Advanced Coursework Equity Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Castro, Joaquin [D-TX-20]
- Committees
- Education and Workforce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 15, 2026
Bottom line
This bill aims to address inequities in advanced academic opportunities by funding systemic changes in how schools identify and enroll students in rigorous coursework.
What it actually does
H.R. 9698, the "Advanced Coursework Equity Act," establishes a grant program through the Department of Education to expand access to advanced courses and programs, including STEM, for underrepresented students in elementary and secondary schools. It mandates the use of open enrollment or universal screening for advanced courses, provides funding for training educators, launching new programs, and offering direct student support, with specific goals for increasing participation and performance among historically underrepresented groups.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the bill is crucial for addressing long-standing disparities in access to advanced education, particularly for Black, Latino, Native American, low-income, disabled, and English learner students. They contend that universal screening and open enrollment will dismantle subjective barriers, ensuring that all qualified students, regardless of background, can access challenging coursework necessary for college and STEM careers, thereby boosting national competitiveness.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that mandating specific enrollment mechanisms like universal screening or open enrollment could lower academic standards or dilute the quality of advanced programs by enrolling students who are not adequately prepared, potentially overwhelming teachers and resources. They might also raise concerns about federal overreach into local school administration and curriculum decisions.
The bill is moderately complex but its structure allows for a clear understanding of its provisions within a reasonable reading time.
Sections 2 and 3
Congressional Purpose and Findings
These sections declare the bill's goals: to expand advanced course access in under-resourced schools, ensure equitable enrollment for all ready students, and equip more students, especially from underrepresented groups, with STEM skills. The findings highlight existing underrepresentation of various student subgroups in advanced programs and the role of subjective criteria as a barrier.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue these sections clearly articulate the urgent need for the bill, grounding it in data about educational inequities and setting a clear vision for improving student outcomes and national competitiveness.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against purpose and findings sections, as they primarily state the legislative intent and context.
Tradeoffs
None explicitly in these sections, but they set the stage for the policy tradeoffs in later sections.
Section 4
Key Definitions for Program Implementation
This section defines critical terms for the Act, including "local educational agency," "open enrollment" (any student can enroll without regard to prior performance/scores), and "universal screening" (all students in a grade are screened, qualified students automatically enrolled unless parents opt out, based on at least two objective assessments).
Section 5(a)
Establishment of Grant Programs
The bill authorizes the Secretary of Education to conduct three separate grant programs: 80% of funds for State Educational Agencies (SEAs) to subgrant to Local Educational Agencies (LEAs), 15% directly to LEAs, and 4% to institutions of higher education or non-profit entities for services in rural/underserved areas. 1% is reserved for Department of Education administration.
Section 5(b)(1)
SEA Grant Application Requirements
SEAs applying for grants must assure that at least 50% of LEAs (representing 50% of students) in the state have agreed to participate. They must submit plans for supporting LEAs, assembling a statewide advisory council of underrepresented students/parents, collecting disaggregated data, and setting ambitious 3-year enrollment and performance goals for all student subgroups.
Section 5(b)(2)
LEA Direct Grant Application Requirements
LEAs applying directly must not be seeking a subgrant from an SEA, must have a high student poverty ratio, and describe their chosen enrollment mechanism (open enrollment or universal screening). They must also plan for a local advisory council, train staff on equity strategies, communicate enrollment processes to families in multiple languages, and set ambitious 3-year enrollment and performance goals for subgroups.
Section 5(c)
Grant Award Criteria and Priorities
The Secretary will consider 3-year equity goals, feasibility of implementing open enrollment/universal screening, advisory council plans, and data collection plans. Priorities for SEAs include high LEA participation, large equity gaps, evidence-based STEM strategies, and recent improvements. Priorities for LEAs include recent improvements and providing STEM pathways.
Section 5(d) and (e)
Funding Levels and Number of Awards
Grants for SEAs range from $15M to $60M, LEAs from $1M to $20M, and non-profits up to $3M, all for 3-year periods. The Secretary is directed to award 6-10 SEA grants and 8-16 LEA grants per cycle, with flexibility based on appropriations.
Section 6
Subgrant Allocation and Requirements
SEAs must award at least 65% of subgrant funds to high-poverty LEAs and those with fewer advanced course offerings. LEAs receiving subgrants must establish equity goals, specify enrollment mechanisms (open enrollment or universal screening), plan for staff training, assemble local advisory councils, communicate with families, and agree to carry out specific activities.
Section 7(a)
Mandatory Activities for Grantees
LEAs receiving grants/subgrants must carry out at least two activities from a list including community engagement, training staff on equity, expanding enrollment for underrepresented students, implementing open enrollment/universal screening within one year, launching/expanding advanced courses, and providing direct services (like tutoring) to underrepresented students.
Section 7(b)
Optional Activities for Grantees
LEAs may also use funds for activities such as launching innovative coursework models (e.g., embedded enrichment, open honors), purchasing curricula/materials, covering advanced coursework fees for low-income students, training/hiring advanced coursework teachers, and strengthening school climate (e.g., implicit bias training, diverse educators, family engagement).
Section 8
Accountability and Incentive System
Grantees must submit annual reports detailing training, enrollment mechanisms, disaggregated enrollment and academic outcome data, budget, and a narrative on meeting equity targets. States and LEAs demonstrating the greatest growth toward their equity goals in the first or second year receive a 5% bonus payment, with a portion directed to subgrantees or schools.
Section 9
Funding Authorization
Authorizes $266,000,000 for fiscal year 2027, $266,000,000 for fiscal year 2028, and $266,000,000 for fiscal year 2029 to carry out the Act.
Specifies that the determination of student qualification for advanced courses under universal screening "shall be made after consideration of not less than 2 objective assessments (except that a student may qualify based on only 1 such assessment)." It further details that these assessments must be combined in a non-biased way, provide accommodations for students with disabilities, and may include statewide/districtwide exams, grades, portfolios, or class ranking.
Section 4(5)(A)
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice to define terms precisely. The detail is necessary for clear implementation.
Case for: Proponents argue this specificity ensures that universal screening is genuinely objective and equitable, preventing single-point-in-time tests from being the sole determinant and requiring consideration of multiple measures to identify diverse talents. The allowance for one assessment provides flexibility for exceptionally high-performing students.
Case against: Critics might argue that requiring "not less than 2 objective assessments" (with a single-assessment exception) could still be administratively complex and resource-intensive for districts, particularly if they need to develop new assessment combinations or data integration systems.
Estimated impact: Directly shapes how potentially millions of students are identified for advanced coursework, impacting equity and access.
Requires both State and Local Educational Agencies to assemble advisory councils of students from underrepresented subgroups and their parents/guardians, with "at least 2 members of each subgroup of students," and explain how these councils will be involved in grant implementation, oversight, and evaluation.
Section 5(b)(1)(D), 5(b)(2)(C), 6(c)(4)
Why it matters:This level of detail is common in requirements for stakeholder engagement within grant programs.
Case for: Proponents argue this ensures authentic community voice and direct input from those most affected by inequities, making the program more responsive and effective. It moves beyond token representation to meaningful involvement.
Case against: Some might argue that specifying a minimum number of members from each subgroup could be logistically challenging for very small districts or states with highly diverse but small populations of certain subgroups.
Estimated impact: Ensures direct stakeholder engagement in program design and accountability across potentially thousands of schools.