Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 106
02/26/2010 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB297 | |
| HB350 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 297 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 350 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 297-POSTSECONDARY SCHOLARSHIPS
8:09:47 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."
8:10:43 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:10 a.m. to 8:11a.m.
8:11:24 AM
CHAIR SEATON continued with public testimony.
8:11:46 AM
CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School
Boards (AASB), stated support for HB 297, and declared that
anytime there is assistance provided for young people to attend
college it is a good idea. The association does have concern
for every district to provide the means for students to meet all
of the requirements. Educational opportunities are being
expanded via digital learning, and virtual school initiatives,
which will be helpful in addressing these concerns.
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH reported that the Bush caucus has expressed
concern regarding the workability of this program in rural
Alaska, and the committee is addressing that issue.
8:14:21 AM
CHAIR SEATON clarified that two educational tracks are proposed
for the scholarship program to provide support for students
following an academic education or choosing to enter a career
technical institution. He asked whether these tracks have been
discussed and are supported by AASB.
MR. ROSE said, "Yes."
8:15:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER indicated that the companion bill, in the
Senate, is different, particularly regarding the math
requirement.
8:15:41 AM
MR. ROSE noted that the association did discuss that variant as
a fundamental aspect. The University of Alaska (UA) system has
cited math as the number one factor for a student not completing
a degree.
8:16:39 AM
CHAIR SEATON closed public testimony.
8:16:44 AM
CHAIR SEATON moved to take from the table Amendment 3, labeled
26-GH2771\A.9, Mischel, 2/16/10, tabled at the 2/17/10 meeting,
which read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 6, lines 3 - 4:
Delete "university or college in this state"
Insert "postsecondary institution as described in
AS 14.43.835"
Page 6, line 8:
Delete "university or college"
Insert "postsecondary institution"
Page 7, line 5, following "maximum awards":
Insert "and allowable uses"
Page 7, line 12, following "achievement;":
Insert "for purposes of this paragraph, a student's
academic achievement must be determined by the student's
high school grade-point average and score on an examination
described in AS 14.43.820(b)(3);"
Page 7, lines 16 - 18:
Delete all material and insert:
"(3) subject to (e) of this section, a student
who qualifies for a merit-based academic scholarship may
apply the award to the costs of attending a qualified
career and technical school program as described in
AS 14.43.835(a)(2);"
Page 7, lines 27, following "courses":
Insert ", or for up to two calendar years of
attendance at a qualified career and technical school"
8:17:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON objected for discussion.
The committee took an at-ease from 8:17 a.m. to 8:18 a.m.
8:18:11 AM
CHAIR SEATON said this amendment will allow either award, the
merit-based or performance scholarship of any level, to be used
at either a vocational or an academic college of the student's
choice.
8:18:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON questioned whether the intention is to
ensure that the institution is accredited or certified.
CHAIR SEATON said a qualified student should be allowed to use
the award at the institution of the student's choice, and not be
restricted to a college or university. A student my earn the
highest academic award, but may choose to attend a vocational
institute. The amendment will allow a student to pursue his/her
personal goals at a Department of Labor & Workforce Development
(DLWD) accredited/certified postsecondary institution.
8:20:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON clarified that the bill will stipulate
that the institution will be qualified by DLWD.
8:21:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ stated her original understanding was that
a student receiving an academic award could use the scholarship
to attend a vocational institution. She expressed concern that
the amendment may not achieve that intent.
8:21:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER pointed out that Amendment 3 does provide
appropriate flexibility.
8:22:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH, referring to Amendment 3, page 1, line 3,
indicated that the qualifications are set forth in the
referenced statute.
8:22:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON commented on the importance of not
prioritizing college over a vocational school, in the GPS.
CHAIR SEATON declared that the intent is to allow someone who
attains the most rigorous scholarship level free choice for
applying the award.
8:24:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked if the program will have two
application tracks, or will a student who achieves a certain
academic level be automatically considered for a corresponding
award.
CHAIR SEATON said there are specific curriculum requirements,
and those taking the most rigorous courses will be able to apply
the award to the program of their choice. Some of the technical
schools are as expensive as those schools offering an academic
degree.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ inquired as to whether two separate
applications will be involved when a student submits criteria to
receive this scholarship.
CHAIR SEATON responded that a student will submit an
application, for a GPS, in the student's senior year of high
school. There may be two basic sets of curriculum from which a
student can choose when preparing for their career: a standard
course plan, or a rigorous course of study. A student may have
more options if he/she chooses to take the rigorous course over
the standard plan. He pointed out that a student who takes the
current requirements to earn a high school diploma will not
qualify for a GPS.
8:28:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ stated her need to further understand the
amendment.
8:28:51 AM
CHAIR SEATON clarified that passing Amendment 3 will not
preclude a future amendment.
8:29:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON removed her objection.
[The objection by Representative Munoz at the 2/17/10 hearing
was treated as withdrawn.]
CHAIR SEATON, hearing no further objection, announced that
Amendment was 3 adopted.
The committee took an at-ease from 8:29 a.m. to 8:30 a.m.
8:30:22 AM
CHAIR SEATON stated that Amendment 4 was withdrawn from
consideration.
8:30:49 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:30 a.m. to 8:31 a.m.
8:31:31 AM
CHAIR SEATON rescinded the previous statement and announced that
Amendments 4, 5, and 6 [text included in the 2/17/10 meeting
minutes] would remain on the table. He then announced that
Amendment 7 is withdrawn. [Amendment 7, with the same text, was
later reintroduced in this meeting and numbered Amendment 12.]
8:32:52 AM
CHAIR SEATON moved to take from the table Amendment 8, labeled
26-GH2771\A.16, Mischel, 2/18/10, tabled at the 2/19/10 meeting,
which read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 3, line 14, following "established":
Insert "for the purpose of ensuring that a
rigorous curriculum is available in all high schools
in the state and"
Page 4, line 16, following "opportunities":
Insert ";
(9) providing a rigorous curriculum in all
high schools in the state"
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ objected for discussion.
The committee took an at-ease from 8:33 a.m. to 8:34 a.m.
8:34:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked about the impact of Amendment 8.
CHAIR SEATON said that one of the purposes for the bill is to
provide a rigorous curriculum, but it was not stipulated in the
bill that required courses would be available in all high
schools in the state. This amendment will rectify that
oversight.
8:35:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ withdrew her objection to Amendment 8.
[The objection by Representative P. Wilson at the 2/19/10
meeting was treated as withdrawn.]
CHAIR SEATON, hearing no further objection, announced that
Amendment 8 was adopted.
8:36:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER moved to take from the table Amendment 9,
labeled 26-GH2771\A.10, Chenoweth, 2/17/10, tabled at the
2/19/10 meeting, which read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 10, line 1, following "error":
Insert "less any scholarship award payments
previously expended if the error in the award of the
scholarship was not due to any fault of the student"
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON objected for discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER directed attention to HB 297, pages 9 and
10, lines 31 and 1 respectively, and read:
(c) A student who is awarded a scholarship in error
shall be required to refund to the state the amount of
the scholarship awarded in error.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER argued that if an award is made in error
through no fault of the student, the money is used, it would not
be fair for the student to be liable for repayment. She used
the example of the state miscalculating a GPA, thus awarding an
inappropriate amount, which is discovered later during a program
audit. The student would have been acting in good faith and
utilizing the funds appropriately, but ending up with an
unexpected debt. Certainly, she said if it is discovered in a
timely manner, any unspent portion of the award could be
withdrawn by the state.
8:37:41 AM
EDDY JEANS, Director, School Finance and Facilities Section,
Department of Education and Early Development (EED), said that
the department has not taken a position on this Amendment 9. He
pointed out that once the scholarships are awarded they will be
administered by the Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education
(ACPE), and deferred to the ACPE.
CHAIR SEATON indicated that ACPE has not provided a comment for
the committee's consideration on Amendment 9. He stated his
hesitancy to impune that a problem exists, lacking input from
the department.
8:39:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER indicated it is an area that has not been
addressed, and stated her hope that these types of errors do not
occur.
8:40:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON removed her objection to Amendment 9.
[The objection by Chair Seaton at the 2/19/10 hearing was
treated as withdrawn.]
CHAIR SEATON stated his understanding that false information
submitted by a student, would be considered the fault of that
student.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER concurred, and clarified that the intent
of Amendment 9 is to hold harmless a student who is not involved
in creating the error.
8:42:08 AM
CHAIR SEATON, hearing no further objection, announced that
Amendment 9 was adopted.
8:42:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER moved to take from the table Amendment
10, labeled 26-GH2771\A.17, Mischel, 2/18/10, tabled at the
2/19/10 meeting with an objection pending, which read [original
punctuation provided]:
Page 3, lines 16 - 19:
Delete "The program includes a merit-based
academic scholarship and a merit-based career and
technical school scholarship. The merit-based academic
scholarship consists of three levels of awards. The
merit-based career and technical school scholarship
consists of one level of award."
Page 5, line 17:
Delete "an academic"
Insert "a performance"
Page 5, line 18:
Delete "academic"
Insert "performance"
Page 5, line 21:
Delete "academic"
Insert "performance"
Page 5, lines 29 - 30:
Delete "academic scholarship"
Insert "scholarship award"
Page 6, lines 2 - 3:
Delete "academic scholarship"
Insert "scholarship award"
Page 6, lines 3 - 4:
Delete "university or college in this state"
Insert "postsecondary institution as described in
AS 14.43.835"
Page 6, line 8:
Delete "university or college"
Insert "postsecondary institution"
Page 6, line 11, through page 7, line 15:
Delete all material and insert:
"Sec. 14.43.825. Maximum awards. (a) Subject to (b) -
(f) of this section, the maximum awards under the
program are
(1) for a student who demonstrates very
high academic achievement, the cost of approved
tuition for a full-time student in school year 2009
through 2010 at the qualified postsecondary
institution at which the student intends to enroll;
(2) for a student who demonstrates high
academic achievement, 75 percent of approved tuition
for a full-time student in school year 2009 through
2010 at the qualified postsecondary institution at
which the student intends to enroll;
(3) for a student who demonstrates moderate
academic achievement, 50 percent of approved tuition
for a full-time student in school year 2009 through
2010 at the qualified postsecondary institution at
which the student intends to enroll."
Page 7, line 16:
Delete "(3) a"
Insert "(b) A"
Reletter the following subsections accordingly.
Page 7, line 19:
Delete "merit-based academic"
Page 7, line 25:
Delete "merit-based academic"
Page 7, line 27:
Delete "university or college"
Insert "postsecondary institution as described in
AS 14.43.835"
Page 7, lines 27 - 29:
Delete "A student receiving a merit-based career
and technical scholarship may remain eligible for two
calendar years of attendance at a qualified career and
technical school. A student may not receive both an
academic and a career and technical scholarship"
Insert "A student may not receive more than one
scholarship award"
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON renewed her objection to Amendment 10.
8:42:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said she is troubled by the two
distinctive educational tracks that are presented in the bill.
She opined that it is important to provide pupils choices, which
may be changeable; a commitment to one track may not remain the
suitable choice as a student matures. Parents and educators
should be opening doors for students, and she espoused
eliminating the two track system and simply having a GPS will
accomplish that effort. When the award is provided, a student
should be able to begin an academic track in college, switch to
a vocational institute, or move back and forth during the eight
semesters covered by the scholarship. The award amount should
reflect the student's merit level, and be applied to the tuition
costs of the institution the student is attending during any
given semester; not necessarily the same amount.
8:44:26 AM
CHAIR SEATON requested further information on how the financial
distribution would be handled in the scenario presented.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER explained that if a student has a 50
percent award level to the University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA),
and decides to go to a vocational institution, the funding would
be adjusted to the 50 percent rate at the vocational school.
One of the concerns has been that career schools would consider
raising tuition, in anticipation of the state funding via this
legislation. She directed attention to Amendment 10, page 2,
line 20, to indicate the language, included to inhibit such
action.
CHAIR SEATON clarified his understanding that a student would
receive an award based on the tuition charged at the institution
that the student has chosen to attend.
8:46:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER restated that the intent of the amendment
is not to adjust the academic award amount, but rather to "put a
lock on the tuition for the vocational career." Further intent
is to allow students to keep their options open. She opined
that the core of the bill should not be about awarding college
scholarships, but should be about reforming the K-12 educational
culture to help students make future plans, choose a rigorous
curriculum, and have flexible options. She opined that having
to choose and adhere to a particular track, early in a student's
school career, may be constraining as the student approaches
postsecondary readiness. Additionally, she stated her belief
that every student should be required to take the same standard
of academic curriculum.
8:48:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER drew attention to the committee packet
and the EED correspondence labeled "Responses to Questions from
(H)EDC Members from 2/12/2010 Hearing," dated 2/16/10, pages 3-5
relate the American College Testing (ACT) percentiles listed by
state, and focused primarily on the column headed "% of
Graduates tested." The data indicates that only 29 percent of
Alaskan graduates take the ACT while 99 percent of graduates in
Wyoming take the ACT and their scores are slightly less than
those of Alaskan graduates. She suggested comparing the score
data of Alaska and Wyoming because the Hathaway Program has been
implemented in Wyoming, which requires similar rigorous
curriculum standards as those proposed in the GPS. One
difference is that, in Wyoming, every student is required to
take the rigorous curriculum. With proper preparation and
commitment, she opined, Alaskan students can take four years of
math, whether they see themselves as academic, career, or
vocational achievers; it will prepare them to reach for the
highest goal, direction, or dream.
8:50:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON agreed that high school students need
to be challenged, throughout their school career.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER declared that the cited document is the
most exciting information that she has received during her two-
year tenure serving on this committee. She said:
Ninety-nine percent of students in Wyoming taking the
ACT. Awesome. That's what I want for Alaskan
[students], four years of high school math. And if
we're not going to change our high school graduation
requirements, let's at least offer them a way to see
it and to do it.
8:51:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ agreed with the intent of simplifying the
program and providing one GPS award. She stated concern for not
maintaining consistency in the dollar amount awarded, having it
vary depending on the institution attended.
8:52:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said, as sponsor, she would not object to
changing that part of the amendment. However, she cautioned
against putting the state in a position of awarding tuition
beyond what is actually needed. It may be a matter of simply
deleting the language that includes the tuition maximum awards.
8:53:04 AM
CHAIR SEATON offered that the bill does have an award provision,
which is fixed at a percentage of an amount for the performance
scholarship and a $3,000, per year maximum, for the career
technical [scholarship]. It is stipulated that the amount
awarded cannot be greater than what is charged by the
institution.
8:53:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER welcomed a friendly amendment to the
amendment.
8:53:58 AM
CHAIR SEATON pointed out that the high school graduation
requirements have not been changed, and conjectured that perhaps
that is what is attempting to be accomplished through Amendment
10. It would require every student to take four years of math,
regardless of the track the student chooses. He said he did not
object, however, to the current structure of the bill which
allows the 70 percent of students, who are not college bound, to
have a means to receive a scholarship for a vocational
education. The amendment would remove that possibility, by
requiring that every student take four years of math; unless the
math courses are not stipulated. A student could choose from a
variety of math courses. The bill stipulates that the academic
track math courses will be higher math, such as geometry,
trigonometry, and calculus. The vocational technical track
requires four years of math, also, but will consist of courses
such as business math. If the requirement to earn the GPS is
based only on the GPA, without stipulated courses, a student may
decide that he/she can maintain a higher GPA, thus qualifying
for a higher GPS award, by taking less rigorous math courses.
Segregating the vocational and academic class structures does
not prevent a student from choosing rigorous courses, but it
does allow a vocational student the possibility of earning an
award without taking higher math courses.
8:57:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH noted that it is a complex issue and the
bill function is twofold: a scholarship and how to construct
it. The curriculum will be established by the department, and
course design will address a student's interest. The award
amount is a separate question, and the qualifying student should
be eligible for the cost of the education, regardless of whether
it's the academic track or the vocational education track.
"There shouldn't be a distinction between the types of education
we're offering; it should be a choice that's made by the
student," he opined. He then reminded members that Amendment 10
addresses curriculum requirements.
CHAIR SEATON agreed that both price and curriculum are contained
in the amendment, and suggested that the entities be kept
separate to avoid confusion.
9:01:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ said that an assumption is being made that
vocational education math requirements would be less than what
is required for an academic career. She said that is an
erroneous assumption, and asked the amendment sponsor to provide
language to clarify the intent and include flexibility of
curriculum.
9:01:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON opined that having two different math
tracks is not a good approach. She emphasized that the approach
shouldn't be "dumbed down."
CHAIR SEATON maintained that requiring four years of math means
a student's fourth year will be pre-calculus. Because a high
school diploma only requires two years, many students will be
eliminated from applying for the GPS. The options will be
limited to either two years of math or four years of rigorous
math. He opined that there will be no incentive for students
who do not want to take pre-calculus, to have access to the GPS
or a different scholarship program.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON held her opinion that if there is only
one track it wouldn't matter.
CHAIR SEATON insisted that establishing a single track [makes
the GPS] unachievable for many students, because students who do
not take the highest level of math courses won't qualify for the
possibility of an award.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said it should be achievable.
9:05:16 AM
CHAIR SEATON said that students make different choices; making
this requirement will eliminate choice and may exclude some
students. He provided an example of a student deciding to take
applied mathematics, or business math, rather than pre-calculus,
and underscored what is considered rigorous for an academic
degree may be different than what is rigorous for a vocational
certificate. He stated his belief that only 30 percent of
students will continue education at a college, and the other 70
percent should also have the possibility of receiving an award
from the state to complete the training of their choice.
9:06:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON surmised that it's being assumed that a
properly prepared student cannot handle four years of math at
the high school level.
CHAIR SEATON clarified that both scholarship tracks require four
years of math, and the difference will be the specific courses.
The question is whether the math courses have more application
and desirability to a full segment of the students that exist or
will only the students who leave high school with pre-calculus
count.
9:07:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER clarified that the Hathaway system has
three levels: the top two require four years of math, the third
level requires two. She offered to withdraw Amendment 10.
Further, she said she would research, and report to the
committee, what math classes are offered in Alaska's schools.
CHAIR SEATON pointed out that the rigor required in the GPS
requires four years of math. The intent is that the four years
of math won't necessarily be the four years of math required for
the GPS.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON opined that those students who take the
less rigorous math courses will automatically not be eligible
for the college scholarship.
9:08:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER directed attention to the Executive
Summary Introduction, American Institutes for Research, page 1,
paragraph 1, paraphrasing the text, which read [original
punctuation provided]:
Singaporean students ranked first in the world in
mathematics on the Trends in International Mathematics
and Science Study-2003; U.S. students ranked 16th out
of 46 participating nations at grade 8 (Mullis, et al,
2004). Scores for U.S. students were among the lowest
of all industrialized countries. Because it is
unreasonable to assume that Singaporean students have
mathematical abilities inherently superior to those of
U.S. students, there must be something about the
system that Singapore has developed to teach
mathematics that is better than the system we use in
the United States.
9:09:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER touted the need to emphasize math and
science education, and paraphrased quotes further in the
document, which read:
When I compare our high schools to what I see when I'm
traveling abroad, I am terrified for our workforce of
tomorrow. - Bill Gates, Chairman and Chief Software
Architect of Microsoft Corporation
Where once nations measured their strength by the size
of their armies and arsenals, in the world of the
future knowledge will matter most. - President Clinton
Science and technology have never been more essential
to the defense of the nation and the health of our
economy. - President George W. Bush
9:10:10 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked the department to comment.
MR. JEANS referred to the comparison of the Alaska and Wyoming
ACT performance outcomes, and said that the GPS was modeled
after the Wyoming program, which does have two tracks. The
department will establish mathematical requirements to present
to the state board. The tracks will require the same math
classes until the fourth year, and that is when the opportunity
to select enters. A student planning to attend college would
choose a college preparation course, and one planning to enter a
vocational field might choose business math. He assured the
committee that it is not about dumbing down math for one track
over another; both will involve rigor. The previous amendment
provides the best of both worlds, he said.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON, provided the aforementioned
understanding, opined that it does not present a problem.
9:12:55 AM
MR. JEANS indicated that it is the intent of the department to
take rigorous course requirements to the state board, as
recommendations for structuring the GPS curriculum. Following
the department's recommendations the state board will follow the
regulatory process, which encompasses public review and
hearings.
CHAIR SEATON said it is helpful to understand what courses the
department plans to consider as requirements for these tracks.
Perhaps that can be provided to the committee by the
commissioner.
9:14:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked if the requirements for science,
language, and social studies will also be the same for the first
three years, for both tracks.
MR. JEANS replied that social studies will require U.S. History
and Alaskan History, prior to electives being available, but
declined comment regarding the other subjects. He pointed out
that the GPS, two track system, is based on the Hathaway model,
as used in Wyoming, which has reported successful ACT outcomes.
9:15:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER directed attention to page 5, line 17,
"Eligibility for an academic scholarship." and page 6, line 11,
"Eligibility for a career and technical school scholarship." and
pointed out that the requirements appear to be identical. She
asked where the distinction will appear, perhaps in the
regulations.
MR. JEANS responded yes, the menu of courses will be established
through the regulatory process, and adopted by the state board.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER clarified that it will only be the senior
year when the electives chosen by a student will determine the
student's track, based on the choice of math.
MR. JEANS said the department envisions three years of required
math courses, but refrained from describing the sequence of how
those requirements will occur.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER suggested that the elective option be
directed to the senior year, the latest possible branching time.
With that, she withdrew Amendment 10 from consideration.
9:17:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH requested that Amendment 11, remain on the
table [text provided in the 2/19/10 minutes], at this time.
9:17:59 AM
CHAIR SEATON moved Amendment 12, labeled 26-GH2771\A.11, Kane,
2/17/10, which read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 4, line 16, following "opportunities":
Insert ";
(9) increasing participation of Alaska high
school students in Alaska postsecondary institutions"
[Amendment 12 was originally numbered Amendment 7, which was
withdrawn earlier in this meeting.]
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON objected for discussion.
9:19:30 AM
CHAIR SEATON indicated that Amendment 12 deals with stipulating
that the intent of the GPS is to increase participation in
postsecondary institutions in Alaska.
9:20:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER surmised that the difference between page
4, line 15, paragraph (8), of the bill, and proposed paragraph
(9) is the number of high school students who pursue further
education and the number of high school students who pursue
further education in Alaska, respectively. Paragraph (8) seems
to indicate the intent to have more students continue education,
while proposed paragraph (9) intends to keep them in Alaska.
CHAIR SEATON concurred.
9:22:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON removed her objection.
CHAIR SEATON, hearing no further objection, announced that
Amendment 12 was adopted.
9:22:22 AM
CHAIR SEATON moved to adopt Amendment 13, labeled 26-
GH2771\A.21, Mischel, 2/25/10, which read [original punctuation
provided]:
Page 5, line 22, following "curriculum":
Insert ", which may include virtual curriculum,"
Page 6, line 17, following "curriculum":
Insert ", which may include virtual curriculum,"
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH objected for discussion.
9:23:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH asked whether by stating "may include" it is
at the discretion of the department to allow virtual
opportunities, or will it be at the discretion of a school
district.
CHAIR SEATON responded that the school districts have the
ability to adopt text books and other instructional materials,
and Amendment 13 would allow the inclusion of virtual learning
opportunities.
9:24:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH expressed concern for ensuring who the
overseer will be for inclusion of virtual learning options.
CHAIR SEATON requested comment from the department, and whether
virtual courses will also be adopted through similar means as
standard curriculum.
MR. JEANS replied that current statute allows local school
boards to adopt curriculum and educational materials. The
amendment will highlight the fact that educational materials may
include virtual curriculum.
9:25:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER recalled receiving a letter from a school
district that related concern for students being siphoned off by
another district's virtual program.
CHAIR SEATON said it is not the intention, nor is it indicated,
that there would be any change for how curriculum is adopted.
The amendment provides for virtual instruction to be adopted and
utilized by a school district.
9:27:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH removed his objection.
CHAIR SEATON, hearing no further objection, announced that
Amendment 13 was adopted.
9:27:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ moved Conceptual Amendment 14.
9:29:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ withdrew Conceptual Amendment 14 from
consideration, and moved to take from the table Amendment 5,
labeled 26-GH2771\A.3, tabled at the 2/17/10 meeting, which read
[original punctuation provided]:
Amendment to Page 23, line 16
*Sec. 7. AS 37.14 is amended by adding new sections to
read:
Article 8A. Governor's Performance Scholarship
Fund.
Sec. 37.14.750. Governor's performance
scholarship fund established. (a) The governor's
performance scholarship fund is established as a fund
of the state. The fund consists of
(1) appropriations to the fund;
(2) donations to the fund; and
(3) income earned on investments of fund
assests.
(b) The commissioner of revenue shall manage the
fund with the goal that the purchasing power of the
fund will not diminish over time without regard to
additional contributions that may be made to the fund.
The commissioner shall invest the assets of the fund
in a manner likely to yield at least a five percent
real rate of return over time.
(c) donations to the fund from private sources
shall be considered for the education tax credit as
per AS 43.20.014
[(c)](d) Nothing in this section crates a
dedicated fund.
9:30:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH objected for discussion.
9:30:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ indicated that the amendment will allow
business contributions to the GPS fund, and use the contribution
as a tax credit. She asked whether the amendment is necessary
or are education tax credit opportunities included in current
statute.
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH offered that the GPS appears to be a
dedicated fund, which may be problematic per the state's
constitution. Although he said he didn't want to lose the
opportunity [for business contribution incentives, via tax
credits], including it in the bill might require it to be
written as a "buy in."
9:31:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER, referring to lines 16 and 17 of
Amendment 5, related her understanding that the language says a
taxpayer, instead of paying taxes to the state for general fund
inclusion and appropriation by the legislature, chooses to pay
it into the education fund. She opined that this would
constitute an infringement on the right and responsibility of
the legislature to appropriate funds. Therefore, Representative
Gardner stated opposition to Amendment 5.
9:32:15 AM
CHAIR SEATON pointed out that his office did not generate the
research for this amendment, hence he felt unable to offer
further clarity for how an education tax credit could be
incorporated into the bill. He stated his understanding that it
is not officially a dedicated fund and deposits may be used for
other purposes.
9:33:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON offered a review of statute.
9:34:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH removed his objection.
[The objection by Representative Munoz at the 2/17/10 meetings
was treated as withdrawn.]
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ withdrew Amendment 5 from consideration.
9:35:58 AM
DIANE BARRANS, Executive Director, Alaska Commission on
Postsecondary Education (ACPE), Department of Education and
Early Development, addressed Amendment 9, which created a safe
harbor for a student who had received a scholarship award due to
an error that wasn't the student's fault. She expressed concern
with the possibility of the error resulting in an over award.
In the case in which a student receives more funds than he/she
should have, whether it is in the merit or needs-based portion,
she opined that it would be appropriate to request a refund.
9:37:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER explained that the intent of Amendment 9
is to provide a safe harbor for the student who is in the
aforementioned situation and spent the funds in an appropriate
manner. Any award that hasn't been spent by a student in this
situation could be reclaimed by the state.
MS. BARRANS said that would not mitigate her concern.
Regardless of whether a student who has received more funds than
he/she deserved has spent the funds or not, a refund would be in
order, she opined.
9:37:44 AM
CHAIR SEATON inquired as to the circumstances under which this
situation could arise because the funds are directed to the
institution.
MS. BARRANS explained that in a situation in which the
institution's costs are covered, the remaining financial aid is
typically dispensed directly to the student [for third party
payment for allowable expenses].
9:38:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired as to how often overpayment
errors occur. She further inquired as to the circumstances
surrounding such errors. She expressed concern for a student
who receives overpayment that's not due to the student's error
and who would then face repaying that debt.
MS. BARRANS characterized this as a policy call. She related
her belief that individuals should only receive the benefits to
which they are entitled. Regardless of the error, if the
student benefited from an error in the form of an overpayment,
they should repay it. Ms. Barrans said that she couldn't
specify the extent to which over awards occur, but offered to
consult with the financial aid officers. An over award to a
student can happen when a student is otherwise eligible for
financial aid that arrives late, which can result in a
redistribution of that student's financial aid package.
Therefore, some funding may go back to one source of funding but
it's usually replaced by another source of funding. An over
award could also occur when a student receives funding based on
a full-time program of study from which the student withdraws.
9:40:52 AM
CHAIR SEATON requested that Ms. Barrans provide the committee
with information regarding potential sources [that may cause
this] or any clarifying language that she would suggest. He
highlighted that [proposed] statute specifies that "fault of the
student" means fraud or submission of incorrect information.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON opined that if a student received funds
and then withdrew [from the program of study], it would be the
student's fault and certainly need to be repaid.
CHAIR SEATON said that he isn't sure that's covered under
[Amendment 9].
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH opined that the requested information would
be important for fiscal note arguments as the legislation moves
forward.
9:43:32 AM
CHAIR SEATON recalled that questions have arisen regarding how
the curriculum is being envisioned for the performance
scholarship as well as the vocational technical scholarship,
particularly the math and English tracks. He further recalled
that there were questions regarding at what point there would be
differentiation in the math curriculums. Chair Seaton offered
to allow Commissioner LeDoux to answer now or prepare answers to
discuss at a later meeting.
9:45:00 AM
LARRY LEDOUX, Commissioner, Department of Education and Early
Development, told the committee that he has drafted a chart of
courses that would meet the criteria. He then stated his belief
that any student who achieves the academic criteria would
qualify for the career scholarship; there isn't a
differentiation. The commonality between the two programs, he
said, will be in the area of math. The minimum math a student
has to take in order to qualify for either scholarship is
Algebra I, Algebra II, and geometry. Many schools offer the
aforementioned course with nontraditional names. He related
that he pointed out to the director of the Alaska Vocational
Technical Center (AVTEC) that some would infer that "they should
back off," particularly in the area of math and science. The
director disagreed, and added that he would even suggest courses
that are more rigorous than the colleges. Therefore, the
courses for math should be Algebra 1, Algebra II, and geometry
or something similar as well as some applied course. He noted
that many schools are teaching Algebra I in 8th grade, which
would qualify toward the high school criteria. Commissioner
LeDoux said that he didn't expect students to take calculus or
advanced trigonometry for the career scholarship. The science
courses for the career track would include Earth science, power
mechanics, applied physics, biology, chemistry, physical
science, computer science, physics, fisheries science, and
material science. The student would choose any three plus one
additional science course. Under the career track, a student
could choose from the following math courses: Algebra I,
Algebra II, geometry, applied math, business math, analytic
geometry, college algebra, calculus, statistics, probability,
consumer math, or business math. The student would choose a
minimum of three courses from the following math selections. He
pointed out that students are already required to take three
courses of social studies, and therefore there would be no
change. For language arts, instead of course names he wanted to
infer that the courses have rigor of reading, writing,
listening, and speaking. Within the career track, technical
writing and reading are very important courses that employer's
desire.
9:48:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked if there will be flexibility for
advanced second language classes to achieve [the language arts
requirements] or will they all be English courses. She opined
that she didn't want to close the door to opportunities for
continuing second language education.
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX explained that the state requires four years
of language arts, and therefore there's no change with regard to
either scholarship program. However, the Senate has proposed a
modification of the 4-4-4-3 to 4-3-3-3 course requirement if the
student takes two years of foreign language or Alaska Native
languages as part of the course of study. Commissioner LeDoux
acknowledged that either would meet the rigorous goals, but
pointed out that research illustrates that four years of math
and four years of science are huge indicators for success in
college. On the other hand, college prep programs often include
two years of foreign language. Furthermore, some merit
scholarship programs require 4-4-4-3 plus two years [of foreign
language]. Most students who are preparing for college take two
years of foreign language because many colleges require it.
9:49:44 AM
CHAIR SEATON requested the proposed curriculum list.
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX agreed to do so upon completing the list.
He then pointed out that the department will work with districts
to ensure that the courses meeting the criteria also meet the
rigor necessary. The content, not the title, of the course will
determine whether it meets the rigor requirement, he noted.
9:50:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH related that some have advocated having
another year of social studies, which would total four years of
social studies. He mentioned the need for the curriculum to
provide opportunities to allow students to [take] Native arts
and language [courses] for those who choose a different path
because they lack a propensity for math and science. He asked
if the department would be amenable to the aforementioned.
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX indicated that he would need to see [such a
program]. However, he opined that there are students who aren't
as oriented toward math and science as others and their
particular course of study won't require certain levels of math.
On the other hand, Commissioner LeDoux opined that the state's
requirements are not that difficult to meet. He further opined
that four years of math isn't excessive. Commissioner LeDoux
related his understanding that Representative Buch was
suggesting that the math and science requirements would be
lowered while increasing the social science requirements.
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH disagreed, and clarified that he's
suggesting maintaining the current math, science, and social
studies requirements and require a fourth year. However, he
suggested that within the [social studies] realm there would be
other opportunities for selection of the course curriculum.
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX pointed out that within social studies, one-
and-a-half of the three courses required are required. He
specified that U.S. History, one credit, and half a course in
Alaska Studies/or proof that the standards have been integrated
into the programming. Increasing the standard to four will
result in the student having two-and-a-half years of electives
within the social sciences category. The state, he related, has
attempted not to be too restrictive in terms of graduation
requirements so that students are provided as much choice as
possible. Therefore, care has to be taken with the scholarship
so that students' choices aren't restricted either. He
explained that a breakdown of 4-4-4 results in less choice.
However, Commissioner LeDoux said that more rigor is good and
thus he isn't opposed to Representative Buch's suggestion.
9:53:47 AM
CHAIR SEATON stated that HB 297 would be held for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Amendments 12 and 13.pdf |
HEDC 2/26/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/1/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 297 |