HR-10689-119
Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
Sponsored by Donald Norcross (D-NJ)
What it does
The bill would require the Education Secretary, working with the Institute of Education Sciences, to award competitive 5-year grants of at least $500,000 each to colleges, or to colleges partnered with school districts or state education agencies. Grantees would use the money on one or more of five remedial education models and would have to provide a 10 percent non-federal match, with exceptions for Tribal Colleges and certain U.S. territories. The bill would authorize $162.5 million per year for fiscal years 2027 through 2032, and would allow students in funded programs to get federal aid for up to 2 academic years of remedial coursework. It would also require student-level data collection and independent evaluation, and it would bar sale of the data or its use for law enforcement or immigration enforcement. Other limits apply, including a cap of 15 percent of funds for evaluation and a minimum of 30 grantees per grant period.
Who benefits
Students who need remedial or developmental coursework, especially low-income students, who would get priority consideration. Colleges, community colleges, and Tribal Colleges that win grants, and school districts or state agencies partnered with them. Faculty who would receive professional development. Researchers and policymakers who would gain comparative data on which remedial models work. Students in funded programs could also use federal aid for up to 2 academic years of remedial coursework.
Who is hurt
Taxpayers, since the bill would authorize about $975 million over six years, subject to appropriation. Colleges that lose the competition or lack capacity for the 10 percent match and reporting duties. Institutions that would bear the cost of annual student-level data reporting for the grant period and five years after. Students in programs, who could face privacy risks despite the bill's penalties. Colleges using remedial models outside the five listed would not be funded.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that remedial education is a major barrier to degree completion, and that models like co-requisite courses and accelerated coursework have shown promise on a small scale. They contend that a competitive grant program with an independent evaluation and a required comparison across models would show which approaches work before they are expanded. They also point to the strict privacy protections and the preference for institutions serving low-income students.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill would commit about $975 million over six years to five models whose evidence base the bill itself describes as limited to small-scale success. They contend that the 10 percent match and multi-year student-level reporting would burden under-resourced colleges, and that the lifting of the student unit record ban, even with penalties, would create a federal database of student records. They also argue that remedial policy is better left to states and institutions.
Constitutional context
Congress acts under the Spending Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 1), and the grant conditions, such as the match and reporting duties, are voluntary terms of participation of the kind South Dakota v. Dole (1987) allows. Education is traditionally a state function, but this optional funding program raises no clear Tenth Amendment problem.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (the Education Department and the Institute of Education Sciences) gains discretion over awards and evaluation, while Congress keeps control through appropriations, reporting requirements to the authorizing committees, and the privacy limits it writes into the statute.
Historical precedent
Congress has funded similar competitive higher-education grant programs under the Higher Education Act, such as the First in the World program, which also required evaluation of innovative approaches to student success.