Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 106
02/22/2010 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| 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 | |
| += | HB 350 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 206 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 297-POSTSECONDARY SCHOLARSHIPS
8:03:09 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the first order of business would be
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."
8:04:17 AM
C. J. REEVES, II, Vice President, University of Alaska Southeast
Student Government, University of Alaska Southeast, expressed
support for HB 297, with the addition of a needs based
amendment. She described the difficulty of attending college
without financial support. She reported that the UAS student
government had polled the student body, and the response had
been that students needed financial help. She stated that,
nationally, Alaska had the smallest percentage of low income
students attending college. She requested committee support for
HB 297.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER clarified that the bill would not apply
to currently enrolled students.
MS. REEVES acknowledged this.
8:07:35 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked Ms. Reeves if her high school classes had
included the four years of math, four years of science, four
years of English, and three years of social studies which were
required in this bill.
MS. REEVES replied that she graduated from a Florida high
school, and that those classes were required.
CHAIR SEATON explained that he wanted to determine if the
preparation base required in the scholarship program was
adequately preparing students for college.
8:08:48 AM
MS. REEVES, in response to Representative Wilson, replied that
she did not feel completely prepared for college when she
enrolled at UAS, even though she had attained a 3.8 grade point
at her high school.
8:10:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON asked if the needs based component to the
bill should be in addition to the current bill structure.
MS. REEVES declared that a high school grade point average did
not determine a student's success in college. She expressed a
preference for SB 224, the Senate version of HB 297.
8:11:41 AM
JESSICA ELLER, Student Senator, University of Alaska Southeast
Student Government, University of Alaska Southeast, stated that
Alaska has had the lowest financial support for students over
the past 16 years. She opined that giving financial aid to low
income Alaskan students would benefit the Alaskan work force and
economy. She shared that she would not personally qualify for
the needs based support, but that she still supported HB 297.
8:12:59 AM
CHAIR SEATON mentioned that Jessica's father was a nationally
recognized, award winning teacher in Homer. He asked if the
courses she took in high school had prepared her for UAS, or was
remedial coursework necessary.
MS. ELLER replied that she took four years of math and three
years of science, as well as a community service requirement.
She opined that the grade point average (GPA) was not as
important as the rigor of the curriculum in preparation for
university. She stated that she was well prepared for college
coursework.
8:15:54 AM
CHARLES SEDDON, Class of 2010, expressed his continued interest
in the Governor's Performance Scholarship (GPS) since its
announcement. He reported that he had dropped his elective
classes, added more science and math classes, and gave up a part
time job and his hobbies, all in order to meet the criteria of
the scholarship. He stated that the scholarship offered him the
opportunity to continue his education and remain in Alaska. He
asked that HB 297 be amended to include the Class of 2010. He
described himself as a needs based student, as well as an A
grade point average (GPA) student, and more than willing to earn
his way.
8:18:08 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked whether the math and science classes
available were adequate preparation for college.
MR. SEDDON replied that he was enrolled in college algebra and
had taken a private pilot ground school course. He stated that
he was not taking any remedial courses.
8:18:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked what area of study holds his
interest, and where, without the GPS, he has considered in or
out of state postsecondary study.
MR. SEDDON replied that he was interested in medicine, and that,
although he wanted to stay in Alaska, he would probably have to
go out of state.
8:19:38 AM
LESLIE SEDDON shared that she was the parent of a 2010 graduate
and that she had submitted a written testimony. She referred to
the Transition Provision in HB 297, page 13, lines 19-21. She
stated the importance of including the graduating class of 2010,
and she noted that the seniors had worked hard to meet the
requirements so as not to be excluded from the scholarship
opportunity. She acknowledged that the financial assistance
would not be available until July, 2011. She opined that
funding was available to include the class of 2010.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER acknowledged the disappointment for
graduating seniors, and asked what lead to the belief that the
scholarship would be offered to these students.
MS. SEDDON replied that the high school had notified the
seniors, and worked with the students to adjust curriculum to
qualify. She opined that as the GPS was high on the governor's
priority, she had assumed that it would pass this year.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER clarified that HB 297 was not written to
take effect in the current year, and that there had never been a
decision to specifically exclude the graduating class of 2010.
She stated the possibility that HB 297 would not pass, or could
be amended.
8:23:46 AM
CHAIR SEATON pointed out that the current version of HB 297 did
not have a needs based component.
8:24:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON suggested a review of the development of
HB 297.
8:24:31 AM
CHAIR SEATON outlined the process for passage of a bill, and how
funding is separately allocated. He explained that the current
funding suggestion was for an account from which the generated
earnings would be used for the scholarships. He welcomed the
preparation for college that students were already exhibiting.
8:26:43 AM
NICOLE CARVAJAL, University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF), provided
statistics for low income family members who go to college which
showed the national average was 28 percent, and that the Alaska
average of 7.9 percent was the lowest rate in the U.S. She
mentioned that the next closest was Nevada with 14.2 percent.
She directed attention to the fact that Alaska had ranked last
for 16 years. She spoke out in support for an amendment of HB
297 to include a needs based component. She opined that this
was an investment in a trained workforce for Alaska, as many
students would not otherwise attend college. She said that
although she qualified for the University of Alaska Scholars
Program, she still needed to work to support herself.
8:29:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if Ms. Carvajal had taken four
years of high school math.
MS. CARVAJAL replied no, but that she did take a rigorous course
load. She expressed her concern that this focus for math,
English, social studies, and science would drain resources from
alternative classes.
8:29:36 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked about unmet financial need. He referred to
previous testimony about the Oregon Plan, and he indicated that
some financial plans required student participation. He asked
what amount of student financial participation was appropriate.
MS. CARVAJAL replied that it was not unreasonable for students
to hold a job while attending school, but she opined that it may
inhibit academic success.
CHAIR SEATON relayed that the Oregon Plan had indicated how 15
hours of weekly work for 48 weeks each year, was reasonable and
not proven to be detrimental.
MS. CARVAJAL replied that this may depend on the job, as some
jobs pay minimally. She offered her belief that a set number of
working hours was more reasonable than a set amount of money to
contribute.
8:32:32 AM
CHELSEY DORMAN, Student Body President, Kenai Peninsula College,
Kenai River Campus, reiterated that this bill was an investment
for Alaska and its future students.
8:33:28 AM
CHAIR SEATON described the two opportunities that this
scholarship provided: vocational/technical, and academic. He
directed attention to an amendment to allow a cross application
for the use of a scholarship to either track.
MS. CARVAJAL replied that a discussion among the coalition of
student leaders had supported equal funding be applied to either
track.
8:35:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON identified the program as being more than
a scholarship, but as education reform. He asked how the
program would be seen as an incentive for lower income students.
MS. DORMAN said that there was strong support from the small
communities. She noted a desire for an option to the Pell
grants, and she reported that Alaska was the only state without
a state funded scholarship.
8:37:25 AM
MS. CARVAJAL reported that she would have taken 3 years of
science and 4 years of math to meet the requirements, but she
opined that the students who qualified for the needs based may
not have the home support to take the necessary requirements.
She expressed the primary concern should be the creation of a
scholarship program.
8:38:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON clarified that support for the needs based
program was twofold: to help low income students receive
financial assistance and to offer the framework for required
classes.
MS. CARVAJAL agreed that it would encourage students to take
more rigorous classes. She offered her belief that she would
have been better prepared for college had this been available.
8:38:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked that every witness respond
whether their school had offered the 4 years of science, 4 years
of math, and 3 years of social studies, and, if not, would their
parents have insisted that the school offer this curriculum if
the GPS existed. She expressed a desire for schools to offer
these courses.
8:39:33 AM
MS. CARVAJAL replied that North Pole High School did offer these
courses, and that her mother would have demanded that the
courses be offered.
8:39:45 AM
MS. DORMAN stated that Nikiski High School also offered these
courses, and that the parents of students would have also
demanded that the courses be provided.
8:41:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked the students present to respond
whether their high school had offered this course curriculum.
[Eight students raised their hands to indicate yes.] Next,
Representative P. Wilson asked if their parents would have
insisted that these classes be offered. [Six students raised
their hands to indicate yes.]
CHAIR SEATON asked if the students would have requested the
classes if their parents had not.
MS. ELLER stressed the importance of curriculum reform to hold
high school students to a high standard, but she pointed out
that what the parents want may not always be best for the
students. Furthermore, she expressed concern for keeping the
arts and foreign languages programs.
8:44:14 AM
CHAIR SEATON, in reference to the earlier poll conducted by
Representative P. Wilson, clarified that most of the students
had responded that the curriculum was available, and that their
parents would also have insisted on the curriculum.
8:44:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON asked how many of the students present
were from small schools. [The hand count was 8.]
CHAIR SEATON asked to clarify the definition of a small school.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON replied that it was any school outside of
Fairbanks and Anchorage.
8:45:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked how many of the students present
were required to enroll in remedial classes. [The hand count
was 7.]
CHAIR SEATON interjected that although the rigorous classes were
available, students may not have taken them, and he noted that a
little over half of the students present had to take remedial
classes.
8:46:23 AM
CHAIR SEATON closed public testimony.
8:46:37 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:46 to 8:50.
8:50:38 AM
CHAIR SEATON directed attention to the packet of amendments and
began consideration and discussion.
8:51:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled Version
26G-2, (2/12/2010), (12:42 pm), which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Page 1, line 9, following "award of a":
Insert "merit-based"
Page 3, line 17, following "academic scholarship":
Delete "and"
Insert ","
Page 3, line 17, following "school scholarship":
Insert "and a needs-based scholarship"
Page 7, line 5, following "awards for the":
Delete "program"
Insert "merit-based programs"
Page 8, following line 3:
Insert:
"Sec. 14.43.828. Eligibility for a needs-based
scholarship and maximum awards. (a) Subject to
appropriation, the commission shall award a needs-
based scholarship to a student who meets the
eligibility criteria for the award.
(b) A student is eligible to receive a needs-based
scholarship 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 the needs-based award is
50 percent of unmet financial need greater than
$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 costs 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 that do not exceed the standard 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
towards the student's costs of attendance, as
determined by use of the most recent federal Free
Application for Federal Student Aid."
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON objected for discussion.
8:51:50 AM
CHAIR SEATON moved to adopt conceptual Amendment 1 to proposed
Amendment 1:
Page 1, line 17, following, "Eligibility for a":
Delete "needs-based scholarship"
Insert "unmet needs scholarship component"
CHAIR SEATON explained that the intent is to include an unmet
needs component in the GPS.
8:53:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether the unmet needs would be
calculated after possible receipt of a federal PELL Grant.
CHAIR SEATON explained that this component would be offered if
there was an unmet need of more than $2,000.
8:54:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER, directed attention to the bill page 3,
line 12, Article 11A, and said the reference suggests that the
conceptual amendment is unnecessary.
CHAIR SEATON agreed that the conceptual amendment did not change
the structure of the bill, but that this would clarify the
perception for needs based scholarship.
8:56:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER stated support for conceptual Amendment,
and pointed out that it will relate to language on page 1, lines
9, 17-19, and page 2, line 4, as well as others. He asked for
comment from the Department of Education and Early Development
(EED).
CHAIR SEATON, in response to Representative Keller, explained
that, as a conceptual amendment, the language would be made
consistent throughout the bill.
8:57:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ stated support for conceptual Amendment 1,
and acknowledged how input from the University of Alaska
students was the impetus for this proposed Amendment 1.
8:58:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked whether proposed Amendment 1 and
conceptual Amendment 1 would be tabled for further
consideration. She also asked for comment from EED.
8:59:16 AM
EDDY JEANS, Director, School Finance and Facilities Section,
Department of Education and Early Development (EED), said that
conceptual Amendment 1 did provide clarity for proposed
Amendment 1, and it did follow the intent of the EED.
8:59:57 AM
CHAIR SEATON indicated that the language for conceptual
Amendment 1 would be carried throughout the bill. He
underscored the need to provide this language for purposes of
clarity.
9:00:55 AM
CHAIR SEATON, hearing no objection, announced conceptual
Amendment 1, to Amendment 1, adopted.
9:01:15 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:01 to 9:03.
9:03:05 AM
CHAIR SEATON referred to proposed Amendment 1, page 2, lines 4-
5, [subsection (c)] and explained that if, after reception of
all other financial aid, there was still an unmet need greater
than $2,000, this would pay 50 percent of the unmet need.
9:04:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON asked if there was a ceiling for this
financial award.
CHAIR SEATON replied that the ceiling would be 50 percent of the
unmet need.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON pointed out that the tuition rates for two
years at the University of Alaska was included in the bill, so
that would be a part of the ceiling.
CHAIR SEATON replied that the merit based scholarship was not
tied to the tuition but to the unmet need of the entire cost of
attending college. He explained that the purpose was to assist
with access to college, and he said that if a student had no
other means for funding after other sources were exhausted, this
would provide 50 percent of the unmet need.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON indicated that there was not a ceiling.
CHAIR SEATON responded that the cost would be determined by the
department.
9:07:43 AM
MR. JEANS directed attention to proposed Amendment 1, page 2,
line 12, "allowable standard costs of attendance" which he
explained was a term used by the Alaska Postsecondary Commission
for determining the total costs of attendance, which was capped
by the standard costs of attendance at the University of Alaska.
He explained that after other scholarships and grants were
considered, the balance of cost was addressed through the needs
based component.
9:09:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON stated support for the provision but he
questioned an increase in the overall demand with the additional
funding component.
MR. JEANS anticipated the same number of participants, but that
the fiscal note would be adjusted.
9:10:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ declared her surprise at the 50 percent
provision, as she reflected that earlier discussion was for the
state to pay all but $2,000.
9:11:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER pointed to proposed Amendment 1, page 2,
lines 15-19, and asked to clarify that (i) referred to the
University of Alaska, and (ii) referred to other qualified
postsecondary institutions.
9:12:06 AM
MR. JEANS addressed proposed Amendment 1, page 2, line 14, and
stated that the cost was based on the lesser of (i) or (ii). He
elaborated on an earlier question by Representative Edgmon, and
noted that the cap was the cost to attend the University of
Alaska.
9:12:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked about the availability of the
standards that the commission uses to determine costs of
attendance.
MR. JEANS replied that the information would be provided to the
committee, and he recounted that costs include books, housing,
and meals.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER clarified that the standards are not in
statute.
9:13:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH said the figures are based on 2010 tuition,
and asked direction to locate the reference in the bill.
MR. JEANS replied that it was on page 7, line 8.
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH pointed out that this was the cap.
MR. JEANS agreed that this was the cap on the performance
scholarship. He clarified that a second cap was for the
allowable standard cost of attendance, which was a separate
calculation.
9:14:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER, referring to the 50 percent of unmet
needs, identified that this was distinct from the levels of
performance award, which retained the incentive of higher award
for higher grades.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON asked if that was accurate.
9:15:46 AM
MR. JEANS explained that even if a lower level scholarship was
attained, there was still the unmet need component to help pay
for the total allowable cost. He said that a 100 percent
coverage for the unmet need above $2,000 would negate the value
for the different levels of scholarship. That was the reason to
only offer a 50 percent coverage.
9:16:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked to clarify that the unmet need
covered food, lodging, and books and some of the tuition.
MR. JEANS concurred.
9:17:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON removed her objection.
CHAIR SEATON, hearing no further objection, announced Amendment
1, as amended, adopted.
9:18:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ moved to adopt Amendment 2, labeled 26G-2,
(2/10/2010), (1:14 pm), which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Page 5, line 28:
Delete "grade-point"
Insert "grade"
Page 5, line 30, following "scholarship;":
Insert "the top tier is the A average tier, the second
tier is the B average tier, and the third tier is the
C plus average tier; the grade-point average for the A
average tier is 3.5 or higher, for the B average tier
is less than 3.5 but no less than 3.0, and for the C
plus average tier is less than 3.0 but no less than
2.5; the board shall set by regulation minimum
requirements based on a substantially similar standard
for districts that do not assign grades;
Page 6, following line 2:
Insert "(4) a process by which a student who
meets the grade standards in (2) of this subsection
for a particular tier, but does not meet the minimum
scores established under (3) of this subsection for
that tier, may apply for a lower tier scholarship;"
Page 6, line 3:
Delete "(4)"
Insert "(5)"
Page 6, line 5:
Delete "(5)"
Insert "(6)"
Page 6, line 7:
Delete "(6)"
Insert "(7)"
Page 6, line 23:
Delete "grade-point"
Insert "grade"
Page 6, line 24, following "school;":
Insert "the minimum is C plus average; the C plus
average requirement is a grade-point average of 2.5 or
higher; the board shall set by regulation minimum
requirements based on a substantially similar standard
for districts that do not assign grades;"
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON objected for discussion.
9:18:20 AM
CHAIR SEATON explained that the intent of proposed Amendment 2
is to provide a letter grade qualification rather than a grade
point average (GPA) number.
9:19:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked whether amendment alters the
function of the bill.
9:20:05 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
9:20:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked where the award tiers are set out
in the bill.
CHAIR SEATON located the language on page 5.
9:21:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if the highest tier was 3.5 or 4.0.
She offered her belief that Tier A should not be a 3.5 GPA, and
asked if it was appropriate to put this into statute.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON, reflecting that there is not a grading
standard in Alaska, asked how this will be addressed.
CHAIR SEATON replied that the standardized tests would establish
the bar.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER ascertained that a similar problem arose
with the Alaska Scholars program, and pointed out that 34
percent, of those students, required remedial classes in math or
English. She stated her belief that the intent is to reform K-
12 education, and opined that Amendment 2, by lowering the top
tier, was diluting the rigor of the bill. She said, "An A
should be something special."
CHAIR SEATON asked to clarify whether an A- would drop a student
off the top tier.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER replied that, in the broader sense, "an A
is an A, and a B is a B." She reported that students taking
Advanced Placement (AP) classes could attain a GPA higher than
4.0. She stressed her desire to retain the rigor of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH asked to hear comment from EED.
9:26:46 AM
MR. JEANS shared that the governor desires that both the GPA and
the letter grades be reflected in the legislation. He offered
that as students would be taking a more rigorous curriculum, a
3.5, or higher, GPA should qualify for the highest level
scholarship.
9:27:49 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if there was a statewide standard for a 3.8
or a 3.5 GPA to translate to a letter grade.
9:28:29 AM
LES MORSE, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Education and Early Development (EED), replied
that there is not a statewide standard, that each district has
its own standard. He shared that some districts use a 4-point
scale, and a few use a 5-point scale, for advanced placement
courses. He noted that some districts also give significance to
a plus or minus designation, but there is not a standard for
this, either. He summarized that, generally, a 3.5 GPA means
that a student has attained half A's and half B's.
9:29:37 AM
CHAIR SEATON pointed out that there is nothing in the bill to
standardize the scale used, or give additional weight for taking
AP classes.
MR. JEANS declared that the department's intent is to require
districts to use a 4-point GPA scale.
CHAIR SEATON observed that this should be stipulated in the
bill.
9:30:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH stated his understanding that proposed
Amendment 2 is an attempt to establish in statutory definitions
of letter grades for GPA ranges.
MR. JEANS concurred.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked about the cut scores for the
Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) and the ACT test requirements.
MR. JEANS replied that EED could make recommendations, but that
it was up to the Alaska State Board of Education EED to adopt
those scores.
9:31:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked to receive a comparison of the
economics for the various award levels, to better understand the
incentive for each tier.
MR. JEANS agreed to provide the information to the committee.
9:34:29 AM
MR. MORSE, in response to Representative P. Wilson, explained
that "less than" is more explicit because a decimal can be
carried out several places.
9:35:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON, referring to proposed Amendment 2, page
1, line 10, asked if "for districts" includes private schools,
correspondence schools, and home schools.
MR. JEANS replied that some districts are on a standards based
system and do not assign grades. He explained that EED
requires, as part of the GPS approval process, that the
standards are convertible to a letter grade.
9:36:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER, referring to earlier testimony that a
3.5 GPA could mean half A's and half B's, requested removal of
the language labeling the top tier as an A average.
CHAIR SEATON offered an example for an academic student who
could not get an A in physical education, and therefore would
not qualify for the top tier. He asked if that was encouraging
excellence, or might a student seek out less challenging courses
in order to achieve and maintain an A average. He asked whether
the scholarship GPA will be measured by the core classes alone,
or include every class taken.
9:39:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER expressed the need for AP classes to be
graded on a 5-point scale, which would allows a student the
opportunity to take more difficult classes, without compromising
their GPA. She offered her support for the scholarship to be
measured only against the core classes.
9:41:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER offered that this may put extreme pressure
on a teacher for grading.
9:42:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH declared that HB 297 is a transition towards
a more rigorous curriculum. He conveyed that students require
incentives to take challenging classes, and opined that proposed
Amendment 2 does not lower expectations, but rather quantifies
grades on a statewide level.
9:44:04 AM
MR. JEANS, in response to Representative Edgmon's comment, said
that the UA Scholars Program is awarded to the top 10 percent of
students attending high school.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON asked if it is also awarded at vocational
schools.
CHAIR SEATON clarified that the UA Scholars Program is not
funded by the state.
9:45:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON asked about the practical application of
proposed Amendment 2, and how it relates with the UA Scholars
Program.
9:45:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ expressed support for proposed Amendment 2,
as it offers another opportunity for a student to qualify for a
scholarship award, outside of the UA Scholars Program.
9:46:12 AM
CHAIR SEATON expressed his concern that grade point inflation
might occur, in order for students to qualify for the GPS.
9:46:59 AM
MR. JEANS referred to the A, B, and C+ average and offered his
belief that the governor intent is for students to qualify using
the letter grades as a basis. He noted that the bill does not
require a student to achieve straight A's in order to maintain
a 4.0 GPA and qualify for the top tier award; an encouragement
for students to take a rigorous class load.
9:48:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER moved to adopt conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 2:
Delete "3.5"
Insert "3.8"
Delete "A average tier" [all letter grade tiers]
Insert "tier 1, tier 2, or tier 3"
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER stated that this amendment will bring
accuracy to the bill. She opined that a student's score
reflecting half A's and half B's, resulting in a 3.5 GPA, does
not constitute an A student, and, hence, the top tier should not
be considered an A average tier.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON objected for discussion.
9:49:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER argued that the amendment is insignificant
as there are three basic criteria for a student to qualify: the
grades, the cut score on the ACT or SAT test, and the
curriculum.
9:50:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON expressed concern for striving
students, and she suggested having conceptual Amendment 1
reflect a GPA of 3.6.
9:51:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH commented that it is important to retain the
advanced placement courses, but that it is also necessary to
return to a statewide standard of 4.0 GPA. He stated support
for proposed Amendment 2, but not for the conceptual amendment.
9:53:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER pointed out that the cut scores for ACT
and SAT are not in statute. She agreed that the AP classes
encourage students to achieve, but she opined that the 4.0 GPA
is a disincentive. She offered her belief that should the tier
levels be set low, an unintended consequence may occur and said,
"[It may cause] a lazy factor for A students, many of whom don't
learn great work habits because ... [school is] easy from
kindergarten on." She emphasized that no matter where the
standard is set, someone would always be excluded. She stressed
that establishing half A's and half B's as the top tier, for
GPS, does not reward the "best of the best."
9:55:27 AM
CHAIR SEATON opined that this is not the only performance
incentive. He expressed his desire for every student to be
encouraged to excel, and not just the straight A student. He
stated opposition the conceptual Amendment 1.
9:56:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON stated opposition to the conceptual
amendment.
9:56:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER, recalled the GPS goal of reaching for
real excellence, and expressed disappointment. She said, "I see
this as building in slack for the best already."
9:57:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked what determines an A grade.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER replied that 4.0 is an A, and 3.8 is a
B+.
CHAIR SEATON clarified that conceptual Amendment 1,to Amendment
2, removes the A average term, and introduces a different label.
9:57:41 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:57 to 9:58.
9:58:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER relayed that the argument was convincing
and stated support for the conceptual amendment. He said he had
not considered that the cut score is not in statute. In further
reflection he said, "There "really is an almost unstoppable
pressure to lower [educational] standards."
9:59:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON noted the disparity of instructional
service and curriculum quality among the 53 statewide school
districts and said that he would defer to the judgment EED. He
stated his opposition to conceptual Amendment l.
10:00:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON stated that this bill is meant to
stimulate education reform. She emphasized that the state's
current education system is not performing adequately. She
expressed support for setting higher standards, and stated
support for the conceptual amendment.
10:01:38 AM
CHAIR SEATON offered his belief that this will set such a tight
grade range that grade inflation could become an issue. He
stated that any grade lower than an A may disqualify a student
from the top tier, and conjectured that grades are a target and
an impetus, not an end all. He opined that an A tier for a GPA
of 3.5, and above, is reasonable and encourages a rigorous
curriculum. The benefit to student achievement by setting a
higher level is questionable.
10:03:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER, referring to Representative Edgmon's
deference to the judgment of EED, offered her belief that
departmental judgment will be based on the judgment of the
current administration. She agreed that there is a disparity in
educational opportunities for rural and urban districts,
emphasizing that there is not grade disparity, but achievement
disparity. She stressed that conceptual Amendment 1 will
reserve the highest GPS award for students who demonstrate the
highest achievement.
10:05:19 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gardner and Keller
voted in favor of conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 2.
Representatives Buch, Munoz, P. Wilson, Edgmon, and Seaton voted
against it. Therefore, conceptual Amendment 1, to Amendment 2,
failed by a vote of 2-5.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON removed her objection to Amendment 2.
CHAIR SEATON, hearing no further objection, announced Amendment
2 adopted.
[HB 297 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|