Bill to expand institutions eligible for Kansas Promise Scholarship draws support and funding questions

Senate Bill 44, which would expand the postsecondary institutions eligible to participate in the Kansas Promise Scholarship program, was considered in a Senate Education Committee hearing that drew proponent testimony from technical schools, trade academies and policy groups and neutral testimony from the Board of Regents and community college associations.

Under current law the Promise Scholarship is available only at community colleges, technical colleges, and certain private institutions. Tamara Lawrence of the Revisor’s Office told the committee SB 44 would add a fourth category making any postsecondary educational institution eligible if it: has its main campus or principal place of operation in Kansas; offers a Promise-eligible program (an associate degree, a Career and Technical Education certificate or a standalone program defined by statute); is accredited; is recognized by the State Board of Regents; and is eligible to receive Title IV federal student aid. The bill would also make conforming changes to the scholarship amount statute and takes effect July 1, 2025, upon publication.

The Promise Scholarship currently allows a student to receive awards for up to 68 credit hours or $20,000, whichever comes first; the program is limited by an annual appropriation cap of $10,000,000. The statute also requires recipients to agree to live and work in Kansas for two years after graduating.

Proponents argued the change would increase student choice and help meet workforce needs. Jenna Ackpan, corporate director of admissions at Wichita Technical Institute, said WTI has trained Kansans for 70 years and urged lawmakers to “support Senate Bill 44, not only for the Kansas economy, but for the people that work hard every day to make it what it is.” Charles Friedrichs, owner and managing director of Heartland Welding Academy in Andover, described high graduation and placement rates and said accredited private and for-profit programs should be eligible because many students train for immediate workforce entry.

Speakers from Kansas Policy Institute and representatives of industry urged the committee to increase the Promise program cap so the expanded eligibility can be effective; Mike O’Neil said an amendment to raise the cap to $15,000,000 had been drafted, and Jason Watkins, testifying on behalf of the Wichita Chamber, said the program had hit its cap last year and that raising funding would be necessary if eligibility expands. Watkins also suggested allowing out-of-state residents who move to Kansas and commit to the two-year work requirement to be eligible; proponents said that approach could help attract workers.

Board of Regents staff and the Kansas Association of Community Colleges testified neutrally, citing administrative and funding constraints. Elaine Frisbie, vice president for finance and administration at the Regents, said the Promise program is complex and staff-intensive; the Regents have one financial aid staff member assigned to the program and asked for staff support if the program grows. Heather Morgan, executive director of the Kansas Association of Community Colleges, said the program “is essentially out of money” for the current cycle and explained that because students have up to 36 months to complete a program the Board must reserve funds for enrolled students, which can create large reserved balances against the annual appropriation. Both neutral witnesses said expanding eligibility without increasing the appropriation would strain administration and could close the program to additional applicants.

Committee members discussed multiple policy options: increasing the annual cap (several speakers urged $15 million), considering whether out-of-state applicants should be eligible, and whether to broaden the class of eligible students beyond recent high-school graduates to older adult learners. No committee vote was recorded; the hearing closed after testimony and the committee scheduled follow-up work on previously heard bills.

Votes at this hearing: none recorded.