Pennsylvania House Bill HB1473

Pennsylvania 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 5/21/25
• Refer: 5/21/25

Caption

In higher education accountability and transparency, providing for department approval for campus closures.

Summary

HB1473 would amend the Pennsylvania Public School Code to create a new requirement for State-related universities that plan to close a campus. Beginning with the 2025-2026 school year, any such university would have to submit an alternative education plan to the Department of Education before closing a campus. The plan must describe how students in the affected region will continue to have access to higher education and may include options such as partnerships with public institutions, satellite classroom programs, or tuition assistance for students who must travel elsewhere to finish their degrees. The Department of Education would review each submitted plan and approve it only if it meets the bill’s requirements. If the department disapproves a plan, the university may resubmit within 30 days. If the department does not act within 30 days, the plan is deemed disapproved. A university that fails to submit a plan, or whose plan is disapproved, would be barred from receiving payment from a state appropriation for that fiscal year. The bill defines covered institutions as Penn State, Pitt, Temple, Lincoln University, and their branch campuses, and it applies to public institutions of higher education that could be part of an alternative access plan.

Impact

The bill would add a new layer of state oversight to campus closure decisions by State-related universities and tie compliance to state funding. It would not directly prohibit closures, but it would condition receipt of appropriated funds on submitting and obtaining approval for an alternative education plan. The measure would affect the Public School Code of 1949 and specifically the higher education accountability and transparency provisions, while also implicating the operations of State-related universities, branch campuses, the Department of Education, and potentially partner institutions such as community colleges, State System universities, and other public colleges.

Sentiment

The bill’s tone is generally protective of regional access to higher education and skeptical of campus closures, especially in rural and underserved areas. The findings emphasize taxpayer investment, land-grant obligations, and the need to preserve educational opportunities for Pennsylvanians. Because there is no recorded committee debate or vote history in the provided materials, there is no documented opposition or support from lawmakers in the transcript record, but the bill’s structure suggests a policy preference for maintaining local access rather than allowing unilateral closures.

Contention

The main point of contention is likely the bill’s use of state appropriations as leverage over State-related universities, which could be viewed as a strong intrusion into institutional governance and campus planning. Universities may object to mandatory departmental approval, the short review timeline, and the possibility that a plan is automatically disapproved if the department does not act within 30 days. Supporters, by contrast, would likely argue that public funding justifies oversight and that students and rural communities should not lose access to higher education without a transition plan. Another possible issue is whether the bill’s definition of acceptable alternatives is flexible enough to fit different campuses and regional needs.