Concerning establishment of a high school student domestic exchange program.
SB26-069 would create the Colorado Domestic Exchange Program within the Colorado Department of Education to support a two-week domestic exchange experience for recent Colorado high school graduates. Under the program, participating students would spend one week in another state and one week hosting students from another state in their Colorado hometown, with the program covering meals, flights, activities, lodging, and transportation so students do not bear those costs.
The bill states that the purpose of the exchange is to expose students to communities with different political, socioeconomic, and cultural characteristics and to build empathy, belonging, optimism, and civic curiosity. It also includes a legislative finding that bringing out-of-state students to Colorado may encourage some to pursue postsecondary education or career opportunities in the state. The Department of Education would have to contract with an experienced coordinating entity to run the program, while the State Board of Education would oversee compliance, review reports, and provide guidance.
The bill would add a new article to Title 22 of the Colorado Revised Statutes establishing a new state education program and a corresponding cash fund. It authorizes the Department of Education and the State Board of Education to seek, accept, and expend gifts, grants, and donations, and makes program implementation contingent on raising at least $45,000 by June 30, 2027. The bill also creates reporting requirements through the SMART Act process and includes repeal provisions that would sunset the program and related sections unless the funding threshold is met and the program is activated.
The available record shows no committee testimony, vote tally, or recorded debate, so there is no detailed public discussion to gauge support or opposition. The bill’s framing suggests a positive, youth-development-oriented policy goal centered on cross-cultural understanding and student opportunity. However, its referral to the Senate Education Committee and subsequent postponement indefinitely indicate that it did not advance in that committee and may have faced insufficient support or unresolved concerns.
The main potential points of contention are likely to be the program’s funding structure, administrative complexity, and whether the state should create a new exchange initiative that depends entirely on private gifts, grants, or donations. Some may question the need for a state-run program for recent graduates, the use of public oversight for a privately funded effort, or whether the benefits justify the effort and cost. Supporters would likely emphasize student enrichment, civic understanding, and access for students who otherwise could not afford travel, while skeptics may focus on implementation and sustainability.