By Joelle Fredman, NASFAA Staff Reporter

A White House council released a report last week calling to expand Pell Grant eligibility to quality, short-term programs in an effort to help more adults pursue workforce training. In doing so, the council echoed a similar provision included in the House Republicans’ bill to reauthorize the Higher Education Act (HEA), and addressed a concern from Democrats about the bill related to program quality.  

As policymakers work toward reauthorizing the HEA, the White House Council of Academic Advisors wrote that it released this report, “Addressing America’s Reskilling Challenge,” to refocus the federal government on investing in workers without a college education, to continue the momentum the Trump administration had started in “reviving American economic growth.” It wrote that this will depend on “the availability of workers with appropriate skills to take advantage of new job opportunities, and on the ability to draw potential workers out of non-participation and into employment.”  

Currently, the council wrote, those without a college degree have higher rates of unemployment, and “future efforts may need to be directed at this demographic.” One way to close to this gap, the council argued, is to address the financial constraints of adults looking to invest in further workforce training. The council suggested that to “more effectively facilitate the re-entry of workers into employment quickly and with less household budget disruption,” Pell Grants should be made available to “high-quality, short-term retraining programs,” or programs shorter than 600 hours.

The concept of a “workforce Pell” was also included in the House Republicans’ bill to reauthorize the HEA — the PROSPER Act — though with even more relaxed requirements for programs. The bill, which has been been awaiting a vote on the floor since December, would expand Pell eligibility for short-term programs that are at least 300 clock hours, eight semester hours, or 12 quarter hours, and run for a minimum of 10 weeks.

There has been a significant amount of support for expanding Pell eligibility in response to the bill’s proposal. In a letter to Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC), the bill’s chief sponsor, Joe May of Rebuilding America's Middle Class (RAMC), a collation of community college systems, praised the bill for including “several provisions that would improve the ability of community colleges to provide a high-quality, low-cost education that prepares students to achieve their life and career goals,” such as pushing to “expand access to higher education for many adult and working students and help them to cost-effectively fund their education by allowing Pell grants to pay for short-term certificates tied to an industry-recognized credential.”

Democratic lawmakers have also expressed their support for the Pell expansion before the bill’s release. For example, Senate and House Democrats introduced multiple bills last year pushing to expand the grant aid to short-term programs, such as the Pell Grant Preservation and Expansion Act and the Jumpstart Our Businesses By Supporting Students (JOBS) Act.

In its letter, the council added that in order for a short-term program to be eligible for the Pell Grant, it would have to demonstrate its quality. In discussing the expansion, the council argued that “given the heterogeneity in higher education quality, however, programs shorter than 600 hours should be subject to eligibility criteria that will ensure quality for programs accessing Title IV student aid.”

One issue that Democrats have taken with the PROSPER Act is its de-emphasis on program quality, such as its provision to eliminate the consumer protection regulation of gainful employment. John B. King Jr., president of The Education Trust and former Department of Education secretary, for example, said eliminating this provision “fails to protect our most vulnerable students from predatory, fraudulent institutions.”

The council’s argument about program quality and “eligibility criteria,” however, is similar to the concept behind gainful employment — that a program’s quality would be judged based a set of metrics, which would in turn determine its eligibility for federal aid.   

In addition to touching on both Republican and Democratic ideas, the council also offered several other policy recommendations to address the financial needs of adults without college degrees, such as targeting funding at apprenticeships and work-based learning opportunities.    

“The concentration of investment in skill development and education among workers with a bachelor’s degree and those under age 25 is a strong indication that America's reskilling effort is not optimized to address future challenges,” the council wrote. “... The federal government has a unique role to play by re-examining current financial assistance spending, and redesigning programs to better serve anticipated needs.”

Publication Date: 7/23/2018

Comments Disclaimer: NASFAA welcomes and encourages readers to comment and engage in respectful conversation about the content posted here. We value thoughtful, polite, and concise comments that reflect a variety of views. Comments are not moderated by NASFAA but are reviewed periodically by staff. Users should not expect real-time responses from NASFAA. To learn more, please view NASFAA’s complete Comments Policy.