PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Norcross, Donald [D-NJ-1] · D–NJ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Oct 13, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.10689 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.10689 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.10689 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.10689 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-10-01 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
This proposal would create competitive grants to help colleges improve remedial education: courses or training below college level that prepare students for college study or help English learners use existing skills. Colleges could use five approaches, including shorter courses, instruction alongside college-level classes, and coordinated student support. The bill would also require independent evaluation to compare approaches and measure whether students complete courses and degrees.
the Secretary, in consultation with the Director of the Institute of Education Sciences, shall award grants, on a competitive basis, to eligible entities to improve remedial education in higher education.
(6) Remedial education The term remedial education— (A) means education (such as courses or training) offered at an institution of higher education that— (i) is below the postsecondary level; and (ii) is determined by the institution to be necessary to help students be prepared for the pursuit of a first undergraduate baccalaureate degree, associate's degree, or certificate or, in the case of courses in English language instruction, to be necessary to enable the student to utilize already existing knowledge, training, or skills;
(2) provide funding to improve remedial education based on five models found to have success on a small scale;
(B) condenses the time of the remedial education;
(4) Co-requisite model Developing or improving remedial education programs that allow a student to enroll in remedial education (which may be provided through a modular instructional method) while also enrolled in a course at the postsecondary level.
(5) Systemic reform to implement comprehensive, integrated support programs Implementing and improving comprehensive, integrated, evidence-based support programs
the independent evaluator shall independently evaluate the impact of the remedial education programs funded with the grants, which shall include evaluation of— (i) the effectiveness of the remedial education programs in increasing course and degree completion at the postsecondary level; and (ii) the outcomes of the remedial education programs within and among models of remedial education described in subsection (d).
The proposed short title is the Remedial Education Improvement Act. Its stated purposes include helping students move through credit and noncredit coursework, comparing remedial education approaches, and developing ways to repeat successful programs and sustain them. These are stated goals, not established results.
1. Short title This Act may be cited as the Remedial Education Improvement Act.
(1) improve remedial education and support students as they move throughout credit and non-credit bearing course work and complete postsecondary education;
(3) through collection of data, reports, and evaluations, compare within and between models of remedial education and the impact of such models on postsecondary education completion; and (4) develop strategies to replicate successful models and improve the sustainability of remedial education programs.
Section 3 would add a new grant program to the Higher Education Act. Eligible applicants would be higher education institutions, either alone or in partnerships with at least one local or state education agency.
Part G of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1088 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 486A the following: 486B. Remedial education grants
(2) Eligible entity The term eligible entity means— (A) an institution of higher education; or (B) a partnership between an institution of higher education and at least 1 of the following: (i) A local educational agency. (ii) A State educational agency.
From appropriated funds available for awards, the Secretary would have to award competitive grants in consultation with the Director of the Institute of Education Sciences. Each grant would last five years and provide at least $500,000 in total.
(1) In general From the funds appropriated under subsection (k) (and not reserved under subsection (c)(4)), the Secretary, in consultation with the Director of the Institute of Education Sciences, shall award grants, on a competitive basis, to eligible entities to improve remedial education in higher education. (2) Duration A grant under this section shall be awarded for a period of 5 years. (3) Minimum awards The total amount of funds provided under each grant awarded under this section shall not be less than $500,000.
The bill would authorize $162.5 million annually for fiscal years 2027 through 2032. This would authorize future appropriations; it would not itself provide that money.
(k) Authorization of appropriations There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $162,500,000 for fiscal year 2027 and each of the 5 succeeding fiscal years.
Applications would have to describe evidence-based instruction and promise to use at least three measures to identify students needing remedial education. Examples include entrance examination scores, grades, high school courses, and placement examinations.
(1) A description of how the eligible entity will use the grant funds to develop or improve a remedial education program that includes evidence-based, effective strategies for providing instruction to ensure that students are prepared for courses at the postsecondary level.
(2) An assurance that the eligible entity will use more than two measures (such as a student’s college entrance examination score, grade point average, high school course list, or a placement examination) to identify students in need of remedial education who may be eligible to participate in the remedial education program developed or improved under the grant.
Applicants would also have to explain how they would consult experts, remedial students, and instructors; sustain the program after the grant ends; and use monitoring and evaluation data to improve it. The Secretary would set application timing, format, and other required information.
shall submit an application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by such information as the Secretary may require
(3) A description of how the eligible entity, in developing or improving such a program, will consult with stakeholders, including individuals with expertise in remedial education, students enrolled in remedial education, and faculty instructors for remedial education. (4) The eligible entity’s plan for sustaining the program after the grant period has ended. (5) The eligible entity’s plan for monitoring and evaluating the program, including how the eligible entity will use the data collected under subsection (h) to continually update and improve the program.
The Secretary, acting through the Institute's Director, would have to seek a contract with an independent evaluator. Before selecting grant recipients, the Secretary would have to obtain and consider the evaluator's advice. The evaluator would assess course and degree completion and compare results within and across the five approaches. Up to 15 percent of annual appropriations could be reserved for this work.
(1) In general Before selecting eligible entities to receive grants under this section for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall— (A) ensure that the consultation required under paragraph (3) is carried out; and (B) consider the results of the consultation in selecting eligible entities to receive such grants.
(2) Contract authority The Secretary, acting through the Director, shall seek to enter into a contract with an independent evaluator under which the evaluator will provide the consultation and evaluation required under paragraph (3).
(B) Evaluation Throughout the duration of the grant program under this section, the independent evaluator shall independently evaluate the impact of the remedial education programs funded with the grants, which shall include evaluation of— (i) the effectiveness of the remedial education programs in increasing course and degree completion at the postsecondary level; and (ii) the outcomes of the remedial education programs within and among models of remedial education described in subsection (d).
(4) Reservation The Secretary may reserve not more than 15 percent of the funds appropriated under subsection (k) for a fiscal year to carry out this subsection for such fiscal year.
Recipients would have to use one or more of five specified approaches. The first would align high school coursework with college education through work with a local or state education agency in the partnership. It could include high school readiness assessments or interventions to improve readiness.
(d) Use of funds An eligible entity that receives a grant under this section shall use the grant to develop or improve a remedial education program through one or more of the following models:
(1) Aligning course work Working with a local educational agency or State educational agency that is part of the eligible entity to develop or improve programs that provide alignment between high school coursework and postsecondary education, and that may include— (A) assessments in high school to measure student readiness for courses at the postsecondary level; or (B) interventions in high school that improve student competencies for courses at the postsecondary level.
The accelerated approach would shorten remedial education, offer short intensive instruction, or let students take more than one course or training in a remedial sequence during a semester or equivalent period.
(2) Accelerated course work Redesigning or improving remedial education that— (A) allows students to enroll in more than one sequential remedial education course or training in a semester, or the equivalent; (B) condenses the time of the remedial education; or (C) provides shortened, intensive courses or training to improve competencies of students for courses at the postsecondary level.
The modular approach—teaching particular skills students need—could support new assessments, redesigned courses, or instructor training. The co-requisite approach would let students take remedial instruction while also enrolled in a college-level course.
(3) Modular instructional methods Developing or improving remedial education that— (A) specifically targets the skills that students need to move forward in courses at the postsecondary level; and (B) may be used to develop new assessments, redesign courses to provide targeted skill instruction, or provide faculty professional development. (4) Co-requisite model Developing or improving remedial education programs that allow a student to enroll in remedial education (which may be provided through a modular instructional method) while also enrolled in a course at the postsecondary level.
The comprehensive support approach would require integrated, evidence-based programs that enable remedial students to earn a recognized credential within 150 percent of normal completion time—one and a half times the usual duration. Programs could include financial help, tutoring, academic support, and advising. The bill's requirement does not establish that these outcomes would occur.
(5) Systemic reform to implement comprehensive, integrated support programs Implementing and improving comprehensive, integrated, evidence-based support programs that— (A) enable students enrolled in remedial education to complete a course of study leading to a recognized educational credential within 150 percent of the normal time for completion; and (B) may include financial supports, academic tutoring or support, and advising that enable students to find success in remedial education and courses at the postsecondary level.
Grant selection would have to cover at least 30 eligible recipients per five-year grant period, distribute awards equitably across geography and urban and rural areas, and include different institution types and sizes. All five approaches would have to be represented to support statistical comparisons where practicable. Applicants primarily serving low-income students would receive preference.
(e) Considerations In awarding grants under this section, the Secretary, in consultation with the Director, shall— (1) ensure— (A) a minimum of 30 eligible entities are awarded grants for each 5-year grant period; (B) an equitable geographic distribution of such grants, including an equitable distribution between urban and rural areas; and (C) that grants are used to develop or improve remedial education programs— (i) under each model described in subsection (d) to enable, to the extent practicable, statistical comparisons of the relative effectiveness of the models and the programs within each model; and (ii) for a range of types and sizes of institutions of higher education; and (2) give preference to eligible entities that primarily serve low-income students.
Grant money would have to add to, rather than replace, funds otherwise used for the activities. Recipients generally would have to contribute nonfederal funds equal to 10 percent of their grant. Tribal Colleges or Universities and institutions in the eight listed territories and Pacific jurisdictions would be exempt from this contribution.
(f) Fiscal requirements (1) Supplement not supplant A grant awarded under this section shall be used to supplement, not supplant, funds that would otherwise be used to carry out the activities described in this section.
(2) Matching funds (A) In general Subject to subparagraph (B), an eligible entity that receives a grant under this section shall provide, from non-Federal sources, an amount equal to 10 percent of the amount of the grant for the cost of activities assisted under the grant. (B) Exceptions The requirements of subparagraph (A) shall not apply to— (i) Tribal Colleges or Universities; or (ii) institutions of higher education located in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, or the Republic of Palau.
Despite other provisions of Title IV of the Higher Education Act, students in these remedial programs could be eligible for Title IV loans or grants for up to two academic years. The language permits eligibility; it does not guarantee an award. The supplied text does not establish how this compares with existing eligibility limits.
(g) Experimental authority Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, a student may be eligible to receive loans or grants under this title for up to 2 academic years for enrollment in a remedial education program under this section.
Recipients would have to submit individual student data annually during the five-year grant period and for five years afterward, covering current and former participants. The Secretary and Institute Director would share the data with the independent evaluator.
(2) Duration A grant under this section shall be awarded for a period of 5 years.
(A) Student-level data Each eligible entity that receives a grant under this section shall provide to the Director and the Secretary, on an annual basis for each year of the grant period and for 5 years after such grant period, the student-level data with respect to the students who are or were enrolled in a remedial education program funded with the grant. The Director and the Secretary shall share such data with the independent evaluator to enable the evaluator, for each such year, to determine the information described in subparagraph (B) with respect to each such remedial education program.
The evaluator would calculate enrollment, program costs, student aid amounts, instruction type, time spent in remediation, and remedial completion counts. For students completing remediation, it would also track later college-level enrollment, credential attainment, average time to a credential, and completion within 150 percent of normal time.
(i) The number of students who are or were enrolled in such remedial education program. (ii) The cost of such remedial education program. (iii) The amount of grant or loan funds under this title awarded to students for enrollment in such remedial education program. (iv) The type of remedial education offered under the program. (v) The length of time students spend in such remedial education program, as measured by semester, trimester, or clock hours. (vi) The number of students who complete such remedial education program.
(vii) Of the students who complete such remedial education program— (I) the number and percentage of such students who later enroll in postsecondary-level courses at an institution of higher education; (II) the number and percentage of such students who receive a recognized educational credential from an institution of higher education; (III) the average length of time required for a student described in subclause (II) to complete the course of study leading to such credential; and (IV) the number and percentage of students described in subclause (II) who complete the course of study leading to such credential within 150 percent of the normal time for completion.
The evaluator's information would have to be broken down by race, gender, socioeconomic status, federal Pell Grant eligibility, first-generation college student status, veteran or active-duty status, and disability status.
(C) Disaggregation The information determined under subparagraph (B) shall be disaggregated by race, gender, socioeconomic status, Federal Pell Grant eligibility status, status as a first generation college student, veteran or active duty status, and disability status.
Within six years after the first grant award, the Institute Director, consulting the Secretary, would have to submit an evaluation report to the congressional committees responsible for the program and publish it online. It would address course and degree completion and compare results within and across the five approaches.
(2) Evaluation results Not later than six years after the first grant is awarded under this section, the Director, in consultation with the Secretary and using the information determined under paragraph (1), shall submit to the authorizing committees and make available on a publicly accessible website, a report on the results of the multiyear, rigorous, and independent evaluation of the impact of the remedial education programs carried out by the independent evaluator. The report shall include the results of such evaluation with respect to— (A) the effectiveness of the remedial education programs in increasing course and degree completion at the postsecondary level; and (B) the outcomes of the remedial education programs within and among models of remedial education described in subsection (d).
The Secretary, consulting the evaluator, would have to report to the responsible congressional committees on each funded program within one year after the first award. A further report would be due within five years after the last award, reviewing performance and recommending how to repeat successful programs. Success would have to consider, at minimum, the number and percentage of remedial students who later complete a course of study within 150 percent of normal time. Both reports would be public on the Department of Education's website.
(A) Initial report Not later than one year after the first grant is awarded under this section, the Secretary, in consultation with the independent evaluator, shall prepare and submit to the authorizing committees a report on each remedial education program funded under this section.
(B) Subsequent report Not later than five years after the last grant is awarded under this section, the Secretary, in consultation with the independent evaluator, shall prepare and submit to the authorizing committees a report that includes— (i) a review of the activities and program performance of each remedial education program funded under this section; and (ii) guidance and recommendations on how successful remedial education programs (as determined, at a minimum, by the number and percentage of remedial education students who later complete a course of study at an institution of higher education within 150 percent of the normal time for completion) can be replicated. (C) Public availability The reports submitted under subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall be made available on a publicly accessible website of the Department of Education.
Willfully disclosing personally identifying information obtained through the program would be unlawful unless authorized by this Act or federal law. Violations could bring a fine of up to $5,000, imprisonment for up to five years, or both, plus prosecution costs. A federal officer or employee convicted of such a violation would have to be removed from office or employment.
(i) Data privacy (1) In general It shall be unlawful for any person who obtains or has access to personally identifiable information in connection with this section to willfully disclose to any person (except as authorized in this Act or any Federal law) such personally identifiable information. (2) Penalty Any person who violates paragraph (1) shall be fined not more than $5,000, imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution. (3) Employee or officer of the united states If a violation of paragraph (1) is committed by any officer or employee of the United States, the officer or employee shall be dismissed from office or discharged from employment upon conviction for the violation.
Program data could not be sold to third parties. The Institute Director could not permit another federal agency to use the data unless this Act explicitly authorized it. Personally identifying information could not be used for law enforcement or other activity resulting in adverse action against a student, including debt collection or immigration enforcement.
(4) Sale of data prohibited Data collected under this section shall not be sold to any third party by the Director, any postsecondary institution, or any other entity. (5) Limitation on use by other Federal agencies The Director shall not allow any other Federal agency to use data collected under this section for any purpose except as explicitly authorized by this Act. (6) Law enforcement Personally identifiable information collected under this section shall not be used for any law enforcement activity or any other activity that would result in adverse action against any student, including debt collection activity or enforcement of the immigration laws.
Section 4, titled “Exception to student unit record ban,” would amend section 134(b) of the Higher Education Act by renumbering existing clauses as (1)(A) and (B), replacing the final period with “; or”, and adding a new paragraph (2) stating “is necessary for the operation of section 486B.” The underlying statute is not reproduced, so the supplied source does not establish the ban's full scope or the complete legal effect of this added alternative.
4. Exception to student unit record ban Section 134(b) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1015c(b)) is amended— (1) by striking (1) is necessary and inserting (1)(A) is necessary; (2) by striking (2) was in and inserting (B) was in; (3) by striking the period at the end and inserting ; or; and (4) by adding at the end the following: (2) is necessary for the operation of section 486B.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated October 13, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Education and Workforce on October 1, 2026. It does not establish subsequent action or enactment.
Source snapshot updated 2026-10-13T18:39:52Z. 2026-10-01: Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce. 2026-10-01: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-10-01. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy rider was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No earmark was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This text-only conclusion does not establish formal earmark status or absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
Findings to examine
The supplied introduced text contains a targeted financial exemption and an express grant-selection preference. These classifications describe differential treatment, not its merits or motivation.
Tribal Colleges or Universities and higher education institutions in Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and Palau would be exempt from the otherwise required nonfederal contribution equal to 10 percent of the grant. This is a targeted financial exemption within the remedial education program.
(2) Matching funds (A) In general Subject to subparagraph (B), an eligible entity that receives a grant under this section shall provide, from non-Federal sources, an amount equal to 10 percent of the amount of the grant for the cost of activities assisted under the grant. (B) Exceptions The requirements of subparagraph (A) shall not apply to— (i) Tribal Colleges or Universities; or (ii) institutions of higher education located in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, or the Republic of Palau.
Eligible entities that primarily serve low-income students would receive preference in selection for remedial education grants. This gives a defined subset of otherwise eligible applicants preferential treatment within the bill's main grant program.
(e) Considerations In awarding grants under this section, the Secretary, in consultation with the Director, shall—
(2) give preference to eligible entities that primarily serve low-income students.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Oct 13, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI