WeVote
Log In

Bill

LF

Bill

HR 9300

Postsecondary Student Success Act of 2026

119th Congress Introduced by Laura Friedman and 9 co-sponsors

HR 9300 would create a federal grant program to fund evidence-based student success initiatives aimed at boosting participation, persistence, and completion for high-need students.

Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H4102)
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HR 9300

Summary of HR 9300 (Session 119)

Purpose and intent

HR 9300 would authorize the Secretary of Education to award grants to create and implement evidence-based student success programs. The core aim is to increase participation, retention, and completion rates among high-need students. The bill envisions targeted interventions and scalable programs designed to improve college or career pathway persistence for students who historically face greater barriers to postsecondary success.

Key provisions and changes

  • Grant program authorization: Establishes a federal grant program administered by the U.S. Department of Education. Funds would be used to design, implement, and evaluate evidence-based student success initiatives.
  • Eligibility and applicants: The bill sets criteria for eligible applicants (likely including institutions of higher education, and potentially non-profit organizations or consortia) to apply for/grant funds to support project activities. Specific eligibility details would be outlined in the implementing regulations and the grant notice.
  • Program requirements:
    • Interventions must be evidence-based, meaning programs should be supported by empirical research demonstrating effectiveness in improving participation, retention, or completion among high-need student groups.
    • Applicants would need to identify target student populations experiencing barriers (e.g., first-generation college students, low-income students, students of color, adult learners, or other defined high-need groups) and tailor strategies accordingly.
    • Programs may include academic support, mentoring, advising, financial literacy, tutoring, childcare, transportation assistance, campus climate improvements, and other supports shown to influence persistence and completion.
  • Evaluation and accountability:
    • Grantees would be required to monitor progress and report outcomes, likely including metrics like enrollment, persistence from term to term, completion rates, and degrees or certificates earned.
    • The federal role would include oversight of implementation quality and program effectiveness and may require randomized or quasi-experimental evaluations where feasible.
  • Funding and duration:
    • The bill would specify the total appropriation and the span of the grant program (e.g., multi-year funding with potential renewals or competitive recompetition at set intervals).
    • Mention of matching funds, administrative costs limits, or performance incentives could appear in the text or implementing regulations.
  • Coordination and alignment:
    • Projects may need to align with broader federal higher education goals, such as improving completion rates, reducing equity gaps, and supporting underrepresented student groups.
    • Potential collaboration with postsecondary institutions, non-profits, and state/local education agencies to scale proven approaches.

Who would be affected

  • High-need students: The primary beneficiaries are students facing barriers to participation or completion, including low-income learners, first-generation college students, students of color, adult learners, and others identified as high-need.
  • Postsecondary institutions and organizations: Colleges, universities, career education providers, and eligible partner organizations would apply for and manage grants to implement programs.
  • Educators and staff: Institutions would implement support services such as advising, tutoring, mentoring, and wraparound supports, potentially expanding roles for student services personnel.
  • Administrators and evaluators: Schools and grant recipients would collect data, monitor outcomes, and participate in program evaluations to demonstrate effectiveness.

Procedural and timeline considerations

  • Introduced and referred: The bill was introduced in the House and referred to the Committee on Education and Workforce（June 11, 2026）.
  • Sponsors: House co-sponsors include Brittany L. Pettersen, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Seth Moulton, Laura Friedman, Raja Krishnamoorthi, Lucy McBath, Nydia Velázquez, Stephen Lynch, Melanie Stansbury, and Rashida Tlaib, indicating bipartisan and broad Democratic support.
  • Next steps: If approved by the committee, the bill would move to the full House for consideration, potential amendments, and votes. A companion bill or similar Senate actions, appropriations processes, and fiscal considerations would influence final enactment.
  • Funding timeline: Details on the total program funding, authorization levels, and fiscal year start dates would appear in the bill's text and any appropriations acts following passage.

Notable considerations

  • The emphasis on “evidence-based” programs seeks to ensure federal resources fund interventions with demonstrated impact, though the scope of what counts as evidence and acceptable evaluation designs may be defined in rules and grant solicitations.
  • The focus on high-need students aligns with equity goals in higher education and could influence how institutions allocate student services and wraparound supports.

If you’d like, I can tailor this summary to emphasize specific provisions once the full text or amendments are available, or compare with similar prior programs (e.g., federal student success or completion initiatives).

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.