Tag: Plan

  • Four Things to Know About the House Budget Plan

    Four Things to Know About the House Budget Plan

    After much back-and-forth and late-night dealing, House Republicans have passed a sweeping budget plan to cut spending and taxes that is moving on to the Senate—a significant milestone for legislation that seemed dead in the water a week ago amid concerns that the bill didn’t include deeper cuts.

    The plan, called the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, narrowly advanced Thursday morning by a one-vote margin. All Democrats opposed the legislation, arguing that the spending cuts would hurt the working class and vulnerable populations while raising the deficit and giving tax breaks to wealthy individuals.

    Among other changes, the legislation would levy new taxes on colleges, require institutions to pay millions to the federal government, change how students pay for college and limit eligibility for the Pell Grant. In the lead-up to Thursday’s vote, higher education leaders warned that the proposal would make trying to attend and pay for college much more complicated and raise costs for those who do enroll. The bill does include some wins for colleges, institutional lobbyists say, but those don’t outweigh the negatives.

    Republicans, who say the cuts are necessary, are using a legislative procedure known as reconciliation to advance the bill. That process allows lawmakers to fast-track the legislation and pass it with a simple majority of votes in both chambers. (Typically, the Senate requires 60 votes to cut off debate for a bill.)

    “It’s time we stopped asking a factory worker in Michigan or a rancher in Texas to subsidize the student debt of a lawyer in Manhattan so colleges can continue to spike their tuition to whatever they want,” said Rep. Tim Walberg, a Michigan Republican and chair of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, in a statement. “By capping loan amounts and giving some financial responsibility to schools, this legislation addresses the root cause of high college costs and provides schools an incentive to deliver real value for students and taxpayers.”

    With the measure now in the Senate’s hands and lawmakers eyeing a July 4 deadline, here’s what else you should know about the legislation that could reshape American higher education.

    1. Students Set to Lose Pell Money

    Many House committees had a hand in the legislation, but the proposals that will have the biggest impact on colleges are from the Committee on Education and the Workforce. The 103-page Student Success and Taxpayer Savings Plan, which is part of the broader reconciliation bill, would reduce spending by nearly $350 billion over the next 10 years.

    Most of those savings stem from rolling back a Biden-era student loan repayment plan that never fully took effect and from capping how much students can borrow. But lawmakers are also planning to increase spending on Pell Grants by $2.8 billion as they aim to address a looming shortfall and open up the program to short-term workforce-training classes.

    To make the math work, Republicans are changing who qualifies for a Pell Grant, proposing that students would have to take at least 15 credits a semester in order to receive the full award. They’ll also have to take at least 7.5 credits to get any money. Currently, the Pell Grant is prorated based on how many credits students take, and there’s no floor.

    Changing the full-time-award definition would save $7.1 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office, which estimated that more than half of students currently enrolled would see their Pell Grant reduced.

    The CBO also estimated that cutting off Pell for part-time students would save about $687 million over the next 10 years. Currently, about 10 percent of Pell Grant recipients enroll less than half-time. Of those students, the CBO predicts that one-third of students who stand to lose their grant under this change would enroll in more classes. Presumably, the other two-thirds would either stop out or pay for their education with loans or their own money. (The CBO report was based on a minimum of six credits, but that threshold has since increased to 7.5, so the number of students affected could be higher.)

    Over all, about 700,000 students would no longer be eligible for the Pell Grant after all the changes take effect. The changes are currently set to take effect in summer 2026.

    2. Colleges on the Hook for Unpaid Student Loans

    In addition to the Pell Grant cuts, college leaders are particularly worried about a provision known as risk-sharing, which would require institutions to pay a financial penalty based on students’ unpaid loans. How much colleges would have to pay is unclear, but the CBO estimates that by 2034, payments would total $1.3 billion and then continue to increase each year. Risk-sharing is expected to save the government $5.3 billion over the next 10 years.

    Because of risk-sharing and other changes in the bill aimed at limiting student borrowing, the CBO predicts that the volume of student loans would drop by about 20 percent.

    College leaders and lobbyists argue that the formula that would determine institutions’ payments is untested, and without more information, they can’t accurately gauge the ramifications. One lobbyist said the proposal represented “an astonishing level of federal overreach.” Critics of the plan also worry that underresourced and minority-serving institutions would be hit the hardest.

    “The risk is not equal among colleges,” Tuskegee University president Mark Brown told senators this week.

    Risk-sharing is just one of several proposed changes that would upend the student loan system. House Republicans also want to end Grad PLUS loans along with subsidized loans, restrict Parent PLUS loans and tie how much students can borrow to the median cost of a program. Some consumer protection advocates argued that these changes would drive students to private lenders, which often charge higher interest rates.

    3. More Taxes and Medicaid Cuts Threaten Colleges’ Bottom Lines

    Other proposals in the bill from the Ways and Means Committee would levy a host of new or expanded taxes against universities.

    First, the committee created new brackets to tax wealthy universities’ endowments. Currently, private universities with endowments that are worth more than $500,000 per student pay a 1.4 percent tax. But under the plan, some could see their endowments taxed at 21 percent.

    Institutions with endowments valued at $750,000 to $1.25 million per student would be hit with a 7 percent tax. That rate would climb to 14 percent for colleges with endowments worth $1.25 million to $2 million per student, while colleges with endowments of $2 million or more per student would pay 21 percent. Colleges also can’t include international students in their tally of students, which could subject more institutions to the tax.

    In addition to the endowment tax, the proposal also taxes a college’s intellectual property by stating that the endowment tax should include all forms of investment income. This means that any royalties from a private university’s intellectual property, including patents and copyrights, would be taxable. Additionally, the legislation removes colleges’ exemption from the unrelated business income tax so that all institutions, public and private, would be taxed for royalties from licensing their name and logo.

    House Republicans in other committees also proposed cuts to the Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance programs, which critics say would hurt students and states’ budgets. And if states do take a hit financially, public colleges might see their budgets cut.

    “If federal Medicaid funding is reduced in a new federal tax law, no public college or university will be immune from future state budget reductions and the austerity that will result. Public higher education must be prepared,” two professors wrote in an Inside Higher Ed op-ed earlier this year.

    4. Warnings From Higher Ed Pile Up

    Higher education groups warned before and after the vote of damaging consequences if the legislation becomes law.

    American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten called it a “big, ugly betrayal,” while Kara D. Freeman, president and CEO of the National Association of College and University Business Officers, said in a statement that “the implications for student access, research, and innovation could be far-reaching.”

    Freeman said the endowment tax is especially concerning and cited NACUBO data that shows colleges and universities spent $30 billion from their endowments in fiscal year 2024—nearly half of which funded student financial aid.

    “This scholarship tax takes funds away from students and makes it less possible for colleges to support them,” she said.

    Meanwhile, the American Council on Education took issue with the use of the reconciliation process to advance sweeping changes, along with the provisions in the bill.

    “The totality of the funding cuts, policy changes, and tax increases included in this reconciliation package will have a historic and negative impact on the ability of current and future students to access postsecondary education, as well as on colleges and universities striving to carry out their vital educational and research missions,” ACE wrote in a letter to the House.

    So far, senators have said little about the higher ed provisions in the bill, so it’s not yet clear whether they’ll agree with the House plan. Generally, while the House prefers risk-sharing, the Senate is expected to back a measure that judges programs by their students’ employment rates and income levels after graduation.

    But, with President Donald Trump backing the legislation and a fragile majority in the House, senators have few options if they want to change the legislation.

    “This is arguably the most significant piece of Legislation that will ever be signed in the History of our Country!” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “Now, it’s time for our friends in the United States Senate to get to work, and send this Bill to my desk AS SOON AS POSSIBLE! There is no time to waste.”

    Source link

  • Penn State Closure Plan Prompts Sharp Reactions

    Penn State Closure Plan Prompts Sharp Reactions

    As Pennsylvania State University’s Board of Trustees prepares to decide the fate of seven of its 19 Commonwealth Campuses where enrollment has collapsed over a decade, faculty, lawmakers and some board members are questioning the university’s commitment to the state and say administrators haven’t been transparent about their decision-making process.

    University administrators say the enrollment numbers alone don’t support keeping open the seven campuses slated to close. Several of those campuses have seen enrollment fall by more than 40 percent since fall 2014.

    Penn State’s Board of Trustees met last week in a private executive session but did not vote on the plan. They’re expected to do so Thursday.

    President Neeli Bendapudi has made the case for the closures, arguing such actions are necessary, as the university can no longer sustain all of its branch campuses financially amid severe enrollment declines. She proposed closing the Dubois, Fayette, Mont Alto, New Kensington, Shenango, Wilkes-Barre and York campuses. Those campuses enroll almost 3,200 students altogether, the largest of which is Penn State York with 703 students last fall. The smallest is Shenango, which enrolled 309 students in fall 2024.

    Now, as the proposal nears the finish line, its fate is up the air and Bendapudi is facing concerns about the process of reaching the seven names.

    A ‘Difficult But Necessary’ Plan

    University leadership began drawing up those plans in February after a difficult year for higher education across the Keystone State. Four universities in the state shut down (or ended degree programs, as in the case of the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts) in 2024. The closures were mostly brought on by enrollment challenges, though some were dogged by concerns about fiscal mismanagement.

    University administrators spent the last several months reviewing 12 campuses for possible closure before the list of seven leaked to media outlets last week.

    Officials in a 143-page document cast the plan as “difficult but necessary decisions to ensure its long-term sustainability, allowing for continued investment in student success and dynamic learning environments for years to come” amid plunging enrollment and broad demographic challenges.

    Officials argued that the seven campuses identified for closure “face overlapping challenges, including enrollment and financial decline, low housing occupancy, and significant maintenance backlog.” They added that “projected low enrollments pose challenges for creating the kind of robust on-campus student experience that is consistent with the Penn State brand” and would require significant investments, including $200 million for facilities alone.

    “I believe the recommendation balances our need to adapt to the changing needs of Pennsylvania with compassion for those these decisions affect, both within Penn State and across the commonwealth,” Bendapudi said in a statement when the plan was released.

    She added that there is a two-year timeline for closing campuses, so they wouldn’t shut down until the end of the spring 2027 semester.

    Now the plan heads to the 36-member Board of Trustees. However, some trustees have openly expressed their opposition to the proposal.

    Jay Paterno is one of several board members who have pushed back on the plan, writing an op-ed last month with four other trustees that argued Penn State should explore other options.

    In an interview with Inside Higher Ed, Paterno criticized the proposal as rushed.

    “We’ve been presented with two options. One is the status quo, which everybody knows is not viable and is kind of a straw man. The other option is to close all seven campuses,” he said.

    Given that the costs of operating those campuses comprise “less than half of 1 percent of our budget,” Paterno said the board should take more time to explore solutions. He argues that the university has not tried to leverage fundraising to support struggling Commonwealth Campuses and that the administration should slow the process down and reach out to potential donors.

    “We’d rather be a year late than a day early,” Paterno said.

    He also noted the decision to close campuses is not Penn State’s alone. The university is state-affiliated but not state-owned, which gives it a greater degree of autonomy than fully public institutions. But since the university receives some public funds, it must submit plans to close campuses to the Pennsylvania secretary of education, who must then approve the proposal.

    ‘A Betrayal’

    Faculty have concerns about job losses, what will become of rural student populations and an alleged lack of transparency in the closure process.

    One faculty member at Penn State Wilkes-Barre, speaking anonymously due to concerns about retribution, noted, “While most faculty saw this coming, it was heartbreaking to see it in writing.”

    They questioned Penn State’s support for its Commonwealth Campuses, arguing that “the decision to decrease funding” to those locations that serve in-state students sends a strong message about where Penn State places its priorities” while it invests heavily in its main campus. They also pointed to renovations at Beaver Stadium projected to cost $700 million.

    (That project is believed to be the most expensive renovation in the history of college athletics.)

    “The lack of shared governance, transparency, and respect for contributions of faculty to Penn State University makes it easy to see why unionization efforts among faculty are needed,” they wrote, highlighting ongoing efforts by the Penn State Faculty Alliance and SEIU 668 to unionize.

    Some state politicians have also panned the plan.

    State Senator Michele Brooks, a Republican who represents a district that includes the Shenango campus, told Inside Higher Ed in an emailed statement that she recently met with trustees, who conveyed to her and others “that they feel this has been a deeply flawed process.”

    She urged Penn State’s administration and governing board to re-evaluate the decision and to work “with communities on innovative ways to reinvest in these campuses and help them grow.”

    Republican state representative Charity Grimm Krupa, who serves a district that includes the Fayette campus slated for closure, accused Penn State of betraying its mission in a fiery statement.

    “Shutting down the Fayette campus isn’t about financial responsibility; it’s about walking away from the very students Penn State was created to serve,” Grimm Krupa said last week. “It’s a betrayal of the university’s land-grant mission and a slap in the face of rural communities. Abandoning this campus sends a clear message: if you’re not from a wealthy or urban area, Penn State doesn’t see you as worth the investment. That’s disgraceful, and I urge every trustee to vote no against these closures.”

    Source link

  • What’s in House Republicans’ Risk-Sharing Plan?

    What’s in House Republicans’ Risk-Sharing Plan?

    Under a new accountability measure recently proposed as part of a larger House budget bill, colleges would have to pay millions of dollars each year to reimburse the government for their students’ unpaid loans.

    The plan builds on an idea—known as risk-sharing—that lawmakers and policy analysts have been toying with since at least 2015. As the federal student loan portfolio grew, the goal was to require colleges to have some skin in the game and incentivize them to improve student outcomes.

    And while the concept has gained some bipartisan support in theory, higher education institutions have repeatedly argued that it is difficult to create a fair accountability system when many of the variables involved are out of an institution’s control and depend on the decisions of individual students and borrowers.

    So far, the higher ed lobby has successfully defeated proposed risk-sharing plans such as the one included in a Republican bill from the last Congress, known as the College Cost Reduction Act. But now, an almost identical proposal is back and at the heart of House Republicans’ plan to cut at least $330 billion from higher education programs over the next 10 years. The overall legislation, which aims to cut $1.5 trillion from the budget, could receive a vote on the House floor this week, though some lawmakers have threatened to block the measure amid concerns that it doesn’t include deeper cuts. Even if the bill fails, it serves as a marker of what House Republicans hope to accomplish moving forward.

    Many higher education policy experts warn that practically speaking, the latest risk-sharing plan relies on a complicated formula that’s essentially a black box. Released in late April, the proposal has not been tested enough to know its ramifications, they say, and the limited data available is inconclusive. Some analyses released by conservative groups say the program will be a financial boost for efficient public institutions and penalize bloated private ones. But one study conducted by a lobbying group suggests that public regional and minority-serving institutions that serve high populations of low-income students will get hit the hardest.

    “Fundamentally it’s an astonishing level of federal overreach to essentially lump in all institutions of higher education together—public, private, for-profit—and run a convoluted formula to determine winners and losers at the federal level and then redistribute funding,” said Craig Lindwarm, senior vice president of government affairs for the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities.

    Democratic politicians also argue that the purpose of the legislation is not truly to hold colleges accountable for student outcomes like graduation rates and income levels, but to crack down on what the government considers overly liberal institutions and fund President Donald Trump’s priorities.

    Even some conservative supporters acknowledge that it’s difficult to know the full scope of the bill’s potential impact this early. But they say risk-sharing is a necessary tool to penalize colleges that provide a poor return on investment and ensure the production of a well-prepared, financially stable workforce. They also suggest that the incentives such as additional grant funding to institutions that keep costs low and graduation rates high will offset the penalty for most public institutions.

    “With any policy change, we’re not going to be able to predict in advance 100 percent of how this is going to affect everyone, everywhere, all the time. But I don’t think that should be an excuse to not make policy changes,” said Preston Cooper, a senior fellow at the conservative think tank the American Enterprise Institute. “I still think the data we have gives us a general idea of which sorts of institutions would be affected and the magnitudes of the penalties involved.”

    So How Does It Work?

    The proposed risk-sharing plan would kick in for new loans starting in July 2027, said an aide for Republicans on the House Education and the Workforce Committee. That means colleges wouldn’t be penalized for disruptions to the student loan system that occurred during the pandemic or efforts during the Biden and Trump administrations to overhaul repayment.

    If we don’t even understand how this works, why the heck are we passing it? I mean, it’s a concept, but I don’t think it’s the concept that people think it is.”

    Jason Delisle, nonresident senior fellow at the Urban Institute

    And because borrowers don’t have to start paying back their loans until six months after they graduate or stop out, institutions likely won’t have to pay a penalty until 2029 or 2030 at the earliest, the aide added.

    But from then on, institutional payments would be calculated annually—major by major—for each new cohort of borrowers and would continue until they’ve paid off their loans. The amount per cohort could change from year to year, depending on factors such as borrower behavior, postgraduation earnings and college costs. But it’s expected to grow as more and more cohorts are added to the lump sum.

    Under the bill, the amount per cohort would be calculated using a three-part formula, which is largely unchanged from what Republicans proposed last Congress in the CCRA.

    The first step is to determine a college’s risk-sharing liability, which is how much each institution owes the government. To do that, the formula looks at the difference between how much students were supposed to repay during a given year and how much they actually did. The calculation takes into account the value of any missed or partial payments as well as any interest that the government waived or principal contributions it matched, the committee aide said. It does not, however, include debt waived through programs like Public Service Loan Forgiveness, which was a concern for institutions.

    This is the part of the formula that raises the most questions for institutions, as the mechanics of exactly how the risk-sharing liability is calculated are not clearly outlined in the legislation or in a CCRA database published by the education committee Republicans in 2024. And even if it were, much of the data needed to run the formula is not publicly accessible.

    “How the formula works is the million-dollar question, and something that we’ve been trying to work on for a year and a half,” one policy expert said. “It’s very complicated and relies on metrics that aren’t publicly available.”

    House committee aides counter that colleges have access to student borrower data via the National Student Loan Data System, which can be used to predict future risk-sharing payments. They also point to a recent Dear Colleague letter reminding colleges of their responsibility to monitor borrower payments.

    But even then, higher ed lobbyists say, it’s not clear who will be responsible for calculating the liability. If any part of that responsibility falls to campus financial aid administrators, higher ed groups say the plan will increase the administrative burden on colleges.

    “If I were a lobbyist, I would just say to all of my members, go to your congressman and say, ‘We don’t know what this does,’” said Jason Delisle, a policy analyst who has worked at think tanks across the political spectrum but is now based at Urban Institute where he’s a nonresident senior fellow. “If we don’t even understand how this works, why the heck are we passing it? I mean, it’s a concept, but I don’t think it’s the concept that people think it is.”

    Incentives to Lower Costs

    Once that risk-sharing liability is known, the next step in the formula is to figure out how much of that liability fee a college will have to pay. That’s done using what the legislation calls an earning-price ratio, which compares students’ earnings to the federal poverty line and college cost. A higher EPR means a lower final payment. For example, if an institution’s EPR is 0.3, or 30 percent, then it has to pay 70 percent of the original liability.

    To further offset the risk-sharing penalty, colleges can also qualify for a new pot of funding proposed in the bill called the PROMISE Grant, which is the third step of the formula. How much a college would get in PROMISE funding depends on the total value of Pell Grants received and the graduation rate of Pell-eligible students. This grant is funded by other colleges’ risk-sharing payments.

    Rep. Tim Walberg, a Michigan Republican and chair of the House Education and Workforce Committee, is leading the effort to cut billions from higher education programs.

    Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call Inc. via Getty Images

    So, according to data from the House committee, the State Technical College of Missouri should get $3,230,130.50 in PROMISE grants. But the community college would have to pay $9,688, bringing its net gain down to $3,220,442.50. Washington University in St. Louis, however, would receive no PROMISE Grant funding and lose about $3.5 million. (The House Committee data only lists the final risk-sharing payment—not original liability values or EPRs.)

    In theory, this data demonstrates how the EPR and the PROMISE Grant are supposed to support colleges that serve low-income students, but many higher ed lobbyists are worried the program will actually do the opposite. That’s largely because colleges can only receive a PROMISE Grant if they agree to lock in tuition rates for each new freshman class. If they can keep tuition costs low, then their EPR scores will only be strong. Some lobbyists say that neither is a feasible option for public colleges and minority-serving institutions, which rely heavily on funding from the state.

    “It’s not a coincidence that some of our schools that would get hit the hardest are in states that invest very little in public higher education. Some of our schools in Pennsylvania and Arizona, for example, would fare extremely poorly, and it’s by and large because tuition levels are such a determinative component as it relates to the penalty assessment,” said MacGregor Obergfell, director of governmental affairs at APLU. “To think of what traditional conservative orthodoxy is, it seems pretty unusual that a conservative position is using the federal government to punish state institutions for decisions made by their states.”

    Reward or Penalty?

    Some higher ed groups also noted that much of the formula either depends on or fails to acknowledge factors outside of a college’s control. Much of this has to do with unpredictable borrower behavior, but there are other factors at play, too; for example, when calculating discounts with the EPR, the formula doesn’t account for differences in the cost of living from college to college.

    “Institutions in higher-cost areas are at more of a disadvantage than other institutions,” said Karen McCarthy, vice president of public policy and federal relations for the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators. “They have to charge higher prices to reflect higher costs of labor, maintaining facilities and all those types of things.”

    The burden of risk-sharing payments may be so high that colleges elect to opt out of the federal student loans program entirely, she added: “Ultimately it would have an impact on lower-income students who have a need both for a Pell Grant and a direct loan to help them meet their cost of attendance.”

    Of colleges that enrolled 70 percent or more low-income, Pell-eligible students, 96 percent would have to pay a risk-sharing penalty and 91 percent would lose money over all when PROMISE Grant is factored in, according to the American Council on Education’s analysis of the House data.

    The committee countered that finding with its own analysis of the data, sent to Inside Higher Ed, showing how colleges that enroll the highest share of low-income students should see about $99 more per student, while those that enroll the lowest share would lose about $66 per student.

    The ACE analysis as well as the committee’s data are among the few studies that show the estimated impact of the previously proposed risk-sharing plan. None have been updated yet to reflect the latest iteration.

    Another analysis from Cooper, the AEI fellow, estimated that public institutions as a whole should get more money under the plan, but private nonprofits are expected to face a substantial penalty.

    Although critics point to how the plan would affect individual institutions, particularly small, underresourced schools, proponents argue that the focus should be on the impact to higher education over all, and that colleges can lower their costs to see a payoff.

    “Because the net gains are significantly larger, the sector as a whole sees a net gain even though more institutions have net losses,” Cooper said. “So, the upside for institutions here is that there are significant rewards available to those which can improve their outcomes.”

    At the end of the day, it’s all about how you choose to look at the data.

    “I would just like to see [the formula of risk-sharing] play out for a couple of hypothetical colleges based on data that has some bearing on reality,” said Delisle from Urban Institute. “And that’s a hard thing to come by right now.”

    Source link

  • Trump’s FY26 budget plan slashes Education Department programs

    Trump’s FY26 budget plan slashes Education Department programs

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    President Donald Trump on Friday proposed wide-ranging cuts to federal higher education spending in his fiscal 2026 budget request, calling to eliminate some grant programs altogether and for states to take over others like Federal Work-Study. 

    The budget request offers a broad look at Trump’s priorities, which include shaving 15.3% off the U.S. Department of Education’s budget, a move in line with his broader plan to shutter the agency. Across the federal government, Trump’s request would eliminate some $163 billion in nondefense domestic spending, including the dramatic cuts to education programs.

    U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement Friday that the budget reflects “funding levels for an agency that is responsibly winding down, shifting some responsibilities to the states, and thoughtfully preparing a plan to delegate other critical functions to more appropriate entities.” 

    Presidential budget proposals are akin to executive wishlists and are never enacted as introduced. And Trump’s budget request for the 2026 fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1, faces key obstacles before it could be approved. Even though Republicans control both the House and Senate, at least one GOP lawmaker has already objected to some of Trump’s proposed cuts.

    But other party leaders signaled a willingness to embrace Trump’s proposals. 

    “The American people sent Republicans to Washington to lower costs and rein in wasteful government spending,” Tim Walberg, chair of the House Committee on Education and Workforce, said in a Friday statement. “The budget proposal President Trump released today not only gives us a blueprint but shows us it is possible to deliver on this promise.” 

    Student aid takes a blow

    The budget takes aim at Federal Work-Study, which provides part-time jobs to students who need help paying for college. Under the program, the federal government covers up to 75% of students’ wages. 

    Trump’s proposal calls for a $980 million reduction in funding for the program, which was appropriated $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2024. 

    In his budget plan, the president called for Federal Work-Study to be run by the states and the colleges “that financially benefit from it.” 

    “Reform of this poorly targeted program should redistribute remaining funding to institutions that serve the most low-income students and provide a wage subsidy to gain career-oriented opportunities to improve long-term employment outcomes of students,” it says. 

    Trump’s proposal would also eliminate funding for Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, which assist undergraduate students who have “exceptional financial need.” The program was allocated $910 million in fiscal 2024 — all of which would be cut under Trump’s budget. 

    The budget document accuses the grants of contributing “to rising college costs” that colleges have used to pay for a “radical leftist ideology.” Colleges that receive these grants pass the money onto students, and the institutions must contribute 25% of their own money for those awards. 

    Two other programs are on the chopping block: TRIO, which provides support for middle school through college students from disadvantaged backgrounds, and Gear Up, which helps low-income students prepare for postsecondary education. Trump’s budget called these programs a “relic of the past when financial incentives were needed to motivate” colleges to increase access to low-income students. 

    “Today, the pendulum has swung and access to college is not the obstacle it was for students of limited means,” the budget document claims, saying higher education institutions should use their own resources to recruit students. 

    Together, the programs received nearly $1.6 billion in fiscal 2024, all of which would be cut under Trump’s plan. 

    The budget documents released Friday did not address funding for Pell Grants, the largest student aid program.

    Source link

  • Judge Blocks Energy Dept. Plan to Cap Indirect Cost Rates

    Judge Blocks Energy Dept. Plan to Cap Indirect Cost Rates

    A federal judge temporarily blocked the U.S. Department of Energy’s plan to cap universities’ indirect research cost reimbursement rates, pending a hearing in the ongoing lawsuit filed by several higher education associations and universities.

    Judge Allison D. Burroughs of the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts wrote in the brief Wednesday order that the plaintiffs had shown that, without a temporary restraining order, “they will sustain immediate and irreparable injury before there is an opportunity to hear from all parties.”

    Plaintiffs include the Association of American Universities, the American Council on Education, the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities and nine individual universities, including Brown, Cornell and Princeton Universities and the Universities of Michigan, Illinois and Rochester. They sued the DOE and department secretary Chris Wright on Monday, three days after the DOE announced its plan.

    Department spokespeople didn’t return Inside Higher Ed’s requests for comment Thursday afternoon.

    DOE’s plan is to cap the reimbursement rates at 15 percent. Energy grant recipients at colleges and universities currently have an average 30 percent indirect cost rate. The Trump administration has alleged that indirect costs are wasteful spending, although they are extensively audited.

    The DOE sends more than $2.5 billion a year to over 300 colleges and universities. Part of that money covers costs indirectly related to research that may support multiple grant-funded projects, including specialized nuclear-rated facilities, computer systems and administrative support costs.

    The department’s plan is nearly identical to a plan the National Institutes of Health announced in February, which a judge also blocked.

    Source link

  • Head Start zeroed out in Trump’s preliminary budget plan

    Head Start zeroed out in Trump’s preliminary budget plan

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Dive Brief:

    • Head Start would be eliminated under a draft fiscal 2026 budget that the Trump administration is preparing to send to Congress, according to a preliminary budget planning document acquired by K-12 Dive’s sister publication Healthcare Dive.
    • The program is among other initiatives targeted for termination that support low-income families and children — including the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program and the Community Services Block Grant — under the preliminary budget document for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
    • Even if sent to Congress as currently drafted, however, the proposals have a long road to travel before gaining congressional approval and being finalized. Still, advocates and policymakers are raising alarms, with one advocacy group — The Child Care for Every Family Network — calling the potential elimination of Head Start an “absolute disaster for families and [the] economy.”

    Dive Insight:

    The budget cuts would be in line with the Trump administration’s efforts to dramatically reduce the size of the federal government. For FY 2024, Congress funded Head Start at about $12.2 billion, the Community Services Block Grant at around $758 million, and LIHEAP at $4 billion.  

    HHS did not respond to a request for comment Thursday.

    Some Republicans in Congress and conservative organizations have criticized Head Start in the past as unsafe and ineffective at increasing children’s academic performances. Project 2025 — a blueprint for the current Republican administration issued during the presidential campaign by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank — recommended zeroing out the program.

    But the National Head Start Association, an advocacy organization that represents program leaders, families and children, points to research showing positive academic, social and economic returns on investment from Head Start.

    The program, which celebrates its 60th anniversary next month, serves nearly 800,000 infants, toddlers and preschool children from families with low incomes. More than 17,000 Head Start centers operate nationwide. A companion Early Head Start program provides prenatal services.

    The proposal to terminate Head Start “reflects a disinvestment in our future,” said Yasmina Vinci, executive director of NHSA, said in a Thursday statement. “Eliminating funding for Head Start would be catastrophic. It would be a direct attack on our nation’s most at-risk children, their well-being, and their families.”

    The Head Start system is already under fiscal strain, advocates say. Mass layoffs at HHS on April 1 led to the closing of five Office of Head Start regional offices: Boston, New York, Chicago, San Francisco and Seattle. Those offices are to be consolidated into the five remaining offices in Philadelphia, Atlanta, Dallas, Kansas City and Denver. The regional offices provide guidance on federal policy, training and technical assistance to Head Start providers.

    However, in an April 3 announcement to Head Start grant recipients, Laurie Todd-Smith, HHS deputy assistant secretary for early childhood development, said the closures would not impact “critical services.” 

    Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., vice chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said in a Wednesday statement that data shows the Trump administration issued nearly $1 billion less in federal grants to Head Start centers nationwide to date this year compared to the same period last year — a 37% decrease. 

    “So far this year, Trump has slow-walked $1 billion in funding from going out the door to Head Start programs, and we are beginning to see the devastating consequences: centers closing, kids kicked out of the classroom, teachers losing their jobs, and entire communities losing out,” Murray said.

    President Donald Trump is expected to release his proposed FY 2026 budget later this month or early next month, according to news reports. Congress will then debate the recommended allocations before sending appropriations bills to the president for signature. The federal fiscal year starts Oct. 1.

    Sydney Halleman, editor for Healthcare Dive, contributed to this story.

    Source link

  • Bridging the Skills Divide: Higher Education’s Role in Delivering the UK’s Plan for Change

    Bridging the Skills Divide: Higher Education’s Role in Delivering the UK’s Plan for Change

    • Dr Ismini Vasileiou is Associate Professor at De Montfort University, Director of the East Midlands Cyber Security Cluster and Director and Co-Chair of UKC3.

    Higher education has always played a critical role in skills development, from professional fields like Medicine, Dentistry, and Engineering to more recent models such as degree apprenticeships. However, as the UK’s digital economy evolves at an unprecedented pace, there is a growing need to rebalance provision, ensuring that universities continue to equip graduates with both theoretical expertise and industry-ready capabilities in areas such as AI, cybersecurity, and automation.

    The government’s strategic focus on workforce development underscores the importance of these changes, with higher education well-placed to lead the transformation. As industries adapt, the need for a highly skilled workforce has never been greater. The UK Government’s Plan for Jobs outlines a strategic vision for workforce development, placing skills at the heart of economic growth, national security, and regional resilience.

    With the new higher education reform expected in Summer 2025, the sector faces a pivotal moment. The Department for Education has announced that the upcoming changes will focus on improving student outcomes, employment pathways, and financial sustainability in HE. While universities are autonomous institutions, government policy and funding mechanisms are key drivers influencing institutional priorities. The increasing emphasis on workforce development – particularly in cybersecurity, AI, and other high-demand sectors- suggests that universities will likely need to adapt, particularly as new regulatory and funding structures emerge under the forthcoming HE reform.

    The National Skills Agenda: Why Higher Education Matters

    The skills gap is no longer an abstract policy concern; it is a pressing challenge with economic and security implications. The introduction of Degree Apprenticeships in 2015 was a landmark shift towards integrating academic learning with industry needs. Subsequent initiatives, including MSc conversion courses in AI and Data Science, Level 6 apprenticeships, and the Lifelong Learning Entitlement (LLE) serve as policy levers designed to encourage and facilitate a more skills-oriented higher education landscape, rather than evidence of an inherent need for change. Through mechanisms such as Degree Apprenticeships, AI conversion courses, and the Lifelong Learning Entitlement, the government is actively shaping pathways that incentivise greater emphasis on employability and applied learning within universities.

    The Plan for Change accelerates this momentum, funding over 30 regional projects designed to enhance cyber resilience and workforce readiness. One example is the CyberLocal programme, a government-backed initiative (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) focused on upskilling local authorities, SMEs, and community organisations in cybersecurity. CyberLocal connects universities, businesses, and local governments to deliver tailored cyber resilience training, addressing the increasing threats to national digital security. More information can be found through CyberLocal’s page.

    Financial Pressures and the Case for Skills-Based Education

    At the same time, the financial landscape of HE is shifting. Declining student enrolments in traditional subjects, increasing operational costs, and a competitive global market have left many institutions reassessing their sustainability strategies. The upcoming higher education reform will shape policy from 2025 onwards, and universities must determine how best to adapt to new funding models and student expectations.

    While skills-based education is often positioned as a solution, it is not an immediate financial fix. Many Degree Apprenticeships are run at a loss due to administrative complexities, employer engagement challenges, and high operational costs. Several articles, including those previously published at HEPI, highlight that while demand is growing, institutions face significant challenges in delivering these programmes at scale.

    Government-backed funding in AI training and cybersecurity resilience offers targeted opportunities, but these remain limited in scope. Some universities have found success in co-designed upskilling and reskilling initiatives, particularly where regional economic growth strategies align with HE capabilities. The Institute of Coding, a national collaboration between universities and employers funded by the Office for Students, has developed industry-focused digital skills training, particularly in software development and cybersecurity. Additionally, the Office for Students Short Course trial has enabled universities to develop flexible, modular programmes that respond directly to employer demand in areas such as AI, digital transformation, and cybersecurity. Other examples include the National Centre for AI in Tertiary Education, which supports universities in embedding AI skills into their curricula to meet the growing demand for AI literacy across multiple sectors. However, a broader financial model that enables sustainable, scalable skills education is still required.

    Regional Collaboration and Workforce Development

    Since 2018, the Department for Education (DfE) has supported the creation of Institutes of Technology (IoTs), with 19 now operational across England and Wales. These institutions prioritise digital and cyber education, aligning with local skills needs and economic strategies. Strengthening collaboration between HE and IoTs could enable universities to support regionally tailored workforce development.

    Examples such as the East Midlands Freeport, the Leicester and Leicestershire Local Skills Observatory, and CyberLocal illustrate the power of localised approaches. The Collective Skills Observatory, a joint initiative between De Montfort University and the East Midlands Chamber, is leveraging real-time workforce data to ensure that training provision matches employer demand. These initiatives could provide a blueprint for future HE collaboration with regional skills networks, particularly as the UK government reviews post-2025 skills policy.

    Cyber Resilience, AI, and the Challenge of Adaptive Curricula

    The government’s focus on cyber resilience and AI-driven industries underscores the urgent need for skills development in these areas. With AI poised to reshape global industries, universities must ensure graduates are prepared for rapidly evolving job roles. However, one of the biggest challenges is the slow pace of curriculum development in higher education.

    Traditional course approval processes mean new degrees can take two to three years to develop. In fields like AI, where breakthroughs happen on a monthly rather than yearly basis, this presents a serious risk of curricula becoming outdated before they are even launched. Universities must explore faster, more flexible course design models, such as shorter accreditation cycles, modular learning pathways, and micro-credentials.

    Government-backed initiatives, such as the Institute of Coding, have demonstrated alternative models for responsive skills training. As the HE reform unfolds, universities will need to consider how existing governance structures can adapt to the demands of an AI-driven economy.

    A New Skills Ecosystem: HE’s Role in the Post-2025 Landscape

    The forthcoming higher education reform is expected to introduce significant policy changes, including revised funding structures, greater emphasis on employability and skills-based education, and stronger incentives for industry partnerships, particularly in STEM and digital sectors.  

    Higher education must position itself as a leader in skills development. The recent Universities UK (UUK) blueprint, calls for deeper collaboration between the further and higher education sectors, recognising their complementary strengths. Further education offers agility and vocational expertise, while higher education provides advanced research and higher-level skills training – together, they can create a seamless learner journey.

    At the same time, national initiatives such as Skills England, the Digital Skills Partnerships, and Degree Apprenticeships present opportunities for universities to engage in long-term skills planning. The integration of Lifelong Learning Entitlement (LLE) loans will further support continuous upskilling and career transitions, reinforcing the role of HE in lifelong workforce development.

    Conclusion: Shaping the Future of HE Through Skills and Collaboration

    With the HE reform announcement expected in Summer 2025, universities must act now to align with the government’s long-term skills agenda. The future of HE is being written now, and skills must be at the heart of it.

    Source link

  • Will the UK’s AI Action Plan Force Universities into a U-turn?

    Will the UK’s AI Action Plan Force Universities into a U-turn?

    The AI Opportunities Action Plan, led by Matt Clifford CBE and announced in January, documents recommendations for the government to grow the UK’s AI sector to ‘position the UK to be an AI maker, not an AI taker’ in the field and help achieve economic growth.

    The UK’s AI Action Plan highlights the critical need to harness international talent and expand the workforce with AI expertise. However, this ambition is at odds with recent moves by the British government to limit international student numbers through stricter visa regulations, leading universities to make difficult decisions—cutting courses, slashing budgets, and exploring alternative strategies to maintain financial stability and global relevance.

    The AI Action Plan: A policy contradiction

    Despite a well-documented skills gap in the UK’s AI sector, the Government’s actions have forced universities to pivot toward establishing global campuses in a bid to preserve financial stability and maintain and promote international collaboration in general. This trend is exemplified by universities like Coventry University, which opened a campus in Delhi last year, and the University of Lancaster’s partnership with Deakin University in Indonesia. Today, UK universities operate 38 campuses across 18 countries, educating more than 67,750 students abroad.

    While these international campuses help extend the UK’s academic reach, the UK’s immigration policies are creating significant barriers to attracting top-tier AI talent to work domestically. Many international graduates, trained to UK standards, are struggling to secure postgraduate visas for themselves and their families, preventing them from contributing their skills to the UK economy.

    Visa barriers for graduates

    One of the main visa routes intended to help international talent integrate into the UK workforce is the High Potential Individual (HPI) visa. The HPI visa is a UK immigration pathway designed for recent graduates from 40 top global universities, allowing them to live and work in the UK for several years. However, this scheme remains restrictive. To qualify, applicants must have a qualification from one of the eligible global universities in the last five years. Of the universities included, 47.62% are from the US, and there is just one institution from the entire southern hemisphere on the list.

    The AI action plan recommended the government consider reforming the HPI pathway with ‘graduates from some leading AI institutions, such as the Indian Institutes of Technology and (since 2020) Carnegie Mellon University in the US, are not currently included in the High Potential Individual visa eligibility list’.

    The AI Action Plan itself highlights the need for a rethink of the UK’s immigration system to attract graduates from top AI institutions worldwide. However, the government has only ‘partially agreed‘ with this recommendation, pointing to existing visa schemes that they believe meet the needs of skilled workers, including AI graduates. However, it can be argued that the UK visa process is often expensive, and Global Talent Visas require employer sponsorship while failing to account for the challenges that international graduates face when trying to secure long-term employment, especially in industries with rapidly evolving skills like AI. Even if the HPI eligibility list was expanded, our existing visa pathways are too restrictive to support a rapid influx of skilled graduates.

    Government and university collaboration

    The AI Action Plan calls on the government to ‘support Higher Education institutions in increasing the number of AI graduates and teaching industry-relevant skills.’ The reality is that many UK universities have already adjusted their strategies to cope with both domestic financial pressures and the measures introduced to quell international students through restricted immigration pathways.

    The question remains whether universities will be expected to reverse course, intensify efforts to recruit domestically and retain AI talent to meet the government’s urgent targets. Without a targeted and affordable visa system to support these efforts, the AI Action Plan’s goals risk falling short of their potential.

    This is not about asking Universities to ensure that their international students have clear career pathways post-graduation or providing AI-specific courses. The government must create an AI-specific visa that allows graduates from top global institutions to work in the UK.

    The real need lies in fostering closer collaboration between higher education institutions and government policymakers, particularly when it comes to visas. The government must take responsibility for creating a new visa pathway if it wants to meet the aims of the AI action plan.  Universities cannot be expected to U-turn- develop new courses in the face of financial constraints and restrictive visa policies.

    Mauve Group is a global HR, Employer of Record and business consultancy provider. Mauve specialises in supporting organisations of all sizes to expand overseas, helping companies navigate the complexities of employing workers across borders. 

    Source link

  • How a Republican Plan to Cut Universal Free School Meals Could Affect 12 Million Students – The 74

    How a Republican Plan to Cut Universal Free School Meals Could Affect 12 Million Students – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Every school in Kentucky’s LaRue County provides free breakfast and lunch to any student who wants it.

    It’s been that way for a decade, ever since the federal government launched a program allowing LaRue County Schools, and thousands of other districts nationwide, to skip the paperwork asking how much families earn.

    In these communities, lots of kids already receive other kinds of assistance for low-income families. Federal officials saw a way to make the subsidized meals program more efficient: Cover meal costs based on how many children are in similar assistance programs, rather than verify every family’s income.

    But LaRue County Schools won’t be able to do that anymore if sweeping changes to social programs proposed by congressional Republicans become law. GOP lawmakers say they want to ensure only eligible families get help and that taxpayer dollars are reserved for the neediest students, so that federal subsidies for school meals remain sustainable. But by one estimate, the Republicans’ plan would affect nearly a quarter of the students in the nation’s public schools.

    Research has found that universal free school meals can boost school attendance, increase test scores, and decrease suspensions, likely because it eliminates the stigma students often associate with the free meals. Taking them away from students on a large scale could also have downstream effects on everything from families’ household budgets to local unemployment.

    Stephanie Utley, the LaRue County district’s director of child nutrition, said that inevitably, fewer kids would eat school meals, either because their families no longer qualify for free breakfast and lunch or because they cannot produce documents to verify their income.

    When fewer kids eat school meals, it’s harder for districts to cover their costs. To save money, Utley would likely swap higher-quality foods for cheaper ones, she said.

    Apples and beef from local farms would go. The high school would serve fewer salads — they’d be too labor-intensive to prep. And a popular chicken breast sandwich would become a ground chicken patty.

    Utley may have to lay off staff, too, she said, which would hurt the rural community’s economy.

    “We’re the biggest restaurant in town,” she said. “It would be a nightmare.”

    GOP school meals proposals would impact states

    Republican lawmakers are considering a trio of proposals to help offset tax cuts sought by President Donald Trump that would be “devastating” to children and schools, said Erin Hysom, the senior child nutrition policy analyst for the nonprofit Food Research & Action Center.

    One proposal would dramatically increase the share of students who need to be enrolled in aid programs — such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families — for schools to be eligible to serve free meals to all kids through the Community Eligibility Provision.

    Right now, schools need to show 25% of students are enrolled in those kinds of assistance programs to participate in community eligibility. The House Republican proposal would raise the share to 60% — higher than the threshold has ever been. That would kick more than 24,000 schools off of community eligibility, and some 12 million students would no longer automatically qualify for free meals, Hysom’s organization estimated.

    Essentially, only communities where nearly every child qualifies for free or reduced-price lunch could serve free meals to all kids.

    “They’ve really moved the needle to the upper echelon of poverty,” Hysom said. “You couldn’t get any higher than that.”

    Another proposal would require all families who don’t automatically qualify for free school meals through programs like SNAP to submit documents to verify their income with their application. That would burden families and schools with time-consuming added paperwork. Schools could end up cutting staff who serve food and work on school menus to hire more people to process applications.

    Together, those changes would save $12 billion over 10 years, according to the list of proposals circulated by U.S. Rep. Jodey Arrington, the Republican chair of the House budget committee.

    A third proposal would change how families qualify for SNAP and likely make over 1 million students no longer automatically eligible for free school meals. That would increase the paperwork burden even more.

    All of that would make it more costly for states with universal free school meals to run their programs, because they rely heavily on federal reimbursement. Some states were already weighing whether they could afford to keep up free meals for all.

    These three proposals are part of a process known as budget reconciliation that GOP lawmakers are using to make long-term changes to federal spending and revenue. As of Wednesday, Congress was considering a separate, stopgap budget that would keep funding essentially flat for the Agriculture Department, which pays for the school meal program, through the end of September.

    School staff and child nutrition advocates are taking the House’s budget reconciliation proposals seriously. The Trump administration has already cut a $1 billion Agriculture Department program that helped schools buy food from local producers.

    Free school meal cutbacks would have ripple effects

    If fewer kids have access to free meals at school, more families would likely struggle to afford groceries at home. Many families who don’t qualify for free meals struggle to pay for food. This school year, a family of four qualified for free school meals if they made under $40,560 a year.

    When schools eliminated free school meals for all following the pandemic, there was a surge in unpaid school meal debt, an issue school staff say will only intensify if these proposals go through.

    Right now, schools typically have to verify the family’s income for 3% of their applications. If schools had to check income for every application, the burden would be enormous, school staff and child nutrition advocates said.

    Many families who eke out a living working multiple jobs would have a hard time gathering up all the required documents to show how much they earn. Though children can participate in the school meals program regardless of their immigration status, undocumented parents may be afraid to hand over personal documents when Trump is threatening mass deportations.

    “Eligible children are going to fall through the cracks,” Hysom said.

    Many schools are already facing financial pressures from higher-than-usual food and labor costs, a 2024 survey of nearly 1,400 school nutrition directors showed. On top of that, schools are navigating new and stricter requirements for how much salt and sugar can be in food served by schools.

    Schools have to buy most of their food from American sources, but if Trump puts certain tariffs in place for the long term, that could create new financial constraints.

    “Cost is absolutely a concern,” said Diane Pratt-Heavner, a spokesperson for the School Nutrition Association, which represents school nutrition directors and conducted the survey. “When avocados or tomatoes from Mexico become much more expensive, that will cause an increase in demand for domestic produce, and an increase in price, as well.”

    Shannon Gleave, the president of the School Nutrition Association, understands the need to make sure the school meal program runs as it should.

    In Arizona’s Glendale Elementary School District, where Gleave is the director of food and nutrition, kids can speed through the lunch line because everyone qualifies for free meals. But staff scan student ID badges to make sure each kid only takes one meal, and that children with dietary restrictions get the right food.

    Upping the verification requirements a little could work, she said. But verifying 100% of applications “is not an efficient use of time.”

    “There is no way my existing staff could do that now,” she said. “You have to figure out a way to be good stewards of resources, but also look at the amount of administrative burden that it’s going to entail.”

    This story was originally published by Chalkbeat. Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools. Sign up for their newsletters at ckbe.at/newsletters.


    Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Source link

  • Draft order outlines plan to close Education Dept.

    Draft order outlines plan to close Education Dept.

    A draft executive order obtained Thursday by Inside Higher Ed directs the newly confirmed education secretary, Linda McMahon, to “take all necessary steps” to return authority over education to the states and facilitate closure of the Department of Education “to the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law.”

    If signed, the order—which has been rumored for weeks but is not yet official—would be the first step in carrying out the president’s controversial campaign promise to abolish the 45-year-old department, which he believes is unconstitutional and has grown too large.

    Several media outlets reported Wednesday night that Trump would sign the order as soon as Thursday, but shortly after the news circulated, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt posted on X, “President Trump is NOT signing an Executive Order on the Department of Education today” and called the reports “fake news.”

    Still, the reports set off a wave of comments from advocates and analysts. Liberals warned that shutting down the Education Department would be devastating for families and students, while conservatives backed Trump’s plan and said the draft order was key to cleaning up the agency.

    McMahon, who took office Monday and will spearhead the closure effort, is supportive of overhauling the agency. She told department staff earlier this week to prepare for a “momentous final mission” to eliminate “bureaucratic bloat” and return education to the states.

    Although vague, the secretary’s memo and the draft executive order give policy experts some idea of what could come next.

    At the very least, they expect to see a major reduction in staff and a diminished federal role in education; some of that work is already underway. The agency has slashed millions in contracts and grants as well as fired dozens of employees. A larger reduction in force is also in the works, fueling concerns among department staff.

    “There is probably not going to be anything in [the order] that isn’t already happening, largely,” said Kelly McManus, vice president of higher education at Arnold Ventures, a philanthropic group. “The secretary’s final mission was clear … so I’m not particularly worked up about the EO specifically, because I don’t think it’s going to fundamentally change that.”

    Abolishing the department would require an act of Congress, which McManus said the draft order appears to acknowledge. She and other experts say any effort to close the department will be lengthy and complicated.

    “This is not a flip-on, flip-off situation here,” she said. “Practically, there will have to be a process … You cannot shut the doors tomorrow and be done.”

    The 416-word draft order gives little detail as to what the “steps” of dismantling the department are or what would happen to certain congressionally mandated programs such as the Pell Grant, the student loan system or the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. However, the document does say that any funds allocated by the department should comply with federal law, including Trump’s previous orders on diversity, equity and inclusion and transgender athletes—both of which have been caught up in court.

    Neither Trump nor McMahon has so far offered any plan outlining how closing the department would work, though some conservative plans recommend moving the Office for Federal Student Aid to the Treasury and sending the Office for Civil Rights to the Justice Department.

    More than 4,000 people currently work for the department, which was created in 1979 and now has a $80 billion discretionary budget. Each year, the agency issues about $100 billion in student loans and doles out more than $30 billion in Pell Grants.

    Shutting down the department isn’t popular with voters, recent surveys have found. One recent opinion poll found that 61 percent of all respondents “somewhat” or “strongly” opposed the idea of eliminating the department. Another showed that up to 72 percent either opposed the plan or weren’t sure how they felt. That number was 49 percent among Republicans.

    Minimizing a D.C. ‘Footprint’

    Trump has signaled for months, if not years, that he wants to shut down the Education Department, and many analysts have already taken a position on the issue.

    To Michael Brickman, an adjunct fellow at the conservative think tank the American Enterprise Institute, nothing about the draft was a surprise. Like McManus, he noted that much of what the order directs McMahon to do is already underway.

    Brickman expects the next steps will focus on finding new and “better” ways to maintain the department’s core functions as required under law with “less funding, less staff and possibly in conjunction with other agencies.”

    “I don’t think anybody’s talking about cutting major programs,” he said, referencing financial aid services like the Pell Grant and disability protection acts like IDEA. “So the question will be, what is required under law? What can Congress change? And how can the department streamline things to minimize the footprint in D.C.?”

    Shutting down the Education Department likely would be disruptive for colleges and students, advocates say.

    J. David Ake/Getty Images

    McManus stressed that it will be important to protect these core functions, especially the ones related to higher ed, saying it doesn’t make sense to send them back to the states.

    “What is most important is that those core statutory functions have the people, capacity and expertise to be able to do effective oversight of how taxpayer dollars are being spent,” she said. “We are significantly less concerned about where those people sit, as long as there is the ability to safeguard taxpayer investments and to make sure that programs that are statutorily required and that have had long bipartisan support, like Pell Grants, are being effectively implemented.”

    In Brickman’s view, some of the department’s regulatory operations, like analyzing and creating reports on grant or contract applicants and managing third-party accreditors, are simply “make-work.” By hiring hundreds of staff members to execute these tasks, he said, the department pulls tax dollars from local governments and then forces those same communities to spend more writing grant proposals to get it back.

    “There’s just a lot of work and churn that evidence shows does not lead to improved student outcomes,” he said.

    But when asked what the Trump administration has done to convince stakeholders he not only intends to tear down the department but also build it back up again, Brickman didn’t directly answer the question. Instead, he referenced actions of the Biden administration.

    “The Biden administration broke the entire Federal Student Aid system on purpose … They were trying to illegally turn the trillion-plus-dollar portfolio from a loan program into a grant program,” he said. “That is not what the Trump administration is doing. The Trump administration has tried to improve these programs and make them actually work again.”

    Although what Biden did was “unfortunate,” Brickman said, it also creates an opportunity.

    “This mess isn’t being created; it’s being responded to,” he said. “I hope institutions that may be predisposed to oppose anything coming from the Trump administration will welcome this as the end of a failed experiment that just put more restrictions on teaching and learning.”

    Democrats Push Back

    Meanwhile, Democratic lawmakers, student advocacy groups, civil rights organizations and left-leaning think tanks warn that Trump has no intention of rebuilding, only dismantling. The American Federation of Teachers, a key higher ed union, said the order is a government attempt to “abdicate its responsibility to all children, students and working families.”

    Randi Weingarten, the union’s president, recognized in a statement Wednesday night that there are certainly ways the department could be more efficient, but she implied that’s not Trump’s goal.

    “No one likes bureaucracy, and everyone’s in favor of more efficiency, so let’s find ways to accomplish that,” she said. “But don’t use a ‘war on woke’ to attack the children living in poverty and the children with disabilities, in order to pay for vouchers and tax cuts for billionaires.”

    Senator Chuck Schumer points to a poster board showing a map of the United States with the title "Trump-voting states have more to lose if Education Department dismantled."

    Senate Democrats criticized the pending executive order to abolish the Department of Education as a press conference Thursday.

    Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call Inc. via Getty Images

    Senator Patty Murray, a Democrat from Washington State, blasted the Trump administration’s plans at a press conference Thursday. She said that Trump and his unelected government efficiency czar Elon Musk “don’t know what it’s like to count on their local public school having the resources to get their kids a great education … And they don’t care to learn why. They want to break the department, break our government, and enrich themselves.”

    To the American Association of University Professors, “dismantling the Department of Education would hasten us into a new dark age.”

    Former Biden under secretary James Kvaal told Inside Higher Ed that the draft order should dispel any notion that Trump is not trying to shut down the department. But at the same time, he said, the GOP administration’s approach to doing so has been “schizophrenic” and “inconsistent.”

    “It can’t be true that students of color and with disabilities will have their civil rights protected, but also the federal government is not going to be involved in those decisions,” he said.

    But at the same time, Kvaal and others note that, ultimately, the Trump administration lacks the legal authority to actually close the Department of Education, making full abolishment more complicated than the president suggests.

    Shuttering the agency would require 60 votes in the Senate as well as a majority in the House, as the department’s existence is written into statute. And with a 53-seat majority in the Senate, Republicans don’t currently have the votes unless some Democrats back the plan.

    “[The Republicans] don’t have the votes to close the department, and they already plan to enforce their plans on DEI, so it’s not clear what the EO adds to that,” Kvaal said. “It’ll get sorted out in the courts.”

    Katherine Knott and Liam Knox contributed to this report.

    Source link