HF2339 (the “Admissions Reform Act”) does two things: it directs the Iowa Board of Regents to accept the Classic Learning Test (CLT) as an additional standardized test option in the Regent Admission Index (RAI) before the 2026–2027 academic year; and it requires the board to adopt, by December 31, 2026, a policy that limits consideration for applicants who do not meet the RAI to only two factors — merit and the likelihood the student will work in Iowa after graduation.
The bill narrows discretionary admissions review for a subset of applicants and opens the regents’ RAI to a new commercial test provider. That combination affects university admissions offices, testing companies, guidance counselors, and students who currently rely on holistic review to gain admission despite falling below the RAI threshold.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends Iowa Code §262.9 to require the Board of Regents to incorporate the Classic Learning Test into the Regent Admission Index as an accepted standardized test option, alongside ACT and SAT. It also creates a deadline (Dec. 31, 2026) for the board to adopt a policy that limits the factors considered for applicants who do not meet the RAI to merit and likelihood of employment in Iowa after graduation.
Who It Affects
Directly affected parties include admissions offices at the three public regents universities, students who fall short of the RAI cutoffs, test providers (Classic Learning, ACT, College Board), and high school counselors who advise Iowa applicants. Employers and workforce planners may also see downstream effects if admissions prioritize in‑state employment potential.
Why It Matters
By restricting the universe of acceptable factors for non‑RAI candidates, the bill reduces admissions discretion and reshapes the grounds for appeals or alternative pathways. Adding the CLT into the RAI changes the testing market and forces administrative work to map CLT scores into the RAI scale — a technical but consequential step for implementation.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Regent Admission Index (RAI) is the numeric formula Iowa uses to predict college success; the bill leaves that framework intact but requires the Board of Regents to add the Classic Learning Test as a standardized test choice that can feed into the RAI calculation. Practically, accepting a new test means the board must set score equivalencies, revise RAI guidance, and update admissions systems so a CLT score converts into the same RAI metric currently produced from ACT or SAT scores.
Separately, HF2339 constrains how universities evaluate applicants who do not achieve the RAI threshold. Instead of broad holistic review, the board must adopt a policy that permits only two considerations for those applicants: the student’s merit and an assessment of the likelihood the student will work in Iowa after graduating.
The bill does not define either term, so the board — and the universities — will translate those high‑level directives into operational criteria and documentation requirements.Implementation will raise practical questions: how to measure “likelihood of employment in Iowa” (intended major, residency, job market projections, employer commitments, or self‑reported intent), whether merit will be equated to academic measures or include non‑academic proxies, and how to ensure consistent application across campuses. Adding the CLT also requires technical work: establishing concordance tables, verifying test security and validity, and communicating the change to students and counselors ahead of the 2026‑27 academic year.For admissions staff, the immediate tasks are administrative: revise published admissions criteria and forms, build new decision rubrics for non‑RAI applicants, and create processes to document employment‑likelihood assessments.
For students and counselors, the change alters the calculus for test selection and for applicants who historically relied on essays, recommendations, or extracurriculars during holistic review.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires the Board of Regents to incorporate the Classic Learning Test (an online college entrance exam) as an accepted standardized test option in the Regent Admission Index before the 2026–2027 academic year.
By December 31, 2026, the board must adopt a policy that limits admissions considerations for applicants who do not qualify under the RAI to only merit and the likelihood the applicant will work in Iowa after graduation.
The Regent Admission Index remains the primary RAI framework; under current law the RAI combines a standardized test score, high‑school cumulative GPA, and number of completed core courses — the bill does not alter those components but adds CLT as an alternative test input.
HF2339 does not define “merit” or “likelihood of employment in Iowa,” leaving substantive definitions, measurement methods, and documentation standards to the Board of Regents and the universities.
Admissions offices will need to create score‑equivalency (concordance) rules and data processes to map CLT results into the RAI and to operationalize a reproducible method for assessing post‑graduation employment likelihood.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Designates the legislation as the “Admissions Reform Act.” This is purely a caption, but it signals the bill’s twin focus on changing admissions inputs (testing) and admissions criteria (what may be considered for marginal applicants).
Add Classic Learning Test to RAI options
This amendment requires regents institutions to accept the Classic Learning Test into the Regent Admission Index as an additional standardized test option alongside the college readiness assessments from ACT, Inc., and the College Board. The practical effect is an obligation on the board to establish concordance between CLT scores and whatever numerical slot in the RAI those other tests occupy, and to update admissions rules, published requirements, and data systems prior to the 2026–27 academic year.
Limit admissible factors for non‑RAI applicants
Creates a new statutory duty for the Board of Regents to adopt, by December 31, 2026, a policy constraining the universe of factors considered when admitting students who do not meet the RAI to only two categories: merit and the likelihood of employment in Iowa after graduation. The provision hands substantial definitional and procedural work to the board and the universities — everything from how to document ‘likelihood’ to how appeals or exceptions function will be set in that forthcoming policy.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Education across all five countries.
Explore Education in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Students who prefer or perform better on the Classic Learning Test — the bill gives CLT takers a direct pathway into the RAI calculation, which may help applicants who struggle with ACT/SAT test formats or access problem testing centers.
- Classic Learning Test, Inc. — gaining formal acceptance by the Iowa regents expands the CLT’s institutional market and signals recognition by a statewide public university system.
- Iowa employers and workforce planners — by requiring consideration of post‑graduation employment in Iowa, the bill aligns admissions incentives with in‑state workforce retention goals, potentially increasing graduates available to local labor markets.
- Admissions offices that prefer clearer, narrower criteria for marginal applicants — the restriction reduces case‑by‑case holistic discretion and can simplify decision rubrics and documentation for applicants below the RAI.
Who Bears the Cost
- Board of Regents and university admissions teams — must produce definitions, policies, concordance tables, system updates, staff training, and potentially new data collection to meet the Dec. 31, 2026 deadline.
- Students who rely on holistic review (e.g., strong extracurriculars, compelling life experiences, or recommendations) — limiting acceptable factors could close off pathways that previously enabled admission despite lower numeric RAI scores.
- Out‑of‑state applicants and institutions recruiting nationally — prioritizing ‘likelihood of employment in Iowa’ can disadvantage or disincentivize non‑Iowa candidates, with potential enrollment and revenue impacts for regents universities.
- Civil‑rights and access advocacy groups — if ‘likelihood of employment’ proxies produce disparate impacts across socioeconomic or demographic groups, these organizations will face new compliance and legal‑advocacy challenges.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether to prioritize objective, workforce‑aligned admissions criteria that simplify administration and incentivize in‑state retention, or to preserve broad holistic review that can advance diversity and consider individual circumstances; the bill forces a trade‑off between administrative clarity and the flexibility needed to accommodate non‑traditional or disadvantaged applicants.
The bill bundles an expansion of testing options with a contraction of discretionary admissions criteria. That pairing creates implementation tensions: adding the CLT requires technical mapping to an established numerical index, which is a measurable, tractable task; by contrast, restricting consideration to “merit” and “likelihood of employment” raises qualitative, evidence‑heavy questions about measurement, bias, and legal exposure.
The statute leaves key terms undefined, so the Board of Regents must choose how prescriptive or flexible its implementing policy will be — choices that will materially affect equity and the system’s ability to recruit diverse classes.
Measuring “likelihood of employment in Iowa” is especially fraught. Possible proxies include declared residency, high‑school location, intended major, local employer commitments, or labor‑market projections — each brings risks.
Residency‑based proxies could disproportionately favor in‑state students; labor‑market projections are volatile and may not predict individual outcomes; employer‑commitment measures raise administrative and privacy questions. The board’s approach will determine whether the policy advances workforce goals without creating new indirect barriers to access.
Additionally, integrating a new commercial test into the RAI invites scrutiny of test validity, accessibility, and score‑equating methodology, plus commercial‑influence concerns if a single vendor benefits from public policy change.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.