Cuts to public higher ed stipends break state promise, send horrible message
We told young people college is accessible to all — but are now backtracking on that
This op-ed by Bahar Akman Imboden originally appeared in the Commonwealth Beacon.
OVER THE LAST two years, Massachusetts launched a bold initiative with a clear message: college is accessible again.
Community college? Tuition- and fee-free for everyone.
Four-year public college? Tuition- and fee-free if you’re low-income.
Books, supplies, cost of living costs? Covered, up to $2,400, by stipends for those who qualify.
These promises were backed by transformative new programs, MassReconnect and MassGrant Plus Expansion in 2023, followed by MassEducate in 2024, all made possible by the Fair Share Amendment, a surtax on millionaires that voters overwhelmingly approved in 2022 to fund public education and transportation. The rollout was visible. The message resonated. For the first time in years, students and families began to believe in public higher education again.
And it worked.
After more than a decade of steep decline, community college enrollment had dropped by 40 percent, Massachusetts saw a remarkable turnaround: enrollment jumped 24 percent in just two years, with another double-digit increase expected this fall. Even four-year public universities, which had faced years of stagnation, began to see signs of recovery.
Students heard the promise, and they responded.
But what most of the public didn’t hear is that this promise is already being broken.
Astonishingly, just one year after launching MassEducate, students are receiving less aid than they did last year.
Despite doing exactly what they were designed to do — increase higher education enrollment — these programs are facing quiet rollbacks. Stipends have been cut by up to $400. Completion grants and emergency aid, often the final financial aid dollars that help students persist and graduate, are being eliminated. The base MassGrant has been cut by $200 for the lowest-income students at four-year universities.
At the Board of Higher Education meeting last week, this issue was discussed at length. William Heineman, president of North Shore Community College and member of the board, spoke up for those most affected by the cuts.
“A last-minute shift in book awards for this academic year means that our students with the greatest financial need will see fewer dollars for books and supplies come spring, a change that will have a notable impact on students who are already trying their best to make ends meet,” he said. “This was not the intent of the Legislature in the structuring of the free community college program, and we urge you to support our students in ensuring this doesn’t become a reality next semester.”
Others on the board voiced similar concerns, stressing that when programs succeed, the state’s responsibility is not to cut aid but to adjust budgets to keep its promise to students.
To some, these may sound like small amounts. But for students already living on the edge, $200 or $400 can mean the difference between staying in school or dropping out. It might cover a monthly bus pass, groceries, or the last bit of rent. These cuts are not just technical, they are destabilizing.
And it would be unrealistic to assume the rollback ends here. Without corrective action, stipends could disappear entirely, leaving only a bare-bones, last-dollar model that is, by design, regressive.
The concern is particularly acute for the lowest-income students, many of whom were already eligible to attend college tuition-free through the federal Pell Grant before these state programs were launched. If stipends are withdrawn, those students gain no additional support from the state’s promise, while middle- and higher-income students continue to benefit from full tuition and fee coverage.
Why is this happening?
It is not the result of a recession or the loss of federal aid. Rather, the state did not adequately plan for the success of these programs.
Despite knowing that the goal was to boost enrollment, and seeing that goal clearly achieved, the state level funded these initiatives in the fiscal year 2026 budget. As a result, a fixed pool of dollars is now being stretched across a larger number of students, reducing the support available to each. In practice, this has meant fewer resources for the students with the greatest financial need at the most under-resourced institutions. It did not have to unfold this way.
The Fair Share Amendment raised over $3 billion this year. Some of that funding remains unspent. Just 1 percent of this year’s Fair Share revenue would have been enough to prevent these cuts.
It’s not as if higher education had already received more than its fair share. In fiscal year 2026, only 11 percent of Fair Share revenue was allocated to higher education — well below the 25 percent minimum recommended by the Board of Higher Education, and nowhere near what’s needed to meet growing demand or address long-standing underinvestment.
Massachusetts is in a moment of opportunity, even amid growing uncertainty at the federal level, to advance its progressive higher education priorities. Voters did their part. Students responded. The programs worked. The infrastructure is in place. And yet, the state is now pulling back.
This is a choice, a short-sighted one that erodes public trust, harms low-income students, and jeopardizes the long-term prosperity of our state.
But it is not too late. Before second-semester aid is disbursed, lawmakers should act to:
Restore full stipends and grant aid for low-income students with unspent Fair Share revenues.
Use Fair Share revenue as voters intended, allocating at least 25 percent of it for bold, new investments in higher education.
Massachusetts has a chance to lead, to prove that when we say education matters, we mean it. That when we invest in students, we follow through.
The Fair Share Amendment was supposed to be just the beginning. Let’s not allow it to become a broken promise.
