Earn to Learn Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Lee, Susie [D-NV-3]
- Committees
- Education and Workforce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Aug 13, 2026
Bottom line
This bill creates a federal-state/non-profit partnership to provide significant financial incentives and support for low-income students to save for postsecondary education, aiming to reduce reliance on loans.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a competitive grant program for states and nonprofit organizations to create matched savings accounts for low-income students pursuing higher education or workforce training. The program provides an 8:1 federal match for student savings after an initial $100 deposit, alongside mandatory financial literacy training and success coaching, aiming to reduce student loan debt and improve financial capability.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill offers an innovative solution to the escalating costs of higher education and the burden of student loan debt, particularly for low-income students. They contend that by providing matched savings, financial literacy training, and success coaching, the program empowers students to invest in their future, develop healthy financial habits, and minimize debt, ultimately improving their long-term financial well-being and increasing educational attainment.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that while well-intentioned, the program's impact could be limited by its demonstration grant nature and the cap on federal matching funds. Some may also contend that the administrative overhead for states and non-profits, including developing and utilizing specific platforms and models, might divert resources from direct aid or create barriers for smaller organizations.
The bill is concise and clearly structured, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its core provisions and implications within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 5(a)
Establishment of Matched Savings Account Grant Program
This section directs the Secretary of Education to establish a competitive grant program within nine months of enactment. Through this program, grants will be awarded to eligible states or nonprofit organizations to create and administer matched savings accounts for low-income students pursuing higher education or workforce training. The Secretary is also tasked with developing standardized tools like a Reporting Dashboard, Financial Capability Training Platform, Program Guide, and Success Coaching Model for grantees to use.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that establishing a dedicated grant program is essential to pilot and scale innovative solutions to student debt. They contend that a federal framework ensures consistency and leverages best practices, while the competitive nature encourages effective program design and implementation by states and nonprofits.
Critics contend
Some might argue that creating a new federal grant program adds another layer of bureaucracy to existing financial aid structures, potentially duplicating efforts or creating administrative burdens for entities that could otherwise directly serve students.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies between creating a new, potentially impactful program and the administrative overhead associated with establishing and managing a federal grant system, including developing and mandating specific tools for grantees.
Section 5(a)(3)
Exclusion from Federal Student Aid Eligibility
This crucial provision ensures that a student's participation in the matched savings program, including any funds they deposit into their postsecondary education match savings account and the corresponding federal matching funds, will not negatively impact their eligibility for other federal student aid, specifically Federal Pell Grants or other Title IV aid. This prevents students from being penalized for saving money for their education.
Section 5(e)(2)
Matched Savings Structure and Rules
This section details the core financial incentive of the program: for every dollar a student or their family deposits into their matched savings account, the eligible entity will provide an $8 match, after an initial $100 deposit by the student. It also specifies that if a student withdraws from an eligible educational institution during the drop-add period, they will not receive matching funds for that academic period, and outlines requirements for entities to define policies for delayed attendance or extenuating circumstances.
Sections 4(5), 4(11), 5(e)(1)(B)
Financial Capability Training and Success Coaching
The bill mandates that participating students receive financial literacy education through a 'Success Coaching Model' and a 'Financial Capability Training Platform.' These programs are designed to improve students' financial well-being by covering topics such as budgeting, managing student debt, savings, credit, and career exploration. The platform includes initial assessments, dynamic learning experiences, and ongoing evaluations.
Sections 4(4), 4(10), 5(e)(3)
Student Eligibility and Account Expiration/Withdrawal
This provision defines 'eligible students' as low-income individuals admitted to an eligible educational institution who complete financial training and agree to save. It also defines 'students with preliminary eligibility' for those planning to attend. The bill sets clear rules for the return of student-contributed funds if eligibility requirements are not met or maintained, and establishes expiration dates for participation: 8 years after first enrollment for eligible students, or 4 years after initial agreement for preliminary students or those who don't enroll. After expiration, matching funds cease, but student contributions can still be withdrawn.
Requires eligible entities to enter into data sharing agreements with eligible educational institutions, ensuring compliance with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).
Section 5(f)
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice to ensure privacy and data security when sensitive student information is shared.
Case for: Supporters argue that robust data sharing, while FERPA compliant, is essential for monitoring student progress, program effectiveness, and overall accountability, ensuring the program achieves its stated goals.
Case against: Critics might express concerns that even with FERPA compliance, increased data sharing always carries inherent privacy risks and could create administrative burdens for institutions, potentially slowing down program implementation.
Estimated impact: Ensures student data privacy is maintained while enabling program evaluation.
Limits the use of grant funds for management costs (including administrative and non-administrative functions like program management, reporting, recruitment, and monitoring) to not more than 5 percent.
Section 5(e)(4)
Why it matters:Often included to ensure that the majority of funds go directly to program services rather than overhead, reflecting a common legislative desire for efficiency.
Case for: Proponents argue that a strict cap on administrative costs ensures that the vast majority of federal funds directly benefit students through matched savings and support services, maximizing the program's impact.
Case against: Critics might contend that a 5% cap is unrealistically low for a complex program involving extensive financial literacy training, success coaching, recruitment, data management, and reporting, potentially forcing grantees to use non-federal funds for essential administrative functions or limiting the program's reach and quality.
Estimated impact: Could constrain the operational capacity of grantees, especially smaller organizations, potentially impacting program quality or reach.
Defines 'eligible educational institution' to include both traditional institutions of higher education and 'area career and technical education schools.'
Section 4(2)
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice to define terms upfront, but the inclusion of vocational schools has significant policy implications.
Case for: Supporters argue that including career and technical education schools broadens the program's reach to a diverse range of students seeking valuable workforce training, recognizing that not all postsecondary pathways lead to a four-year degree but are equally vital for economic mobility.
Case against: No direct opposition to this inclusion, but some might argue that the primary focus should remain on traditional higher education, or that resources might be spread too thin across different types of institutions.
Estimated impact: Significantly expands the scope of the program to support vocational training, addressing a broader range of educational needs and career paths.