A complete substitute amendment, v2 extends key implementation timelines from four to five years and introduces new provisions for enhanced data accessibility, student data correction processes, and congressional oversight. It also slightly expands the scope of data elements to include workforce programs and Workforce Pell Grants. The core intent of establishing a postsecondary student data system remains consistent.
College Transparency Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Cassidy, Bill [R-LA]
- Committees
- Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Aug 4, 2026
Bottom line
This bill creates a comprehensive federal student data system to provide greater transparency on higher education outcomes and costs, while aiming to protect student privacy and reduce institutional reporting burdens.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a secure, privacy-protected postsecondary student-level data system within the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) to track student enrollment, progression, completion, and post-collegiate outcomes. It mandates data sharing with other federal agencies for aggregate reporting and makes summary aggregate information publicly available to students and families, while explicitly prohibiting the collection of certain sensitive data and the use of the system for federal rankings.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the bill will empower students and families with better, more granular information to make informed decisions about postsecondary education, improve accountability for institutions, and streamline data collection processes for higher education, ultimately reducing duplicative reporting burdens.
Opponents contend
Critics, historically, have raised concerns about the privacy and security of student data in a centralized federal system, the potential for misuse of data, and the risk of creating a national student unit record system that could lead to government overreach or federal interference in institutional autonomy.
The bill is moderately detailed, requiring careful reading to understand the nuances of data collection, privacy safeguards, and reporting mechanisms.
Section 2, subsection (l)(1)
Establishment of Postsecondary Student Data System
This provision mandates the Commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) to develop and maintain a secure, privacy-protected student-level data system within five years of the bill's enactment. The system's goals include evaluating student outcomes, enhancing transparency, assisting federal aid program analysis, providing customizable information for students, and reducing reporting burdens on institutions.
Supporters argue
Supporters contend that establishing this system is crucial for providing a comprehensive and accurate picture of higher education, enabling better decision-making for students and more effective policy development.
Critics contend
Historically, some critics have expressed concerns that creating a centralized federal data system, even with safeguards, could lead to government overreach or potential privacy vulnerabilities.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the desire for comprehensive data to inform public and policy decisions with the need to ensure student privacy and data security.
Section 2, subsection (l)(2)
Data Elements and Advisory Committee
This section details the specific student-level data elements to be included in the system, such as enrollment, persistence, completion, and financial aid status, disaggregated by various demographic and academic categories. It also establishes a Postsecondary Student Data System Advisory Committee, composed of diverse stakeholders, to consult with the Commissioner on data elements and system development. Crucially, it explicitly prohibits the inclusion of highly sensitive data like individual health records, exact addresses, citizenship status, or political affiliation.
Section 2, subsection (l)(3)
Periodic Matching with Other Federal Data Systems
The bill requires the Commissioner to enter into data sharing agreements with several federal agencies, including the Treasury, IRS, Defense, VA, Census, Federal Student Aid, Social Security Administration, and Bureau of Labor Statistics. These agreements facilitate secure, privacy-protected periodic data matches to assess post-completion outcomes like earnings, employment, and loan repayment. The provision emphasizes streamlining data collection, minimizing duplication, and ensuring confidentiality, explicitly stating that matches are not continuous and will not create a single standing linked federal database.
Section 2, subsection (l)(4)
Publicly Available Information and Consumer Website
This section mandates the NCES Commissioner to create a user-friendly consumer information website and analytic tool that makes summary aggregate information publicly available. This includes measures of student access, progression, completion, costs, and postcollegiate outcomes (employment, earnings, loan repayment), disaggregated by various categories. The website must use statistical disclosure limitation techniques to prevent individual identification and will undergo biannual consumer testing with diverse groups to ensure its utility and accessibility.
Section 2, subsection (l)(5)
Permissible Disclosures and Prohibitions on Data Use
This section outlines strict rules for how data from the system can be disclosed and used. It allows student-level, non-personally identifiable information (with direct identifiers removed) for vetted research and evaluation, approved by the NCES Disclosure Review Board. It mandates annual feedback reports to institutions and states and allows states to query aggregate outcomes for their secondary school graduates. Crucially, it prohibits the sale of data to any third party, limits other federal agencies' use to vetted research or explicitly authorized purposes, forbids use for law enforcement or adverse actions (like debt collection or immigration enforcement), and explicitly prohibits the Secretary or any federal entity from using the data to establish federal rankings or a summative rating system for institutions.
Section 3
Repeal of Prohibition on Student Data System
This section repeals Section 134 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1015c), which explicitly prohibited the establishment of a federal student unit record system. This repeal is necessary to allow the creation of the postsecondary student data system outlined in Section 2 of this bill.
Section 4
Institutional Data Submission Requirements
This provision amends the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require institutions of higher education participating in Title IV federal student aid programs to collect and submit data to the Commissioner for Education Statistics in accordance with the newly established postsecondary student data system. This requirement takes effect five years after the bill's enactment, aligning with the system's development timeline.
These subsections explicitly prohibit the inclusion of specific sensitive data elements in the postsecondary student data system, including individual health data, student discipline records, elementary and secondary education data, exact addresses, citizenship/migrant/national origin status, course grades, entrance exam results, political affiliation, or religion.
Section 2, subsection (l)(2)(F) and (l)(5)(A)(i)(II)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to clearly define the scope and limitations of data collection, addressing a key concern for privacy advocates by explicitly carving out sensitive categories.
Case for: Proponents argue that these explicit prohibitions are fundamental to safeguarding student privacy and building trust in the federal data system, demonstrating a commitment to data minimization.
Case against: Some critics might argue that even with these exclusions, the aggregation of other student-level data still poses privacy risks, or that the exclusions limit the depth of analysis for certain policy questions.
Estimated impact: Significantly reduces the scope of potentially sensitive data collected by the federal government, impacting millions of students by protecting specific categories of personal information.
This subsection mandates the Commissioner, in consultation with the Advisory Committee, to establish a process for students to request access to their personal information for inspection and to request corrections to inaccuracies. It also requires dedicated and adequate staffing to field and respond to these inquiries and a written response to every correction request.
Section 2, subsection (l)(3)(C)(iv)
Why it matters:This is a technical detail related to data integrity and individual rights within a complex data system, often placed within operational sections rather than a standalone 'rights' section.
Case for: Proponents highlight this as a critical safeguard for data accuracy and individual agency, ensuring students have a mechanism to verify and correct their own information within the federal system.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against provisions that grant individuals the right to access and correct their data, as it is a fundamental privacy principle.
Estimated impact: Provides a direct mechanism for millions of students to ensure the accuracy of their data in the federal system, enhancing trust and data quality.
These clauses require the Commissioner to conduct biannual consumer testing for the public information website with diverse groups (including prospective first-generation, low-income, English learners, adult students, veterans, and their families) and to ensure the information is available in formats accessible to individuals with disabilities and compliant with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines.
Section 2, subsection (l)(4)(D)(v) and (vi)
Why it matters:This is a technical specification for the public interface, often placed within development guidelines rather than a high-level policy statement.
Case for: Proponents argue that these provisions are essential to ensure the public website is genuinely useful, equitable, and accessible to all target audiences, especially those who may face barriers to accessing educational information.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against provisions enhancing accessibility and user-friendliness, though some might argue about the cost and complexity of such extensive testing and compliance.
Estimated impact: Ensures the public-facing data system is usable and understandable for a broad and diverse population of students and families, potentially impacting millions of users.