House Education Committee hears bill to allow optional ‘compressed’ degrees for high‑demand jobs

Representative Mutzenberger introduced House Bill 1220 on the creation of a North Dakota “accelerated” or, as he and witnesses called it, a “compressed” degree pathway that would allow institutions to offer baccalaureate programs with fewer general‑education credits for high‑demand occupations.

Mutzenberger told the committee he had spent months researching the idea and described the proposal as voluntary for institutions: "Line 8 ends with the word may. I just wanna stress that just to show that this is not mandatory for any university… This is completely up to them, completely optional," he said. He said compressed degrees could reduce the typical 120‑credit baccalaureate by about 25 percent and get students into the workforce sooner.

Supporters at the hearing said the policy could help employers hire for persistent shortages. Andrea Fennig, vice president of government affairs for the Greater North Dakota Chamber, told the committee the chamber’s membership reported hiring challenges and that employers “value flexibility and responsiveness when it comes to preparing students for their chosen careers.”

Opponents from the North Dakota University System and professional program representatives said the bill, as written, would create more problems than it solves. Lisa Johnson, vice chancellor of academic and student affairs for the North Dakota University System, testified in opposition and said campuses were already examining reduced‑credit degrees under the State Board of Higher Education and NDUS but that HB1220 differs in important ways. "The response of the state's licensure boards regarding the directive in section 2 to approve and recognize an accelerated degree for licensure purposes is an important feature of this bill," Johnson said, adding that changes to licensure standards without prior engagement with professional boards, employers, and accreditors would be “concerning.”

Johnson told the committee federal and accreditor rules create practical constraints for programs that remove general education: federal Title IV rules require institutions to disclose whether a program meets licensure requirements in other states, and the Higher Learning Commission issued 2024 guidance that asks institutions seeking reduced‑credit baccalaureates to "provide evidence of the institution's policies and processes for adequately incorporating general education" into any reduced program. She said those requirements mean campuses could face accreditation and student‑consumer protection issues if general education is simply removed.

Nursing educators pressed the committee on patient‑safety implications. Dr. Billy Madler, associate dean of nursing at the University of Mary, told the committee that nursing program accreditors and national organizations expect a liberal‑arts foundation in baccalaureate nursing curricula and that reductions to general education would risk programmatic accreditation and, in turn, graduates' eligibility to sit for licensure exams. "Reducing educational requirements by eliminating general education courses would further widen this gap, leaving new nurses with insufficient preparation to meet the complex demands of their role," Madler said.

Several witnesses suggested alternatives the system already uses for flexibility, including CLEP exams and dual‑credit pathways. Johnson noted NDUS currently recognizes a range of CLEP tests that can substitute for gen‑ed categories and that campuses are already pursuing reduced‑credit approaches with attention to accreditor and licensure requirements.

No vote was taken during the hearing. The committee heard both written and oral testimony for and against HB1220 and indicated members may consider amendments to address accreditation, licensure, and student disclosure concerns.

Ending: The committee closed the hearing on House Bill 1220 after receiving testimony from business groups, university system officials, nursing educators, and licensure boards. Representatives signaled interest in reconciling workforce goals with accreditation and licensure constraints before advancing any measure.