Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education First Degree Promise topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Students tell Senate committee First Degree Promise and dual enrollment boosted GPAs and accelerated degrees
Summary
Two students testified to the Senate committee about their experiences with Vermont's early college/First Degree Promise programs: both are on track to complete associate degrees quickly, cited academic gains and clearer transfer plans, and described how the program reduced barriers to higher education.
Two students who used Vermont’s early college and First Degree Promise options described tangible academic and career benefits to the Senate Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs Committee.
Atticus (last name not given) of Middlebury and Fiona Stoll, who said she began as a homeschooled student, told senators they used dual‑enrollment and early college vouchers to complete college coursework while finishing high school. Atticus said he started full time at the Community College of Vermont after a difficult senior year in high school and saw an academic turnaround. “I went from a 2.8 GPA to a 3.8 GPA,” he said, adding that completing college courses helped him focus and continue his engineering studies.
Fiona Stoll described starting with two dual‑enrollment classes and then enrolling full time in a liberal studies associate program. “Having the ability to… try a bunch of different things and see what I liked was super valuable,” she said. Stoll said she will graduate in May and plans to transfer to a music program; Atticus expects to finish an associate degree in the summer and pursue engineering at a four‑year school.
Committee members noted the cohort size cited by the students: roughly 30 students were expected to graduate in the college’s June ceremony from that early‑college cohort. Senators and staff framed the student remarks within broader workforce and workforce‑development discussions and thanked the students for bringing direct experience to the committee’s planning.
No committee action followed the testimonies; members said the personal accounts would inform later conversations about dual‑enrollment funding, outreach and workforce pipelines.
