House and Senate negotiators have pushed off completion of a higher education overhaul until after the March recess, but interest groups representing students, colleges and state officials are furiously lobbying over provisions of the legislation still hanging in the balance.

Not surprisingly, much of the haggling boils down to money: who pays what for this or that, whether it’s necessary and who has to know about it. And the stakes are considerable. It’s been 10 years since a full renewal of the nation’s primary higher education law — 10 years since interest groups have had the chance to change it. And though the overhaul is technically for five years, most in the higher education world believe a bill cleared this year will end up being law for at least a decade.

In many ways, the House and Senate versions of the bills are strikingly bipartisan. The Senate passed its version by 95-0 in July, while the House measure was passed last month by 354-58.

Some issues that for years were controversial, such as the idea of tracking college tuition costs and establishing “watch lists” of seemingly excessive tuition hikes, are by now broadly accepted by the key players: House Education and Labor Chairman George Miller , D-Calif., ranking House Republican Howard P. “Buck” McKeon of California and Senate sponsor Edward M. Kennedy , D-Mass.

But with a few proposals still in dispute, Congress has passed four extensions of the existing higher education law. The latest one expires April 30.

The biggest ongoing battle is over a provision dubbed “maintenance of effort,” which is in the House version, but not the Senate’s. The provision would penalize states that reduce their contributions to higher education between one year and the next.

Aides say they will work through the recess, and they hope to prepare an agreement for their bosses by the end of the two-week break. But staffers said they wouldn’t be surprised if a fifth extension is needed.

Even if it all works out on Capitol Hill, the Bush administration says it “strongly opposes” both House and Senate versions of the legislation, mostly because both would rescind some of the Education secretary’s authority on accreditation of colleges.