PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jul 31, 2014
Increasing Student Achievement by Increasing Student Support Act - Directs the Secretary of Education to award competitive, renewable, five-year grants to partnerships between low-income local educational agencies (LEAs) and schools offering graduate programs in school counseling, social work, or psychology to increase the number of program graduates employed by low-income LEAs.
Defines "low-income LEAs" as those that: (1) serve students at least 20% of whom are from families with incomes below the federal poverty level; and (2) have no more than 1 school counselor for every 275 students, 1 school psychologist for every 770 students, and 1 school social worker for every 440 students.
Allows the use of grant funds to:
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
provide program graduate students with field training at partnership LEA schools;
contribute to program graduates' salaries at such schools for up to three years after they graduate;
increase the number of school counselors, social workers, and psychologists per student, and from underrepresented backgrounds, in such schools;
enhance the capacity of partnership graduate schools to train such professionals;
develop course work designed to facilitate such graduates' service to low-income LEAs and at-risk students; and
provide tuition credits to such graduate students and student loan forgiveness to program graduates employed as school counselors, social workers, or psychologists by low-income LEAs for at least five consecutive years.
Directs the Secretary to establish a program providing student loan forgiveness to non-participants in this Act's grant program who have been employed for at least five consecutive years as school counselors, social workers, or psychologists by low-income LEAs.
Requires the Secretary to identify a formula for future use in designating regions as eligible for benefit programs due to their having a shortage of such school personnel.
People & committees
Sen. Tester, Jon [D-MT] · D–MT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 2025. 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 S.2753 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 S.2753 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 S.2753 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 S.2753 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.