03/25/2009 09:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB184 | |
| HB94 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 94 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 184 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
March 25, 2009
9:08 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Paul Seaton, Chair
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Wes Keller
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Robert L. "Bob" Buch
Representative Berta Gardner
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Cathy Engstrom Munoz, Vice Chair
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 184
"An Act relating to the debt authorization of the University of
Alaska."
- MOVED HB 184 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 94
"An Act creating a postsecondary scholarship program for Alaska
residents based on high achievement and financial need."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 184
SHORT TITLE: DEBT AUTHORIZATION FOR UNIVERSITY
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KELLY
03/12/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/12/09 (H) EDC, FIN
03/23/09 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/23/09 (H) Heard & Held
03/23/09 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
03/25/09 (H) EDC AT 9:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 94
SHORT TITLE: POSTSECONDARY SCHOLARSHIPS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) GUTTENBERG
01/28/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/28/09 (H) EDC, FIN
02/16/09 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/16/09 (H) Heard & Held
02/16/09 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
03/25/09 (H) EDC AT 9:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
DEREK MILLER, Staff
to Representative Mike Kelly
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and responded to questions on HB
184, on behalf of Representative Kelly, prime sponsor.
DIANE BARRANS, Executive Director
Postsecondary Education Commission
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and responded to questions during
the discussion of HB 94.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and responded to questions during
the discussion of HB 94, as prime sponsor.
ACTION NARRATIVE
9:08:44 AM
CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House Education Standing Committee
meeting to order at 9:08 a.m. Representatives Seaton, Keller,
Wilson, Edgmon, Gardner, and Buch were present at the call to
order.
HB 184-DEBT AUTHORIZATION FOR UNIVERSITY
9:09:14 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 184, "An Act relating to the debt authorization
of the University of Alaska."
9:09:41 AM
DEREK MILLER, Staff to Representative Mike Kelly, Alaska State
Legislature, called attention to the committee packet, which
should include information addressing some of the concerns of
the committee members regarding receipt authority versus bonding
authority of the university. He highlighted an email from Mr.
Dosch, Controller of the University of Alaska, which should
explain the differences of authority at the university. Mr.
Miller related that all university projects need receipt
authority regardless of the source of funding or the amount of
funding. This legislation, he clarified, is separate from the
aforementioned. He pointed out that the committee packet should
also include a zero fiscal note and a letter of support from the
university. He noted that as soon as hears back from the
Associate Vice President of Student Services and Enrollment
Management regarding how students pay for the University of
Alaska he would forward that information to the committee.
9:12:11 AM
CHAIR SEATON stated that public testimony would remain closed.
9:12:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH requested that Mr. Miller speak from a
personal level regarding how HB 184 would've affected his
financial experience with the university.
MR. MILLER related that as a student representative on the Board
of Regents he voted against the 10 percent tuition increase.
However, he acknowledged that the University of Alaska does
provide quite a deal when compared to other undergraduate
universities. Still, a tuition increase isn't a good feeling
[for students].
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH said that with [HB 184] the [tuition
increase] would be 25 percent.
9:15:05 AM
CHAIR SEATON pointed out that this bonding authority is not
independent of the legislature's granting receipt authority.
Therefore, the legislature will have to vote on every project.
9:15:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to report HB 184 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HB 184 was reported from the
House Education Standing Committee.
HB 94-POSTSECONDARY SCHOLARSHIPS
9:16:20 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease form 9:16 a.m. to 9:17 a.m.
CHAIR SEATON turned the committee's attention to HOUSE BILL NO.
94, "An Act creating a postsecondary scholarship program for
Alaska residents based on high achievement and financial need."
9:20:04 AM
DIANE BARRANS, Executive Director, Postsecondary Education
Commission, Department of Education and Early Development (EED),
referred to the document entitled "Structural Components for
Hybrid Need/Merit Scholarship Programs creating a postsecondary
scholarship grant program for Alaska residents based on high
achievement and financial need." She pointed out that the
implementation issues listed in the document are those issues
that occurred to her and that there may be other issues that
would arise. There are some very challenging aspects to
developing and implementing a scholarship program, particularly
a merit component. Furthermore, if there is a consensus that a
grade point average (GPA) is not a standardized measure due to
the variance within particular curriculums, then the assessment
piece is difficult to achieve. Ms. Barrans highlighted that she
isn't an assessment expert and pointed out that it's a specific
area of expertise. She remarked that she doesn't believe
adopting a readily available system is a good fix for Alaska.
9:22:02 AM
CHAIR SEATON commented that if an already existing assessment
tool isn't utilized, then no assessment tool is used because the
committee doesn't have time to research and develop such. He
recalled testimony from the commissioner of the Department of
Education and Early Development (EED) relating that EED is
moving toward using the WorkKeys program as an assessment tool,
as well as the GPA. He expressed the need to review the
decision piece for a merit-based scholarship.
9:23:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked if his understanding that the
American College Testing (ACT) test is used by vocational
schools across the nation is correct.
MS. BARRANS explained that the ACT test uses an array of testing
tools. The ACT test is commonly accepted to determine college
readiness and there are ACT scores that are commonly accepted as
denoting an individual is college ready. The WorkKeys is an
assessment tool that ACT has developed and deployed. She noted
that ACT has also tailored programs for particular state
objectives. Ms. Barrans informed the committee that sometimes
the K-12 and the college level assessment groups have particular
biases that result in the two groups not agreeing on the
appropriateness of particular tools. However, she opined that
although it would be possible for those groups to come together
to agree on what may be used, disagreement may remain regarding
the minimum score to remain college ready. The literature
indicates that there is a gap in the expectations between what
children should be able to do upon completion of high school and
the expectations of college faculty regarding what students can
do when they enter college.
9:25:37 AM
MS. BARRANS, in response to Chair Seaton, related that the ACT
and the SAT are comparable/interchangeable exams. However, some
colleges require the SAT because of its essay component.
9:26:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER related his understanding that in Alaska
only 26 percent of the state's graduates take the ACT while
about 50 percent of the state's graduates take the SAT.
MS. BARRANS stated her belief that Alaska doesn't have great
participation rates with either the ACT or the SAT, which she
attributed to the fact that Alaska schools don't require the
tests for entrance.
9:27:14 AM
CHAIR SEATON related his understanding that there isn't a good
correlation between SAT scores and whether a student will
complete his/her first year of college. He recalled the
WorkKeys presentation and the scoring system that shows
proficiencies within key skill areas.
MS. BARRANS pointed out that WorkKeys has testing levels such
that the competencies and difficulty of each level increases.
Therefore, WorkKeys can test discrete sets of skills.
9:28:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if [the levels in WorkKeys] would
be comparable to an advanced placement test.
MS. BARRANS answered that she didn't believe so, but suggested
that it would be helpful to question an assessment person to
understand this aspect.
CHAIR SEATON remarked that generally a higher level of basic
skills is necessary to take advanced placement courses.
However, WorkKeys allows testing at different levels and thus
one would assume that the school is making the assessment that
an individual is ready and capable with the basic skills to do
advanced placement.
MS. BARRANS said that she couldn't speak to that.
9:30:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER noted that many schools will administer
an AP test and allow college credit for those attaining a
certain score. Therefore, she surmised that it's some
evaluation in a specific area.
9:30:54 AM
MS. BARRANS, in response to Representative Keller, said that she
suspected that expertise in assessment may reside within the
faculty at the University of Alaska or EED.
CHAIR SEATON noted that there is an assessment person at EED who
can be consulted. However, he pointed out that EED has a
regulation requiring WorkKeys [testing] at grade 11, and thus
the department believes that WorkKeys is an appropriate
assessment tool. He suggested that at a future meeting the
committee could obtain more detail on the WorkKeys assessment.
Perhaps, the committee could even take the WorkKeys test in
order to determine how to proceed.
9:33:45 AM
MS. BARRANS related that she shared the matrix given to the
committee today with university personnel who may want to weigh
in on the assessment aspect. She offered to provide the
committee with the name of someone who may want to be involved.
9:34:26 AM
CHAIR SEATON pointed out that the matrix doesn't list WorkKeys
for the outcome of increasing college-readiness whereas it is
listed for promoting adult re-training.
MS. BARRANS pointed out that outcome of decreasing remediation
rates [does specify the need for an assessment tool to be
identified]. She explained that her thought with the outcome of
increasing college-readiness was to increase the number of
students who are actually taking the courses that will produce a
higher number of college-ready students. If the desire is to
have students perform at the college level, [the need to
identify an assessment tool] could appear for both outcomes.
9:35:50 AM
CHAIR SEATON ascertained that committee members agreed that the
GPA isn't a very good comparative tool to assess college-
readiness. Therefore, he concluded that the committee is
looking for an assessment tool other than GPA.
9:36:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER related her understanding that the
WorkKeys assessment does not necessarily focus on academia, but
rather on real-life skills. She inquired as to how WorkKeys
compares to the ACT or SAT [in the instances] in which it
attempts to assess academic readiness.
MS. BARRANS opined that WorkKeys wouldn't be a substitute for
either the ACT or the SAT.
9:37:46 AM
CHAIR SEATON remarked that since Alaska's university system
doesn't require ACT or SAT test scores for admittance, Alaska
can't duplicate what occurs in other states. However, the
American College of Testing may have information regarding
correlation between WorkKeys scores and success in college.
MS. BARRANS offered to help coordinate finding a WorkKeys
spokesperson to address the aforementioned.
CHAIR SEATON expressed the need to know what level of confidence
the committee should give the WorkKeys test. He opined that his
level of confidence with the SAT test is low, in regard to
success in two years of college.
9:39:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER noted his agreement with the need to
"compare apples to apples" in terms of an assessment tool. He
related his understanding that the ACT can be customized to
cover the areas desired.
CHAIR SEATON recalled that the SAT was once considered the
general college entrance exam while the ACT was used to
determine specific skill levels.
9:40:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID GUTTENBERG, Alaska State Legislature,
speaking as the prime sponsor of HB 94, explained that the
legislation focuses on in-state tuition versus those students
who attend Outside colleges. He then related his belief that
those students who achieve high grades [in high school] have
places to go to obtain scholarships based on the aforementioned
achievement.
MS. BARRANS specified that if Representative Guttenberg is
referring the National Merit Scholars, those are the top 3-5
percent of students.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG commented that from his experience the
parents of students attending college have the most expertise on
these assessment tests and where to go for scholarships.
9:42:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG remarked that if the focus is on in-
state students, the university can tell the committee on what it
bases its evaluations.
9:42:59 AM
CHAIR SEATON highlighted that the committee has been discussing
the following three aspects for assessment: decreased
remediation rates, increased college-readiness, and promotion of
adult re-training. He asked if there were any questions.
9:43:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER opined that the remediation rate
illustrates the gap between K-12 education and college. She
questioned how that gap is a discussion of postsecondary
education.
CHAIR SEATON explained that the discussion was focused on
balancing a program that would give a scholarship and have a
merit-based component in order to ensure that scholarships are
given to those who can function in college. The desire is to
have better success rates and perhaps avoid remediation courses.
9:45:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER recalled testimony at a prior hearing
regarding the Tuition Opportunity Program for Students (TOPS)
plan in which funds are made available for students to attend
college if they meet certain criteria. Presenting the idea of
attending college, that is raising the bar, encouraged kids to
try to do better. The aforementioned is the same as the merit-
based approach.
9:45:59 AM
CHAIR SEATON interjected that the desire [of the committee] is
to develop a tool to reach achievement levels at which students
can obtain scholarships. The aforementioned is the merit aspect
and providing funds seems to result in a high probability of
success.
9:46:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH surmised that the sponsor of HB 94 is being
asked to provide legislation that will be successful, which
occurs prior to students graduating from high school.
9:47:30 AM
CHAIR SEATON noted his agreement. He announced that the
committee will likely introduce committee legislation on this
topic, with which the sponsor agrees. He then asked if the
committee would agree to use WorkKeys as the merit-based portion
of legislation if the data says that WorkKeys will form the
assessment tool and provide high school students the opportunity
to progress and be competitive. He acknowledged that additional
information on WorkKeys is necessary for the committee to make
this determination.
9:51:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER highlighted that the University of
Alaska's Scholars Program has brought the idea and the
possibility of going to college to rural kids who might not have
otherwise seen college as an option. Even if the kids weren't
well prepared for college, it served as something to which to
aspire. Therefore, she related her hesitation to close that
option and move away from it.
9:52:41 AM
CHAIR SEATON said that the committee will have to decide whether
it intends to replace the Alaska Scholars program with WorkKeys.
He related that the aforementioned isn't his intent.
9:52:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER pointed out her assumption that those
students who would qualify for the Alaska Scholars program would
also be the students who would do well under the WorkKeys
program. She reiterated the need to be sure that opportunities
for rural Alaska aren't eliminated.
9:53:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG remarked that replacing one
program/test for another may not be the best direction. He
suggested that establishing guidelines as to what is expected
from a test may be more appropriate.
9:54:19 AM
MS. BARRANS said that the Postsecondary Education Commission in
conjunction with the commissioner of EED could be charged with
the responsibility of establishing a conceptual description of
what is expected from the test. She explained that she included
EED representation because the fundamental training for eligible
candidates comes from the K-12 system. The commissioner would
then be charged with identifying the levels of required
assessment. Whether a test was an appropriate assessment would
be apparent shortly after the program was in place due to
knowing the student's ability to perform college work. However,
for the population being targeted [rural students], the wrap-
around support programs will be critical. A test score doesn't
mean anything if a student entering college doesn't have
familial support, she remarked.
9:56:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON explained her understanding that WorkKeys
is a tool to provide students with self-assessment information
to attain a particular career or vocation.
MS. BARRANS responded that Representative Wilson isn't mistaken
and that one feature of WorkKeys is its use as a diagnostic to
identify holes in a student's skill set. However, the
program/test isn't limited to the aforementioned.
9:59:09 AM
CHAIR SEATON related his belief that the desire is to have a
tool from which middle school students can benefit and use as a
directive for their skills.
10:00:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH characterized today's discussion as evolving
around a means of assessment.
[HB 94 was held.]
10:01:49 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Education Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 10:01 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| ACPENeeds Merit Components 3 19 09.pdf |
HEDC 3/25/2009 9:00:00 AM |
|
| Additional training resources (2).pdf |
HEDC 3/25/2009 9:00:00 AM |
|
| HB 184.pdf |
HEDC 3/23/2009 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/25/2009 9:00:00 AM |
HB 184 |
| HB 184 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HEDC 3/23/2009 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/25/2009 9:00:00 AM |
HB 184 |
| UA Bond Debt Cap 1990 Statute.pdf |
HEDC 3/23/2009 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/25/2009 9:00:00 AM |
|
| HB 94 Materials.pdf |
HEDC 3/25/2009 9:00:00 AM |
HB 94 |
| HB 94 letter from University of AK president.pdf |
HEDC 3/25/2009 9:00:00 AM |
HB 94 |
| HB 94 Fiscal note.pdf |
HEDC 3/25/2009 9:00:00 AM |
HB 94 |
| Ak education data.pdf |
HEDC 3/25/2009 9:00:00 AM |
|
| HB 184 material including fiscal note |
HEDC 3/25/2009 9:00:00 AM |
HB 184 |