Tag: Grant

  • 21 States, D.C. Ask Court to Reverse TRIO Grant Rejections

    21 States, D.C. Ask Court to Reverse TRIO Grant Rejections

    Twenty-one state attorneys general and the AG of Washington, D.C., filed briefs in support of lawsuits challenging the cancellation of TRIO grants for programs such as Upward Bound at Montgomery County Community College.

    Linda Johnson/Montgomery County Community College

    Democratic attorneys general from 21 states and Washington, D.C., filed briefs this week asking a court to reverse the Trump administration’s rejection of grants supporting TRIO programs, which help disadvantaged students attend and graduate from colleges and universities.

    The Council for Opportunity in Education, which advocates for TRIO programs such as Upward Bound, said about 100 grants were rejected or canceled last month after the Education Department delayed funding for thousands of grants that were slated to begin Sept. 1. Another 23 programs lost funding earlier in the year.

    Those terminations deprived more than 43,600 students of services such as tutoring and financial aid help. (Trump’s fiscal year 2026 budget request would end TRIO altogether, and all but a handful of staff in the TRIO grants office were fired early in the ongoing government shutdown.)

    On Sept. 30, the Council filed two lawsuits against the department and Education Secretary Linda McMahon in the U.S. District Court for D.C., alleging that the department canceled grants for complying with the General Education Provisions Act Equity Directive—a requirement at the time of the applications. One suit argues the department faulted a University of New Hampshire application for allegedly saying its program would be “identifying and recruiting students of color and non-Caucasians.”

    The Council is requesting preliminary injunctions vacating the department’s denials and ordering reconsideration of the grants. The attorneys general filed amicus briefs supporting this call.

    “TRIO programs serving thousands of high-school and college students have closed, many of which have operated successfully for years with track records of success,” the briefs say. “Students who relied on these programs’ guidance and academic assistance are now being turned away. The result will be fewer students going to college and fewer students graduating college, to the detriment of impacted Amici States, their residents, and their economies.”

    The AGs of Nevada and Massachusetts were the briefs’ lead authors; they were joined by their counterparts in Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, D.C., Hawai‘i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin.

    Source link

  • How rare are colleges that enroll and graduate high shares of Pell Grant students?

    How rare are colleges that enroll and graduate high shares of Pell Grant students?

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    When it comes to colleges where Pell Grant recipients are at least 55% likely to graduate, there are not a whole lot throughout the U.S. In fact, nearly half of states — many of them Southern with some of the highest poverty rates in the country — don’t have any at all.

    That’s what Becca Spindel Bassett, higher education professor at the University of Arkansas, discovered in a recent analysis in which she sought to identify and map institutions of higher education that she describes as “equity engines.” 

    These are colleges where at least 34% of the students receive Pell Grants and at least 55% of those Pell Grant recipients earn a bachelor’s degree within six years.

    Out of the 1,584 public and private nonprofit four-year institutions that Bassett studied nationwide, she found only 91 — or less than 6% — that qualified for her “equity engine” distinction. 

    And they’re all clustered in 26 states, resulting in what Bassett calls a “spatial injustice” for low-income students who live in one of the states without any equity engines or in areas with limited access to such institutions.

    The almost eight dozen existing equity engines represent a diverse range of institutional types, including regional public universities, small Christian colleges and historically Black institutions. 

    As for whether states can invest more in colleges that are close to being equity engines — a key recommendation of Bassett’s study — it all depends.

    “It’s worth noting that over half of Equity Engines are private colleges and universities, so their relationship to the state and dependency on state funding varies,” Bassett said in an email to Higher Ed Dive.

    But improving Pell graduation rates isn’t only a question of funding models, she said. 

    Leaders at aspiring equity engines can learn best practices and approaches from these colleges and should be prepared to enact “organizational learning and change,” Bassett said. However, much is unknown about what enables colleges to become equity engines, including whether it depends on their programs and services or their policy and funding environments. 

    While Bassett’s study doesn’t answer those questions, a forthcoming book will describe how two of the colleges she identified as equity engines were able to achieve their results, she said. 

    Michael Itzkowitz, founder and president of the HEA Group, a higher ed-focused research firm and consultancy, said in an email that identifying colleges with strong graduation rates is a “good first step” because students who earn a degree “typically earn more than those who do not.” 

    However, Itzkowitz, who under former President Barack Obama served as the director of The College Scorecard — an online federal tool with various data on higher education institutions — added that it’s also critical to consider whether graduates are actually better off economically since “not all institutions and degrees are created equal.”

    “Students who earn a credential at one institution may experience wildly different outcomes if they earned the same degree elsewhere,” he said.

    David Hawkins, chief education and policy officer at the National Association for College Admission Counseling, said in an email that colleges would do well to emulate the equity engines Bassett identified, such as the University of Illinois Chicago. Bassett’s study calls the university a “major driver” of bachelor’s degree completion among Pell Grant recipients in the state, noting those students have a 58% six-year graduation rate.

    Among other things, Hawkins said, such institutions deploy a wide range of services — such as evening or online courses for working students, and transportation to campus — that have been proven to help low-income students cross the finish line.

     “From my perspective, the United States will only remain competitive if we can invest in a postsecondary infrastructure that serves all students who seek opportunity through higher education,” Hawkins said.  

    Source link

  • Purdue Ends GEAR UP Program After Federal Grant Cut

    Purdue Ends GEAR UP Program After Federal Grant Cut

    Purdue University is ending its GEAR UP program after the Trump administration canceled a $34.9 million federal grant to support its activities, WFYI reported. The program provided college-prep programming for more than 13,000 low-income students in Indiana, according to a 2024 press release from Purdue’s College of Education.  

    The grant, awarded last year, was expected to run through 2031. But the U.S. Department of Education told Purdue in a Sept. 12 termination letter that the grant application flouted the department’s policy of “prioritizing merit, fairness, and excellence in education” and ran afoul of civil rights law. The letter referenced parts of the application, including plans to provide DEI training to hiring managers and professional development in “culturally responsive teaching.”

    The program is “inconsistent with, and no longer effectuates, the best interest of the Federal Government,” the letter read. The GEAR UP program shut down on Tuesday. Purdue did not appeal the grant termination, WFYI reported.

    The Education Department has canceled at least nine GEAR UP grants, EducationWeek reported, though it continued awards for other programs last week.

    Source link

  • Trump May Attempt to Tie Grant Allocation to Capitulation

    Trump May Attempt to Tie Grant Allocation to Capitulation

    The Washington Post caught wind of these latest ideas through two anonymous White House officials.

    Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images

    The Trump administration may be moving away from using individual investigations to try to force colleges into compliance with the president’s agenda and instead encourage compliance by giving institutions that demonstrate adherence to his policies a competitive advantage in obtaining research funding, according to The Washington Post.

    The new plan, which Post reporters heard about from two anonymous White House officials, would change the grant-application process and give a leg up to institutions that conform to President Donald Trump’s agenda regarding admissions, hiring and other campus policies. 

    If the plan takes effect, the Trump administration will no longer have to go after universities one by one through investigations and corresponding penalties, but rather can induce compliance from hundreds of institutions at once.

    “It’s time to effect change nationwide, not on a one-off basis,” one official told the Post.

    The current award-selection process for federal research grants is based primarily on scientific merit. Critics say that overriding such a standard would be a demonstrable example of executive overreach and a violation of academic freedom.

    “I can’t imagine a university in America that would be supportive of this,” said Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education. 

    Source link

  • How consistent communication transformed our school culture

    How consistent communication transformed our school culture

    Key points:

    When I became principal of Grant Elementary a decade ago, I stepped into a school community that needed to come together. Family involvement was low, staff morale was uneven, and trust between school and home had to be rebuilt from the ground up.

    Early on, I realized the path forward couldn’t start and end in the classroom. We needed to look outward to families. Our goal wasn’t just to inform them. We needed to engage them consistently, with care and transparency.

    That meant changing how we communicated.

    A shift toward authentic partnership

    We made a schoolwide commitment to open up communication. That included using a digital platform to help our team connect with families more frequently, clearly, and consistently.

    With our platform, we could share classroom moments, highlight student growth, reinforce positive behavior, and build relationships, not just exchange information. Importantly, it also supported two-way communication, which was key to creating real partnership.

    The impact was visible right away. Families felt more connected. Teachers felt more supported. And students were proud to share their progress in ways that resonated beyond school walls.

    That foundation has become central to how we approach culture-building today.

    5 ways better communication deepened engagement

    A decade later, we’ve learned a lot about what it takes to build a strong school-home connection. Here are five strategies we’ve used to increase trust and engagement with our families:

    1. Strengthen student-teacher relationships
    Real communication depends on a two-way dialogue, not one-way blasts. It’s about building relationships. During the pandemic, for example, students submitted photos of artwork, short reflections, or voice notes through the platform we use. Even in isolation, they could stay connected to teachers and classmates and feel seen. That continuity gave them a sense of belonging when they needed it most.

    2. Reinforce positive behavior in real time
    Our school uses a digital point system tied to schoolwide expectations. Students can earn points and use them at our “Dojo Store,” a reward system named by our students themselves. From spirit week participation to classroom challenges, this approach helps students stay motivated while reinforcing a culture of positivity and pride.

    3. Build trust through direct, personal updates
    Many of our families speak different home languages or come from diverse cultural backgrounds, so building trust is something we focus on every day. One of the most impactful ways we’ve done that is by using ClassDojo, which is both direct and secure, while feeling personal–not formal or distant. When families receive messages in a language they understand, and know they’re coming straight from our school team, it helps them feel connected, informed, and valued.

    4. Share classroom stories, not just grades
    One of the most powerful changes we made was giving families a window into classroom life. Teachers regularly post photos, lesson highlights, and messages recognizing growth, not just achievement. Kids go home excited to show what was shared. And even those parents who can’t attend in-person events still feel part of the learning experience.

    5. Keep communication simple and accessible
    Ease of use matters. Even staff members hesitant about technology embraced our system once they saw how it strengthened connections. It became part of our school’s rhythm, like a digital bulletin board, messaging app, and family newsletter all in one. And because everything lives in one place, families aren’t scrambling to find information.

    What we gained

    This shift didn’t require an overhaul. We didn’t start from scratch or invest in a complex system. We just chose one easy-to-use platform families already loved, committed to using it consistently, and focused on relationships first.

    Today, that platform is still part of our daily practice. But the tool was never the end goal–we were trying to build connections.

    What we’ve gained is a more unified school community. We’ve seen more proactive family involvement, stronger student ownership, and a deeper sense of belonging across our campus.

    Families are informed. Teachers are supported. Students are celebrated.

    Looking ahead

    As we continue to evolve, we’ve learned that consistent, authentic communication isn’t a “nice to have.” It’s a foundational part of any school culture built on trust.

    If you’re leading a school or district and looking to increase family engagement, my biggest advice is this: Pick an accessible platform families are already familiar with and enjoy using. Use it consistently. And let families in–not just when it’s required, but when it matters.

    That’s where trust begins.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Trump Political Appointees in Charge of Grant Decisions

    Trump Political Appointees in Charge of Grant Decisions

    The NIH is one of several agencies where a political appointee will have to sign off on grant awards.

    Wesley Lapointe/The Washington Post via Getty Images

    President Donald Trump is now requiring grant-making agencies to appoint senior officials who will review new funding opportunity announcements and grants to ensure that “they are consistent with agency priorities and the national interest,” according to an executive order issued Thursday. And until those political appointees are in place, agencies won’t be able to make announcements about new funding opportunities.

    The changes are aimed at both improving the process of federal grant making and “ending offensive waste of tax dollars,” according to the order, which detailed multiple perceived issues with how grant-making bodies operate. 

    The Trump administration said some of those offenses have included agencies granting funding for the development of “transgender-sexual-education” programs and “free services to illegal immigrants” that it claims worsened the “border crisis.” The order also claimed that the government has “paid insufficient attention” to the efficacy of research projects—noting instances of data falsification—and that a “substantial portion” of grants that fund university-led research “goes not to scientific project applicants or groundbreaking research, but to university facilities and administrative costs,” which are commonly referred to as indirect costs.  

    It’s the latest move by the Trump administration to take control of federally funded research supported by agencies such as the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Energy. Since taking office in January, those and other agencies have terminated thousands of grants that no longer align with their priorities, including projects focused on vaccine hesitancy, combating misinformation, LGBTQ+ health and promoting diversity, equity and inclusion. 

    Federal judges have since ruled some of those terminations unlawful. Despite those rulings, Thursday’s executive order forbids new funding for some of the same research topics the administration has already targeted.  

    It instructs the new political appointees of grant-making agencies to “use their independent judgment” when deciding which projects get funded so long as they “demonstrably advance the president’s policy priorities.” 

    Those priorities include not awarding grants to “fund, promote, encourage, subsidize, or facilitate” the following:

    • “Racial preferences or other forms of racial discrimination by the grant recipient, including activities where race or intentional proxies for race will be used as a selection criterion for employment or program participation;
    • “Denial by the grant recipient of the sex binary in humans or the notion that sex is a chosen or mutable characteristic;
    • “Illegal immigration; or
    • “Any other initiatives that compromise public safety or promote anti-American values.”

    The order also instructs senior appointees to give preference to applications from institutions with lower indirect cost rates. (Numerous agencies have also moved to cap indirect research cost rates for universities at 15 percent, but federal courts have blocked those efforts for now.)

    Source link

  • With Grant Cuts, Trump Pressures UCLA to Make Deal

    With Grant Cuts, Trump Pressures UCLA to Make Deal

    The Trump administration announced last week it was freezing federal grants for another prestigious research university. But this time, it wasn’t a private institution.

    It was the University of California, Los Angeles, and if the UC system doesn’t make a deal with the federal government, campuses across one of the nation’s largest public higher education systems might incur the administration’s further punishment. State leaders condemned the funding freeze, and faculty at UCLA are urging university administrators to fight. But the university has said little about how it plans to respond to the administration.

    The Department of Justice has been investigating the University of California system for months—looking into alleged antisemitism, alleged use of race in admissions and “potential race- and sex-based discrimination in university employment practices.” The agency’s investigations into the broader UC system are still ongoing, but last week, the DOJ told system officials it had made a finding regarding one campus and demanded a quick response.

    “The Department has concluded that UCLA’s response to the protest encampment on its campus in the spring of 2024 was deliberately indifferent to a hostile environment for Jewish and Israeli students in violation of the Equal Protection Clause and Title VI,” the letter said. (Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits universities that receive federal funding from discriminating based on shared ancestry, including antisemitism.)

    The letter didn’t specifically say what the Trump administration wants UC to do now about its alleged failure to handle a pro-Palestine encampment that ended more than a year ago, and that UCLA itself dismantled a week after its creation. The DOJ didn’t provide Inside Higher Ed further information Monday, but U.S. attorney general Pam Bondi’s news release accompanying the DOJ letter suggests the Trump administration wants significant concessions.

    “Our investigation into the University of California system has found concerning evidence of systemic anti-Semitism at UCLA that demands severe accountability from the institution,” Bondi said. “This disgusting breach of civil rights against students will not stand: DOJ will force UCLA to pay a heavy price for putting Jewish Americans at risk and continue our ongoing investigations into other campuses in the UC system.”

    Just hours before the DOJ’s announcement, UCLA had announced that it was paying $6.45 million to settle a lawsuit from Jewish students over reported antisemitism associated with the encampment. But that wasn’t enough to assuage the federal government.

    The DOJ letter said the department “seeks to enter into a voluntary resolution agreement with the university to ensure that the hostile environment is eliminated and reasonable steps are taken to prevent its recurrence.” It asked the UC officials to contact a special counsel by today if they were “interested in resolving this matter along these lines,” providing an email address and a nonfunctional nine-digit phone number for them to contact. The agency is prepared to sue by Sept. 2 “unless there is reasonable certainty that we can reach an agreement.”

    That July 29 letter wasn’t the end of it. In the week between then and today’s deadline for UC to contact the DOJ, multiple federal agencies said they’re cutting off grants to UCLA. The total amount is unclear—other media have reported numbers exceeding $300 million.

    It’s reminiscent of what happened at Columbia and Harvard Universities. But unlike with those private institutions, the Trump administration hasn’t published an overarching demand letter for how it wants UCLA to change its ways, whether in admissions, student discipline or otherwise.

    A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services, which includes the National Institutes of Health, responded to Inside Higher Ed’s requests for information on how much in NIH grant funding has been canceled and why with a two-line response attributed to an unnamed HHS official: “We will not fund institutions that promote antisemitism. We will use every tool we have to ensure institutions follow the law.”

    A National Science Foundation spokesperson wrote in an email that the NSF “informed the University of California, Los Angeles that the agency is suspending awards to UCLA because they are not in alignment with current NSF priorities and/or programmatic goals.” The spokesperson didn’t specify which priorities or which goals, and his email didn’t mention antisemitism.

    The Department of Energy went beyond allegations of antisemitism in its letter to UCLA, saying that “UCLA engages in racism, in the form of illegal affirmative action” and UCLA “endangers women by allowing men in women’s sports and private women-only spaces.”

    Mia McIver, executive director of the national American Association of University Professors, said what’s happening is the “Trump administration is extending its pattern of attacking higher education faculty, staff and students more broadly outward from the Ivy League universities into the public sector.” McIver, who taught at UCLA for a decade, said the administration intends to “exercise pervasive control over colleges and universities in every region of every different sort of institution.”

    “It is the federal government using levers of power that are completely unrelated to the underlying allegations,” McIver said. “Cutting off research for diabetes, cancer, heart disease will not improve the safety of Jewish faculty and students on campus and will not address antisemitism.”

    ‘Enough Is Enough’

    What does the UC system plan to do? A spokesperson deferred comment to UCLA, which also didn’t provide interviews Monday or answer written questions. The UC system spokesperson did forward a statement Friday from system president James B. Milliken, who started in his new job Aug. 1—just after the grant freezes. 

    Milliken called “the suspension this week of a large number of research grants and contracts” at UCLA “deeply troubling,” though “not unexpected.”

    “The research at UCLA and across UC more broadly saves lives, improves national security, helps feed the world, and drives the innovation economy in California and the nation,” he said. “It is central to who we are as a teaching and learning community. UC and campus leadership have been anticipating and preparing for the kind of federal action we saw this week, and that preparation helps support our decisions now.”

    He didn’t, however, say what the decisions would be.

    Also Friday, California governor Gavin Newsom, a potential 2028 presidential candidate and an ex officio member of the UC Board of Regents, released a statement calling it “a cruel manipulation to use Jewish students’ real concerns about antisemitism on campus as an excuse to cut millions of dollars in grants that were being used to make all Americans safer and healthier.”

    “This is the action of a president who doesn’t care about students, Californians, or Americans who don’t comply with his MAGA ways,” Newsom said.

    UCLA chancellor Julio Frenk said in a video on X Friday that “we share the goal of eradicating antisemitism. It has no place on our campus or in our society.” He said his wife is the daughter of a Holocaust survivor, and his paternal grandparents left Germany in the 1930s after being “driven out of their home by an intolerable climate of antisemitism and hate.”

    “These experiences inform my own commitment to combating bigotry in all its forms, but a sweeping penalty on lifesaving research doesn’t address any alleged discrimination,” Frenk said. He said, “We have contingency plans in place,” though he didn’t elaborate.

    In a petition, the UCLA Faculty Association’s Executive Board criticized UCLA administrators for their past “anticipatory obedience” to the federal government, which it said “has not prevented Trump administration attacks.”

    “UCLA’s anticipatory obedience has put itself in a place of weakness and we must instead choose to stand up,” the association wrote. “We do not have to bend to the Trump administration’s illegitimate and bad-faith demands. UCLA is a state university, with the financial backing and moral support of the fourth-largest economy in the world.”

    The association demanded that UC “demonstrate our strength as the world’s largest university system and reject the malicious demands of the Trump administration,” adding that “each university that falters legitimates the Trump administration’s attacks on all of our institutions.”

    It called for UC to fight the administration in court, to use unrestricted endowment funds to “help keep our university’s mission intact” and to work with Newsom and state lawmakers to get financial support. The petition ended with a call for university administrators to not “sacrifice our strengths and our community, deeply nurtured and protected for over 100 years, to a deeply callous and unfair federal administration that will only ask for more.”

    Meanwhile, Faculty for Justice in Palestine at UCLA said in a statement that “Israel continues to tighten its US-enabled siege of Gaza, where the calculated denial of humanitarian assistance is causing mass starvation amid ongoing aerial bombing. The theatrics of the Trump administration, echoed by UCLA, are part of a larger attempt to cover up this genocidal catastrophe in which all of us, and our university, are complicit.”

    McIver urged the UC system not to cut deals like Columbia and Brown Universities have.

    “There are always alternatives,” she said, “and every deal that is cut makes it harder for those who are downstream of the deal to continue resisting these attacks.”

    “The Trump administration is aiming to control colleges and universities at all levels in all states, and every settlement that is reached basically contributes to that goal,” she said. “And so there has to be a point at which everyone across the country stands up and says, ‘Enough is enough, we’re not going to tolerate this extortion, you can’t hold our campuses hostage and we’re not going to take it anymore.’”

    Source link

  • Senate committee rejects K-12 grant consolidations in FY 26 bill

    Senate committee rejects K-12 grant consolidations in FY 26 bill

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    The U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee on Thursday approved a bipartisan fiscal year 2026 K-12 education bill that would prevent the executive branch from removing Title I and special education programs to agencies outside the U.S. Department of Education. The legislation also rejects several other funding reforms proposed by the Trump administration.

    The bill would require timely awarding of formula grants by the Education Department to states and districts. For several weeks in July, the Education Department and the White House’s Office of Management and Budget withheld $6.2 billion in grant funding that states and districts expected access to starting July 1.

    That funding at pre-approved FY 2025 spending levels was released after the Trump administration conducted a “programmatic review” and added “guardrails” to ensure the funds would not violate executive orders or administration policy, a senior administration official at OMB told K-12 Dive in an email July 25.

    Educators, parents, education organizations, and Republican and Democratic lawmakers had pressured the administration to make the funds available, citing that the disruption in funds was causing school program cuts, canceled contracts and staff layoffs. 

    In total, the Senate Appropriations Committee recommends funding the Education Department in FY 26 at $79 billion, according to the bill text. That’s $12.3 billion more than President Donald Trump’s proposal of $66.7 billion. In the current fiscal year, the Education Department is funded at $78.7 billion. 

    “The bill also supports families by investing in education and affordable child care, which promotes financial stability for working parents and benefits our economy,” said Appropriations Committee Chair Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine.

    The proposed education budget — which was included in funding legislation for the U.S. Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and related agencies — passed the committee in a 26-3 vote. 

    “Our bills reject devastating cuts — and reject many of this administration’s absurd proposals — like dismantling the Department of Education,” said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., vice chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, in her opening remarks. 

    “We all know President Trump cannot dismantle the Department of Education or ship education programs to other agencies. Authorizing laws prevent that. Appropriations laws prevent that,” Murray said. 

    Trump has said he wants to reduce the size and scope of the federal government and give states and localities more fiscal decision-making authority while reducing bureaucracy. 

    In March, Trump signed an executive order to shutter the Education Department to the “maximum extent appropriate.” Congress, however, would need to approve the closing of the agency.

    Maintaining separate formula grants

    The Trump administration’s budget proposed a new K-12 Simplified Funding Program that would merge 18 current competitive formula funding grant programs into one $2 billion formula grant program. The administration said the SFP would spur innovation and give states more spending flexibility and decision-making power.

    The Senate Appropriation Committee instead rejected that plan by keeping the formula grants separate. The Senate plan would provide a $50 million increase over FY 2025 spending for both Title I-A funding for low-income schools and districts, and for special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

    The bill would maintain current spending levels, except for a few reductions, across other K-12 formula and competitive grant programs targeting improvements in teaching and learning, according to a bill summary from Murray’s office. 

    Other notable spending proposals from the Senate Appropriations Committee FY 26 bill include:

    • The Office for Civil Rights would maintain level spending at $140 million.
    • The Institute of Education Sciences would be funded at $793 million, level with the FY 25 budget. 
    • Title I and IDEA would be funded at $18.5 billion and $15.2 billion, respectively. The two grant programs make up the largest share of funding for K-12 at the Education Department.
    • Under the HHS portion of the legislation, the committee recommends increasing funding for the early childhood learning programs Head Start and the Child Care and Community Block grant by $85 million each to $12.4 billion and $8.8 billion, respectively. 

    The Senate Appropriations bill will now be considered by the House and full Senate. FY 26 starts Oct. 1.

    Source link

  • Grant Applications for Campus Childcare Put on Hold

    Grant Applications for Campus Childcare Put on Hold

    Eveline McPhee, a 39-year-old mother of two, has been a dental assistant in northern Massachusetts for nearly 15 years. And while she’s long aspired to upgrade that title to dental hygienist, for most of her career that goal seemed unattainable.

    With a full-time job, managing classes seemed arduous, and without a job she and her husband wouldn’t be able to afford day care and after-school programs.

    But that all changed last year when an admissions officer at Mount Wachusett Community College told McPhee about Child Care Access Means Parents in School, or CCAMPIS—a $75 million federal grant program designed to help low-income parents in college pay for childcare both on and off campus. McPhee enrolled last fall and is on track to graduate in 2026.

    “I have a 9-year-old son, and they paid for him to go to camp this summer so that I can take an intensive course in the dental hygiene program,” McPhee said. “I definitely would not have been able to go back to school without CCAMPIS.”

    Now the future of the program is cloudy.

    Applications for this year’s CCAMPIS grants—which typically open in May and close by the end of July—have yet to be announced, leaving thousands of student parents in limbo.

    Multiple think tank fellows and student advocacy representatives said they’ve been reaching out to the Trump Department of Education for more information since the spring, but the response is always “We’ll open it soon.” Similar circumstances have been reported for other basic needs programs included under FIPSE, the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education.

    Neither the Department of Education nor Republican committee chairs in the House and the Senate responded to Inside Higher Ed’s request for comment.

    With the new academic year quickly approaching, the lack of funds leaves many colleges and universities with major budget gaps.

    Until last month, Mount Wachusett’s childcare finances looked grim; CCAMPIS funding was set to run out on Sept. 30. But Ann Reynolds, the student support adviser who runs the program, had seen all the headlines about the Trump administration’s funding freezes and anticipated the delay. (Last year, the Biden administration chose not to open the grant to new applicants, but it sent out a clear notice in advance and allowed existing awardees to reapply.) She reached out to a local philanthropy and secured $94,000 to carry McPhee and about a dozen other student parents through graduation.

    “We could see the writing on the wall, so to speak,” Reynolds said. “And it’s lifted a great weight from my student parents’ shoulders.”

    Not all colleges were so forward-thinking. Many students, including future enrollees at Mount Wachusett, will have to take out additional loans—or drop out and try to repay the loans they already have without a college degree.

    “We’re seeing a lot of students raising children coming to school now, so our need is greater,” Reynolds said. “But we can’t take in new students.”

    Without the grants, which have had bipartisan support in Congress for years, historically underfunded institutions, including community colleges and minority-serving institutions, will be cash-strapped. Some may be forced to cut staffing or eliminate services entirely.

    “Given all the other funds from the U.S. Department of Education that have been frozen or subject to political games in the last few months, the community is right to worry,” said Bryce McKibben, senior director of policy and advocacy at Temple University’s Hope Center for Student Basic Needs. “This doesn’t serve anyone—certainly not taxpayers. The administration should announce a competition or award continuation grants immediately.”

    ‘A Vicious Cycle’

    Most experts speculate the delay is occurring for one of two reasons: Either the department lacks the capacity to meet this statutory requirement since it laid off half its staff in March, or it is intentionally withholding the dollars as part of a broader effort to claw back education funding through a process known as rescission.

    The latter option would require congressional approval. But the president already won enough votes to pass one rescission package earlier this month, and policy analysts say it’s likely he’ll try to do it again. (Trump’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2026 axes CCAMPIS and FIPSE completely.)

    Either way, Theresa Anderson, a senior education and labor fellow at the Urban Institute, a nonpartisan think tank, said the delay symbolizes a larger restriction on college access.

    This is a “well-documented agenda pattern and strategy” of the Trump administration, she explained. “It represents further disinvestment and disinterest in helping people access the necessary training, education and credentialing programs that states recognize are necessary to development of the workforce.”

    Tanya Ang, executive director of the Today’s Student Coalition, an adult learner advocacy group, described the situation as putting the leaders of critical student support services “up against a brick wall.”

    “If students are going to school, we want them to finish, because that’s going to ensure they can get a job and start a long-term career that will provide a strong return on investment,” Ang explained. Cutting off access to childcare “creates a vicious cycle that will hurt not just them and their children as individuals but, honestly, our economy.”

    Critics have long argued that CCAMPIS is a duplicate program, suggesting that the Child Care and Development Block Grant, which is run by the Department of Health and Human Services, fulfills a similar purpose. But higher education experts say that’s simply not the case.

    CCDBG, they say, supports broad, state-level childcare subsidies, predominantly allocated to parents who work full-time. CCAMPIS, on the other hand, is more targeted and serves student parents, many of whom can’t meet the work requirements attached to the block grant.

    “CCAMPIS was really important to not only be able to fill childcare needs in a way that was very flexible for colleges, but also to allow for additional wraparound supports that are incredibly important to support persistence,” Anderson said. It helps student parents “build meaningful community connections, not only with staff of the college, but also with each other.”

    At Mount Wachusett, Reynolds said student parents who participate in the CCAMPIS program have one of the highest completion rates among any demographic, at 73 percent. So she hopes that even a sliver of the current operation will survive past its current end date in 2027.

    When asked what she would tell the Trump administration if she had the chance, McPhee said she was worried people were losing the opportunity to get ahead.

    “I wanted to do better for my family, and this allowed me to do that,” she said. “To not be able to provide that for people moving forward, it’s just not what this country is about. It’s wrong, and I don’t really understand why they would do it.”

    Source link

  • How the Workforce Pell Grant Could Transform Higher Ed and Workforce Training

    How the Workforce Pell Grant Could Transform Higher Ed and Workforce Training

    Higher education is at an inflection point. As college enrollment continues to decline and pressure mounts to demonstrate return on investment, the federal government has responded with a potentially transformative shift: the creation of Workforce Pell Grants.

    Included in the sweeping One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) recently signed into law, this expansion of Pell Grant eligibility could open the door to new student populations, new revenue streams, and new institutional strategies — if colleges and universities act quickly and strategically. 

    What is the Workplace Pell Grant? 

    Traditionally, Pell Grants have been limited to students enrolled in credit-bearing, degree-seeking programs. That changed with the passage of OBBBA. Workforce Pell expands access to federal financial aid for students enrolled in short-term, non-degree training programs that lead directly to high-demand jobs. 

    Under the law, students may now use Pell Grants to pay for qualifying workforce training programs that meet the following criteria: 

    • Are between 150 and 600 clock hours (roughly 8 to 15 weeks of instruction); 
    • Are offered by eligible institutions of higher education (IHEs) 
    • Lead to industry-recognized credentials tied to in-demand occupations as defined by the U.S. Department of Labor and/or state workforce boards. 

    This development reflects a growing bipartisan consensus that higher education must play a more responsive role in preparing learners for rapidly evolving labor market needs. 

    Why Workforce Pell matters for colleges and universities 

    The proposed expansion of Pell Grant funding isn’t just a policy update — it’s a strategic opportunity. Here are some key opportunities institutions should be paying attention to:

    1. New enrollment markets 

    Workforce Pell unlocks funding for adult learners, displaced workers, and non-traditional students who may not have the time, resources, or need to pursue a two- or four-year degree. For institutions facing enrollment declines, particularly at the community college level, this represents a powerful new market. 

    2. Revenue diversification 

    Short-term credentialing programs — especially those that can scale — offer a way to generate net new revenue without over-reliance on traditional tuition models. With federal aid now available, these programs become more accessible and financially sustainable. 

    3. Employer partnerships 

    The law encourages alignment between institutions and regional labor market demands. Institutions that already collaborate with employers or workforce boards will be well-positioned to fast-track qualifying programs and potentially receive direct funding support or partnership commitments. 

    4. Strategic positioning 

    Institutions that embrace short-term, skills-based credentialing can position themselves as hubs of workforce development and talent pipelines. This enhances their relevance with local governments, employers, and adult learners alike. 

    Ready for a Smarter Way Forward?

    Higher ed is hard — but you don’t have to figure it out alone. We can help you transform challenges into opportunities.

    How can institutions prepare for the Workplace Pell? 

    Now is the time for higher ed leaders and innovators to act on these policy changes. Here’s where you can start: 

    1. Audit existing offerings 

    Begin by reviewing current non-credit or certificate programs. Identify which ones could meet the new Workforce Pell criteria with limited modification—particularly programs already tied to industry credentials and high-demand jobs. 

    2. Build approval infrastructure 

    Programs must be approved by the U.S. Department of Education and/or state agencies. Start building a compliance plan, including documentation of program outcomes (e.g., job placement rates, earnings gains) and accreditation alignment. Consider appointing a cross-functional task force including financial aid, academic leadership, compliance, and workforce liaisons. 

    3. Seek out strategic partnerships 

    Engage with local employers, chambers of commerce, and workforce boards to validate demand and align curriculum. Public-private partnerships can strengthen program justification and outcomes data—key elements for gaining approval and maintaining eligibility. 

    4. Invest in marketing and outreach 

    Many potential Workforce Pell students are not currently in your database. Institutions must rethink marketing strategies to reach adult learners, incumbent workers, and individuals navigating career transitions. Messaging should highlight affordability, short duration, and job outcomes. 

    5. Track the data 

    Institutions must monitor the performance of Workforce Pell students and programs. The Department of Education will evaluate outcomes like employment rates and earnings. Underperforming programs may lose eligibility, so building robust reporting systems is not optional — it’s critical. 

    A new era of credentialing is coming 

    The Workplace Pell Grant represents more than a funding change — it’s a shift in federal policy philosophy. It signals growing recognition that short, focused training can be just as powerful as a traditional degree in driving upward mobility. 

    This policy has the potential to reshape the education market within a few years, favoring modular, job-connected learning and expanding access for nontraditional students. For institutions ready to lead, the opportunity is clear. 

    At Collegis, we partner with institutions to navigate policy shifts like the Workplace Pell with confidence, bringing the strategy, technology, and operational support needed to move quickly, ensure compliance, and deliver real impact. 

    The future of workforce-connected education is coming fast. Let’s lead it together. 

    Innovation Starts Here

    Higher ed is evolving — don’t get left behind. Explore how Collegis can help your institution thrive.

    Tricia serves as vice president and general counsel at Collegis Education, bringing years of deep experience in setting strategy, overseeing compliance, and leading policy development. She also directs contract and litigation management, driving efficiency and alignment across legal and operational functions.

    Source link