A UC Merced graduation ceremony. A federal proposal to eliminate Graduate PLUS loans would restrict access to training for teachers and social workers, worsening California workforce shortages.
Victor A. Patton
Across the state, school districts struggle to hire and retain qualified teachers. Hospitals face shortages of nurses and public health professionals. Social service agencies report rising caseloads and too few licensed professionals to meet demand.
California reflects a national reality: We are facing a persistent and worsening shortage of the professionals our communities rely on most.
These are, in many respects, society’s first responders — the people families turn to in moments of crisis, transition and need. They safeguard children’s development, protect population health and anchor our education, health and human services systems. They do not enter these fields to become wealthy, but out of commitment to the public good.
Yet a new federal proposal threatens to make it significantly harder for them to enter and remain in these professions.
On Jan. 30, the U.S. Department of Education proposed changes to federal student loan programs that would eliminate Federal Graduate PLUS loans and narrow eligibility for the “professional student” category. These changes would exclude many careers requiring post-baccalaureate training — including teachers, principals, school psychologists, nurses, counselors, social workers and public health professionals.
The damage would be both financial and symbolic.
Federal policy does more than allocate dollars; it signals what the nation recognizes as a profession. By narrowing the definition of “professional student,” the government would effectively declare that educators, social workers and public health professionals do not merit the same professional standing long afforded to other fields.
Teaching, nursing, social work and public health practice are not casual occupations. They require graduate-level preparation, supervised clinical practice, licensure, continuing education and adherence to formal ethical codes. They demand specialized knowledge and public trust.
Decades of research have informed the design of high-quality preparation programs that foster graduate success. Such programs require intensive coursework and extensive supervised field placements in schools, hospitals and community agencies. These placements are essential, and they limit students’ ability to work outside jobs to cover tuition and living expenses.
Access to federal loans makes it possible for thousands of working professionals and first-generation college students to pursue these advanced credentials. Nearly 6,800 UC graduate students borrowed $223 million in 2023–24 alone, with most of that amount supporting professional graduate degree students.
These are not abstract figures. They represent experienced teachers seeking leadership credentials, future social workers preparing to serve under-resourced communities and public health professionals training to protect population health. Eliminating Graduate PLUS loans would disrupt carefully built pipelines into high-demand fields just as California and the nation struggle with teacher retention and rising behavioral health needs.
The impact would not fall evenly. Students from wealthier backgrounds may still secure private financing. Those without such resources — disproportionately first-generation and low-income students — will face closed doors. Over time, the workforce serving our children and families will become less representative and less accessible.
This is not simply a higher education issue. It is a public health and public education issue. When we constrict access to preparation for frontline professions, we weaken the quality and stability of the systems that serve most Americans.
There is also a deeper consequence: At a moment when these professions are strained by burnout, politicization and rising demand, narrowing federal recognition sends a corrosive message; that the expertise required to educate children, safeguard mental health and support vulnerable families is somehow less professional.
As deans of schools that prepare educators, social workers and public health professionals for direct public service, we know our students are motivated not by financial advancement but by a deep commitment to their communities. Public service careers require and deserve public investment — not only in dollars, but in recognition and respect.
The Department of Education is accepting public comments on the proposed rule changes until March 2. If we are serious about strengthening schools, supporting families and addressing workforce shortages, we must protect both the financial support and professional standing of those who do this work.
Michelle D. Young is dean of UC Berkeley’s School of Education. Susan Stone is dean of UC Berkeley’s School of Social Welfare. UC Berkeley School of Public Health Dean Michael C. Lu also contributed to this piece.
Related Stories from Sacramento Bee