Summary#
The Remedial Education Improvement Act would amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to create a federal grant program for improving remedial education at colleges and other higher education institutions. Its stated goal is to improve student support and completion, and to compare and spread effective program models. The bill has been introduced but is not law.
- The Education Secretary, consulting the Director of the Institute of Education Sciences, would award competitive grants lasting five years. Each grant must total at least $500,000, and at least 30 eligible entities must receive grants in each five-year grant period.
- Eligible applicants would be a higher education institution, or a partnership between one and a local or state education agency. Grants must support one or more of five models: high-school/postsecondary course alignment, accelerated remedial courses, targeted modular instruction, remedial instruction taken alongside college-level courses, or integrated support programs.
- Grant applications must include evidence-based instruction, use more than two measures to identify students needing remediation, consultation with remedial-education experts, students and faculty, and plans for sustaining, monitoring and evaluating the program.
- The Education Secretary must seek an independent evaluator to advise on grant selection and evaluate program results. The Secretary may reserve up to 15% of appropriated funds for this work.
- Grant recipients must report student-level data annually during the grant and for five years afterward. The bill restricts disclosure and use of the data, bars its sale, and sets criminal penalties for willful unauthorized disclosure.
What it means for you#
- Colleges and other eligible institutions: A recipient must provide non-federal matching funds equal to 10% of its grant. Tribal Colleges and Universities and institutions in named U.S. territories and freely associated states are exempt. Grant money must add to, not replace, funds otherwise used for these activities.
- Students in funded programs: They may be eligible for federal loans or grants for up to two academic years of remedial education under the program. This does not guarantee aid or require students to enroll in a funded program.
- Students whose data is collected: Their information may be shared with the Education Secretary, the Institute’s Director and the independent evaluator for the program. The bill bars sale of the data and its use for law enforcement, debt collection, immigration enforcement or other adverse action against a student.
- Taxpayers and the public: The bill would require public reports on programs and evaluation results. The first evaluation report is due no later than six years after the first grant is awarded.
- Institutions and students generally: The bill does not directly change all remedial education programs or require every college to apply. Participation depends on receiving a grant.
Money#
The bill authorizes $162.5 million for fiscal year 2027 and each of the next five fiscal years, but does not provide a cost estimate or itself appropriate those funds.
- If all authorized amounts were appropriated, they would total $975 million over six fiscal years. That is not a guarantee that Congress will provide the money.
- Recipients generally must contribute matching funds equal to 10% of their grant. The bill does not estimate those costs or the cost of providing staff, data and evaluation work.
- The Secretary may use up to 15% of appropriated funds for consultation and independent evaluation.
What is unclear#
- The bill does not set grant application deadlines, selection scoring rules, or a process for students to enter or appeal decisions about remedial education.
- It does not specify how student-level data must be protected in practice, or what data fields institutions must submit.
- The bill does not say how much funding each grant would receive beyond the $500,000 minimum, or how funds would be divided among the five models.
- The supplied material does not include the full current Higher Education Act. The bill creates an exception to the student unit record ban for operating this program, but the current law’s full rules and how that exception would interact with them could not be verified.
Case for#
- The bill appears intended to improve remedial education and help students move into college-level courses and complete credentials.
- Funding several different approaches could allow institutions to test models suited to different students and colleges.
- Requiring evaluation and public reporting could help compare outcomes, costs and completion rates across programs.
- The student-data limits could allow evaluation while restricting sale and certain uses of the information.
Case against#
- One concern is that institutions must collect and report student-level data for years, while the bill does not spell out detailed data-protection procedures.
- The 10% match could make grants harder to use for some eligible institutions; the bill exempts some, but not all, named groups.
- It is unclear whether the authorized funding would be enough to support at least 30 grants, five-year awards, and evaluation across all five models.
- The definition of remedial education partly depends on what an institution determines is necessary, so programs may not define or cover remediation in the same way.