By: Zayd Hamid, Contributing Writer for the PW Perspective

Last week, the House Education & Workforce Committee submitted its initial reconciliation bill portion proposal, which includes a restructuring of the student loan system and widespread cuts to programs administered by the Department of Education (ED). The bill follows a directive given by the House Budget Committee earlier in the year to reduce at least $330 billion in spending for that department over the next ten years. Most projected savings from the bill are found in its proposed restructuring of the student loan system. This is done in two sections, one on loan limits and another on loan repayment.

Among other changes, the section on loan limits terminates ED’s ability to offer subsidized loans for undergraduate students on or after July 1, 2026, and mandates that they exhaust their unsubsidized loans before parents can utilize Parent PLUS to cover their student’s remaining cost of attendance. These changes to loan eligibility build upon an earlier section’s change on federal financial aid indexing aid amounts receivable by students to the national median cost of a student’s degree program rather than their specific university’s program. The section on loan repayment terminates ED’s ability to offer all repayment plans authorized under income-contingent repayment (ICR,) including the court-embattled SAVE Plan established during the Biden-Harris administration.

Aside from loans, another significant proposed change to financial aid raises the number of credits that an undergraduate student must complete in an academic year from 30 to 45 to be considered a full-time student for Pell Grant award purposes. Taken semesterly, this would obligate students to take 15 credits instead of 12 to receive a full-time Pell Grant award. Ranking Member Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) offered unsuccessful amendments to codify the SAVE Plan within the Higher Education Act and repeal the entire Pell eligibility section change, including the provision raising the credit threshold for full-time aid.

In a statement upon the bill’s release, the committee’s chairman Tim Walberg (R-MI) proclaimed that “for decades Congress has responded to the student loan crisis by throwing more and more taxpayer dollars at the problem—never addressing the root causes of skyrocketing college costs.” He further asserted that the bill “will lower costs for students and families while ensuring the fiscal sustainability of targeted programs like the Pell Grant.” Prominent higher education associations and Prince William County area students disagree.

Shortly after the bill’s release, the American Council on Education (ACE) and the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU) responded to it by putting out statements in opposition. “The overwhelming majority of provisions in the bill would reduce student aid to low-income students and would impose onerous financial penalties on institutions, particularly those least able to meet them,” said ACE President Ted Mitchell. Mitchell expressed particular concern about the ability of working students and student parents to take an increased course load to satisfy conditions to meet full-time status for their Pell award.

APLU president Becker’s letter shared Mitchell’s concerns on financial aid, also elaborating further on concerns related to the bill’s formulation. “With less than 24 hours to review the legislation before the committee markup, the bill would make incredibly consequential policy choices and student aid cuts to undergraduate and graduate student loans and Pell,” he said. “The gravity of these changes would have far reaching impact to current and future students and merits a much more thorough vetting and careful consideration in a process inclusive of stakeholders.” An analysis of Pell Grant eligibility changes by the National College Attainment Network (NCAN) found that students at four-year colleges would see their unmet need increase by $1,479 per semester if they cannot meet the bill’s proposed eligibility requirements.

Prince William County students at George Mason University and Virginia Tech shared their concerns. “Financial aid decreases would certainly make me think much harder about my decision to pursue my master’s degree,” said Emily Gill, a George Mason student from Manassas Park. “I would probably consider a job and may even think about not getting a master’s degree at all.” Gill looks to pursue teacher licensure in history concurrent with a master’s degree after graduating this month, but financial aid insecurity may make this plan unaffordable for her.

“The proposed cuts to the Pell Grant place students at a severe financial disadvantage. Let’s consider the fact that there isn’t enough time to balance schoolwork, jobs, extracurricular activities, and maintaining personal health. This cut would not only diminish the financial well-being of students, but it would also eat away at their time,” said Christian Ramos, a Virginia Tech student from Woodbridge. Ramos was one of two students from his university selected to advise the State Council of Higher Education on higher education policy during the 2024-2025 academic year.

“For every dollar lost, there is an hour of work added in the student’s day to recoup the losses,” Ramos affirmed. “This cut will become an obstacle to using time intentionally for learning; instead, students are left to use their time to wonder how they can survive.”