Over the past 100 years, the higher education landscape in the United States—and the profile of the typical student attending postsecondary institutions of higher learning—has changed dramatically. Today’s students are more often older, juggling part-time or full-time jobs, and raising children, and many are struggling to meet their own basic housing and food needs.1Meanwhile, the purchasing power of federal financial aid programs such as the Pell Grant, which once covered a substantial portion of college costs, has eroded,2and more students have had to take on larger debts to attend college, to the detriment of their financial futures. These economic pressures make it increasingly difficult for contemporary students to focus solely on their studies, leading to higher dropout rates and prolonged time to degree completion for those who manage to stay enrolled.3
There is a growing need to reaffirm a progressive vision for higher education that supports both individual and societal advancement. In unifying around the multiple purposes of higher education in today’s world, policymakers can better design higher education to support the modern student. The progressive vision must encompass a commitment to debt-free college, recognizing education as a public good that benefits society as a whole. To do so, policymakers need to:
- Provide free and universal access to high-quality postsecondary education.
- Fully fund institutions of higher education.
- Support equitable and inclusive learning environments.
This chapter of the Center for American Progress report “A Progressive Vision for Education in the 21st Century” examines all three of these progressive proposals in detail.
Proposal 1: Provide free and universal access to high-quality postsecondary education
Recent improvements to the student loan system and student debt relief signal a new era of higher education finance.4 Despite these advancements, the many problems student loan borrowers face lie in complex income verification processes, inadequate sharing of borrower information among different government agencies, and deficiencies in the contracting and oversight of loan servicers.5
To get to the root of these issues, the United States must move away from debt-financed higher education access and toward direct funding from federal, state, and local governments. Doing so would enable colleges to lower fees charged directly to students, ideally to zero at public higher education institutions.
Realize the dream of universal college access
To make postsecondary education universally accessible, grant aid to students needs to be increased and the impact of rising college costs on students needs to be countered with more direct funding to institutions.6 By boosting grant aid, the financial burden on students—particularly those from low-income backgrounds—can be significantly reduced, allowing them to pursue their education without taking on debt. Controlling the escalating costs of attending college prevents tuition and fees from outpacing inflation and wage growth and ensures that the sticker price of education remains within reach for the average student.
The Pell Grant program’s purchasing power has diminished, forcing low- and middle-income students to rely more on loans.7 This can be seen in federal student loan data: In fiscal year 2023, new Direct Loan volume accounted for 72 percent of all postsecondary aid available to students.8 Financial barriers to attendance can be reduced by doubling the Pell Grant, indexing it to inflation, and increasing funding for other need-based aid programs such as Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants and the Federal Work-Study Program.
Controlling rising college costs for students is equally important. From 2006 to 2016, college costs increased by 63 percent, outpacing inflation.9 While the increase in the amount students pay to attend college has since slowed and even receded in some contexts, the impacts of these gains in college affordability are not equitably distributed.10 Proposals such as making two years of college free through federal-state partnerships, which would require states to maintain their share of the investment, can help reduce tuition costs to zero for eligible students. Expanding free and universally available education to at least some postsecondary level is essential for building an equitable society because it democratizes access to higher education and its benefits.
From 2006 to 2016, college costs increased by 63 percent, outpacing inflation.
A majority of states now offer some form of tuition-free access to postsecondary education and training, each with varying levels of support and criteria to participate.11 As these states update their programs, other states are considering implementing their own.12 State policymakers also need to consider what role the federal government could play while centering decision-making on student needs.13
First, programs aiming for universal, debt-free access to higher education should consider the full range of costs of attendance. Students need material support for essentials beyond tuition—things such as textbooks, transportation, and living expenses. Second, programs should prioritize equitable access by including tailored support services and outreach that address the barriers and challenges faced by students who have typically been excluded from higher education, particularly low-income students, first-generation students, and working students. Finally, students and community stakeholders should be consulted on the design and implementation of “free college” programs, and these programs need to be promoted to ensure all eligible students are aware of their opportunities. Of course, transitioning away from having individuals use debt to finance their college educations will be challenging. Therefore, it is also worth exploring ways to address the pain points in the current student loan repayment system.
Simplify the student loan repayment system
Most federal student loan repayment plans available to borrowers are income contingent, meaning payment amounts take into account the borrower’s income, while standard repayment plans require payments over a span of 10 years, 20 years, or 25 years.14 These plans are administered by a handful of loan service companies contracted by the federal government to process paperwork and payments and to provide customer support.15
However, federal student loan servicing is in crisis. Borrowers have reported issues with loan servicers providing incorrect information, mishandling payments, and failing to process applications for income-driven repayment plans or the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program in a timely manner.16 This has placed significant burdens on student loan borrowers over the years. A series of legal complaints both from and against the student loan servicing establishment has added confusion to the chaos.17
Indeed, under the current configuration, incentives are not aligned in favor of borrowers or federal taxpayers, and the exodus of servicers from the market indicates that the contracts are not working out in their favor either.18 Adopting a system that is strictly income based and administered via payroll taxes, similar to those used by Australia and the United Kingdom, could address several issues and potentially improve the U.S. student loan repayment experience.19
In both Australia and the United Kingdom, borrowers begin to repay their student loan debt through the tax system once their income reaches a certain threshold, and repayment amounts are based solely on income rather than on what was borrowed.20 Adopting a system that is administered through payroll taxes under the purview of the federal government would cut out the need for third-party contractors with contradictory incentives.
Moving to a system where all borrowers end up in an income-contingent repayment structure can help prevent defaults by automatically adjusting payments to the individual’s financial situation. A carefully designed repayment program would guard a higher share of all borrower’s discretionary income—similar to the treatment of undergraduate borrowers who enroll in the Saving on a Valuable Education plan, which, until a recent court injunction, offered the lowest-ever monthly loan payment terms.21 This ensures lower earners are protected from unaffordable repayment obligations.
Likewise, such a system should be designed to automatically adjust with changes in borrowers’ incomes to provide flexibility during periods of unemployment or low earnings and eliminate the bureaucratic hurdles borrowers currently face when their income changes.22 Whether administered through the IRS or the U.S. Department of Education, a single, transparent system that takes into account borrowers’ employment and earnings status can provide clearer, real-time information to borrowers about their repayment obligations and progress.
Countries that provide free and universal access to higher education typically fund it through tax revenues, ensuring that all students can attend college without direct costs.23 To achieve this model, the United States would need to phase out its reliance on loan servicers; settle existing loan accounts; and realign federal, state, and local budgets to prioritize the funding of cost-free, high-quality postsecondary education. This shift would not only simplify the repayment process but also ensure that higher education is accessible to all, fostering a more equitable society.
To ensure the successful transition from individuals debt financing their college education to providing more financial support directly to institutions, regulators must implement and maintain effective quality assurance mechanisms. Colleges that participate in federal student aid programs so that their students may access things such as grants and loans to pay for attendance are responsible for following relevant federal laws such as the Higher Education Act.24 For example, colleges have particular rules they must follow when it comes to disbursing federal student aid funds to students.25 Institutions also risk losing access to the federal aid program if excessive numbers of students default on their loans. Federal funding provides an important hook on which to hang minimum quality expectations in the pursuit of protecting students and the public purse. That fact remains consequential whether funding flows through the student, as it does today via grants and loans, or flows directly to the institution. As more students demand virtual, hybrid, or other types of online learning experiences, it is all the more important that regulators keep up by using dynamic and sophisticated quality assurance methods.
Clean up online higher education
A significant problem in higher education is the disproportionate allocation of funds to institutions heavily reliant on federal student aid.26 Many schools, particularly for-profit and/or primarily online institutions, derive more than 90 percent of their revenue from the Office of Federal Student Aid but allocate less than 20 cents of each dollar to direct instructional costs.27This imbalance raises concerns about the quality of education provided and the true intent behind such programs, as the bulk of the revenue is funneled into marketing, administrative costs, and profit margins rather than student learning and support.28
Furthermore, for-profit, third-party companies manage online degree programs on behalf of public institutions using much the same business model and in exchange collect substantial portions of the revenue to pay for digital advertisements and fast-paced recruitment.29
This issue is not just about financial mismanagement; it also has significant equity implications. Students who are most likely to seek online education opportunities are those who need the most support to succeed in college,30 including nontraditional students, working adults, and individuals from low-income households. Enrollment trends and interviews with students who have attended for-profit schools indicate that these students choose online programs for their flexibility and accessibility. Yet the inadequate allocation of funds for educational instruction and student support services means that these students do not receive the quality education and resources they need to thrive. Instead, they are subjected to subpar educational experiences, which can perpetuate educational inequities and hinder their academic and professional advancement.
Even so, the modality of online education itself is not inherently problematic. At its best, online education offers numerous benefits, such as flexibility, accessibility, and the potential for innovative instructional methods.31 Furthermore, studies have shown online and on-campus programs tend to be similarly effective in terms of learning outcomes and students’ self-reported positive perceptions of the course.32 Unfortunately, the way many online education programs are managed via third parties has eroded the promise of high-quality, innovative online education by prioritizing profit over for instructional design and student support.33
To address these problems and protect the integrity of online higher education, a two-part solution is necessary. First, the so-called “2011 bundled services guidance,” which allows institutions to outsource core educational functions to third-party servicers without sufficient oversight, should be rescinded34because it leads to the troublesome issues outlined above.35 Second, collecting better information about third-party contractors for online programs is essential. Enhanced transparency and oversight would allow regulators and the public to understand how federal funds are being utilized and ensure that they are directed toward providing quality education rather than inflated administrative and marketing costs.
Implementing these solutions would have several advantages: They would protect public investment by ensuring that federal funds are spent efficiently and effectively, and they would guarantee that students have access to high-quality programs, thereby supporting their academic and professional success.
One of the root causes of colleges seeking out third parties to quickly launch online programs is a lack of adequate funding elsewhere in these institutions, which drives them to establish new programs aimed first and foremost at increasing enrollments and revenue.36 This system creates a situation in which some set of marginalized students essentially pay the full published tuition price in order to subsidize other programs of study or campus features from which they most likely will not benefit.37 Institutions that are fully funded do not need to play games with their balance sheets and can instead open new programs legitimately under the banner of access and meeting local needs.
Proposal 2: Fully fund institutions of higher education
A postsecondary educational institution is fully funded if it can meet student needs and support student success. Policymakers should reverse long-standing, systematic underfunding of community colleges and minority-serving institutions of higher learning so that they and their students can reach their full potential.38 This proposal highlights the unique funding needs of a subset of minority-serving institutions.
Equitably fund land-grant historically Black colleges and universities and Tribal colleges and universities
To address the long-standing funding inequities faced by land-grant historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) and Tribal colleges and universities, Congress needs to implement measures that ensure equitable support for all of them in any relevant legislation, including the Farm Bill.39This includes modifying and enforcing state matching fund requirements, better supporting research and extension activities, and addressing infrastructure needs.
Importantly, land-grant HBCUs and Tribal colleges and universities have received significantly less funding than predominantly white land-grant institutions of higher learning, despite serving students with greater financial needs.40 Revising federal policies to provide fair and consistent funding and incentivizing states to do the same will better support the vital role these institutions play in research and education and promote a more equitable higher education system overall.
Proposal 3: Support equitable and inclusive learning environments
Every student should have access to learning resources and mentorships, as well as financial and material support. Policymakers should promote sustainable, systemic support on campuses and remove barriers to student access to public support and safety net programs. College campuses are sometimes battlegrounds for broader societal and political conflicts.41 Therefore, it is imperative that college campuses be inclusive spaces where students, faculty, and staff are psychologically and physically safe. In this effort, policymakers should promote and protect the principles of academic freedom as well as strategies for creating diverse, safe, and inclusive campuses.
Protect the right to learn the truth
Higher education plays a key role in a healthy democracy. It fosters an informed citizenry that shapes the future of the country through its direct engagement with the government, such as by voting. The research function of the university also plays a role in democracy, as faculty produce knowledge that may, at times, be at odds with the status quo or existing power structures. The principles of academic freedom are meant to protect these activities and allow the university to remain a space free of political interference, working as a public check on those in power.42
Tenure and faculty governance (through which faculty make key decisions about university operations) are structures that protect academic freedom and protect the institution from undue outside influence. Though it has some limits, academic freedom generally applies to faculty, allowing them to teach, research, and express themselves without outside interference.
Academic freedom faces threats not only from political interference but also from special and commercial interests, which are sometimes manifested through university boards or powerful donors.43 Academic freedom differs from freedom of speech because it is subject to professional competence, with ideas being evaluated by peers in the field. While free speech allows for a wide range of expression, academic freedom operates as a “marketplace of ideas” where the best ideas rise to the top based on quality.44
University policies and civil rights laws, such as Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, also shape the environment, ensuring protection from discrimination and fostering diversity, equity, and inclusion.45 Respectful and safe learning environments enhance the exchange of ideas, which makes education more effective. These frameworks can interact in complex ways, however, requiring a nuanced approach to balance different principles, laws, and institutional policies.
Other frameworks to keep in mind include First Amendment rights.46 At private universities, institutions have more power to set limits on free speech, though many express a philosophical belief in this principle and still foster environments of free expression.47 At public universities, students’ First Amendment rights are more broadly protected, though a university may set viewpoint-neutral rules related to the time, place, and manner of student speech.48
Faculty have First Amendment rights as private citizens, but as university employees, they may be under employment conditions that set limits on these rights.49 For instance, laws against discrimination and university policies about bullying may prohibit a faculty member from using hate speech. Civil rights laws, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, provide protection from discrimination based on membership in protected classes.50 Principles of belonging, diversity, equity, and inclusion ensure that all students feel safe on campus and are not subjected to harassment, bullying, hate speech, or bias.
To protect the right of students to learn the truth, policymakers must implement comprehensive measures that support academic freedom, institutional autonomy, and free inquiry while fostering safe learning environments. Protecting academic freedom involves establishing policies that shield colleges and universities from political, special, and commercial interests, and it includes supporting tenure and faculty governance structures that enable faculty to teach, research, and express ideas without outside interference.
Policymakers must implement comprehensive measures that support academic freedom, institutional autonomy, and free inquiry while fostering safe learning environments.
Educational gag orders in higher education are policies or legislation that restrict the discussion or teaching of certain topics within academic institutions.51 These orders frequently target subjects deemed controversial or politically sensitive. The intent behind these gag orders is usually to limit or control the narrative around these topics, sometimes under the guise of preventing political indoctrination or promoting “balanced” perspectives.52 But they have significant implications for academic freedom, intellectual exploration, and the overall quality of education.
Educational gag orders undermine academic freedom by imposing external constraints on what can be taught and discussed in the classroom.53 When educators are prohibited from addressing certain topics, it stifles students’ intellectual curiosity and limits their ability to engage critically with important social and historical issues.54 This restriction not only hampers the educational experience but also undermines the development of critical thinking skills that are essential for democratic participation and civic engagement.
Educational gag orders disproportionately affect marginalized communities by erasing or silencing discussions about their histories, experiences, and contributions.55 Restrictions on teaching critical race theory or systemic racism, for example, can prevent students from understanding the historical and ongoing impacts of racism in society.56 Such policies can contribute to a climate of exclusion and discrimination, undermining efforts to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion in higher education.
Ethically, gag orders contradict the mission of higher education to foster open inquiry, critical thinking, and the pursuit of knowledge. Educators have a responsibility to provide students with a comprehensive and accurate understanding of complex social issues, which is compromised when certain topics are off limits. The U.S. Department of Education should investigate and challenge educational gag orders that restrict free inquiry and expression on campuses. Specifically, the Office of Civil Rights should continue investigating complaints of educational censorship that could constitute discrimination.57
Conclusion
President Lyndon B. Johnson’s signing of the Higher Education Act in 1965 was a watershed moment for democratizing education and creating pathways for upward mobility. Higher education continues to be essential for fostering democracy by promoting an informed citizenry, a sense of belonging through inclusive learning environments, and national competitiveness by producing new knowledge and a skilled workforce. To advance the original vision of the Higher Education Act, high-quality higher education must be universally accessible and affordable, students must be equitably supported at all institutions, and college campuses of all stripes must protect free inquiry.