UA Little Rock launches new scholarship program with $7.5 million gift
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. – The University of Arkansas at Little Rock launched its new scholarship program Friday with the support of a $7.5 million gift from the Windgate Foundation to provide need-based scholarship support in perpetuity.
UA Little Rock Chancellor Christina Drale said the gift includes a $5 million endowment with a challenge for the university to raise another $1.5 million as part of their centennial campaign.
'The remaining funds will be used for scholarships over the next several years while we grow that endowment,' Drale said.
University of Arkansas at Little Rock sees record-breaking enrollment growth for Spring 2025
Drale said the Windgate Foundation has been a major supporter in the university's investments in the student experience.
'As we look forward, I invite all of you to dream big with me and help grow this endowment many times over,' Drale said.
In her announcement, Drale also pledged her own $25,000 to the scholarship fund.
'We hope that others will be inspired to join us as well in ensuring that affordability is forever,' Drale said.
Trojan Transition and Assistance Center event coordinator An Le said all students who will come to UA Little Rock will qualify for the scholarship.
'While it will help first-generation students, it will help other college students as well who just need a little assistance to start their college journey,' Le said. 'We're here to help you get your education.'
In 2023, the university launched their Trojan Guarantee that offers full tuition coverage for Pell eligible Arkansas students who also qualify for the Arkansas Challenge Scholarship.
Back in 2020, the university also launched its 'half off' scholarship that offers a 50% reduction in tuition for incoming freshmen for up to four semesters, regardless of income.
To date, Drale said, their scholarships have benefited over 41,000 students. Fifty-eight percent of whom are first-generation students, 43% are working students and 6% are veterans.
'In order to sustain this momentum, our goal has been to create a structure that will help us offer these opportunities on a permanent basis regardless of what our annual income is as an institution might be,' Drale said. 'We want to make sure these scholarships are available forever.'
UA Little Rock receives $1.5 million donation to create business programs
The Windgate Foundation supports contemporary craft and visual arts in the United States and prioritizes the advancement of contemporary craft programming and educational outreach and scholarships, as well as aiding visual arts programming and scholarships at colleges and universities and the expansion of visual arts in K-12 schools.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to KARK.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
4 days ago
- Forbes
House budget bill is designed for wealthy, but Senate can change that.
The massive budget plan implementing President Trump's priorities, which he affectionately dubbed the 'One Big Beautiful Bill,' passed the House by a single vote and now faces an uncertain fate in the Senate. In its current form, the bill would deliver an average tax cut of almost $80,000 next year to those in the top one percent. That's 40 times the tax relief going to middle-income families who struggle with the costs of housing, food, and raising children. This windfall for the wealthy would be paid for through cuts to health insurance, Pell grants, and food aid for millions of American families. But the bill is far from finalized. The Senate still has time to deliver on the pro-family promises made by many Republican leaders, by amending the budget bill to provide balanced economic relief for all families. Key senators already have put forward plans that would do so. Senator Hawley (R-MO) has a proposal to double the child credit to $5,000 per child – offsetting payroll taxes, the largest source of taxation for many families – and to deliver tax refunds quarterly. This would allow parents to get their refunds sooner, which can be crucial for parents of very young children who incur large expenses with a newborn. Hawley is not alone in his goals. On the campaign trail, Vice President Vance advocated for a similar $5,000 tax credit for families to offset the costs of raising children. In addition, Senator Britt (R-AL) has a bipartisan proposal that would cover $8,000 in child care or pre-K expenses for families with two or more children. Our national surveys detail how tax refunds help parents cover rent or mortgage payments, reduce credit card debt, and even splurge on toys they could not otherwise afford. Plus, mounting evidence shows that increased benefits for children advance children's health and early learning. These proposals will face stiff pressure from Senate colleagues hoping to contain costs. But even a compromise, such as boosting the child tax credit by $500 and making it accessible to lower-income families, would have large benefits for just one-third the cost of a $5,000 credit like the one Hawley is proposing. If Senators are looking for ways to make child-rearing more affordable for middle- and low-income families, they could work together to:: Design a sufficient and fair child credit, then let parents decide how to invest in their children. The current bill would provide no benefit to the 17 million children raised in middle and low-income households who already live in families not receiving the full child credit. Focusing the credit on phasing in more quickly with every dollar earned could deliver benefits to many more families with children. Simplify access to economic supports. Right now, the tax credits for low-income families are so complicated that families either need to pay for accountants and return preparation services or forgo them entirely. The Senate, instead, could consolidate existing tax credits, creating a single definition of 'child' in the tax system to ease access and buoy a wider array of families. Be careful with budget cuts that would increase the cost of raising children. Modest tax refunds would not offset the loss of health care and nutrition assistance. Tax relief for the middle class must be considered in the context of the entire plan – it would be counterproductive to pay for cuts by slashing programs that help families support themselves. These reforms are possible. And they're what Americans – particularly those trying to get by in uncertain economic times – deserve. This piece was co-authored with Bruce Fuller, professor emeritus, education and public policy, at the University of California, Berkeley.
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Higher ed reform shouldn't punish low-income students
Congress is understandably concerned about the return on federal investment in higher education and the $1.6 trillion in federal student loan debt. But in its rush to fix a system that too often fails low-income students, the Trump administration's 'one big, beautiful bill' would further reduce opportunity and access for those very students and jeopardize the work of colleges and universities doing the most to serve them. If passed, the bill would enact sweeping changes to federal financial aid and accountability rules. Some of its goals are worthy. Colleges should be transparent about student outcomes. They should be accountable for quality. And no student should graduate, or drop out, with insurmountable debt. But reducing access to loans for the students who face the steepest barriers to opportunity is not the way to achieve those goals. One provision of the proposed bill would eliminate subsidized federal loans, which currently prevent interest from accruing while undergraduates are still in school. For students from low-income backgrounds who already borrow more than their wealthier peers, this would significantly increase the cost of a college degree. Another proposal would cap the amount of aid a student could receive at a national median cost by program, without regard for the individual student's or family's specific economic need. The legislation would also eliminate PLUS Loans and raise the minimum course load required to receive full Pell Grant aid, even though many working students enroll part-time by necessity, not choice. Reducing Pell Grant access is counterproductive to lowering student debt. Pell Grant recipients already account for seven of every 10 federal student loan borrowers, and, on average, incur $4,500 more in debt than other non-Pell graduates Capping graduate student borrowing, especially in health and public service fields, would undercut workforce development just as we face national shortages of nurses, teachers and social workers. And the bill's 'risk-sharing' proposal, which would penalize colleges when student loans are forgiven, even through programs like Public Service Loan Forgiveness, would shift resources away from need-based aid and student support and discourage institutions from enrolling those most in need. That includes institutions like the University of Mount Saint Vincent, which I lead. Ours is a small, private, nonprofit university in the Bronx founded in 1847 to educate young women at a time when few others would. Today, we serve students of every background, and more than half are the first in their family to attend college. More than half of our undergraduates receive Pell Grants. Ninety percent of our graduate students are preparing for public service careers in education, nursing or healthcare. And like many mission-driven colleges, we make enormous investments in financial aid and academic support, precisely because we know what it takes for low-income and first-generation students to thrive. This bill threatens our ability to invest in students and potential. It would impose a six-figure penalty, rising annually, because we enroll the very students we were founded to serve. That's not accountability. That's a deterrent. And we are not unique. Hundreds of small, private colleges across the country, many of them religiously affiliated, offer intimate learning environments, close faculty support and flexible programs that enable students to work while pursuing their degrees. These institutions are among the most accessible and most responsive options for students who are otherwise being left behind in higher education. The better path forward is one that strengthens accountability for all institutions without dismantling the tools that low-income students need to access and afford college in the first place. That means preserving need-based aid, not narrowing it. And it means supporting colleges that produce teachers, nurses and public servants, not penalizing them. At a time when the U.S. risks falling behind in educational attainment and workforce readiness, we should be doubling down on institutions that help students rise. The question isn't whether reform is needed, but whether we're reforming the right things. Susan R. Burns, Ph.D., is president of the University of Mount Saint Vincent in the Bronx. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
6 days ago
- The Hill
Higher ed reform shouldn't punish low-income students
Congress is understandably concerned about the return on federal investment in higher education and the $1.6 trillion in federal student loan debt. But in its rush to fix a system that too often fails low-income students, the Trump administration's 'one big, beautiful bill' would further reduce opportunity and access for those very students and jeopardize the work of colleges and universities doing the most to serve them. If passed, the bill would enact sweeping changes to federal financial aid and accountability rules. Some of its goals are worthy. Colleges should be transparent about student outcomes. They should be accountable for quality. And no student should graduate, or drop out, with insurmountable debt. But reducing access to loans for the students who face the steepest barriers to opportunity is not the way to achieve those goals. One provision of the proposed bill would eliminate subsidized federal loans, which currently prevent interest from accruing while undergraduates are still in school. For students from low-income backgrounds who already borrow more than their wealthier peers, this would significantly increase the cost of a college degree. Another proposal would cap the amount of aid a student could receive at a national median cost by program, without regard for the individual student's or family's specific economic need. The legislation would also eliminate PLUS Loans and raise the minimum course load required to receive full Pell Grant aid, even though many working students enroll part-time by necessity, not choice. Reducing Pell Grant access is counterproductive to lowering student debt. Pell Grant recipients already account for seven of every 10 federal student loan borrowers, and, on average, incur $4,500 more in debt than other non-Pell graduates Capping graduate student borrowing, especially in health and public service fields, would undercut workforce development just as we face national shortages of nurses, teachers and social workers. And the bill's 'risk-sharing' proposal, which would penalize colleges when student loans are forgiven, even through programs like Public Service Loan Forgiveness, would shift resources away from need-based aid and student support and discourage institutions from enrolling those most in need. That includes institutions like the University of Mount Saint Vincent, which I lead. Ours is a small, private, nonprofit university in the Bronx founded in 1847 to educate young women at a time when few others would. Today, we serve students of every background, and more than half are the first in their family to attend college. More than half of our undergraduates receive Pell Grants. Ninety percent of our graduate students are preparing for public service careers in education, nursing or healthcare. And like many mission-driven colleges, we make enormous investments in financial aid and academic support, precisely because we know what it takes for low-income and first-generation students to thrive. This bill threatens our ability to invest in students and potential. It would impose a six-figure penalty, rising annually, because we enroll the very students we were founded to serve. That's not accountability. That's a deterrent. And we are not unique. Hundreds of small, private colleges across the country, many of them religiously affiliated, offer intimate learning environments, close faculty support and flexible programs that enable students to work while pursuing their degrees. These institutions are among the most accessible and most responsive options for students who are otherwise being left behind in higher education. The better path forward is one that strengthens accountability for all institutions without dismantling the tools that low-income students need to access and afford college in the first place. That means preserving need-based aid, not narrowing it. And it means supporting colleges that produce teachers, nurses and public servants, not penalizing them. At a time when the U.S. risks falling behind in educational attainment and workforce readiness, we should be doubling down on institutions that help students rise. The question isn't whether reform is needed, but whether we're reforming the right things. Susan R. Burns, Ph.D., is president of the University of Mount Saint Vincent in the Bronx.
