House Higher Education Committee considers A+ Scholarship expansion legislation
On Monday, March 21, the House Higher Education Committee, chaired by Rep. Brenda Shields (R-St. Joseph), considered HB 2670, sponsored by Rep. Ann Kelley (R-Lamar). The legislation would expand the A+ Scholarship to students in specific certificate programs that are ineligible for financial aid dollars. Currently, students must enroll in programs that are offered by institutions that are eligible under Title IV of the federal Higher Education Act in order to fulfill the A+ scholarship’s “good faith effort to first secure all available federal sources of funding” statutory requirement.
“We need to provide more opportunities [for students] right out of high school,” testified Rep. Kelley. Under HB 2670, students enrolled in “certified facilities approved by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education” that offer certificates or degrees would be eligible for A+ funding. The legislation intends to cover programs specifically referenced in the language, including certified medication technician and certified nurse assistant programs.
During the hearing, Rep. Kevin Windham (D-Hillsdale) shared concerns that the legislation provides carve-outs for certain students and programs and would include new financial aid costs when “funds [are] lacking in other scholarship [program] areas.”
While there was agreement around providing more opportunities for students pursuing non-traditional two or four-year degree programs of study, committee members had questions about whether the legislation strikes the right balance or if there are other approaches to address the issue.
Senate Education holds hearing on higher education funding formula legislation
On Tuesday, March 22, the Senate Education Committee, chaired by Sen. Cindy O’Laughlin (R- Shelbina), held public testimony on SB 1077, which would establish a performance funding formula for Missouri’s public higher education institutions. The legislation mirrors HB 2602, which was summarized in the March 4 legislative update. During the hearing, bill sponsor Sen. Karla Eslinger (R-Wasola) testified that the legislation would establish a “new funding formula” and ensure “taxpayer dollars are spent in the most wise and efficient way.” Sen. Eslinger continued to say that the goal of the legislation is to “begin a conversation” on funding formula options that will ensure a student’s “degree will continue to maintain value after they walk across that stage.”
While legislators recognized the legislation’s intent, several raised questions about the current draft. Since the bill would allocate 30-40 percent of an institution’s funding based on a student’s future earnings, Sen. O’Laughlin expressed hesitation. “It seems like everyone would need to open a medical facility” to draw students into high-paying jobs...and having heavyweights may skew other factors that are important,” said Sen. O’Laughlin. Sen. Jill Schupp (D-St. Louis) also questioned how the formula would account for those who graduate from college but decide not to participate or stay in the workforce.
Later in the hearing, a representative of the Cicero Institute spoke in favor of the legislation and indicated that the formula would “align incentives with students’ needs.”
The University of Missouri System and the Missouri Community College Association expressed a willingness to join a funding formula conversation; the Council on Public Higher Education detailed outcomes to consider regarding the current bill text if it were to become law.
COVID-19 legislation and amendments considered in the Senate
On Wednesday, March 23, the Senate Commerce Committee, chaired by Sen. Mike Cierpiot (R- Lee’s Summit), considered Rep. Brad Hardwick’s (R-Waynesville) HB 1686 and HB 2358 & HB 1485, carried by Rep. David Evans (R-West Plains). The Feb. 25 legislative update provides a summary of both bills. During the hearing, Rep. Hardwick testified that the legislation attempts to balance opposing sides of the COVID-19 vaccine discussion. For example, HB 1686 “forbids government vaccine mandates for all workers” while allowing an exception for “facilities to comply with the [federal] rule to receive Medicare/Medicaid funding.”
In addition, the legislation ensures that public colleges and universities that require COVID-19 vaccinations in order to continue to receive federal funds are not subject to the strict vaccine mandate ban. However, the bill also states that the allowance “shall not be construed” as a general requirement that students receive a COVID-19 vaccination as a condition of enrollment.
Entities including the Missouri Chamber of Commerce & Industry spoke on the legislation and indicated that HB 1686 “is the most reasonable” approach. Others argued that any COVID-19 legislation should allow for employers to make decisions that are best for them.
Following Rep. Evans’ opening remarks, several legislators asked why the legislation appeared to focus less on the “rights of the vaccinated.”
Sen. Karla May (D-St. Louis) asked, “Are there protections for health-compromised individuals if coworkers are unvaccinated?” Sen. Doug Beck (R-St. Louis) also asked, “Don’t employees have the right to a safe workplace?” In response to both inquiries, Rep. Evans responded with the need to protect all workers’ rights.
Several members indicated the COVID-19 bills, as a whole, are a “work in progress.” Senate Commerce Committee members will likely offer and consider several amendments before a committee vote.
Later that evening on the Senate floor, COVID-19 amendments were offered to Senator Lincoln Hough’s (R-Springfield) SB 758, which modifies bidding procedures for certain public projects. Discussion on the amendments went well into the evening until the legislation was placed back on the perfection calendar.
House Budget Committee to hear appropriation committee reports on Monday
On Monday, Mar. 28, the House Budget Committee, chaired by Rep. Cody Smith (R-Carthage), will review committee substitutes for HBs 3001-3013, HB 3015 & HB 3020 at noon. You may watch it here.
|
