Transcript Highlights:

• So while no one institution can support German language, collaboratively one institution could step forward
• So while no one institution can support German language, collaboratively, one institution could step
• The rates by the institutions.
• We need our institutions to do it.
• , what each institution is ranking as their peers to get a sense of where are they at, ...institution

Committee: Joint Higher Education Funding Review Committee

Summary: The Higher Education Funding Review Committee met to continue work on a draft higher education funding formula and related capital building fund changes. Lisa Johnson of the North Dakota University System updated the committee on the board’s developing policy for low-producing academic programs. She said the board is using a five-year rolling window, with thresholds of fewer than 10 undergraduate graduates or fewer than 5 graduate graduates, and that programs flagged in three consecutive review cycles would go to the board for review. Possible outcomes include continuation, continuation with modifications, inactivation, or termination. Members asked about how the policy would account for enrollment, program costs, workforce need, and programs that serve students outside their major. Johnson said the board would likely use an accompanying procedure to consider those factors. She also reported that about 200 programs could potentially be reviewed under current guidance, with 135 inactivated and 112 terminated, and said the process is intended to support quality and stewardship rather than simply cut programs. Jamie Wilkie then reported on the Capital Building Fund. He reviewed the fund’s history, matching requirements, and use for extraordinary repairs, deferred maintenance, and some legislatively authorized projects. He said about $334 million in state and matching dollars has been invested overall, with roughly 78.7% going to deferred maintenance and extraordinary repairs. Committee members pressed for updated information on how much deferred maintenance has actually been reduced, and several members said they wanted clearer reporting on the return on investment from new buildings versus repairs. NDSU representatives said the tier funding has helped significantly reduce deferred maintenance and allowed demolition and renovation work on campus. The committee also discussed the need for updated five-year facility plans and space-utilization information from the institutions. The committee then began a section-by-section review of a draft bill that would replace the current higher education funding formula with an FTE-based model and restructure the capital building fund. The draft would fund UND and NDSU differently from the other nine institutions, use fall enrollment rather than completed credits, add performance funding for completions in in-demand fields, create research incentives for UND and NDSU, and combine capital building fund tiers while changing matching requirements and eligible uses. Members raised concerns about the treatment of professional students, the use of CIP codes, incentives for waivers, and whether the formula should rely on more current data. The committee did not take final action on the draft during this meeting, but it continued detailed discussion and indicated more review would follow.

Transcript Highlights:

• Your institution may become eligible if the institution is not entitled to receive PUF support.
• Our institutions are focused on looking.
• academic institutions.
• UHV is an institution of opportunity.
• Among our institutions, Texas Tech University currently faces a $50 million reduction. for institutional

Committee: House Appropriations - S/C on Article III

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• INSTITUTIONS OF FLORIDA AND INSTITUTIONS LICENSED BY THE COMMISSION FOR INDEPENDENT EDUCATION.
• THE RESEARCH IS NOT THE ONLY FOCUS OF OUR CENTERS AND INSTITUTES.
• THE FIRST CATEGORY IS THE STATE OF FLORIDA CENTERS AND INSTITUTES.
• AND THIS IS WHERE MOST OF OUR CENTERS AND INSTITUTES ARE.
• I'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT HARBOR BRANCH OCEANOGRAPHIC INSTITUTE AND PART OF THE INSTITUTE IS NOW PART OF

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So passing at one institution may be less than what the receiving institution requires.
• That's very institution to institution.
• Another institution may become eligible if the institution is not entitled to receive PUF support and
• As a reminder, appropriations to institutions are lump sum, meaning institutions may spend funds out
• allocate the funds to each institution.

Bills: SB1 , SB 1

Committee: Senate Finance

Keywords: appropriations, budget, state funding, education, healthcare, infrastructure, campground safety, youth camp regulations, flood safety, emergency evacuation, health and safety standards, 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So while no one institution can support German language, collaboratively, one institution could step
• So while no one institution can support German language, collaboratively, one institution could step
• The rates by the institutions.
• We need our institutions to do it.
• other institutions.

Committee: Joint Higher Education Funding Review Committee

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> that hold institutions to the standards. that hold institutions to the standards.
• </c> that is an institution in Connecticut. that is an institution in Connecticut.
• Is it at the accrediting institution, or is it the peer review institutions?
• </c> for-profit institutions. That's right. for-profit institutions. That's right.
• </c> institutions in the university system. institutions in the university system.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee heard updates from the chancellors of the state university system and the community college system on ongoing restructuring, collaboration, and enrollment trends. The university system said its office move to the NHTI campus is ahead of schedule and should save students about $250,000 a year while creating revenue for the community college system. Both systems described continued work on transfer pathways, direct-admit outreach, shared advising, and broader efforts to shrink footprints, reduce costs, and improve operational efficiency in response to declining enrollment and demographic pressure. A major topic was a possible federal change to Pell Grant eligibility that would require students to enroll in at least 7.5 credits. The chancellors said most community college students are part-time because of work and family responsibilities, and that the change could affect roughly 2,000 current Pell recipients and make it harder for students to afford or sustain enrollment. Members also discussed how the state’s governor’s scholarship statute largely benefits full-time students, suggesting possible future statutory changes. The chancellors explained how credits typically work, noting most courses are three or four credits and that students would likely need to add an entire course to meet the proposed threshold. The committee also discussed the broader higher education landscape, including declining high school cohorts, competition among New England institutions, and the need to right-size capacity. One member raised concerns about the health of regional campuses such as Plymouth and Keene; the chancellors said incoming enrollment is down at UNH and Plymouth and holding at Keene, attributing the trend to demographics rather than one campus drawing students away from another. They emphasized the importance of community colleges, adult learners, and short-term workforce programs as part of the state’s future education mix. Finally, the committee touched on the value of the university system’s research enterprise. The chancellor said about $250 million a year flows into the university system in federal research grants, with about $9.5 million currently under stop-work orders from federal agencies. She said the immediate concern is not DEI-related but federal cuts and possible caps on indirect cost recovery. Members noted that the R1 research designation supports business partnerships, student opportunities, and economic development projects such as West Edge in Durham.

Transcript Highlights:

• , in case you're curious about those specific institution numbers.
• Now, these are an average for all of the four-year institutions.
• This is the same information for the two-year institutions.
• Would you like it by institution? Yes, I'd like it by institution.
• Would you like it by institution? Yes, I'd like it by institution.

Bills: HB2148 , HB2132

Committee: House Postsecondary Education & Workforce

Keywords: education, pay it forward program, tuition, student loans, financial aid, state financial aid, financial aid application, postsecondary education, higher education, student aid, Washington Student Achievement Council, public records exemption, privacy, student records, personally identifying information, financial information, data sharing agreement, enrollment assistance, institutional records, FERPA

Transcript Highlights:

• institutions institutions Dash<00:42:02.080><c> panel.
• . institutions. institutions.
• . institutions. institutions.
• . institutions. institutions.
• . institutions. institutions.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The House Postsecondary Education Committee held its first-ever meeting and first meeting of the session, with Chairman Tipton outlining committee procedures, attendance rules, and the process for submitting committee substitutes. After a roll call confirmed full attendance, the committee heard a presentation from Senator David Givens on the history and purpose of Kentucky’s performance-based funding model for postsecondary education. Givens said the model was created to replace an older “shares” approach that distributed funds based largely on prior-year allocations, and argued the new system better aligns funding with student success and the state’s long-term educational attainment goals. Council for Postsecondary Education President Aaron Thompson and CPE staff then explained the model in more detail. They said the system was designed to address long-standing funding disparities among institutions, reward outcomes such as degrees, credit-hour progression, and completion in high-demand fields, and support the state’s “60 by 30” goal of having 60% of Kentuckians hold a postsecondary credential by 2030. Thompson said Kentucky is now at 56.2% attainment, above the national average, and highlighted gains in graduation and retention rates, lower student borrowing, and improved completion outcomes. He also emphasized that the model is part of a broader strategy that includes affordability, adult learners, low-income students, and wrap-around support services. CPE staff described the work group process that developed and periodically revises the model, noting that the General Assembly created the framework in House Bill 303 and later enacted Senate Bill 153 and Senate Bill 191 to codify changes. They explained that in 2016 the legislature carved out about 5% of institutional budgets, roughly $43 million, to be redistributed through the new model, and that the model has been reviewed every three years with changes made each time. Recent revisions included increasing the student-success weight, adding a premium for low-income students, creating a premium for adult learners, and redefining underrepresented students as first-generation college students. No votes were taken at this meeting, and the committee adjourned after the informational presentation and discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• to the receiving institution.
• The programs that are appropriate to their respective institutions, well, and, you know, the institutions
• My institution is very tactical.
• So it is an institution-by-institution issue. And really around STEM programs transferring.
• So it is an institution-by-institution issue. I got to go back.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Higher Education met with a quorum, adopted its interim rules on a 6-0 vote, and heard opening remarks from members and staff introductions. The chair emphasized higher education’s role in workforce development and noted a Legislative Budget Board survey issue that was resolved after a community college initially did not respond because the survey was marked optional. The committee then focused on monitoring implementation of Senate Bill 37, which governs public higher education boards, curriculum review, faculty senates/councils, training for regents, and the ombudsman office. Testimony from Chancellor Brandon Creighton of Texas Tech, Commissioner Wynn Rosser, UNT Chancellor Michael Williams, and Ombudsman Brandon Simmons described how SB 37 is being implemented. They said boards now have stronger authority, faculty senates are advisory, and institutions are reviewing general education curricula and other programs for rigor, relevance, and workforce value. Rosser said the statewide advisory committee is reviewing the core curriculum and board training requirements are being administered, while Simmons reported the ombudsman office has received 73 complaints, opened two investigations, and expects a third, with many complaints outside its jurisdiction or harassing in nature. Members questioned witnesses about transfer credits, board training content, auditing, conflicts of interest, curriculum decisions, and whether any institutions were missing deadlines. Rosser said non-transferable credits have declined since reporting began under earlier law, and that the most common reason is courses outside degree requirements. Witnesses said they were not aware of institutions missing the SB 37 review deadlines. Senators also raised concerns about an appearance of impropriety in a Texas Tech-related matter and about whether a Dred Scott case should be taught in law school, with Creighton saying the curriculum review process did not prohibit teaching Supreme Court cases and that he would follow up. Later testimony from University of Houston, Texas State, UT, and Texas A&M system officials said their systems had updated policies, abolished prior faculty senates, created compliant advisory councils, and completed or were completing core curriculum reviews and related governance changes.

Transcript Highlights:

• , or whether it's a private institution.
• and the pressure on private institutions?
• We need action at the institution level and the state level.
• And this really is where Hispanic-serving institutions come in.
• These institutions are made stronger and better for all.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Racial Equity, Civil Rights, and Inclusion

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Racial Equity, Civil Rights, and Inclusion held an informational hearing on “Protecting Equity in Higher Education” and emphasized that no bills were being heard. Members and witnesses focused on the effects of recent federal actions on DEI, admissions, financial aid, student loans, international students, and campus equity efforts in Massachusetts. Opening remarks from the co-chairs and the chair of Higher Education highlighted Massachusetts’ investments in free community college, expanded financial aid, and early college programs, while warning that federal policy changes could undermine those gains. Testimony from BU law professor Jonathan Feingold argued that many DEI practices remain legally defensible after Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, and that the decision did not end all race-conscious or equity-oriented efforts. He said the Trump administration’s anti-DEI actions and funding threats were legally suspect and had created confusion and a chilling effect. Bahar Akman-in-Boden of the Hildreth Institute testified that proposed federal cuts to TRIO, Gear Up, Pell Grants, SEOG, work-study, and student loan programs would disproportionately harm low-income, first-generation, Black, Latino, and other underserved students, and urged the state to prepare hold-harmless and advising supports using Fair Share revenue. Commissioner Noe Ortega described Massachusetts’ long history of equity in higher education and said the state has expanded aid, success programs, and early college, but still has work to do on attainment and completion. He said the state responded to SFFA by creating ACARE and continuing to defend equity practices, while also warning that federal disruptions and “dear colleague” letters have created uncertainty. In the second panel, state university leaders and campus officials said federal threats to Pell, DEI grants, Medicaid, and international student policies could affect access, campus operations, and the economy; they stressed that most state university graduates stay in Massachusetts and that institutions are continuing their equity practices despite federal pressure. Roxbury Community College’s president said RCC remains committed to open access and inclusion, noted enrollment growth, and said executive orders do not change existing law or the college’s obligations.

Transcript Highlights:

• All 13 of our institutions are in the PUF.
• None of our institutions are in the HEAF or the TUF.
• institutional grants.
• institutions continue to rely on stable and predictable state funds for institutional operations that
• Our system includes institutions supported by the Permanent University Fund, institutions supported by

Summary: The Senate Committee on Higher Education met to review interim charges on the Permanent University Fund (PUF), the Available University Fund (AUF), the Higher Education Fund (HEAF), and the Texas University Fund (TUF). Legislative Budget Board staff outlined how each fund works, including PUF’s constitutional role for UT and Texas A&M, HEAF’s capital support for institutions outside those systems, and TUF’s research funding for eligible universities. They also described TUF’s growing corpus and distribution changes, and noted which institutions are nearing eligibility. Committee members asked about distribution formulas, comparisons to other states, and how funds are allocated among system institutions.

Transcript Highlights:

• Collaborate with another institution, maybe dedicate institutional resources to make this a go.
• But do we need it at five institutions or six institutions?
• But do we need it at five institutions or six institutions?
• So by that I mean we have higher education institutions... ...institutions that are willing and able
• I would be interested in looking at maybe the last three bienniums on an institution-by-institution basis

Summary: The committee met to review updates on low-completion academic programs, dual credit funding, and a draft higher education funding formula bill. Lisa Johnson of the University System explained the State Board of Higher Education’s proposed policy on low-completion programs, which would review associate through doctoral programs with fewer than 10 undergraduate or fewer than 5 graduate completions over a rolling five-year period. She said campuses already know which programs are low-performing, many terminations have involved programs with no students, and faculty are often reassigned rather than laid off. Members asked about online programs, the basis for the 10/5 thresholds, reactivation of inactive programs, and whether state priorities include workforce needs and legislative direction. The committee also discussed that some programs, such as sonography or foreign languages, may continue because of workforce or regional needs, and that the board’s policy is still moving through the approval process. The committee then heard a Commerce Department update on a $750,000 workforce development grant for tribally controlled colleges under SB 2018. Kerry Kraft reported that Turtle Mountain Community College was the only applicant and that it is using the grant to develop dual credit and workforce pathways in areas such as cybersecurity, medical assisting, welding, solar energy, public safety, and health care. Members asked why other tribal colleges did not apply, how many students are participating, and whether the program belongs in the Commerce budget or higher education budget. Kraft said the project is still in development, with no current enrollments yet, but the college has a goal of 210 students and has historically met a 75% completion rate or better. A major portion of the meeting focused on dual credit funding. Senator Sickler summarized the Institutions Committee’s work on quality, access, and cost, noting that most high school dual credit instructors now meet credentialing requirements and that access varies by region and school district preference. He presented cost data showing variation among campuses and discussed a possible single funding rate for subsidized dual credit, using a lower base rate as a model. Members questioned the direct and indirect cost calculations, whether dual credit is already funded through the formula, and whether a separate dual credit rate would require removing those credits from the general funding formula to avoid double payment. The committee then turned to a draft funding formula bill, with staff explaining technical corrections, a change to make UND and NDSU align with the other institutions’ undergraduate rates, a four-year average for research funding, and other revisions. Members discussed the overall fiscal impact, with staff estimating the proposal would increase funding compared with the current formula, and the committee also raised concerns about how dual credit, Tier 1 funding, and certificate programs should be treated in the formula. No final vote was taken, and the committee recessed to allow staff to refine the numbers and additional comparisons.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, literally decades ago, the state established that institution A would get this much money, institution
• The state established that institution A would get this much money, institution B would get this much
• the institutions that address their programs to meet those needs.
• It will include the input of the institutions.
• And then... ...what are the missions of the institution, the programs of the institution relative to

Committee: House Higher Education and Workforce Development

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , not institution, district.
• Why is it double for a smaller institution than it is for a larger institution?
• Why is it double for a smaller institution than it is for a larger institution?
• in the state, but our teaching production institutions of the state and our workforce production institutions
• So they shut it down, the institute.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The Higher Education Funding Committee met to discuss possible changes to North Dakota’s higher education funding formula, with a particular focus on separating the UND School of Medicine and Health Sciences MD program from the general formula. Dr. Jenkins outlined several options for the MD program, including a fixed-funding model, a hybrid model, or keeping it in the formula, and emphasized the need to preserve strong support for medical education while making future funding clearer. He also discussed efforts to increase the share of North Dakota students in the MD program through ND85, expanded recruiting, early acceptance pathways, MCAT prep, a four-plus-one program, and the Primary Care Accelerated Track, along with future cost pressures such as AI licensing and residency growth. The committee then reviewed a simplified funding model from the University System Office that would base funding more heavily on student FTE, credentials awarded, and a few incentive factors such as small institution and research adjustments. Members questioned the use of placeholder numbers, the lack of a clear methodology for the small institution and research factors, and whether the model would adequately account for differences among institutions, high-cost programs, and graduate education. Several members raised concerns that arbitrary factors would be hard to defend politically and could distort funding or create competition between schools, while others said the exercise was useful as a starting point for discussion. Alex presented a second alternative that kept the current SIP-code structure but increased CTE weighting, added a progressive economic size factor, and separated out the MD program. His model also added an on-campus face-to-face headcount component and a credentials component, with the intent of rewarding in-person enrollment and completions. Members questioned the use of headcount instead of FTE, how hybrid, online, dual-credit, and off-campus students would be treated, and why face-to-face enrollment was weighted more heavily than completion. No formal votes or final actions were taken; the committee instead continued discussion and asked members to provide direction on which elements, if any, should be developed further.

Transcript Highlights:

• Institutions can also receive tuition revenue.
• This is the same information for the two-year institution.
• This is the same information for the two-year institutions.
• Would you like it by institution? Yes, I'd like it by institution.
• Would you like it by institution? Yes, I'd like it by institution.

Summary: The Postsecondary Education & Workforce Committee held a work session on higher education funding and then public hearings on House Bill 2148 and House Bill 2132. In the work session, OPR staff Kate Henry reviewed enrollment trends, tuition policy, financial aid programs, and funding sources for Washington’s public colleges and universities. Members asked about FTE versus headcount, tuition growth, the Washington College Grant, College Bound, and the Workforce Education Investment Account. Henry explained how state appropriations, tuition, and financial aid interact, and noted that higher education makes up a significant share of the state budget. No votes were taken during the work session. House Bill 2148 would create a “pay-it-forward” graduate student aid program administered by the Student Achievement Council, allowing students to receive tuition support and later make income-based contributions for up to 15 years to fund future students. Sponsor Rep. Reid said the bill is intended to offset the loss of federal graduate loan options and support workforce needs in fields like nursing, teaching, and research. Committee questions focused on repayment terms, possible caps, interest, and program capitalization. Testimony was overwhelmingly supportive, with students and advocates arguing the bill would expand access to graduate education and avoid predatory private debt. House Bill 2132 would limit disclosure and retention of personally identifying and financial information from WASFA applications, generally requiring the Student Achievement Council and institutions to stop retaining that information after one year following the award year unless needed for an audit or appeal. Rep. Leavitt said the bill is meant to reduce unnecessary long-term retention of sensitive student data and improve privacy and security. Supporters, including student leaders and immigrant-advocacy groups, said the bill would protect vulnerable students and increase trust in the aid process. Some members raised concerns about whether shorter retention could affect future record needs, including immigration-related documentation, but the sponsor said students can keep their own records and that the bill preserves audit authority. The hearing ended without a vote, and the chair noted an upcoming busy schedule and cutoff deadlines.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, literally decades ago, the state established that institution A would get this much money, institution
• The state established that institution A would get this much money, institution B would get this much
• the institutions that address their programs to meet those needs.
• It will include the input of the institutions.
• And then what are the missions of the institution, the programs of the institution, relative to the needs

Committee: House Higher Education and Workforce Development

Summary: The Committee on Higher Education and Workforce Development met in executive session and first took up House Bill 2585. The committee adopted a House Committee substitute and a separate amendment, both described as clerical and technical changes to align the bill with Department of Higher Education workflow and state and federal law. The substitute for HB 2585 was then approved do pass by a 10-0 roll call vote. The committee then held a public hearing on House Bill 1627, which would revise the Career and Technical Education Advisory Council by adding the Commissioner of Higher Education or designee, increasing business and commerce representation, shortening member terms, reducing required meetings, and adjusting reporting requirements. Representative Haley said the changes would better reflect workforce needs and strengthen ties between education and industry. The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education testified in support, saying the changes were recommended by the advisory group. No opposition testimony was offered. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 2123, a broader higher education funding proposal that also includes a Bright Flight scholarship increase to full in-state tuition. Representative Black and Representative Shields described the bill as an effort to modernize Missouri’s long-standing base-plus funding model by moving toward a metric- and performance-based system tied to workforce needs, with a phased testing and approval process before implementation. Department of Higher Education and Workforce Development staff, the Missouri Community College Association, and the Council on Public Higher Education testified in support of continuing the work, though the council urged removing bill language that was too specific about the consultant’s model and timeline. Some members raised concerns about fiscal impact, implementation, and whether the model could be rolled out without harming institutions or students. The hearing on HB 2123 concluded without any vote taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• Our institutions use this as well.
• Our institutions use this as well. puts these numbers together. Our institutions use this as well.
• How does this work for our institutions?
• I think the world where our institutions can compete head to head, particularly public institutions,
• So if you're an adult learner and you need to pick something here at this institution and that institution

Committee: House Joint Committee on Education

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• 24 institutions in the state of New Mexico.
• So we've had a few institutions, higher ed institutions. That were hit this year, right?
• That's dispersed to the institutions.
• Public higher education institutions.
• We are asking for a reauth so we have that money ready to go for the institutions or institution depending

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We have one institution that does like American Sign Language.
• So, yes, it certainly benefited a particular institution, while other institutions could argue we have
• That's all I have for the two research institutions formula.
• And the question I would ask then for our institutions is, are we creating a moving target for our institutions
• “The four-year regional institutions is about $6,000 to $8,000, and then the two research institutions

Committee: Joint Higher Education Funding Review Committee

Summary: The Higher Ed Funding Committee met to review a proposed process for identifying and addressing low-producing academic programs, then moved into discussion of draft funding formulas for the university system. Lisa Johnson of the ND University System described how other states and systems define low-producing programs, emphasizing multi-year enrollment and completion thresholds, cost and workforce review, and the role of governing boards. She reported that North Dakota institutions already review programs in varying cycles, often use shared resources and stackable credentials to keep low-enrollment programs viable, and cited recent system actions over five years: 100 programs placed on inactivation, 75 terminated, and 384 new programs created. Committee members raised concerns about workforce-critical programs, duplication, exemptions, and whether the legislature or the State Board of Higher Education should drive the process. The chair said he wanted the board to bring a detailed proposal to the June meeting and suggested the legislature may use funding leverage, including a possible holdback, to encourage the review process. The committee then heard a Legislative Council presentation on a draft funding formula for UND and NDSU. The proposal used fall census FTE enrollment, with a placeholder rate of $7,000 per undergraduate FTE and $10,500 per graduate/professional FTE, plus incentives for completions in high-demand fields and research productivity. Alex from Legislative Council explained that the formula also included separate treatment for research funding, external grants, and capital building tiers, and that the MD program at UND would remain fixed funding outside the formula. Members questioned the use of the placeholder rates, the in-demand program list, the treatment of external grants, and how the proposal compared with current appropriations. The chair noted that the formula numbers were illustrative and not final budget amounts. A second draft formula for the other nine institutions was also reviewed. It used fall census FTE with no weighted economic factor, a higher undergraduate rate of $8,750 per FTE, and completion incentives for in-demand credentials and all other credentials. Members noted that the proposal would benefit some institutions, such as Bismarck State College, while reducing funding for others, such as Mayville State, and questioned whether the same structure should apply across institutions with very different missions and sizes. Committee discussion focused on fairness, hold-harmless concerns, and whether the nine institutions should be grouped differently. The committee did not take formal action, but the chair indicated the formulas would continue to be discussed later in the meeting and in future work.

Transcript Highlights:

• Our institutions use this as well.
• Our institutions use this as well.
• How does this work for our institutions?
• I think the world when our institutions can compete head-to-head, particularly public institutions, that
• So if you're an adult learner and you need to pick something here at this institution and that institution

Committee: House Joint Committee on Education

Summary: The Joint Committee on Education met to hear an informational presentation from the Department of Higher Education and Workforce Development on Missouri’s higher education funding model and related workforce trends. Commissioner Bennett Boggs described the department’s mission, its data and workforce partnerships, and the need to better align postsecondary education with Missouri’s labor market, noting projections that 65% of jobs in the 2030s will require education beyond high school. He emphasized that the current “base-plus” funding approach dates to 1992 and no longer reflects demographic, technological, or economic changes, and said the department wants every institution to remain healthy and serve its region. Deputy Commissioner Leroye Wade outlined a proposed cost-based, performance-informed funding framework with four main parts: fixed costs, variable program costs, performance measures, and a mechanism for targeted legislative investment. He said the model is intended to be data-driven, transparent, and more responsive to enrollment changes, program mix, completion outcomes, workforce needs, and collaboration among institutions. He also reviewed the history of the effort, including a 2022 legislative appropriation for a study, a 2023 report, and subsequent interim and bill activity. Committee members asked about educational attainment goals, the P20W longitudinal data system, persistence and completion rates, and how the model would account for mission differences and student outcomes. Representative John Black, sponsor of the bill discussed, said the legislation is meant to move Missouri toward a 21st-century higher education funding system by tying appropriations more closely to state goals and institutional performance rather than continuing automatic across-the-board increases. He said the department’s work and the bill are intended to prompt continued refinement of the model, and he warned that declining enrollments and tight state finances make reform urgent. No votes were taken; the committee heard the presentation, allowed brief public comment, and then adjourned.