Iowa Board of Regents to consider optional tuition guarantee program

DES MOINES, Iowa (IOWA CAPITAL DISPATCH) - The Iowa Board of Regents is proposing the establishment of an optional tuition guarantee program and three-year moratorium on academic building construction.

The proposals are among multiple changes to the board’s policy manual, according to documents released ahead of its April 22-23 meeting.

Some of the potential policy shifts reflect bills brought up during this year’s legislative session, with some already dead in the Statehouse and others still making their way through the chambers.

Board documents stated this will be the first of two readings for the suggested changes.

Policy changes recommend new programs, positions

An “optional tuition guarantee pilot program” is being proposed for inclusion in board policy. The idea comes after members of the board of regents last year called for further study into the possibility of offering a tuition guarantee program in response to a law requiring study of the subject. Multiple bills requiring versions of such a program are sitting in unfinished business in the Legislature this year.

The pilot program would start in fall 2027 at one of the three state universities governed by the board, according to the policy revision, though it does not state whether it will go to the University of Iowa, Iowa State University or the University of Northern Iowa. At the end of the academic year, a review of the program will examine student interest and participation, challenges in implementation, financial impact and other program successes and failures.

Resident undergraduate students are the only ones eligible for the pilot program, and they would need to pay a fee equal to 10% of the established base tuition rate upfront in order to receive up to four years of a guaranteed tuition rate.

Board documents stated the financial impact of the pilot program depends on what tuition rates are set for the years following students’ participation in the program. An example provided in the proposal stated 3% tuition increases every year would result in “unrealized revenue” of $780-$846 per student in the pilot.

“Key risks include the potential erosion of revenue over time, especially as inflation drives up operational costs such as salaries, technology upgrades, facility maintenance and student services,” board documents stated. “With no guarantees of other primary revenue sources and without the ability to adjust tuition rates, institutions may struggle to keep pace with rising expenses, leading to budget shortfalls.”

Tuition increases for the upcoming academic year, including 3% hikes for all resident undergraduate students, saw their first reading by the board in February. Regent Christine Hensley said at the time she would not support the plan due to a lack of inclusivity by board members in developing the rates, and wanted to have more discussions before signing off.

The final reading of tuition and fees will take place during the board’s meeting next week.

‘Ombuds coordinator’ proposed

Proposed policy changes would also establish an Ombuds Coordinator in the board office, a role that would be taken on by the board’s chief operating officer. Carolann Jensen, originally a state relations officer for the board, was named COO in July 2025.

The Ombuds Coordinator would serve as a “neutral point of contact for individuals with questions or concerns related to one of the Regent universities,” board documents stated, and can provide general information and connect people with resources if necessary. They won’t, however, have the ability to “change policies or procedures, make decisions, or require specific actions to resolve a situation.”

“The Ombuds Coordinator cannot guarantee confidentiality,” board documents stated. “In some situations, the Ombuds Coordinator may need to share information with appropriate administrators when there is a reasonable belief that doing so is in the best interests of the Regents.”

Reviews of general education courses

Another suggested revision to policy is the implementation of biannual reviews of courses that satisfy general education requirements at each university governed by the board, which will “identify courses with substantial diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) or critical race theory content,” according to board documents.

House Study Bill 534, which saw approval from an Iowa House Higher Education subcommittee in January but failed to pass through the session’s first funnel, would have required the establishment of an ombudsman as well as biannual reviews of academic programs. It also would have changed the makeup of board membership and stripped faculty bodies of their governing ability.

Admissions policies

Admission requirements policy would also change under the proposals, replacing language referring to the ACT and SAT tests with “standardized tests,” allowing for other forms of testing to be submitted for admission to a public university. In order to use different tests in the Regents Admission Index, board documents stated test scores will be “converted to the equivalent ACT composite score.”

One of the directives to the board of regents in House File 2339, which never made it to House debate, was to allow the Classic Learning Test in university admissions. Board staff created a report on the Classic Learning Test in April 2024 at the prompting of the board, with the recommendation that the test be excluded from the Regents Admission Index.

Facilities management policy sees potential additions

Policies relating to facilities management at state universities would also see major changes under the proposals, including the establishment of a “temporary moratorium on new academic space construction” that would begin July 1.

“Regent universities continue to face deferred maintenance pressures driven by aging facilities, construction cost inflation and historical underinvestment,” board documents stated. “The proposed framework builds on existing facility stewardship requirements and introduces a more structured, data-informed approach to managing facility condition and capital renewal.”

The three-year moratorium would bar any increases in “assignable square footage intended primarily for instruction, research, academic support, or related academic functions,” board documents stated, including new facilities and additions to existing buildings.

Projects that don’t increase academic square footage are not included in the moratorium, nor are projects meant to handle safety, accessibility, critical infrastructure failures, code compliance or legally mandated program requirements. Capital projects on non-academic facilities are also allowed.

Exceptions to the moratorium may be granted by the board if the project if it is necessary to “meet a near-term academic need” that can’t be addressed through repurposing or other facilities adjustments, if the project has funding that won’t disrupt priorities for capital renewal or deferred maintenance, or if the university seeking an exemption has “provided a clear analysis of existing space utilization and the alternatives considered.”

When a university does bring an academic facilities proposal forward, the proposed policy would require them to include a “maintenance endowment scaled to the anticipated long-term maintenance and capital renewable risk of the facility.”

“The maintenance endowment is designed to supplement, not replace, the institution’s responsibility to demonstrate sufficient operating resources to support the facility,” board documents stated.

The proposed changes to facilities policy would also add definitions for major maintenance, building repairs, deferred maintenance and other terms, and establish categories of major maintenance to “provide a structured framework for evaluating and addressing facility needs over time” while aligning with board principles.

A new policy on deferred maintenance targets would also be added to the board manual, including the creation of a “facilities condition index” to determine how universities are handling deferred maintenance and provide them performance and accountability measures.