03/10/2010 08:00 AM Senate EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB224 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 224 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
March 10, 2010
8:01 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Kevin Meyer, Co-Chair
Senator Joe Thomas, Co-Chair
Senator Bettye Davis, Vice Chair
Senator Charlie Huggins
Senator Gary Stevens
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Donald Olson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 224
"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."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 224
SHORT TITLE: POSTSECONDARY SCHOLARSHIPS
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/19/10 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/19/10 (S) EDC, FIN
02/03/10 (S) EDC AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
02/03/10 (S) Heard & Held
02/03/10 (S) MINUTE(EDC)
02/15/10 (S) EDC AT 8:00 AM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/15/10 (S) Heard & Held
02/15/10 (S) MINUTE(EDC)
02/19/10 (S) EDC AT 8:00 AM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/19/10 (S) Heard & Held
02/19/10 (S) MINUTE(EDC)
02/22/10 (S) EDC AT 8:00 AM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/22/10 (S) Heard & Held
02/22/10 (S) MINUTE(EDC)
02/26/10 (S) EDC AT 8:00 AM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/26/10 (S) Heard & Held
02/26/10 (S) MINUTE(EDC)
03/01/10 (S) EDC AT 8:00 AM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/01/10 (S) Heard & Held
03/01/10 (S) MINUTE(EDC)
03/10/10 (S) EDC AT 8:00 AM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
WITNESS REGISTER
JOMO STEWART, aide to Senator Meyer
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a summary of the changes in CSSB
224, version S.
MURRAY RICHMOND, aide to Senator Thomas,
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a summary of the changes in CSSB
224, version S.
LARRY LEDOUX, Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development (DEED)
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented briefly on CSSB 224, version S.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:01:39 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS called the Senate Education Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:01 a.m. Present at the call to order were
Senators Davis, Stevens, Huggins, Meyer and Thomas.
SB 224-POSTSECONDARY SCHOLARSHIPS
8:01:58 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS announced the continued consideration of SB 224
and briefly reviewed recent activity on the bill.
8:03:24 AM
CO-CHAIR MEYER moved to table SB 224 26-GS2771\A. There being no
objection version A was tabled.
8:03:49 AM
CO-CHAIR MEYER moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute
(CS) to SB 224, labeled 26-GS2771\S, as the working document of
the committee. There being no objection, version S was before
the committee.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS said that there are substantial differences
between the original bill and the CS and the committee staff
would talk about these differences.
8:04:27 AM
MURRAY RICHMOND, aide to Senator Thomas, said that there are
three major differences between the CS and the original bill:
The first was a groundswell of opinion that career training
should be given equal standing with academic training. For
example, if a student is an A student who wants to go to career
school they should be given everything available to them that a
student going to an academic school would have. The amendment
that reflects this takes the career segment out as a separate
path and merged it with the academic path so that there is one
merit based scholarship. The second major change is the addition
of the needs-based amendment. The third change is the allowance
of non-traditional students. A handout was included for the
committee of the CS with notes made by the co-chair committee
aids.
MR. RICHAMOND said the first change in Section 1 is located on
page 1, line 9, where the scholarship is no longer be labeled as
an academic scholarship, but rather a merit based scholarship.
This occurs throughout document.
In Section 2 & 3, there are no changes.
The next change is on page 5, section 4. Originally drafted by
Legal, it was assumed the Alaska Student Loan Corps (ASLC) would
be administering this program. In discussing this with Diane
Barrans, that is not the case. This program would reside solely
within the Alaska Commission of Postsecondary Education (ACPE).
It is the House's intention that section 4 be removed. We
recommend that this entire section be removed from the CS as
well before it is passed on. The entire section deals with the
powers of the corporation in administering the program but
throughout the rest of the document it talks about the
commission. He does not believe that excising Section 4 would
affect any other part of the bill.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS clarified that all of section 4 should be cut,
which includes half of page 5 through page 7, line 28.
MR. RICHMOND said he agreed.
JOMO STEWART, aide to Senator Meyer, added that the only real
change in the existing statute was the addition of AS14.43.091
through 14.43.890. Legal included all of section 4 in order to
make that reference.
SENATOR STEVENS asked if the ACPE is comfortable with this and
if this is how the ASLC would like it.
MR. RICHMOND said yes. He continued with section 5, which is the
heart of the document, he said, and where they will see many of
the changes. The goals section has been deleted and will be
added, instead, as a memo of intent to be presented alongside
the bill.
MR. STEWART added that it can still be referenced in a matter of
court cases it just does not have the force of law.
MR. RICHMOND said that this bill presents a challenge for
schools to rise to the curriculum level required for students to
attend a major university in the state and perform well. Page 8,
line 1, reflects the nature of this challenge and to ensure that
a rigorous curriculum is available in all high schools in the
state.
8:11:35 AM
SENATOR HUGGINS asked if, by setting these high standards, this
opens the legislature up to legal attack because there are some
schools that won't be able to meet the criteria set by the bill.
MR. RICHMOND said there is an allowance in the bill for students
that are in areas where this curriculum is not available.
SENATOR HUGGINS disagreed.
MR. STEWART added that on page 9, line 25-26, there is a new
reference that was inserted into the CS that will allow for
schools to include virtual curriculum. Also, on page 8, line 1,
the purpose of the scholarship would be to ensure that a
rigorous curriculum is provided in all high schools. Through
virtual means (i.e. distance education) they would be asking for
the Department of Education and Early Development (DEED) to make
a commitment to have these resources available for schools who
cannot reach the standards on their own.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS clarified that Senator Huggin's concern is that
page 8, line 1, is a pretty strong statement.
SENATOR HUGGINS said yes. He added that in regards to virtual
curriculums it will take time to establish those programs and he
does not want to open the committee up to critique.
MR. RICHMOND declined to answer because he is not a lawyer. He
continued with page 8, line 3, where he noted that the language
discussing the two previous types of programs has been deleted.
This reflects the fact that there is essentially one scholarship
that can be used in either an academic or career track.
On Page 8, line 22, the original bill previously said that an
Alaskan resident who has graduated or will graduate within six
months of the date of application would qualify for the
scholarship. The six month time frame was deleted in order to
provide a longer time frame for students to apply (per the
amendment by Senator Stevens who wanted to allow for more non-
traditional students). Line 25 of the original bill was deleted
for the same reason. On line 30 there was a proviso that the
scholarship must be used within a six year time frame. This
entire paragraph was deleted as well to make for an open ended
time frame.
On page 8, line 31, the CS includes a minimum grade point
average (GPA) that a student will be required to maintain during
their postsecondary work in order to keep their scholarship. The
average has not yet been specified; however, a 2.5 GPA has been
suggested. The original bill did not include a minimum GPA, but
rather a "minimum standard."
CO-CHAIR THOMAS asked where the GPA reference is.
MR. RICHMOND said it is not currently included in the bill. He
assumed that it will be established in regulations, unless the
committee would like to establish a GPA in the bill.
8:16:42 AM
SENATOR STEVENS said he always advises students to withdraw from
a class as soon as possible if they are having trouble with it
to avoid having that class on their record. He asked, in this
case, if there are a minimum amount of credits to be earned that
are required to maintain the scholarship?
MR. STEWART said that the minimum GPA addresses a student's
continued performance in college in order to maintain the
scholarship they have earned.
SENATOR STEVENS asked whether there are a minimum number of
credit hours a student is required to take.
MR. RICHMOND said a student has to be enrolled at least half-
time or take six or more credit hours at one time in order to
keep their scholarship. If a student is enrolled part time the
scholarship would be pro-rated.
SENATOR HUGGINS recommended they look at minimum GPA in bill.
Also, the transition from high school can be traumatic. Should
there be a probationary period in the first year to allow for
slightly lower grades during this transition period?
MR. RICHMOND said they will discuss Senator Huggin's suggestion
further. He continued on page 9, lines 14-18, were added to the
CS to allow students with a non-traditional background to
qualify and enroll in the scholarship program regardless of age.
He continued to say that lines 18, 19, and 24 of the CS add
language that reflects that this is now a performance or merit
based scholarship to reflect the unified nature of this bill.
Page 9, line 25-26, addresses a virtual curriculum may be added
and would be considered a valid part of a student's education.
8:21:01 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS asked whether non-traditional students on page
9, lines 14-18, consist of individuals who not only withdrew
from a postsecondary institution but could also include almost
any circumstance that might have interrupted their career.
MR. RICHMOND concurred. He continued on page 10, line 1, of the
CS which discusses programmatic standards for eligibility for an
award. The first change from the original bill was to move the
social studies requirements from three years to four (which
could include foreign language). The second component added was
directed for students who are going in a career direction that
demands less math and science skills. These requirements would
include: three years of mathematics, three years of language
arts, three years of science, four years of social studies, and
two years of a foreign or Alaska Native language. The House
amendment (26-GH2771\A.18) originally discussed two years of
foreign language or Alaskan Native language and four years of
social studies.
SENATOR HUGGINS asked about these standards as opposed to
current requirements and how many credits remain for electives.
MR. RICHMOND responded that all of these requirements exceed the
standards that are found both in state statues and individual
schools. He said that the amount of electives a student might
have depends on what a student has taken at an earlier age. If a
student takes the required courses early and passes, this would
leave more room for electives. A student that might have to
retake a course will not have as much room for electives.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS clarified that if a student takes the courses
required to be eligible for the scholarship, how many credit
hours remain for electives?
MR. RICHMOND deferred to the ACPE.
SENATOR STEVENS asked that cultural heritage be defined.
MR. RICHMOND said he assumes that it is not confined to Alaska
cultural heritage. As he reads the bill, it appears that it
would stand for any cultural heritage.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS suggested they get legal clarification
SENATOR HUGGINS asked if a person whose first language is not
English takes English, would it qualify as a foreign language.
MR. RICHMOND replied no. He continued that page 10, lines 11-18,
is an amendment offered by the administration that defines the
three award tiers and lines out the actual grades and GPA
necessary to qualify for the scholarship. The first tier is the
"A level," which is 3.5 and higher and receives 100 percent of
the scholarship; the second is the "B level," which is 3.0-3.49
and receives 75 percent of the scholarship; and the third tier
is the "C+ level," which is 2.5-3.0 and receives 50 percent of
the scholarship.
He pointed out the change on line 19 which includes a minimum
score requirement on an entrance exam (either ACT or SAT). He
explained that essentially what lines 22-25 mean is that if a
student meets the GPA requirement for an "A level" scholarship
but does not meet the minimum entrance exam scores, they can
apply for a lower tier scholarship. This means that the ACT or
SAT requirements would also be tiered into an A, B, or C level.
He is uncertain whether the student would be disqualified for a
scholarship if their entrance exam score is below the minimum
standard.
8:29:45 AM
SENATOR STEVENS asked where "pass\fail" fits into the grading
system that has been established here.
MR. RICHMOND assumed that most universities would not allow a
student to go through four years of school with "pass\fail."
While he is not positive about this, he believed that the
commissioner would address this.
MR. STEWART said their impression from the committee was that
they wanted an objective benchmark to guard against grade
inflation but they did not want the ACT or SAT to be the
commanding factor in a student's eligibility for the
scholarship. This particular amendment came directly from the
administration and may be a topic that the committee would like
to discuss further.
CO-CHAIR MEYER agreed and said that more discussion is
necessary. He thinks, however, that a student who has a 4.0 GPA
and takes a rigorous curriculum ought to be able to do well on
an entrance exam, especially since they can take the test more
than one time. He would hate to lower the standard too much
because a student had a "bad test day."
MR. RICHMOND explained that the scoring percentiles on ACT are
skewed to the higher level and then take a radical jump for mid-
level students.
MR. STEWART referred the committee to the letter from the ACPE
regarding post-secondary education, dated March 3, 2010.
Included in the letter are the University of Alaska admission's
test standards, provided by the university for the committee.
While the University of Alaska does have an open university
(i.e. anyone can take classes) there are minimum standards that
a student must meet in order to enter into a degree seeking
program. He said he was not sure how DEED would want to defer to
the university's current standard.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS assumed that it would be even more difficult for
non-traditional students to qualify for the program having not
taken tests for some period of time.
MR. RICHMOND continued that on page 10, line 26, the language
included in the CS now includes academic, career, and technical
postsecondary institutions. Page 11, line 1 reflects a similar
change. And finally, line 6 notes the merit based needs and the
inclusion of academic and career schools.
On page 11, lines 7-15, the difference between the CS and the
original bill connects the scholarship with the 2010 through
2011 school year, while the CS connects the scholarship with the
2009 through 2010 school year. The other thing to point out
about this section is that in the needs based section (Sec.
14.43.828) of the CS the scholarship is based on the cost of
attendance at the University of Alaska. This is not the case in
this section (Sec. 14.43.820). Rather it is based on the school
the student plans to attend. He recommended that this section be
aligned with a University of Alaska tuition rate, and not solely
"tuition." This would prevent a student from receiving a
scholarship for a larger sum of money if they were to attend,
for example, to Alaska Pacific University where the tuition is
significantly higher.
MR. STEWART commented further the dates attached to the
scholarship. The original bill pegged the dates for the
2010/2011 school year. The amendment offered by the House and
included in the CS links the scholarship, instead, to the
2009/2010 school year. As the CS currently stands, having the
date change will impact the amount of award a student will
receive in coming year due to an increase in tuition for the
University of Alaska by four percent for 2010/2011.
CO-CHAIR MEYER encouraged the committee to peg the tuition to
the University of Alaska's tuition rate. He also believed that
the current rate (2010/2011) should be used. He wondered if this
change was made to accommodate 2010 graduates.
MR. RICHMOND said no and that there are still no allowances for
that situation. He continued by noting that on page 11, line 16,
the CS explicitly states that a merit based scholarship can be
applied to a career school.
MR. STEWART further explained that this section made the other
references to vocational and technical schools superfluous
throughout the bill.
MR. RICHMOND continued on to line 24, which states that a
student may only receive one scholarship.
SENATOR STEVENS remarked that line 24 did not make sense to him
when he first read it. He asked that the wording of line 24 be
clarified.
MR. RICHMOND agreed. He continued by moving back up to page 11,
line 22. In the original bill a student would remain eligible
for a scholarship for up to eight semesters. The CS, he said,
has changed this to 12 semesters.
He continued on to the needs based section (Sec. 14.43.828)
which does not include any substantial changes to that
amendment. The rest of the CS includes statutes that allow
departments to regulate the scholarship.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS asked Mr. Richmond to go over the needs-based
section on page 12.
MR. RICHMOND explained that if a student were applying for the
needs-based performance scholarship award they would first fill
out a FAFSA form. If the student's financial needs were to
exceed $2,000.00 they would receive 50% of the unmet need after
their expected family contribution of $2000.00.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS clarified that a student would always contribute
a minimum of $2,000.00 under this plan regardless of the
student's circumstances.
MR. RICHMOND agreed.
MR. STEWART explained that this was the needs based amendment as
it had been proposed by the governor's office.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS asked if on page 12, lines 8-9, determine how
these calculations are determined. He requested them to go
through these calculations in more detail.
MR. RICHMOND gave the example of a student who, after they had
applied for FAFSA and received a PELL grant, they still had
$4000.00 that needed to be covered. The student (or family) is
still expected to contribute $2000.00. Of the remaining
$2,000.00, half of that would be the responsibility of the
student ($1,000.00) and the needs based scholarship would pay
for the other half ($1,000.00).
MR. STEWART said that this scholarship was never intended to be
an entirely full ride scholarship.
MR. RICHMOND explained that the most positive effect of the
needs-based scholarship is that it would reduce the amount of
loans students have.
8:44:05 AM
MR. STEWART explained that as a policy statement, all
scholarships are now merit based scholarships, based on high
academic performance. It appears, he said, that almost every
student has the possibility of some needs-based contribution,
depending on their family's income.
MR. RICHMOND continued by explaining section d (page 12, lines
10-14) which defines the process of receiving a needs-based
scholarship. The student would fill out the FAFSA and the
institution would then determine the cost of attendance and what
the expected family contribution would be. Finally, line 16 pegs
the allowable cost of attendance to the University of Alaska.
MR. STEWART pointed out a slight linguistic change on page 13,
line 3 in the CS. In the original bill it states that a student
should consider alternative means to financial aid but the
department would consider whether these other means were
applicable, would be fair to other students and whether it
coincided with programmatic goals. This wording was taken out of
the CS and replaced with "effect."
MR. RICHMOND explained that if the needs-based scholarship were
to be financed as designed there would be a $400 million fund of
which five percent would be drawn from each year. That five
percent would then be distributed among all of the students
eligible for the needs based scholarship. If more students were
added to the program there would be less money to be distributed
per student. Before any exemptions for students are created it
is important to understand how this will affect the other
students that would be receiving this needs based scholarship.
MR. STEWART said it is similar to discussions regarding the
distribution of the permanent fund to people out of state.
MR. RICHMOND continued on with page 13, lines 8-11, which
discusses waivers that a student could receive if a particular
curriculum in secondary school is not made available to them.
MR. RICHMOND said that one topic that should be discussed is the
list of technical and career schools addressed in line 20. There
are several lists in existence right now including ones kept by
the ACPE and the Department of Labor(DOL). He wants to make sure
that they are all working from the same list. Mr. Stewart and
Mr. Richmond plan to get back to the committee with more
information on that.
MR. STEWART assured the committee that there are plans to create
this list. There was a fiscal note that went along with the
House version of the bill of $25,000.00 that would coordinate
the creation and maintenance of a unified list.
SENATOR HUGGINS asked whether this list is included in the
statute (AS 14.43.835(a)(2)) discussed on page 11, line 18.
MR. STEWART said there are currently three different lists.
Those holding lists include: the ACPE with authorized technical
schools and training, the DOL with certified career training
facilities, and a list that is within the statute. There is
intention, however, to create a vocational and technical list
where a student would be authorized to use their scholarship.
This list is supposed to come from the DOL be published by the
ACPE. He asked the committee how involved they would like to be
in the creation of this list.
SENATOR HUGGINS agreed with consolidating the list but asked
what the prevailing Alaska statute would be for the list.
MR. STEWART pointed out that the list that is being referenced
on page 11, line 18 is the same statute referenced on page 13.
SENATOR STEVENS mentioned that it is important to address the
title of the scholarship. The bill has been changed in a major
way by the legislature, why is the scholarship still called the
Governor's Performance Scholarship? He does not believe the
title should be tied to an individual. Rather, it is a
scholarship that they are all creating and will change education
in the state. He would like to have further discussion about
whether a more appropriate title exists.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS agreed to a discussion at a later time and also
said that taking a look at all three lists of technical and
vocational programs would be helpful.
MR. STEWART informed the committee of another slight linguistic
change on page 15, lines 10-11, where the original bill
referenced the goals of the program and has been taken out of
the CS. Further on in the section on page 17, lines 12-13, which
is in the current statute, the drafter took the opportunity to
have the statute cleaned-up and renumbered.
Finally, at the end of the bill on page 22, line 16, a
grammatical change was made. In the original bill "students" had
been listed in the plural and the drafter changed it to "a
student."
CO-CHAIR THOMAS said that these are simply statute changes that
were required that had not been made previously.
MR. STEWART agreed with this clarification. He mentioned that he
included a section on the inconsistency of grade terms to the
concise topics of discussion that were identified during the
meeting. It was pointed out to him that within the CS there are
a number of ways that an A student, for example, was addressed
and it should be made consistent. There are also a couple of
lines on page 10 regarding programmatic flexibility that should
be in a separate section and can easily be cleaned up.
8:56:45 AM
CO-CHAIR MEYER said he is not sure if the commissioner will be
here on Friday and would like to get some preliminary comments
from him.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS agreed and invited the commissioner to comment
on the CS.
LARRY LEDOUX, Commissioner, Department of Education and Early
Development (DEED), said he will be here on Friday to respond to
the comments made during the meeting and will give them close
consideration. There are some good additions and interesting
changes in CS but he thinks it is important that the committee
pay attention to the goals of the program, which have been taken
out of the CS. The scholarship program is designed to make young
people work harder and take responsibility for their choices. He
took time to review the goals of the program to the committee.
It is very important when working with young people that they
are challenged and given a dream to work toward. High school
students are working way under their potential and this follows
them into college and careers. He believes that the committee
has added some important additions but he also thinks it is
important when revising this program that the goals are kept in
mind.
9:00:29 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS said they would have the commissioner speak
further at the next meeting. [SB 224 was held in committee.]
9:01:21 AM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Co-Chair Thomas adjourned the meeting at 9:01 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|