Legislature(2011 - 2012)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/07/2011 08:30 AM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB118 | |
| HB104 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 104 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 118 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
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."
9:36:16 AM
MIKE HANLEY, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND
EARLY DEVELOPMENT (DEED), relayed that HB 104 had been
introduced by the governor to fund a program that had been
established by the legislature the prior year. He relayed
that the bill would offer incentives for students and
families across the state and would ultimately transform
kindergarten through college and career education in
Alaska. The scholarship rewarded students that sought
postsecondary education in the state and had taken courses
to prepare for success beyond high school, worked hard, and
performed well in school. He explained that the bill had
three components, including, the name change from a merit
scholarship to a performance scholarship in order to avoid
potential copyright issues; second, the establishment of an
award fund and an investment fund that the legislature
could appropriate funds into and taxpayers could donate to;
three, corporate tax credits to incentivize donors. The
governor was looking for a sustainable and predictable
source of funding to ensure the success of the program. The
department had been working hard with statewide school
districts to utilize the scholarship program.
KAREN EEKS, SELF, KETCHIKAN (via teleconference), urged the
passage of HB 104. She discussed that she had been heavily
involved in improving the graduation rate and was involved
in the local Empowering Youth task force. The program
researched national, state, and local drop out statistics,
including the various reasons that students dropped out,
and recommended solutions. One of the recommendations had
been for the funding and implementation of the performance
scholarship. The task force was deeply concerned about the
dropout rate not only for the students but for the state's
economic and social future. She discussed that there were
devastating repercussions for the state's economy and
society when youths dropped out of high school. She
explained that the scholarship program would be an
important signal to young people throughout the state
regarding the importance of their education. She urged the
committee to make modifications to the bill if they had
concerns about equal access to the program for students
throughout the state. She stressed that over the long-term
the investment in Alaska's students would come back to the
state.
9:43:15 AM
Representative Gara wondered whether she had information
about the "alternative pathway" approach that had been
offered in other states. He explained that the approach had
allowed bright students, who had not been able to take some
of the required coursework or who had received their GED
[General Education Development], to qualify for the
scholarship.
Ms. Eeks was not familiar with the alternative pathway. She
thought that the scholarship should be available to as many
students as possible. She felt that many youths were
falling through the cracks and that it was important to
support them.
Co-Chair Stoltze CLOSED public testimony.
DIANE BARRANS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA COMMISSION ON
POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY
DEVELOPMENT, discussed that the House Education CS had
continued with the use of the new program name. She
explained that the CS and added two additional requirements
for postsecondary institutions under Section 6. The first
requirement was mandatory counseling for students and the
availability of courses for students to complete their
degree in a timely fashion. The department was currently in
the process of approving institutions to participate
beginning in the fall of 2011; therefore, the effective
date on the new requirements would be FY 13. The second
requirement stipulated that scholarships would be paid on a
pro rata basis and that no new scholarships would be
awarded if funding was insufficient. The Education CS
created a non-lapsing investment fund within the general
fund that would accept appropriations, donations, and
investment income. Additionally, the CS created a provision
similar to community revenue sharing that anticipated a
time at which new appropriations would no longer be
accepted. The fund would accept up to $160 million and
would provide sufficient funding for students who had
received the scholarship to continue to receive it
throughout their college career. She relayed that no other
changes had been made to the bill.
9:49:23 AM
Representative Costello asked whether students that
graduated from the Nine Star High School Completion Program
would be eligible under the definition of high school on
Page 4, Lines 27-28. Commissioner Hanley did not know
whether the Nine Star program would qualify for the
scholarship. He noted that he would get back to the
committee with an answer.
Representative Costello requested information regarding the
eligibility for alternative programs that served at risk
youth and on an expansion to the definition to include the
programs if they did not currently qualify. Commissioner
Hanley replied that the intent was that the program would
be available to all students. He explained that the bill
did not look at the format of the school, but focused on
student qualifications that included required course work,
and sufficient ACT scores.
Representative Gara queried whether the two programs
available under the bill were the need-based Alaska
Advantage Education Grant and the merit-based Alaska
Performance Scholarship Award. Ms. Barrans responded that
the Education CS expanded the scholarship award fund and
the investment fund to include Alaska Advantage Education
Grant funding.
Representative Gara asked whether the Alaska Advantage
Education Grant was the existing needs-based program. Ms.
Barrans replied in the affirmative.
Representative Gara wondered whether the bill determined
how money was apportioned to each program. Ms. Barrans
replied that the legislature would be required to determine
how the money was divided on an annual basis.
Representative Gara discussed an amendment that he had
distributed. He wondered whether the department would help
the legislature to consider an alternative pathway that was
used by other states that would allow students who did not
have all of the courses available to them or who had a GED
to participate in the program. He believed that the merit-
based program the former DEED commissioner had advocated
for had a couple of flaws including that many districts did
not offer the courses that a student needed to qualify and
that the scholarship was not available to students who had
received a GED due to extenuating circumstances.
Commissioner Hanley responded that the department was
working very closely with school districts that may not be
able to offer all of the courses that were required under
the legislation. He expressed confidence that districts
across the state could provide the required courses;
however, he was willing to consider it as a hardship if a
district could not provide the required courses. He
discussed that there was a two-year grace period for
students who experienced situations that were beyond their
control. He elaborated that students would be allowed to
take a course during the summer or during their first year
at the university level. He expressed concern about the
incorporation of the GED into a program that worked to
provide incentives for students to continue in
postsecondary education and that required them to be
prepared for college.
Co-Chair Stoltze shared similar concerns with
Representative Gara.
9:56:22 AM
Representative Gara understood that the performance
scholarship was directed at high achieving students. He
opined that merit-based scholarships should not go to
students who received a 2.5 GPA and that the money should
go to needs-based students. He did not want the department
to offer the scholarship to low achieving students;
however, he did not want to punish students for
circumstances that had been out of their control if they
were able to take other steps to meet SAT or ACT and course
requirements.
Representative Wilson wondered how the bill's definition of
high school would apply to children who were home schooled
to ensure that they were eligible for the scholarship.
Commissioner Hanley responded that the goal was to keep
expectations high without putting up hurdles for students.
A home schooled student's eligibility would be determined
based on the courses that they had taken and on their
SAT/ACT scores. He noted that the first scholarship
applicant that had recently been accepted had been home
schooled.
Ms. Barrans added that the department had developed an
eligibility determination process. She explained that an
application and an assessment were required to ensure that
a home school program ran parallel to high school.
Representative Wilson wondered whether requiring different
qualifications for a needs-based program and a merit-based
program in one bill took away from the intent of the
legislation. She thought a student could just apply for the
needs-based program if they did not meet those under the
merit-based program.
10:00:37 AM
Ms. Barrans responded that the only combinations that
occurred in the bill related to the award fund and the
investment fund. She relayed that there were no other
changes to the Alaska Advantage Grant or performance
scholarship requirements. There were two separate
complimentary programs in statute that did not conflict
with each other. The performance scholarship was available
beginning with 2010 high school graduates and the Alaska
Advantage Grant Program was available to any student
attending an accredited institution in the state. A student
was required to make good progress and earn sufficient
credits to be eligible for the needs-based program.
Representative Wilson thought the goal had been create an
equal opportunity for students to excel; however, she
believed that the existence of two paths created by the two
separate programs took away from the goal.
Ms. Barrans disagreed. She clarified that there were two
programs with different policy objectives that shared the
goal of preparing students as trained Alaskans who were
ready to enter the workforce. The maximum award under the
scholarship program was $4,755 per year and the maximum
needs-based grant was $2,000 per year. She explained that a
low income student that qualified for the grant and one of
the three levels of the scholarship would receive funds to
assist them with attendance fees. The cost of full-time
attendance was typically about $18,000 per year and
provided incentive for students to maximize the resources
provided by the state.
Co-Chair Thomas wondered about the eligibility of out-of-
state religious correspondence courses. He had voted
against the legislation the previous year because the
majority of his constituents had expressed that they would
not qualify under the program. He believed that there were
rural districts and others that would be left behind due to
their inability to offer all of the required courses.
Ms. Barrans believed that the assessment would be based on
the curriculum and not on the source of the classes. She
detailed that the curriculum would need to pass assessment,
along with sufficient test scores and GPA.
Co-Chair Thomas requested a definitive answer in the
language of the bill.
Co-Chair Stoltze requested written correspondence from the
department that would provide clarity on the eligibility of
home and charter schools. Commissioner Hanley replied that
a correspondence course that was incorporated into a
student's high school transcript would be accepted as part
of their transcript.
Co-Chair Thomas wondered whether scholarship funds would be
refunded to the state if a student dropped out during
college. He reiterated his concern about the eligibility of
out-of-state correspondence courses. Ms. Barrans replied
that there were refund policies that schools were required
to comply with. She expounded that the state would receive
a refund in an amount that would depend on the length of
time the student had attended school prior to leaving.
Co-Chair Thomas remarked that he could not guarantee that
he would vote in favor of the bill even if the bill was
amended to reflect his concerns.
10:07:44 AM
Representative Guttenberg wondered whether the only
eligibility requirements for the Alaska Advantage Grant
were the ability to prove a need for the funds and active
enrollment. Ms. Barrans replied that a student would be
required to maintain "academic good progress," meaning that
a student would need to take at least 12 credits per term
and maintain a minimum 2.0 GPA.
Representative Guttenberg asked whether there was a "look-
back" provision related to grant eligibility. He wanted to
make certain that a student applying for school later in
life was not deemed ineligible for the grant funds due to
previous high school or college records. Ms. Barrans
responded that the only time there would be a look-back
would be in circumstances in which a student had taken the
grant and had subsequently dropped out of college. A
student would be required to attend one term to reestablish
their eligibility before they could apply for the grant.
Representative Guttenberg echoed Co-Chair Thomas's concern
that a student's location in Alaska should not limit their
ability to obtain either the scholarship or the grant.
10:10:26 AM
Representative Joule wondered whether a student was allowed
a semester probationary period if their GPA dropped below
2.0. Ms. Barrans responded that a student was required to
have a 2.0 GPA at the end of their freshman year.
Representative Joule wondered whether a student that had
not initially qualified for funding would be eligible if
they began college and achieved a 3.0 to 3.5 GPA. Ms.
Barrans replied that the student would not be eligible for
the performance scholarship, but they would be eligible for
the education grant.
Representative Joule explained that he had not been
speaking only of needs-based students. He surmised that
students who had left the state to attend school and
performed well would not ever be eligible for the
performance scholarship. He discussed the incentive to
encourage students to return to the state. Ms. Barrans
replied that he was correct. She understood that the
legislature may have many policy objectives, but the main
objective of the program that had been approved the prior
year was to keep the pipeline flowing from high school into
postsecondary education. The idea was to increase the
stakes in high school and to transform the system to reduce
the number of students that did not perform well. The
program required that students begin and use their
eligibility within six years of high school graduation.
10:14:22 AM
Representative Joule communicated that he would prefer to
see a needs-based component as it was currently laid out
instead of a performance-based scholarship. He believed
that the performance part became an indicator of where
problems resided in Alaska's school districts and could
help with the ability to learn how to develop the capacity
for all of Alaska's students to qualify for a performance
scholarship that would allow them to go on to academics
and/or a vocational field. He expressed hope for a
conclusion.
Representative Edgmon asked for confirmation that the
governor's FY 12 funding level was $8.2 million for the
performance scholarship and $1.1 million for the Alaska
Advantage Grant. Ms. Barrans replied in the affirmative.
Representative Edgmon believed that there should be more of
a needs-based component in the program. He expressed
concern about students in smaller communities.
Vice-chair Fairclough had learned from a presentation
related to standards in math, science and reading that
Alaska's schools did not have an aligned K-12 curriculum or
standards for grades 11 and 12. She had heard concern from
the university that K-12 had not been preparing students to
attend college and the K-12 schools had communicated that
the university would accept all standards, which was the
reason remedial courses were needed at a college level. She
read a standard for a tenth grader in math: "explaining in
words or identifying the difference between experimental
and theoretical probability of independent and dependent
events." She believed that the measurement had no relevant
meaning. She quoted from a tenth grade standard regarding
writing about a topic: "organizing ideas using appropriate
structure to maintain the unity of the composition (e.g.
chronological order, order of importance, comparison and
contrast, cause and effect, classification, and
identification) using a variety of transitional words and
phrases." She communicated her frustration about the
complexity and confusing nature of the state's high school
standards and the finger pointing between the university
and K-12.
Commissioner Hanley replied that the state had scored a "D"
on the understandability of its standards based on a
national level. The department was currently developing a
time-line to change Alaska standards. He had recently met
with commissioners outside of Alaska and had discussed
national standards that other states had adopted.
Vice-chair Fairclough expressed the importance of clear
standards and of input from PTA members and Alaskans that
spoke local languages such as Inupiat, Athabascan, and
other. She believed that it would not help if the same
people who wrote the current standards were the ones that
reviewed the new standards.
Representative Guttenberg wondered whether there was a
place the legislature could go to better understand
terminology used within the education system. He noted that
he had done and appreciated the legislature in a classroom
program.
10:24:24 AM
Commissioner Hanley responded that DEED was working on the
development of clear standards that met national and
international norms and on the development of relevant
place-based curriculum that varied throughout the state. He
hoped to bring a new set of standards before the committee
the following legislative session.
Representative Gara asked whether the Alaska Advantage
Grant Program remained available for vocational education
and certificated courses. Ms. Barrans replied that there
had been no changes to the structure, eligibility
requirement, or other to the grant program.
Representative Gara asked whether the bill still included
accountability language that required a student to maintain
a certain GPA to qualify for the needs-based grant. Ms.
Barrans replied in the affirmative.
HB 104 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.