Transcript Highlights:

• These are institutions that are vital to our state.
• This is about funding to students, not institutions.
• Because I think the money does get to the institution at the end.
• Some essential programs actually exist only at private institutions.
• Some essential programs actually exist only at private institutions.

Bills: HB2498 , HB2443 , HB2567 , HB2363 , HB2422

Committee: House Postsecondary Education & Workforce

Keywords: nursing education, nursing program standards, board of nursing, state board, national accreditation, accreditation body, nursing school, nurse educator, clinical simulation, simulation director, lead nurse educator, NCLEX, licensure exam pass rate, corrective action plan, technical assistance, higher education, program approval, Washington RCW, professional development, nursing licensure

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh want to talk just a institutions.
• ><c> best</c><00:50:50.640><c> of</c> the institutions with the best of the institutions with the best
• </c> I didn't rule out any institutions I didn't rule out any institutions because<01:09:26.960><c> of
• Also really important for higher education institutions themselves, public and private institutions.
• <01:25:53.360><c> them</c><01:25:53.440><c> are</c> institutions already, many of them are institutions

Committee: Senate Higher Education

Transcript Highlights:

• happen at any of our institutions?
• And we are not just at the women’s institution, but at all of our institutions, we have an aggressive
• So, you know, while that, not to go into that specific incident, but at that institution or female institutions
• You know, when things arise at the institutions and it gets to my level, I'm out there at those institutions
• Facility-wise, again, we do keep those. institutional institutions, but operationally it does not make

Committee: Senate Rules

Summary: The Senate Committee on Rules first handled several routine items, including governor’s appointments not required to appear, references to bills, and floor acknowledgments. The committee approved the appointments of Heather Lynn Gonzalez and Allison Salton-Sall to the Court Reporters Board, and then moved on to appointments required to appear from the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). Kathleen Ratliff and Joseph Tuggle, both proposed associate directors in CDCR’s Division of Adult Institutions, testified about their backgrounds and emphasized staff safety, rehabilitation, trauma-informed practices, and the California model. Senators focused heavily on the rollout of the California model, the August 2024 use-of-force incident at Central California Women’s Facility, sexual abuse prevention, retaliation concerns, and prison visitation. Both nominees said the department had improved communication and training, had disciplined or removed staff in response to misconduct, and was working to strengthen PREA reporting, investigations, and family visiting consistency. Public testimony was strongly supportive, and the committee voted 4-0 to send both nominations to the Senate floor. The committee then heard from Jason Johnson, nominated as CDCR Undersecretary of Operations. Johnson framed his work around rehabilitation, public safety, and culture change, and addressed concerns raised in late opposition letters and a lawsuit alleging retaliation, hostile work environment, discrimination, and whistleblower issues. He said he could not discuss pending litigation in detail, but described his leadership as focused on accountability, professional standards, and improving relationships with staff and community partners. Senators questioned him about parole supervision, risk assessment, contraband interdiction, and the Prison Rape Elimination Act response; Johnson said adult parole uses risk-based supervision and GPS for registered sex offenders, operations is working with correctional safety and law enforcement on contraband and drone interdiction, and CDCR continues to expand reporting channels and training. The committee also discussed the importance of rehabilitation and reentry programs, with Johnson saying most people return to the community and that CDCR must prepare them for successful reintegration.

Transcript Highlights:

• These are institutions that are vital to our state.
• These are institutions that are vital to our state.
• This is about funding to students, not institutions.
• Because I think the money does get to the institution at the end.
• It would be a Christian institution.

Summary: The Postsecondary Education & Workforce Committee held courtesy hearings on three bills before moving to executive session. House Bill 2443 would create an Armed Forces Reserve post-secondary education grant for members of the Armed Forces Reserve and their spouses or dependents, with repayment required unless the reservist serves one year for each year of benefit received. The prime sponsor said the bill is intended to extend educational support similar to what Washington National Guard members already receive. Testimony was generally supportive, emphasizing military readiness, recruitment, and fairness to reservists; one clarification was made that the bill applies to Armed Forces Reserve members broadly, not just the Army Reserve. House Bill 2567 would restore Washington College Grant and College Bound Scholarship award amounts for students attending four-year private, not-for-profit institutions. The sponsor and many students, school leaders, and private college representatives argued the 2025 cuts were inequitable, harmed low-income and first-generation students, and limited student choice. Supporters said the state’s dedicated financial aid account has grown and that the cuts disproportionately affected students at private institutions. Opponents, including representatives from public universities, argued state dollars should prioritize public institutions and questioned whether aid should be shifted away from state schools. Testimony was mixed but heavily pro, with sign-ins reported at 1,584 total, including 1,572 in support. House Bill 2498 would change nursing education oversight by limiting the Board of Nursing’s authority where programs are nationally accredited and by expediting approval for new programs. The sponsor and several community college leaders said the bill would reduce unnecessary barriers, speed program expansion, and help address the nursing shortage, especially in rural areas. The Board of Nursing, nursing educators, employers, and professional associations opposed the bill, arguing that state oversight is needed for public safety, Washington-specific workforce needs, and consistent standards, and that the board is already revising its rules through an open process. The committee then took executive action on two other bills: it passed Second Substitute House Bill 2363, allowing supervised music therapy practice for up to six months while exam results are verified, with an amendment delaying implementation to January 1, 2028; and it passed Substitute House Bill 2422, shifting private security guard license fees from applicants to employers and delaying implementation to November 1, 2026, by a 9-7 vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• four-year institutions, two-year colleges, four-year institutions.
• Key purposes of those institutional waivers, as we look through the various institutions... ...institutional
• Ellison, the institutions all manage their institutional waivers on their own.
• And you can see this by institution. And you can see this by institution.
• institution.

Summary: The committee first reviewed the 2024-25 tuition waiver report for the North Dakota University System. Staff explained that waivers were reported for degree-seeking students and broken out by residency, institution, and waiver type. Members asked about partial versus full waivers, institutional discretion, athletic waivers, and whether campuses have published guardrails or transparency requirements. Staff said most waivers are set by institutions, with some statutory and board-required categories, and that athletic waivers are a small share of total waiver dollars. The report showed total gross tuition of $354.5 million, tuition waived of $38.9 million, and 11,193 of 42,040 students receiving some waiver. Members also discussed how waivers affect net tuition revenue, housing and food collections, and whether campuses are using waivers strategically compared with scholarships and other funding sources. The committee then heard a presentation on tuition rates by campus and State Board policy. Staff explained the board’s tuition factors for resident, Minnesota reciprocity, contiguous-state/U.S. nonresident, and international students, and noted that campuses often seek exceptions based on program-specific competition and enrollment goals. Members asked whether rates are based on cost or competition, and staff said campuses typically bring forward estimates and market comparisons when requesting special rates. The presentation also reviewed general fund appropriations versus net tuition revenue by campus, and members discussed how local tuition decisions and waivers do not directly affect the state funding formula, though they do affect institutional revenue and reserves. Questions were also raised about the Higher Learning Commission’s financial composite indicator and how it differs from the more intuitive reserve and revenue figures. The committee next received a broad overview of non-higher-education entities affiliated with the State Board of Higher Education, beginning with NDSU agriculture-related units. Dr. Greg Lardy described the State Board of Agricultural Research and Education, the NDSU Extension Service, the Agricultural Experiment Station, and the branch research centers, emphasizing their statewide role in crop and livestock research, extension education, and county-based outreach. He outlined funding mixes for extension, the experiment station, and branch stations, noting that grants and contracts support both research and education, while the agronomy seed farm is self-funded through seed sales. Members asked about the new and vacant FTE pool, R1 research status, matching requirements for grants, and whether state appropriations count toward research expenditures. Dr. Lardy also highlighted major research impacts, including crop varieties, virtual fencing, AI-assisted weed control, and NDAWN weather data. The Northern Crops Institute and the Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute also presented. NCI described its role in market development, technical services, and education for regional agriculture, its governance through the Northern Crops Council, and its funding from state appropriations, other states, and earned revenue. Members asked about the source of out-of-state funding, intellectual property, and the institute’s international reach. UGPTI then outlined its transportation research, federal and state funding structure, and work on road and bridge condition assessments, travel demand modeling, and workforce training. No votes were taken during the portion of the meeting reflected in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> in fact I think 80 or 81 institutions in fact I think 80 or 81 institutions participating.<00:08
• They will see different institution.
• </c> And the total for public institutions And the total for public institutions in<00:36:03.839><c>
• is a public institution, that is a public institution, um<00:37:52.160><c> the</c><00:37:52.400><c>
• </c> four-year institutions. four-year institutions.

Committee: House Higher Education Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• to students from grants supported by Hispanic-serving institutions, grants for minority-serving institutions
• minority serving institutions for those anapese grants.
• Pacific Islander-Serving Institution, or AANAPISI.
• The function of that institution. You see what I'm saying?
• And as I think about the 87 institutions that make up AICCU, that's 87 institutions and 87 communities

Summary: The Assembly Higher Education Committee held an oversight hearing on how federal actions are affecting California higher education, with opening remarks from the chair and members emphasizing the importance of state-federal shared governance and the need to protect access, affordability, and campus diversity. The first panel included leaders from the CSU, University of the Pacific, California Community Colleges, and UC, who described broad impacts from federal grant terminations, changes to student aid, loan limits, visa and immigration policy, and proposed reductions to research support. Testimony focused on the elimination of Grad PLUS loans, caps on Parent PLUS and Pell-related changes, the loss or suspension of hundreds of grants, and the resulting harm to student support services, research, workforce pipelines, food assistance, and health care training. UC and CSU representatives warned of major losses in research funding, indirect cost reimbursement, and student opportunities, while community college leaders highlighted uncertainty around federal grants and the need to maintain services for low-income, first-generation, undocumented, and other vulnerable students. Committee members asked how the state could respond, including through intersegmental partnerships, dual enrollment, transfer pathways, and support for basic needs and nutrition programs. Witnesses said California could help by sustaining financial aid, protecting minority-serving institution programs, and investing in research, housing, and workforce development. Several speakers stressed that federal changes were creating instability for students and campuses, and that the effects would likely be long-lasting, especially in health care, teaching, STEM, and social work pipelines. A second panel then focused on equitable access. The California Student Aid Commission described state efforts such as the $3.9 billion investment in aid programs, the Cal Grant system, the Dream Act, and possible reforms to better serve adult learners, foster youth, undocumented students, and students with dependents. The Los Angeles Community College District reported that federal cuts and policy shifts are discouraging students from applying for aid, threatening TRIO and MSI/HSI-funded services, and reducing support for basic needs, counseling, and workforce programs. The Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities and the CSU Academic Senate echoed concerns about FAFSA confusion, international student restrictions, grant losses, and the erosion of equity-focused programs. No formal votes or legislative actions were taken during the hearing; the committee primarily received testimony and discussed possible state responses.

Transcript Highlights:

• at that institution.
• Or perhaps you transfer from one institution to another; the credit that you were awarded at one institution
• Right now, if an institution, institution number one, where you start, has a three for the requirement
• Right now, if an institution, institution number one, where you start, has a three for the requirement
• I run a small institute in Harvard Square now, the Small Planet Institute. That's great.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Higher Education

Summary: The Joint Committee on Higher Education held its first hearing and heard testimony on a wide range of bills, including hunger-free campuses, FAFSA completion, early college/college-in-high-school programs, banning legacy preferences, AP credit consistency, and tuition equity for the Stockbridge School of Agriculture. Committee leaders opened by outlining the hearing process and noting the three-minute testimony limit. Legislators and advocates generally framed the bills as equity and access measures aimed at improving college affordability, student success, and workforce development. Representative Vargas testified for H. 1466 and H. 1467, arguing that hunger-free campus should be codified because many public college and community college students face food insecurity, and that FAFSA completion should be improved through individualized outreach and an opt-out or completion requirement. Senator Lovely, the Greater Boston Food Bank, and other advocates supported the hunger-free campus bill, citing data that 44% of public university and community college students experienced food insecurity in 2023 and that food insecurity harms graduation rates. Femi Stoltz and Shanti Lopez Toro backed the FAFSA bill, saying many students miss out on Pell grants and need direct support; they pointed to state examples such as Louisiana and to recent state action requiring FAFSA awareness. Committee members asked about the federal FAFSA rollout, regional equity in food access, and the need for long-term funding and data collection. A large panel supported H. 1455 on college and high school/early college, including former Chair Roy, the Massachusetts Alliance for Early College, a student graduate, MBAE, and Tripp Jones. They described early college as a proven model that helps low-income and first-generation students, improves degree attainment, and supports workforce needs; witnesses said the goal is to scale from about 9,000 students and 55 partnerships toward 22,000 to 25,000 students by 2030, with possible future growth beyond that. Members raised questions about funding, public-private partnerships, parental involvement, faculty development, and whether the bill should include data review and more standardized policies across institutions. Representative Garcia also testified for H. 1432 on AP credit, saying students should receive consistent credit for AP scores of 3, 4, or 5. Senator Edwards and James Murphy testified for the legacy preference ban, arguing it is unfair and rooted in exclusionary history; they said some states have already banned legacy preferences in public and private institutions. Finally, UMass Dean Michael Fox, alumnus Dan Mayer, and student Jake Rasmussen supported S. 920 to include Stockbridge associate degree programs in MassEducate, saying tuition equity would help enrollment and support Massachusetts agriculture and green-industry jobs.

Transcript Highlights:

• Over to a different institution.
• So this particular institution has the highest cost out of all of our public institutions in the state
• This institution apparently has challenges with housing.
• And yes, we do subsidize this institution, but we subsidize all of our institutions.
• They're public institutions. And we subsidize all of them.

Transcript Highlights:

• happen at any of our institutions?
• And we are not just at the women's institution, but all of our institutions, we have an aggressive push
• So, you know, while that, not to go into that specific incident, at that institution or female institutions
• When things arise at the institutions that get to my level, I'm out there at those institutions, meeting
• resources and solutions into the institutions.

Summary: The committee first handled routine actions, including quorum, governor’s appointments not required to appear, references to bills, and floor acknowledgments, with those items approved on 3-1 or 4-0 votes and left open for add-ons where noted. It then heard testimony on several CDCR appointments: Kathleen Ratliff and Joseph Tuggle as associate directors for adult institutions, and later Jason Johnson as Undersecretary of Operations. All three nominees emphasized long careers in corrections, support from family and colleagues, and a commitment to public safety, rehabilitation, and improving staff and institutional culture. Much of the questioning focused on the California model, staff safety, sexual abuse prevention, use-of-force incidents, visitation, and rehabilitation. Ratliff and Tuggle said the California model was poorly communicated at rollout but is intended to improve both staff wellness and rehabilitation, not weaken security. They described training, root-cause reviews, statewide calls, and direct engagement with staff and incarcerated people. On a widely criticized pepper-spray incident at Central California Women’s Facility, Ratliff said staff were disciplined, some terminated, and the facility received additional training on de-escalation, communication, use of force, and report writing. On sexual abuse and retaliation concerns, both nominees pointed to PREA training, multiple reporting channels, anti-retaliation monitoring, and a zero-tolerance policy. Members also pressed the nominees on visitation consistency, family reunification, contraband, and the San Quentin transition program. CDCR leaders said visitation is essential to rehabilitation and that the department is working toward more consistent statewide rules and a more family-friendly visiting environment. They also said contraband interdiction is being strengthened through K-9 searches, drone interdiction, and information sharing. Johnson, whose confirmation drew late opposition letters and a lawsuit alleging retaliation and workplace culture problems, said he was driving culture change, had improved reentry and community partnerships, and viewed rehabilitation as central to CDCR’s mission. After public support from former incarcerated people, advocates, and nonprofit leaders, the committee voted 4-0 to advance the appointments to the Senate floor.

Transcript Highlights:

• These institutions are deeply rooted in their communities, These institutions are deeply rooted in their
• We broken this down between our Florida college system institutions.
• Institutions are experiencing growth across multiple area is head count.
• We have 10 Florida college institutions, 3 state universities and one of our I cuff institutions participating
• If you do in in much about the money back guarantee, our institutions are post-secondary institutions

Transcript Highlights:

• not warranted, we allow the institutional level to make that decision.
• component where at the institutional level, when a change in status is not warranted, we allow the institutional
• That could be a change in security level or institution.
• Can it predict that institutional misconduct?
• It is predicting institutional misconduct as designed.

Summary: The Special Commission on Correctional Consolidation and Collaboration met on January 12 to continue its review of DOC classification practices, with Senator Brownsberger and Representative Hunt co-chairing. After brief discussion of the prior hearing, members said there would likely be another opportunity for additional testimony, including possible video testimony from people inside facilities. The main presentation for the day was DOC’s classification system and a UMass Chan study of whether the system predicts institutional misconduct and whether overrides affect its accuracy or create racial/ethnic bias. DOC officials described the objective point-based classification system, its history, and the role of discretionary and non-discretionary overrides. They said the system is designed to balance public safety and reintegration, with initial classification emphasizing offense history and reclassification emphasizing institutional adjustment. DOC reported that, in the current population, about 16% are classified to maximum security, 74% to medium, and 10% to lower security. They also reviewed the non-discretionary restrictions that keep people out of minimum or medium security, and said discretionary overrides are used less often than the National Institute of Corrections’ suggested ceiling and are reviewed within six months. UMass Chan researchers said their analysis used historical DOC data from 2019 to 2022, focused mainly on about 7,600 male reclassification cases, and found that the scored custody level accurately predicted institutional misconduct. They said the tool performed well on standard statistical measures, but predictive accuracy declined after overrides were applied, with overlap appearing between minimum and medium groups. In a supplementary analysis, they said the loss of accuracy was driven primarily by non-discretionary restrictions rather than discretionary overrides. They also said the study did not find evidence of racial or ethnic bias in the tool itself, and that DOC’s current system is comparatively more lenient than many other states. Members and guests raised concerns about overclassification to medium security, the low share of people in minimum, the role of civil commitment restrictions, and whether the data captured historical bias or individual cases where overrides felt subjective. DOC and UMass Chan responded that the study was group-based, not case-specific, and that minimum-security rates are hard to compare across states because Massachusetts’ prison and county systems differ structurally. The commission did not take a vote or formal action, but asked members to send follow-up data questions by the end of the week for referral to DOC and the researchers.

Transcript Highlights:

• What is the strategy that your institution as adopted?
• One being a land grant institution.
• It doesn't cost is just foregone revenue to the institution.
• It would allow institutions like FAMU.
• institution that has the differential in tuition.

Transcript Highlights:

• Institution of Higher Education as an R1 institution, or a top-tier research institution.
• researcher from a private or an independent institution.
• By doing that, it makes your institutions eligible?
• If a violation is reported, institutions must investigate and take appropriate actions.
• So to compel the institution to comply with the section.

Bills: SB2972 , SB1909 , SB2815 , SB735 , SB2233 , SB800 , SB1069 , SB2683 , SB2986 , SB2058 , SB2310 , SB2055 , SB1032

Committees: Senate Education , Senate Education K-16

Summary: The Senate Education K-16 Committee heard several bills before recessing to the floor, with most measures left pending subject to the call of the chair. SB 2986 would allow public schools and universities to permit after-hours facility use by religious groups on the same terms as other nonprofits, and SB 1032 would open the Governor’s University Research Initiative to private and independent universities; both had committee substitutes adopted and were left pending after brief testimony. Supporters of SB 1032 from Rice and Baylor said the change would help Texas recruit top researchers and strengthen the state’s research economy. The committee also heard SB 2058, which would require the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board to publish annual data on nursing clinical training sites to improve placement coordination, and SB 2683, which would bar public colleges from giving benefits or recognition to student organizations that receive support from foreign entities of concern; both were left pending after testimony. A large portion of the meeting focused on SB 2233, which would require public institutions of higher education to adopt policies prohibiting students or employees on nonimmigrant visas from publicly supporting terrorist activity or organizations, with enforcement through investigations, reporting to Homeland Security, and possible Attorney General action and fines. The author said the bill was intended to reinforce existing federal definitions and campus safety, while senators questioned the bill’s scope, the definition of terrorist activity, and the clause tied to U.S. policy or practice. Public witnesses, including civil rights advocates, law students, and others, argued the bill was vague, overbroad, unconstitutional, and likely to chill protected speech and increase surveillance of international students and Black and brown communities; several Jewish witnesses also said the bill misused Jewish safety concerns and could be used for viewpoint discrimination. SB 2233 was left pending after public testimony. The committee then took up SB 735, which builds on prior Holocaust education legislation by funding optional age-appropriate and bilingual curriculum, museum field trips, teacher preparation partnerships, annual reporting, and regional collaboration with Holocaust museums and education service centers. The author and invited witnesses said the bill responds to survey findings showing uneven Holocaust instruction and a need for better teacher training and accountability. A fifth-grade teacher and the director of the Holocaust Memorial Museum of San Antonio testified in support, emphasizing the need for accurate, age-appropriate instruction and professional development. The committee recessed before finishing the agenda, and SB 735 was set to resume after the floor session.

Transcript Highlights:

• to increase physical and sexual safety in our women's institutions.
• We need to make things better within the institution.
• We remove that individual from the area, from the institution.
• At the same institutions? Yes.
• be seeing within your own institution.

Summary: The hearing focused first on sexual abuse, harassment, and retaliation in California’s women’s prisons, with testimony from CDCR wardens, the Office of Inspector General, advocacy groups, and formerly incarcerated survivors. Legislators and witnesses described a pattern of staff misconduct, fear of retaliation, gaps in reporting, and the need for stronger accountability, better investigations, and more outside access for survivor support organizations. CDCR said it has expanded training, body-worn and stationary cameras, outside partnerships, and PREA-related response procedures, while the Inspector General requested additional funding and staff to monitor more grievances and staff sexual misconduct cases under SB 1069. Members pressed CDCR on why accused staff are not always placed on leave, how cases are referred to prosecutors, and whether current protections are enough; several members argued the state should aim to investigate all complaints and do more to prevent retaliation and repeat abuse. The second issue was rehabilitative and reentry programming in women’s prisons. CDCR’s Division of Rehabilitative Programs and the wardens highlighted education, vocational training, substance use treatment, peer support, and community reentry programs, citing increased enrollment and recent graduates earning diplomas, degrees, and certifications. They said these programs are intended to reduce recidivism and improve public safety. Formerly incarcerated advocates and community providers argued that current offerings are still too limited, outdated, and not aligned with today’s job market, especially around digital literacy and transferable credentials, and they urged more funding for community-based, trauma-informed, gender-responsive programming. A coalition representative asked for a $20 million continuation and expansion of the Wright Grant program, and members discussed additional budget requests for reentry and related women’s services.

Transcript Highlights:

• The money still goes to the institution, and the institution can choose what they wanna do with it.
• Yes, that would be an institutional decision that each institution and system board of regents could
• And what would be the impact on our our institutions? Not the student, just our institution.
• Sure, I think that would vary by institution and would vary sort of depending on how each institution
• If an institution decided to shift and... in some way, then the impact to that institution would be different

Bills: HB3032 , HB3434 , HB3574 , HB5339 , HB5646

Committee: House Higher Education

Keywords: nursing education, clinical sites, health facilities, Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, legislative study, healthcare training, tuition, financial assistance, higher education, public institutions, student support, nonresident students, Texas Education Code, resident tuition, scholarships, regenerative agriculture, grants, sustainable farming, soil health, bioremediation

Transcript Highlights:

• Again, college system institutions are open access institutions, taking everyone who can benefit with
• Again, college system institutions or open access institutions, taking everyone who can benefit with
• System institution that is nearest to them.
• And so our smaller institutions have problems with economies of scale.
• So for example, you know, Gadsden Technical Institute.

Summary: The Higher Education Budget Subcommittee met to review funding models for the Florida College System and district workforce education programs, with an emphasis on how new dollars are allocated in the program fund and how performance and targeted funding are incorporated. Chancellor Hebda explained the Florida College System model, including base program funding, student success and pipeline funds, performance incentives for industry certifications, and the 2022 president-developed formula that weights enrollment, workforce enrollment, completions, small-college factors, and regional cost differences, plus a targeted funding floor for colleges below a minimum per-FTE level. Vice Chancellor Goodman then outlined the district workforce model, which uses lagged enrollment, program cost weights, local revenue offsets, small-district adjustments, and unmet-need calculations to distribute lump-sum appropriations to school districts offering workforce education. The department also provided updates on several grant programs and funding delays. Goodman said the Workforce Development Incentive Grant, Pathways to Career Opportunities Grant, Graduation Alternative to Traditional Education Startup Grant, and teacher apprenticeship/mentor bonus programs all involve multi-year awards and often require reversions and reappropriations because projects are delayed, extended, or not fully obligated by year-end. She said the department is moving toward an electronic grants system and had already adjusted internal deadlines to speed awards, while acknowledging some reimbursement delays and explaining that mentor bonuses for teacher apprentices will not be paid until the first cohort reaches the statutory timing requirement. Members asked about tracking whether CTE students work in their trained fields, how Xello is used to inform students about career pathways, how FTE is calculated, whether the funding formulas could encourage growth over quality, and how students with disabilities are counted in workforce funding. Questions also focused on tuition, enrollment trends, and the gap between college and university funding. The committee heard that tuition has remained flat for more than a decade, enrollment has rebounded from COVID and is projected to exceed pre-pandemic levels, and the college system’s funding per FTE varies widely. Valencia College President Kathleen Plinsky testified in support of the proposed formula and an additional $200 million for the Florida College System, saying Valencia is the second-largest college in the state but ranks last in per-FTE funding, which has made it difficult to recruit and retain faculty and admit qualified students in high-demand programs like nursing. The committee took no vote and adjourned after the presentations and questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• Private and out-of-state institutions can also apply to the TAA for accreditation voluntarily, and institutions
• decisions. infringed on their institutional autonomy.
• This overreach undermines the core mission of our educational institutions.
• Taxpayer dollars fund our public institutions.
• Current remote work policies vary widely among institutions.

Bills: SB1998 , SB646 , SB2786 , SB2076 , SB2615 , SB1961 , SB1418 , SB2647 , SB1322 , SB2788

Committees: Senate Education , Senate Education K-16

Transcript Highlights:

• , but in which Florida College System institutions are eligible to participate.
• Those grants have been particularly helpful to our Florida College System institutions.
• The relative size of the institution is used to address economies of scale.
• So a single factor doesn’t apply the same to all those different sizes of institutions.
• But it is a variety of sizes of institutions that are in that below the floor.

Committee: Senate Appropriations Committee on Higher Education

Summary: The Appropriations Committee for Higher Education met to review Florida’s workforce and Florida College System funding models as part of budget planning. Chair Harrell opened by emphasizing the state’s growing focus on technical education and workforce pathways, and the committee first heard from Tara Goodman of the Department of Education on district workforce education. Goodman explained the programs funded through district workforce dollars, including career certificates, applied technology diplomas, registered apprenticeship, and adult general education, and described the model’s reliance on lagged enrollment, program cost weights, local tuition offsets, and supplemental factors such as disability services, GED testing, and minimum funding for small rural districts. She also noted federal support through Perkins and WIOA and said the model is used to determine unmet need and guide appropriations. In response to questions, she said health care programs are generally among the higher-cost offerings and may be supplemented by pipeline funds. The committee then heard from Kathy Hebda, Chancellor of the Florida College System, on the college system’s funding model. Hebda described the main funding sources, including the program fund, student success incentive funds, pipeline funds, tuition and fees, and performance-based incentives, and explained that the current model was developed by the 28 college presidents under legislative direction. She said the model uses a three-year average FTE, weights workforce enrollment more heavily than non-workforce enrollment, gives significant weight to completions, includes a small-college factor and regional cost differentials, and also provides targeted funding to bring colleges up to a floor based on per-FTE funding. Senators asked about colleges below the target, cost differences among programs, faculty salaries, and health insurance costs; Hebda said the model is meant to provide flexible operating dollars that colleges can use for those expenses, but specific salary and benefit decisions are left to the institutions. Seminole State College President Georgia Lorenz also testified in support of the college funding model, saying it holds institutions accountable for enrollment and completions, can be adjusted to reflect state priorities like workforce, and addresses differences in size and regional costs. No bills were voted on, and the committee adjourned after brief closing remarks thanking Seminole State College and the presenters.

Transcript Highlights:

• What is the strategy that your institution has adopted?
• What is the strategy that your institution has adopted?
• Once again, it's the size of our institution.
• It doesn't cost; it's just forgone revenue to the institution.
• So, having the luxury of working outside of the state in another institution and a private institution

Summary: The Appropriations Committee on Higher Education met to examine how Florida’s state universities are funded and to begin discussing a possible university funding model. The panel included the State University System chancellor and CFOs from FSU, UF, FAMU, FAU, UNF, and UCF. Members first reviewed major cost drivers, which the universities said are broadly similar across institutions: wages and benefits, equipment and supplies, financial aid, professional services, utilities, IT, and maintenance. Several institutions noted unique pressures from geography, growth, research intensity, and mission, such as UCF’s size and engineering focus, UF’s land-grant and research enterprise, FAMU’s need to recruit top talent while serving a high-Pell student population, and FSU’s large facilities and research obligations. The chancellor also summarized systemwide cost growth since 2012-13, including higher health insurance, retirement, and salary costs, while noting tuition had been held flat. The committee then discussed other revenue sources, including auxiliaries, restricted funds, capital projects, and component units such as foundations and health systems. University leaders explained that many of these funds are restricted to specific purposes, and some, like UF Health, account for a large share of operating expenses. Members also discussed the current performance-based funding process. University representatives generally praised it for transparency, accountability, and its focus on student success, but said the heavy use of one-time funds, nonrecurring appropriations, and unfunded mandates makes long-term planning difficult. FSU and others argued that rising employee costs, waivers, and facilities expenses are not fully covered, while FAMU said performance funding has improved outcomes but can disadvantage institutions serving more low-income students. In response to questions about improvements, the universities suggested more recurring and predictable funding, better coverage of mandated costs, more flexibility in fees, and continued investment in research and strategic priorities. The chancellor said the Board of Governors is considering a version 3.0 of performance funding that would benchmark institutions against peers and Carnegie classifications. The committee also explored whether universities should have more flexibility to set out-of-state tuition and professional school tuition. Most university leaders favored giving boards of trustees more authority, while the chancellor cautioned that increasing out-of-state enrollment or tuition too much could affect legislative support. No votes were taken; the meeting ended with the chair thanking the panel and adjourning the committee.