A Democratic bill with 3 Democratic cosponsors · See all 3 cosponsors
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The Advanced Coursework Equity Act aims to increase access to advanced courses and STEM programs in under-resourced elementary and secondary schools. It focuses on helping underrepresented students, including Black, Latino, and Native American students, as well as English learners and students with disabilities. The bill establishes a grant program for state agencies, local agencies, and certain nonprofits to implement fair enrollment practices like open enrollment or universal screening. Funds can be used for teacher training, tutoring, and purchasing materials. The act also requires data collection and reporting to ensure goals for equitable enrollment and performance are met.
Yes· 3 of 29
- Scored +9
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Directly funds exam fees, materials, and tutoring for low-income students in under-resourced schools.
- Scored +9
Would Black Americans be better off under this?
Specifically targets the underrepresentation of Black students in advanced and STEM programs.
- Scored +9
Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this?
Specifically targets the underrepresentation of Latino students in advanced and STEM programs.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
Increases federal spending through the establishment of a new grant program.
- Scored -1
Does this reduce what the federal government owes?
Authorizes new government spending of $266 million annually for three years.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Expanded Course Access: The bill allows for the launching of new advanced courses or expanding existing capacity for programs like AP, International Baccalaureate, and early college high schools (Section 7(a)(5)).
- Removal of Enrollment Barriers: By implementing open enrollment, any student who chooses to enroll in an advanced course is allowed to do so regardless of previous test scores or academic performance (Section 4(3) and Section 7(a)(4)).
- Support for Underrepresented Students: The bill provides for direct services, such as tutoring, to help students from underrepresented groups succeed in advanced courses (Section 7(a)(6)).
- Financial Assistance for Low-Income Students: Funding may be used to cover advanced coursework fees or exam costs for students with low incomes (Section 7(b)(3) and Section 7(c)(3)).
- Increased Resources: Schools can use grants to purchase necessary materials such as books, calculators, and laboratory equipment (Section 7(b)(2)).
- Rural and Limited Access Support: Grants are available for nonprofits and institutions of higher education to provide services specifically to students in rural areas or those who otherwise lack access to advanced programs (Section 5(a)(1)(C)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Automatic Enrollment: Under universal screening, students determined to be qualified are automatically enrolled in advanced courses unless a parent chooses to opt out (Section 4(5)).
- Limited Grant Availability: The Secretary is restricted to awarding a specific number of grants per cycle (for example, only 6 to 10 for state agencies), meaning many state or local agencies may not receive funding (Section 5(e)).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Specifically targets the underrepresentation of Black students in advanced and STEM programs. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Specifically targets the underrepresentation of Latino students in advanced and STEM programs. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Directly funds exam fees, materials, and tutoring for low-income students in under-resourced schools. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Specifically targets the underrepresentation of Native American students in advanced and STEM programs. Would students be better off under this? — Broadly increases opportunities, resources, and support for students to enter advanced academics. Would children be better off under this? — Expands access to advanced coursework for elementary and secondary students. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Increases access to advanced courses for students with disabilities and mandates accommodations. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Provides dedicated funding and nonprofit partnerships specifically for rural student access. Would immigrants be better off under this? — Provides specific supports for English learners to access advanced courses. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Targets under-resourced schools often found in urban centers. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Improves preparation for college and the global workforce through STEM education. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Increases overall availability of advanced courses in public schools. Would women be better off under this? — Promotes equitable access to STEM fields, which historically have gender gaps. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Increases overall capacity and resources for advanced courses. Would men be better off under this? — Increases overall availability of advanced coursework. Would white Americans be better off under this? — Increases overall availability and quality of advanced coursework in public schools. Would business owners be better off under this? — Creates a more skilled STEM workforce for future employment.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — Specifically targets the underrepresentation of Black, Latino, and Native American students in advanced coursework. Does this expand the rights of people with disabilities? — Aims to increase access for students with disabilities and requires appropriate assessment accommodations. Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Provides financial assistance for exam fees and coursework for low-income students. Does this narrow the gap between how men and women are treated? — Requires data disaggregation by sex to bridge inequities in advanced coursework.
- Education And Technology
- Does this put more money into public schools? — Allocates significant grant funding to state and local educational agencies for advanced programs. Does this put more money into scientific research? — Promotes STEM education and provides funding for laboratory materials. Does this make college cost less? — Increases access to dual enrollment and early college high schools, potentially reducing future college costs.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Requires detailed public reporting on enrollment and performance disaggregated by demographic subgroups. Does this give the federal government more power? — Increases federal oversight through grant requirements and mandatory data reporting to the Secretary.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this invest in rural communities? — Provides specific grants to nonprofits to deliver advanced coursework to students in rural areas.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to grow the economy? — Equips more students with STEM skills needed for a competitive global workforce. Is this likely to create jobs? — Provides funding for hiring and training teachers to teach advanced coursework. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — Increases federal spending through the establishment of a new grant program. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — Authorizes new government spending of $266 million annually for three years.
- 7/15/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
- 3 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in Senate
3 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Richard DurbinDemocrat · Illinois
Ben LujánDemocrat · New Mexico
Chris Van HollenDemocrat · Maryland