Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Concurrent Enrollment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate debates concurrent‑enrollment funding; permissive fee amendment defeated and bill later tabled on fiscal grounds
Summary
Senators debated H.B. 79 to stabilize $8 million in concurrent‑enrollment funding and a Dayton amendment permitting institutions to charge up to $25/credit when their funding was inadequate. The amendment failed and the bill was ultimately tabled on the third‑reading calendar for fiscal review.
Senator Bell explained the intent of second substitute H.B. 79: to stabilize funding for concurrent enrollment at a base of $8,000,000 and index it for inflation by placing it "below the line" so it would grow with the Value of the WPU. "It will keep the current funding base of $8,000,000 stable for inflation," Bell said on the floor, and he noted the program serves about 27,400 students.
Senator Dayton offered Amendment 1 to allow college presidents the discretion to charge students up to $25 per credit hour when institutional funding was insufficient, arguing that some colleges were losing money on concurrent‑enrollment offerings and needed a revenue option. "It allows the president... to charge up to $25 a credit hour if there is not adequate funding," Dayton said. Supporters of the amendment argued it would help colleges avoid cutting courses; opponents said the permissive charge would violate a recent compromise negotiated among higher‑education and public‑education stakeholders and risk a governor's veto.
After extended debate touching on rural access, recruiting benefits and accreditation risks, the Senate rejected Dayton's amendment on the floor. The bill was read for the third time with a recorded preliminary vote count reported on the floor; later, Senators moved to table the bill on third reading to resolve fiscal questions and that motion carried. The tabling means the Senate paused final passage pending fiscal-note clarification and further discussion; no final enactment or appropriation occurred on the floor during this session.
Why it matters: Concurrent enrollment expands access to college credit for high‑school students and affects higher‑education budgets and the WPU. The contention centered on how to fund the program without imposing fees that could reduce access for low‑income and rural students. Lawmakers deferred a final action pending fiscal analysis.
