SSB 6209
In CommitteeSenate
Financial aid awards/private
Concerning financial aid awards for students attending private four-year and two-year institutions of higher education.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill raises financial aid awards for students at private four-year colleges in Washington and adds eligibility for some for-profit schools, contingent on meeting new federal standards. It also expands automatic enrollment in the College Bound Scholarship for eligible students and adjusts award formulas to align more closely with public university aid levels.
- Increases the maximum Washington College Grant award for students at private four-year not-for-profit institutions to 50% of the average award at public research universities starting in 2026–27.
- Expands eligibility for the Washington College Grant to private four-year for-profit institutions that meet new federal gainful employment standards (e.g., graduate debt payments ≤ 8% of annual earnings) beginning in 2026–27.
- Revises the Washington College Bound Scholarship award amounts for students at private institutions to match 50% of the public research university average beginning in 2027–28.
- Establishes a new gainful employment standard for private four-year for-profit colleges to qualify for state financial aid programs, requiring data analysis and rulemaking by the Office of Student Financial Assistance.
- Automatically enrolls eligible low-income, foster, and adopted students in the College Bound Scholarship program with no action required by students or families.
Who is affected
- Students at private four-year not-for-profit colleges — Students attending private four-year not-for-profit institutions in Washington may receive higher financial aid awards beginning in 2026–27, calculated as 50% of the average grant awarded to students at public research universities.
- Students at private four-year for-profit colleges — Students at private four-year for-profit institutions may become eligible for financial aid if their school meets new federal gainful employment standards and other criteria, with awards also set at 50% of the public research university average starting in 2026–27.
- Low-income and foster/adopted students — Students who qualify for free or reduced-price lunch, are in foster care, or were adopted between ages 14–18 may automatically receive a scholarship to help pay for college, with award amounts tied to public institution averages.
- Private for-profit colleges — Private four-year for-profit colleges must meet new federal gainful employment standards (e.g., graduate debt payments ≤ 8% of annual earnings) to participate in state financial aid programs.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Automatic enrollment in the College Bound Scholarship for low-income, foster, and adopted students removes administrative barriers and significantly increases participation among historically underserved groups. This is a high-impact equity intervention: students who might otherwise miss deadlines or be unaware of the program gain access without needing to apply, and the policy is backed by data-sharing mandates with DCYF and OSPI to ensure identification.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)(a); Sec. 2(3)(c)Raising aid for students at private four-year not-for-profit institutions to 50% of public research university averages helps students who cannot attend public schools due to location, program constraints, or disability needs—especially rural, disabled, or neurodivergent students. This expands access to high-quality, accredited institutions that may better serve specific learning needs, and the change is phased in (2026–27), allowing institutions and families to adjust.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 1(5)(b)(ii); Sec. 2(5)(b)(ii)Establishing a gainful employment standard for for-profit institutions (debt ≤ 8% of earnings) introduces a consumer-protection safeguard that could reduce student debt traps. While imperfect, it aligns state aid eligibility with outcomes data and could pressure low-performing for-profits to improve program quality or exit the market—benefiting students in the long term.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 3Extending state financial aid eligibility to for-profit institutions that meet federal gainful employment standards expands access to career-oriented programs for students who may not be college-ready for traditional four-year degrees—especially adult learners, first-generation students, or those in high-demand fields like healthcare or IT. This could increase credential attainment in high-need sectors.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 1(5)(d)(ii); Sec. 2(5)(b)(iii)Aligning College Bound Scholarship awards with public university averages (starting 2027–28) creates parity between aid programs and reduces confusion for students choosing between public and private institutions. This transparency helps families compare net costs and may reduce over-enrollment in low-value programs. The policy also reinforces the state’s commitment to supporting students across sector types.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 2(5)(b)(ii), (b)(iii); Sec. 2(1)(a), (c)
Potential Concerns (5)
The bill raises state spending by increasing awards for private four-year not-for-profit students to 50% of public research university averages—effectively raising aid for students at elite private institutions (e.g., Seattle University, Gonzaga) whose tuition far exceeds public counterparts. While this helps some students, the absolute dollar increase is largest for students attending high-tuition private schools, and the state budget cost is substantial and recurring. The fiscal impact is regressive: wealthier students (who are more likely to attend private colleges) gain more in absolute dollars, even if the *relative* aid increase appears equitable.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 1(5)(b)(ii) and Sec. 2(5)(b)(ii)Automatic enrollment in the College Bound Scholarship for low-income, foster, and adopted students is a strong equity tool, but its impact is limited by the 65% state median family income cap and the requirement to graduate with at least a 'C' average for direct admission to four-year institutions. Many eligible students may not meet the academic criteria or may not enroll in college at all—especially those in foster care, who face higher rates of disengagement from education. The policy helps, but does not guarantee, broader access.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)(a), (c); Sec. 2(2)(a)The bill adds a citizenship affidavit requirement for eligible students who are undocumented residents (under RCW 28B.15.012(2)(e)), mandating they pledge to pursue permanent residency. While this aligns with existing state law, it adds bureaucratic burden and potential chilling effects for students who may fear sharing immigration status—even though the affidavit is internal to the state and not shared with federal authorities. This provision may deter some eligible students from enrolling or completing the acknowledgment process.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)(d); Sec. 2(4)Expanding eligibility to for-profit institutions contingent on meeting federal gainful employment standards (debt ≤ 8% of earnings) is a modest regulatory guardrail, but the standard is relatively loose—especially compared to stricter federal proposals—and may not prevent all predatory outcomes. The rulemaking process is delegated to the Office of Student Financial Assistance, and the bill does not require independent verification of outcomes data, limiting accountability. Some for-profits may still exploit loopholes, especially if they structure programs to meet thresholds without delivering real career value.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(5)(d)(ii); Sec. 2(5)(b)(iii); Sec. 3The bill’s formula—setting private aid at 50% of *public research university* averages—may unintentionally favor students at elite private universities (e.g., Gonzaga, Seattle U) over students at community colleges or less-selective four-year institutions. Public research universities have higher average aid because they serve more high-need students; using their average as a benchmark may overfund some private institutions while underfunding others. This misalignment could distort institutional incentives and reduce equity across sectors.
FinancialLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(5)(b)(ii), (d)(ii); Sec. 2(5)(b)(ii), (b)(iii)
Who Is Most Affected
Low-income, foster, and adopted students benefit strongly: automatic enrollment removes barriers to accessing college aid, and the expanded eligibility (e.g., adopted students aged 14–18) fills a gap in existing programs. However, the 'C' average requirement and income cap may still exclude some vulnerable students who need support most.
Students at private four-year not-for-profit institutions gain higher aid awards, especially those attending high-tuition schools. However, the benefit is concentrated: wealthier students (who are more likely to attend elite private colleges) gain more in absolute dollars, and the policy may not help students at lower-tuition private schools as much.
For-profit institutions gain access to state aid if they meet gainful employment standards, which could increase enrollment and revenue. However, the standards may exclude low-performing schools, and the 8% debt-to-earnings threshold is lenient—some institutions may still struggle to qualify or may restructure programs to game the metrics.
Students at for-profit institutions gain eligibility for state aid if their school qualifies, potentially reducing their debt burden. However, for-profits have high dropout rates and poor outcomes on average; the gainful employment standard may not fully offset these risks, and students may still face debt if they do not complete or earn enough.
State government and taxpayers bear the increased cost of higher aid awards, especially as the formula shifts to 50% of public research university averages. This could strain the state budget over time, potentially diverting funds from other education priorities like K–12 or community colleges.