Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House passes HB72 to create voluntary fifth-term accelerated-learning option after floor debate over costs
Summary
The House passed HB72, a voluntary ‘fifth-term’ accelerated-learning program that would let students attend summer terms to graduate early or receive remediation. Sponsors said planning and WPU adjustments will control costs; critics warned the bill lacks a fiscal note and could create funding pressure.
Representative Lloyd Franson introduced House Bill 72, the Accelerated Learning Program, describing it as a voluntary ‘‘fifth-term’’ summer option that would let students proceed through school year‑round, graduate earlier, or take technical credits. "This particular piece of legislation is something that I'm extremely excited about," Franson told colleagues, summarizing endorsements he said he had collected from parent and educator groups and a Dan Jones poll showing strong parental interest.
Franson and other supporters said the bill is intended to be phased in through a planning process overseen by the State Board of Education and local districts. Franson said the bill would be incorporated into the minimum school program and that the mechanism for funding would rely on the existing Weighted Pupil Unit (WPU) accounting, with dollars ‘‘rolled forward’’ so that students attending a summer term would not increase the overall WPU cost over the long run.
Rep. Alexander and Representative (14) pressed the sponsor on fiscal details. Alexander asked for clarification about an appropriation that had been removed in committee and then partly restored in the amendment; he said he was "really worried about this bill" because there was no firm fiscal note and no clear limit on how many schools might participate. Representative (14) said a scenario with many schools applying next year could produce substantial unplanned costs.
Representative Wright, who spoke in support, explained the funding mechanics on the floor: "So basically there is no total cost, but we have to roll dollars forward... it only costs the WPU for that student for that quarter." Wright described how concurrent enrollment and existing funding formulas would be used to manage the program.
The House debated an amendment to strike language making appropriations nonlapsing; supporters described the change as a protective mechanism so experimental funds would lapse if not used. Representative Stevenson proposed deleting the nonlapsing line as a friendly amendment; the House adopted the amendment. Several members urged a cautious pilot approach, and the sponsor repeatedly emphasized a planning period and local‑state cooperation.
After extended discussion and amendments, the clerk reported the final vote on HB72: the bill passed the House with 60 yes votes and 8 no votes and was referred to the Senate.
