The Impact of CTE Concentration on the Success of High School Students: An article by Michael Shoemaker in the Journal of Career and Technical Education describes positive academic and behavioral outcomes for CTE concentrators compared to non-concentrators.

After analyzing data from 2019-22 graduates of a Midwest high school, Shoemaker found that CTE concentrators scored higher on both the ACT Science and Kansas Assessment Program Science exams. CTE concentrators also had higher final GPAs and graduation rates than non-concentrators. For behavioral outcomes, CTE concentrators had a significantly higher attendance rate and received slightly fewer disciplinary infractions than non-concentrators. 

Understanding Interest in CTE Course-taking: In the same journal, an article by Ellen Rydell Altermatt, Andrea Rorrer, Rachel Barnett and Tamara Goetz examines how students value and perceive CTE coursework. The study specifically examines the intrinsic value (personal enjoyment) and utility value (perceived usefulness) of CTE courses. 

The researchers surveyed grade 9-12 students at a Utah high school and found that the students, as a whole, find both intrinsic and utility value in CTE coursework. The utility value of CTE courses for college and career readiness ranked the highest, followed by intrinsic value, then the utility value for jobs and networking. Female students ranked each of the three values higher than male students, as did students planning to go to college. Students of color ranked perceptions of intrinsic value and utility value for college and career readiness lower.  

The researchers also measured students’ interest in taking CTE coursework and found that students of color were less interested in taking CTE courses, while older students and students who planned to go to college were more interested in taking CTE courses. Students who rated intrinsic and utility values of CTE courses higher were much more likely to have already taken a CTE course or plan on taking additional CTE courses beyond their graduation requirement than students with lower value ratings. 

How State Policy Can Transform Career Navigation for Young People: A report from American Student Assistance and Jobs for the Future examines how states are developing career navigation systems. The researchers identified 19 policies across four components – actionable information (labor market information and student outcomes data), personalized guidance, work-based learning (WBL) and short-term credentials – which they identified as critical in developing an effective career navigation system. The researchers then conducted a scan of all 50 states and Washington, DC, to determine which states have policies that align with each component the most. 

For each component, the researchers found the following: 

• Actionable Information: Actionable information still needs much work as many states do not produce disaggregated student wage and employment data and do not collect statistics on nondegree credentials. Notably, only four states publish interactive tools that display disaggregated wage and employment data from postsecondary degrees. 
• Personalized Guidance: Personalized guidance also falls short. While 21 states prioritize Perkins state leadership funds to support career guidance programs, only six have developed quality standards for secondary career counseling and advisement. 
• Work-based Learning: States fare better with WBL, with 45 states having a formal definition of WBL and 27 providing financial incentives to employers who engage in WBL. Continued work remains crucial however, as only six states have adopted quality standards for WBL programs. 
• Short-term Credentials: While 24 states provide financial aid to short-term, high-demand credentials, only five include them in their outcomes-based funding formula for postsecondary programs. 

The Link Between Dual Enrollment Partnership Characteristics and Outcomes: A report from the Community College Research Center explores how the characteristics of dual enrollment (DE) partnerships in the state of Texas affect student outcomes. 

Using state administrative data, the researchers found that contextual measures, particularly an urban setting and the use of the early college high school (ECHS) model were stronger predictors of student outcomes than the structures of DE courses (e.g., type of instructor, virtual course, subject). DE partnerships with an ECHS are associated with a 20 percentage point increase in four-year college enrollment compared to partnerships with a traditional high school. Partnerships in urban high schools are associated with a 30 percentage point increase in four-year college enrollment, compared to rural high schools, and a 27 percentage point decrease in two-year college enrollment.  

Geographic locale and the ECHS model also predict degree attainment. Partnerships with ECHSs are associated with a 26 percentage point increase in associate degree attainment, while partnerships with urban high schools are associated with a 37 and 32.5 percentage point increase in associate and bachelor’s degree attainment, respectively. 

On Monday, July 14, the Supreme Court cleared the way for the U.S. Department of Education to proceed with a reduction in force of approximately 1,400 employees. The Court’s decision also enables ED and the Department of Labor to execute a previously signed interagency agreement (IAA), which had been held up as part of litigation, that will move the administration of Perkins and WIOA Title II adult education and literacy programs to DOL.

According to an announcement sent by ED on July 15, “under the partnership, DOL will provide day-to-day administration of ED’s Perkins and WIOA Title II programs” while “ED will maintain all statutory responsibilities and positions, policy authority, and oversight of these programs.” A related fact sheet describes this move as aligning with the Administration’s executive orders on returning education to the states and coordinating federal education and workforce investments.

While, according to the fact sheet, current agreements between states with ED and DOL will not be immediately impacted, ACTE is deeply concerned about the potential for significant administrative confusion and unnecessary layers of bureaucracy, increasing the risk of funding delays or disruptions in program delivery, as well as a lack of specifics in the IAA about which agency will have responsibility for key functions under Perkins such as the Consolidated Annual Report. 

The fact sheet also emphasizes an “employment first perspective” that does not reflect the full purpose of CTE programs. ACTE is concerned that this effort will shift the focus of Perkins and disrupt the critical connection between CTE and the broader education system, posing a threat to program of study development, early career exploration, integration of rigorous academic standards, alignment with graduation requirements and linkages between high school and postsecondary CTE. The Administration has also signaled its interest in directing federal funds for CTE away from postsecondary recipients to the K-12 level only, and postsecondary CTE programs may be further impacted by the recent notice of interpretation about the use of federal funds to serve undocumented immigrants — raising many questions about how these proposals would fit with the goals of this partnership

We are gathering more information on these actions and will provide more guidance as it becomes available. In the meantime, we encourage you to share any questions and concerns you have with us by completing this short form or contacting ACTE Government Relations Manager Jimmy Koch. 

In the final part of this series, this blog post will examine a few additional  education provisions that were included in the final version of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

A New Accountability Standard for Degree Programs

One of the more significant changes is the creation of a new accountability regime for college degree programs, similar to Gainful Employment. Under the new system, any degree program that provided students with federal student loans must prove that its graduates are earning more than they likely would have with just a high school diploma.

Specifically, for undergraduate programs to remain eligible for the federal student loan program, the median former student (who’s working and not enrolled in more education) must earn more than the median earnings of 25–34-year-olds in their state who hold only a high school diploma or equivalent. If a program repeatedly fails this test (in two out of three consecutive years), it loses access to federal loans.

The new accountability system would not apply to non-degree certificate programs.

Expanded Uses for 529 Plans

The bill broadens the uses of 529 savings plans. Originally limited to college costs and up to $10,000 per year in K–12 tuition, 529 funds can now cover additional educational expenses like standardized test fees, specialized educational therapies and workforce credentials, giving families more flexibility to use these tax-advantaged savings.

Caps to Student Loans

Graduate and parent borrowers will face tighter federal loan limits. The bill eliminates the Grad PLUS loan program entirely, which currently allows graduate students to borrow up to the full cost of attendance beyond their Stafford loans. Instead:

• Graduate students in nonprofessional programs like Master’s and PhD tracks will be capped at $20,500 per year and $100,000 total in unsubsidized Stafford loans.
• Professional students (law, medical, dental) will have a higher cap of $50,000 per year, with a $200,000 lifetime maximum.

Parent PLUS loans, which parents can use to help pay for their child’s undergraduate education, are also scaled back. The current system allows parents to borrow up to the full cost of attendance. Under the new law, that limit would drop to $20,000 per year per dependent student, with a lifetime cap of $65,000.

All federal borrowers, regardless of program or loan type (except Parent PLUS), will face a new aggregate borrowing limit of $257,500. Notably, this cap does not adjust for any amounts already paid back or forgiven. Students currently enrolled can keep borrowing under the old limits for up to three more years or until they finish their degree.

Updates to Student Loan Repayments

Finally, the new law eliminates nearly all existing repayment plans for new borrowers. Instead, the law creates two options: a single standard repayment plan and a new income-driven option called the Repayment Assistance Plan (RAP).

RAP would gradually raise the percentage of a borrower’s income used to calculate payments, starting at 1% and rising to 10% over time. For many, this means slightly higher monthly payments compared to current income-driven repayment (IDR) plans, especially for higher-income borrowers. However, the government would help cover unpaid interest and chip away at the principal balance each month for low-income borrowers. The maximum repayment term for RAP would stretch to 30 years, compared to 20 or 25 years under the current IDR plans (or as short as 10 years under the SAVE plan).

If you have any questions or would like to discuss this more in-depth, please contact ACTE’s Government Relations Manager, Jimmy Koch (jkoch@acteonline.org).

In the next part of this series, we will take a closer look at the other changes made to the Pell Grant program made in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Addressing the Looming Pell Shortfall

Beyond short-term Pell, the bill also tackles the projected shortfall in the Pell Grant program’s funding. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated a significant gap beginning in fiscal year (FY) 2026 or roughly $70 billion over the next decade.

To help close part of this gap, the reconciliation bill provides $10.5 billion in mandatory funding as a stopgap measure. While this will not fully eliminate the projected shortfall, it represents a critical down payment to help stabilize the program for the near term and protect students from unexpected funding cuts.

Eliminates Pell Eligibility for Certain Students

The bill would eliminate eligibility for students and their families with high enough incomes and assets that their Student Aid Index (SAI) is twice the amount of the maximum Pell Grant.

For students receiving other non-Title IV grant aid, the bill would also restrict Pell eligibility. Specifically, for “any period” that the student receives grant aid from other federal programs, institutional aid, state aid, or a private source that together equals or exceeds the student’s cost of attendance (COA), the student would not be eligible to receive a Pell Grant.

This could exclude institutional merit scholarship recipients and students receiving grants from free college programs, private foundations, or other entities so long as those funds fully cover the student’s COA (i.e., not just tuition, but also housing, transportation, books, childcare, etc.). Additionally, these periods would count against a student’s 12 semesters of Pell eligibility even though students would not receive Pell grants.

ACTE will continue to post about the various provisions included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. If you have any questions or would like to discuss this more in-depth, please contact ACTE’s Government Relations Manager, Jimmy Koch (jkoch@acteonline.org).

In the next segment of this series, ACTE will take a closer look at the school voucher provisions included in H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The purpose of this provision is to make private and religious K-12 schools more accessible.

At the heart of the provision is a dollar-for-dollar federal tax credit that fully reimburses donors for the first $1,700 they contribute to non-profit organizations that provide tuition vouchers. These scholarship-granting organizations help families pay for private school tuition, opening new options beyond traditional public schools.

Unlike the original House version of the bill, which capped the total tax credit at about $5 billion per year, the final version does not include an overall limit on the total amount of tax credits that can be claimed.

Eligibility for these scholarships is also targeted. Students whose family income does not exceed 300% of their area’s median gross income can qualify for aid through these scholarship-granting organizations.

States play an important role in how this new program works. First, states may opt-out of the program completely. If a state chooses to participate, it must oversee the scholarship organizations that receive donations and distribute the tuition vouchers to students. This means states would be responsible for vetting these groups to ensure they meet program requirements and deliver scholarships appropriately.

Supporters of the provision argue that it will increase educational options for families, especially for lower- and middle-income households that want alternatives to local public schools but struggle to afford tuition. Critics, meanwhile, raise concerns about public dollars indirectly supporting private and religious education, and how this may affect funding for public schools.

This provision goes into effect starting with the 2027 tax year, and regulations will have to be drafted to determine how the program will operate.

ACTE sent a letter to the Senate Finance Committee on June 12 asking the committee to reject school vouchers in the bill and will be monitoring the implementation closely.

ACTE will continue to post about the various provisions included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. If you have any questions or would like to discuss this more in-depth, please contact ACTE’s Government Relations Manager, Jimmy Koch (jkoch@acteonline.org).

ACTE is seeking feedback from CTE educators on how the Administration’s recent actions are impacting you and your students or have the potential to impact you and your students in the future. 

On June 30, the Department of Education (ED) announced that it was withholding approximately $7 billion in fiscal year (FY) 2025 formula grant funding to states that was due to be distributed on July 1, affecting adult education, professional development, afterschool initiatives and other programs under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).  

In addition, court documents disclosed recently revealed that ED’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) dismissed more than 3,400 complaints from March 11 to June 27, a significant increase over prior years. This follows OCR layoffs earlier this year at ED and the closure of seven of 12 civil rights enforcement offices nationwide.  

On July 11, ED issued a notice of interpretation on using federal funds to serve undocumented immigrants. The notice interprets many postsecondary education programs, including programs and activities funded by Perkins V, as providing federal public benefits under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act and thereby subject to citizenship verification requirements under that law. 

On July 14, the Supreme Court cleared the way for the U.S. Department of Education to proceed with a reduction in force of approximately 1,400 employees. The Court’s decision also enables ED and the Department of Labor to execute a previously signed interagency agreement, which had been held up as part of litigation, that will move the administration of Perkins and WIOA Title II adult education and literacy programs to DOL.

ACTE wants to hear from you about the potential impacts of these actions. If these or other recent federal activities have affected your work, or have the potential to do so, please fill out this short form. We also encourage you to contact ACTE’s Government Relations Manager, Jimmy Koch, with questions or experiences you’d like to share. 

On July 10, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) announced plans to issue a new Notice of Interpretation related to the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA). The new interpretation was published in the Federal Register on July 11, and changes which federal programs are classified as providing “federal public benefits” and are thus subject to citizenship verification requirements under that law.  

The notice is in response to the President’s February 19, 2025, Executive Order (EO) 14218, “Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders.” It reiterates existing legal requirements regarding the availability of “public benefits” for U.S. citizens and non-exempted nonresidents and advances a new legal interpretation that many postsecondary education programs, including postsecondary programs or activities funded by the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act (Perkins V), fall under the purview of the PRWORA. At this time, it does not appear that K-12 programs are impacted. 

Due to this new interpretation, the Trump Administration issued a formal notice to leaders in the education and workforce communities reiterating grantees’ responsibility to ensure “public benefits” are not provided to undocumented immigrants.

Unlike some federal programs, Perkins V funds are not provided directly to individuals, so the administrative burden of determining whether funding is “used to support programs and services that serve illegal aliens” could be quite complex. We are actively analyzing the notice, and will provide more guidance as it becomes available. In the meantime, we encourage you to review the linked documents carefully and consult with your legal counsel with any questions.