Analysis of ACCESS Act for higher ed details funding changes, indoctrination restrictions

Gov. Sarah Sanders’ proposed ACCESS Act for higher education could make funding available for college noncredit certificate programs, while potentially withholding funding for institutions that don’t comply with the bill’s racial preference and student indoctrination provisions.

Senate Bill 246 by Sen. Jonathan Dismang, R-Searcy, and Rep. Matthew Shepherd, R-El Dorado, would change the higher education funding formula. Beginning in 2026-27, the model would incorporate a return on investment metric that is aligned with state economic and workforce needs.

The omnibus 122-page bill also says the Division of Higher Education “may promulgate rules” to implement a funding formula supporting noncredit programs at higher education institutions. Funding would come from Educational Excellence Trust Fund revenues, general revenues, and other funds provided by law.

Meanwhile, higher ed institutions could lose state funding for more than a fiscal year if they violate the law’s ban on preference programs based on personal characteristics such as race and gender, or if they compel students to adopt a particular belief.

The five-plus-page subsection on that topic, beginning on page 61, says the general assembly intends to “prevent discrimination, promote the intellectual development of students and faculty, and protect the free exchange of ideas.”

The bill would prohibit higher education officers, agents, administrators, employees, teachers or contractors from adversely or advantageously treating students differently based on their race, ethnicity, sex, color or national origin. They could not “organize, participate in, or carry out any act or communication” violating the subsection when acting as part of their official duties. State-supported higher learning institutions could not spend state funds and must reject federal funds that would require them to violate the law.

Teachers and others could not compel students to personally “affirm, adopt or adhere to ideas or beliefs” that would violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Those beliefs would include the idea that people should be treated adversely or advantageously because of their personal characteristics, or the belief that students with those characteristics are responsible for actions committed by other people with those same characteristics.

Furthermore, they could not compel a student to affirm, adopt, or adhere to a political, philosophical, religious, or other ideological viewpoint. At the same time, the bill does not prohibit discussing ideas and history for legitimate educational purposes, or ideas that some might find “unwelcome, disagreeable or offensive.”

“It is the policy of this state that a state-supported institution of higher education educates students of the state-supported institution of higher education on how to think and not what to think,” the bill states. “A state-supported institution of higher education that does not immediately resolve a violation of this section shall demonstrate compliance with all requirements of this section within a reasonable time.”

Those that fail to do so would lose their eligibility for state higher education funding formula money. To regain it, they would have to demonstrate compliance for at least one fiscal year after the fiscal year when they lost the funding.

Meanwhile, accrediting agencies could not take any actions based on diversity, equity or inclusion (DEI) considerations, collect DEI-related information, or have any DEI requirements.

State-supported higher education institutions also would be prohibited from granting excused absences or authorizing student walkouts for political protest, social or public policy advocacy, or attempts to influence legislation or policymaking at the local, state or federal level. However, the bill would not prohibit students from attending events approved by the institutions, such as a board of trustees’ meetings. The same restrictions would apply to students in public schools and open-enrollment charter schools.

Under the bill, college students who negligently or intentionally damage college property while protesting or advocating would be liable for the damages, with the institution able to recover damages in court. The student would be ineligible to receive their degree or credential until the judgment is satisfied, nor could their credit hours transfer to another state-supported school.

The bill would add corrective actions to the existing faculty performance review process. Those actions would include remedial training and removal of tenure status. It lets institutions require an immediate for-cause review of a faculty member, including one with tenure, if it determines the faculty member has been incompetent, failed to perform their duties, been convicted of a crime affecting their fitness to serve, or for other reasons.

K-12 CHANGES
The bill also removes as part of the K-12 school rating system provisions grading schools based on English learning progress, closing the achievement gap, academic growth of student subgroups and other factors.

Instead, the grades would be based on academic achievement and student growth on the annual statewide student assessment along with school-level graduation rates, which are part of the current rating scale. The bill would create letter grading systems for public school districts and education service cooperatives. Currently, only individual schools are graded.

The bill replaces the state’s Advanced Placement Training and Incentive Program with a broader “accelerated learning” designation, which it defines as “an organized method of learning that enables a student to meet individual academic goals and graduation requirements while pursuing higher levels of skill development.”

It lists as examples a College Board pre-Advanced Placement and Advanced Placement course; an International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme course; a Cambridge Advanced International Certificate of Education course; a concurrent credit course; and a similar course or program approved by the Division of Elementary and Secondary Education.