House committee hears widespread opposition to striker that would change Washington College Grant eligibility

The House Appropriations Committee received a staff briefing and heard public testimony on substitute Senate Bill 57‑85, a striker that would reshape the Washington College Grant (WCG) and College Bound awards. Staff described sector‑by‑sector changes in the proposal: elimination of WCG awards for private for‑profit two‑ and four‑year institutions beginning fiscal year 2027; a reduced maximum for Western Governors University; modified apprenticeship awards; and a provision that would tie private nonprofit four‑year awards to 50% of the research institutions’ maximum starting in FY27. The striker also mirrors those changes into College Bound with delayed effective dates and would restore a time limit on College Bound award use (six years or 150% of program length). The striker contains an emergency clause effective July 1, 2025.

Why it matters: The Washington College Grant and College Bound are primary state financial aid programs used by tens of thousands of residents. Committee staff explained the changes would produce near‑term general fund savings on paper; the EBB fiscal summary presented an estimated $16.5 million NGFO savings in FY25‑27 and a four‑year impact figure cited in the briefing of about $106 million, depending on modeling assumptions. Witnesses said those figures understate consequences for students, institutions and Washington’s workforce pipeline.

Staff briefing and key provisions Kate Henry, staff to the committee, walked members through the striker’s sectoral changes: the striker removes WCG awards for private two‑ and four‑year for‑profit institutions starting FY27; reduces the maximum WGU award to $4,150 beginning FY27; sets private nonprofit four‑year awards at 50% of research institutions starting FY27; and reduces apprenticeship awards to 50% of the maximum CTC WCG award. College Bound changes would follow in FY28 for private for‑profit sectors and apply proration rules and the six‑year time limit.

Public testimony: students, colleges and employers

Hundreds of witnesses signed in and many students, faculty and college leaders testified. Students from DigiPen, Seattle Film Institute, Northwest College of Art & Design, beauty and career schools, and other private and for‑profit institutions described relying on WCG to remain enrolled and warned that immediate changes would force withdrawals, disrupted graduations and increased borrowing. Examples included students who said they would be homeless or unable to finish if WCG were removed.

Institutions representing private nonprofit and for‑profit colleges argued the bill would harm workforce pipelines. DigiPen leaders described high median earnings and employer demand for graduates and asked for a phased approach if changes are necessary. Central Washington University, University of Washington student leaders and public college representatives testified in favor of the striker’s overall direction of prioritizing public and nonprofit institutions but urged care to avoid harming students currently enrolled and to maintain pathways for workforce training.

Opponents from private career schools and their students urged retention of eligibility for private career colleges, noting accreditation, strong completion and job placement rates, and high return‑on‑investment in select programs such as commercial diving, cosmetology and media arts.

Fiscal and timing questions Committee staff said a requested fiscal note was pending, and the striker’s modeling requires recalculation because changes to WCG interact with College Bound proration and enrollment. Staff displayed an EBB model showing a $16.5 million NGFO savings in the FY25‑27 biennium and larger multi‑year effects; several witnesses said short‑term savings could be outweighed by lost student earnings, disrupted programs and labor market impacts. University and college witnesses asked for transitional provisions or delayed implementation to protect currently enrolled students; DigiPen and other institutions requested exceptions or phased timelines so students near graduation would not lose awards.

What happens next The hearing record closed with no committee action in the hearing. Staff reminded members that amendment requests for bills scheduled for the next day’s executive session were due by noon that day. Lawmakers must decide whether to adopt sectoral eligibility changes, add phase‑in protections for current students, or pursue alternative revenue or targeting approaches.

Ending Testimony was dominated by students and institutions emphasizing immediate, concrete harm to enrolled students and training programs if the striker takes effect rapidly. Committee deliberations will likely focus on phasing, exception language and the fiscal model’s assumptions before any floor action.