Washington Update, February 23, 2026
Washington Update: Policy & Funding Developments Affecting the Educator Pipeline
Dear Colleagues:
Congress is officially on recess this week. As always, however, federal education policy does not pause simply because members return to their districts. Agencies continue rulemaking. Budget signals continue to emerge. State legislatures remain active. All that to say, even in quieter legislative weeks, the ecosystem continues moving. And our advocacy work, appropriately, does not sleep- like many of you during a grant application cycle.
This update focuses on several developments that, taken together, warrant attention for those of you working in teacher preparation and special education.
The Doctoral Pipeline: McNair Program Eligibility Reframed
The Department of Education has reached a legal settlement rescinding race-conscious eligibility criteria within the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program, a long-standing federal investment designed to increase doctoral attainment among students from underrepresented backgrounds.
The program itself remains funded at approximately $60 million. What changes is the eligibility structure. Moving forward, participation will be determined strictly by financial need and first-generation status, removing race and ethnicity as qualifying criteria.
This shift follows litigation challenging the program’s prior framework and aligns with a broader Justice Department position that federal agencies will not defend or enforce race-based preferences in education programs. The Department has indicated that formal rulemaking will follow to codify this approach.
At a moment when we continue to discuss diversification of the professoriate, leadership pipelines, and research perspectives in special education, this adjustment narrows one of the policy tools historically used to influence doctoral participation patterns.
Affordability Under Pressure: Pell Grant Shortfall
The Congressional Budget Office is projecting a $5.4 billion shortfall in the Pell Grant program for fiscal year 2026. The drivers of this gap are, in some respects, a function of expanded access. FAFSA simplification has increased participation and improved eligibility determinations, resulting in approximately 1.7 million additional students qualifying for the maximum award — a significant expansion.
The maximum Pell award remains at $7,395. However, increased participation combined with static appropriations has created fiscal strain within the program’s reserve structure.
Historically, Congress has addressed Pell shortfalls through supplemental funding. There is also precedent, though less frequently invoked, for adjusting eligibility or program parameters to manage costs. The question is not whether Pell will continue , it will , but whether participation growth will be matched by sustained funding commitments.
For educator preparation programs, this is not an abstract budget issue. A substantial share of teacher candidates, particularly in special education and high-need certification areas, rely on Pell as the foundation of their financial aid package. Many are first-generation college students, career changers, or paraprofessionals advancing into certification programs. Any eligibility contraction or structural modification could disproportionately affect the very candidates our workforce strategies aim to recruit and retain.
Accreditation Terminology and Student Mobility
In a separate development, the Department of Education has issued interpretive guidance urging accreditors and institutions to discontinue use of the term “regional accreditation.” While the formal regulatory distinction between regional and national accreditors was eliminated in 2020, the terminology has persisted and continues to function as an informal signal of institutional hierarchy.
The Department now emphasizes that all recognized accreditors are nationally recognized and that geographic terminology should not be used in ways that create artificial distinctions or impede credit transfer.
For teacher preparation programs, particularly those serving any number of transfer students, accreditation terminology has often influenced credit acceptance decisions. Whether this interpretive guidance results in substantive policy shifts at the institutional level remains to be seen. However, it signals continued federal attention to student mobility and market standardization across higher education.
Field Leadership Spotlight: Dr. Lucky Mason Williams and the SPARC Center
Advocacy is most effective when it is grounded in evidence. This week, TED Policy Committee Chair Dr. Lucky Mason Williams attended the Coalition for Teaching Quality’s monthly convening, where she presented alongside colleagues on the work of the Special Educator Workforce: A Research Collaborative (SPARC Center).
The SPARC Center is conducting multi-state research to strengthen the special educator workforce through both data analysis and systems-level change. In its first year, the collaborative examined the composition, distribution, and stability of the special education teacher workforce across seven states, identifying patterns of both shared and state-specific challenges.
The findings are instructive. While shortages are widely acknowledged, the research underscores that workforce instability is not uniform. Some districts experience chronic vacancy rates; others face retention erosion; still others struggle with uneven distribution across high-need schools. The data suggest that effective policy responses must be tailored to state context and strategically targeted to the districts and schools most affected.
In a policy environment where educator shortages are often discussed broadly, this work reinforces the importance of precision. Evidence-based advocacy strengthens credibility and helps ensure that solutions are aligned with actual workforce dynamics rather than generalized narratives.
Special Member Feature: Dr. Jenn Sears and Dr. Caitlin Criss
While much of this update focuses on federal developments, advocacy does not begin and end in Washington. State legislatures are often where policy becomes most immediate for preparation programs and for the candidates we serve.
This week, TED Policy Committee members Dr. Jennifer Sears (University of North Georgia) and Dr. Caitlin Criss (Georgia Southern University) brought 28 undergraduate and graduate pre-service teachers to Atlanta for a state-level advocacy event sponsored by the Professional Association of Georgia Educators (PAGE), the Georgia Association of Colleges and Teacher Education (GACTE), and the Georgia Association of Educational Leaders (GAEL).
The participating students represented a wide cross-section of programs, including special education, dual certification, middle grades education, and physical education. What united them was a shared commitment to understanding how policy shapes practice and how educators can responsibly engage in that process.
During the event, candidates received briefings on current legislation introduced in both the Georgia House and Senate. Topics included statewide literacy initiatives, proposals to provide grants to student teachers to offset the financial burden of student teaching, school safety measures, and a potential ban on electronic devices in K–12 schools, among others.
Following the policy sessions, students visited the Georgia State Capitol to speak directly with legislators. They also attended a luncheon featuring candidates for State School Superintendent, gaining exposure to both policy substance and political context.
They were accompanied by faculty leaders including Dr. Amy Lingo, Dean of the College of Education at Georgia Southern; Dr. Karin Fisher and Dr. Rachael Smith (GSU); and Dr. Warren Caputo and Dr. Westry Whitaker (UNG). The visible presence of senior faculty reinforced that advocacy is not peripheral to preparation — it is part of professional formation.
Their work prompts a broader reflection for all of us. What is happening at your state level? Is there a state affiliate, an association of educators, or a policy coalition with which your program could engage? Now is an appropriate time to deepen those relationships and introduce candidates to structured advocacy opportunities within your state.
Looking Ahead — State of the Union Signals
Tuesday’s State of the Union address will provide additional clues about how education is positioned within the administration’s broader agenda. Historically, these speeches emphasize economic competitiveness, workforce readiness, national security, and growth — with education woven into those themes rather than treated as a standalone priority.
It will be worth listening not only for policy proposals, but for rhetorical emphasis. Is education framed primarily through the lens of school choice? Through workforce development? Through parental rights? Through artificial intelligence? Through student loans? Frequency and framing often foreshadow where administrative energy and messaging will concentrate in the months ahead.
In the spirit of careful observation, I am offering a small incentive: the colleague who emails me with the correct count of how many times the President uses the word “education” in Tuesday’s address will receive a prize (yay!). Honor system applies. Timestamped submissions encouraged.
Humor aside, rhetorical signals matter. What is elevated — and what is omitted — often tells us as much as formal policy documents.
Earlier in this update, we highlighted the advocacy, educator preparation, and research work our members are leading across the country. Sharing that work matters. It reinforces that policy is not abstract — it is grounded in real classrooms, real communities, and real expertise. I am consistently grateful for the leadership you bring and for the example you set in advancing the field.
Until next time,
Kait
@brennan_kait
Posted:
23 February, 2026
Category:
