Committee advances STEM curriculum grant bill after Star Academy presentation

The Senate Education Committee voted to release S1106 to the budget committee after a presentation from Star Academy representatives about a proposed STEM curriculum grant program.

Sponsor remarks and testimony described Star Academy as a school‑within‑a‑school acceleration program that serves academically at‑risk middle school students by teaching core academics through STEM‑inspired, project‑based modules. Sharon Seamer Duane Morris, introduced earlier in the hearing as a sponsor‑listed witness, told the committee she represented Star Academy’s local implementation and introduced the program team. Steven Jolic said each Star Academy serves about 80 students and is ‘‘100% turnkey and customizable,’’ with an upfront capital package the testimony described as a $1,000,000 investment that covers furniture, technology, consumables and a three‑year partnership of supports.

Heidi Broussard, who described the company’s curriculum design and site support model, said the program assigns an education support specialist to each site for monthly on‑campus support and additional professional development when teachers turnover. Clementine Hall, a 25‑year Camden City teacher who testified about her classroom experience, said the model allowed students considered ‘‘two to three years behind’’ to accelerate, reporting higher attendance and reductions in disciplinary referrals and improved state test scores in her cohort.

Committee members pressed presenters on how districts and students would be selected for grant awards and on cost details. A sponsor‑read bill summary and attachments referenced specific dollar amounts for renewal and replication: testimony explained $250,000 for a three‑year renewal in Camden (where equipment and PD already exist) and roughly $1,000,000 to offer a full academy to an additional district. Jolic broke down the proposed $1,000,000 replication budget across a three‑year enrollment of 240 student‑years (80 students per year for three years), estimating a per‑student cost ‘‘just over about $4,100’’ inclusive of capital and three years of support; renewal costs were characterized as substantially lower.

Some senators expressed concern about targeting and equity. Senator McKnight and others asked how the Department of Education or the commissioner would select districts ‘‘in need’’ and whether the bill ensured funds would go to districts lacking existing resources. Presenters said selection would begin through conversations with superintendents and by focusing on districts that meet the program’s at‑risk profile (chronic absenteeism, free‑and‑reduced‑price lunch/CEP status, low performance). Committee members said those selection mechanisms and fiscal oversight would be addressed in budget negotiations.

After questions, the committee voted to release the bill to the budget committee. Senators recorded several abstentions during the committee vote and several members said they would follow up with staff in budget hearings to press for selection criteria and fiscal safeguards.

The committee record shows the bill will move next to budget, where lawmakers said they expect further scrutiny of district selection, per‑student costs, and replication funding.