Tag: Tuition

  • How to design an international student tuition fee levy

    How to design an international student tuition fee levy

    “The Government will explore introducing a levy on higher education provider income from international students, to be reinvested into the higher education and skills system. Further details will be set out in the Autumn Budget.”

    35 words that have put the sector into a spin, spun out tens of thousands of words of analysis and rebuttal, and set into motion a shared panic that the government is not only going to reduce the number of international students but tax the students that universities manage to recruit.

    Design

    The only things that we know about the levy is that the government has used a six per cent tax on international fees as an “illustrative example” in its technical annex, the government assumes this cost would be passed on to international students, and that passing on these costs will depress international student numbers by around 7,000. In terms of the levy design there is the promise that the money will be ringfenced for higher education and skills but which parts and how is not defined. It is of course also not guaranteed.

    The sector’s response has been to point out that reducing the number of international students and devaluing the unit of resource they bring with them will put additional financial pressure on universities. The impact will also be uneven with the largest recruiters of international students paying the highest levy.

    The government has made a hugely consequential policy signal with no details, scant impact assessment, and no analysis of the consequences. However, if a levy of some form is going to happen the sector should think carefully about which kinds of levy they believe would be preferable. Not all levies are built equally.

    Australia

    The idea for a levy seems to have come from the Australian Universities Accord. The UK government does not seem to have noticed that the idea was heavily edited and caveated in the final report but in the interim report it was noted that:

    The Review notes various submissions support establishing a specific fund that could be used for future infrastructure needs, as well other national priorities. This could include consideration of a levy on international student fee income. The use of this revenue for sectoral-wide priorities could reflect the collaborative nature of the sector in building a strong and enduring system. The Review notes further examination is required, including consideration of some level of co-investment from governments.

    There is a little bit more detail here but not much. Like the UK version the fund would be hypothecated toward higher education and used to fund things on a system wide basis. The politics on the face of it appear progressive that the institutions that benefit most from private capital, the flow of international students, pay a proportion of it back to fund public goods in the wider higher education system. The less progressive element is that international students pay once to their institution, they would then pay a levy which their provider would pass on to them in increased fees, and they then prop up an education system of a nation in which they are not permanently resident.

    The University of Melbourne did some follow up work looking at the implications of such a levy. Some of the issues they picked up are whether this would be a levy on all international students in all kinds of education, whether it is reasonable to distribute funding from high income to low income institutions, whether the idea of a levy in and of itself would dampen demand, and whether the impact of taxing income from individual providers is more harmful than the collective benefits they may receive from a shared fund.

    Depending how the government chooses to apply its levy we would expect to see very different results. An Australian model which redistributes funding from the wealthiest institution to the least wealthy would have a very different set of consequences to a levy which took a six per cent flat tax and put it into a general fund for infrastructure. It feels odd within a market based higher education system to make one provider dependent on the success of another. It also feels odd to make international students who are studying at a specific institution responsible for the health of the wider sector.

    Some would see an intra-university levy as a recognition that the success of the system is the success of each provider. Some would see it as an unjustifiable tax on the most financially successful institutions.

    New Zealand

    Australia’s Antipodean partner already has a form of student levy.

    New Zealand’s Export Education Levy is charged as a proportion of the fee international fee-paying students pay to their providers. Depending on the kind of institution this is charged at between .5 per cent and .89 per cent of tuition fees.

    The levy has a direct relationship between funders and beneficiaries. Although it is a tax on learners, and by extension a tax on providers, the funding is used for the development of the export education sector, a recovery scheme should a provider be unable to continue teaching, the administration of the international element of The Education (Pastoral Care of Tertiary and InternationalLearners) Code of Practice 2021 (this includes a range of safety, wellbeing and advice support), and the funding of the International Student Contract Dispute Resolution Scheme (a scheme for students to resolve disputes with their providers on contracts and financial issues.)

    This system has been in place with some variations and the occasional suspension since 2002. The international education system is much smaller in New Zealand than the UK and the amount of funding the levy raises is modest at close to three million dollars in 2022/23. The model in operation here is a relatively small tax to fund things which providers have a shared interest in. It’s not a direct cash transfer between providers but a collective pot to reinvest into the economic commodity of international education. The scheme was suspended during COVID-19 as a measure to support the sector, so its financial impacts are clearly not negligible, but post COVID-19 international enrolments are recovering strongly. Whether they would have recovered even more strongly without a levy is impossible to know.

    This is a light-touch, shared endeavour, we all should have some investment in international education, kind of a levy and it is not the only levy New Zealand has.

    The Student Service Levy is a fee applied to all student fees to fund non-academic services. The University of Auckland surveys students every year on what they would like their fees to be spent on and in 2024, in descending order by amount, funding was spent on sports, recreation and cultural activities, counselling services and pastoral care, health services, child care services, clubs and societies, careers advice, legal advice, financial advice, and media.

    This is a general levy but the principle has broader applications. It would be entirely possible to levy international student fees to pay for non-academic services. For example, university access budgets are effectively paid for by a levy on fees. This system seems fairer in some ways than a general levy. The place where a student studies is the primary beneficiary of their fees. From a policy perspective it would allow the government to move institutional behaviour toward things they care about by stipulating what the fee could be spent on. However, given that international student fees subsidy much of university work already it would again feel like they are paying twice. Additionally, if providers didn’t have to redistribute their funding on a national basis the providers with the most international students would be able to spend the most on non-academic elements.

    Where else

    It is also worth stating the government’s proposed levy would not function like the Apprenticeship Levy. The Apprenticeship Levy is a tax on employer’s payroll but employers are able to access the funds they contribute to spend on apprenticeships with any underspend clawed back by the government. Plainly, if government allowed providers to access the fees they contribute to the levy for the education of their own students there would be no point in having a levy in the first place beyond giving universities the political coverage to raise fees. Presumably, not an outcome the government is intending.

    The argument against a levy of international student fees will dominate the sector for months to come. Should a levy come to pass universities would be well disposed to think of which kinds of levy they might prefer. A model which redistributes funding across providers and if so which providers and for what projects. A model which internally redistributes funding toward student support. Or, likely the least popular, a model which allows the government to reinvest the funding broadly and perhaps outside of higher education.

    In making the case of the harm a levy could cause the sector may also win over more sympathy if it can explain which kinds of levies in which places have what kinds of effects depending on how they are applied. A levy may generally be a bad idea but some versions are much more harmful than others.

    Source link

  • Florida Dreamers Seek Tuition Relief as Legislative Session Extends

    Florida Dreamers Seek Tuition Relief as Legislative Session Extends

    AGaby Pachecos Florida lawmakers extend their legislative session through June 6, TheDream.US is intensifying calls for a provision that would allow approximately 6,000 undocumented students currently enrolled in Florida colleges and universities to complete their education at in-state tuition rates.

    The advocacy comes in response to the legislature’s earlier repeal of the in-state tuition waiver for undocumented students, which is set to take effect July 1, 2025. Without intervention, these students would face tuition increases of up to four times their current rates.

    “Florida’s state lawmakers now have another month to do the right thing for Dreamers and Florida’s future: ‘grandfather in’ the 6,000 Dreamers who will be forced out of college in July and instead allow them to finish their college degrees,” said Gaby Pacheco, Miami-based President and CEO of TheDream.US, the nation’s largest college and career success program for Dreamers.

    Pacheco highlighted the unfairness of changing tuition rates midstream for students who began their education under different financial expectations.

    “Among TheDream.US Scholars alone, there are more than 70 students in Florida who are less than one year from completing their degrees,” she noted.

    The organization has been actively mobilizing around this issue. In April, following the repeal announcement, TheDream.US organized a three-day “Freedom Ride for Tuition Fairness” journey from Miami to Tallahassee, with stops highlighting the importance of affordable higher education.

    This recent campaign builds on a similar effort in 2023 that successfully delayed the passage of the in-state tuition repeal until this year. One participant in that earlier campaign was Britney, a TheDream.US Scholar who recently graduated with a business marketing degree from University of Central Florida despite the uncertainty surrounding tuition policies.

    “We hope to celebrate more graduations like Britney’s after lawmakers add in new, grandfathering language in the coming weeks,” Pacheco said.

    Education advocates argue that allowing current students to complete their education at promised rates represents both a moral and practical consideration. A fact sheet released by TheDream.US notes that Florida has already invested in these students’ K-12 education and partial college education, making it economically sensible to ensure they can graduate and contribute to the state’s workforce and tax base.

    TheDream.US has provided more than 11,000 college scholarships to undocumented students attending nearly 80 partner colleges across 20 states and Washington, D.C. The organization recently released its 10-year impact report, “From Dreams to Destinations: A Decade of Immigrant Achievements and the Future Ahead,” documenting how increased access to higher education catalyzes social mobility and positive outcomes for Dreamers and their communities.

    The Florida legislature has until June 6 to consider amendments to the in-state tuition repeal that would protect currently enrolled students.

    Source link

  • Trump Order Targets Undocumented Students’ In-State Tuition

    Trump Order Targets Undocumented Students’ In-State Tuition

    Immigrant rights advocates are urging state and higher ed leaders not to make any hasty changes to their in-state tuition policies after President Trump issued an executive order on Monday threatening to crack down on sanctuary cities and localities with laws that benefit undocumented immigrants.

    The blow to undocumented students, who in nearly half the country pay in-state tuition, is tucked into an executive order focused mostly on pressuring state and local officials to abandon their cities’ sanctuary status and cooperate with federal immigration authorities. The order demands federal officials make lists of “sanctuary jurisdictions” and the federal funds that could be suspended or cut if they don’t change course. The order also commands them to take “appropriate action” to stop the enforcement of state and local laws and practices “favoring aliens over any groups of American citizens,” including in-state tuition benefits to undocumented students “but not to out-of-state Americans.”

    The move has the potential to affect 24 states and Washington, D.C., which allow in-state tuition for local students with or without citizenship. (Florida previously allowed undocumented students to pay in-state tuition rates but ended its decade-old, historically bipartisan policy in February.) Undocumented students and supporters have long touted these policies as a way to make college more affordable for those who can’t access federal financial aid but who grew up in the states and plan to work in their local communities after they graduate.

    “What immigrant, international and refugee students bring is needed talent, skills and contributions,” said Miriam Feldblum, executive director of the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration. “In-state tuition increases the number of a state’s residents who are college educated, who are able to contribute far more to the state’s economy and to their communities than if they did not have a college education.”

    Gaby Pacheco, president and CEO of TheDream.US, a scholarship provider for undocumented students, said many of these students come from low-income backgrounds and couldn’t afford college otherwise.

    Her organization is currently scrambling to help undocumented students in Florida pay for the remainder of their credits and graduate before they have to pay much higher out-of-state tuition rates. In some cases, that means helping them transfer to more affordable institutions.

    For many, “it’s just impossible for them to be able to come up with that money,” she said.

    She’s encouraging state and institutional leaders to avoid “panicking” or “making abrupt policy changes” in response to the executive order.

    Other executive orders have “created so much panic and unnecessary movement from colleges, universities, states, that it was more hurtful than anything,” she said. The administration is putting forward a “belief” that charging undocumented students in-state tuition rates is unlawful, but “that belief is legally dubious.”

    Deciphering the Executive Order

    Immigrants’ advocates and legal scholars say the meaning of the executive order is somewhat hazy. For example, it’s unclear what it means for federal officials to “take appropriate action” to prevent in-state tuition policies from being enforced.

    The order also doesn’t directly say states or institutions with such laws will lose any federal funding, noted Ahilan Arulanantham, professor from practice at the UCLA School of Law and co-director of the law school’s Center for Immigration Law and Policy.

    Still, the order’s threatening tone toward sanctuary cities’ federal funds could be “a window into where this fight could go if the federal government wants to expend significant political capital on this issue,” Arulanantham said. Congress, for example, could decide to pass a law to cut federal funds from universities that offer undocumented students in-state tuition—a proposal outlined in Project 2025. But the executive order itself doesn’t explicitly take away federal dollars from anyone or have the power to do so, he said.

    “If I were a local government or state government official, I probably wouldn’t sue tomorrow over this,” Arulanantham said. “I would wait to see if this is actually going to have any teeth, or if it’s just like a press release.”

    Pacheco similarly described the order as “warning” states of the administration’s posture toward these policies. At the same time, she believes it’s important to plan ahead in case Trump takes the issue further.

    “They’re trying to tell states, ‘We believe that you providing certain benefits for undocumented students is against the law,’” she said. “We’ve known this forever—these states are not violating the law.”

    The order suggests that in-state tuition for undocumented students “may violate” a federal statutory provision that says undocumented people can’t receive higher ed benefits unless citizens are also eligible. But in-state tuition policies are designed to serve citizens living in these states, as well. For example, under California’s Assembly Bill 540, any nonresident who spent three years in California high schools is eligible for in-state tuition. That policy also benefits citizens who grew up in the state who may have left for any reason and returned.

    These types of in-state tuition policies, including California’s, have faced legal challenges in the past, “but all the challenges have failed, said Kevin Johnson, dean of the UC Davis School of Law. He described the executive order as “vaguely worded,” while the state laws, by contrast, are “very clear.”

    The legal argument is that undocumented students are “just being treated equally as all other residents of the state,” he said. “The idea is that they’re residents, which means they’re taxpayers—maybe it’s sales tax, maybe state income tax, federal income tax—whatever it is, they should be treated like other residents and not discriminated against because of their immigration status.”

    What Happens Next

    Arulanantham worries that despite their strong legal foundation, states and higher ed institutions may rush to end in-state tuition benefits for undocumented students out of fear.

    “That’s actually almost certainly the primary purpose of this order”: to spur “pre-emptive discrimination because [institutions] think they have to or they think it’s safer to,” he said.

    Feldblum noted that, prior to the executive order, some state lawmakers were already starting to shift on the issue, perhaps “to align themselves with the federal government.”

    While some states have recently doubled down on such policies, proposing new legislation to expand in-state tuition eligibility, others have also moved to curtail them. Following in Florida’s footsteps, lawmakers in other states, including Kansas, Kentucky and Texas, are considering legislation to prohibit in-state tuition for undocumented students. Texas was the first to allow undocumented students to pay in-state tuition rates in 2001, joined by California that same year.

    “This is not coming in a vacuum … We have to take this seriously and substantively, consider the kinds of actions we need to take to defend in-state tuition—including, if needed, legal action,” Feldblum said. “And then also make sure we’re placing equal emphasis on supporting and communicating with potentially impacted students so that they know their education is important and that they’re important.”

    Source link

  • Minnesota college leaders eye tuition hikes as costs rise and state funding flatlines

    Minnesota college leaders eye tuition hikes as costs rise and state funding flatlines

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

    Dive Brief:

    • Minnesota’s public colleges could institute substantial tuition spikes in the next academic year, after state officials have so far failed to meet funding requests. 
    • College officials’ latest projections estimate students could see price increases ranging from 4% to 9.9% to offset budget gaps, according to a presentation at a Minnesota State system board of trustees meeting this week. Most colleges and universities are modeling an increase of 8%. 
    • Those proposed increases come as analysis from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve showed enrollment in public Minnesota colleges increased substantially in the 2024-25 academic year — up 12% at two-year institutions and 4% at four-year institutions.

    Dive Insight:

    Leaders at public institutions in Minnesota are having to grapple with state funding that will likely remain flat while inflation continues lifting costs for college operations. 

    Minnesota State Board of Trustees, which oversees 33 institutions, requested $465 million in new funding in the state budget covering fiscal 2026 and 2027. 

    But so far, state executive and House budget proposals include no funding increases for the system, said Bill Maki, vice chancellor of finance and facilities for the Minnesota State system, during Tuesday’s presentation. He noted that the state Senate offered additional funding but only a fraction of what was asked for — $100 million.

    The muted proposals from the state — which is facing its own fiscal shortfalls — would leave colleges on their own in filling budget gaps created by increasing costs and financial needs, such as maintenance backlogs. 

    Modest tuition increases would still leave substantial structural deficits, Maki noted. A system-wide tuition increase of 3.5% would still leave a $65.1 million budget shortfall in fiscal 2026. Even a 9% tuition hike would mean a $23.8 million gap. 

    “Regardless of what level of tuition increase may be approved by the board, every one of our colleges and universities is going to have to implement budget reallocations and reductions in order to cover inflationary costs,” Maki said. 

    Complicating things, as the chancellor pointed out, is that institutions have to set tuition rates before they fully know their costs for the year. 

    To date, the Minnesota State system has remained relatively strong financially. The system’s operating revenues increased in fiscal years 2024 and 2023, according to its latest financial statement. It ended fiscal 2024 with total revenues of $2.3 billion and a surplus of $108.9 million. 

    Helping the system’s finances is the support it has received from the state. In 2024-25, tuition accounted for about 30% of the Minnesota State system’s revenue, compared to 42% made up by state appropriations. 

    And the state’s public colleges have beaten the nationwide trend of declining enrollment, reporting student growth in recent years.

    Minnesota’s enrollment growth brought the state just short of its pre-pandemic levels in 2019, according to the Minneapolis Fed’s analysis. 

    The state’s enrollment upticks in 2024 and 2023 also break a decade of decline in Minnesota and many of its neighboring states.

    In explaining the state’s enrollment growth, the Fed’s analysis pointed in part to Minnesota’s recently implemented North Star Promise. The program offers free tuition to students whose families make under $80,000 — a boon to enrollment and educational access but not necessarily to colleges’ coffers.

    Source link

  • When tuition fee payments are suspended, what happens to students left behind?

    When tuition fee payments are suspended, what happens to students left behind?

    Whilst there may be good reasons for suspending tuition fee payments to “safeguard public funding and ensure students’ interests are protected”, decisions taken to safeguard the public purse often risk overlooking the individual students who are left behind.

    In April 2024 the Office for Students (OfS) opened an investigation in relation to Applied Business Academy (ABA) to consider whether it had complied with requirements to provide accurate information about its students, and whether it had effective management and governance arrangements in place.

    In September 2024, the Department for Education (DfE) instructed the Student Loans Company to suspend all tuition fee payments to ABA, until OfS had completed its investigation. On 27 September, ABA asked the OfS to remove it from the Register because it was no longer able to provide higher education. A decision to permanently close ABA was made on 22 October 2024 and liquidators were appointed.

    On 2 April 2025 OfS published a summary of its investigation. We understand around 300 current and prospective students were on courses partnered with universities who supported students through the closure and offered who were offered individual guidance sessions setting out options which included transfer to complete study as per the student protection plans.

    The other group of students

    However, there were also students who were studying for a Level 5 Diploma in Education and Training (DET) awarded by City and Guilds and some awarded by Organisation for Hospitality and Tourism Management (OTHM) – both at the time eligible for student loan finance. According to the OfS investigation this number looks to be just over 2,000.

    The route to raise complaints and seek redress for these students is different to the route for students on courses partnered with universities. As set out in the section of our Good Practice Framework that covers partnership arrangements, awarding universities and delivery partners will both be members of the OIA, so that students can benefit from a route to independent review of both party’s responsibilities. Where only one partner is a member of the OIA, our remit to review issues of concern to students is more limited.

    As the shape of the HE sector has changed, our legislation has been amended several times to bring as many delivery bodies and awarding institutions accessing public money as possible within our membership, to ensure that all students have access to an independent review of their complaints. But not all Awarding Organisations are currently OIA members, even where these courses are eligible for student finance.

    Access and risk

    There are clearly benefits to students of having access to student finance to access non- universities-awarded courses such as HND, HNC and level 4 or 5 courses with a Higher Technical Qualification approval. But we are concerned that the current arrangements may be inequitable, given that some students cannot seek an independent review of some awarding organisations’ acts or omissions.

    We have sought to close this gap by agreeing with Ofqual that awarding organisations being in membership of the OIA Scheme is compatible with Ofqual regulation and opening our Non-Qualifying membership up for awarding organisations.

    The impact on students of the different arrangements materialises further in cases of provider closure. In previous provider closure cases either the university has proactively put in place appropriate options or if they wanted to raise a complaint, the OIA could look at what the university’s role is in resolving this.

    As things stand, students at a delivery partner that ceases to operate at short notice, on courses awarded by an organisation that is not an OIA member, may find themselves with no clear independent route for complaints and redress. In our experience, students studying at HE level via a non-university awarded route and accessing higher education student finance, have no real understanding of this difference from those on a university awarded course.

    In the case of ABA, we have received a small number of complaints from students on the DET course, who are not able to access any financial remedy since ABA has gone into liquidation and the only option is for the students to become an unsecured creditor against ABA.

    We understand that where City and Guilds has received the work of students, there was not sufficient evidence for them to confirm the qualification requirements had been met for any student. This has been particularly difficult news for some students, many of whom believed that they had passed the course and were simply awaiting receipt of their certificate. They are unable to access further funding to re-take the year, compensation or travel costs to complete their studies.

    In the current financial climate and where franchise provision is coming under more scrutiny, it’s hard to imagine there will not be more students in this situation at a provider impacted by a closure. Alongside this the Lifelong Learning Entitlement (LLE) will potentially open more level 4 and 5 “non university” awarded courses where students may be unable to seek independent redress.

    Whilst we completely agree that protecting public funds is important, we mustn’t forget that there is a real and significant human cost for the genuine students, sometimes with few sources of personal support to help them navigate their limited options, left behind.

    Source link

  • Florida Dreamer Tuition Policy Reversal Threatens $25 Million Economic Impact

    Florida Dreamer Tuition Policy Reversal Threatens $25 Million Economic Impact

    Education advocates and immigration policy experts are warning of significant economic, and workforce impacts following Florida’s decision to rescind in-state tuition waivers for undocumented students who graduated from Florida high schools. The policy change, signed into law by Governor Ron DeSantis, marks a significant shift in the state’s approach to higher education access for Dreamers.

    The decision is expected to cost Florida institutions approximately $25 million in tuition and fees, according to TheDream.US, a national organization supporting higher education access for Dreamers. The organization’s President and CEO, Gaby Pacheco, a long-time Miami resident, said that the impact extends beyond immediate financial consequences, potentially affecting Florida’s future workforce development and economic growth.

    “Our state is turning its back and hindering the potential of students who have succeeded throughout their K-12 education,” says Pacheco, noting that many affected students arrived in the United States at an average age of six years old. The organization has already helped more than 600 Florida-based Dreamers graduate college, with many now working as nurses, teachers, engineers, and entrepreneurs within the state.

    The Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, through its Director of Policy and Strategy Diego Sánchez, points to concerning workforce implications. With Florida facing shortages in healthcare, teaching, and STEM fields, the policy change could exacerbate existing gaps in critical sectors. Sánchez, himself a former undocumented student in Florida, argues that the state risks losing bilingual, skilled professionals to other regions with more inclusive education policies.

    The impact of this policy shift could be particularly significant given Florida’s traditional role as a hub for educational and economic opportunity. Critics argue that the change contradicts the state’s historical position as a beacon of dynamism and opportunity, potentially deterring talented students from pursuing higher education in Florida.

    Advocates point out that many affected students are deeply integrated into Florida communities, having completed their entire K-12 education in the state’s public schools. The new policy, they argue, creates barriers for these students to continue their education and contribute to the state’s economy, potentially forcing them to either abandon their educational pursuits or seek opportunities in other states with more favorable policies.

    As this policy takes effect, educational institutions and advocacy groups are working to assess the full scope of its impact on Florida’s educational landscape and future workforce development. The change represents a significant shift in Florida’s approach to higher education access and raises questions about the state’s long-term economic and workforce strategy.

    Source link

  • Florida ends in-state tuition for undocumented students

    Florida ends in-state tuition for undocumented students

    Florida state lawmakers have eliminated in-state tuition for undocumented students, reversing a decade-old law that once enjoyed bipartisan support.

    Previously, undocumented students in Florida could apply for waivers to pay in-state tuition rates, if they went to high school in the state for at least three consecutive years and enrolled in college within two years of graduating.

    Under the new policy, included in a sweeping immigration bill signed by Governor Ron DeSantis last week, only “citizens of the United States” or those “lawfully present in the United States” qualify. Students receiving the waivers need to be “reevaluated for eligibility” by July 1.

    “I don’t think you should be admitted to college in Florida if you’re here illegally,” DeSantis said in a press conference Friday, “but to give in-state tuition was just a slap in the face to taxpayers.”

    Florida was one of 25 states that offered in-state tuition to undocumented students at public colleges and universities, according to the Higher Ed Immigration Portal, a data hub run by the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration. These reduced tuition prices came as a relief to undocumented students, who can’t access federal financial aid like their peers and often lack work authorization unless they’re part of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program. (Of the approximately 400,000 undocumented students enrolled in U.S. colleges and universities, most don’t hold DACA status.)

    Policymakers in other states are considering taking similar steps to curb in-state tuition for these students as they embrace President Donald Trump’s national push against undocumented immigration. Since the presidential election in November, state lawmakers in Massachusetts, Minnesota and Texas have introduced legislation to remove in-state tuition for undocumented students. As the issue becomes a political lightning rod, politicians in other states are doubling down on financial supports for these students, introducing bills that would expand in-state tuition eligibility, including in Indiana, New Mexico, Oregon and Pennsylvania.

    Miriam Feldblum, president and CEO of the Presidents’ Alliance, said advocates “should be prepared and ready” to come out against similar legislation elsewhere in the country.

    A Game of ‘Political Football’

    In-state tuition for undocumented students has become a “political football” in Florida, said Jared Nordlund, Florida state director at UnidosUS, a Latino civil rights organization. But that wasn’t always the case.

    Republican lieutenant governor Jeanette Nuñez—who resigned last week to become interim president of Florida International University—originally advocated for extending in-state tuition to undocumented students, and former Republican governor Rick Scott, now Florida’s senior U.S. senator, signed the bill into law. Nuñez has since pulled back her support for the policy, posting on X in January that the law had “run its course” and needed to be repealed.

    The political winds have shifted on what was once a fairly bipartisan issue, Nordlund said. “Ten years ago, the Republican Party wasn’t the party of Trump.”

    Ira Mehlman, media director at the Federation for American Immigration Reform, an organization that promotes more restrictive immigration policies, applauded Republican state lawmakers for “not rewarding people who are in the country illegally.”

    “The more you reward people for breaking the laws, even if it’s through their kids, the more likely people are to disobey the laws,” Mehlman said. And “you are filling seats that might otherwise have gone to kids who are equally deserving and whose parents have not violated any laws.”

    Now undocumented students are left to pay out-of-state tuition prices, a significant cost difference. During the 2023–24 academic year, average tuition and fees at Florida colleges and universities for out-of-state students was more than triple the cost state residents paid, according to the Florida Policy Institute, an organization that promotes economic mobility in Florida. The state’s in-state tuition waivers benefited an estimated 6,500 undocumented students that year.

    The Ripple Effects

    An undocumented student at University of Central Florida, who requested anonymity, told Inside Higher Ed that she couldn’t have pursued a bachelor’s degree as a full-time student without in-state tuition. She would’ve gone for an associate degree instead, taking one or two classes at a time, to keep costs down.

    Without in-state tuition, “who knows if I’d be graduating right now,” she said.

    The student, who was brought to Florida from Mexico at age 4, is graduating this spring, before the policy change takes effect. But she worries about her peers who won’t have the same resources she did. She previously helped and encouraged other undocumented students to apply for the in-state tuition waiver because of how much it helped her.

    “I gave them that hope,” she said, “and now it’s being snatched away from them.”

    The student argued she and other undocumented students would use their degrees to contribute to the local labor market, a point they’ve made to state lawmakers in the past; her long-term goal is to open a marketing agency and work with small business owners in the state.

    “We studied here our whole life, and our goal is to get our degree and be able to contribute to the economy,” she said.

    Diego Sánchez, director of policy and strategy at the Presidents’ Alliance, said he scrambled to pay for college in Florida before in-state tuition became available to undocumented students like him.

    In 2008, he enrolled at St. Thomas University, a private institution, and joined as many activities as he could that came with university scholarships—student government, choir and cross country, even though he wasn’t a singer or a runner. He couldn’t have afforded college otherwise, which is why he and other activists advocated for in-state tuition for Florida’s undocumented population. He’s “very disappointed” to see that win reversed.

    “It’s about scoring political points,” Sánchez said. “And unfortunately, these students who grew up in Florida, went to our public schools, are going to suffer the consequences … The state has already invested in them, and they’re working their way up to contribute to the community, [to] pay taxes.”

    Undocumented students and their supporters argue Florida is going to lose out on these students as future skilled workers at a time when the state is challenged by workforce shortages and an aging population.

    Feldblum said these students tend to be “tremendously determined” and will likely attend college in other states, taking their talents with them. She also expects some will stop out of higher ed altogether because they can’t afford it or because they don’t know about other resources available to them, like privately funded scholarships.

    “When there are obstacles put in front of students, when students are told, ‘You’re not welcome here’ in different ways, that’s really discouraging,” she said. “That’s disincentivizing,” when Florida has a “need for talent, the need for workforce development.”

    What’s Next

    The fight for in-state tuition in Florida isn’t over, some advocates say.

    “Hopefully we can eventually undo the repeal [of in-state tuition] when the time is right,” Nordlund said. For now, he’s focused on educating state lawmakers and the public about the economic benefits of the repealed policy.

    Sánchez plans to lobby state lawmakers to at least let undocumented students already in college finish their degrees at in-state tuition prices, a proposed amendment to the law that previously failed. He hopes colleges and universities push state lawmakers on the issue as well.

    He continues to worry, however, that these kinds of attacks on students’ in-state tuition “could spread to other parts of the country.”

    Mehlman would like to see other states, and even Congress, look to Florida’s example and work to end in-state tuition for noncitizens nationwide.

    “Florida and Texas have sort of been leaders in this area,” he said, “and they certainly can show the way for other states that might be considering this as well.”

    Source link

  • Florida ends in-state tuition for undocumented students

    Florida ends in-state tuition for undocumented students

    Florida state lawmakers voted on Thursday to get rid of in-state tuition for undocumented students as part of a sweeping immigration bill, The Miami Herald reported.

    Previously, undocumented students who attended high school in the state for at least three consecutive years and enrolled in college within two years of graduating could receive a waiver to pay in-state tuition rates. Now their tuition costs will go up significantly, a particular challenge given that these students can’t receive federal student aid.

    Democratic lawmakers attempted to amend the bill so that undocumented students currently enrolled at public universities could pay in-state rates for the next four years, but the amendment failed in the state Senate.  

    “We wanted to repeal in-state tuition and focus on Floridians,” Governor Ron DeSantis said at a news conference Thursday.

    Source link

  • Florida lawmakers pass bill to roll back in-state tuition for undocumented students

    Florida lawmakers pass bill to roll back in-state tuition for undocumented students

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

     Dive Brief:

    • Florida lawmakers passed an expansive immigration package this week that would remove undocumented students’ eligibility for in-state tuition rates at public colleges.
    • If signed into law, the reversal would take effect July 1. However, the legislation has intensified a growing rift between the state’s Republican lawmakers and Gov. Ron DeSantis as they compete to show their loyalty to President Donald Trump and his goal of cracking down on immigration.
    • DeSantis heavily criticized the package, saying Wednesday that it “fails to honor our promises to voters, fails to meet the moment, and would actually weaken state immigration enforcement.” The governor said he would veto it unless legislators approved more restrictive immigration measures.

    Dive Insight:

    For a decade, Florida has permitted undocumented students to pay in-state tuition rates at public colleges if they attended their last three years of high school in the state and enrolled in higher education within two years of graduation.

    Republican State Sen. Randy Fine first proposed rolling back the allowance in December as a standalone bill. In January, DeSantis cited the bill as a priority when he abruptly called a special legislative session aimed at helping Trump implement tougher immigration policies.

    Florida has two public higher education systems — the Florida College System and the State University System of Florida, which oversee 28 colleges and a dozen universities, respectively. 

    In the 2023-24 fiscal year, just over 2,000 nonresident students attending one of the university system’s institutions received a waiver to pay in-state tuition, according to an analysis of the bill prepared by the Senate appropriations committee’s staff. In the Florida College System, the number was almost 4,600 that year. The combined discounts were valued at almost $40.7 million, it said. 

    The analysis did not disaggregate the student data by immigration status, and it’s unclear how many undocumented students would be affected by the revocation of the tuition waiver. One report from 2023 estimated about 40,000 undocumented students attended Florida colleges in 2021.

    It’s also unclear if colleges would benefit financially from the end of the waiver, the analysis said.

    “Some students who are undocumented for federal immigration purposes may choose to pay the out-of-state fee while others may choose to withdraw from school,” it said. “Institutions may experience an increase in fee revenue as students pay the out-of-state fees, or experience declines in fee revenue as those students decide to withdraw from school and are not replaced by other students.”

    Republican lawmakers praised the final legislative package — given the backronym title Tackling and Reforming Unlawful Migration Policy, or TRUMP, Act —  and said it would help the state act in partnership with the federal government. 

    The bill’s sponsors in the Florida House and Senate, as well as the top Republicans in both chambers, also repeatedly invoked Trump’s name in prepared statements.

    “Supporting President Trump’s mission to secure our borders, Florida stands ready to act with the most aggressive immigration policy ever introduced,” said House Speaker Daniel Perez. 

    Senate President Ben Albritton touted the state’s previous work on immigration.

    “When it comes to cracking down on illegal immigration, Florida is already so far ahead of most states,” he said.

    But in a press release two days later, DeSantis’ office dismissed the legislators’ work as a half-measure. 

    Republicans hold a veto-proof supermajority in both chambers of the Legislature. Typically, this supercharged influence would be unlikely to matter, as the governor’s mansion is also held by a Republican.

    But DeSantis’ lack of approval adds uncertainty and diminishes the odds of the package becoming law. Without his approval, it is unclear if legislators would return to the drawing board or if enough Republicans would band together to overrule his veto.

    DeSantis’ popularity within his own state party has weakened recently. 

    The governor’s decision to call the special session did not receive unanimous support from his peers. The dissenters criticized the move as inappropriately getting ahead of Trump’s policies.

    Shortly after the session began, Florida lawmakers ended it and called their own as a means of prioritizing their goals over DeSantis’. And both Reps. Perez and Fine have publicly criticized DeSantis.

    Perez suggested to the Tampa Bay Times on Thursday that DeSantis hadn’t sufficiently communicated with legislators ahead of the session. He added that “all options are on the table” to get anti-immigration legislation passed — including overriding a DeSantis veto.

    The $500 million package seeks to enact measures outside of the higher education sector. It would create the position of chief immigration officer to coordinate enforcement actions with the federal government. It would also mandate the death penalty for undocumented immigrants found guilty of capital crimes — a rule that would run contrary to longstanding U.S. Supreme Court precedent and could spur legal challenges.

    Nikki Fried, chair of the Florida Democratic Party, did not mince words in response to the bill’s passage Tuesday.

    “Florida Republicans have lost their damn minds this week,” Fried said in a statement. “Despite attempts from Democrats to protect students, this legislation promises to kick Dreamers out of college before they can finish their degree and gives huge bonuses to local law enforcement for working with ICE to ramp up deportations. It’s an unconscionable abuse of power for a state legislature.” 

    Source link

  • Public University Tuition over time

    Public University Tuition over time

    The cost of college has been a hot topic for a while now, and even though some studies suggest the net cost of college has been falling post-COVID, it’s clear that sticker prices have not been. 

    And because the overwhelming majority of college and university students in the US attend public institutions, that’s a good place to start the discussion.

    This is data from IPEDS, showing published cost about 530 public, four-year institutions that award the bachelor’s degree, excluding community colleges that have been creeping into that category over time. Each dot represents an institution, and the data are from 2009, 2016, and 2023 to show long-term trends. The dots are colored by geographic region.

    The data are displayed four ways, from left to right and default to published Tuition and Fees: Resident, Nonresident, the premium nonresidents pay (in dollars), and the premium not residents pay (as a percentage of what residents pay.)  You can change this to show just tuition or just fees by using the control at the top right.

    You can also filter to a single state, if you wish, to get a sense of how that state things about tuition.

    The green-shaded Highlight boxes at right will allow you to make either one institution, one region, or one state standout, without filtering the other data.

    The data are displayed in a box-and-whisker format: The shaded boxes cover the middle 50% of the range, with the dividing line the 50th percentile. The rest of the data are mostly contained within the boundary created by the top bar and bottom bar, with outliers being shown above or below it.  These are not enrollment weighted.

    As always, I happy to hear what you got out of this.  Leave a comment below or send me an email.

    Source link