Legislature(2009 - 2010)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/24/2010 08:00 AM Senate EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB224 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 360 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | SB 224 | ||
SB 224-POSTSECONDARY SCHOLARSHIPS
8:02:54 AM
CO-CHAIR MEYER announced that the committee would continue
consideration of CSSB 224, Version C, four amendments, the
letter of intent, and the fiscal note.
8:04:38 AM
MURRAY RICHMOND, aide to Senator Thomas, said Amendment A is
found in two places in the document.
8:05:22 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS moved to adopt Amendment A. It states the
following [any new text is underlined and deleted text is
bracketed for all the following conceptual amendments]:
Amendment A
A1- Page 7, lines 16-31,
A2- Page 9 Lines 4-15 to read:
(1) the four year core academic curriculum, which
may include virtual curriculum, that the student
must have completed in high school; the core
academic curriculum must include:
(A)
(i) four years of mathematics;
(ii) four years of language arts
(iii)four years of science; and
(iv) three years of social studies, one year of
which may include a foreign language or an
Alaskan Native language, fine arts or
cultural heritage;
(B)
(i) three years of mathematics;
(ii) four years of language arts;
(iii)three years of science
(iv) four years of social studies; and
(v) two years of a foreign language or Alaska
Native Language;
SENATOR STEVENS objected.
8:05:33 AM
MR. RICHMOND explained that Amendment A deals with the
curriculum changes which are identical to both the academic and
career track.
SENATOR STEVENS pointed out that without an "or" after the word
"heritage" students would be required to take all of the listed
courses.
MR. RICHMOND agreed that there should be an "or".
8:06:50 AM
SENATOR STEVENS moved to amend Amendment A by inserting the word
"or" after "heritage". There being no objection, the amendment
to Amendment A was adopted.
SENATOR HUGGINS said it appears there should still be another
"or" before the phrase "fine arts or cultural heritage".
JOMO STEWART, aide to Senator Meyer, suggested that, instead of
adding another "or" they replace the "or" after "foreign
language" with a comma. So it would then read:
(A)(iv) three years of social studies, one year of
which may include a foreign language, an Alaska Native
language, fine arts or cultural heritage; or
8:11:38 AM
SENATOR HUGGINS moved to adopt the amendment as stated. There
being no objection, the amendment to Amendment A (amended) was
adopted.
SENATOR STEVENS removed his objection.
8:13:52 AM
CO-CHAIR MEYER announced that there being no further objection,
Amendment A as amended was adopted.
8:14:07 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS moved to adopt Amendment B. It states the
following:
Amendment B
Page 11, Lines 19-22
(c) The maximum amount of needs-based performance
scholarship for a student who is enrolled
(1) not less than full time, is 50 percent of
the unmet financial need that exceeds
$2,000; and
(2) less than full time but not less than half
time, is 25 percent of the unmet financial
need that exceed $2,000.
SENATOR STEVENS objected.
8:14:13 AM
MR. RICHMOND said this amendment addresses the amount of the
needs-based award a student will receive who is attending full-
time or half-time. The unspoken assumption is that if a student
attends less than half time then they are not eligible for
monies for unmet need.
SENATOR STEVENS removed his objection.
8:15:16 AM
CO-CHAIR MEYER announced that there being no further objection,
Amendment B was adopted.
8:15:24 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS moved to adopt Amendment C. The amendment states
the following:
Amendment C
Pages 11-12, Lines 28-31 and 1-3, replace (e) (1) to
read:
(e) In this section,
(1) "allowable standard costs of attendance"
means for a student who receives a merit-based
performance scholarship, the lesser of (A) standard
costs of attendance at the University of Alaska, as
determined by the commission; or (B) actual costs of
attendance at the qualified postsecondary institution
that the student attends or plans to attend, as
determined by the commission;
SENATOR STEVENS objected.
8:15:34 AM
MR. RICHMOND explained that the administration would like to add
two options for determining the cost of attendance.
SENATOR HUGGINS asked if there are courses that might require a
student to take some portion of their training out of state and
if that would be covered.
CO-CHAIR MEYER asked Diane Barrans to speak to this question.
SENATOR STEVENS said he does know that some foreign language
courses at University of Alaska (UA) include study in a foreign
country. He asked if a student would be covered at the lower of
the two costs when studying abroad.
8:17:51 AM
DIANE BARRANS, Executive Director, Alaska Commission on
Postsecondary Education (ACPE), responded that in those cases,
the students are still matriculated as students of UA and could
qualify.
SENATOR OLSON continued with Senator Huggins' line of
questioning. He asked if a person is attending a career and
technical school and part of his training is not available in
the state, would training outside the state be covered by the
scholarship.
MS. BARRANS responded she is not aware of any programs like
that, but if the same principles that apply to UA apply to a
career and technical program she would expect that they would
qualify. She added that under the institutional authorization
regulations in the state, there are stipulations that prohibit
that, unless there is critical need.
SENATOR OLSON said he assumes career and technical is covered
under this program, which means flight schools would be covered
under this program.
MS. BARRANS said that is true.
SENATOR OLSON asked that, if a student attending flight school
wanted to get a helicopter ATP, which is not offered in the
state of Alaska, would they be covered.
MS. BARRANS answered that it would not, because it is not a
program being offered by an institution in Alaska.
8:20:45 AM
SENATOR STEVENS removed his objection to Amendment C.
8:20:46 AM
CO-CHAIR MEYER said seeing no further objection, Amendment C was
adopted.
8:20:57 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS moved to adopt Amendment D. The amendment states
the following:
Amendment D
Page 22, lines 10-11:
(2) who graduated from high school in this state after
January 1, 2010 and before July 1, 2011 and meets
eligibility requirements for the program may apply for
a scholarship on or after January 1, 2011 for
enrollment in a program of study beginning on or after
July 1, 2011.
SENATOR STEVENS objected.
8:21:03 AM
MR. RICHMOND explained that the committee wished to make
students graduating from high school in 2010 eligible for the
scholarship. However, since the application process is not yet
complete and the mechanism is not in place to give them the
scholarship this year, the committee agreed that the scholarship
will go into effect the year after their graduation. This
language makes it clear that they will not be getting the
scholarship the first year of their attendance at a
postsecondary institution. They are eligible to apply for the
program, but will not receive the scholarship in their first
year.
8:21:53 AM
SENATOR HUGGINS asked if a student graduated from school this
year, the first year in college he would not be able to get the
scholarship, but they could get the scholarship their second
year.
MS. BARRANS answered yes. She continued that regardless of
whether a student elected to begin college or a training program
immediately after high school.
8:22:45 AM
SENATOR STEVENS asked if the 2010 graduates would lose a year on
the duration of the scholarship.
MS. BARRANS responded that she has not had a definitive
conversation with the department, but she believes they will be
eligible for the full program.
8:23:33 AM
SENATOR STEVENS removed his objection.
8:23:36 AM
CO-CHAIR MEYER announced that, seeing no further objection,
Amendment D was adopted.
8:23:58 AM
CO-CHAIR MEYER continued on to the letter of intent.
SENATOR HUGGINS asked about item number 4 on the letter of
intent, which provides for a rigorous curriculum in "all" high
schools. He said that he is concerned about what the
repercussions will be for including "all high schools" and this
goal is not accomplished.
CO-CHAIR MEYER said that is why they took the intent language
out of the bill itself so that there would not be any legal
ramifications.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS agreed that is the case.
CO-CHAIR MEYER said the letter of intent simply states the goals
to which the scholarship program hopes to accomplish.
8:26:38 AM
CO-CHAIR MEYER said that if there are no objections, the letter
of intent will accompany the bill.
He continued on to the fiscal note.
8:27:14 AM
DIANE BARRANS noted that the draft fiscal note [included as a
handout for the committee] is obviously somewhat of a guess
because they don't yet know what level or proportion of the
students will qualify or what their demographic information is,
relative to the unmet needs cost. In developing the analysis she
worked collaboratively with Eddie Jeans with the department.
They looked at Wyoming to see what percentage of their students
actually used the scholarship. The utilization rate was just shy
of 29 percent of their high school graduates. Mr. Jeans took
that figure and based it on the highest award level and the
lowest award level and went with an average amount. They took
this average scholarship, of about $3,600 and priced this out
for the first year.
The other factor that was taken into account was the attrition
rate experienced at UA and developed a rate to project the first
four years of the program. The total cost of the academic
portion of the program over the first four years would grow to
about $20 million a year.
When the legislature added the needs based portion, she looked
at what they could expect the average expected family income to
be. She used the FAFSA information the commission received for
its grant application pool and picked a number in the middle
that seemed reasonable. Using that number she came up with an
average need of $2,715 for the first year. She also calculated
an inflation rate of six percent to come up with a total of $18
million for the unmet needs portion by the fourth year.
She said the fiscal note shows that the amount may be slightly
lower by year five. The reason behind this is because the first
year includes two graduation years (class of 2010 and 2011).
With respect to the commission's costs, which are shown in FY11
column, there are two components to this. First, they hope to
have an efficient automated process that would allow them
through electronic data exchange with the institutions to have
some manual intervention with the program. However, with the
addition of the 2010 high school graduating class, they will
have a cohort of students that will not have been included in
the automated process. The bill calls for the high school to be
responsible for including on a student's transcript or permanent
record an indication of the level of award the student has
qualified for. Clearly, she said, this is not the case with
students that have already left high school and their transcript
is complete. They do not know what the criteria are that a
school will be looking at. The bill does not say who will be
responsible for this particular analysis but she assumes it will
be the Commission and has added a part time non-permanent
position for the first 18 months of the program to handle these
"manual" applications.
8:33:49 AM
CO-CHAIR MEYER asked if this final dollar amount is near to what
they originally estimated when the governor submitted the bill.
MS. BARRANS replied that it is about twice the size of the
original proposal.
SENATOR HUGGINS asked if Youth Academy students have a
curriculum in line with the scholarship requirements.
MS. BARRANS responded that she did not know.
SENATOR HUGGINS indicated that he would like an answer to that.
8:35:51 AM
SENATOR STEVENS commented that this bill has a long way to go
and, in talking to individuals on the Finance Committee, they
are saying they would prefer a loan forgiveness program. He
asked Ms. Barrans if she could give him some points of
argumentation on whether a lone forgiveness program or the
current program would be preferable.
MS. BARRANS replied that she would argue against a loan
forgiveness program. In the past it created an environment that
caused people to see it as a free ride that required no
commitment or preparation on their part. There were no
qualitative standards to receive the loan. As a result, the cost
to the state in terms of uncollected loans was extremely high,
with default rates that approached 30 percent. At the height of
the program the state was funding the program at about $80
million a year. There have been some studies done on loan
repayment versus loan forgiveness programs and they have found
that loan repayment programs are much more efficient. The
Commission's loan staffing is about 70 people and, with a
forgiveness program it would have to be much higher. The cost
associated with a loan forgiveness program would clearly be
substantially higher. Also, a major goal of this program is to
change the culture of educational in Alaska and she does not
believe that either the loan repayment or loan forgiveness
programs would do that.
She conceded that a loan repayment program would reduce the debt
load for students to make it easier to attend college but it
would not do anything to raise the performance of the children
in Alaska to standards of education that they have not reached
before.
SENATOR STEVENS said one other thing she mentioned was the
number of schools that sprang up during the loan forgiveness
program. He asked her to repeat that.
MS. BARRANS answered that at the peak of the program there were
144 authorized institutions in the state.
CO-CHAIR MEYER added that one of the intents of this program is
to try to strengthen the university system in the state, and
this program does that.
8:42:48 AM
SENATOR THOMAS pointed out that they could create a loan
repayment program that has higher performance requirements in
order to qualify, but if students were allowed to attend
anywhere it would not impact our educational system.
SENATOR HUGGINS said he would appreciate it if Ms. Barrans would
formulate a brief document outlining the benefits of this
program over others as they go forward.
CO-CHAIR MEYER said he believes they have created a good bill
and is ready to move this on to the next committee of referral.
8:44:32 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS moved to report CS for SB 224, version C as
amended, with individual recommendations attached fiscal note(s)
and the letter of intent from committee. There being no
objection, the CSSB 224(EDC) moved from committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|