Tuesday, March 12, 2024 - Michael and Jeff go deep on the revised FAFSA and the challenges encountered in its rollout. They sat down with Andrew LaCasse, who helped develop the simplified FAFSA in his former role as a senior education policy advisor on the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, to learn about the back-story behind the legislation and its underlying policy goals. They also spoke with John Marshall, President of Colorado Mesa University, about how they are supporting students through the delay and confusion caused by the FAFSA’s rocky rollout. The episode is sponsored by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Get notified about special content and events.
Andrew LaCasse:
They introduced a bill with two questions. You would've thought that they had introduced a bill that eliminated the Higher Education Act because we had all of the DC intelligentsia trade groups coming and saying, "It can't be done. It can't be done. You guys are bananas. This is crazy." But the senator's response was, "Tell me why? Push back."
Jeff Selingo:
That was Andrew LaCasse, who was a senior education policy advisor on the US Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. He was in that role for eight years and saw the development of something that's been in the news a lot in recent months, the FAFSA or the Free Application for Federal Student Aid.
Michael Horn:
And Jeff, it's been in the news because the rollout of the new simplified FAFSA, well, let's just say it hasn't gone smoothly. Some might even call it a disaster, but today, we're going to hear a lot more from Andrew about what was really behind the new FAFSA. And then we're going to hear about how one institution isn't playing the waiting game when it comes to awarding financial aid, on this episode of Future U.
Sponsor:
This episode is brought to you by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, working to eliminate race, ethnicity, and income as predictors of student success through innovation, data and information, policy and institutional transformation.
Michael Horn:
I'm Michael Horn.
Jeff Selingo:
And I'm Jeff Selingo. So on a recent show, Michael, where it was just the two of us, we talked about the FAFSA. It also came up in our reporter's round table a few months ago with Chris Quintana of USA Today. Then there was this recent news from the National College Attainment Network, which tracks FAFSA completions, and found that through the end of February, that submissions are down 38% compared to the same time last year. What’s probably more worrisome is that 47% fewer seniors from low-income public high schools have submitted the form by late February compared to the last cycle.
Michael Horn:
Neither did I, but here we are. And here it's starting to have more and more implications for the future of higher ed. Just to quickly catch up folks on this, if you haven't been paying attention, Congress passed the FAFSA Simplification Act or FSA as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021. And as we will hear from Andrew shortly, the new FAFSA was supposed to be put in place last year, but it was delayed.
Jeff Selingo:
Yeah, andrew will also catch us up on all the changes to the FAFSA, Michael, but beyond overall simplification, there were a number of changes, things like the Expected Family Contribution or EFC was replaced by the Student Aid Index, which they're calling SAI now, because there was concern that the EFC was misleading. It wasn't really a calculation of the amount of money a student's family was expected to pay.
Michael Horn:
Yeah, and we're just going down the acronym soup again, Jeff. But another big change is that students can also list up to 20 colleges on their FAFSA. That's up from 10 in previous years, which, as you know, is probably a reflection of students applying to way more colleges than they did in the past. Now, one controversial change we should also mention is that parents no longer get a break for having multiple children in college at the same time. Now, colleges, of course, can still consider that when awarding their own aid, but it just doesn't factor into the FAFSA itself.
Jeff Selingo:
Which of course, Michael, will be something that will affect the both of us several years from now. But let Andrew tell us the rest of the story of how we got here. Here's Andrew LaCasse, who as we said at the top, was a senior education policy advisor on the US Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions until 2021 and is now head of policy for Guild Education. Andrew, welcome to Future U.
Andrew LaCasse:
Thank you for having me.
Jeff Selingo:
So the 1992 reauthorization of the Higher Education Act created the FAFSA, which is a fact I did not know. And a favorite meme of mine, of course, was Senator Alexander unfurling that FAFSA, which grew over time, as we know, to more than 100 questions. Can you give us a short history lesson on how the process for FAFSA simplification began and what really prompted it and really drove it to this point?
Andrew LaCasse:
Yeah, I love this question because it's always a mystery of how a lawmaker picked up a particular issue. How did you get into their craw or become a priority, or in this case, almost into sessions? But the short of it is it really came from the best approach to policymaking. The push came from really smart expert witness/researchers. So it was really a decade ago, the HEA, the Higher Education Act, reauthorization hearings started in the Senate HELP Committee back in 2013, so a decade ago. Tom Harkin was chair, senator from Iowa, Lamar Alexander, senator from Tennessee was the ranking Republican, and we had done dozens of hearings to inform the reauthorization process. And I will do one quick plug, Michael Horn, your fabulous co-host, was an expert witness at that hearing, 15 minutes of fame, I would say. He was no Taylor Swift of a witness, but he did well enough and avoided the curve balls, so hat tip to you, Michael.
But we had this one hearing in November and we focused on college access, and we had four great distinguished witnesses, Bridget Terry Long of, then, at Harvard, Dean of GSE, and Judy Scott-Clayton at Columbia. Kim Cook from NCAN and Chris [inaudible 00:05:47] from HCM. And the consensus was that FAFSA is a nightmare, and if you want to improve college going rates, particularly among low income students, fix the FAFSA. And they gave a bold recommendation. And based on some research, I believe it was from Sue Dynarski at Michigan, you can ask two questions and get all the information you need to award a Pell Grant, simple as a postcard, and Lamar's ears perked up. It was like, "What? Whoa, that's crazy." I think it was only two things that probably stimulated this in his mind or why he latched on was, it's just a perfect example of the complex bureaucratic system of higher ed.
And as you mentioned, props. Props are key for politicians and selling things. And it had to prop, 108 question page form he could unfurl, and it was just a representation of just this government barrier nonsense. And Senator Alexander has long railed against overregulation of colleges. And while FAFSA isn't a regulation per se, it just was a natural extension to weeding the guard, fixing the morass of higher ed government bureaucracy. And then second, I think it was just scale. FAFSA impacts everybody, 17 million Americans are going to fill it out. And if he could make some changes to it, it would be incredibly consequential. And so that was where it came from. And the backstory here is he ran over to his friend, Michael Bennett, who was then on the committee and whispered in his ear and said, "Hey, let's do this. Let's work on it."
And so he and Senator Bennett of Colorado teamed up and we had a little working group and created a mock-up of the FAFSA with two questions, and that was his second prop and held round tables across Tennessee and Colorado and DC. We did press, stakeholders. The first generation before we have the current law was, they introduced a bill with two questions. You would've thought that they had introduced a bill that eliminated the Higher Education Act because we had all of the DC intelligentsia trade groups coming and saying, "It can't be done. It can't be done. You guys are bananas. This is crazy." But the center's response was, "Tell me why? Push back." And they did. And look, we knew it was never going to be two questions, which were, what was your family income and what was your family size?
But instead of starting from 108 questions and whittling it down, let's start from two and then you tell me what you want to add. And I think that was a successful strategy. And from there, just the legislative sausage making process unfolded, although it was 10 years, and here we are with a law, and obviously there's some issues with the rollout, but that's really the history here of pure good policymaking with recommendations from experts, piqued lawmakers interests, and you got a bipartisan group interested in it and working to support college access, and it just took off.
Michael Horn:
Andrew, fascinating backstory on this. You mentioned impact in your answer. What was the overall goal of simplifying FAFSA? I assume it wasn't just reducing the number of questions in the sense of bloat, but what was the larger public policy goal?
Andrew LaCasse:
Yeah, look, the number of questions is easy to just point out, but the backstory and the goal here is really the human element, which I know has been reported on a lot and discussed, but it's so true, is when we had these round tables, when we met with folks, they don't care about Lamar's interest in government bureaucracy. It was English as a second language, students not knowing how to fill out the form. It was only in English and Spanish. Homeless and foster care kids couldn't find the documentation in the paperwork. First generation students whose parents were distrustful of, why am I giving this information to a school? Or, I remember we had a story from a student who was being raised by their grandmother, and their grandmother just refused to give any documentation over to the school. And I remember we did a round table in Tennessee and a couple smart PhD level professors were like, "I have a PhD in economics, and it took me and my kid an hour and a half to figure out this damn form."
So the human impact was, it impacts real world people. Yeah, okay, that's tough, but the other impact was, well, there's a lot of federal money there, and folks were leaving it on the table. So I think one figure was graduating high school students left $2.6 billion in Pell Grants unclaimed, 1.2 million Americans start a FAFSA but never finish it. And so if we're concerned, and we have this belief that some form of post-secondary education is a key to the middle class and there is federal aid there, this form is just really a barrier and can uplift a lot of Americans. And so it was a policy goal for Republicans on detangling government bureaucracy. It was a policy goal for college affordability in a way that Democrats and Republicans could get aligned behind because it wasn't a new program, it wasn't a new funding stream, it was existing aid. It was just a barrier of a form and if you did that, you could unlock more college affordability on aid that's already there. And it was just a recipe for success that both Republican and Democrats natural policy interest areas.
Jeff Selingo:
That never happens anymore, does it?
Andrew LaCasse:
No.
Jeff Selingo:
So Andrew, as you know, there's a lot of criticism about the rollout of the new FAFSA, and we don't want to get into the particulars of that since you're no longer in government. But I've been wondering something that maybe you can answer, if this wasn't really ready, would it have been so difficult to delay it a year? Could you just give us your take on that?
Andrew LaCasse:
Yeah, let me share a little bit of insight into even how the deadlines came to be. So when we were drafting the law, again, I was a partial drafter, there was many other folks in the room, we recognized that the impact was going to be huge, and so we wanted to operationalize it quickly. And so we actually originally wrote in the legislation that we wanted it to be effective the following award year from when the president signed it. And as ed, there's this back and forth between the agency and Congress when you're drafting legislation to make sure that they could even implement it. It's called TA, technical assistance. And the department actually pushed back and said, "No, we can't actually do that year, push it back another year." And we're like, "Ugh, the impact's so great here and it'd be so consequential, that's annoying, but we want to see this done right."
And so we agreed in the legislation to change it to the 2023-2024 year. So it was already pushed back once by the department. And then after passage, ed asked Congress again to delay it. Congress agreed, it got delayed. And so to your question, could the department have delayed it again? Sure, but at some point, you have to face the music. I don't know whether this administration thought the rollout would've been smoother and would've been a win for them. But again, I just think three delays was probably just the tipping point. It was probably incumbent upon them just to get it out there.
Jeff Selingo:
To get it out there.
Andrew LaCasse:
Yeah.
Jeff Selingo:
Interesting.
Andrew LaCasse:
Look, it's a rocky road with any massive change. I just don't think there was the anticipation, even though many folks are raising the alarm bell that it would be this rocky of a rollout.
Jeff Selingo:
Do you think that we should be concerned at all that this just adds to the negative perception right now that higher ed gets in general, especially at a time when the college going rate in the US is falling, or do you think we will get over this, people will forget about it and it will all be good?
Andrew LaCasse:
Well, one, I think the anger is certainly warranted, and I'm not speaking for policymakers anymore, but the rollout is really certainly at odds with their goals in passing the legislation in the first place, to be honest. And I don't know the anger that you're hearing is coming from individuals, and excuse me, they're directing it at schools, this is really government. This is a government form and process. And Justin Draeger and NASFAA have done yeoman's work trying to raise the alarm bells. And so, look, is that going to impact the negative polling? Maybe. But my sense on those polls is that they're reflective more of, is higher ed too woke, too ideological, too bloated?
Jeff Selingo:
Too expensive.
Michael Horn:
Which filling out the FASFA reminds them of that.
Andrew LaCasse:
And not really meeting the needs of students with faster and clearer career pathways with a strong ROI, I think that's maybe the sentiment picked up in those polls. Now, is this FAFSA going to help? Absolutely not. But it's certainly a step backwards in higher ed's perception among the public, whether that rests at the feet of the institutions themselves or government. But it certainly doesn't help with people's perceptions. And I was looking at the FAFSA submissions and we're down 50% from where we were the previous year. And so it certainly doesn't help with college's enrollment woes. I just don't think that's a reflection of the people's perception of higher ed. It's just another data point that's just going to add to people's mistrust or concern about the direction the higher education system's going.
Michael Horn:
Andrew lost in the news perhaps about the rollout is that beyond it just being a shorter form, there are also other good features about the new FASFA, like the direct transfer of federal tax data. I'm not quite sure that most of our listeners have keyed into just how big a deal that is, and I'm sure there's a backstory there as well, right?
Andrew LaCasse:
Yeah, you're a 100% correct that the tax data transfer is almost more consequential than the actual FAFSA form question shortening itself, that was a massive battle to begin with. So let me backtrack a little bit here and give you some history. So this proposal actually came from, I believe the Trump Administration to Congress that they wanted the authority for the department to grab data from the IRS to basically auto-populate an individual's financial status to fix a really easy problem of Americans saying, "I already gave the government this information. Why am I giving it to them again?" And in order for the department to do that, they needed some statutory authority and that rested in the IRS tax code. And so this was not just the HELP Committee, but the Senate Finance Committee and the Ways and Means Committee in the House. And so there was a proposal that we worked on among the chambers to fix this, and it was called the Future Act, and it would basically enable what I just said, the department to grab IRS data with taxpayer's consent, and it saved money.
If there was greater verification of an individual's income and data, one, the individual wouldn't have to report it, and two, the department wouldn't be making mistakes and making overpayments and then having to rectify it. So it was a huge win, but it was a huge hurdle because it amended the tax code and lawmakers on that panel were hesitant to make the changes about disclosing taxpayer information even to another agency. So it was tough, but it is really the key to FAFSA. So we did that before the FAFSA Simplification Act became law. It was called the Future Act. It was paired with some funds for HBCUs, but that was the first step. We called it the first step to FAFSA reform. It actually was able to eliminate 22 questions, and then we "finished the swing" later on with the true FAFSA HEA amendments that really completed it, that brought the 108 down to around 32, 33.
But you're 100% right that this tax data transfer was instrumental and I think is really key to responding to individuals who say, "The government already has my information on this stuff. Why am I having to self-report it? Why am I having to go back and look at my old tax pay stubs, et cetera, and send it up when you already have it? This is again, government bureaucracy, government ineptitude at its finest." And I think this is underappreciated, and once the rollout gets a little bit smoother and we're into the next years, I think it'll be really, really impactful.
Michael Horn:
Classic case of where the organization thinks its department separation is more important than the individual or consumer on the other side, right?
Andrew LaCasse:
100%, 100%.
Michael Horn:
Andrew, thank you so much for shedding light on all these topics and giving us this background, really appreciate having you on.
Andrew LaCasse:
Not a problem.
Jeff Selingo:
That was great, Michael. A bit like how just a bill on Capitol Hill becomes a law because I'm not sure in this hyperpartisan city that still happens the way that Andrew just described it, but as we know, there's the law and now there's the rollout, and it's been rocky, and I think some might say that's being kind. So the reaction in higher ed has been to give students estimated packages while institutions wait for the FAFSA numbers from the education department. A number of colleges and universities have pushed back their traditional May 1st deposit deadline for enrollment, assuming that even though students will know they're accepted by then, they may not have had time to fully look at the financial aid package they received.
And then there is what Colorado Mesa just did, they announced in February what they called The Wait is Over, which is an early award process built on their financial aid calculator, which isn't all that unusual. Lots of colleges are given estimates, but what's different here is that Colorado Mesa with some 10,000 students in Grand Junction, Colorado, is telling students that they can actually bank on the offer, that they'll actually get what the estimate is. So we called up John Marshall, it's president, to ask him how they did this and why they did this.
Michael Horn:
John, welcome to Future U.
John Marshall:
Appreciate you guys having me.
Michael Horn:
You bet. So as we mentioned earlier, Colorado Mesa is one of many institutions that have announced responses to the FAFSA delay. Most colleges are simply moving their deposit deadlines from May 1st to a later date. Others are sending out estimated award packages, but you decided to go even further, not just providing students an estimate, but actually an offer that they can bank on. Can you walk us through what led to that decision?
John Marshall:
Yeah, for us, it's really mission central. If you think about a lot of these regional comprehensive universities, which Colorado Mesa is one, we sit basically halfway between Denver and Salt Lake, and so we're 250 miles from everywhere and several mountain passes in between. And so for us, our student body is going to be low income, first generation, students of color and rural kids. That is the bulk of our student body. And so said differently, we are going to be disproportionately reliant on student financial aid in terms of providing access to students who typically haven't had access. So for us, this was not a nice to have, or maybe this would be a good idea. This is a must have for us, very much mission central and making sure that we keep doors open for students who, as I said, haven't typically had access to college.
Jeff Selingo:
So what's interesting about that, John, is that I mentioned what you all did to several other presidents recently, and a couple of them said, "Well, that's a great idea, but we couldn't really take the risk of making such a promise." So how assured were you that you could do that and have you estimated the potential exposure for the institution, if you end up, for example, with a lot of students who you end up making that promise to, who really actually in the end didn't need as much as you thought they needed?
John Marshall:
Yeah. Well, I'm giggling a little because, yeah, welcome to my world. There is some risk. There's some fairly significant risk, but again, the question is what's the alternative? Is the alternative sitting on your hands and losing maybe an entire cohort to no college at all? I got asked the same question about some version of, are you just trying to get a jump on the competition? Well, for the last several years, the number one competitor for Colorado Mesa University has not been Boulder or Fort Collins, it's no college at all, which is to say, if we don't jump on this, we're concerned about a significant portion of our student body not going to college at all.
So financially, the question becomes, do you have some exposure? Well, of course we do. Is that number 2%, 5%, 10%? We have our estimates, but the reality is in conversation with our board of trustees, we really tried to frame it in the alternative, what happens if we don't do this? And I think it became really clear for us that, yeah, there's some financial exposure and there's some risk, but the greater risk in our estimation was literally hundreds of students throughout rural Western Colorado or first generation families not going to college at all.
Michael Horn:
Yeah, it makes sense. Hopefully, we hope, the FAFSA mess will be fixed by next year, but given financial awards are annual, what thought have you given to how you retain students who will be coming under The Wait is Over initiative, knowing that what they might get the next year might be different from what they've gotten this year?
John Marshall:
Yeah, if you zero in on some of the detail around this new SAI versus the old EFC metric that the feds use, I think our estimate is that many of our students should see a little bit more Pell, not less. And so the hope is that you're going to see that. Now, that may not be true for sole proprietors. That may not be true for kids coming off of farms. There are some wrinkles, in particular for rural kids, that we're a little nervous about and unclear what that's going to look like. So put an asterisk next to the answer, but I do think that this is probably over time, really a good thing. And I'll maybe back up and just say, we have for all the frustration and appropriately so, I would say with the federal botching of this rollout, what was underneath it was the right thing. What was underneath it was simplifying the FAFSA, which needed to happen. What was underneath it was this idea of trying to make it easier for low and middle income students to access college.
So those are all the right principles. So directionally, we're heading, we think, in the right direction. It's really bridging what was a good idea with where it ultimately lands, which we think will be a good place. And in between that time, we've just got to come alongside families, make sure they've got the ability to plan in real time and not continue waiting for months for a federal award.
Jeff Selingo:
You had mentioned rural and farms, and it's something that I've heard from a number of people about the impact of the SAI versus the EFC. Had you been thinking about that anyway, given your... I'm assuming that because you get a lot of rural students, there might be a lot of farm families there that you're dealing with. Is that something that you had thought about and looked into as an institution before this to see how those students would be impacted?
John Marshall:
Yeah, in fact, we had sent a letter to our federal delegation on this topic asking him to review it because it's a fairly important distinction and you guys track this stuff closely. So this is toggled on and off over time. Again, if you look at the macro, there are some things in this new policy that are concerning and, frankly, that are going to reinforce some of the negative departures between rural and urban America.
I'll give you one additional one. In addition to the farm and sole proprietorship and in rural area, you're going to see disproportionately small businesses and farming comes, there's also this thing of more than one kid, if you have more than one kid in college. Well, who's got more than one kid, disproportionately undereducated rural families who has one kid? People that are better educated in the metro areas. So there is a larger narrative as a part of this that, I think, we are really focused on trying to continue to come alongside the portion of Colorado that is going to be disproportionately first in their family to go to college, low income, rural students of color who are being, I would argue, disproportionately impacted intentionally or not by some of these policies or policy rollout mistakes.
Jeff Selingo:
John Marshall, President of Colorado Mesa University, thank you for being with us today.
John Marshall:
Yeah, yeah. Appreciate the conversation. Nice to visit with you guys. Take care.
Jeff Selingo:
And we'll be right back on Future U.
Michael Horn:
This episode is being brought to you by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Today's college students are more than just students. They're workers, parents, and caregivers, and neighbors and colleges and universities need to change to meet their changing needs. Learn more about the foundation's efforts to transform institutions to be more student-centered at usprogram.gatesfoundation.org.
Jeff Selingo:
This episode of Future U is sponsored by Ascendium Education Group, a nonprofit organization committed to helping learners from low-income backgrounds reach their education and career goals. Ascendium believes that system level change and a student-centric approach are important for our nation's efforts to boost post-secondary education and workforce training opportunities. That's why their philanthropy aims to remove systemic barriers faced by these learners, specifically first-generation students, incarcerated adults, veterans, students of color, adult learners, and rural community members. For more information, visit ascendiumphilanthropy.org.
Michael Horn:
Welcome back to Future U. Two very interesting interviews there with a lot packed in, and we're going to let them mostly speak for themselves on this episode, Jeff. But maybe just a quick wrap up. I'd love your own thoughts. You've been in DC for so long. I'd love your own thoughts about what you think the department could have done better and really importantly, what the longer term impact is here.
Jeff Selingo:
Yeah, Michael, I doubt they wanted this to really happen in an election year. This has not exactly been very smooth at all, and it's not something you want out in the news on a regular basis, especially in an election year. So clearly it's not that they ever planned this, but I don't think they really are enjoying this moment right now. Look, they're going to get this solved, but as S&P just said recently, for colleges that are on the brink, it does matter. They need to get that enrollment in place in April and May and June, and if they don't get that enrollment in place, and for many of these colleges, they're so dependent on federal financial aid for their students, that it really does matter for them. And so if they miss their enrollment targets by 10 or 20 or 30 students, they are so close to going out of business that they might or that they might end up closing some programs.
And that's exactly what S&P said recently in a warning that they put out about this delayed FAFSA. And I also don't think we've seen the full fallout from the two kids in college change, the issues that John mentioned around family farms. So I think that there's this initial blowback to the delay to the new SAI and what that means, but just wait until the awards start coming out in the next couple of weeks, next couple of months. I think then people might say, "Well, wait a second. Why am I getting this kind of award? And last year I would've gotten this kind of award?" That's when I think we'll start to really dive into what is the real meaning of these other changes in the FAFSA? And that might lead to more changes in the future. I don't think we're done tweaking it, but I think it's important to remember the larger policy goals here that Andrew talked about in his interview.
And I think that probably in a few years we'll think this is great. But I think for now, beyond being an election year, I think it does remind people just like healthcare.gov and its problematic rollout years ago that wow, healthcare in this country is really broken. And I think this is reminding people that higher education in this country is really broken and truly reminding them how expensive college is that we have to fill out this FAFSA to begin with. So I think, again, long-term, this will be solved, but I think in the short-term, this is not good for what's happening in higher ed writ large right now in terms of just faith that the public has in institutions of all kinds, from both the government to colleges and universities.
Michael Horn:
Makes a lot of sense, Jeff. Largely echoes how I'm thinking about this as well, and we're going to leave it there. Just a lot of fascinating insights about the behind the scenes and then what goes into a college making really a bold decision in this environment right now around, given everything with FAFSA, something to stay tuned on. And with that, we'll wrap and just say thank you to all our listeners for joining us on yet another Future U and a reminder to follow us @futureupodcast on social media, jump on our website, subscribe to our newsletter, follow me and Jeff on social media. Of course, we'll interact with you gladly there.
Jeff Selingo:
So until we see you next time, keep thinking about the future of higher education.
