Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/09/1999 03:04 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 118-COST OF COLLEGE REMEDIAL CLASSES Number 0103 CO-CHAIRMAN COGHILL announced the first order of business as House Bill No. 118, "An Act relating to payment for remedial classes at the University of Alaska." CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON, sponsor of HB 118, came forward to present it. He said that this bill in essence gives a financial warranty on a student who goes to the university system within two years and needs remedial work. The remedial work would be reimbursed by the district that gave the diploma. He didn't do a sectional analysis, but the last paragraph talks about how the cost will be determined. He referred to an intriguing newspaper article discussing similar things in Virginia, South Carolina, Colorado and Georgia which is in the packet. Many educators whom he has met with were startled by HB 118, but no one thought it was a bad idea. He hopes the bill sends a symbolic message and isn't taken advantage of very often. School districts across the state are moving towards diplomas which will mean something under the quality schools initiatives and mandatory exit testing. The university people whom he has talked to think this is a marvelous idea. He has a companion bill, HB 119, that allows adults to attend high school and be a part of the funding formula. He hopes the net result of both of these is that most of the remedial education happens in the local high schools. Number 0364 REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked what the effective date of this piece of legislation would be. CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON said that wasn't addressed, and maybe it should be. He didn't anticipate that this would look backward. It would be from this date, or maybe a year from now forward, so schools operating on a different philosophy wouldn't be caught by this. REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked if this piece of legislation would be effective the same time as the exit exam. CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON said he thinks that good exit testing will probably make HB 118 obsolete. He said he thinks that passing the exit exam should mean that a student would not need remedial work. Number 0533 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said his concern is that it might be the student's fault for not applying himself, not the program's fault, but the program would be punished. CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON said that is the problem. If indeed the student didn't apply himself, in his view, the school should not have given him a diploma. CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON continued that he anticipates that some schools will issue diplomas with disclaimers. He would assume that it would be a positive defense of the school to say this student was really good when he finished high school; the school did their part and is not responsible for what happened after that. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said he thinks they are making an assumption that freshman math is a logical extension of high school twelfth grade math, but there might be an honest gap between the two in terms of the complexity and difficulty. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE referred to the question on the effective date and said it would be 90 days after signature. He wondered if students took remedial classes voluntarily, would the school district pay for those as well. Number 0899 CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON said he would not want the school district to be responsible financially for any voluntary remedial courses. REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN said in looking through the backup materials he noticed that some of the other states required a minimum grade point average (GPA), for example: Virginia's proposed warranties are eligible only to advanced- studies students who score a 2.5 GPA [grade point average] or higher - halfway between a "B" and a "C." He wondered why this bill doesn't have similar language regarding GPAs. CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON said he had considered that and also if a student chose a vocational prep class. He thinks that the district might say they weren't intending to prepare this student for college because of the student's choice. He anticipates that school districts would indeed put that on the diploma as a positive defense disclaimer for what they were preparing that student for. There is amendment language prepared to meet the GPA requirement if they are interested. Number 1060 REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN said that it seems the way HB 118 is written, everyone who graduates from high school with a diploma should be qualified for college. CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON said not quite, but that anyone who goes to college should have been prepared. It assumes they took the courses available. REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN said it seems to him that if a school is going to provide a warranty, then it should be able to put some caveats on that warranty. CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON said he expects the diploma to state if a student is prepared for post-secondary education; if not, then it would state so. He believes that is a positive defense against back charges. Number 1230 CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School Boards, came forward to testify. He said most of the intent of this bill has been addressed through legislation already passed which culminated in the qualifying exam. He thinks the intent of the bill is trying to ensure the quality of education. The schools have embarked on a process of performance standards for professionals, students and communities as well as accreditation of the system. This will engage them in curriculum development, professional development and assessments to ensure that they are in fact progressing and meeting the bar that was set. His concern is that after an investment that culminates in 2002 with the qualifying exam, there will be additional constraints. MR. ROSE continued because of the legal constraints of denying a diploma, they have had to mandate by law all the standards that are set forth. As a result of that, the diploma is going to have some added value. He suggested that if someone receiving a diploma after 2002 has to take remedial education at the university level, then the system is in real need of reform. MR. ROSE expressed his concern about what is to be done with all the rest who haven't identified their intent to go to college. He thinks they will be looking at a system that will be turning out a lot of certificates of attendance, and that is not tolerable either. They are not turning out students on a college track but are trying to get them to pursue a quality life. He said he doesn't want to downplay a certificate of attendance, but there is some rigor that is going to be expected through the performance standards that will culminate in a diploma that he believes will stand up to the intent of this bill. Number 1443 JOHN CYR, President, NEA-Alaska, came forward to testify. He declared that this is the first he has heard that they believe that the exit exam was built to say everyone who passes the exit exam is qualified to go on to the university. He said he thought it was about the students who passed the exit exam meeting a level of achievement that is sufficient to award them a high school diploma. There is a big difference between that and warrantying students for university work. If they are saying high schools across Alaska have got to provide a warranty for the university, then he thinks that is a markedly different course of study than saying they are preparing the students to go out into the world of work: some to the university, some into jobs, some into the service, some to be legislators and some to be teachers. There is a wide variance that he doesn't think is taken into account. MR. CYR pointed out that the idea of a college warranty is intriguing; it brings in the idea of a differentiated diploma. He doesn't suggest that the university should change its acceptance policy because he thinks state funded universities have an obligation to the state to let students through the door. Mr. CYR went on to say he is surprised that this bill only speaks about public schools being held liable. He said he thought the whole spectrum of folks who send students to the university should also be held liable. He concluded that as the bill sits now, NEA- Alaska is opposed to HB 118, but they look forward to working with the sponsor and the committee. Number 1612 WENDY REDMAN, Vice President, Statewide University Relations, University of Alaska, came forward to testify. She understands the intent of HB 118, and they certainly need money at the university for remedial education; however, they absolutely do not support taking money from the schools to give it to the university. She believes that the appropriate way to deal with the problem at this point is to receive full funding for their budget request, which in fact, does include money for remedial education. They have been working closely with school districts on the Alaska Quality Education Initiatives, and they think that is the appropriate way the schools are addressing the whole issue of standards. Faculty at the university have been involved in working with teachers on the development of appropriate standards for graduation and within each discipline areas so that the requirements for college level work are getting built into those standards. MS. REDMAN referred to the university's admissions policy. She said that the University of Alaska has a complicated mission because they have the community college mission as well, so they are an open admission university. It is the role of the community colleges to take people in who don't have the proper preparation and provide it. She hopes the committee will be supportive in their budget request, as well as the schools' budget requests, to try to get the funding they need to make this a reality. CO-CHAIRMAN COGHILL announced public testimony closed on HB 118 with the understanding that they will pick it up after the confirmation hearings on the Governor's Appointees. HB 118-COST OF COLLEGE REMEDIAL CLASSES Number 0769 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked about the comparative costs between a remedial class at the university and one at a high school. Number 0708 MS. REDMAN explained that there are two different kinds of pre- college education: developmental and remedial. Developmental is a term used for students who are simply too low; they simply do not have the skills to do college level work. Remedial is a term used for people who decided to go back to college but need a brush-up course. The pre-college courses are below 100 level; students get no credit, and they can't use the student loan for it. There are many students who have to take several of those courses before they can begin. The remedial courses are taught at the 100 level; students don't get credit towards a degree, but they get credit for the class. The pre-college courses are taught by adjunct faculty but may be comparable to what it would cost in the high school. The remedial courses are more expensive because they are taught by university faculty. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if there is any merit to a different category of instruction for those who want to go to college but were somewhat deficient, rather than burdening either the university or the high school with the cost. MS. REDMAN answered that in some states the high school assumes that responsibility if students don't meet the requirements. The students can come back to the high school, but it is very difficult psychologically to come back for classes after they left. There is a law on the books in Alaska to offer a 13th year, so it is conceivable that the schools, with proper funding, could in fact offer a 13th year which would be a bridge between high school and college that may pick up some of those courses. CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON asked what was the decision process to come to the conclusion to oppose this bill. Number 0420 MS. REDMAN said there was no formal action taken by the Board of Regents opposing or objecting to the legislation; it was based on what she knows are the priorities for the university this year and her personal discussion with the board members. CO-CHAIRMAN COGHILL announced they would hold action on HB 118 for a later date and finish up the committee meeting with the long-term care task force report. [HB 118 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|