HB 1404 revises the eligibility requirements for the North Dakota scholarship by amending the academic and career-readiness pathways a high school student may use to qualify. The bill keeps the existing structure of multiple qualifying tracks, but updates and expands the specific combinations of test scores, coursework, grades, and experiential learning that can satisfy the scholarship standards. It continues to recognize college-preparatory, career and technical education, and military-oriented pathways, while adding or clarifying options such as WorkKeys scores, industry credentials, workplace learning, and specific military-related coursework.
Under the bill, a student must still complete requirements in two of the listed subdivisions while enrolled in grades 9 through 12, but the qualifying options are reorganized and broadened. The bill preserves traditional measures like ACT, SAT, AP, IB, dual-credit, algebra II, GPA, and fine arts, while also allowing CTE units, world language study, career-ready practices, technical assessments, work-based learning, ASVAB scores, JROTC, Civil Air Patrol, and military career courses to count toward eligibility. It also includes provisions for students in innovative education programs and for students who complete basic training after meeting certain ASVAB thresholds.
HB 1404 amends section 15.1-21-02.10 of the North Dakota Century Code, changing the statutory criteria used by the Department of Public Instruction to determine whether a student qualifies for the North Dakota scholarship. The practical effect is to expand and modernize the list of acceptable academic, career, and military preparation indicators, which may make the scholarship accessible to a broader range of students and better align eligibility with multiple postsecondary and workforce pathways.
The bill appears to have been broadly supported. It passed the House 87-1 and the Senate 45-1, indicating strong bipartisan approval and little visible opposition. The vote totals suggest lawmakers generally agreed with updating scholarship eligibility to reflect a wider range of student achievements and career preparation options.
There is little evidence of major contention in the available record, but the bill’s design suggests the main policy question was how broadly to define scholarship readiness. The inclusion of military pathways, career and technical education, and alternative assessments alongside traditional academic measures may have been the most notable area of debate in principle, though the overwhelming votes indicate any disagreements were limited. The lone dissenting votes in each chamber suggest isolated concern rather than organized opposition.