A Democratic bill with 4 Democratic cosponsors · See all 4 cosponsors
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. (Sponsor introductory remarks on measure: CR S5003-5004)
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
This bill is called the "Quality Educator Partnership Act" and it aims to support and invest in the United States educator workforce. It establishes new federal offices within the Department of Education focused on the educator workforce and educational technology. The legislation authorizes grant programs for educator workforce development partnerships and state-level educator workforce designs. It creates a National Educator Service Corps to provide scholarships and stipends to eligible students studying in high-need fields who agree to teach in qualifying high-need schools. Finally, the bill sets up research centers and grants to study and evaluate educator preparation, retention, and the use of technology like artificial intelligence in classrooms.
Yes· 3 of 34
- Scored +8
Does this put more money into public schools?
The bill authorizes substantial federal investments in grants, scholarships, and programs to support public school educators and high-need schools.
- Scored +7
Would children be better off under this?
Placing well-prepared, supported educators in every classroom directly improves student learning outcomes and school experiences.
- Scored +7
Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this?
Prospective teachers and college students benefit from substantial scholarships, living stipends, and paid clinical residencies.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Does this make the government pay for what it commits to?
The legislation authorizes billions of dollars in new federal spending and grant programs without dedicated offsets.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Financial Support for Future Educators: Under Section 302, eligible students enrolled in teacher preparation programs in high-need fields can receive up to $15,000 per year for tuition and fees, monthly living expense stipends ranging from $1,500 to $2,500, and a $25,000 annual stipend for required clinical residencies. This directly helps individuals afford their education and training to become teachers.
- Funding for High-Need Schools and Local Partnerships: Under Section 211 and Section 223, grants are provided to eligible partnerships and States to improve educator recruitment, preparation, and staffing models. This aims to bring well-prepared teachers and resources directly to high-need schools and communities.
- Support for Educator Retention and Career Growth: Section 213 and Section 222 allow grant funds to be used for induction programs, high-quality mentoring, professional development, and career advancement opportunities. This helps new teachers transition into their roles successfully and gives experienced teachers pathways to grow without leaving the classroom.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Strict Service Obligations and Loan Conversion: Under Section 302(c), students who accept scholarships and stipends through the National Educator Service Corps must agree to work as full-time teachers in high-need fields at qualifying high-need schools for one academic year for each year of assistance received. If a participant fails to complete this service obligation or meet employment requirements, Section 302(c)(6) requires the financial assistance they received to be converted into a Federal Direct Stafford Loan that must be repaid.
- Federal Reporting Burdens: Section 105 amends the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 to mandate extensive annual data collection and reporting on educator preparation programs, licensing, vacancies, and retention rates from States and educator preparation programs. This places a heavy administrative and reporting burden on local educational agencies, States, and institutions of higher education.
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 children be better off under this? — Placing well-prepared, supported educators in every classroom directly improves student learning outcomes and school experiences. Would students be better off under this? — Investing in teacher quality, retention, and school staffing models directly enhances the quality of education students receive. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Prospective teachers and college students benefit from substantial scholarships, living stipends, and paid clinical residencies. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — The bill focuses resources heavily on high-need schools and low-income communities to bridge educational opportunity gaps. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — The bill explicitly includes rural school achievement programs and strategies to expand high-quality educator preparation in rural areas. Would union members be better off under this? — The legislation respects collective bargaining agreements and involves labor organizations in local partnerships and educator workforce design. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Targeted funding and programs like the Augustus F. Hawkins Centers of Excellence aim to increase workforce diversity and support underrepresented groups. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — The legislation prioritizes bilingual education, English language acquisition, and recruitment of diverse educators. Would immigrants be better off under this? — The bill supports bilingual education, English language acquisition, and culturally responsive learning environments. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Experienced educators and mid-career professionals looking to enter education benefit from professional development, career lattice systems, and mentorship programs. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Middle-income families and individuals entering the teaching profession receive financial support and wage-enhancement initiatives. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — The bill includes specific funding reservations for schools operated or funded by the Bureau of Indian Education. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — The bill supports specialized preparation for educators to serve children with disabilities and participate effectively on individualized education program teams. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Large urban local educational agencies serving many low-income students are primary beneficiaries of the grant programs. Would women be better off under this? — The education workforce is predominantly female, and the bill provides enhanced compensation, childcare support, and professional growth opportunities. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Broad investments in educator workforce development benefit all prospective teachers and students from diverse communities. Would men be better off under this? — General efforts to recruit and support teachers and improve education careers benefit all educators regardless of gender. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — Veterans transitioning into civilian careers can benefit from alternative preparation pathways, stipends, and educator training programs. Would white Americans be better off under this? — General improvements to educator support and school staffing benefit educators and students across all demographics.
- Education And Technology
- Does this put more money into public schools? — The bill authorizes substantial federal investments in grants, scholarships, and programs to support public school educators and high-need schools. Does this make college cost less? — Section 302 provides substantial tuition scholarships and living expense stipends for students enrolled in teacher preparation programs. Does this put more money into scientific research? — The bill establishes research centers, data infrastructure programs, and research grants to study educator preparation and educational technology. Does this give people more control over their personal data? — Grant applications require integrating educational technology and Artificial Intelligence with appropriate privacy and safety guardrails. Does this reduce what student borrowers owe or repay? — The service corps scholarship mechanism helps future educators avoid heavy student loan debt by covering tuition and fees directly.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — The bill provides targeted funding to increase workforce diversity and support underrepresented groups in the education profession. Does this make child care cost less? — The National Educator Service Corps provides higher monthly living expense stipends for eligible students with dependents to accommodate childcare expenses. Does this expand the rights of people with disabilities? — The legislation supports specialized preparation for educators to work effectively with students with disabilities and individualized education program teams. Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Targeting resources and well-prepared educators to high-need, low-income schools helps improve long-term educational and economic outcomes.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to create jobs? — The bill authorizes significant funding and grant programs for educator workforce development, recruitment, and school staffing models to address teacher shortages. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Investing in educator preparation and education technology supports long-term workforce readiness and economic development. Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — The legislation authorizes billions of dollars in new federal spending and grant programs without dedicated offsets.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill requires extensive annual data collection and public reporting on educator preparation programs, qualifications, and retention rates. Does this give the federal government more power? — The legislation establishes new federal offices, reporting mandates, and grant programs administered by the Department of Education.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this invest in rural communities? — The legislation includes specific priorities and programs to expand access to high-quality educator preparation in rural and underserved communities.
- Healthcare
- Does this make mental health care easier to get? — The bill includes specialized instructional support personnel and addresses the national education and mental health crisis by supporting comprehensive school services.
- 9/30/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/29/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/24/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. (Sponsor introductory remarks on measure: CR S5003-5004)
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in Senate
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Martin HeinrichDemocrat · New Mexico
Ben LujánDemocrat · New Mexico
Chris Van HollenDemocrat · Maryland
Ron WydenDemocrat · Oregon