Background: Federal lawmakers passed the Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education (TEACH) Grant program in 2008 to incentivize enrollment in bachelor's and master's degrees in education and to reduce teacher labor supply issues in high-need fields at low-income schools. The program offers undergraduate and graduate students up to $16,000 and $8,000, respectively, in grant aid. TEACH Grant recipients are required to teach in high-need fields at low-income schools for at least 4 out of 8 years after completing their program; otherwise, grants convert to unsubsidized Stafford loans. Despite its good intentions, and as a result of program complexities, TEACH may not be fulfilling its goals of improving the supply of qualified and credentialed teachers. Purpose & Research Questions: This study attempts to better understand which institutions participate in TEACH and its effects on undergraduate and graduate degree production in education. I focus on the following research questions: (1) Did TEACH increase education degree production for participating versus non-participating schools?; and (2) Did TEACH differentially improve education degree production for minority-serving institutions? The questions hold direct implications for whether TEACH has achieved its primary goal of alleviating teacher labor supply issues as well as for whether TEACH is a viable policy solution for improving teacher diversity. Setting: TEACH is a US-based policy and, accordingly, this study focuses on the US. Population: The population of interest is college and university enrollment and degree completion from 2000 through 2022. Intervention/Program: The TEACH Grant program was passed in 2008 with the expressed intent of improving teacher recruitment and retention in high-need fields at low-income schools. The program attempts to achieve this goal by providing undergraduate and graduate students grant aid to support the cost of attendance and to cover any program fees associated with teacher certification. Colleges with eligible teacher education programs can participate in the program and are responsible for counseling prospective TEACH Grant recipients on the various program stipulations and requirements. In the 15 years since TEACH was initially implemented, the program has faced a series of challenges, including high grant to loan conversion rates among grant recipients and stagnant institutional participation. For instance, more than 1 in 2 TEACH Grant recipients ultimately see their grants converted to loans as a result of failing to meet all program requirements. The Department of Education implemented more lenient grant to loan conversion policies in 2021, but institutional participation in TEACH has stagnated. Research Design: I use a synthetic difference-in-differences (SDID) design to causally estimate the effects of TEACH on education degree production. This approach compares outcomes for TEACH participating and non-participating institutions before and after policy implementation. Compared to a more traditional difference-in-differences analysis, SDID is advantageous in this context for several reasons. First, SDID reweights and matches observations using observables of treated units in the post-adoption period and time-period weights to construct a control group with parallel trends in the pre-period (Arkhangelsky et al., 2021). This is important, as participating and nonparticipating institutions may have differed along key characteristics and experienced different trends in outcomes before the implementation of TEACH. Second, SDID can offer unbiased estimates even when staggered treatment adoption is present. While TEACH was implemented in 2008, institutions had discretion on when they started to participate in TEACH. I use subgroup analysis to estimate effects for early adopters, or institutions that implemented TEACH within the first 3 program years, and for minority-serving institutions. Data Collection & Analysis: I use publicly available data on bachelor's and master's degrees awarded in education from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). These data include institution by year level information on the number of degrees awarded in education as well as institutional characteristics such as student enrollment demographics, institutional finances, and college type and sector. I merge in data from the Office of Federal Student Aid, which include institution by year level information on the number of TEACH Grant recipients and disbursement totals from 2008 to 2022. Results: Preliminary findings suggest that TEACH has had limited effects on the number of degrees awarded in education and no differential effects for minority-serving institutions. Muted effects appear to be driven by two factors: declining or stagnant institutional participation and persistently high grant to loan conversion. Even after taking into account recent changes to cut down on grant to loan conversion, only about 1 in 2 eligible institutions participate in TEACH. Minority-serving institutions are just as likely as non-minority serving institutions to receive TEACH, but do not appear to differentially produce more education degrees. Program complexities and stipulations around grant to loan conversion may limit the reach and effectiveness of TEACH in recruiting and retaining teachers. Conclusion: Amid ongoing conversations on how best to improve teacher recruitment and retention, I offer causal estimates on the federal TEACH program. I find that the program had limited effects on education degree production. By functioning more as a backdoor loan program, TEACH has yet to reach its potential in supporting the teacher pipeline. Reducing grant to loan stipulations might help to improve institutional and student participation in TEACH. TEACH Grant aid alone might also fall short of addressing the myriad of issues contributing to labor supply issues in high-need fields at low-income schools.