All posts by NACAC

Advocacy

Advocacy Update – August 15, 2025

By Sean Robins, NACAC’s director of advocacy

Welcome to the second issue of the Advocacy Update on NACAC’s Admitted blog. We remain energized by the positive feedback from our first issue and are excited to continue providing members with timely insights on federal policy, legislative developments, and NACAC’s ongoing advocacy efforts. In a rapidly shifting landscape for higher education, our goal is to equip you with clear, actionable information that reflects both the challenges we face and the steadfast work underway to protect equity, access, and opportunity in college admission counseling. 

Policy & Legislative Updates 

The Trump administration issued a Presidential Memorandum directing the Department of Education to require colleges to report racially disaggregated admission data for applicants, admitted students, and enrollees starting in 2025–26. The changes will apply to undergraduate and certain graduate and professional programs. While framed as an effort to improve transparency, the move comes amid heightened scrutiny of race-conscious policies in admission, and NACAC continues to defend the role of holistic review and personal lived experience. The Education Department said the Presidential Memo, published Aug. 15, requires selective four-year colleges to report five years of detailed, racially disaggregated admission data — including GPA, test scores, timing of application, and financial aid status — with a 60-day public comment period to follow. Concerns remain about how the department will handle and analyze this data given staffing cuts at the National Center for Education Statistics. 

The administration has retreated from its threat to strip Harvard of its ability to enroll international students, a move the university called unconstitutional and retaliatory. The Department of Homeland Security said it will not proceed based on the original letter, though legal disputes remain. Separately, the administration is demanding over $1 billion from UCLA to unfreeze $584 million in research funds, as well as broad conditions banning race-based scholarships, gender-affirming care, and overnight protests, among other restrictions. A federal judge has ordered partial restoration of certain National Science Foundation grants to UCLA, ruling that “suspensions” violate an earlier order barring terminations. California Gov. Gavin Newsom has vowed to fight the settlement demands, calling them an attack on academic freedom. 

In other legal developments, the Trump administration has issued an executive order requiring political appointees to review all federal grant opportunities before publication, pausing new announcements and banning funding for projects tied to racial equity, gender identity, immigration, and other so-called “anti-American values.” Courts have previously blocked similar efforts, but the new directive intensifies political oversight of research funding. A divided Fourth Circuit panel has also allowed the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to access sensitive federal records, citing the agency’s IT modernization role. 

A new antitrust lawsuit was filed against 32 selective institutions, the Common Application, Scoir, and the Consortium on Financing Higher Education regarding early-decision admission policies. Plaintiffs allege that sharing names of early-decision admits suppresses competition and limits students’ ability to compare aid offers.  

The administration is also increasing scrutiny of geographic recruitment practices in admission, warning colleges that targeting areas based on racial or ethnic composition could be considered unlawful proxies for race. NACAC has emphasized that geographic outreach is shaped by multiple factors, including serving historic communities and responding to demographic shifts. 

Other notable developments include:  

Meanwhile, advocates warn of escalating federal actions to roll back protections for Dreamers and undocumented students, including revoking ACA coverage, investigating scholarships, and detaining recipients. Institutions are urged to stand firm on lawful programs, prepare protocols for enforcement visits, and affirm equitable access for all students. The Presidents’ Alliance has developed a resource offering strategies to support undocumented students and safeguard opportunities. Finally, a federal judge has again blocked the administration from laying off nearly half of the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights staff, though none of the 276 terminated employees have been reinstated. 

NACAC Advocacy 

NACAC is closely monitoring the Trump administration’s new directive requiring colleges to report detailed applicant, admit, and enrollment data — including race, sex, test scores, and GPAs. While we have long supported more disaggregated data to improve transparency, we strongly oppose this administration’s motives, which appear aimed at using the information to undermine diversity in admission. Admission decisions have never been based solely on numbers; holistic review allows colleges to recognize resilience, leadership, and context-based potential that standardized tests — long known to reflect systemic inequities — cannot capture. This policy risks pushing institutions toward less diverse student bodies, particularly harming first-generation and low-income students, while favoring those with greater financial resources.  

In support of our members, NACAC is sharing a new resource from our partner, EducationCounsel. Called Misguidance, the resource analyzes the Department of Justice’s July 29 memo on DEI. The analysis finds that the DOJ guidance misrepresents federal civil rights law and overreaches in ways that could mislead schools about what is legally permissible. While some points in the DOJ memo reflect current law, much of it advances policy preferences that could deter institutions from lawfully addressing barriers, advancing diversity, and ensuring equal opportunity. EducationCounsel emphasizes that inclusive practices, the use of disaggregated data, and race-neutral strategies that support students remain fully lawful. Education leaders should be guided by actual law — not the administration’s anti-DEI stance. 

NACAC will continue advocating for admission policies that value the full breadth of student achievement, reject the false premise that test scores define merit, and protect the ability of colleges to create equitable pathways to higher education for students from all backgrounds. 

Ways You Can Take Action 

We are continuously updating our Take Action page with opportunities to make your voice — and the voices of our members — heard. If you have not already, I encourage you to advocate on the urgent issues below. You can also view all active advocacy campaigns in the yellow column of the Take Action page. 

Though the challenges in higher education and equitable access may feel daunting, our work presses on with purpose. Through advocacy, we support students from all backgrounds, helping prepare the next generation of leaders. As Malala Yousafzai reminds us: 

“When the whole world is silent, even one voice becomes powerful.”  

Her words are a call to action. Every conversation we have, every resource we share, and every engagement with lawmakers strengthens the voices of students and counselors alike. NACAC will continue to be that voice, defend equitable opportunity, and ensure every student has a real chance to reach their potential. 

Advocacy

Advocacy Update – August 8, 2025

By Sean Robins, NACAC’s director of advocacy

Welcome to the first edition of our Policy & Legislative Update series. These regular posts are meant to keep NACAC members informed about key policy developments, NACAC’s advocacy priorities, and opportunities to take action in support of students and the college admission counseling profession. 

My name is Sean Robins, and I serve as NACAC’s director of advocacy. With experience across education policy, program leadership, and nonprofit strategy, I am honored to bring these updates to our members at such a critical moment for college access and admission. I will regularly share highlights from Capitol Hill, federal agencies, and the broader policy landscape — always with an eye toward what it means for your work and our shared mission. 

This inaugural update comes amid growing national attention to race-conscious practices, new federal directives on admission data reporting, and ongoing debates over higher education funding.  

Policy & Legislative Updates 

The Trump administration has issued a Presidential Memorandum directing the Department of Education to overhaul the IPEDS system beginning in the 2025–2026 academic year. Historically, IPEDS has only captured the racial composition of enrolled students — not applicants or those admitted. Under this new directive, institutions will be required to disaggregate data by race and sex at three stages of the admission process: applicants, admitted students, and enrolled students. The new requirements will apply at the undergraduate level and in select graduate and professional programs. 

While efforts to improve transparency in admission data can offer value to students and families, we are viewing this directive in the broader context of ongoing scrutiny around race-conscious policies. NACAC remains committed to defending holistic review and the importance of personal lived experience in admission. 

With Congress in its August recess, key developments in federal education policy continue to unfold with major implications for funding, access, and institutional accountability. The Senate Appropriations Committee passed a bipartisan FY 2026 Labor-HHS-Education bill (26-3) just before the recess, rejecting the Trump administration’s proposed $12.4 billion cut and maintaining most core education programs at current levels. The bill preserves funding for TRIO, GEAR UP, Pell Grants ($7,395 max), FSEOG, Federal Work Study, CCAMPIS, and Title IV-A. It also ensures timely disbursement of K-12, CTE, and adult education grants and blocks efforts to shift Title I and IDEA programs out of the Education Department. The House will take up its version after the recess. 

The Common App opened the 2025-2026 application season with new equity-driven features, including a required question on student responsibilities outside school, expanded direct admission, and improved scholarship notifications for first-generation and low-income students. 

Access challenges remain front and center. A new NCAN analysis reveals that nearly half of students who did not file the FAFSA believe they are ineligible — including many receiving public assistance or who lack access to $500 in an emergency. Despite system fixes, misperceptions about eligibility remain a major barrier. 

Rural students continue to face persistent obstacles to enrollment, even with dual enrollment options for targeted outreach. Factors like cost, geographic isolation, and skepticism about higher education’s value shape decision-making. Still, local partnerships and district investments are helping to move the needle in some communities.  

Alabama has launched a statewide direct admissions initiative, automatically admitting students to nearly 40 institutions — including HBCUs — based solely on transcript data. The goal is to expand access, eliminate application barriers, and support the state’s workforce and economic development priorities. Separately, institutions participating in the Great Admissions Redesign are piloting structural innovations to streamline admission, integrate advising and financial aid, and improve student engagement. 

Federal scrutiny of higher education institutions continues to intensify. Columbia and Brown have reached agreements with the Trump administration following grant freezes tied to allegations of antisemitism. While funding has not yet been restored, both institutions expect payments to resume within 30 days. Over $6 billion in research funding remains frozen across several institutions, including Harvard and Princeton. At the same time, UCLA has become the first major public university to face similar sanctions, with hundreds of millions in grants suspended amid DOJ allegations. 

Continued visa delays also pose significant threats to international student enrollment this fall, with projections showing a potential 15 percent drop — or 150,000 fewer students — and a $7 billion economic loss.  

At the same time, a new Gallup and Lumina Foundation survey finds that most parents still view postsecondary education as essential for their children’s success. Three in four parents — across political affiliations — say they want their kids to pursue education after high school, with four-year colleges remaining the top preference. However, interest in shorter-term, career-aligned alternatives like two-year colleges, job training, and certificate programs is growing. While skepticism around cost and outcomes persists, the belief in education as a path to upward mobility remains strong. 

Recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) rulings reaffirm that the executive branch cannot delay or cancel congressionally approved education and research funds. These findings reject tactics like “pocket rescissions” and uphold Congress’s power of the purse. These decisions signal stronger safeguards against the misuse of federal authority to defund institutions or programs — particularly those tied to research, student aid, or equity initiatives. However, with litigation still pending and administrative workarounds under scrutiny, continued vigilance and advocacy remain critical. 

NACAC Advocacy 

This week, NACAC continued to advocate for policies that support access, equity, and opportunity for all students — both in response to urgent federal developments and as part of our ongoing commitment to fair and inclusive education. 

In the wake of a new memorandum from the Department of Justice declaring that many diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) practices may violate federal law, NACAC issued a firm statement reaffirming its commitment to expanding opportunity for all students. While the DOJ memo lacks the force of law, it has created confusion and concern across the field. NACAC is urging institutions not to overcorrect in ways that could limit equitable outcomes and is working with partners to monitor developments and provide guidance to members. 

This week, NACAC applauded the Senate Appropriations Committee’s bipartisan passage of the FY 2026 Labor-HHS-Education bill. The legislation protects critical investments in TRIO, GEAR UP, Federal Work Study, FSEOG, CCAMPIS, and Basic Needs for Postsecondary Students, and maintains the Pell Grant maximum at $7,395. These wins reflect sustained advocacy by NACAC, our members, and coalition partners. 

Ways You Can Take Action 

We are continuously updating our Take Action page with opportunities to make your voice — and the voices of our members — heard. If you have not already, I encourage you to advocate on the urgent issues below. You can also view all active advocacy campaigns in the yellow column of the Take Action page. 

Amid ongoing challenges and shifting political winds, our commitment to advancing equitable access and opportunity remains unwavering. We understand that progress often unfolds behind the scenes — quiet but persistent — and that patience and perseverance are essential. 

Though the path ahead may be clouded, we hold fast to the truth that brighter days are coming. As Khalil Gibran wisely said, “No matter how long the storm lasts, the sun always shines behind the clouds.” 

This hope fuels our work and reminds us that every effort we make today brings us closer to our vision — that the transformative power of postsecondary education is accessible to all.  

Test Optional

Test-optional admission during the pandemic and implications for college selectivity and enrollment

By Kelly Rosinger and Dominique J. Baker 

Colleges and universities nationwide turned to test-optional admission policies during the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2021, with funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, our research team at the College Admissions Futures Co-Laborative set out to examine test-optional implementation during the pandemic, how colleges varied in test-optional policy implementation, and the implications of test-optional admission for college selectivity and enrollment at selective colleges and universities.

We defined selective colleges and universities as those that admitted fewer than half of applicants over three consecutive years, on average. For these 186 public and private, not-for-profit four-year institutions, we spent two and a half years collecting detailed data on how colleges implemented test-optional admission during the 2021-22 admission cycle (the first selective college admission cycle after the pandemic began) using archived historical websites.

History of Test-Optional 

At selective institutions that receive more applications from academically qualified students than they will admit, college admission test scores frequently have been used as one of many admission considerations. Prior to the pandemic, a movement had begun among selective institutions to reconsider the role of college entrance exam scores in the admission process. The movement started with some private liberal arts colleges implementing test-optional admission and then expanded in the early 2000s to include some private research universities, highly ranked institutions, and a few public universities. Motivations for this movement included inequitable patterns in test taking, test preparation, and test scores that systematically disadvantaged racially minoritized and low-income students in the admission process.

Prior research on test-optional admission offers some evidence that test-optional policies, at least in some contexts, can expand access among underserved students, but some evidence also indicates that they may benefit institutions by potentially expanding the numbers of applications these institutions receive and the average test scores colleges then report to rankings agencies.

With the pandemic disrupting high school students’ opportunities to safely take the SAT or ACT, virtually all selective colleges and universities turned to test-optional admission to remove a major barrier students faced in applying to college.

Key Takeaways 

Our study contributes important national evidence regarding the scale and scope of test-optional admission. We found that 90 percent of selective colleges and universities implemented some type of test-optional policy during the pandemic and, by contrast, just 20 percent of these institutions had implemented test-optional admission prior to the pandemic. Even though a large share of institutions made tests optional, the implementation of these policies varied substantially from college to college. Just over three-quarters of selective colleges went test-optional by making test scores optional for applicants, 4 percent went test-flexible by requiring applicants to submit an alternate exam or materials in place of the SAT or ACT, 10 percent went test-free by not considering the SAT or ACT in admission, and 10 percent continued to require test scores.

We also found that even at colleges with test-optional admission, 14 percent continued to require test scores from some applicants, such as international applicants, homeschooled applicants, applicants to some academic programs, or applicants below some GPA threshold. Even if colleges were test-optional for all applicants, we sometimes found language on college websites indicating that test scores were strongly encouraged or recommended. Fifteen percent of the selective colleges we studied continued to require the SAT or ACT for scholarship consideration even though they were test-optional for admission, and 10 colleges with some type of test-optional policy required matriculating students to submit a test score.

Merging our test-optional dataset with publicly available data from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, we were able to explore how test-optional admission related to difference in selectivity and enrollment outcomes. These preliminary findings, available in our working paper, suggest that the implementation of any type of test-optional admission policy was associated with an increase in enrollment among Black students, and the increase in access was concentrated in moderately selective colleges admitting between half and 30 percent of applicants. At the most selective colleges we studied — those that admitted fewer than 30 percent of applicants — we found that implementing any type of test-optional policy correlated to an increase in the number of applications colleges received, on average. At these highly selective colleges, we did not find consistent evidence of gains in college access.

We found that differences in how colleges implement test-optional policies likely relates to outcomes. In particular, gains in enrollment among Black students tended to be largest at colleges that extended test-optional policies to all applicants and that were test-optional for scholarships.

Implications for Test-Optional Practice and Policy 

Our large-scale, national study of test-optional policy implementation during the pandemic highlights the widespread implementation of these policies and reveals that test-optional policies in practice differs substantially from institution to institution. Colleges vary in the type of test-optional policy they implement (test-optional, test-flexible, test-free), whether the policies extend to all applicants versus being required for some applicants, and whether the policies extend to scholarship consideration or matriculation.

Even at institutions with test-optional admission, messages about taking and submitting test scores were confusing, often strongly encouraging students to take and submit test scores.

The differences in how colleges implement test-optional admission and the lack of clear messaging around policies likely add confusion to an already complex and stressful time for students and their families.

The host of ways colleges can implement test-optional admission have implications for the outcome of these policies. Our early results suggests that test-optional policies relate to increased access among Black students, especially at moderately selective colleges and when the policies apply to all students and to scholarship consideration. We interpret this as evidence that test-optional policies, in some contexts, can be one strategy selective colleges can use to promote racial equity. As colleges navigate an environment in which the use of race-conscious admission is more constrained, admission policies that can remediate past racial injustices are increasingly important. Yet, we caution that test-optional policies on their own are not a silver bullet when it comes to addressing racial inequities that stem from centuries of unequal opportunity. We urge institutions to simultaneously consider how recruitment, admission, financial aid, and student services can better support racially minoritized students.

Kelly Ochs Rosinger is an associate professor of education and public policy at Penn State, where she examines the barriers students face going to and through college and how postsecondary policies and practices shape educational outcomes. She was a partner, along with NACAC, in the Equity Implications of Test-Optional Admission Policies initiative, funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Dominique J. Baker is an associate professor of education and public policy at the University of Delaware, where she studies the way that education policy affects and shapes the access and success of minoritized students in higher education. She was a partner, along with NACAC, in the Equity Implications of Test-Optional Admission Policies initiative, funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.