Alabama Community College System says it's concerned, prepared for federal funding cuts
The head of the Alabama Community College System speaks to board members at the system's monthly board meeting on June 11, 2025, at Snead State Community College in Boaz, Alabama. Jimmy Baker told board members that he is worried about budget cuts to federal student aid, but is prepared for a "soft landing."(Screenshot, ACCS YouTube)
The head of the Alabama Community College System (ACCS) said Wednesday that he is concerned about potential cuts to federal financial aid, but also that the system has enough funds in reserve for a 'soft landing.'
'We see it as our mission to make sure that whatever happens at the federal level with the federal dollars, we can manage a soft landing, and we are in a position to do that,' ACCS Chancellor Jimmy Baker said at the monthly meeting of the ACCS Board of Trustees Wednesday morning. 'I don't like the idea that just because some legislation passes, we have to jump and threaten people with their jobs and those kinds of things.'
President Donald Trump's budget proposal, passed in the U.S. House and currently awaiting action in the Senate, includes a 23% reduction to the federal Pell Grant and increasing credit hour eligibility from 12 to 15 hours.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
The Pell Grant is given to students based on their expected family contribution, among other academic factors, and often goes to students with 'exceptional financial need,' according to the Federal Student Aid Office. According to ACCS, its students receive an average of $4,300 in Pell Grants every year, about $500 less than the median ACCS yearly tuition.
'These would lead to some significant changes for our system, but we want our board to know that we are watching this closely, and we will see how this will play out,' Vice Chancellor of Student Success Neil Scott said. 'But we are already putting contingency plans in place for the areas that may impact our colleges.'
Baker said he did not expect things to be 'pleasant.'
'It's not going to be easy. But I see the move with the federal dollars in education diminishing,' Baker said. 'So we have to adjust ourselves, and we can do a lot of that. We're going to do a lot of that because our ultimate mission is offering quality programs to the communities that we serve.'
Despite threats to federal financial aid, Scott announced Wednesday that enrollment for the Fall 2025 semester is up 29.36% over Fall 2024, or 7,976 more students than last year. Scott said that brings the total enrollment to-date to 35,143 across the system's 24 colleges.
'And we still have a couple of colleges that haven't begun registration for the fall yet, but of the 22 colleges that do have fall registrations posted, 21 of those are showing a head count increase,' Scott said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
GOP's Tim Scott takes aim at the CBO but makes himself look bad accidentally
In recent weeks, congressional Republicans and the White House have repeatedly gone after the Congressional Budget Office, not because the nonpartisan analysts did something wrong, but because the CBO has provided the public with facts that Donald Trump and his allies don't like. Indeed, the offensive couldn't be any more straightforward: The budget office produced objective data that makes the Republican Party's domestic policy megabill — the inaptly named 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' — look like a far-right disaster, so the president and GOP officials have scrambled to discredit the source of independent information. Some of these efforts have been more embarrassing than others. The Washington Post reported: Like many congressional Republicans and members of the Trump administration already have, Sen. Tim Scott (R-South Carolina) on Thursday attacked the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office for its scoring of the GOP's massive tax and immigration bill, arguing that the CBO's estimates are inaccurate. In a video shared on X, Scott accused the office ... of being wrong in its scoring of tax cuts implemented in the 1930s and the 1960s. There was, however, a rather glaring problem with the senator's pitch: The Congressional Budget Office wasn't created until 1974. When Scott said, 'Wrong then. Wrong Now,' he was, unfortunately, wrong. And it'd be an unfortunate example of a senator taking aim at the budget office, but stumbling over inconvenient facts, if we were to stop there. But as it turns out, that wasn't the only problem with his pitch. Scott claimed, for example, 'In 2017, the CBO said the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act would increase the deficit and the debt by trillions of dollars. What happened? They were wrong.' Actually, no, the CBO was right: The Republicans' 2017 package of tax breaks for the wealthy and big corporations really did increase the deficit and the debt by trillions of dollars. That's not a matter of opinion; it's simply what happened. Moments later, in the same video, the senator said CBO analysts 'were wrong on the Mellon tax cuts in the 1930s.' The obvious problem with this is the fact that the CBO didn't exist in the 1930s. However, the less obvious problem is that the Mellon tax cuts were approved in the 1920s, not the 1930s, shortly before the Great Depression. But wait, there's more. Also in the minute-long video, Scott said the CBO was also 'wrong on the Reagan tax cuts in the 1980s,' which is sort of true, but not in the way the South Carolinian meant. As the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget's Marc Goldwein noted, the CBO 'actually overestimated revenue collection in the 1980s,' which was the opposite of the point the senator was trying to make. In his next breath, Scott said of the CBO, 'When have they been right? I don't know either.' Actually, I do know: The office's track record on forecasting future budget deficits has been pretty impressive in recent years, whether or not the senator is aware of this. For good measure, let's not skip past the fact that Scott went on to say, 'The Laffer Curve is right. ... It has always worked; I think it always will work.' The Laffer Curve is a creation of Art Laffer, arguably the nation's preeminent cheerleader for a ridiculous idea: Tax cuts are self-financing. He's spent decades telling policymakers they can slash tax rates, especially for the wealthy, and the tax breaks necessarily pay for themselves through stronger economic growth and increased revenue. Republicans have repeatedly tried to govern with this idea in mind, and they've always failed. Critics of the Laffer Curve have consistently been proven right, and proponents of the discredited idea have consistently been proven wrong. Scott really ought to know all of this. He is, after all, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and a member of the Senate Finance Committee. But despite these many glaring, factual errors, the Republican senator not only put this video online, he left it online even after its errors were exposed. It reflects an indifference toward reality that has become a staple of the GOP's offensive against the Congressional Budget Office. This article was originally published on
Forbes
7 hours ago
- Forbes
How House And Senate Education Proposals Could Reshape Higher Education
Graduation mortar board cap on one hundred dollar bills concept for the cost of a college and ... More university education As Congress navigates the complex terrain of budget reconciliation, education policy has emerged as a major battleground between competing visions for America's higher education system. The House and Senate are advancing dramatically different approaches to federal education funding, with proposals that could fundamentally alter how millions of students access and pay for college. The House reconciliation bill targets higher education with what critics describe as unprecedented cuts, while the Senate is crafting its version that takes a different approach to similar goals. Both chambers face mounting pressure to address rising college costs and student debt, but their proposed solutions diverge sharply on fundamental questions about the federal government's role in education funding. The most significant differences between the House and Senate proposals center on Pell Grant eligibility, the cornerstone of federal student aid that serves nearly 7 million low-income students annually. The House version seeks to expand Pell Grant eligibility for short-term programs, a bipartisan initiative that would allow students to use federal aid for career training programs lasting as little as eight weeks. This expansion could benefit hundreds of thousands of students pursuing high-demand skills in healthcare, technology, and skilled trades. However, the House proposal also includes restrictions based on immigration status that would eliminate aid for specific student populations. The Senate takes a more restrictive approach to existing eligibility. Senate Republicans propose cutting off Pell Grant access for students who receive scholarships covering their full cost of attendance, including tuition, fees, living expenses, and course materials. This provision would primarily affect high-achieving students from low-income families who combine merit aid with need-based grants, potentially forcing them to choose between scholarship opportunities and federal aid eligibility. The impact of these competing approaches would be profound. The House expansion could democratize access to career training, potentially addressing workforce shortages in critical industries. However, the Senate's scholarship restriction could create perverse incentives, discouraging institutions from offering comprehensive aid packages to their neediest students. Both chambers propose significant changes to federal student lending but through different mechanisms. The House bill includes provisions for "risk-sharing" arrangements that would require colleges to assume financial responsibility for a portion of their students' loan defaults. This policy aims to incentivize institutions to improve outcomes and control costs by making them stakeholders in their graduates' financial success. The House approach represents a market-based solution that could drive down costs and improve program quality. Institutions would have strong incentives to ensure their programs lead to employment outcomes that enable loan repayment. However, critics argue this could push colleges to avoid serving higher-risk student populations or eliminate programs in fields with lower earning potential but high social value. Senate proposals focus more on tightening eligibility requirements and modifying repayment terms, though specific details remain under development as the chamber works toward its July 4 deadline for passage. The most controversial element of the House proposal involves new taxes on college and university endowments. The bill would expand existing endowment taxes and impose additional levies on institutions with substantial financial reserves. Supporters argue this addresses the disconnect between institutional wealth and student affordability, forcing well-endowed colleges to contribute more to the broader education system. The endowment tax provisions could generate significant revenue while pressuring wealthy institutions to increase student aid or reduce tuition. However, universities warn that such taxes could reduce their capacity for long-term investment in research, facilities, and student support services that benefit the broader academic mission. Small colleges, including Swarthmore, Pomona, and Grinnell, have banded together to oppose the tax because half or more of their operating income comes from the endowment revenue, and the tax would decimate their financial aid budgets. The Senate has not adopted endowment taxation to the same extent, instead focusing on spending reductions and eligibility restrictions to achieve fiscal goals. The House reconciliation bill extends beyond traditional education policy to affect healthcare access for students. Provisions related to Medicaid and other health programs could significantly impact the millions of college students who rely on these services. The bill's approach to social safety net programs would create additional barriers for students from low-income families who depend on multiple forms of federal assistance. This broader impact illustrates how education policy intersects with other aspects of social policy, making the stakes of reconciliation higher than traditional education legislation. The House takes Title I, II, III, and IV funds into state block grants based on the total student population (excluding the disabled and low-income populations) and allows students to use these funds for private schools. The Senate bill strengthens formulas to target the highest-poverty districts and schools better. The Senate bill generally rejects significant Title I portability beyond district public and charter options. The House bill eliminates federal mandates for state accountability systems (testing frequency, interventions). It proposes that states design their systems (standards, tests, improvement) with minimal federal approval. It maintains basic federal reporting (graduation, disaggregated data). The Senate bill takes the opposite approach, requiring a robust federal accountability system, annual testing in core grades, identification of low-performing schools, evidence-based interventions, public and transparent data, and disaggregated data. The federal requirements for teacher preparation and accountability would be transferred to the states under the House bill, with states setting their standards for certification, evaluation, and professional development. The Senate bill would maintain the federal role and would provide funds for evidence-based professional development in high-need districts. It also has provisions to require states to demonstrate that students have access to experienced and effective teachers. Charter school funding is increased in the House bill, as is access to vouchers to attend private schools. The Senate bill places restrictions on the use of vouchers or Educational Savings Accounts to fund private school tuition and places increasing accountability measures on these funds. The House bill similarly adds early childhood funds to state block grants. In contrast, the Senate bill provides significant new federal funding for universal, high-quality Pre-K programs with state quality standards. It may also expand childcare subsidies and improve quality. Evaluating these competing visions requires considering both immediate impacts and long-term consequences for educational access and quality. The House expansion of Pell Grants for short-term programs addresses a genuine need in the modern economy, where many high-paying careers require specialized training rather than traditional four-year degrees. This provision could significantly improve economic mobility for working-class Americans seeking career advancement through skills training. However, the House bill's overall approach prioritizes fiscal savings over educational access. The combination of aid restrictions, endowment taxes, and risk-sharing requirements could create a more constrained higher education environment where institutions focus primarily on financial metrics rather than educational missions. The Senate's more targeted approach to eligibility restrictions may preserve broader access while addressing specific concerns about the efficiency of aid. However, the scholarship restriction provision could undermine the very merit-aid programs that many institutions use to attract and retain talented students from diverse backgrounds. Both proposals face significant implementation challenges and political obstacles. The House bill's passage required narrow party-line votes, and similar dynamics are likely in the Senate. The fundamental tension between controlling costs and maintaining access will ultimately require compromise that neither chamber's current approach fully addresses. The most promising elements from both proposals involve targeted expansions of aid for career training and workforce development programs that directly address economic needs. However, the broader restructuring of federal education funding requires more careful consideration of unintended consequences. Effective education reform should expand opportunity while maintaining quality and access. The current reconciliation process, driven primarily by fiscal rather than educational considerations, may not provide the optimal framework for achieving these goals. A more comprehensive reauthorization of higher education policy, developed through bipartisan collaboration, would better serve both students and institutions. As both chambers work toward final passage, the ultimate measure of success should be whether these proposals genuinely improve educational outcomes and economic opportunity for American students rather than simply achieving short-term budgetary targets.
CBS News
10 hours ago
- CBS News
Maryland Gov. Moore to announce first community awarded through new UPLIFT program
Maryland Governor Wes Moore will announce the first community awarded through the UPLIFT program, an initiative with the goal of providing wealth-building homeownership opportunities in historically redlined communities. Moore is expected to tour the project's construction site prior to the conference. What is the UPLIFT program? The UPLIFT program aims to increase homeownership in disinvested neighborhoods, increase employment opportunities for Maryland workers and businesses from historically disadvantaged demographic groups, and revitalize disinvested neighborhoods. Maryland settles with 3 companies accused of housing discrimination In May, Maryland settled with three companies accused of housing discrimination. The state said Maryland Management Company Inc. refused to cooperate with emergency rental assistance programs, according to the Maryland Attorney General's Office. The company was ordered to pay $90,000 to establish a fund for people potentially evicted or denied housing because of the practice. The state won a second settlement with a Frederick apartment complex where tenants using housing vouchers faced higher rent increases than other tenants. An investigation found that Habitat America, LLC and The Commons of Avalon TH, LLLP violated state fair housing laws. The companies agreed to reimburse the impacted households for excess rent, pay up to $2,500 per household in additional damages, and pay $105,000 in civil penalties. Mayor Scott introduces bill to address housing inequality In May, Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott announced a bill to address the lack of housing availability in the city. The bill would expand where multi-family, low-density homes could be built in the city. Scott said the measure aims to tackle "exclusionary" zoning laws that attempt to use racial discrimination to prevent people from living in certain neighborhoods.
