← We The People Platform Download .docx

# Pillar Three: The Sovereign Education Fund — Substantiation

v1.0 · Created May 10, 2026 for v3.7.14 · Pillar Three substantiation document

Sources Baseline. Numerical claims in this document derive from the canonical sources cataloged in the Sources and Derivation Convention document. Cost estimates are training-era approximations; actuarial validation is identified as a Section 47 OPEN item.

## Purpose

This document substantiates Pillar Three (the Sovereign Education Fund) at the level of architectural detail needed for external review. It extends and refines the Pillar Three description in the master platform document with the design choices established in v3.7.14: a no-cap academic-performance-based architecture; tuition-plus-stipend coverage through doctoral programs; curriculum-approval through a job-field-backward framework with general-education preservation; credit-transfer with substance-of-content test; a student-support intervention architecture with federally-trained on-campus liaisons; and the counselor workforce pipeline required to implement the support architecture at scale. Substantiation here means: stating the architectural commitment, identifying the cost implications, naming the external expertise required to validate or implement specific design choices, and connecting the pillar's mechanisms to the rest of the platform's architecture.

## Education Welcomed and Encouraged

The core architectural commitment of Pillar Three is captured in a single proposition: education is welcomed and encouraged, not limited. The pillar does not ration education by credit budget, by number of fields pursued, by number of credentials sought, or by major-switch count. Citizens may pursue one field or many; one credential or several; vocational training or doctoral study. The only constraints on continued funding are two: academic performance (the student is passing) and age (the funding window closes at age thirty). The architectural choice not to cap pursuit is deliberate. Most citizens do not want indefinite schooling; the natural ceiling is biological, social, and motivational. The marginal population-level cost of removing the cap is small. The values signal of removing it is substantial. A society that welcomes its citizens' learning produces different citizens than a society that rations it.

The academic-performance constraint serves as the primary cost-control mechanism. Funding continues as long as the student is passing the standards of the program they are pursuing. Failing students lose continued funding for that specific pursuit; they retain the ability to pivot to another field where they may succeed. The platform's architecture pairs this constraint with an institutional obligation to attempt intervention when a student is struggling (described in the Student-Support Intervention Architecture section below); the platform's intent is not to abandon struggling students but to help them succeed, and only when intervention does not produce success does the academic-performance constraint cut off funding for the specific failing pursuit.

The age-thirty funding window provides the time bound. From age eighteen to thirty is twelve years. The longest possible sequential path within this window is bachelor's plus master's plus doctoral study (roughly four plus two plus four to six years), which fits only for students who proceed efficiently. Most citizens pursue substantially less. The age-thirty boundary exists for a reason consistent with the platform's broader architecture: post-thirty learning is a different category (continuing education, professional development, mid-career transitions) that the platform's other pillars address through different mechanisms.

## Funding Mechanism

The Pillar Three funding architecture, established in earlier iterations, combines three sources: birth-seed contributions to the Sovereign Education Fund (five thousand dollars at birth per citizen, pooled rather than individual); annual disbursements from the Sovereign Fund (approximately one percent of fund balance per year, scaled to the cohort served); and payroll-based contributions through the Pillar One Community Contribution Plan (a portion of the contribution flow allocated to Pillar Three). The cost-based pricing framework constrains what participating institutions can charge: institutions price at or below the cost-based baseline calculated for their type and field of study; pricing above the baseline forfeits eligibility for the Sovereign Education Fund.

v3.7.14 extends the funding architecture to cover doctoral programs (tuition and living stipend), eliminating the existing per-person credit cap that previously bounded what the Fund would cover. The cost increment for this extension is documented in the Cost Estimates section below. The funding-mechanism architecture itself does not change: the same three sources (birth-seed, Sovereign Fund disbursements, payroll contribution) cover the expanded scope; the cost-based pricing framework continues to constrain institutional charges.

## Curriculum-Approval Architecture

Institutions participating in the Sovereign Education Fund must have approved curricula for each program of study they offer. The curriculum-approval framework operates on three principles. First, curricula are built backwards from defined job fields: the curriculum-approval body identifies the competencies and tasks required for jobs in a defined field (drawing on BLS Standard Occupational Classification codes, industry advisory input, and field-specific accreditation standards), and the institution's curriculum must demonstrate coverage of those competencies. Second, general-education content is preserved alongside field-specific competency requirements: the curriculum must include broadly-applicable content (writing, mathematical literacy, scientific literacy, civic literacy, critical reasoning) that is not tightly tied to a specific job field. Third, exploration paths are explicitly valid: a student may pursue an exploration-focused first year before committing to a field-aligned curriculum, and liberal-arts fields (philosophy, history, literature, mathematics, the basic sciences) are accepted as fields where the transferable analytical capacity is itself the job-relevant competency.

Curriculum approval is conducted by a body responsible for the Pillar Three architecture (likely the federal Pillar Three administrative agency, in coordination with field-specific accreditation bodies that already exist for engineering, medicine, law, nursing, and other fields). The approval criterion is competency coverage; the approval body does not specify how institutions teach the competencies, only that the approved competencies are covered. Content within the competency-coverage requirement remains the institution's decision, preserving academic freedom and institutional differentiation. Approved curricula are subject to periodic review (every three to five years) to capture emerging job fields and evolving competency requirements.

Proof of comprehension and demonstrated ability to perform required tasks is a curriculum-approval requirement, not a single-test event. Institutions specify how each competency is assessed (examinations, project portfolios, capstone work, supervised practice), and approved assessment methods become part of the institution's approved curriculum. The platform does not impose a single standardized testing regime on all institutions or all programs; it requires that each institution's assessment methodology is approved as part of the curriculum-approval process.

## Doctoral Funding: Tuition Plus Stipends

The Sovereign Education Fund covers tuition for doctoral programs (research doctorates and professional doctorates alike) within the age-thirty window. The Fund also provides living stipends during doctoral study, parallel to current research-assistantship and teaching-assistantship stipend levels. This is an architectural change from the prior US doctoral funding ecosystem, which has produced two distinct failure modes: research doctorates in well-funded fields (computational, biomedical, engineering disciplines) are mostly funded through federal research grants, but with intense competition, project-tied constraints, and substantial year-to-year uncertainty; research doctorates in underfunded fields (humanities, many social sciences) are often only partially funded; professional doctorates (MD, JD, DDS, PharmD) typically come with no funding and produce substantial debt burdens that distort career choice for decades.

Replacing this with Fund-provided tuition and stipends addresses three problems simultaneously. First, it removes the funding-scramble that currently consumes substantial doctoral student time, allowing students to focus on actual research and learning. Second, it equalizes funding access across fields, removing the field-specific funding inequality that distorts which intellectual paths get pursued. Third, it eliminates the professional-doctorate debt burden that currently constrains career choice (a heavily-indebted medical-school graduate cannot freely choose to practice in an underserved rural area; a heavily-indebted law-school graduate cannot freely take low-paying public-interest work). All three are second-order benefits beyond the direct funding provision.

Stipend amounts are set at the Pillar Two empirical wage floor for the occupation of educator-or-researcher-in-training at the geographic location of the institution. This applies the platform's existing architectural logic (occupation-based, geography-adjusted wage floors) to doctoral student stipends. The stipend recognizes doctoral study as work, which it is.

The interaction with federal research grants requires explicit design. Research-doctorate students would no longer rely on grants for their livelihoods; grants would shift to funding research itself (equipment, materials, computing, conferences, faculty research time, undergraduate research, postdoctoral researchers). This change strengthens research capacity per grant dollar because student-livelihood costs no longer compete with research-cost line items. Federal research-grant agencies (NIH, NSF, DOE, DARPA, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), others) would update their grant frameworks to reflect this; existing assistantship-based grant funding mechanisms would be repurposed. The transition is identified as PERSONA-SIG-12 in Section 47 because it requires research-grant ecosystem expertise to design.

## Credit-Transfer with Substance Test

A student who pivots from one field to another retains credit for time spent on the original field where the content of that time is generally applicable to the destination field. The platform formalizes this as a two-rule framework. First, general-education credits transfer universally: the general-education content required of every approved curriculum is field-agnostic, and credits in this category are not lost on pivot. Second, field-specific credits transfer based on competency overlap: the curriculum-approval documentation specifies what competencies each course covers, and the destination field's curriculum-approval documentation specifies what competencies it requires; a course transfers if the covered competencies overlap with the destination requirements.

This is the standard transfer-credit framework used in well-functioning US higher education, codified at the platform level. The platform's improvement over current practice is that the substance test is documented at the curriculum-approval level rather than negotiated case-by-case at transfer time. A computer science introductory course's approved competency coverage is documented; a pre-med program's required introductory-mathematics competency is documented; the overlap (logic, discrete reasoning) is documented; transfer happens automatically based on the documentation.

No time penalty applies to pivots. A student who spends a year in pre-med then switches to philosophy keeps the general-education credits, retains any specific course credits that transfer based on substance, loses the field-specific science credits that do not transfer, and does not lose calendar time or face penalty against future funding within the age-thirty window. The architecture explicitly supports the pivot as part of normal educational development.

## Student-Support Intervention Architecture

When a student is struggling academically, the institution is obligated to attempt intervention. The obligation is structural rather than aspirational: the institution receives Pillar Three funding contingent on operating a documented student-support architecture that meets specified standards. The architectural choice transforms the default from struggling-students-disappear to struggling-students-receive-support. The intent is to help every student succeed; the institution's obligation is to attempt that help.

Struggling is detected through four signals operating in parallel. Grade-based triggers fire when a student's grade-point average drops below a threshold or when a specific course grade indicates risk of non-completion. Attendance-based triggers fire when a student misses class for two or more consecutive weeks. Faculty-flagged signals route through advisors when instructors observe concerns directly. Self-flagged signals open intervention pathways when students request support. Multi-signal detection is necessary because each signal catches different student situations: a student attending but not learning shows up in grades; a student doing well academically but personally struggling shows up in attendance; a student visibly distressed shows up in faculty observations; a student aware of their own struggle requests help directly.

The intervention pathway has four lines. First-line intervention is conducted by the student's academic advisor: a conversation that identifies what is happening, what the student needs, and which resources can help. Second-line intervention is a warm hand-off to specialized resources: tutoring and learning support for content-mastery issues; mental-health counseling for emotional or psychological issues; disability services for learning-difference or accommodation needs; financial counseling for economic precarity; case management for personal or family issues that intersect education. Third-line intervention is case-manager coordination when multiple needs intersect: a student struggling with academics, mental health, and financial precarity simultaneously needs coordinated support rather than three separate referrals. Crisis intervention operates outside the pathway and is triggered immediately regardless of where the student is in the process when crisis indicators appear.

Privacy and student autonomy are architectural protections. Intervention is offered, not imposed. Students may decline non-crisis interventions; only safety risks (imminent harm to self or others) override student declination. Records of interventions are kept separately from academic transcripts and do not become marks against the student. The intervention architecture exists to help the student succeed; it does not operate as a discipline or surveillance system.

## Counselor Workforce

The student-support architecture requires substantial counselor staffing. Target ratios across support categories: academic advisors at one per three hundred students; mental-health counselors at one per seven hundred fifty students; disability-services specialists at one per fifteen hundred students; career counselors at one per one thousand students; case managers at one per five thousand students. Tutoring infrastructure operates through a mix of professional learning specialists and peer tutors with professional oversight. Crisis intervention is integrated with Pillar Six (Universal Mental Health Access) infrastructure rather than separately staffed at each institution.

Applied to an expanded-access steady state of approximately eighteen million students, the counselor workforce requires roughly sixty thousand academic advisors, twenty-four thousand mental-health counselors, twelve thousand disability-services specialists, eighteen thousand career counselors, thirty-six hundred case managers, and a tutoring infrastructure equivalent to approximately fifteen thousand professional-tutor FTE plus peer-tutor capacity. Total student-support workforce: approximately one hundred thirty thousand FTE.

The US does not currently produce one hundred thirty thousand trained student-support professionals annually, and current workforce levels are well below the platform's target ratios. The platform must build out the counselor workforce over a multi-year transition. The buildout itself uses Pillar Three funding: counselor-training programs are themselves approved curricula in Pillar Three, and counselor education becomes one of the job fields the platform's curriculum-approval framework explicitly supports. This closes a feedback loop: the platform's commitment to student support generates demand for counselors; the platform's education funding produces the supply of counselors. The transition timeline is identified as RESEARCH-16 in Section 47.

## Federal Liaison Program

A federal liaison is assigned to each campus participating in the Sovereign Education Fund. The liaison is federally employed, trained on the platform's Pillar Three architecture (curriculum-approval framework, job-field pipeline, student-support standards, outcomes-tracking methodology), and physically on-campus with substantial integration into institutional operations. The liaison's role is to preserve consistency in the implementation of the Pillar Three architecture across the four thousand or more degree-granting institutions in the United States. Without on-campus federal presence, four thousand institutions would interpret and implement the architecture independently, and within a decade what is labeled the platform's education architecture would mean substantially different things at different schools.

The liaison's authority is primarily advisory. The liaison helps institutions understand and implement the curriculum-approval framework, coordinates with field-specific accreditation bodies, surfaces emerging job fields that need curriculum updates, tracks outcomes data for the institution, provides a federal point of contact for the institution, and helps maintain consistency in the student-support architecture. The liaison has specific compliance functions where consistency is essential: verifying approved curricula are being taught faithfully, confirming counselor staffing meets ratios, and validating outcomes-data submission. The liaison does not direct course content beyond the approved-curriculum framework, does not have hiring authority over institutional staff, and does not override institutional academic decisions. The liaison is not a member of institutional administration; they sit alongside it.

The liaison serves as a bidirectional channel. Federal programs flow through the liaison to institutional implementation; local institutional needs, innovations, and implementation problems flow through the liaison back to federal program design. The bidirectional design is what makes parallel programs (USDA Cooperative Extension agents at land-grant universities, VA education benefit liaisons, Title IX coordinators) durable: liaisons are valued by both their federal employer and their host institution because they serve genuine functions for both. The Pillar Three liaison would have the same dual value.

Scope per campus scales with institutional size. Small institutions (fewer than five thousand students) share or have a part-time liaison. Medium institutions (five thousand to twenty-five thousand) have a full-time liaison. Large institutions (above twenty-five thousand) have a liaison team. Large state university systems have a system-level chief liaison plus campus-level liaisons. Total liaison workforce: approximately thirty-five hundred to four thousand FTE nationally. The Pillar Three administrative agency operates the training program (a federal program parallel to the Foreign Service Officer training model in structure) and the deployment program (multi-year campus assignments with rotation possible after five to seven years to prevent capture by institutional priorities). The liaison program design is identified as PERSONA-SIG-11 in Section 47.

## Cost Estimates and Financial Feasibility

The platform's commitment to Pillar Three at the architecture described above is substantial. Approximate annual cost components at expanded-access steady state with eighteen million students, in current dollars, before completion-rate improvements:

Undergraduate education (bachelor's and below) at cost-based pricing: approximately one hundred ten to one hundred forty billion dollars annually, depending on the share of expanded access taken up by community-college versus four-year tracks. Master's education at cost-based pricing: approximately fifteen to twenty-five billion dollars annually. Doctoral tuition coverage (research and professional doctorates): approximately ten to fifteen billion dollars annually. Doctoral living stipends at occupation-specific wage floors: approximately fifteen to twenty billion dollars annually. Student-support counselor workforce: approximately thirteen to fifteen billion dollars annually (excluding the mental-health portion, which is covered by Pillar Six). Federal liaison program: approximately five hundred to six hundred million dollars annually. Counselor-training pipeline (transition years): approximately two to three billion dollars annually for the first five to seven years, then steady-state replacement-level cost.

Total Pillar Three commitment at steady state: approximately one hundred eighty to two hundred fifty billion dollars annually. As a share of the Sovereign Fund's expected returns at the one hundred twenty-two trillion dollar target (six percent real returns equals approximately seven point three trillion dollars annually): two and a half to three and a half percent. Comfortably within the Fund's expected output, with substantial margin for cost variation and for the payroll contribution to Pillar Three providing additional funding. At the four percent scenario where the Sovereign Fund reaches sixty-two and a half trillion dollars, Pillar Three is six to ten percent of fund returns; still affordable, with the payroll contribution providing additional margin.

Net cost is substantially lower than gross cost because the student-support architecture produces completion-rate improvement. Current US four-year completion rates are approximately sixty percent. Research on intensive student support (the CUNY Accelerated Study in Associate Programs and related models) shows completion-rate improvements of fifteen to thirty percentage points when comprehensive support is provided. Applied to the platform: each non-completing student under the prior architecture represents wasted Fund spending (partial education that did not yield a credential or career capacity); reducing the non-completion rate captures that value. Higher completion produces higher lifetime earnings, which produces higher payroll-contribution returns to the Fund. Avoided repeat semesters and years save the Fund money directly. The net cost of the student-support architecture is plausibly negative; even on conservative assumptions, the gross cost is recovered substantially through completion improvement. This effect is identified as RESEARCH-15 in Section 47 because the magnitude requires actuarial validation against the specific demographic and institutional mix of the platform's eighteen-million-student steady state.

## Connections to Other Pillars

Pillar Three connects to multiple other pillars through shared infrastructure. Pillar Six (Universal Mental Health Access) provides the mental-health counselor delivery infrastructure used in the Student-Support Intervention Architecture; the Education Fund does not pay separately for university mental-health counselors. Pillar Four (Universal Healthcare) handles physical-health interventions when student-support issues are health-related; student health services route through Pillar Four infrastructure. Pillar Eight (Universal Paid Family Time) addresses family-related interruptions to study; a student-parent whose newborn needs them does not have to drop out, and a student whose aging parent needs care can pause without losing the Pillar Three funding window. Pillar Two (Empirical Wage Floors) provides the occupation-specific wage floor that determines doctoral stipend amounts at each geographic location. Pillar One (Community Contribution Plan) provides part of the payroll-based contribution to Pillar Three funding.

The integrated architecture produces support that single-pillar reform could not. A student whose mental-health support is provided by Pillar Six, whose physical-health needs are covered by Pillar Four, whose family-care interruption is covered by Pillar Eight, whose tuition and stipend are covered by Pillar Three, and whose post-graduation work pays at the Pillar Two occupation-specific wage floor: that student experiences a coherent system of supports that no single reform could provide. This integration is one of the strongest arguments for the platform's coherence as twelve pillars rather than twelve separate initiatives.

## Section 47 Items Added in This Iteration

v3.7.14 adds six entries to the Section 47 tracking table identifying external-expertise needs for Pillar Three:

PERSONA-SIG-10 (curriculum-approval body design): the institutional structure of the curriculum-approval body, the relationship to existing field-specific accreditation bodies, the methodology for defining and updating job fields, and the academic-freedom protections within the framework all require education-policy expertise to specify.

PERSONA-SIG-11 (federal liaison program design): the liaison program's governance, training, deployment, rotation, and authority structure all require federal-program-design expertise. The Cooperative Extension Service is the closest parallel; expertise in that program's institutional design is directly relevant.

PERSONA-SIG-12 (doctoral funding ecosystem transition): the transition from grant-based doctoral funding (RA/TA-funded stipends, project-tied tuition coverage) to Fund-based doctoral funding requires research-grant-ecosystem expertise to design. Federal research-grant agencies (NIH, NSF, DOE, DARPA, USDA) would update their grant frameworks; the transition mechanics matter for research capacity preservation.

RESEARCH-15 (student-support intervention completion-rate improvement validation): the fifteen-to-thirty-percentage-point completion-rate improvement estimate from intensive-support models requires validation against the specific demographic and institutional mix of the platform's eighteen-million-student steady state.

RESEARCH-16 (counselor workforce pipeline buildout): the five-to-seven-year timeline for buildout to one hundred thirty thousand counselor FTE requires workforce-development expertise to validate. Training-program throughput, salary-competitiveness with adjacent careers, and geographic-distribution feasibility all factor in.

RESEARCH-17 (Pillar Three stipend cost projection): the doctoral stipend cost projection at fifteen to twenty billion dollars annually requires actuarial validation, including the geographic distribution of doctoral programs and the occupation-specific wage floors that apply to each location.

## Closing

Pillar Three's expanded architecture in v3.7.14 makes education welcomed and encouraged, not limited. The architectural commitment removes per-person caps on fields and credentials pursued; extends coverage to doctoral tuition and living stipends; builds curriculum approval around job-field-backward design with general-education preservation; codifies credit transfer with substance test; commits the institution to attempt intervention when students struggle; establishes federal liaisons on campus to preserve cross-institutional consistency; and builds out the counselor workforce required to deliver the support architecture at scale. Total cost: approximately one hundred eighty to two hundred fifty billion dollars annually at steady state, with substantial recovery through completion-rate improvement. Financially feasible; substantively coherent with the rest of the platform's twelve pillars.