Witnesses warn Department of Education staffing cuts and recent aid changes will hamper transparency and affordability
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Witnesses and members said Department of Education staffing reductions and recent changes in federal student-aid law (referred to in testimony as HR 1) risk reducing the department’s capacity to publish data, enforce rules and maintain aid programs that help affordability.
Witnesses at the subcommittee hearing raised consistent concerns that reductions in federal agency staffing and recent legislative changes to student-aid rules could undermine both transparency efforts and affordability for students.
Ranking Member Adams and witnesses pointed to Department of Education staffing reductions at the Office of Federal Student Aid and to cuts in policy and research offices. Amy Laitinen of New America told the committee that the department needs “people and resources” to enforce protections and publish transparency data: “They require people and resources. And right now the department needs both.”
Members and witnesses repeatedly referenced elements of the recently enacted reconciliation package (discussed in testimony as HR 1 and, by one witness, as the “big ugly bill”) that they said would reduce aid for some borrowers, limit graduate-PLUS loans and cap Parent PLUS borrowing. Laitinen said those changes “will make it harder for students who don't come from wealthy families to be able to afford to go to medical school and become doctors.”
Committee members and witnesses warned that shrinking department staff and data-collection capacity imperil tools and rules relied upon for consumer information. Laitinen urged the department to publish Financial Value Transparency data already collected and to maintain the gainful employment and financial-value transparency rules that provide program-level outcomes. Several members asked whether cuts to the National Center for Education Statistics and the Institute of Education Sciences would hamper the department’s ability to produce the data students need.
Lawmakers and witnesses said these policy and staffing changes could disproportionately harm low-income, first-generation and nontraditional students who rely on federal supports, outreach programs such as TRIO and GEAR UP, and reliable federal data when making decisions.
Ending: Lawmakers signaled intent to continue oversight of the Department of Education’s data capacity and to evaluate how recent law changes affect access and program enforcement.