Republican Congress Is Likely to Alter Higher-Ed Policy

Donald J. Trump’s selection of Betsy DeVos, a charter-school advocate, to lead the U.S. Department of Education suggests that the new Republican-led Congress could have an outsize influence on American higher-education policy.

So far there have been few surprises as the incoming Congress moves forward in selecting its leadership and setting an agenda: The power brokers are largely familiar names, with well-known positions on the issues. And although college leaders and academics might not agree with everything legislators are seeking to accomplish, the familiarity may be something of an antidote to the uncertainty of the president-elect’s agenda and amped-up rhetoric.

Sen. Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee, will continue to be chairman of the Senate’s Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Sen. Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington, will continue as her party’s ranking member on the committee.

The two, who are often said to have a good working relationship, have cooperated on the recent overhaul of the federal law governing elementary and secondary education.

Committee assignments have yet to be made in the House of Representatives, but Rep. Virginia Foxx, Republican of North Carolina, will probably take over as chairwoman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. She had previously led the House’s subcommittee on higher education.

In an interview with The Chronicle, Ms. Foxx said her goal was to work with the Trump administration to limit federal involvement in higher education, including through limiting federal spending, and to “stop the executive branch from writing regulations that take over the role of Congress.”

Continuity in the halls of Congress will bring some measure of predictability to the prospects of higher-education legislation, said Jason D. Delisle, a resident fellow in and higher-education financing at the American Enterprise Institute.

Seasoned legislators could well become the driving force in formulating policy under a president who has shown little interest in higher education, he said.

Some of Mr. Trump’s costlier proposals may not be well received by the fiscally conservative Republicans in Congress, such as changes in income-based repayment of student loans and a return to subsidizing private banks that make student loans, said Mr. Delisle.

One area in which the White House and Republicans in Congress are in agreement is in rolling back regulations enacted under President Obama.

In an outline of Republicans’ policy priorities, called “A Better Way,” House Speaker Paul Ryan, from Wisconsin, called the president’s regulatory actions “governing by executive fiat” and said the new rules inhibit innovation.

Much of the new regulation was meant primarily for for-profit colleges, said Ms. Foxx, rather than to provide accountability across all sectors of higher education. But limiting federal involvement could reduce costs for both colleges and students, she said.

That change could be relatively simple in some cases. Legislators could employ the Congressional Review Act, a little-used measure passed in 1996. It gives lawmakers the ability to reject new rules and regulations within 60 “legislative days” of their becoming final.

Two higher-education regulations that may be subject to the act are new requirements for teacher-preparation programs and rules for students who want to have their student loans forgiven in cases of fraud or misrepresentation by the college.

Under the act, Congress can rescind those rules with a simple majority vote in each chamber.

Other regulations would be more difficult to unwind but could be handled in the next budget. For example, lawmakers could direct that no federal money be used to enforce “gainful employment” regulations, which are aimed at career-college programs that saddle students with unmanageable debt relative to their earnings. Republicans say the rules endanger federal aid for many students and unfairly target for-profit colleges.

‘Do More … With Less’

Some regulatory relief would be welcomed by associations of public and private nonprofit colleges, who have felt that President Obama was demanding on their members.

Michael C. Zola, vice president for government relations and policy analysis at the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, said the group planned to work collaboratively with Congress and the new administration on regulatory issues, but would also seek to preserve its budget priorities, including Pell Grants for low-income students.

On budget issues, however, Rep. Foxx said higher education must rely much less on the federal government. “We have to look for ways to do more, or the same amount, with less” money,” she said.

“Federal money is not manna from heaven. It’s taken from taxpayers” and sent to Washington, which takes a significant amount for administering programs, she said. She wants the money to be left for state governments to use.

At the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities, there are concerns about cuts in both student financial aid and federal support for research that would result if Congress decided to both reduce taxes and increase spending in other areas, such as defense.

And expecting the states to step up their support of higher education may not work out so well when many are still recovering from the recession and low oil prices.

Louisiana, for example, has made some of the largest budget cuts for higher education, because of stagnant oil prices and an abundance of state tax credits for businesses, which have kept the state in the red.

F. King Alexander, president of the Louisiana State University system, said that even if he could get an increase in Pell Grant money for his students, it wouldn’t do much good, because he would still probably have to raise tuition to offset state budget cuts.

Eventually Louisiana could spend no money at all on higher education, he said, which would shift all support for the university to the federal government. Mr. Alexander has been an outspoken proponent of a partnership with the federal government that would require states to maintain their level of spending on public higher education.

“The big question is, What are we going to do keep states from backing out of their responsibility?” he said.

Mr. Delisle, of the American Enterprise Institute, said the rhetoric of federal budget cuts in higher education may be a lot worse than the reality. “Their bark is worse than their bite,” he said of congressional lawmakers. “They love education, and they love their schools.”

Cutting Pell Grants in particular may be politically difficult because of the impact such a move would have on lower-income students and their parents. Congress didn’t cut Pell Grants when it had the opportunity under President George W. Bush, Mr. Delisle noted.

“This may be one of those things they talk about when they know it won’t happen,” he said.

Eric Kelderman writes about money and accountability in higher education, including such areas as state policy, accreditation, and legal affairs. You can find him on Twitter @etkeld, or email him at eric.kelderman@chronicle.com.