[{"_1":2,"_124":-5,"_125":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100,112],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6364092,"mediaKeyId","2165370-c9742c2260abb5dca40e7bcb8e5ddeab","parentId",2165370,"title","Students and advocates urge repeal of law that can strip aid for campus demonstrations","audioSeconds",432,"startMs",5922000,"endMs",6354000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2165370-c9742c2260abb5dca40e7bcb8e5ddeab&start=5922&end=6354","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2165370-c9742c2260abb5dca40e7bcb8e5ddeab/thumbnail_5922000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6364092/Washington/Students-and-advocates-urge-repeal-of-law-that-can-strip-aid-for-campus-demonstrations","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6364092-5cafe32b8e5844efe40b293af7ace004/orig.mp4?Expires=1771098826&Signature=Qlp-MJVL6Ybat1bt6EZ3SAa1PakqwN7-t5iJpTU7zFT0kwXRIPSVyLBtcVd16M3Il2PlqNxHmYNWVMzkyrkVhM5SN58Cc7PZDQmifpYKQ4Hv7KcWd4j-cMY6ITLF5s9sMiCs0XHht9VyM4aKcrh5MuPyy4kns9Qx6wGhKpa2ANbRYYcOJgzwIAYNg65YYC26QoU503Jt5OMAKNA3t7UR8UwGDHl87w7Lnkr38L1XXscDtebos0jWI9IZzQjVAP0stQyifdY64w5c8ObRZYGmksWilmOoEnrdnTKzFY-T5bngpXinCjHnIPvZtLEEh9xfufscRfargdDpvIy6ISJ5FQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","House Postsecondary Education & Workforce","date","2025-01-29T00:00:00Z","article","House Bill 1343 would modify the state rule that makes students ineligible for state financial aid if they “organize or participate in any demonstration, riot, or other activity that interferes with or disrupts the normal educational process.” The bill was the subject of a Jan. 29 hearing that drew student leaders and free‑speech advocates urging repeal of the statutory language.

Committee staff Saranda Ross summarized the proposed change: the bill removes the term “riot or other activity” and conditions aid ineligibility on a formal institutional finding that the student, in violation of the code of conduct, engaged in discriminatory or harassing conduct intended to cause harm, or was convicted of a felony involving physical harm or property destruction in connection with a demonstration.

Representative Gerry Pollet (46th District), who sponsored the bill, described the existing statute as “an anachronism” that risks punishing constitutionally protected participation in demonstrations. “This is the current law is an anachronism that is frankly embarrassing,” Pollet said, and he acknowledged earlier drafts were over‑complex and that he would accept an amendment that strikes the provision entirely, as student leaders requested.

Student leaders and free‑speech groups testified in favor of full repeal. Collin Bannister of the Washington Student Association asked the committee to adopt an amendment to repeal the entire RCW, saying existing institutional codes of conduct already address misconduct and criminal behavior. Sienna Girard of Associated Students at UW Bothell said the provision “unfairly targets low income students who rely on financial aid” and duplicates campus disciplinary systems.

Huskies for Liberty, a student group, supported the bill’s narrowing language and emphasized First Amendment considerations in written testimony.

Where things stand: committee members asked technical questions about whether campus conduct codes are uniform; sponsors and student groups urged repeal rather than partial revision. No committee vote was taken at the hearing; members were receptive to amendments to simplify or repeal the statutory language.

Implications: if the legislature removes or narrows this statute, enforcement of misconduct would remain with campus conduct codes and criminal justice processes rather than an automatic financial‑aid sanction tied to participation in demonstrations.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Postsecondary Education & Workforce - 1/29/2025 1:30 PM","oneSentenceSummary","House Bill 1343 would narrow or repeal a decades‑old rule making students ineligible for financial aid for participating in a demonstration that 'disrupts' campus; students and free‑speech groups urged complete repeal of the provision and said student conduct codes already cover harmful behavior.","taxTitle","Postsecondary Education & Workforce, House of Representatives, Legislative Sessions, Washington","taxId",20275,"location","Washington","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6364097,"Legislators move to preserve state oversight of out‑of‑state online colleges under SARA reciprocity",388,5332000,5720000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2165370-c9742c2260abb5dca40e7bcb8e5ddeab&start=5332&end=5720","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2165370-c9742c2260abb5dca40e7bcb8e5ddeab/thumbnail_5332000.jpg","/articles/6364097/Washington/Legislators-move-to-preserve-state-oversight-of-outofstate-online-colleges-under-SARA-reciprocity","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6364097-046f7a1a83e60456f32026eb6660e6b4/orig.mp4?Expires=1771098826&Signature=UpjOL4TmBrhrWiDlCl9Odk7ppJqcj4qLar3okBxjPSRDchOV2Jyp5qAdxKhH19WuC7JkjUuUJiAZ-Jd~GBDttKVmq37B2AFotOMjG6hZpFOpE388Oc4Y0iAE91kcdONnNiLrlDiAE2IeqzvdtjcPs8rPbRdiwwGwNCavmc~7HDoKDmsuOlfcV7Eq2gn1LSDzUJVtUy2IKm-Yb2YQMBEpIXDigg-0sdkjuz1i95FeixeiM~~XwX8h7zt91D68r~2lhGYg7InJIdmYfvEKmFVlYpMXC2HA-IG2iNGG3lIJZ0StBula~KaqkO9jKeJNHj2LiCMQ9YRN6TuYpUqLXH0qBA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","House Bill 1279 (referred to in the hearing as the bill on interstate reciprocity) would require that any interstate authorization agreements for distance education not suspend or reduce the Washington Student Achievement Council’s authority to enforce student consumer protections.

Committee staff Elizabeth Allison summarized the current framework and the bill’s intent: the state participates in an interstate compact (SARA) to simplify distance‑education authorization, but the council must retain investigative and enforcement authority, ensure surety bond and disclosure requirements are not reduced, and maintain access for Washington students to file complaints about misleading claims or financial instability.

Representative Gerry Pollet, who brought the measure back after prior session work, told the committee the bill responds to criticism of the national SARA framework. Pollet said the state attorney general and 24 other attorneys general had expressed concern that SARA policies limiting member states’ enforcement could “undermine our offices and other state agencies’ ability to protect students.” The bill would require the Student Achievement Council to preserve minimum standards and not delegate enforcement to other states.

Melissa Beard of the Council of Presidents testified in support after language changes: with the Student Achievement Council acting as the state portal for interstate agreements, systems did not have to negotiate reciprocity directly with each state. The change transferred the operational obligation to the council while preserving consumer protections.

Where things stand: the committee heard pro testimony and no formal vote was taken that day. The sponsor and staff said the revised text reflects work with the Student Achievement Council to ensure reciprocity is compatible with Washington consumer protections and financial security provisions for students.

Why it matters: the bill tries to reconcile two aims—simplifying cross‑state delivery of online programs and preserving state authority to investigate complaints and require surety bonds—so Washington students have the same protections whether a provider is based inside or outside the state.","House Bill 1279 would ensure the Washington Student Achievement Council retains authority to enforce student consumer protections for out‑of‑state institutions offering distance education under interstate reciprocity agreements (SARA); sponsor said the change responds to concerns the national agreement limits state enforcement.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6364103,"Bill to give students with dependents early registration draws support and operational questions",468,4360000,4828000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2165370-c9742c2260abb5dca40e7bcb8e5ddeab&start=4360&end=4828","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2165370-c9742c2260abb5dca40e7bcb8e5ddeab/thumbnail_4360000.jpg","/articles/6364103/Washington/Bill-to-give-students-with-dependents-early-registration-draws-support-and-operational-questions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6364103-bd43ba0dcb7a9a4f182e02b31fac6890/orig.mp4?Expires=1771098826&Signature=QtGiEFWJlEfnD~ucY26SAbKlAxiRz15lVHpCWLjPFVUwFG14eXrjVpyZauZIU7s~I-zvnonLJQip6Cmvh5U6XoWmHWVHI~QqariaatsBu0hPW1~2uNdloXDG30JuWM05gUtsNlOYSHjAaoEnc58QRkEMVLeqZONCgCzvQxAT9gerrcTK55~QEWFLAjdw7olvNXX6MOP6fh3~1V-u-kJinZgvhLdXgtKOaQor7Ow~Ipu2jRwzRWlyjgzp12ZeY72eiGgCyK5EgRzis~ELJIz~W0MPwD65QcUb4ji2V95CyjeBzklG~Bp2cvb3ZG7uBZsVlB-A2BFhirhUxguuhPu-VA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","House Bill 1492, which would require colleges and universities that have early registration to extend that priority to students who care for dependents, received largely supportive testimony and some operational caveats during a Jan. 29 hearing.

Committee staff described the bill’s mechanism: Saranda Ross explained that the bill “requires institutions that do offer an early registration period to also offer early registration for students who have dependents, starting with new students who have completed the admissions process, followed by continuing and returning students who have met enrollment requirements.” The bill defines dependents as children 18 or younger in a student’s care and persons who are dependent due to disability or advanced age.

Representative Usman Salahuddin (48th District), sponsor of the bill, cited research from the Institute for Women’s Policy Research that nearly 23% of community and technical college students in Washington—about 46,000 students—are raising dependent children. “Early registration will provide student parents and caregivers with the ability to create a manageable schedule, reducing stress and promoting better mental well‑being and academic performance,” he told the committee.

Supporters from the Council of Presidents, student governments and community colleges spoke in favor. Melissa Beard of the Council of Presidents said institutions already extend priority registration to many groups (veterans, graduating seniors, certain programs) and that verification of dependent status will require resources. Christine McMullen of the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges urged care on whether the bill alone will meet all parenting‑student needs; she noted colleges lack clear data on students with dependents and that priorities already balance multiple categories.

Students described real scheduling constraints. Randy Phillips, a Tacoma Community College student and parent of two, told the committee he has faced childcare and schedule conflicts that made classes difficult to attend.

Implementation questions: committee members asked whether there is evidence linking early registration to outcomes. Sponsor Salahuddin acknowledged direct correlational data was not provided at the hearing but said the measure aims to improve retention and graduation by removing a planning barrier. Institutions noted verification could be time‑consuming and that the bill preserves class‑standing‑based ordering among continuing students to avoid displacement.

Where things stand: the hearing produced broad support and no formal committee vote that day. Staff said there were 228 sign‑ins on HB 1492 (220 pro, four con, four other) and six witnesses testifying in person or online.

Next steps: committee staff and sponsors will continue discussions with institutions to clarify verification processes and potential funding for administrative costs associated with verifying dependent status each term.","House Bill 1492 would require institutions that offer early registration to provide it for students with dependents; backers cited data showing nearly 23% of community‑college students have dependents, while institutions warned verification will require resources.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6364108,"Committee considers streamlining background checks for home‑care workers; supporters cite client safety and workforce continuity",1464,2884000,4348000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2165370-c9742c2260abb5dca40e7bcb8e5ddeab&start=2884&end=4348","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2165370-c9742c2260abb5dca40e7bcb8e5ddeab/thumbnail_2884000.jpg","/articles/6364108/Washington/Committee-considers-streamlining-background-checks-for-homecare-workers-supporters-cite-client-safety-and-workforce-continuity","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6364108-ff14c15296a2f4296da7e52d14be93bb/orig.mp4?Expires=1771098826&Signature=aLhGYzmTa0UcNSStsCOR4m-uUS7-KRbMKF0-ICnMQN2QuBe5lPmf5LC1rFmJB5ojwTgPWOHZAkUl6g3E~lM~IOLjlD4gsih-7tXU22nx0feo7DYCIn3uImiQnqZB5g8g~Zef~1XfrOfQtmrV6nh8grMEOOpFyRxfTW-rij2GcYnmrxz66y7g8EdxJB3cF49dvvbtkwwrl1vIBJjCJFAExBvUIQz01s6IGLfkuKAjuRy9EbZE3q66u5zVunfEKFoQ-PNmTaTzOXu-UeUcYG7QhUlDn-f4asg704X6VpFF~EQdwXtpfOlB0s81aifLhrY~8h4bMTjEiptL~NqsDudh7Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","House Bill 1395, intended to streamline the background check process for long‑term care workers, drew support from caregivers, unions and agency providers and prompted questions from disability advocates about the two‑year fingerprint requirement.

Staff member Elizabeth Allison summarized the current system and the proposed changes: “A background check can be a name and date of birth check, a fingerprint based background check, or both,” she said, and described the bill’s key provisions: employers may not conduct a CCS review if one has already been done by the same employer for a non‑automatically disqualifying offense, if a certificate of restoration applies, or if more than 10 years have passed since a non‑disqualifying negative action. The bill would also allow individual providers (IPs) and agency providers (APs) to have unsupervised access for up to 30 days while a CCS review is completed for non‑disqualifying issues, with client notice and option to decline care. The bill preserves initial fingerprint checks at hire and the federal fingerprint requirement.

Sponsor Representative Daria Farivar (46th District) said the bill aims to “walk the right line” between protecting vulnerable clients and avoiding unnecessary interruptions to care, noting that delays in CCS reviews can leave clients without caregivers and caregivers without pay.

Caregivers and advocates offered personal testimony about harm caused by long delays. Neli Prieto described being forced off a case during a background‑check renewal because of a 27‑year‑old dismissed ticket; she said her client was left unattended for nine days and later died. “That’s why I’m asking for your support,” Prieto told the committee. Melissa Watts described being unpaid for four months while a decades‑old traffic violation triggered a CCS review; she said the bill would have allowed continuity of paid care while the review proceeded.

Unions and providers supported the measure while noting tweaks they want. Shane Truscott, vice president of SEIU 775, called the process “convoluted and inefficient,” said the bill does not change disqualifying crimes or initial FBI fingerprint requirements, and warned that the current system disproportionately affects Black, Indigenous and Latine caregivers. Brad Banks, representing Medicaid agency providers, said the proposal furthers workforce stability and client safety but raised a few technical tweaks.

Consumer advocates urged caution with eliminating recurring state background checks. Noah Bridal of the DD Ombudsman said his office supports a more equitable process but opposed removing two‑year state checks entirely; he urged clearer rules around work while CCS reviews are pending.

Fiscal and operational context: proponents said administrative savings could be material. SEIU cited a 2022 legislative study that found fingerprint checks cost the state roughly $74–$118 each; advocates using employer data estimated up to $700,000 in annual savings from eliminating some redundant fingerprints. Sponsor Farivar and advocates stressed the bill would not change disqualifying crime lists already in statute.

Where things stand: the committee did not take a final vote. Representative Farivar said stakeholders had worked to refine language and she asked committee members for input. Testimony totals reported to the committee were 226 sign‑ins on HB 1395 (190 pro, 12 con, 24 other) and seven witnesses at the hearing.

Implementation considerations: the bill will require administrative rules and clear client notification procedures; consumer advocates asked the committee to preserve sufficient oversight so clients are not placed at undue risk while reviews proceed.","House Bill 1395 would narrow when employers must repeat character, competence and suitability (CCS) reviews and allow up to 30 days of unsupervised care while those reviews proceed on non‑disqualifying flags; supporters said the change prevents care interruptions and may save state money, while ombudsmen urged retention of periodic checks.",{"_33":113,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":114,"_41":115,"_43":116,"_45":117,"_47":118,"_49":119,"_51":120,"_53":121,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":122,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":123,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6364113,"Committee hears bill to expand digital education access for incarcerated students",2749,105000,2854000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2165370-c9742c2260abb5dca40e7bcb8e5ddeab&start=105&end=2854","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2165370-c9742c2260abb5dca40e7bcb8e5ddeab/thumbnail_105000.jpg","/articles/6364113/Washington/Committee-hears-bill-to-expand-digital-education-access-for-incarcerated-students","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6364113-c97b55ece97b4bbc7c168904ff84e768/orig.mp4?Expires=1771098826&Signature=eKBb4ilR5KkYV5p~o0hLaFBFc60gEP7ssAg-TvG2ygVydVrOn6ucUIy4f0OSk4y4X-T0gz2yQUAeHlmvbEBSpOz4Z4BWS0ycA8IRwLO72exqKewRTKv-wHcFSn06iDjfRIDKMDrfKBpC7ucKInmeX1nfjtR9bFd0pi81OWa6My85YdDzx4tINE~dbOzRH2kpsOfTZX3ZoVmJZMBJ7i3~5eH2MxLhJfHkevRtbbX8M0VusabR2nBTMnTEebb2fvXWa5DTmVGQNYNLE6UH0bdaUOm9rqmi23D2Gg6rfiyTte~U3j~FO2KT2lhbuXJ6x-XgnNNHdA8DGJYSrlRCJhA6DQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","House Bill 1166, which would require the Department of Corrections (DOC) to permit incarcerated people to purchase and retain laptops and expand distance education options, was the subject of a lengthy staff briefing and public hearing on Jan. 29 before the Postsecondary Education & Workforce Committee.

Staff counsel Saranda Ross told the committee, “Before you is House Bill 1166, creating the providing effective education for reentry success act within the department of corrections.” The bill would allow inmates to buy and keep laptops as personal property, require DOC to provide Wi‑Fi access to those with laptops when funding allows, and require DOC to make requested educational websites available within two weeks of a request.

The bill’s prime sponsor, Representative Clyde Shavers, 10th Legislative District, framed the proposal as a rehabilitation measure. “This bill makes critical advancements by ensuring that those who are incarcerated have access to digital literacy, online learning, and personal educational devices,” Shavers said, and he told the committee an amendment is forthcoming that would narrow the proposal into a pilot and address fiscal concerns.

Why it matters: supporters and student‑advocates said digital access and peer‑led programming can materially improve educational attainment behind bars and lower recidivism. Brian Glatt, a formerly incarcerated man who earned an associate degree while inside, said current offerings are “a buffet of infotainment” and that more rigorous degree paths and peer‑led programs are needed. Marcus Reed, who identified himself as an incarcerated student leader, described barriers to peer‑led programs and urged legislative remedies to hold institutions accountable.

Department officials acknowledged ongoing education programs but warned of security, operational and fiscal tradeoffs. Kristen Morgan, senior administrator in DOC’s reentry division, said DOC embeds community college partners in institutions and currently operates a secured off‑state network but that HB 1166 would change the model by broadening the scope of online community classes and personal device ownership. Jason Bennett, DOC senior director of correctional operations, testified that broader internet access “could compromise the facility’s security measures,” and listed potential risks ranging from manipulation of infrastructure to inappropriate outside communications. Kellett Serre, Assistant Secretary for Budget Strategy and Technology, estimated significant IT and infrastructure costs and noted the bill does not specify who must ensure purchased equipment meets DOC security standards.

Committee members pressed both sides on fiscal and safety specifics. Representative Schmidt asked about the high fiscal note; Representative Shavers said the sponsor plans a pilot to reduce cost. Representative Graham asked how devices would be monitored; DOC witnesses stressed continued institutional control and the need for security investments. DOC staff provided specific cost context: the education laptops used today and owned by college partners cost about $850 each, and some correspondence bachelor programs cited by witnesses can cost an incarcerated student roughly $32,000, according to DOC testimony.

Public testimony reflected a mix of lived experience and programmatic perspective. Heather Kelly of the League of Women Voters said the bill is meant to “complement, not impede the work already underway,” and advocated a pilot approach. Jeremiah Bourgeois, a law clerk who served almost 30 years and said he was transformed by education, urged access to online learning that continues after degree completion. Dozens of current and former incarcerated students described limits in course availability, transfers that interrupt studies, constrained property rules and the value of peer support and community tutoring in raising completion rates.

The committee heard sign‑in counts and public input numbers: staff reported 1,227 total sign‑ins on HB 1166 (670 pro, 557 con) and 18 people registered to testify in‑person or online for the bill at that hearing.

Where things stand: no formal committee vote occurred. Representative Shavers told members he will offer an amendment to create a time‑limited pilot and to include DCYF (Department of Children, Youth & Families) where appropriate; DOC requested continued negotiations on security, device standards and fiscal estimates. The hearing closed with the committee taking no immediate action on final passage.

Context and next steps: the bill would interact with federal financial aid eligibility for correspondence courses and with House Bill 1044’s earlier changes to DOC’s off‑state network. If amended to a pilot, the committee and sponsor indicated they expect further fiscal analysis and operational planning with DOC and higher education partners.","Lawmakers and witnesses debated House Bill 1166, which would allow incarcerated people to buy and keep laptops, expand distance education and require DOC to speed access to educational websites; DOC officials raised security and fiscal concerns and the sponsor said a pilot amendment is coming.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Students and advocates urge repeal of law that can strip aid for campus demonstrations

Legislators move to preserve state oversight of out‑of‑state online colleges under SARA reciprocity

Bill to give students with dependents early registration draws support and operational questions

Committee considers streamlining background checks for home‑care workers; supporters cite client safety and workforce continuity

Committee hears bill to expand digital education access for incarcerated students