President Barack Obama has catapulted himself into the heart of families with his plans to alter the federal government’s role in providing access to student loans — at least among families with children at or near college age.

In rapidly growing numbers, they’re being priced out of the higher education market. They are struggling to find ways to put together packages that might put a college education within reach of their children.

Mr. Obama has proposed ending the long-standing federal guaranteed student loan program — in which the federal government has provided subsidies and guarantees to private lenders who make student loans at a fixed, discounted rate. The president proposes steering all federally-supported loans to a direct-lending program that the U.S. Department of Education would administer.

Doing so, Mr. Obama argues, removes a costly middleman — private for-profit and non-profit lenders that are paid a subsidy and that profit from making loans that carry little risk because of the federal guarantees.

The Office of Management and Budget estimates more than $24 billion in savings over five years if the private subsidy program is ended in favor of direct loans from the government.

The politics of the president’s proposal have been aided immensely by a student loan industry being seen as grasping and greedy — exemplified by what critics consider obnoxious profiteering by the industry leader, Sallie Mae. A scandal involving gratuities given to some college financial aid officers added fuel to the fire.

Saving billions of dollars under such circumstances sounds promising indeed to cash-strapped prospective college students. But here’s where the story gets complicated: Congress already ended the most egregious subsidies to private lenders through legislation passed in the aftermath of the college financial aid scandal.

The big savings are achieved through the federal government’s ability to borrow money at considerably lower rates than private lenders, according to Mark Kantrowitz, editor of FinAid.org, an online consumer guide to student loans.

These savings would not be passed through to student or parent borrowers through lower rates or friendlier repayment terms. Rather, the spread between the federal government’s cost of funds and the return it receives from direct student loans would be used to finance a more generous and stable Pell grant program — which aids the neediest students.

The president intends to use the government’s market power to profit from student lending and then use the proceeds to fund a worthy college grant program. Nothing is inherently wrong with that. But is this the best way to fund Pell grants? Will raising grants from $4,731 to $5,550, with automatic increases according to the Consumer Price Index, greatly increase access to higher education?

This mainly is about funding Pell grants, not cleaning up excesses in the guaranteed student loan market, much of which has been resolved.

What’s more, many questions remain about of how the president’s program (which would greatly expand an existing direct-loan program) would be administered. This is no small matter. Outreach and guidance to students and families has everything to do with whether student loans provide true access to higher education.

The Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority has years of experience as a state-operated non-profit helping students find their way through the college funding maze — in part by participating in the guaranteed student loan program that the president seeks to end.

Mr. Obama would be wise to leverage MOHELA’s and similar non-profits’ real-world expertise by allowing them to compete for the opportunity to help administer the new program.