Transcript Highlights:

• It has a student advisory council that provides input and feedback, and this includes student representatives
• The student advisory council provides input and feedback, and this includes student representatives from
• Madam Chair, members, also to go back to Representative Scott's question about the 667,000 students,
• family the students and the students family the students and the students family should<00:59:22.079
• are represented there are three<01:26:27.159> student<01:26:27.520> members<01:26:28.440

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The Higher Ed Finance and Policy Committee met to begin a budget overview for higher education. The chair noted quorum, committee member introductions, and that Democratic members were absent. The chair also said the Office of Higher Education would not be appearing for the planned budget deep dive, so nonpartisan fiscal staff would present instead. Ken Savory, the committee’s nonpartisan fiscal analyst, introduced a presentation on the higher education finance structure and timeline. Savory explained the state budget cycle, the difference between direct appropriations, statutory appropriations, open appropriations, base funding, tails, and one-time appropriations, and how those concepts apply to higher education. He described the committee’s usual budget areas: the Office of Higher Education, Minnesota State, the University of Minnesota, and the Mayo Foundation. He also reviewed historical spending charts showing higher education’s share of the general fund over time, the 2/3-1/3 funding policy in statute, and how tuition and general fund support have shifted. He noted that the FY 26-27 base for the Office of Higher Education area is about $725 million, including roughly $450 million for the State Grant program and about $99 million for North Star Promise. Members asked about comparing the current budget to earlier biennia, and staff responded that they would need to calculate the percentage difference. The chair then summarized prior budget growth, saying the previous budget was about $650 million over base and the current budget/tail was about $450 million over base. Staff also reviewed the 2024 omnibus higher education bill, including a roughly $5 million reduction to North Star Promise that was redirected to the Fostering Independence Grant program and a $500,000 appropriation for Minnesota State’s Kids on Campus program. The committee did not take any formal votes or actions during this portion of the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• We hire students, and I always like to stress that we love students.
• I love students because in 1986 I was a student.
• students.
• And I think it also represents a strategic investment in North Dakota students and our own workforce.
• And as we program to students, we heard a lot about the traditional aid student.

Keywords: 908, all

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:

• Over 2/3 of our students identify as students of color.
• Chairman, uh, Representative, the, uh, student high school to junior college ratio roughly is 50/50.
• students in particular, students with IEPs will, will generate a greater per pupil amount than students
• for Hispanic students, English learners, uh, Native American students.
• And students with disabilities.

Transcript Highlights:

• They want to take public students, public school students' money and your taxpayer money, close down
• Thank you, Representative Wu.
• Please welcome Representative Hinojosa. Thank you. I'm, uh, State Representative Gina Hinojosa.
• Representative Goodwin. Thank you.
• I am State Representative Vicky Goodwin representing House District 47.

Transcript Highlights:

• students.
• Represent Damon. Thank you and Go ahead. Represent Damon.
• Represent Represent Represent Bilsbury.<00:50:22.319> Mr.
• The LEA representative is, um, so it starts off as your director of student services, and then at different
• Representative<01:42:31.840> Aean, Representative Aean, Representative Aean, thank<01:42:

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee opened its second meeting on House Bill 742, which would require catastrophic special education aid to be drawn from the education trust fund, and discussed whether to also examine differentiated aid within the adequacy formula. The chair said the committee had previously heard from HHS/Medicaid officials and now wanted to hear from local special education directors about how the aid system works in practice, including billing, training, data collection, and whether districts handle claims consistently. Members also referenced Arkansas as a possible comparison state and said they hoped to develop ideas by November to address the current funding process. Committee members focused on the current special education aid thresholds and the impact of proration. The chair described the existing formula as requiring districts to absorb costs up to 3.5 times the state average per student, with the state paying 80% from 3.5 times through 10 times and paying above that, and said FY25 appropriated about $34 million while actual claims were about $50.1 million, leaving roughly a $16 million shortfall that caused proration. Members also raised the possibility of lowering the threshold to 2.5 times and asked how that would affect the number of eligible students and costs. Another member asked about how districts decide whether services are education-related or medical-related and how Medicaid or private insurance reimbursement affects later state aid claims. District representatives from Boothby Therapy Services, Bedford, and Guilford introduced themselves and described their roles. Guilford’s director said the district tracks students with paraprofessional support, nurses, transportation, or specialized programming, uses a data system to log every service touchpoint, and tries to maximize both Medicaid and special education aid; she said a lower threshold would likely capture all students with paras or nurses and that rising staffing and service costs would increase the number of students over the cap. Bedford’s assistant director said the district uses a different system, tracks roughly 60 to 80 students a year, and pursues Medicaid and special education aid simultaneously but does not pursue private insurance if it would affect FAPE; she said reducing the threshold to 2.5 times would likely double the number of qualifying students. Members asked follow-up questions about software, data entry, and how districts decide whether to bill Medicaid or seek state catastrophic aid, and the directors explained that their systems log services by staff type and student, with some districts using the same data for both Medicaid and state reimbursement claims.

Transcript Highlights:

• Representative Collins, Representative Baker, Representative Drummond, Representative Crow, Representative
• Representative Gray, Representative Morris, Representative Paramore, Representative Paschal here, Representative
• Representative Collins, Representative Baker, Representative Drummond, Representative Crow, Representative
• Representative Gray, Representative Morris, Representative Paramore, Representative Paschal here, Representative
• >> Um, yeah. >> They counted as a full day student. >> Good. >> Uh, Representative Crow. >> Okay.

Keywords: 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Representative<01:31:37.760> Robbins. Representative Robbins. Representative Robbins.
• This is, of course, disproportionately impacts adult students, student parents, students that are close
• Represent Robbins. provision very much. Represent Robbins.
• um students affects our students um students affects our students um significantly<01:58:28.480>
• Today I'm representing Students United and LEAM MN, four-year and two-year students in the Minnesota

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The Higher Education Finance and Policy Conference Committee met publicly to compare House and Senate positions on the higher education budget, with the chairs emphasizing transparency and alternating gavel control. Nonpartisan fiscal staff walked through a spreadsheet of differences across the Office of Higher Education and Minnesota State, including major items such as state grants, childcare grants, work study, tribal college grants, emergency assistance grants, hunger-free campus grants, student parent support, direct admissions, paramedic scholarships, and several medical residency and fellowship programs. The House and Senate also differed on administrative funding, campus sexual assault reporting, and a House FY25 cancellation that would be carried forward. Members discussed several of the larger policy and funding choices. The Senate explained its increase for Minitex as support for operating costs and statewide access to information. The House explained its cuts to student parent support and other items as necessary to work within a zero target and to prioritize direct aid to students, while the Senate said it focused on direct appropriations and access-related programs. On hunger-free campus grants and emergency assistance grants, the Senate said it was changing the distribution method and direct appropriations rather than reducing the overall money, while the House noted differences in whether nonprofit institutions remained included. The committee also reviewed Senate-only additions and reductions in Minnesota State, including free course materials, Lake Superior College remediation, and changes to the Kids on Campus appropriation. A representative from Lake Superior College testified that the PAS remediation funding would help address contamination issues at an emergency training site near Lake Superior and that the money was shifted from the Kids on Campus initiative. No final conference agreement or vote was taken in the portion of the meeting provided; the committee continued discussing differences and testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• Students.
• I'm representing students from Sacramento. Thank you, ma'am.
• I'm a lifelong student of the California public school system, and I'm here representing my ancestors
• I have the distinct pleasure of representing over 31,000 to 32,000 students across Sacramento State.
• And to do justice to our students in these classrooms, both the Udab students and the Jewish students

Summary: The Assembly Education Committee held a special hearing on AB 715, with the authors presenting the bill as a response to rising anti-Semitism in K-12 schools. The authors said the measure is intended to strengthen protections for Jewish students, improve district accountability, expand the uniform complaint process, clarify protections related to religion and nationality, and create a state-level anti-Semitism coordinator. They emphasized that the bill was developed through collaboration with the Black, Latino, AAPI, and Jewish caucuses and argued it is meant to protect all students from hate while preserving legitimate classroom discussion. The hearing included extensive public testimony. Supporters, including students, parents, rabbis, Jewish organizations, and some educators, described harassment, biased curriculum, delayed or ineffective school responses, and fear among Jewish students and families. They urged the committee to act to make schools safer and more responsive. Opponents, including teachers, ethnic studies advocates, civil liberties groups, Palestinian rights advocates, and some Jewish parents, argued the bill was rushed, vague, and could chill academic freedom, censor discussion of Palestine and Israel, and expand complaints against teachers and school districts. Several witnesses said existing complaint and anti-discrimination systems already address these issues. Committee members then questioned the authors and witnesses about implementation, definitions, and possible effects on curriculum and school boards. The authors said the bill is still intent language and that details would be refined in further negotiations with stakeholders. Representatives from the California School Boards Association and California Teachers Association raised concerns about the new language and possible unintended consequences, while ACLU California Action said it had concerns but wanted to keep working on the bill. The transcript does not show a final vote or action taken on AB 715 during this hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• So regardless of where the students are located Proviso language, that it's a per-student funding model
• So the model generates the activity that the students are actually enrolled in, and not all students
• You know, one student took it, one student passed, and they have 100% passage rate, and then the money
• So they could, hypothetically, that 100% passage rate could be just one student took it, one student
• Representative Kendall, you're recognized. Thank you. Representative Kendall, you're recognized?

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:

• Representative Baker, Representative Brown, Representative Truett, Representative Bowling, Representative
• Bray, Representative Petrie, Representative McCool, here.
• students to attend uh higher education. students to attend uh higher education.
• Uh, Representative<00:15:03.199> Tipton. Representative Tipton. Representative Tipton.
• supports 54 students. supports 54 students.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The House Budget Review Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education heard presentations from the University of Louisville and the Kentucky Community and Technical College System (KCTCS) on their strategic plans, enrollment trends, and budget priorities. University of Louisville President Bradley highlighted the university’s new five-year strategic plan, its R1 research status, community-engaged and opportunity college classifications, record enrollment of 25,005 students, and its role in serving first-generation, Pell-eligible, military-connected, and rural students. He also emphasized the university’s economic and workforce impact, including athletics, nursing, dentistry, and a recent Speed School building, and previewed major capital and program requests: a $142 million STEMH building, a $15 million one-time request for National Cancer Institute-related cancer research, and $5.3 million for the Kentucky Manufacturing Extension Partnership. He also discussed a planned $260 million health sciences building and the university’s efforts to expand health care access beyond Louisville through regional sites and residency partnerships. Members responded positively, with Representative Tipton asking about agency bond projects and regional health outreach, and President Bradley saying the university is evaluating debt capacity and exploring smaller projects while noting that the STEM building request would rely on state-funded debt service. He described UofL Health’s expansion into places such as Bullitt County, Shelbyville, Madisonville, and Paducah, and its efforts to train physicians for rural practice. Representative McCool praised the university’s military-friendly designation and cancer research priorities and noted personal family ties to UofL. Michaela Aman, a sophomore from Letcher County, also testified about how UofL has supported her as a rural student and emphasized the university’s commitment to opportunity and social mobility. KCTCS President Ryan Quarles and CFO Todd Kilburn then presented the system’s enrollment, completion, and workforce-training results. They said KCTCS now serves more than 110,000 students, graduated a record 24,000 students last May, and has moved from 45th to 4th nationally in graduation rate. They also highlighted that over half of students are first-generation, 60% work while enrolled, 70% of graduates work in Kentucky, and 74% graduate with no student loan debt. KCTCS described its common-course-numbering agreement with Morehead State as part of a broader transfer simplification effort, and said it trains about 200,000 Kentuckians annually when including workforce training and firefighter instruction. The system also outlined efficiency measures, including property sales, a new bookstore contract projected to save $4.3 million over five years, and a new evaluation process for real estate and facilities. KCTCS’s budget and capital requests included operating funding tied to enrollment growth, support for the TRAINs program, the ECTC training facility at Glendale, continued support for Health Force Kentucky, three capital construction projects at Jefferson, Bluegrass, and Gateway, and asset preservation funding focused on safety and security upgrades. Quarles also referenced House Bill 5, saying it would expand KCTCS’s correctional education and re-entry work and could help reduce recidivism. Members asked about the bill and its impact, and KCTCS said it already provides instruction in jails and prisons and sees the proposal as an extension of that work.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's the students.
• > to<00:05:08.160> be<00:05:08.320> students students that that happen to be students
• Representative Schultz. Representative Schultz.
• Representative<00:09:57.440> Schultz. Representative Schultz. Representative Schultz.
• Representative >> Any further discussion? Representative Lawrence.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• of higher learning. representative Brown yes representative representative Brown yes representative mahagan
• representative Ames yes representative representative Ames yes representative Burton<00:21:57.000
• representative Burton yes representative representative Burton yes representative fellows<00:24:
• Madam Clerk, or Representative Spillsbury, I would just like to state that every student who is eligible
• Madam Clerk, or Representative Spillsbury, I would just like to state that every student who is eligible

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first took up HB 112, which would require students in the University and Community College systems to pass the U.S. citizenship civics naturalization test. A motion was made to retain the bill, and the committee voted unanimously to retain it, resulting in no report. HB 510, dealing with due process rights for students, student organizations, and faculty in higher education disciplinary proceedings, was passed over for a later meeting so the University and Community College systems could meet with the committee. The committee then discussed HB 659, creating a college graduate retention incentive program, but retained it without further debate after noting the prime sponsor was unavailable. HB 770, concerning tuition credits for community service, was also held for later in the day because an amendment was expected. The most extensive discussion centered on HB 583, which would have the state participate in Medicaid direct certification for free and reduced-price school meals. Supporters argued it would identify more eligible students, reduce paperwork, improve accuracy in school funding formulas, and bring in additional federal child care scholarship money; opponents argued it would significantly affect school funding calculations and should be delayed. The committee rejected the amendment by a 10-8 vote and then voted 10-8 to retain the bill, with a majority report and minority report to follow. HB 646, requiring school districts to establish an online application for free and reduced-price meal participation, was also debated. One member said many districts already do this voluntarily and that the bill was unnecessary; another proposed an amendment to convert the mandate into a grant program to offset startup costs, but the committee proceeded on the underlying motion and voted 10-8 to retain the bill, with a majority report and a minority OTP report. HB 665, concerning eligibility for the free school meals program, was then retained by an 11-3 vote. Finally, the committee began work on HB 703, which would prohibit school districts from denying meals to students with unpaid balances and appropriate funds for that purpose. An amendment was explained that would remove state payment of district meal debt and instead require district policies against shaming or bullying students and allow voluntary donations to reduce debt. After discussion, a motion was made to ITL the bill, with the sponsor saying constituents opposed subsidizing the program and wanted districts to retain collection tools; further debate was underway when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• Nearly 400,000 of these students are in districts your committee's members represent.
• Nearly 400,000 of these students are in districts your committee's members represent.
• That is only one student representing...
• In my college career, I have had the honor of representing over 2.6 million students in California.
• It is not to represent the students; it is to be a regent for California, and it's not to represent UCSA

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The committee first heard AB 402, which would increase Cal Grant award amounts for students attending private nonprofit colleges and allow community college transfer entitlement awards to be used at those institutions. The author and supporters said the bill would restore award levels to their 2001 value and improve access for low- and middle-income, working, military, and transfer students. Several witnesses from private nonprofit universities, community college districts, and advocacy groups supported the measure. Senators raised concerns about the prior Cal Grant agreement tied to Associate Degree for Transfer participation and about the need to fund broader Cal Grant reforms, but the bill advanced on a unanimous due-pass vote to Senate Appropriations and was placed on call. The committee then took up AB 2067, a sunset extension for lease-lease-back authority for TK-12 school construction through July 1, 2032. The author and supporters from school housing and contractor groups said the method provides flexibility, early collaboration, cost control, and legal certainty for school construction projects. Senators asked how often lease-lease-back and other alternative delivery methods are used, and whether the skilled-and-trained workforce provisions limit competition. Some members objected to the skilled-and-trained requirement, while others said the bill simply preserves an existing tool without changing labor rules. The bill passed on a 6-1 vote, with Senator Ochoa Bogh voting no, and was placed on call. AB 1204, which would revise the Local Control Funding Formula by increasing supplemental and concentration grants, lowering the concentration threshold, adding regional cost adjustments, and setting a minimum annual COLA floor, drew extensive testimony on both sides. Supporters said the bill better reflects regional costs, inflation, and student need, especially for low-income, multilingual, and unhoused students. Opponents, including several school district leaders, argued it would widen funding disparities and divert money from the LCFF base grant, which they said should be the priority. Committee members also questioned the fiscal impact, the proposed 4% COLA floor, and whether the bill had enough research and stakeholder consensus. Despite those concerns, the bill was advanced to Appropriations on a due-pass vote and placed on call. Finally, the committee heard AB 1235, which would require a skilled-and-trained workforce process for CSU design-build projects to align CSU with UC and community college construction rules. Supporters said it would improve training and project quality, while opponents from contractor groups argued it would reduce competition, increase costs, and impose mandates without evidence of better outcomes. Several senators objected to the skilled-and-trained requirement as limiting opportunities for contractors who comply with state law, while others noted the issue was already common in higher education construction. The discussion was still underway when the transcript ended, and no final vote on AB 1235 was captured.

Transcript Highlights:

• Representative Blanca here, Representative Dunkley here, Representative Gerwig Representative Hinson
• Representative McFarland here, Representative Michael here, Representative Oliver here, representative
• He represents the student academic success. She's been. Here's a red. Thank you.
• Representative Anderson Road down here and in a spot on we won't well-rounded students and will around
• We want to make sure, as Representative Anderson said there, we put in 30,000 student athletes in the

Transcript Highlights:

• proficient students.
• proficient students.
• And then we have the Yazoo Martinez case where nearly 70 of our students are represented in those subgroups
• Chair, and representative.
• Chair, and representative.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm Representative Dela Cruz.
• I'm State Representative Joy Garratt.
• If it's students who...
• No, sir, representative.
• I represent 110 chapters.

Transcript Highlights:

• So next up, we have representatives from the North Dakota Student Association.
• represent the entirety of the NDUS system of students to this committee and what we've been working
• represent the entirety of the NDUS system of students to this committee and what we've been working
• Students are fed.
• The student representative asked for student advising to make sure students were not enrolling in a program

Summary: The committee met at Dakota College at Bottineau, approved the January 15, 2026 minutes, and heard an extensive campus update from Dean Corey Gorder and other DCB leaders. Gorder described the college’s affiliation with Minot State and its growing use of shared services, including business office functions, HR, institutional research, Title IX, printing, financial aid support through UND, and payroll support through NDSU. He said the arrangement lets DCB focus on its core mission while relying on system partners for specialized administrative work, and noted that accreditation concerns were not believed to limit those shared-service arrangements. He also highlighted DCB’s mission, enrollment growth, dual-credit reach across rural schools, and the college’s emphasis on nursing, dental, paramedic, farm management, and other workforce-oriented programs. Committee members asked detailed questions about dual credit, program delivery, and whether DCB’s partnerships were exclusive. Gorder said the relationships are generally collaborative rather than exclusive, that schools can choose other providers, and that many partnerships began through personal outreach and ongoing relationships with rural schools. Lisa Johnson of the university system added that transfer complaints are rare and that dual credit generally transfers well within North Dakota, though highly selective out-of-state institutions may treat credits differently. Members also asked about stipends for high school instructors, the share of K-12 versus DCB instructors, and the capacity limits in dental hygiene and other programs. Gorder said dental hygiene is capped by space and staffing, that there were more applicants than seats, and that expansion is being considered; he also said he would provide follow-up information on the paramedic program and instructor breakdowns. Gorder closed by identifying long-term challenges, including aging residence halls, recruiting faculty and staff, and the need to review low-enrollment programs. He said DCB should consider expanding into more high-demand trades such as welding, HVAC, and electrical work, and should streamline dual credit and strengthen its Minot programming. The committee then heard from the North Dakota Student Association, whose leaders outlined student priorities from the last session and the interim. Their main concerns included campus housing quality and affordability, food insecurity and food pantries, mental and physical health resources, student-led research funding, academic and career readiness, internships, and campus collaboration. They also discussed dual credit, saying it is valuable but uneven across the state, and raised questions about how to better retain students in North Dakota through the system. Members asked follow-up questions about housing, transferability of dual credit, and whether incentives could be used to encourage students to stay in-state for higher education.

Transcript Highlights:

• Representative Decker said that the bill specifically and explicitly exempts student centers and supports
• , low-income students, non-traditional students, transfer students from KCTCS, or the students with unique
• I'm not speaking on behalf of the University of Louisville, and I'm here to represent the Kentucky Student
• , Black and Latino students, veterans, low-income students, and students with disabilities.
• , Black and Latino students, veterans, low-income students, and students with disabilities.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Senate Education Committee met with a quorum and first considered two concurrent resolutions. SCR 76, sponsored by Sen. Amanda Bledsoe, would create a Kentucky School for the Deaf Governance Task Force to examine the school’s future governance and its relationship with the Kentucky Department of Education. Bledsoe described the school’s long history and said the task force would give the small deaf-school community more voice. The committee adopted the resolution unanimously with favorable expression. The committee then took up SCR 131, sponsored by Sen. Max Wise, to continue the Efficient and Effective Districts Task Force from 2024. Wise said the prior task force met about 10 times and focused on student achievement and district policy, and the new version would continue that work as a legislature-only task force. The resolution passed unanimously with favorable expression. Members next considered HB 240 on primary school promotion. Rep. Truitt explained that the bill would require students who are not ready in kindergarten to repeat kindergarten, while a committee substitute softened the approach by allowing a school to hold a child back in kindergarten but requiring action in first grade. He said the bill aligns with existing reading-screening efforts and is intended to strengthen early literacy foundations. The committee adopted the substitute and passed the bill unanimously with favorable expression; Sen. Williams briefly explained his support as favoring performance-based advancement. The committee also approved HB 298, which would change the identification of schools for comprehensive support and improvement from every three years to annually, require KDE recommendations during management audits, add professional development in reading and math, and require effective instructional resources. The committee substitute also allowed districts with multiple CSI schools to contract for a turnaround vendor. The bill additionally carried employee-misconduct provisions from prior sessions, including disclosure requirements for applicants; the only change discussed was removing the word “investigation” from one disclosure section. HB 298 passed unanimously with favorable expression, and the committee also adopted a title amendment. Finally, the committee heard HB 424 on employment at public postsecondary institutions. Rep. Tipton said the bill would require performance and productivity reviews for faculty at least every four years, clarify appointment and removal authority for presidents at certain institutions, and expand “cause” for dismissal to include failure to meet performance and productivity requirements. Dr. Ray Horton, speaking for faculty groups, proposed a small substitute that would tie any performance measures to existing employment contracts to preserve academic integrity and avoid unintended changes to tenure processes. Members discussed how tenure works at Kentucky universities, and the committee was still in the middle of considering the proposed substitute when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• I am Representative Sean Garballey, the State Representative from the 23rd Middlesex District, representing
• Representative Moakley, Representative Luddy, Representative Wong, and I know we will have other members
• to these students and their right to be seen and represented—it's not a game or a political gimmick.
• It protects educators acting in good faith and ensures students' freedom to read and feel represented
• I want our students to be able to see themselves and to have their experiences validated and represented

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The hearing focused on several bills related to access to library materials, including measures addressing book bans and censorship in public and school libraries, as well as legislation on digital library collections and e-book licensing. Committee leaders said testimony would be limited to three minutes and encouraged written submissions. Early testimony from Chair Brian Murray highlighted H. 3595, which would address challenges facing public libraries and digital resource collections by limiting restrictive publisher-library contract terms, protecting patron confidentiality, and creating a special legislative commission to study the issue. A large number of legislators, librarians, authors, students, publishers, and advocacy groups testified in support of the free expression bills, including H. 3594 and S. 2328, arguing that book challenges in Massachusetts disproportionately target LGBTQ+ and BIPOC titles and that librarians and educators need protection from retaliation and harassment. Witnesses described local incidents of book removals, threats, and pressure campaigns, and several said the bills would create transparent challenge procedures, keep materials available during reviews, and ensure decisions are made by trained professionals rather than political actors. Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley’s office also submitted support, and multiple speakers cited national trends and Massachusetts-specific censorship attempts. Testimony on the digital access bills emphasized that e-books and audiobooks are essential for readers with disabilities, homebound patrons, students, and others who rely on accessible formats, but that current licensing terms are far more expensive and restrictive than print purchasing. Library representatives said libraries spend millions on digital content, face long wait times for popular titles, and often must repeatedly re-rent the same materials. Legal and library experts supported the proposed commission as a practical step toward fairer licensing and stronger bargaining power for libraries. The hearing ended after extensive testimony; no votes or final committee action were taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• And I think they are proposing that Representative Berg be replaced with Representative Berg.
• Some students automatically apply, or some students automatically are eligible, yes. Mr.
• Representative Hager said she wanted to respond to Representative Bosch's question.
• Representative Halk and then Representative Bosch. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
• Representative Halk and then Representative Bosch. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Summary: The Legislative Management Committee met to address the fiscal impact of Initiated Constitutional Measure No. 3, which would require public schools, public school districts, and public charter schools to provide breakfast and lunch at no cost to students and allow reimbursement from the state, with implementation beginning in the 2027-28 school year. The committee first filled a vacancy created by Representative Jared Hagert’s resignation by appointing Representative Berg to the committee. Legislative Council and DPI staff explained the measure’s requirements, including federal reimbursement participation, possible use of the legacy earnings fund if other funding is unavailable, and the authority of the Legislature and superintendent of public instruction to clarify implementation details. Linnell Johnson of DPI testified that the estimated fiscal impact for the 2027-2029 biennium is between $124 million and $134 million, based on participation assumptions, federal reimbursement rates, and the extent to which schools continue to collect applications or use community eligibility/provision 2 options. She also noted a likely additional administrative cost of about $300,000 for DPI to operate the program. Members asked about school participation, Title I implications, special diets, staffing, and whether the measure could reduce federal reimbursements if families stop applying. Johnson said the estimate is uncertain and could be higher if applications decline, but that schools would still have incentives to participate in federal programs because of reimbursement and other funding ties. After discussion, the committee adopted a motion to report a fiscal impact range of $124,300,000 to $134,300,000 per biennium to the Secretary of State. The committee then received an informational update from Legislative Council attorney Dustin Richard on the ongoing redistricting litigation. He explained that the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Eighth Circuit’s ruling and sent the case back for reconsideration in light of Louisiana v. Callais, while the district court-imposed map remains in effect for now. No action was taken on that update, and the meeting adjourned after members noted minutes from the prior meeting were not yet available for approval.