Colorado 2025 Regular Session

Colorado House Bill HB1167

Introduced
2/3/25  
Refer
2/3/25  
Report Pass
3/5/25  
Refer
3/5/25  
Report Pass
4/15/25  
Refer
4/15/25  
Engrossed
4/17/25  
Refer
4/17/25  
Report Pass
4/23/25  
Refer
4/23/25  
Report Pass
4/29/25  
Refer
4/29/25  
Engrossed
5/13/25  
Engrossed
5/13/25  
Enrolled
5/13/25  

Caption

Alternative Education Campuses

Impact

One significant aspect of HB 1167 is its proposed alterations to the enrollment count system for AECs. Currently, AECs are evaluated based on a singular enrollment count date, which does not accurately reflect fluctuating student populations throughout the year. By advocating for a dual enrollment count system, the bill aims to ensure funding reflects real-time student needs. Furthermore, the eligibility age for parents and expectant individuals served at AECs will expand from 20 to 21 years, allowing a greater number of young parents to access essential educational resources.

Summary

House Bill 1167 aims to enhance the operational functionality of Alternative Education Campuses (AECs) in Colorado by addressing critical funding issues and providing a broader eligibility for students. The bill underscores the significance of AECs, which serve mainly at-risk students, emphasizing the need for increased financial resources and flexibility in funding mechanisms. This will enable AECs to offer tailored educational experiences to students facing unique challenges, thereby improving their overall educational outcomes.

Sentiment

Overall sentiment surrounding HB 1167 appears to be supportive, especially from those advocating for educational reform and additional resources for marginalized communities. Education advocates recognize the bill as a progressive step that could significantly impact vulnerable student populations positively. However, there are also concerns regarding the implementation of the proposed funding changes and whether they will adequately address the significant operational challenges faced by AECs.

Contention

Notable points of contention may center on the adequacy and distribution of funds once the alternative enrollment metrics are adopted. Critics may argue that simply changing the funding formula is insufficient without a substantial increase in total financial support for AECs. Additionally, questions about how these changes will be monitored and reported each year could lead to debates over accountability and effectiveness in serving high-risk students.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

No similar bills found.