Yesterday, the House Committee on Education and Workforce approved the College Financial Aid Clarity Act and the Student Financial Clarity Act in party-line votes, clearing the way for two significant student aid measures to advance to the House floor.Both bills are intended to make college costs more transparent. However, as currently drafted, they would impose new, federally mandated tools that risk confusing students and families rather than helping them. A bill built around one-size-fits-all federal requirements could unintentionally undermine effective work already underway on campuses and, in many cases, required under state law.
The College Financial Aid Clarity Act would require all Title IV institutions to use a single, federally designed financial aid award letter. While that approach may sound straightforward, it would displace the College Cost Transparency (CCT) Initiative, a successful ACE-led effort developed in partnership with nine other higher education associations.
The CCT Initiative already includes more than 760 institutions representing over 7.2 million students, and it allows institutions to update language and practices quickly as student needs, federal aid programs, and consumer feedback evolve. By contrast, a federally mandated form would be difficult to adjust without new legislation or rulemaking, potentially locking institutions—and students—into outdated formats.
The Student Financial Clarity Act would establish a universal federal net price calculator. However, a single calculator cannot fully capture institutional aid, which now exceeds federal grant aid for most students. Recent data show that average institutional grant aid ($12,500) far surpasses average federal grant aid ($4,983), and more than half of all enrolled students receive institutional grants or scholarships.
The bill would also impose extensive new data collection and reporting requirements, including highly disaggregated student-level data, while duplicating tools campuses already provide, raising serious concerns about usefulness, privacy, and implementation.
ACE conveyed these concerns in a letter sent to the committee ahead of the vote, joined by four other higher education associations. The letter urged lawmakers to work more closely with stakeholders and to allow institutions that already meet strong state or field-led transparency standards to opt out of new federal mandates.
“Without mechanisms to capture institutional nuances and maintain up-to-date data, a universal calculator risks substituting simplicity for precision—ultimately leaving students with information that is easier to compare, but less accurate,” the letter cautioned. The associations emphasized that meaningful transparency depends not on rigid federal templates, but on flexible, field-led approaches that reflect how students actually receive aid and make decisions.
A final vote has not yet been scheduled.
