1 offering preferential treatment for federal research funding if they agreed to a compact that would overhaul admissions and hiring, cap international enrollment at 15 percent, revise academic offerings, suppress criticism of conservatives, freeze tuition for five years, and more.
Amid some rejections from the original nine, the federal government sent additional invitations earlier this month.
Institutions initially invited to join were Brown University, Dartmouth College, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Arizona, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Southern California, University of Texas at Austin, the University of Virginia and Vanderbilt University. Invitations were later sent to Arizona State University, the University of Kansas and Washington University in St. Louis.
Six of the original invitees have declined to sign: MIT was the first to reject the compact, followed by Brown, Dartmouth, Penn, USC and Virginia.
The Trump administration has since opened the compact to any institution that wishes to join.
As of Monday, none of the invited institutions had agreed to the deal, despite a recent push from the White House, which included a meeting with several universities last week. Institutions have until Nov. 21 to make a final decision about whether to sign, according to a letter McMahon sent with the proposal.
Washington University in St. Louis officials indicated Monday they remain open to the idea.
Chancellor Andrew Martin announced that the university would provide feedback, or, as he put it, “participate in a conversation about the future of higher education” with the Trump administration. Martin emphasized the importance of having “a seat at the table” for such discussions but said those talks did not equate to signing the compact.
“It’s important for you to know that our participation in this dialogue does not mean we have endorsed or signed on to the Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education presented to us for feedback by the federal administration. We have not done that. In addition, this decision was not made to advantage ourselves or gain any type of preferential benefit,” Martin wrote. “We firmly believe meaningful progress will best be achieved through open, ongoing dialogue.”
An Arizona State spokesperson also left open the option to join the compact, writing to Inside Higher Ed by email, “ASU has long been a voice for change in higher education and as President Trump’s team seeks new and innovative approaches to serve the needs of the country, ASU has engaged in dialogue and offered ideas about how to do so.”
Vanderbilt chancellor Daniel Diermeier noted in an email to the campus community that the university intended to offer feedback on the proposal.
“Despite reporting to the contrary, we have not been asked to accept or reject the draft compact,” Diermeier wrote. “Rather, we have been asked to provide feedback and comments as part of an ongoing dialogue, and that is our intention.”
But other universities stayed silent on the day of the initial deadline.
University of Texas system officials initially announced they were “honored” that the flagship was invited to join, but Austin officials did not have an update on where that invitation stands. Kansas did not respond to requests for comment.
Nearly half of all students worldwide have engaged in online learning.
Online and hybrid education have shifted from emergency responses during the COVID-19 pandemic to permanent, influential forces reshaping education from kindergarten to high school to higher education. Once seen as supplemental, these models play a central role in how students, families, and institutions approach learning, access, and opportunity.
Full online enrollment remains rare in grades K-12, with just 0.6% of U.S. public school students fully online. However, hybrid learning is widespread, with 63% of students using online tools daily (National Center for Education Statistics, 2023). Globally, nearly half of all students have engaged in online learning, fueling a K–12 online education market valued at more than 171 billion U.S. dollars (Devlin Peck, n.d.; Yellow Bus ABA, n.d.).
In higher education, the shift is even more pronounced. By 2023, over half of U.S. college students had taken at least one online course, and over one-quarter were enrolled exclusively online (National Center for Education Statistics, 2023; BestColleges, 2023). Adult learners and graduate students have been especially drawn to online programs, attracted by the flexibility and accessibility they offer (Arizton Advisory & Intelligence, 2023).
But the numbers alone do not tell the whole story. To understand the future of online and hybrid learning, we need to listen to families, not as bystanders, but as essential decision-makers, advocates, and partners in shaping students’ educational journeys.
What families and students think, and why it matters
Across education levels, families appreciate the flexibility of online and hybrid models but consistently voice concerns about academic rigor, social connection, and equitable access.
In K–12, parents generally prefer in-person schooling but want schools to improve the quality of online options (Barnum, 2020; Dong, Cao, & Li, 2020; Garbe, Ogurlu, Logan, & Cook, 2020). Adult and international students in higher education often rely on online programs to balance work and family demands. However, they face barriers such as isolation, inconsistent internet access, and limited interaction with peers and faculty (Kibelloh & Bao, 2014).
Research underscores that strong course design is essential for satisfaction and success (Babb, Stewart, & Johnson, 2010; Detyna & Koch, 2023) and that social connection is not a luxury but a critical factor in persistence and well-being (Tayebinik & Puteh, 2012). Equity gaps also loom large: students without access to reliable devices, broadband, or support networks face steeper challenges (Eduljee, Murphy, Emigh-Guy, & Croteau, 2023; Neece, McIntyre, & Fenning, 2020).
Families’ pandemic experiences reinforce these themes. Many described overwhelming stress and inequities that left them skeptical of online learning without stronger support and communication (Dong et al., 2020; Garbe et al., 2020; Neece et al., 2020).
Key findings: What families want, and what budget cuts threaten
1. Families are cautious about fully online. Only 11% said they would consider a fully online experience for their student. In contrast, about 60% were open to hybrid models, which they saw as the “best of both worlds,” combining affordability, flexibility, and connection.
2. First-generation families are more open. Nearly one in five said they would consider fully online, and 60% were open to hybrid options. These pathways can be lifelines, but cuts to advising, technology, or aid risk undermining that promise.
3. Income divides are stark. Families earning under $60,000 were twice as likely to express interest in fully online compared to higher-income families. Yet as state funding declines, public colleges may raise tuition or online fees, making even “affordable” pathways harder to access.
4. Race and ethnicity matter. Black and Hispanic families showed greater openness to online and hybrid formats than Asian or White families. That opportunity will only expand if institutions sustain culturally responsive communication, peer representation, and targeted support.
5. Generational and gender differences are shifting demand. Younger parents and female caregivers are more comfortable with online and hybrid learning. Demand will keep growing, but families may see online options as second-class without continued investments in quality and communication.
6. Region matters, too. Families in the Great Lakes and Far West regions were more receptive to online learning, while New England families leaned more traditional. These cultural and infrastructural differences should shape institutional strategies.
These findings show that online and hybrid education hold real promise, especially for families seeking flexibility, affordability, and access. But that promise rests on a fragile foundation. Budget cuts threaten the very investments that make these models credible: faculty development, instructional design, technology, and support services. Without them, families’ trust could erode.
What this means for colleges: Practical implications
The research points to clear takeaways for colleges and universities:
Flexibility matters, but only if paired with quality. Families want flexible options backed by evidence of rigor, outcomes, and strong faculty engagement.
Hybrid is a strength, not a compromise. Market it as a high-quality “best of both worlds,” not a fallback option.
Equity-focused support is critical. Expand device loan programs, connectivity grants, and first-generation mentoring to close gaps.
Culturally tailored communication builds trust. Engage families with inclusive outreach and visible peer representation.
Generational shifts mean rising demand. Younger parents are more open to online and hybrid; invest now to meet tomorrow’s expectations.
Regional strategy matters. Align program design and marketing with local cultures, broadband realities, and institutional density.
Ultimately, this is about listening. For some families, online pathways may be the only way higher education is possible. For others, a hybrid model that blends connection with convenience is the right fit. Institutions that understand these diverse perspectives and invest in the structures that support them will be best positioned to earn families’ trust and help students thrive.
Babb, S., Stewart, C., & Johnson, R. (2010). Constructing communication in blended learning environments. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 365–374.
Tayebinik, M., & Puteh, M. (2012). Sense of community: How important is this quality in blended courses? In Proceedings of the International Conference on Education and Management Innovation (Vol. 30, pp. 606–609). IACSIT Press. Yellow Bus ABA. (n.d.). Online education market size. YellowBusABA.com.
Finding the right accommodation is one of the most important decisions facing university students, especially in cities like Melbourne, where enrolments are high and housing supply is limited. Currently, the market offers a range of options, each differing in cost, support services, and overall stability.
For many, student housing in Melbourne is about more than proximity to campus. It’s also about access to a secure, well-managed environment that promotes academic progress and social well-being.
To help with this decision, here’s a breakdown of some of the most common housing models and how they align with students’ needs.
Purpose-built student accommodation
For students balancing academic demands with independent living, accommodation designed specifically for study and support can offer greater stability. This is the approach taken by Journal Student Living. It combines private rooms with shared study, kitchen, and recreational facilities, supported by on-site staff and secure building access.
At Campus House, students live just 20 metres from the University of Melbourne, 150 metres from Trinity College, and 850 metres from RMIT, with easy access to nearby institutions. The building also includes dedicated study zones, rooftop gardens, and communal areas designed to support focused study and social connection.
University-operated housing
Many universities offer accommodation either directly or through affiliated providers, often located near campus. These options provide convenience and a built-in student community. However, places are limited, applications are competitive, and inclusions vary by provider.
Shared living arrangements
Shared living is common for students, especially those moving in with friends or joining an existing flat. While it can seem cheaper upfront, it often comes with split bills, unclear responsibilities, and limited privacy. There’s also no formal support, which can make daily life harder for students settling into a new city.
As a new Journal Student Living location opening in 2026, Market Way offers a purpose-built alternative to shared living. It provides furnished rooms, dedicated study areas, social spaces, and onsite support, all covered by one weekly fee that includes internet, utilities, and building access.
The building is also centrally located, just 380 metres from RMIT and close to other major institutions. This makes it easier to stay connected to classes and campus life.
Private market rentals
Renting through the private market gives students full control over where and how they live, but it also means managing everything independently. Lease terms are often rigid, with tenants responsible for bills, maintenance, and any disputes.
For students balancing assignments and deadlines, this can add unnecessary stress. Availability can also be limited near major campuses, and students without a rental history may struggle to secure a lease.
Journal Student Living provides a simpler option, with move-in-ready rooms available in a range of layouts. Options include studios, suites, and two-, three-, and four-bedroom ensuite apartments. All rooms are fully furnished and located close to major universities, helping students stay focused without the complications of renting privately.
Compare options and find what fits
Students have access to a range of accommodation types, but not all offer the same level of support, comfort, or convenience. For those looking for well-located, move-in-ready housing with community and privacy built in, Journal Student Living offers a purpose-built model that addresses the gaps found in other types of housing.
To learn more about availability, room types, and support services, visit the Journal Student Living website.
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Dive Brief:
Teens’ postsecondary plans are shifting, with just 45% of students in grades 7-12 seeing a two- or four-year college as their most likely next step in 2024, according to a new survey from national nonprofit American Student Assistance. That’s down from 73% in 2018.
Over the same period, interest in nondegree education pathways like vocational schools, apprenticeships and technical boot camp programs more than tripled, from 12% in 2018 to 38% in 2024, the ASA survey found.
Regardless of their goals after high school, the results show that students mainly view postsecondary education as the path to a good job, the report’s authors wrote.
Dive Insight:
School counselors are aware of the increasing variety of postsecondary options, which comes with an increased responsibility to be knowledgeable about how these pathways work.
At Garner Magnet High School in North Carolina, Stephanie Nelson and her colleagues utilize the “Three E’s” — enrollment, enlistment, employment and entrepreneurship. She said she has senior meetings with students to get an idea of what they’re interested in, which helps guide what their next steps should be.
“We’re helping to offer internships and job shadowing in a variety of fields so that students can kind of weigh their strengths and weaknesses or their likes,” said Nelson, a counselor at the high school.
Steve Schneider of Sheboygan South High School in Wisconsin has been a school counselor for 25 years. He’s noticed that while counselors and students have caught up to the benefits and importance of these alternative pathways, there is still a stigma when students don’t follow the traditional college path after high school.
The ASA survey found that more than 9 in 10 teens have discussed post-high school plans with their parents, but nearly a third of teens said their parents disagreed with their plan to join a nondegree program. According to survey responses, more teens said their parents disagreed with pursuing a non-college path (30%) than skipping a formal postsecondary path altogether (21%).
“I think everyone’s initial response is, ‘Oh, that’s a waste of potential, you should go on to school,’” Schneider said. He added that the conversation with parents about alternative options can be challenging, but it is important to advocate for what the student wants while ensuring both sides understand where the other is coming from.
He said the social stigma can often be systemic, especially if there are only resources being put into college as a postsecondary pathway — such as AP courses and dual credit courses — but not enough career and technical education courses and opportunities to explore whether these other pathways are a good fit.
The survey also found that teens feel more prepared to make plans for the future, with 82% reporting they are confident in future-planning resources, an increase from 59% in 2018.The biggest increase was at the middle school level, which rose 30 percentage points from 2018.
Diana Virgil is a high school counselor at Daleville High School in Alabama, where she works alongside a career coach to prepare students to start thinking about their post-secondary options. She emphasized the importance of starting before students are in 12th grade to make sure that they are working toward these goals throughout their high school career.
“We always start the question off as, ‘What does your lifestyle look like for you? What do you want your lifestyle to look like in the future?’ We try to gauge from there, and then we start going into the career assessments,” she said. “Since we are small, that is the advantage. You get to know more about their background, their upbringing, and why they’re interested. And I think that has really just been a driving force for us.”
ASA’s survey report recommends starting as early as middle school to help teens assess their interests and strengths through hands-on, work-based learning. Schools should also provide data and transparency on workforce outcomes to best equip students to plan for their future, ASA said.
The survey’s sample included 3,057 students in grades 7-12.
Correction: A previous version of this story used the wrong first name for school counselor Steve Schneider. We have updated our story.
In a significant shift for higher education access, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker announced his support for new legislation that would allow the state’s community colleges to offer bachelor’s degrees in high-demand fields. The move aligns Illinois with a growing national trend that has seen dramatic expansion in community college baccalaureate (CCB) programs across the country.
“By allowing our community colleges to offer baccalaureate degrees for in-demand career paths, we are making it easier and more affordable for students to advance their careers while strengthening our state’s economy,” Pritzker said in his February announcement.
The proposed bills, SB2482 and HB3717, would make Illinois the 25th state to implement such programs, joining states like California, Washington, and Florida that have already embraced community college bachelor’s degrees as a way to meet workforce demands and increase educational access. The measure appears to be stalled in the state legislature.
The Illinois initiative addresses practical challenges faced by many community college students. According to State Representative Tracy Katz Muhl, 78% of community college students work while in school, making relocation to four-year institutions impractical.
“Community college students are deeply rooted in their local communities—they work here, raise families here, and contribute to the local economy,” says Dr. Keith Cornille, President of Heartland Community College. “By expanding community college baccalaureate programs, we’re meeting students where they are.”
The proposal has gained support from education leaders including Illinois Community College Board Executive Director Brian Durham, who highlighted the potential to increase access to affordable higher education without burdening students with excessive debt.
A recent survey revealed that 75% of Illinois community college students would pursue a bachelor’s degree if they could complete it at their current institution—a statistic that demonstrates significant untapped potential in the state’s third-largest community college system, which serves 600,000 residents annually.
Illinois’ move follows a remarkable expansion in community college baccalaureate programs nationwide. According to a recent report from The Community College Baccalaureate Association (CCBA) and higher education consulting firm Bragg & Associates Inc., 187 community colleges across the country were offering or authorized to offer bachelor’s degrees as of last year.
This represents a 32% increase from Fall 2021, when only 132 institutions had such authorization. Today, approximately one-fifth of the nation’s 932 community colleges offer bachelor’s degrees, with the number of CCB degree programs rising from 583 to 678—a 17% increase in just two years.
“It’s a big jump over the last two years,” says report author Dr. Debra Bragg, president of Bragg & Associates Inc. Bragg anticipates “tremendous growth” in coming years as more states recognize the potential of these programs.
The movement began in 1989 when West Virginia became the first state to authorize a community college to confer bachelor’s degrees. By 2010, several more states—including California, Michigan, Florida, Texas, and Georgia—had followed suit. Some states have embraced the model completely, with Florida, Delaware, and Nevada authorizing all their community colleges to confer bachelor’s degrees.
Geographic and demographic patterns Community colleges offering bachelor’s degrees are not distributed evenly across the country. According to the CCBA report, 62% of CCB colleges are located on the West Coast, where there is “less density” of higher education institutions and longer commutes to traditional four-year schools.
“Geographic access to college, measured through proximal distance from a student’s home to college, correlates with students deciding whether they will ever participate in higher education,” the report notes. “Research on ‘education deserts’ shows most students choose to attend college within 50 miles of their home.” Washington (32), California (29), and Florida (28) lead the nation in the number of community colleges offering bachelor’s degrees. These institutions tend to be concentrated in large city and suburban areas (36%) or rural and town settings (27%) rather than in small cities or midsize urban areas.
Perhaps most significantly, CCB programs appear to be effectively serving traditionally underrepresented student populations. Approximately half of all community colleges offering bachelor’s degrees qualify as minority-serving institutions (MSIs), with Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) comprising 71% of these MSIs.
Data from the 2021-22 academic year shows that about half of all CCB graduates come from racially minoritized groups. Hispanic or Latinx students made up the slight majority (52%) of these graduates, followed by those identifying as Black or African American (29%) or Asian (9%).
Women are also well-represented among CCB graduates, accounting for 64% of degree recipients. This aligns with broader trends in higher education, where women generally attain degrees at higher rates than men.
The gender distribution varies by field of study. While business programs attract the largest portion of both male and female students (around 40% for each), men are more likely to pursue STEM fields (34%), while women gravitate toward nursing programs (26%).
The CCBA report highlights that CCB degrees are primarily focused on workforce preparation. Business programs dominate the offerings, followed by health professions, education, and nursing—all areas that align with significant workforce needs.
This workforce alignment is a key selling point for Illinois’ proposed legislation. The initiative comes as Illinois employers report growing demand for workers with bachelor’s degrees in specialized fields, mirroring workforce gaps seen in other states with successful CCB programs.
CCBA President Dr. Angela Kersenbrock sees these workforce-focused degrees as central to the community college mission. “To me, this is the community college really embracing its missions,” says Kersenbrock. “I know some folks say this is community colleges stepping over their mission. But I think it’s a full embracing of what they should be doing… closing equity gaps, being the people’s college, setting people up for economic success and mobility, and being very responsive to what a community needs in terms of workers and employees.”
Despite the growth and apparent success of community college baccalaureate programs, they are not without controversy. Some traditional four-year institutions view them as mission creep or unwelcome competition.
Illinois’ proposal faces similar scrutiny. Critics question whether community colleges have the resources, faculty expertise, and infrastructure necessary to deliver quality bachelor’s degree programs. Others worry about potential duplication of existing programs at four-year institutions.
Supporters counter that CCB programs typically focus on applied fields with clear workforce connections rather than traditional academic disciplines. They also emphasize that these programs often serve students who would otherwise not pursue bachelor’s degrees at all, rather than pulling students away from existing institutions.
Looking Ahead If Illinois passes the proposed legislation, it will join a diverse group of states finding success with community college baccalaureate programs. States like Washington, California, and Florida report positive outcomes in terms of both degree attainment and workforce preparation.
For Illinois’ sprawling community college system—the third largest in the nation—the change could significantly reshape higher education access. Community colleges often serve as entry points to higher education for first-generation college students, working adults, and others who face barriers to traditional four-year institutions.
“This initiative isn’t about competing with our university partners,” notes one Illinois community college president. “It’s about creating additional pathways for students who might otherwise never earn a bachelor’s degree.”
As more states consider similar legislation, the community college bachelor’s degree appears poised to become an increasingly common feature of American higher education. With workforce demands continuing to evolve and traditional college enrollment patterns shifting, these programs offer a flexible approach to meeting both student and employer needs.
For Bragg, the trend represents a natural evolution of community colleges’ historical mission.
“Community colleges have always adapted to meet changing educational and workforce needs,” she observes. “Bachelor’s degrees are just the latest example of this responsiveness.”
As Illinois moves forward with its proposal and other states watch closely, the coming years will likely see further expansion of bachelor’s degree options at community colleges nationwide—continuing a transformation that is making higher education more accessible to students who need it most.
Title: Covering the Tuition Bill: How Do Families Pay the Rising Price of College?
Author: Phillip Levine
Source: The Brookings Institution
The increasing costs of attendance at colleges and universities, especially higher “sticker prices,” have attracted attention from both families and policymakers. Although many families are not paying the full sticker prices due to financial aid, today’s families are still facing higher bills for postsecondary education.
A new analysis from the Brookings Institution examines the different funding sources that families use to pay for four-year nonprofit colleges and how these differ depending on family income. While the findings reflect the different limitations families face based on their incomes, they also suggest that rising net prices mean all households face additional hardships when their children enroll in college.
Key findings include:
Middle- and higher-income parents increasingly used their own income and savings.
Between 1996 and 2008, payments to colleges from parents’ income and savings jumped by $1,500 to $4,600, depending on the family income and type of institution. These values likely increased again by several thousand from 2008-2020, but specific figures are not available.
Middle- and higher-income parents have borrowed more.
Families with incomes below $50,000 and students attending private institutions saw the highest increases, an average of $1,200, in parents taking out loans from 2008 to 2020.
Families with incomes between $50,000 and $100,000 borrowed, on average, $800 more in parent loans for students attending public institutions between 2008 and 2020.
Parents were more likely than students to take out education loans, especially between 1996 and 2008 and among middle- and higher-income families.
Students from lower-income backgrounds worked more.
Payments to colleges with funds from student earnings increased among families with incomes under $50,000 from 1996-2008. Student earnings likely also covered the bulk of net price increases for lower-income families between 2008 and 2020.
Students from families earning less than $50,000 enrolled at public institutions were six percentage points more likely to work in 2008 compared to in 1996.
These findings provide reassurance that increased student borrowing is not the primary resource for students to cover increased net prices at four-year colleges. Although the student debt crisis continues to gain attention as overall student loan debt has grown broadly, that increase is largely not occurring at four-year nonprofit institutions.
However, increased borrowing by parents, especially in middle- and higher-income families, is a trend worthy of more attention. Given that lower-income families may be unable to take on parental loans due to creditworthiness, parental borrowing can contribute to increased inequality as cost may prevent lower-income students from selecting the best school for them or from attending college at all. Middle- and higher-income families can face other significant consequences: If parents deplete their assets or save less, they may not be able to retire until they are older or have decreased retirement income.
On July 21, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced a final rule permitting the Secretary of Homeland Security to authorize optional alternative examination practices for employers when reviewing an individual’s identity and employment authorization documents required by the Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification. The rule creates a framework under which DHS may implement permanent flexibilities under specified conditions, start pilot procedures with respect to the examination of documents, or react to crises similar to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Simultaneously, DHS published a notice in the Federal Register authorizing an alternative document examination procedure. This provides employers who are participants in good standing in E-Verify with the option to remotely examine their employees’ identity and employment authorization documents via a live video interaction.
Background
Under current law, employers are required to physically examine an individual’s identity and employment authorization documents within three business days after an individual’s first day of employment. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, DHS introduced temporary flexibilities in March 2020, enabling employers to remotely review these documents. This virtual inspection was to be succeeded by a physical examination within three business days once normal operations resumed. These flexibilities, extended multiple times, are set to expire on July 31, 2023.
Due to the success of temporary changes to document verification procedures implemented at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, DHS issued a Request for Public Input (RPI) on October 26, 2021, concerning remote document examination. This move initiated a discussion on whether these leniencies should be extended permanently. After examining the comments responding to the RPI, DHS proposed a framework on August 18, 2022, empowering the Secretary to extend these flexibilities. CUPA-HR submitted comments in response to the RPI (see here) and proposal (see here) encouraging DHS to move forward expediently and ensure that a remote review process remains available following the end of the COVID-19 Flexibilities.
Details of the Alternative Procedure
From August 1, 2023, eligible employers can start using the alternative procedure as outlined in the Federal Register notice. The conditions include: (1) restricting participation to E-Verify participants in good standing; (2) broadening document retention requirements to include clear and legible copies of all Form I-9 documents; (3) requiring E-Verify training on fraud awareness and antidiscrimination; and (4) holding a live video interaction after the employee transmits a copy of the document(s) to the employer.
Employers participating in E-Verify, who created a case for employees whose documents were examined during the COVID-19 flexibility period (March 20, 2020 to July 31, 2023), can opt for the new alternative procedure from August 1, 2023 to satisfy the required physical examination of the employee’s documents for that Form I-9. Conversely, employers not enrolled in E-Verify during the flexibility period must complete a physical examination in-person by August 30, 2023 as outlined in the Agency’s May 4 announcement.
What’s Next
Looking ahead, DHS continues to expand its efforts to streamline employment verification procedures. As part of this endeavor, the department is gearing up to roll out a pilot program offering a remote examination option not just to E-Verify-enrolled employers but also to a broader category of businesses. This pilot program is expected to inform decisions about a comprehensive expansion of the remote examination option.
Simultaneously, DHS is preparing to issue a new edition of Form I-9. Dated August 1, 2023, the new form will become the standard for all employers starting November 1, 2023. Until then, employers can still use the previous edition dated October 21, 2019, through October 31, 2023. It’s important to note, however, that if an employer chooses to utilize the 2019 edition in conjunction with the new alternative remote inspection procedure, they must mark “alternative procedure” in the Additional Information field in Section 2 of Form I-9.
According to DHS, more details about the new Form I-9 and the pilot program will be disclosed in the near future. CUPA-HR will continue to monitor these developments and keep members apprised as they are announced.
On August 18, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published in the Federal Register its anticipated Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on optional alternative examination practices for employers when reviewing an individual’s identity and employment authorization documents required by the Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification. Interested stakeholders can submit comments on the NPRM through October 17.
Under current law, employers are required to physically examine an individual’s identity and employment authorization documents within three business days after an individual’s first day of employment. The proposed rulemaking, however, would create a framework under which the Secretary of Homeland Security could allow alternative options for verifying those documents, such as reviewing the documents via video, fax or email.
As explained in the NPRM, the proposal does not directly allow employers or agents acting on the employer’s behalf to use such alternative examination options, but instead would create a framework under which the Secretary would be authorized to extend the flexibilities. The Secretary would be authorized to implement the alternative options in a pilot program if they determine such procedures would offer an equivalent level of security, as a temporary measure to address a public health emergency declared by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, or a national emergency declared by the President.
The DHS is issuing this rulemaking following the success of temporary changes to document verification procedures implemented at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. In March 2020, the DHS’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement deferred its physical examination requirements for Form I-9 and relaxed its enforcement. Employers were allowed to review documents through video, fax or email so long as they also retained copies of the documents. The policy proved successful and was extended several times, but is currently set to expire October 31, 2022. It may still be extended as the agency pursues this rulemaking.
In December 2021, CUPA-HR submitted comments to the DHS in response to the agency’s Request for Public Input on remote document examination. In its comments, CUPA-HR reported the results of the survey it conducted of member institutions’ experiences with the agency’s Form I-9 flexibilities. CUPA-HR members reported positive experiences with the changes and said they did not run into challenges with implementation. Respondents strongly supported a permanent option for remote document examination and said the policy provides numerous benefits for higher education institutions, including providing more flexibility for remote work, reducing the time needed to complete document verification and reducing institutions’ paperwork burden. Respondents also criticized physical document examination as overly burdensome.
CUPA-HR plans to submit comments on the NPRM and will likely ask members for their input in the coming weeks.
