A bill to authorize the Secretary of Education to award grants to create evidence-based student success programs designed to increase participation, retention, and completion rates of high-need students.
Introduced June 11, 2026 · Last action June 11, 2026
Plain English Summary
This bill authorizes the Secretary of Education to award grants to schools and educational institutions to create and run student success programs that help increase enrollment, keep students in school, and boost graduation rates—particularly for high-need students (typically low-income, first-generation, and minority students). The bill creates a new federal grant program but does not specify dollar amounts or implementation details in the text provided.
Who benefits
High schools, colleges, and universities that receive grants to design and operate student success programs; high-need students (low-income, first-generation, students of color, students with disabilities) who gain access to evidence-based support services such as tutoring, mentoring, financial aid advising, and academic coaching; educational institutions in rural and under-resourced areas that lack existing support infrastructure; education consultants and nonprofit organizations that design and implement these programs.
Who pays / loses
U.S. taxpayers who fund the grant program through federal appropriations; schools and districts that do not receive grants face competitive disadvantage in student recruitment and retention; non-evidence-based tutoring and support programs may lose market share if schools shift toward funded evidence-based alternatives.
Funding & Lobbying Interests
K-12 schools, community colleges, and universities benefit financially from grant awards. Education technology and tutoring companies (Chegg, Coursera, Pearson tutoring divisions) may compete for contracts to deliver services within funded programs. Nonprofit advocacy organizations representing low-income students and first-generation college students support such legislation. Education policy groups focused on equity and student completion (e.g., Institute for Higher Education Policy, Education Trust) typically lobby for evidence-based student support funding. Federal appropriations committees control actual funding levels.
Political Impact
Affected Groups
High-need students—defined in education policy as those from households earning under 200% of federal poverty line, first-generation college students, students of color (particularly Black, Latino, and Native American students), students with disabilities, and students from rural communities. Estimates from the U.S. Department of Education indicate roughly 13 million undergraduates attend college, of which approximately 7 million are considered high-need; 25 million students attend public high school, of which approximately 15 million are from low-income households. Schools serving predominantly disadvantaged populations stand to benefit most.
Political Subtext
Proponents argue that evidence-based intervention programs (mentoring, tutoring, financial coaching) close equity gaps and increase degree completion, citing research showing that first-generation and low-income students benefit significantly from structured support. They point to successful models like CUNY's ASAP program and federal TRIO programs as proof of concept. Critics contend the bill lacks specificity on funding levels, accountability metrics, and definitions of 'high-need,' potentially allowing funds to disperse inefficiently. Some fiscal conservatives argue new federal grant programs expand government education spending without addressing underlying issues like college affordability or K-12 teacher quality. Non-partisan research (NCES, NSF) shows structured student support does improve retention and completion rates, particularly for first-generation and low-income students, supporting the evidence-based approach; however, effectiveness depends heavily on program design, instructor quality, and adequate funding per student.
Real-World Stakes
If passed, the bill creates a new funding stream for student support infrastructure at schools currently unable to afford tutoring, mentoring, and completion coaching—institutions serving the poorest students. Schools in high-poverty districts could expand from 10–20 hours/week of tutoring to comprehensive, personalized support. The outcome depends entirely on appropriations amounts (not specified in this bill text). Analogous federal programs: TRIO (since 1965) has served 2.7 million low-income and first-generation students; evaluations show TRIO participants graduate at 60% rates vs. 35% for non-participants in similar demographics. CUNY's ASAP program (2007-present) achieved a 55% graduation rate within 3 years for community college students vs. 25% baseline, at a cost of $2,800 per student annually. Connecticut's evidence-based student success initiative (2015) expanded tutoring and mentoring across community colleges, yielding 3–5% gains in retention over five years. Success depends on whether appropriations are adequate ($100M+ annually to meaningfully scale nationally) and whether schools use grants strategically rather than substituting for existing budgets.
Sponsor
Sponsor information not available.
Vote Record
No recorded votes.
Campaign Finance — Primary Sponsor
No campaign finance data available yet.
501(c)(4) disclosure: Contributions from 501(c)(4) "dark money" organizations are not required to be publicly disclosed and are not reflected in the figures above. Data sourced from FEC public disclosure filings.
Community Discussion
Share this bill
Sign in to join the discussion.
No comments yet. Be the first.