After a debilitating reduction in force and months of silence on higher ed research, the Institute of Education Sciences announced two new college-oriented surveys on the same day. One focuses on shaping the future of loan repayment, and another will examine the status of today’s TRIO programs, a collection of grant-based initiatives designed to improve college access for historically underrepresented students.
Both proposals, published to the Federal Register March 19, outline how the independent research agency would assess the lay of the land within the respective programs. For TRIO that means tracking the use of funding, who is benefiting from its services and how participation translates into improved outcomes. For student loans it’s about understanding who is aware of income-driven repayment plans, why they opt in and whether they understand what they’re signing up for.
ED plans to use the data to determine the “feasibility of conducting a rigorous impact evaluation” in the future. In other words, the IES is seeking approval to collect the foundational information needed to conduct more consequential appraisals down the road; these are essentially studies to prepare for future studies.
Though announcements like these are largely standard IES practice, they are catching the attention of many higher education researchers, policy experts and advocacy groups who applaud the agency for getting back to work.
“IES is really the cornerstone of education research. And so we see it as a good thing that they are taking an empirical eye towards education programs and studying their effectiveness so that that research can identify promising, evidence-based practices and then be scaled across the education system,” said Mamie Voight, president of the Institute for Higher Education Policy. “We’ve more seen this as kind of business as usual and the type of work that IES really needs to be doing.”
With a few exceptions, up until last week’s notices were posted for public comment, the independent research agency has taken little action to collect and assess higher ed–related data since President Trump took office. That’s likely because early in her term Education Secretary Linda McMahon decimated the research agency’s staff, slashing its head count by more than 80 percent. After the departmentwide RIF, only about 20 IES employees remained. (Although recent news coverage shows that the agency may be starting to reverse course, as it has slowly started to hire new staff.)
So while some concerns remain about whether IES has the capacity to oversee these surveys, both of which will be conducted by contractors, observers are generally encouraged by the agency’s activity.
The TRIO study would be a two-part census-style survey of all grantees and is projected to cost just over $2.5 million, according to the Office of Management and Budget proposal. The student loan study would involve 30-minute interviews with 60 federal borrowers selected from a representative sample of 600 with just over $2.4 million in funding.
“There are at least two studies that are funded. I’m taking this as a good sign of momentum,” said a source familiar with the IES surveys. (Inside Higher Ed granted anonymity to two individuals who were concerned about retaliation from the department.)
TRIO Concerns
Advocates for TRIO funding, however, are concerned that the data from the study could be used against the college access programs, hurting the first-generation, low-income and disabled students they support.
The Council for Opportunity in Education said it “strongly supports comprehensive, high‑quality evaluations” but noted that it has “serious concerns about the overly broad scope of the proposed evaluation.”
Council president Kimberly Jones said a similarly broad and “poorly executed evaluation of TRIO” conducted between 1992 and 2004 was the source of her concerns. That study—which COE argues was tainted by sampling errors and unequal weighting of respondents’ data—culminated in one TRIO program, Upward Bound, being deemed “ineffective.” After that, the George W. Bush administration called for eliminating the program and a negative light was cast on TRIO that affected funding and policy discussions for years to come.
After the 2004 Upward Bound evaluation, COE successfully lobbied Congress to get a clause added to the Higher Education Act that prevents the department from conducting TRIO evaluations that “result in the denial of services for an eligible student under the program or project.” McMahon may have been referencing this ban when she urged the Senate to add strict accountability measures and renegotiate “terms that we feel hamstrung the Department of Education” at a budget hearing in June.
This new survey is not the same as an evaluation. But Jones fears it could also lead to damaging results.
“TRIO is not a single program. It is a portfolio of seven unique student-facing initiatives … each serving different populations across the educational pipeline, from middle school to graduate study. A one‑size‑fits‑all evaluation risks producing misleading or incomplete findings,” she told Inside Higher Ed. “Ultimately, our primary concern in any evaluation of TRIO is that the methods do not harm the students and that any evaluation results are used for the purpose of enhancing students’ educational experiences and outcomes.”
President Trump has already shown a lack of favor for TRIO in his second term, proposing that Congress cut all budgetary support for the program. In justifying the proposal, the Office of Management and Budget said TRIO is a “relic of the past” from when financial incentives were needed to encourage colleges and universities to boost access. “Today, the pendulum has swung and access to college is not the obstacle it was for students of limited means,” OMB added.
Last year the president closed more than 120 TRIO programs and delayed $660 million in funds for others. So far, courts have sided with TRIO advocates, forcing the administration to reconsider the grant terminations.
Some higher ed experts say it’s reasonable to be on the lookout for politically charged research. But most agree it’s too early to jump to conclusions and fear malicious intent from the administration. Evaluations like this are needed, not to eliminate programs, but to ensure students and taxpayers are receiving the best quality, they argue.
“It’s fair to say the [Trump] administration is generally untrustworthy and that some researchers see an opportunity to get money by focusing on certain topics and groups that align with their intentions and may manipulate their studies for this purpose. The incentives align with such behavior,” said a different source familiar with the IES surveys. “But I don’t know for a fact that researchers have done this.”
Clare McCann, a former policy adviser under President Biden and now the managing director of policy at American University’s Postsecondary Education and Economics Research Center, also noted that the surveys will take time. The summative report for loan repayments isn’t expected until 2028, and the TRIO study wouldn’t be released until 2030.
McCann and researchers from IHEP also explained that efforts to carry out evaluations of these programs aren’t new; similar studies were conducted by or existed on the wish lists of both Presidents Obama and Biden.
“The Trump administration is already finding more expedient ways to go after the TRIO programs,” McCann said. “And some of the questions being asked, especially about loan repayment, are good questions. The studies themselves don’t stand out to me as hyperpolitical.”
