GO Ag Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Thompson, Glenn [R-PA-15]
- Committees
- Education and Workforce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Aug 8, 2025
Bottom line
The GO Ag Act establishes a federal grant program to foster new agricultural education opportunities in high schools, aiming to address workforce needs and expand career and technical education.
What it actually does
This bill, known as the "Growing Opportunities in Agriculture Act" or "GO Ag Act," directs the Secretary of Education to establish a competitive grant program. The program will provide funding to eligible entities to create new agricultural education programs in secondary schools, with grants not exceeding $100,000 per entity and a maximum duration of five years. It outlines application requirements, permissible uses of funds, and mandates independent evaluations and annual reports from grant recipients.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill is crucial for addressing the growing demand for skilled workers in the agricultural sector and providing students with valuable career pathways. They contend that by funding new programs, the bill will diversify educational offerings, particularly in rural communities, and equip the next generation with the knowledge and skills necessary for modern agriculture, thereby strengthening the national economy and food security.
Opponents contend
Critics might express concerns that while agricultural education is valuable, a new federal grant program could lead to unnecessary administrative burdens or potential duplication of existing state and local efforts. They may also argue that the authorized funding amount is relatively small and might not significantly impact the national landscape of agricultural education, or that federal intervention in local curriculum development could be seen as overreach.
The bill is concise and clearly written, making it accessible for a quick and informed review by any interested reader.
Section 2(a)
Grant Program Authorization
This section authorizes the Secretary of Education to create a competitive grant program. The purpose of these grants is to help eligible schools establish new agricultural education programs for students in secondary schools. Each grant can last for a maximum of five years.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that authorizing this grant program is essential to stimulate growth in agricultural education, which is vital for preparing students for careers in a critical industry. They believe that competitive grants ensure that funds are directed to the most promising and impactful new programs.
Critics contend
Opponents might argue that while the goal is laudable, creating a new federal grant program adds another layer of bureaucracy and could be less efficient than allowing states and local communities to fund these initiatives directly based on their specific needs and priorities.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies between the desire for federal support to kickstart new programs and concerns about federal involvement in local education funding and priorities. It balances national workforce needs with local control.
Section 2(b)
Application Requirements and Grant Limits
This section details what schools or other eligible entities must include in their grant applications. Key requirements include identifying partners, assuring the program is entirely new, outlining the budget and how the program will be sustained after the grant ends, describing benefits to students (including special populations), and explaining coordination with existing career and technical education laws. It also caps individual grants at $100,000.
Section 2(c)
Permissible Uses of Funds
This section specifies how the grant money can be used. Funds are intended for the creation of new agricultural education programs. This includes developing and delivering curriculum, which can involve classroom learning, hands-on work experience, and leadership training through student organizations. It also covers purchasing necessary equipment, technology, and course materials, as well as other costs deemed eligible by the Secretary of Education.
Section 2(d)
Evaluation and Annual Reporting Requirements
This section mandates that every entity receiving a grant must arrange for an independent evaluation of the activities funded by the grant. Additionally, these entities must submit an annual report to the Secretary of Education. This report must detail how the grant was used, the performance of the program against specific indicators from the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act, and a quantitative analysis of the program's effectiveness. Performance data must be disaggregated by student subgroups and special populations.
Requires an assurance that the grant will not be used to prepare students for employment solely with one or more of the eligible partners identified in the application.
Section 2(b)(1)(A)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to prevent potential conflicts of interest or overly narrow vocational training that might limit student opportunities. It's a safeguard against programs becoming captive to a single employer's needs.
Case for: Ensures that agricultural education programs provide broad, transferable skills and prepare students for a variety of careers within the agricultural sector, rather than just a single company. This promotes student mobility and long-term career viability.
Case against: Some might argue that in highly specialized agricultural regions, focusing on a specific employer's needs could directly lead to local job placement and economic development. This provision might be seen as limiting the direct responsiveness of programs to immediate local industry demands.
Estimated impact: Prevents programs from becoming single-employer pipelines, promoting broader career readiness for students.
States that in no case may an eligible entity receive a grant exceeding $100,000.
Section 2(b)(2)
Why it matters:This is a specific programmatic detail that defines the scale of individual grants. Its placement is typical for such limitations within a section outlining the grant process.
Case for: The $100,000 cap ensures that the authorized $5,000,000 can be distributed among a larger number of schools, maximizing the reach of the program and allowing more communities to establish new agricultural education initiatives.
Case against: Critics might argue that a $100,000 cap is too low to establish a truly comprehensive and high-quality new agricultural education program, especially considering the costs of equipment, technology, and specialized instructors. This could lead to programs that are under-resourced or limited in scope.
Estimated impact: Limits the scale of individual programs but increases the number of schools that can receive funding from the authorized appropriation.
Defines 'eligible entity' by referencing the term 'eligible recipient' in section 3(21)(A) of the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006, and defines 'eligible partner' to include institutions of higher education, labor organizations, local/regional businesses, and local workforce development boards.
Section 2(e)(2) and (3)
Why it matters:Referencing existing law for definitions is standard legislative practice to maintain consistency across federal programs and avoid redundancy. Defining partners ensures a broad base of support and expertise.
Case for: Using existing definitions from the Perkins Act streamlines implementation and ensures that entities already familiar with federal career and technical education programs are eligible. Broadly defining 'eligible partner' encourages robust community and industry involvement, making programs more relevant to workforce needs.
Case against: Requiring familiarity with the Perkins Act might inadvertently exclude some potential applicants who are not currently engaged with those programs, potentially limiting the reach to truly 'new' entities. The broad definition of partners could also lead to diverse interpretations or challenges in coordination.
Estimated impact: Connects the new grant program to established federal career and technical education frameworks and encourages multi-stakeholder collaboration.