Legislature(2009 - 2010)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/22/2010 09:00 AM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB297 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 297 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 22, 2010
9:07 a.m.
9:07:43 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stoltze called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 9:07 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mike Hawker, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Stoltze, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Thomas Jr., Vice-Chair
Representative Allan Austerman
Representative Mike Doogan
Representative Anna Fairclough
Representative Neal Foster
Representative Les Gara
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Mike Kelly
Representative Woodie Salmon
MEMBERS ABSENT
None.
ALSO PRESENT
Larry LeDoux Commissioner, Department of Education and
Early Development; Diane Barrans, Executive Director,
Postsecondary Education Commission, Department of
Education; Jerry Burnett, Deputy Commissioner, Division of
Treasury, Department of Revenue.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
None.
SUMMARY
HB 297 POSTSECONDARY SCHOLARSHIPS
CSHB 297 (EDC) was HEARD and HELD in
Committee for further consideration.
9:07:52 AM
HOUSE BILL NO. 297
"An Act establishing the governor's performance
scholarship program and relating to the program;
establishing the governor's performance scholarship
fund and relating to the fund; relating to student
records; making conforming amendments; and providing
for an effective date."
9:08:47 AM
LARRY LEDOUX COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND
EARLY DEVELOPMENT presented an overview of the bill. He
asserted that the Governor's Performance Scholarship (GPS)
sent out a statement of expectation for academic excellence
among students statewide. He believed that the scholarship
would generate a reformation of school curriculum
throughout the state. He relayed that the program would
save the state money because kids would be more successful
in school, eliminating the requirement for remediation
before beginning preparation for a higher education. He
emphasized that the scholarship would keep students in
Alaska for school/training, which could lead to more of
them remaining in state for the long term. The scholarship
requirements would encourage students to take the courses
necessary to qualify, and would then financially assist
students who wanted to pursue a higher education. He
believed that once the requirements for the scholarship
were revealed; parents, communities, and students would be
inspired to ask the questions, and do the planning
necessary for the students to be successful. He believed
that the scholarship would encourage young people to attend
college in-state. The purpose of the scholarship was to
improve student performance at the high school level by
insisting on a rigorous curriculum that encouraged academic
excellence. He furthered that graduation rates would
increase under the bill, and that students would be better
prepared for college level work. He contended that students
who engaged in a rigorous curriculum had increased access
to college and career goals. The scholarship program would
be open to public, private, and homeschooled students.
There were two major types of scholarships under the
program; academic and career/technical. The academic
scholarship consisted of three levels; level one was a
grade point average (GPA) of 3.5 or higher, level two was a
GPA of 3.0 - 3.5, and the third level was 2.5 - 3.0. The
career scholarship had a qualifying level of a 2.5 GPA. The
students the achieved the highest level of academic
scholarship would be eligible for tuition, based on the
2010 - 2011 school year, for 100 percent of 15 credits. The
next level was rewarded 75 percent of the tuition coverage,
and the third would receive 50 percent assistance. The
career/technical scholarship would provide $3,000 for two
years of study. The grade criteria for academic
scholarships would require schools to measure performance
through an algorithm developed by the school, and
standardized test scores. Students could qualify for the
career/technical scholarship with a standardized
achievement test. He said that the standardized tests
validated the students GPA, and the rigor of the
curriculum.
9:14:42 AM
Commission LeDoux reiterated that studies had shown that
students who engaged in a rigorous curriculum of study for
high school were more successful in college. The required
curriculum in the GPS scholarship was four years of
English, math, and science, and three years of social
studies. Qualifying courses for the career/technical
scholarship varied slightly from the academic. College
courses would count toward the criteria for meeting the
rigorous curriculum requirement. Alternative pathways were
available for students who faced obstacles trying to meet
the scholarship criteria. The alternative pathway could be
triggered by circumstances beyond the control of the
student, like if the required classes were not available in
their district. A need based component had been added to
the GPS program that would ensure that the student
qualifying for a need based scholarship as determined by
the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), could
receive up to 50 percent of the imminent need. A minimum
of $2,000 would need to be contributed by the student.
Commissioner LeDoux stated that if a student qualified for
an academic scholarship, eligibility could be retained for
up to six years, to complete eight semesters. This caveat
would allow students to explore colleges outside of Alaska,
and still be eligible under the program when they return to
the state.
Commissioner LeDoux relayed that the GPS allowed for
student to attend college classes part-time. The standards
and qualifying criteria were managed by the Department of
Education (DOE). The Alaska Commission on Post-Secondary
Education was responsible for the daily operations,
disbursement of money, and monitoring eligibility. The
Department of Labor (DOL) would maintain a list of
certified technical schools in the state. The high school
that the student graduated from would certify eligibility.
Money would be appropriated into the GPS account from the
expendable earnings of the GPS fund. The commission could
use funds from the account to pay scholarships.
9:18:15 AM
Representative Fairclough wondered if, in addition to the
scholarship program, the credit requirements for high
school graduation should be increased in order better
prepare students for college level classes. Commissioner
LeDoux replied that in the state of Alaska, local districts
had the responsibility of setting high school graduation
standards. Many school districts set criteria beyond what
the state required. He warned that increasing graduation
requirements would cause a decrease in the graduation rate.
The mission of the GPS was to invite students to work
harder, and to encourage communities to offer a more
intense curriculum.
Representative Fairclough asked how the University
Scholar's Program was funded. Commissioner LeDoux replied
that the program was funded from its foundation, and
offered scholarships to the top 10 percent of every school
in the state; the amount of $1,375 per semester was given
to the student, for a total of $11,000 over the four year
period.
Representative Fairclough queried the number of students
who used the university's scholarship program. Commissioner
LeDoux believed that approximately 1000 students qualified,
from that, over 400 were elected to participate in the
program.
Representative Fairclough questioned if the department had
examined the consequences of instituting a competing
scholarship program. Commissioner LeDoux explained that
there were differences between the two programs. The
students in the top 10 percent were measured by their GPA,
which does not indicate whether or not the student has been
subject to a rigorous curriculum. The GPS required a
validating standardized test that confirmed the curriculum.
The participation in a rigorous curriculum, as defined by
the GPS, had been well established as an indicator of
success in college. In spite of the many different ways
that schools graded students, the GPA was the highest
predictor of college graduation. He assumed that the
statistic existed because it takes work and commitment to
maintain a high GPA in high school.
9:22:13 AM
Representative Fairclough asked if the GPS could be applied
to the Washington, Alaska, Montana, Idaho Medical Education
Program (WAMI). Commissioner LeDoux replied that the
student would have eight semesters of eligibility that
could be used within the six year window, to pay for
college courses. If the student had a baccalaureate degree
and was engaged in a medical program with eligibility years
left, the program would provide to help pay expenses. The
program was designed to custom fit Alaskan students, who
tended to be non-traditional in their college going
culture.
9:22:53 AM
Representative Salmon cited Page 11 of the legislation and
requested further explanation of the unmet need component
of the program.
DIANE BARRANS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION
COMMISSION, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, explained that the
scholarship from the state was intended to be a "last
dollar award", which meant that the students cost of
attendance was established, and then reduced by the number
amount of any non-loan aid they may qualify for. The
scholarship relative to their ability was then applied. The
unmet need supplement was intended to split the remaining
cost of attendance, above the $2000 minimal buy in required
of the student. She offered to provide a schedule that
would illustrate the actual numbers.
Representative Salmon referred to Page 9 of the bill. He
noted that the classes necessary to fulfill the
requirements for eligibility were difficult for students in
rural areas to access. He wondered how students in rural
areas were expected to take the necessary classes, in four
years time, when the classes were not regularly available.
Commissioner LeDoux acknowledged that there were challenges
to providing the program to rural areas. He said that many
schools had participated in distance teaching programs. He
asserted that distance programming had evolved over the
years, and that web-based programming, where students could
interact online with a highly qualified teacher, was
available. The department had found that some schools
offered the curriculum required for all four years through
distance programming. He warned that if communities were
going to urge children to dream big, without delivering the
programming necessary to assure the child's success, then
the students would be set up for failure. The GPS was a
demand that schools reform, and that schools that were not
offering four years of math or science begin to do so. He
opined that statistics showed that young people were
leaving high school for university and not succeeding. He
stated that discussions with school superintendents across
the state indicated that most schools could deliver the
curriculum required by the program.
9:28:56 AM
Representative Austerman requested further discussion of
the implementation of the required curriculum in rural
areas.
Commissioner LeDoux explained that the GPS would be phased
in over a four 4 year period. The department understood
that schools would need time to redirect their resources in
order to meet the curriculum needs. The department would
work with struggling districts to ensure their success. He
said that there was a working group that had begun meeting
in the summer of 2009, to help facilitate virtual education
in the state. The department was prepared to issue a
request for proposals (RFP) to help design the virtual
education program that would be necessary to deliver
quality instruction across the state. The department would
collect data to present to the legislature on a yearly
basis in order to monitor the program. The department was
prepared to stand ready to assist all districts to take
advantage of the program. He asserted that many small
schools around the state were delivering a challenging
curriculum, and that the GPS program would inspire all the
schools in the state to adopt similar curriculum.
9:33:02 AM
Representative Austerman expressed concern that the program
would not be supported by all districts in the long term.
He asked where the information could be found concerning
which schools were already working to provide a challenging
curriculum. Commissioner LeDoux shared that the department
had access to a database that contained a significant
amount of analysis information. He assured the committee
that documentation of the information would be provided
upon request.
9:34:25 AM
Representative Doogan understood that the program served
two purposes; in one way, it was a vehicle to get money for
college to students, and secondly, it was an attempt to
increase the curriculum in high schools throughout the
state. Commissioner LeDoux replied the department was
interested in achieving both.
Representative Doogan pointed out that the required
curriculum was just that: required. He argued that one
could not be done without the other. There was the
possibility that in order for a school to provide the
classes required by the scholarship the current curriculum
would have to be changed.
Representative Doogan referred to the fiscal note, which
reflected what the program would cost the state in terms of
the scholarships. He wondered what it would cost to
institute the required curriculum in all the schools
throughout state.
Commissioner LeDoux did not know what the cost to the state
would be. He relayed that in order for every school to
achieve the goals set out by the program, a community would
need to be established among educators and students that
would work together towards a common vision of excellence.
He believed that the GPS was important because it invited
students to work harder, earlier in their academic career.
He thought that urging from parents and educators for
students to consider and plan their academic future, as
early as the 6th grade, was key to making the program work.
He explained that there were many things that could be done
to achieve the department's dream for Alaska's students,
and that they did not all involve money. He maintained that
the educational goals could be achieved by working with
early learning programs, middle school interventions,
developing robust career and technical programs, and
removing any obstacles between secondary and post-secondary
education. He stated that the interface between secondary
and post-secondary education was dissolving. The GPS was
important because it invited parents and student to be part
of the dream of higher education. Simply raising
requirements would only tell students what they "have" to,
rather than what they are capable of doing. Offering a
scholarship for work done well presented a pathway to
college, especially for low income students.
9:38:58 AM
Representative Doogan expressed concern that was no way to
estimate how much it would cost to prepare schools for
implementing the curriculum required by the program. He
voiced that he supported the intent of the legislation, but
needed to know how much it would cost. Commissioner LeDoux
responded that the question was difficult to answer. He
believed that many of the necessary reforms could be
completed with funds that the department already had. A
realignment of resources would be needed in order to
develop a quality statewide virtual school in the future,
which could add to the cost.
Representative Doogan requested further explanation of the
alternative pathway written into the bill. Commissioner
LeDoux explained the alternative pathway provided a way for
students to overcome barriers in their path to a
scholarship. If the required classes were not offered in
the student's school, or if there were circumstances beyond
the student's control that hindered their ability to take
the required curriculum, the student could apply to the
Commissioner of Education for an alternative pathway to
meet the necessary criteria.
Representative Doogan asked for an example of an
alternative pathway. Commissioner LeDoux responded that if
there was a family emergency, or if a class was not
available to the student during the qualification period,
the student could apply for extra time in which to complete
the requirements.
9:42:20 AM
Vice-Chair Thomas asked for a definition of an Alaskan
resident, under the legislation.
Ms. Barrans replied that Page 6, lines 7-8 referred to
residency under AS 01.10.055, which defines a resident as a
person with the ability to vote as an Alaskan resident. The
requirement can be met after 30 days in-state.
Vice-Chair Thomas expressed concern that out-of-state
students would move to Alaska only to take advantage of the
scholarship, thereby creating more competition for students
who were born here, or had lived here well over 30 days. He
suggested that residency could be established under the
requirements of the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend, which
requested at least two years residency.
Co-Chair Stoltze deduced that DOL should contemplate the
issue and provide recommendations to the committee. He
queried how the department intended to establish residency
requirements by regulation. Commissioner LeDoux responded
that the actual statute allowed the residency requirement
of 30 days. The State Board of Education could modify the
requirement, and residency requirements for programs vary
throughout the country. The legal advice received by the
department had recommended leaving the requirements as
currently written in the bill.
Vice-Chair Thomas asked how many schools districts
currently offered the curriculum needed to qualify for the
program. Commissioner LeDoux responded that the information
was broken down by school, and could be provided to the
committee.
Vice-Chair Thomas added that he was sure some schools would
qualify, but others could take two or three years to meet
curriculum demands. He asserted that the program should not
go into effect until all schools in the state were able to
provide the required curriculum. Commissioner LeDoux
agreed.
Representative Thomas asked if a student could qualify for
the university scholarship and the governor's scholarship
simultaneously. Commissioner LeDoux said yes.
Representative Thomas pointed out to the committee that the
university scholarship was funded by the university, and
the governor's was funded through general funds.
Vice-Chair Thomas wondered if Mount Edgecumbe School could
be used as the educational vehicle for students whose
districts did not qualify.
Vice-Chair Thomas questioned why the scholarships could
only be used at in-state schools. He noted that some
University Alaska programs had limited enrollment, which
forced students to seek the programs out-of-state. He
wondered if any exceptions could be made for those
students.
9:50:37 AM
Commissioner LeDoux responded that there were no allowances
in the bill as currently written for students to use the
scholarship outside of Alaska.
Vice-Chair Thomas argued that if an in-state university did
not provide the training that the student wanted, they
should be able to take the scholarship money and go outside
of Alaska to attend the program they desire. He mentioned
the $3,000 cap for career/technical scholarships and noted
that in his district, trade skills were of greater
practical use than academic achievements.
9:52:54 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze stated that the department should examine
loan forgiveness numbers versus the cost of the
scholarships to the state.
Representative Fairclough asked if the state's exit
examinations aligned with college entrance exams.
Commissioner LeDoux replied no. He added that the Alaska
High School Graduation Exit Exam standards were based
minimum competency and did not align with college entrance
exams.
Representative Fairclough inquired if the graduation exam
was a baseline for a college entrance exam. Commissioner
LeDoux did not believe so. He believed that the graduation
exam measured minimum competency and was not intended to be
a college readiness exam.
Representative Fairclough suggested that an alignment with
the college exam could benefit students. Commissioner
LeDoux thought that it would be great for the state to have
college and career readiness exams at the junior level that
would inform students and parents of potential performance
at the college level. Many students in Alaska took the SAT
and the ACT, but it was not required for graduation. The
new national standards would require a different
accountability system in regard to college readiness. The
department was currently examining ways to raise school
based assessments (SBA) to ensure students were college
ready upon graduation.
Representative Fairclough opined that the graduation test
was not a determinate for college readiness. She wondered
if the students that passed the test believed that it was
an indication of college preparedness. Commissioner LeDoux
supposed that many students believed that the graduation
exam represented something significant, but because it was
a high stakes exam, and students graduated based on their
score, it was traditionally a minimum competency exam.
Otherwise, not enough students would graduate, which would
lead to political fallout. He stated that several years
ago, by legislative action, the criteria for passing the
exam had been lowered. He believed that a non-high stakes,
comprehensive exam at the junior level, would provide good
feedback to parents, specifically because it was not high
stakes, and it was not determinate on graduation. He
asserted that such an exam was necessary for accountability
concerning the money currently being spent on education.
Representative Fairclough stated that teachers were
teaching to the criteria on the graduation test, which
seemed counterproductive. She asked again if WAMI
qualified.
9:57:50 AM
Ms. Barrans said that WAMI would qualify for the first year
of the program, while the student was a resident on the
University of Alaska Anchorage campus. She elaborated that
if the student spent the majority of subsequent years
training in a graduate medical program in Alaska; that
would qualify as well.
Representative Fairclough asked if the expectation of a
$2000 contribution from the student was collected annually
or by semester.
Ms. Barrans replied that it was on a per year basis. The
amount that the student was expected to contribute was
based on the FAFSA, would either be $2,000, or the Expected
Family Contribution (EFC) based on income. If the family
was expected to contribute $4,000 based on the FAFSA
calculation, $4,000 would be the minimum contribution. She
relayed that more data on the issue could be made available
to the committee.
Representative Fairclough asked if there was a
differentiation between a career/technical path and a
college path. She also queried the definition of
extensions, and how they would be established in statute.
She also queried the qualifications of a part-time student.
10:01:39 AM
Commissioner LeDoux responded that a part time student was
a student earning between 6 and 11 credits at a qualified
institution.
Representative Fairclough asked how a student who was part-
time could qualify for the scholarship. Commissioner LeDoux
clarified that he was referring to a college age, part-time
students. Commissioner LeDoux said that the extension
mentioned on Page 7, Line 14, would be granted to people
who qualified for the scholarship who were in the military;
so that they could apply and received extra time for the
time they served in the military.
Representative Fairclough wondered about students who
qualified that suffer a medical emergency. Commissioner
LeDoux believed that an extension could be granted by LAW
through regulations established by the state board of
education.
10:03:53 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze commented on the issue of the graduation
exam. He asserted that the exam measured the remedial
proficiency of a student graduating from an Alaska
Kindergarten through 12th grade institution. He said that
the graduation test had been adopted with the purpose of
placing a minimum value on a high school diploma, not
college readiness.
Representative Fairclough offered that the students that
took the test were not aware that it was not a college
level exam.
Co-Chair Stoltze countered that that was one of the many
failings of the school district, not the Department of
Education.
10:05:50 AM
Representative Joule said that one of the ways that a
student could lose eligibility was to not maintain the
required GPA. He wondered if there would be a grace period
for the student's GPA during the transition into college.
Commissioner LeDoux responded that there was no grace
period. The student would have to pay for, and complete a
semester on their own in order to regain eligibility and
meet the criteria.
Representative Joule believed that a grace period was
critical for students during the first semester, as that
was not normally a time when students did their best work.
He thought that the incentive to keep the scholarship into
the second semester would compel the student to work harder
to improve performance. He believed that a grace period
would illustrate faith in the student's abilities.
Representative Joule furthered that he would appreciate
more dialogue about non-traditional students. He asked what
the department considered the definition of a non-
traditional student, and based on that definition, whether
those students were covered under the program. Commissioner
LeDoux understood that a non-traditional college student
was a student who does not go to college even thought they
qualified, and who chose to explore other life experiences
prior to going to college. Many non-traditional students
attend school for a time and then moved onto something
else. He reiterated that the scholarship provided six years
of assistance to complete the eight semesters, and that
most scholarship programs required that the student enter
college directly after high school. He shared that many
parents in the state prefer that their child travel out-of-
state for a year before beginning college, just to see what
it is like. The program was designed so that there was a
degree of opportunity for non-traditional students, within
the six year period, to explore what they want to do.
Representative Joule clarified that the program was for
individuals who wanted to attend college within six years
of graduating from high school. Individuals who postponed
college to work or raise children, would not have access to
the scholarship six years post graduation. Commissioner
LeDoux replied in the affirmative.
Representative Joule thought that some of the most
successful stories from the outlying areas of the state
involved people who figured out much later in life what
their academic goals were. He opined that that demographic
would not be provided an opportunity under the legislation.
10:12:34 AM
Representative Kelly emphasized that the program would
require substantial state funding. He wondered if the
program was the department's highest funding priority. He
probed the measurable success of the scholarship program in
other states. Commissioner LeDoux replied that he
department was operating according to the state education
plan, and under the belief that success was the outcome of
doing many things. The three top areas he was personally
interested in were; making sure that kid's could read by
2nd grade, that a quality career/technical education
program was established in the state, and that the arts be
embraced to a greater extend in schools. He added that high
schools in the state look like they did 50 years ago and
needed to change. He believed that the scholarship program
was particularly important because it affected the attitude
for students and parents. The program was one component of
a comprehensive plan to help young people who want to go to
college move in that direction.
10:15:37 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that Ryan Buchholdt, a student from
UAA, had comprised a comprehensive list of similar programs
around the country (copy on file).
Commissioner LeDoux relayed that the program in Alaska
differed in that it provided for broad opportunity for
student to participate. He hoped that by inviting C average
students to apply for the scholarship, students with a D
average or lower would be inspired to work harder in order
to qualify. Research had shown that taking a rigorous
curriculum in high school ensured success in college. He
thought that the program would be the catalyst to offering
the required classes in schools throughout the state.
Vice-Chair Thomas wondered if scholarship benefits
increased as the student's GPA rose at the college level.
Commissioner LeDoux replied that the scholarship was based
only on high school performance.
10:18:45 AM
Representative Austerman queried the cost, and amount of
work, necessary to bring every school in the state up to
the program's curriculum and technology standards.
Commissioner LeDoux replied that that analysis had not been
done. He said strongly that there was not a school in the
state that could not offer the courses required by the
program.
Representative Austerman assumed that the department would
be assessing schools to determine if they were capable of
providing the required curriculum. Commissioner LeDoux said
that the department had done an analysis of statewide
correspondence schools, all of which had indicated that
they had the full capability to deliver the courses
anywhere in Alaska.
Representative Austerman understood that schools that did
not already offer the required curriculum would eventually
be pressured by students and parents to institute the
requisite courses. He expresses a lack of confidence that
all schools in the state would relent to the pressure, and
wondered if there was language in the bill to insist that
schools offer the classes. Commissioner LeDoux said that
there was nothing in bill required the schools to provide
the course, but maintained that given the opportunity, most
schools were up to the task of providing the program
throughout the state.
Representative Austerman maintained disbelief that all
schools would embrace the program. He requested that the
department do the math regarding realigning the funding in
each district in order to accommodate the program. He also
called for more discussion on the 30 day residency
standard. Finally, he wondered how community colleges were
viewed in the program.
10:23:34 AM
Commissioner LeDoux replied that students who achieved the
scholarship could attend any regionally certified college
in the state.
10:24:25 AM
Representative Salmon asked if there would be a review
period for the program. Commissioner LeDoux relayed that
there was an implementation of 4 years for the program in
an attempt to give schools and students time to prepare.
The department hoped to implement the program in time to
serve the graduating class of 2011.
Representative Salmon cited Page 21, Line 26, of the bill,
which defined the commissioner as the Commissioner of
Revenue. However, several other pages referred to "the
commission". He opined that there was no clear definition
for "the commission". He did not understand how the two
commissions were separated. Ms. Barrans explained that the
terms were defined in statute. To understand, a person
would have to look up where the section resides in law. For
instance, the majority of the language fell under AS 14.43,
which was a student financial aid program in which
"commission" was already defined. In AS 14.42 the
commission was identified as an entity that administers the
financial aid programs. She said that the language was
contextually correct.
Representative Salmon expressed frustration that the
definitions were unclear. Ms. Barrans rebutted that the
terms were defined within statute.
10:27:18 AM
JERRY BURNETT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DIVISION OF TREASURY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, explained that the definition of the
Commissioner of Revenue found under AS 37.14.790, was
specific to the management of the fund set up in the bill.
Representative Doogan supposed that a student could come
into Alaska in time to establish residency (30 days), then
take 4 years of college and leave the state upon
graduation. He highlighted that there was no requirement
that the student undergo the curriculum of the Alaska
school system, or remain in the state after graduation.
Commissioner LeDoux said that that was correct.
Representative Doogan asked the value of the highest
scholarship available. Commissioner LeDoux shared that it
was approximately $5000 for 15 credits.
Representative Doogan asked how much the needs based, C
average student could expect to receive. Ms. Barrans
replied that the state aid for a student with a C average,
who received full PELL grant awards, would be $6,700 per
year. The bill as currently written had a required
student/family contribution of $2,000.
Representative Doogan understood that a high achieving
graduate, whose parents were millionaires, could receive
$5,000. A student with a lower GPA, whose parents were at
the low-income level, would get $2,378. Ms. Barrans replied
that that was incorrect. She reiterated that the lower
income, C level student would get $6,700, as a high needs
student. In the bill there was a state supplemental portion
for unmet needs that was paid for by the state, and would
bring the total aid to $6,700.
Representative Doogan maintained as confusion and requested
further explanation.
Ms. Barrans directed attention to Page 11, Section
14.43.828:
Sec. 14.43.828. Eligibility for an unmet need
scholarship supplement and maximum awards. (a) Subject to
appropriation, the commission shall award an unmet need
scholarship supplement to a student who meets the
eligibility criteria for the award.
(b) A student is eligible to receive an unmet need
scholarship supplement if the student
(1) is eligible for a merit-based academic
scholarship or a merit-based career and
technical school scholarship; and
(2) can demonstrate, in a year in which the
student receives a scholarship, that the
student has unmet financial need greater
than $2,000.
(c) The maximum amount for an unmet need scholarship
supplement is 50 percent of the unmet financial need that
exceeds $2,000.
(d) The qualified postsecondary institution attended
by the student shall determine unmet financial need by
subtracting from the student's allowable standard costs of
attendance at the institution all non loan sources of
financial support, including an expected family
contribution and all federal, state, and private
scholarships or grants received by the student.
(e) In this section,
(1) "allowable standard costs of attendance"
means
(A) for a student who receives a merit-based
academic scholarship, the lesser of the
(i) standard costs of attendance at the
University of Alaska, as determined by the commission; or
(ii) actual costs of attendance at the
qualified postsecondary institution that the student
attends or plans to attend, as determined by the
commission;
(B) for a student who receives a merit-based
career and technical school scholarship, the cost of
attendance at the qualified postsecondary institution that
the student attends or plans to attend, as determined by
the commission based on room and board costs at the
University of Alaska as determined by the commission;
(2) "expected family contribution" means the
amount a student or the student's family is expected to pay
toward the student's cost of attendance, as determined by
use of the most recent federal Free Application for Federal
Aid.
Ms. Barrans added that the largest per student payout under
the legislation was for the middle income family. Those
families fall out of the eligibility for PELL and other
federal aid, and yet their ability to contribute family
income was minimal.
10:34:22 AM
Representative Doogan insisted that the way in which the
numbers were calculated for the unmet need scholarship was
perplexing.
10:35:06 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze said that the home school program in the
state had been highly successful. He asserted that home
schooled students already possessed the academic motivation
that the department was attempting to instill in all
students via the legislation. He voice strong support for
the home school program in the state and promised to be an
advocate for it throughout the process.
10:36:39 AM
Representative Gara expressed concern that parts of the
bill rewarded students born into privilege, and who were
underachievers, while doing nothing for students who had no
means, and were over achievers. He did not think that the
lure of a scholarship was going to make academically lazy
students work harder. Commissioner LeDoux said that a
student who was an underachiever, whose parents were going
to pay for college anyway, would probably not be affected
by the invitation to receive a GPS.
Representative Gara argued that the program criteria left
out many different types of students who could be
successful if they had financial help.
Commissioner LeDoux believed that the program was an invite
to students to work hard in preparation for their dream
career. He contended that integral to the program were the
meetings that must initially take place early on (6th
grade) between parents, students, and schools. Because the
program included a needs based component, parents would be
assured that, regardless of their economic level, there was
an accessible financial pathway to college for their child.
He asserted that the program directly targeted the people
Representative Gara had indicated.
Representative Gara thought that students whose parents
were not involved in working to ensure the student took the
right courses to qualify for the scholarships were not
considered in the language of the bill. He believed that
the bill as written presented a pretense that certain
students did not exist. He argued that there were children
whose parents were not involved in their education, who
would work hard and only end up with a General Education
Diploma (GED), that would go on to succeed in life. He
thought that those students should be rewarded through a
provision in the bill.
Commissioner LeDoux stated that one of the purposes of the
program was to engage parents early so that they were aware
of the opportunities that were available to their children.
He acknowledged that students who achieved a GED did so for
a variety of reasons, and that it was not always poor
choices on the part of the student. Some states had
recognized this and had created a pathway for those
students to go to college. He disagreed that all students
who acquired a GED did do because they did not receive the
support that they needed to graduate high school. He
believed the scholarship program would improve the flow of
information necessary for the success of all students.
Co-Chair Stoltze wondered where class distinction had been
discussed in the bill.
Commissioner LeDoux maintained that the GPS program was an
invite to all students. He warned that if students did not
have accountability for their actions, and take
responsibility for their choices, they would not be
successful in life. The GPS asked students to be
accountable to make good choices, to consider the
importance of choices, and to do so early on in their
academic careers.
Representative Gara asked if the department could provide a
proposal for what was done in other states to provide an
alternative pathway for student who grew up with limited
parental guidance, but who had college potential.
Commissioner LeDoux shared that there was a Hathaway
Scholarship available to students that had earned a GED.
Information on the scholarship could be found on Page 15 of
the response to questions packet in the bill folder (copy
on file). He related that the information had not been
broken down into legal language that would fit into the
bill as an amendment, but if the committee requested such
language he would provide it.
10:43:55 AM
Representative Gara requested the language. Commissioner
LeDoux said that he would provide language for
consideration.
Representative Gara cited Page 8, Line 16, which defined a
C plus average as nothing less than a 2.5 GPA. He argued
that a 2.5 GPA was a flat C, and not a C plus average.
Commissioner LeDoux responded that a C plus was defined on
the 4. scale as a GPA between a 2.5 and a 3.0.
10:44:59 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze concluded that the bill required further
discussion.
CSHB 297 (EDC) was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 AM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 22 Taylor plan programs an analysis[1] HB 297.doc |
HFIN 3/22/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 297 |
| GPS CSHB297 Sectional Analysis.doc |
HFIN 3/22/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 297 |
| HB297CS(EDC)-DOLWD-WIB-03-16-10.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 297 |
| HB 297 ACPE response[1].pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 297 |
| HB 297 Documents.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 297 |
| HB 297 material from EED[1].pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 297 |
| HB 297GPS hearing notes and questions for LSL(2)[1].doc |
HFIN 3/22/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 297 |
| StolzeHawker032310 HB 297.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2010 9:00:00 AM |
|
| CSHB297 - StoltzeHawker 3.22.10.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 297 |
| StolzeHawker032310.pdf |
HFIN 3/22/2010 9:00:00 AM |