Transcript Highlights:

• Representative Hall, yes. Representative Whitfield, yes. Representative Terry, yes.
• Representative Hall, yes. Representative Whitfield, yes. Representative Terry, yes.
• representative Hall yes representative representative Hall yes representative witfield<01:54:57.360><
• Representative Hall, yes. Representative Litfield, yes. Representative Terry, yes.
• Representative Hall, yes. Representative Litchfield and Representative Terry, yes.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee work session of the Education Policy and Administration Committee focused on House Bill 131 and House Bill 781, which were described as nearly identical bills addressing student cell phone use in schools. Members noted that HB 781 is an early bill and therefore needed committee action by Wednesday, while HB 131 did not face that deadline. The chair and members discussed the bills’ shared goal of requiring school boards to develop and adopt policies on student personal device use, with debate over whether the state should set minimum standards or leave more to local control. A major topic was funding. One member urged the committee to avoid creating an unfunded mandate and asked for some funding support, while others argued it was too early to commit money and that the committee should first establish the policy framework. The governor’s proposed funding was discussed, including a $1 million figure in the budget and a separate $250,000 amount referenced in the bill, but several members said the money would likely be insufficient to cover all students or pouch systems statewide. The committee also reviewed a handout reflecting proposed budget language that would require school boards to adopt policies on personal device use during the school day, with schoolwide implementation and exceptions for medical disability or language proficiency needs, and a DOE-administered grant program. Members spent considerable time on drafting details, especially deadlines and exceptions. They debated whether the bills should require school boards to “develop,” “adopt,” or also “implement” policies, and whether the effective date of the act should also serve as the deadline for school boards. They also discussed whether exceptions for classroom instructional use should be mandatory or merely encouraged, and whether the bills should explicitly include or exclude charter schools. Additional proposed exceptions included IEPs, 504 plans, English learners, and medical needs such as glucose sensors or insulin pumps, with some members suggesting medical issues be certified by a physician. No final vote or formal action was taken in the work session.

Transcript Highlights:

• Representative Hall: Yes.
• <02:11:06.119> primary student their students as their primary student their students as their
• All disputes by students, employees, and citizens; a legal representative for the school district; manage
• representative representative lad<04:23:21.840> yes<04:23:22.040> represent<04:23:22.680
• Representative L.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on House Bill 362, which would give the Department of Education rulemaking authority over educator licensing and testing requirements, including professional education assessments. Representative Ladd argued the bill is meant to preserve New Hampshire’s higher standards for teacher preparation and to avoid lowering requirements for licensed educators, while also allowing flexibility for career and technical education (CTE) instructors who may have strong industry experience but not traditional classroom credentials. Members discussed whether the bill should preserve industry-recognized credentials and basic academic skills testing while exempting CTE teachers from content exams; DOE Director Steven Appy said an amendment would clarify that the bill applies to initial licenses, exempt CTE teachers from the content-testing requirement, and keep current administrative practice on basic skills and industry credentials in statute. The committee also noted that an executive session would be scheduled later, likely the following week, to act on the bills and amendment. The committee then took up House Bill 90, dealing with the definition of part-time teachers. Representative Ladd explained that the bill is intended to let university and community college faculty teach limited hours in high school concurrent enrollment settings, especially in subjects like math and STEM where some schools cannot find locally certified teachers with a master’s degree. He said the measure is designed to expand student access to college-level courses, not to replace fully certified teachers or reduce standards, and emphasized that the bill is limited to faculty employed or contracted by the University System of New Hampshire or the Community College System of New Hampshire, with criminal background checks and ethics/conduct rules still applying. No votes were taken during the hearing, and the discussion ended with the understanding that further action would come in executive session.

Transcript Highlights:

• and families as kind of students and families as kind of representing<00:14:30.400> this<00:14
• like the ones I'm privileged to represent through Lead MN, and students like my younger siblings who
• like the ones I'm privileged to represent through Lead MN, and students like my younger siblings who
• like the ones I'm privileged to represent through Lead MN, and students like my younger siblings who
• to represent through Lead MN, privileged to represent through Lead MN, and<00:26:20.440> students

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• AND A REPRESENTATIVE OF THOUSANDS OF STUDENTS WHO WILL BE LEFT OUT OF A CRUCIAL EDUCATION.
• REPRESENTATIVE BRANNAN. REPRESENTATIVE BUCHANAN. REPRESENTATIVE BUSATTA. REPRESENTATIVE CANADY.
• REPRESENTATIVE KOSTER. REPRESENTATIVE MAGGARD. REPRESENTATIVE MANEY. REPRESENTATIVE MCFARLAND.
• REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON. REPRESENTATIVE SHOAF >>YES REPRESENTATIVE SIROIS. REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER.
• I STAND HERE TODAY REPRESENTING STUDENTS WHO BELIEVE THE RIGHT TO STUDENT EDUCATION SHOULD NOT BE SUPERSEDED

Transcript Highlights:

• Representative Drummond, seconded by Representative Chestnut. Any discussion?
• Motion by Representative Cvin. Is there a second? Second by Representative Collins.
• Representative Chessnut moves to adopt the amendment. Representative Baker seconds.
• Seconded by Representative Baker. Any discussion or... Representative Baker.
• students.

Bills: SB1, HB176, HB86, SB1, HB176, HB86

Keywords: workers' compensation, public education, employee injury, insurance trust fund, on-the-job injury, administrative procedures, HB176, Alabama sales tax, use tax, sales and use tax exemption, optical aids, eyeglasses, contact lenses, prescription glasses, vision care, optometrist, ophthalmologist, optician, medical devices, local option tax exemption

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:43:52.160> the<00:43:52.480> students<00:43:52.880> with represents the students
• with represents the students with disabilities<00:43:55.000> um<00:43:55.800> how<00:43
• Do you see any student privacy concerns in this? Representative Woodcock, good afternoon again.
• Do you see any student privacy concerns in this? Representative Woodcock, good afternoon again.
• Do you see any student privacy concerns in this? Representative Woodcock, good afternoon again.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on HB 129, which would redefine “evidence-based” in public education to require objective, science-based evidence for pedagogical methods. The prime sponsor said the bill is a verbatim reintroduction from the prior session and argued that current federal definitions are too vague, allowing subjective surveys and other weak evidence to justify teaching methods. He said the bill is limited to pedagogy, not subject matter, and is intended to improve student outcomes, reduce fad-driven practices, and potentially save money by limiting unnecessary retraining and new materials. Members asked repeatedly about the bill’s scope, including whether it would affect classroom teachers, curriculum content, and existing instructional approaches such as phonics versus whole language or queuing. The sponsor said the bill applies to state and local education bodies and educator training policies, not individual teachers in their classrooms, and that teachers would retain flexibility. He also said standardized testing could be part of a scientific study but is not itself a study, and that textbook providers could be asked to furnish the studies supporting instructional guidance included in their materials. Several members raised concerns about the fiscal note and possible cost shifts to local districts and taxpayers. The sponsor disputed the idea that the bill would necessarily create major new costs or require additional staff, saying any costs would likely be limited and that the department is already applying federal evidence-based rules. He also said if some current methods are not science-based, updating them would be justified even if there were some initial expense. No vote or final action was taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Representative Brown, myself to my left, Representative Bricky, Representative Burton, and Representative
• Representative Luno and Representative Representative Luno and Representative Burton.<00:07:15.120
• . represent. represent.
• <00:53:29.839> student be afforded to a student student be afforded to a student student organization
• I don’t know how students would choose. >> It was a number of years ago that Representative Panalakis—she

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Education Funding Committee’s higher education subcommittee met to discuss HB 443, HB 510, and related issues. The chair explained the subcommittee membership and noted that Representative Luno was absent and replaced by Representative Bricky, with other full committee members allowed to participate in discussion but not final votes. No votes were taken during this meeting, and the chair said final subcommittee recommendations would likely come in the first week of November. On HB 443, which concerns terms of appointment to the Higher Education Commission, the chair described the bill as intended to let the governor replace members who are not attending or no longer representing the appointing organization. He said the prior governor supported the idea, but the current governor’s office believes the bill is unnecessary because nonattendance or loss of representation would already amount to resignation or removal. Members raised questions about legal authority and whether the same principle should apply to other boards. The chair said he was leaning toward finding the bill not needed, but would continue discussion later. The committee then spent most of the meeting on HB 510, which would establish due process rights for students, student organizations, and faculty at public higher education institutions and address collective bargaining issues. Supporters, including Representatives Papovich and Brown, argued the bill would provide clear, minimum protections, especially because campus rules are lengthy and vary by institution; Brown also suggested adding an independent ombudsman or representation for students. Opponents, including Representatives Burton and Bricky, said existing campus regulations already provide due process and that the bill could interfere with campus governance and collective bargaining. The chair and others discussed whether the bill’s definitions should be aligned with existing law to avoid confusion, and several members suggested using existing statutory definitions or cross-references. The chair also said the bill would apply only when disciplinary action is involved, not as a general challenge to DEI policies, though members referenced recent national examples involving DEI-related disputes as context.

Transcript Highlights:

• Importantly helping the insured students and their families are represented in key decisions affecting
• Brown has already indicated, we represent a diverse population in terms of our students, and we need
• very same students.
• This growth of 2% represents an additional 78,731 students with disabilities. in the California school
• student is exiting?

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Cross-tabulating data about Black students and students with disabilities...
• This disproportionately affects students of color, students with disabilities, and especially students
• categories, like Black students with disabilities or Asian students who are English learner students
• Privacy of students.
• I represent Reading. Yes.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Education held a hearing focused primarily on special education-related bills, with testimony centered on two major themes: transition planning for students aging out of school-based services at age 22, and the fiscal strain special education costs place on districts. Committee members explained hearing procedures, noted the House was in formal session, and periodically stepped out for votes while staff recorded testimony. A separate bill on special education due process was also taken up briefly, along with a bill on special education finance and another on equitable access/data reporting. On House Bill 752 and Senate Bill 313, witnesses from the Arc of Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Down Syndrome Congress, the Developmental Disabilities Council, families, self-advocates, and Senator Comerford described the “Turning 22” transition as a crisis point that often leaves families without adult placements, services, or clear communication. Testimony emphasized earlier planning, more accountability, better data collection, and a commission to improve coordination and residential placement. Several parents and advocates shared personal accounts of traumatic transitions, delayed placements, and the need for plans to begin at least a year before age 22. The committee later closed testimony on these bills after hearing from all signed-up speakers. House Bill 4217, on special education due process, drew support from Representative Sullivan-Almeida, parents, and advocates who argued that the burden of proof should shift from families to school districts. Testimony described costly legal battles, delays, and parents having to become experts in reading instruction or hire advocates and attorneys to secure services. Brody Dwyer, a 10-year-old student with dyslexia, and his mother described how evidence-based instruction helped him after years of struggle. The committee also heard testimony on House Bill 546/Senate Bill 317, which would require DESE to publish cross-tabulated data on race, disability, gender, income, and other factors; advocates said this would better expose disparities and help address the school-to-prison pipeline. Finally, on House Bill 691/Senate Bill 430, school leaders, educators, and union representatives testified that special education costs are outpacing district budgets and that increasing circuit breaker reimbursement and creating a commission to study long-term sustainability would help prevent staffing cuts and service reductions. No votes were taken during the hearing; the committee repeatedly closed testimony on individual bills as speakers finished and moved through the agenda.

Transcript Highlights:

• Representative Hinojosa.
• Representative Hinojosa.
• our students need.
• Representative Hinojosa.
• Represent Frank.

Bills: HB2, HB2

Keywords: public education, teacher compensation, certification, funding, school finance, educator rights, education funding, charter schools, staff compensation, state aid, retention allotment, disaster preparedness, emergency management, flooding, mass fatality, mass casualty, fatality tracking, body recovery, autopsy, justice of the peace

Transcript Highlights:

• Representative Nathe. Ms.
• So these are like med students, pharmacy students, law students.
• by students?
• Progression milestones, that's what represents the approximately $750 per milestone that students are
• Progression milestones, that's what represents the approximately $750 per milestone that students are

Summary: The committee met to discuss higher education funding and capital building policy. Members first heard an update from NDUS Deputy Commissioner Lisa Johnson on low-producing academic programs. She described a proposed board policy using a five-year rolling window and thresholds of fewer than 10 undergraduate graduates or fewer than 5 graduate graduates, with programs flagged for three consecutive review periods going to the board. Possible outcomes would include continuation, continuation with modifications, inactivation, or termination. Members asked about how the review would account for program costs, service to other students, workforce demand, and the difference between inactivation and termination. Johnson said the board would consider broader factors and that campuses already do detailed program analysis. Several members also asked about cost savings and staffing impacts from program terminations, and Johnson said the board would try to provide more information later. The committee then received a report on the Capital Building Fund from Jamie Wilkie. He reviewed the program’s history, matching requirements, and recent uses, noting that about $334 million in state and matching dollars has been invested overall, with most going to deferred maintenance and extraordinary repairs. Members discussed whether the program is reducing deferred maintenance and requested updated systemwide data on deferred maintenance and campus space utilization. Wilkie said the board is considering a new study to update deferred maintenance figures, which are based on information more than 12 years old. He also reported that several institutions have used current biennium funds for projects such as residence hall renovations, health sciences housing, generators, and building repairs. Later, the committee began a detailed walkthrough of a draft bill that would replace the current higher education funding formula with an FTE-based model and also revise the capital building fund structure. The draft would use fall enrollment FTEs, add completion incentives for degrees in in-demand fields, and create a separate research funding component for UND and NDSU tied to doctoral completions and external research expenditures. Members raised concerns about the use of older data in the formula, the treatment of waivers, the weighting of professional and health sciences programs, and the use of CIP codes to define CTE and education incentives. The bill draft would also combine capital building fund tiers, broaden eligible uses for deferred maintenance and legislatively authorized projects, change matching requirements, repeal the old formula chapter and the capital pool, and transfer funds from the Strategic Investment and Improvements Fund into the capital building fund. No final votes were taken during the portion provided; the meeting was primarily discussion and review.

Transcript Highlights:

• EOG-eligible students.
• students.
• We started with 40 students in 2009, 40 medical students, and you can see We now have over 1,334 students
• students, approximately 90% of our students are women.
• 100,000 students.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Represent Represent Represent Hicks.<00:54:02.880> Um,<00:54:03.440> I<00:54:03.760
• :54:06.559> and as Representative Hansen and as Representative Hansen and Representative<00:54
• Representative Scott. Uh Madam Chair. Representative Scott.
• <01:31:42.800> Representative Represent I'm Okay. Representative Represent I'm Okay.
• Represent Coulter. Thank Nope. Okay. Represent Coulter.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee took up House File 2312 and first adopted the DE1 amendment, after which the amended bill was discussed. Nonpartisan fiscal staff walked through the spreadsheet and explained the bill’s higher education budget changes, including increases for state grants and tribal college assistance, unchanged funding for several existing programs, and reductions or eliminations for items such as state work study, summer academic enrichment, student loan counseling, concurrent enrollment, and the student parent support initiative. Staff also noted transfers to special revenue funds, the cancellation and reappropriation of ALS research funding, and a new licensing/registration revenue item. The committee was told the bill met the committee’s zero target overall, with a net general fund change of zero relative to the February forecast, while also adding some non-general fund expenditures for program licensing and registration. Members asked several questions about the transfers and specific line items, including whether any new special revenue accounts were being created, the foster care wraparound services line, and the treatment of the University of Minnesota and Centric Care partnership. Staff explained that the transfers generally did not create new accounts, that some items were not in the base, and that the U of M/Centric Care partnership was a one-time appropriation in the prior bill but was now being built into the base at a different amount. The University of Minnesota section also included new or continued funding for medical school development, health training restoration, emergency assistance grants, ALS research, and a weather resiliency program, while the Mayo Foundation section eliminated funding for Mayo Medical School and the Mayo family medicine residency program. The policy portion of the DE1 was then introduced. It included a maximum tuition and fee amount for state grants, direct appropriation of emergency assistance grants to Minnesota State, a juvenile justice appropriation for Metropolitan State University, and the ALS research reappropriation to the University of Minnesota. It also contained repealers for unfunded programs, including a delayed repealer for the student parent support initiative. In the higher education policy article, the bill would allow Minnesota State to offer applied doctoral degrees in cybersecurity, make technical changes to hunger-free campus and sexual misconduct procedures, extend pregnant and parenting student protections to private institutions, allow OHE to retain up to 10% of certain competitive grants for administration, consolidate reports, change the state grant formula so negative FAFSA contributions count as zero, and reduce the state grant lifetime credit cap from 180 to 120 credits. The Northstar Promise provisions would limit tuition and fees to resident rates and require MnState, and request the University of Minnesota, to ensure eligible students receive the benefit.

Transcript Highlights:

• per student. per student.
• That represents the cost of one, two, or three students coming in our district.
• student services. student services.
• Represent<01:41:58.159> fellows. Represent fellows. Represent fellows.
• Representative Ames: He wrote, "The quality of children's education impacts not only today's students

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• representative Earth yes representative representative Earth yes representative dry<02:28:12.760
• > yes<02:28:26.920> representative representative luno yes representative representative
• > representative representative Damon yes representative representative Damon yes representative
• Yes, Representative Bon, earlier I think our chair and I respect everyone's opinion mentioned that students
• Yes, Representative Bon, earlier I think our chair and I respect everyone's opinion mentioned that students

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee met in executive session on HB 563, which revises the adequacy education grant formula, including differentiated aid for free and reduced-price meals, English language learners, and special education, and also restores fiscal capacity disparity aid. Members explained that for FY 26 the formula largely stays the same with the usual 2% increases, while FY 27 would raise the base cost and several aid categories, including a substantial increase in special education differentiated aid. Supporters said the bill recognizes higher special education costs and separates fiscal capacity disparity from the extraordinary needs grant, which they argued better targets property-poor communities. A major point of discussion was the fiscal capacity disparity aid component. Some members asked for more detail on how the formula affected individual towns and how much money was being allocated. The sponsors said the spreadsheet showed the impacts and estimated the fiscal capacity disparity portion at about $13.3 million, benefiting roughly 40 communities, with Manchester the only municipality expected to receive less under the new approach. They also said the change partially rebalances money that had shifted heavily toward larger cities under the extraordinary needs grant and that the special education increase is new money, not taken from the hold harmless or extraordinary needs funds. Several members supported the amendment as a good-faith step and a bipartisan compromise, while others expressed frustration that they did not have enough time or information to review the spreadsheets in detail before voting. After extended debate, the committee recessed for lunch to allow the spreadsheet to be distributed and reviewed, with the understanding that the bill would continue later in the day and then move on to the other bills on the docket.

Transcript Highlights:

• Representative Decker. Representative Don present. Representative Fleming. Representative Gber.
• Representative Bant here, Representative Representative Bant here, Representative Bojanowski<00:
• Representative Representative Representative Rors.<00:02:12.720> Representative<00:02:13.440><
• Representative Callaway said it is amazing to see the morale and to hone in on these students' skills
• . students. students.

Keywords: Meeting Start: 00:00:12 Attendance Roll Call: 00:00:33 Kentucky’s New Assessment and Accountability Model Update: 00:03:50 Federal Education Policy and Its Impact on States: 01:00:55 Educational Leadership Training Opportunities in Kentucky: 01:26:44 Consideration of Referred Administrative Regulations: 02:10:38 Adjournment: 02:13:57, 958, all

Summary: The Interim Joint Committee on Education met for its first interim meeting and established a quorum before taking up its first topic, Kentucky’s new assessment and accountability model. Commissioner Robbie Fletcher, joined by KDE staff and superintendents, described a multi-year effort involving the Kentucky “Now We Learn” Council, more than 50 educators and stakeholders, at least 18 pilot districts, surveys, focus groups, town halls, and four prototype frameworks. He emphasized three priorities for the new model: vibrant learning experiences, innovation in assessment, and collaboration with communities. Fletcher said the state accountability portion would continue to meet federal requirements and identify CSI/TSI/ATSI schools, while shifting toward more emphasis on individual student growth, grade-level equivalency in reading and math, career and technical education, graduation rate, and English language proficiency. He also said science would remain a required assessment but be reported separately rather than counted in the CSI/TSI calculation. He stressed that the model should focus on growth, local flexibility, and meaningful measures that reflect community expectations, while still preserving a statewide framework. The committee also heard from Bullitt County superintendent Jesse Bacon, who described his district’s local accountability work. He said Bullitt County formed a community coalition with broad representation from across the district, business leaders, and community members, met six times during the school year, and worked toward a public-facing dashboard that would show community expectations, evidence of accountability, and areas for improvement. Bacon said the district identified six community-defined pillars, beginning with student learning and foundational academic knowledge, as part of a system intended to communicate strengths and improvement areas to the public.

Transcript Highlights:

• Represent. Representative Luno seconds. Represent. Representative Luno seconds.
• Representative Peoples, yes. Representative Luno, yes. Representative Ames, yes.
• Represent<00:58:48.880> Luno. Represent Luno. Represent Luno.
• students and important to all students. students and important to all students.
• They only do that for the students that are in special education aid. Represent Peoples.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first took up SB 209, which would require schools seeking building aid for construction or reconstruction projects to use an owner’s project manager. The chair explained an amendment that would remove the bill’s requirement that the manager be engaged before application and instead revert to current law, while updating the project threshold from the older $1 million figure to a more current amount and clarifying that the manager’s role is to protect the project owner’s interests. Members asked about the cost of hiring a project manager over several years before a project is funded, the 1.5% fee in rule, and whether the rules already define the manager’s duties. The chair said the amendment addressed those concerns by leaving the timing to current law and relying on existing administrative rules for qualifications and responsibilities. The committee then voted 18-0 to adopt the amendment and 18-0 to recommend SB 209 OTPA, placing it on the consent calendar. The committee then moved to SB 99, which concerns allowing students enrolled in career and technical education programs at receiving comprehensive high schools to take additional academic courses there. The chair said the bill was intended to make it easier for students to access CTE without being blocked by scheduling conflicts in their sending schools, and to clarify how agreements between sending and receiving districts would work. He described concerns about the bill’s cost formula, transportation, part-time versus full-time status, and whether the proposal could unintentionally create open-enrollment or athletic-transfer issues. He said the amendment would mirror existing treatment for homeschool and charter school students, use a familiar funding model, and limit participation to students already enrolled in one or more CTE classes at the receiving school. The chair also emphasized that comprehensive high schools already have a statutory definition and that the bill would help more students participate in CTE, which he said currently reaches only a relatively small share of students statewide. He noted that transportation would be covered only when a CTE bus is available, otherwise students would be responsible for arranging travel as under current practice. After brief discussion, the committee voted 18-0 to adopt the amendment and 18-0 to recommend SB 99 OTPA, also placing it on the consent calendar.

Transcript Highlights:

• . >> Representative Bratcher. >> Representative Emily Callaway, present. >> Representative Josh Callaway
• . >> Representative Josh Callaway. >> Representative Adrielle Camuel, here. >> Representative Steven
• Doan. >> Representative Ken Fleming. >> Representative Daniel Grossberg. >> Representative David Hale
• Representative Proctor, yes. >> Representative Raburn. >> Representative Riley. >> Yes. >> Representative
• . >> Representative Proctor. >> Yes. >> Representative Raburn. >> Representative Riley. >> Representative

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The committee heard presentations from the Family, Career and Community Leaders of America and the Governor Scholars Program. The FCCLA student speaker described how career and technical education helped her gain certifications, work in early childhood settings, and recognize a child who needed speech help, emphasizing support for CTE, FCCLA, and related student organizations. The Governor Scholars Program presentation, led by Dr. Jennifer Price with student speakers Max Corbett and Abigail Ziggler, focused on the program’s role in serving about 1,500 rising seniors each summer, its history since 1983, its statewide reach, and its impact on leadership development, college readiness, and keeping students connected to Kentucky. Members praised the students and program, and several shared personal stories about the program’s long-term benefits. Representative Camuel asked about funding, and Dr. Price said the program’s request was $2.1 million to maintain current enrollment levels of about 1,020 scholars for 2026; no vote was taken on that request during this segment. The committee then took up House Bill 498, sponsored by Representative Duvall, with Aaron Looper of Graduation Alliance testifying in support. A committee substitute was adopted after explanation. The substitute broadened eligibility for accredited providers to include public and nonprofit entities, allowed each county an opportunity to provide services with a $200,000 aggregate maximum per county, reduced the dollars per credit to serve more students, and made date corrections. Representative Duvall said the bill was a workforce measure developed from the Workforce Attraction and Retention Task Force and aimed at adults who lack a high school diploma but have two years or less remaining to graduate. Looper said the bill would create a pathway for adults to earn a regionally accredited high school diploma, paired with workforce and industry-recognized credentials, and stressed that it would not compete with GED programs, which are better suited for adults farther from graduation. He said the model is pay-for-performance, with providers paid only after milestones are completed, and that it would be available online, in person, or in hybrid form to improve rural access. In response to questions, he said students would not be charged fees, providers would handle transcript retrieval and remediation, and the program would include built-in accountability measures. He also said the budget request is $2 million per year, with the goal of maintaining the current level of service and eventually expanding if successful. Members asked about how the program differs from existing adult education options, access in all counties, and whether there are deserts in service availability; Looper said the online model and provider outreach are intended to address those gaps.

Transcript Highlights:

• My name is Representative Ross Bay, representing the towns of Gothtown and, uh, Hillsboro 44.
• see how much it's costing per student. see how much it's costing per student.
• Representative Glenn Cordelli: We pay over $38,000 per student, whereas one of the other towns pays $18,000
• Well, I represent Gtown. I out there. Well, I represent Gtown.
• Recognize the prime sponsor, Representative Representative Representative Fraternal.<00:40:10.800>

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• student come the example is my student student come the example is my student comes<02:04:30.159
• Yes, Representative<02:07:08.560> Kelly. Representative Kelly. Representative Kelly.
• And so, what does that represent in terms of a percent of the total number of students enrolled in Wyoming
• Of the full-time or the statewide programs, the total enrollment equates to 2,197 students, which represents
• <03:00:41.600> which equates to 2,197 students which equates to 2,197 students which represents

Keywords: 916, all