MASSCREATIVE COMMENTS ON PROPOSED EDUCATION DEPARTMENT CHANGES
Three students paint at a table. Floating triangles in the bottom right are decorative.
On September 22, 2026, MASSCreative added its name to a sign-on advocacy letter sharing public comments to the US Department of Education (USED) about their notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on the General Administrative Regulations. This advocacy letter was drafted and circulated by the Arts Education Policy Working Group at Americans for the Arts and promoted by the Creative States Coalition.
Public comments were due by Wednesday, September 23rd at 11:59 PM EST.
PROPOSED CHANGES TO EDGAR & COMMENTS FROM ADVOCATES
On August 24th, USED issued a NPRM that proposes several significant changes to the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR), which govern USED’s competitive and formula grant programs.
The letter submitted by Americans for the Arts, MASSCreative, and other arts advocacy organizations affirmed the importance of government efficiency so that grantees, including many arts, arts education organizations, and school districts that receive federal grants, have a clear application process and can make the best use of their resources. Grants from federal agencies ensure that students have access to a well-rounded education that includes the arts, which has been shown to improve their communities.
The Department’s proposed rule raises concerns because it advances aspects of the Office of Management and Budget’s proposed 2026 Uniform Federal Guidance for Financial Assistance, which Congress recently acted to pause through December 11, 2026. Despite this action, the Department of Education is separately proposing significant changes to federal grant administration that would negatively impact arts organizations and school districts across the country, and place an increased administrative burden on entities applying for grants.
There are several provisions in the proposed EDGAR rule that are cause for concern.
One concern is the decrease in transparency by removing the requirement to publish grant application notices and maximum award amounts in the Federal Register. Although a central location for reviewing grant information through Grants.gov might be helpful, the Federal Register provides clarity about how taxpayer dollars are being used, serves as an official legal notice, and provides open access that helps ensure fair and competitive grant competitions. Grants.gov and the Federal Register serve different functions and should be complementary. Requiring that grant notifications are listed on both the Federal Register and Grants.gov makes the process more transparent to applicants and the public.
A separate concern is the proposed increased discretion to align grantmaking with the Administration’s priorities, rather than a program’s intent, as mandated by Congress. Increasing this discretion could subject grant administration to greater instability. Nonprofit organizations make long-term decisions based on federal grant awards: they hire staff, enter into contracts, reserve facilities, commission work, purchase materials, and make commitments to community partners and participants. Allowing grant terms to change after an award has been issued, or permitting awards to be suspended, withheld, or terminated based on shifting administrative priorities, would expose organizations and communities to substantial financial risk.
Some competitive grants from USED are awarded for multiple months with funding provided through annual continuation awards. If implemented, the proposed rule would make explicit that an initial award does not obligate USED to provide funding in later years. Arts education projects frequently involve school calendars, artist contracts, curriculum development, professional learning, and partnerships among school districts and cultural organizations.
Delayed spending may reflect normal implementation challenges, not poor performance.
Additionally, the proposed rule would remove references to “underserved” populations from the selection criteria for discretionary grants. Nonprofit organizations have often prioritized reaching underserved communities as many students do not have access to all of the arts disciplines in their schools. If that language is removed from EDGAR’s general framework for selection criteria, USED could deprioritize arts education proposals focused on students with disabilities and programs in rural areas.
The proposed rule would also give preference to organizations with lower indirect costs. This could preclude some organizations from receiving federal financial assistance if their grant applications include administrative costs. Small, rural arts and arts education organizations that operate with limited capacity would be specifically impacted. Indirect expenses such as finance, HR, compliance, IT, facilities, insurance and audit expenditures are actual costs of delivering
federally funded work. A competitive preference based on lowering them could advantage applicants with greater unrestricted resources that can subsidize those costs.
The proposed rule would also prioritize “merit based and high standards” for grant applications “without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or proxies thereof unless an appropriate exception applies.” Removing those considerations could create obstacles for grantees seeking to ensure equal access and address barriers facing students. This would negatively affect students and the benefits they receive from a well-rounded arts education.
MASSCreative and our co-signers on this letter oppose this proposed rule and any regulations that would decrease government transparency, increase latitude to terminate grants for convenience, deprioritize grants serving underserved populations, prioritize grant applications with lower indirect costs, and negatively affect the ability of nonprofit organizations and school districts to deliver a quality arts education for all students.
To learn more about this issue, please review EducationCounsel’s summary, as well as their EDGAR Overview & FAQ. You can also read their Appendix, which provides a redlined and annotated version of USED’s proposed revisions to EDGAR’s menu of scoring criteria for competitive grant programs.
