Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 106
02/28/2011 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation(s): Yupiit School District Superintendent | |
| HB104 | |
| Presentation(s): University of Alaska Chancellors | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 104 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 104-ALASKA PERFORMANCE SCHOLARSHIPS
CHAIR DICK announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 104, "An Act renaming the Alaska performance
scholarship and relating to the scholarship and tax credits
applicable to contributions to the scholarship; establishing the
Alaska performance scholarship investment fund and the Alaska
performance scholarship award fund and relating to the funds;
making conforming amendments; and providing for an effective
date." [In front of the committee was the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 104, Version I, adopted as the work draft
on February 9, 2011]
8:51:20 AM
CHAIR DICK stated that discussion needed to focus on the needs
based component, mentoring, university capacity, funding
sources, and qualification by students from smaller schools.
8:52:02 AM
DIANE BARRANS, Executive Director, Postsecondary Education
Commission, Department of Education and Early Development (EED),
specified that she had participated on the task force for higher
education funding. She reported that a lot of discussion prior
to the task force questioned the adequacy of the level of
funding for the needs based program, the AlaskAdvantage
Education Grant. She pointed out that this grant was available
to any resident attending an in-state educational institution,
but that funding had only been sufficient for a small percentage
of those eligible. She noted that the task force had
recommended a supplemental component, but she opined that this
was not necessary, as sufficient funding for the needs based
grant program would provide the opportunity to fund non-
traditional students. She pointed out that the Senate had
recommended sufficient funding for the AlaskAdvantage Education
Grant program, instead of the creation of a supplemental
component to the scholarship program. She opined that this
maintained clarity and consistency between the merit based and
needs based programs.
8:55:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked which program served the top 10
percent of each school.
8:56:25 AM
MS. BARRANS replied that it was the University of Alaska (UA)
scholars program, funded through the UA resources.
8:56:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked what percentage of those who
applied for the AlaskAdvantage [Education Grant] program
received funds.
8:57:10 AM
MS. BARRANS replied that funding was available for 15-20 percent
of those eligible.
8:57:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON remarked that this was pathetic.
8:57:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI, stating that the federal PELL Grants
had been severely cut back, asked which students would be most
affected.
8:57:54 AM
MS. BARRANS clarified that although a reduction in the PELL
Grant program had been proposed in Congress, it had not yet
occurred. She stated that students from families of four with
an income less than $40,000 were eligible for PELL grants. She
declared that the ripple effect of these reductions would affect
the AlaskAdvantage Education Grant program. In response to
Representative Kawasaki, she stated that the need by the
applicants would be greater.
8:59:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked if all of the AlaskAdvantage
Education Grant funds were being expended. He asked what
criteria were used for the allocation of the funds.
8:59:55 AM
MS. BARRANS said that the fund allocation was strictly needs
based. She explained that the entire eligible pool was ranked
highest need to lowest need. She declared that priority was
given to full time students. She added that a student who had
shown higher academic achievement through ACT/SAT test scores
and students enrolled in career areas designated as "a workforce
shortage area" were eligible for larger grants. She listed some
of the shortage areas to be education, health, social protective
services, and resource process extraction. She announced a
growth in the number of students eligible in workforce shortage
areas.
9:02:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked if students would be eligible while
attending institutions included in the Western Undergraduate
Exchange program agreement.
MS. BARRANS replied that eligibility was limited to students
attending school in Alaska, as the idea was to retain a trained
workforce.
9:04:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked how many student grant
applications were not accepted, and of these, how many were
unable to attend school as a result.
9:04:38 AM
MS. BARRANS replied that there was not any data for the students
who did not attend school. She offered her belief that there
were 4,200 eligible students while fewer than 1,000 had received
grants. She added that these students were already enrolled in
school, and that generally the grant was not a determiner for
enrollment, but was used for the management of their other
school expenses.
9:07:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked how much money would be required
to fund all the eligible grant applications.
9:07:28 AM
MS. BARRANS offered an estimate of $4.5 million to fund the
current base allocations.
9:08:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if there was a fiscal note for
Version I.
9:08:26 AM
MS. BARRANS replied that there was not a fiscal note for the
needs based component.
9:08:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON emphasized the need for a fiscal note. He
pointed out that the prior proposed legislation with a needs
based component, which did not include the non-traditional
students, had an estimated fiscal note of $17-$20 million. He
directed attention to the current cap of $4,000 in the proposed
committee substitute, clarifying that there had not been a cap
for the needs based component in previous legislation. He
reflected that the needs based component and the merit based
component had required similar funding. He asked how the
addition of the non-traditional students within the needs based
component could now result in an estimated cost that was half
the merit based component.
9:11:22 AM
MS. BARRANS noted that a key difference for the cost of each
program was the current cap on the needs based aid. She pointed
out that the prior legislation had included escalating costs
tied to the cost of education. She stated that it was unknown
how many qualifying students would come from low income
families. She pointed out that the demographics of scholarship
recipients in many other states reflected a disproportionate
scholarship distribution to families with a history of going to
college. She noted that these families often had a higher
socio-economic standing. She emphasized the importance of
having two programs which worked well together, needs based and
merit based. She agreed that it was important to have an
estimate for cost, but that an exact fiscal note would be more
difficult until there was a history to draw from. She stated
that the AlaskAdvantage Education Grant program cost was based
on the last three years of program cost. She said that this
history would reflect both traditional and non-traditional age
students in coming years.
9:14:17 AM
MS. BARRANS, in response to Representative Seaton, stated that
only students scoring in the top tier of test takers would
qualify for the priority level. She shared that one suggested
modification proposed by the task force had been to review the
academic priority for the needs based grant, and make the
scholarship eligible students equate to the academic trigger to
allow them grant priority. She opined that the programs would
still work well in conjunction, and still maintain distinct
scholarship and needs based programs.
9:15:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked if this could be best
accomplished in statute or in regulation.
9:15:52 AM
MS. BARRANS replied that currently this could be accomplished
through regulation, but that the legislature could make a
statutory change.
[HB 104 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|