Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 106
02/09/2011 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation(s): School Superintendent | |
| HB104 | |
| HB5 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HB 104 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 5 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 104-ALASKA PERFORMANCE SCHOLARSHIPS
8:34:28 AM
CHAIR DICK announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 104, "An Act renaming the Alaska performance
scholarship and relating to the scholarship and tax credits
applicable to contributions to the scholarship; establishing the
Alaska performance scholarship investment fund and the Alaska
performance scholarship award fund and relating to the funds;
making conforming amendments; and providing for an effective
date."
The committee took an at-ease from 8:35 a.m. to 8:38 a.m.
8:38:55 AM
EDDY JEANS, Education Policy Coordinator, Office of the
Commissioner, Department of Education and Early Development
(EED), presented a sectional analysis of HB 104. He drew
attention to pages 1-4 to indicate that the inserts and
additions to sections 1-6 change the name from the Alaska merit
scholarship program to the Alaska performance scholarship
program; rectifying a copyright infringement situation. Page 4,
Section 7 establishes the Alaska performance scholarship award
fund appropriations, from which scholarship awards will be paid.
He pointed out that money appropriated to the fund may be
expended, by the Alaska Post Secondary Commission, without
further appropriation, and money appropriated to the fund does
not lapse. Section 8 provides for the name change. Section 9
is a new section to establish the Alaska performance scholarship
investment fund, the interest on which would be used for awards
payments. He reported that the governor has recommended that
$400 million be allocated to provide an anticipated five percent
annual interest yield. The section also indicates that the
commissioner of revenue will manage the fund and report to the
legislature. Continuing to page 6, he said sections 10-11 allow
corporations donations to the Alaska scholarship investment
account. Section 12 deletes redundant references to Alaska Post
Secondary Commission programs. Section 13 provides transition
language, and Section 14 instructs the statute reviser to make
the required name change consistent throughout the applicable
laws. Section 15 provides transition language to allow the
departments involved to proceed with adoption of regulations
necessary to implement the new law. Section 16 allows Section
15 to be effected immediately; a go-ahead to the departments.
Finally, sections 17-18 handle the effective dates for the
remaining components of the bill.
8:43:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked whether residents are allowed to
contribute directly to the fund through the Permanent Fund
Dividend (PFD) process.
MR.JEANS responded no, but suggested that a component could be
added to allow such action. The tax credit contained in the
bill addresses corporate contributions.
8:45:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON turned to page 5, line 15, paragraph (2),
to read "donations to the fund," and asked whether the donations
are restricted to tax credits.
MR.JEANS answered no, it is not restrictive and individuals
could make donations to the fund. However, there is no
mechanism proposed to link the fund with the current PFD
contribution option.
8:46:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE inquired about a sunset clause for
corporate contributions.
MR.JEANS indicated that the governor's bill, Version A before
the committee, does not provide a sunset clause, and suggested
that it may be contained in a forth coming committee substitute.
8:47:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT asked whether the fund affects the
University of Alaska (UA) scholars program.
MR.JEANS responded no, as these are two separately administered
programs; however, as the scholars program awards students, at
individual schools, who have demonstrated scholastic performance
in the top 10 percent of their class, an overlap of qualified
students may occur.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT directed attention to section 4,
subsection (a), paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), and asked whether
there is room for interpretation regarding the language "high
minimum" and "moderately high minimum".
MR.JEANS explained that the designation, as worded, allows EED
to establish the required cut scores through the regulatory
process.
8:50:07 AM
CHAIR DICK agreed that providing incentives for students is
good, but observed that implementing the requirements in rural
schools may not be possible, making the program inequitable.
MR.JEANS explained that the implementation difficulties have
been identified and the department is working with districts to
ensure requirements are attainable. The three year transition
period will be important to institute curriculum delivery
options. A variety of creative methods are being considered,
and a contract has been negotiated to have a virtual classroom
created.
8:51:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI inquired whether districts with schools
that will need to participate via the virtual classroom will
need to carry any associated costs.
MR.JEANS said that the districts are assisting in developing and
making the curriculum available through the Consortium for
Digital Learning (CDL). Participants of the consortium will
have no associated costs; however, other schools would be
charged for access; fees which have not yet been established.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked whether EED expects to administer
the virtual classroom for rural schools which would otherwise
not have access to four year programs in required subjects.
MR.JEANS clarified that the virtual school is only one mechanism
that will be available. Other statewide options include the
existing correspondence programs and video conferencing
opportunities.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI rephrased to ask whether districts will
incur additional expense to provide the classes required by
students to qualify for the scholarship.
MR.JEANS responded that the districts receive foundation formula
funding to provide the required curriculum.
The committee took an at-ease from 8:54 a.m. to 8:55 a.m.
8:55:18 AM
CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School
Boards (AASB), stated support for HB 104, and provided the
mission of the AASB: Advocate for children and youth; assist
local school boards to provide a quality education focused on
student achievement through effective local governance. He said
the association's concern has been raised, and is maintained,
regarding universal access for all students. No other state in
the union faces the same geographic expanse and cultural
diversity that exists in Alaska. Digital technology for
learning is the only viable option for closing this gap
difference between Alaska and the outside world. He opined that
the school districts are not fully prepared to take advantage of
the scholarship being offered. For this and other reasons, the
legislature should be expanding the technological footprint
across the state. The footprint is capable of being developed
incrementally through the existing CDL. He said:
Every time we make capital appropriations for school
districts, in the area of technology, what assurances
do we have that those appropriations will be
successfully implemented, and what kind of
accountability do you have in terms of feedback that
that has been done and the challenges have been met.
... I suggest to you that we pay attention to our
entire state and start now because it will take some
time to create a system that can respond to this
incentive. ... If this is for all kids, then we have
to make it universally accessible.
8:59:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA acknowledged the effort to expand the
technological systems, and asked what strong points exist that
can be built upon.
9:00:12 AM
MR. ROSE said the issue of bandwidth is prevalent, but it is an
axiom that can easily be figured out. He opined that the focus
on technology is more important at the lower grades, as the use
for pencil and paper fade from the focus of the emerging
generation; technology is their medium, it is how they
communicate. The issue of relevance arises when considering the
pace of change today; by the time anything ends up in a text
book it is already history. He continued:
We are at the precipice of exponential change. What
are we doing, as a state, to insure that our citizens
are well prepared for a future that we cannot
describe. ... We need to ensure that our kids have the
ability to access the information that would enhance
their ability to take advantage of [the scholarship
program].
9:02:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI surmised that even with a digital
classroom some districts may not be prepared to participate and
an inequity would prevail. He asked what funding needs are
anticipated by the AASB.
MR. ROSE answered that appropriation is one method. The onus
has been on the CDL to identify the areas of need, the willing
participants, and to provide wrap-around services to individual
districts. The association would like to see the flow of
appropriations directly to the recipients via CDL as a portal.
Thus, the capital budget would be the funding source, and a
school district would have a zero fiscal note due to funding via
the foundation formula. He stressed, "The weight gets a little
heavy when you continue to mandate with zero fiscal notes on one
foundation formula." The remoteness of the villages and the
ability to manage the technology is a challenge that needs to be
met to allow students to take advantage of this bill.
9:05:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI queried whether legal action might
result if every student isn't able to benefit due to inadequate
access to the required course work.
MR. ROSE agreed that inequity is always an issue; however,
advances should be made for the right reasons rather than being
compelled due to the possibility of a law suit.
9:07:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said:
I'm ... uncomfortable with the idea of technology
solving all our problems. ... Sitting in front of the
computer for six hours a day answering questions; ...
it's just like a workbook if you use it that way. ...
I'm concerned if we're saying the equity is going to
be just bandwidth and not ... the engagement and
delivery of that product.
MR. ROSE said that the CDL has identified several important:
the condition of readiness; the technical assistance, and
professional development. Technology is not being taught, it is
being used as a learning tool to connect to the world; the
entire library of congress and encyclopedias are available on-
line. The issue of equity relates to how technology is used to
assist the learning process; young people already understand how
to use technology.
9:10:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked which school districts the CDL
recognizes as innovative, and which organizations are setting
the standard for future development in this area.
MR. ROSE indicated that there are pockets of success throughout
the state, and he offered to provide a district by district list
of accomplishments. The relevancy of technology is clearly
understood and there is no going back. He declined to name a
leader in the area, but indicated that the consortium members
are all making advances.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE acknowledged that technology is not the be
all and end all. He asked where Mr. Rose attended high school.
MR. ROSE answered Hawaii.
9:13:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA recalled being in remote communities that
have had better technology connections than what she has
experienced at the state capitol building. She said:
We could have everybody talking to us and be here
[remotely]. Without decision makers being in on this,
... the administrative people, ... we stand still ...
and it's scary.
9:14:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT asked whether the consortium endorses a
particular focus for concern, or a technology priority list, and
if so, what tops the list.
MR. ROSE recalled that when the consortium began, in [2006], the
one-to-one lap top was deemed important, but five years later
there are any number of mobile devices, and all are obsolete by
the time they are purchased. However, every individual school
district should have the opportunity to choose what will work
best for infusing technology into the curriculum and receive the
support of the administration for implementation.
9:17:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 104, 27-GH1893\I, Mischel, 2/8/11, as a
working draft. There being no objection, Version I was before
the committee.
9:18:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that incorporated in Version I
are the recommendations from the legislative scholarship funding
task force to include provisions for needs based awards, and
provides a principal funding source for the scholarship fund.
He said the unmet need is to be determined via FAFSA (Free
Application for Federal Student Aid), and calculated after
accounting for any family contributions and available grants.
For funding, the CS incorporates the AlaskAdvantage program,
which currently serves the non-traditional student. Thus, all
three aspects, the performance scholarship, the needs based
component, and the non-traditional students will receive funding
from one source to be known as the Alaska scholarship fund. He
indicated that the CS renames the funding source, from capital
income fund, replacing it with scholarship fund. Additionally,
it directs the transfer of the existing assets from the capital
income fund into the scholarship fund; approximately $70
million. The revenue stream is then redirected from the capital
income fund into the scholarship fund, the source of which is
the Amerada Hess settlement. The revenue stream from the
settlement averages between $22-30 million. It also identifies
up to 15 percent of the oil tax progressivity, which if combined
with the Amerada Hess funding totals $40 million, to be directed
to the scholarship fund. Finally, the CS language allows for
direct appropriations and corporate tax credit donations, as
found in the governors original bill. There is a $160 million
cap on the fund to protect students who are completing four year
programs to do so, should the funding streams be eliminated at a
future date. It also adds requirements that receiving
institutions provide advisor/advocates to ensure student
success, with the understanding that these funds represent an
investment, and students should be assisted to stay on track.
It also inserts transition language, and provides effective
dates in accordance with agencies promulgating regulation. He
pointed out that this funding mechanism is the primary change in
Version I.
9:26:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked if there are any conditions in the
bill that require the recipient to seek work within the state.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON responded that the requirement is for
attendance at an institution in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON offered that research indicates that
students often remain in the area where they have completed
their higher education.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE argued that it is a fair and reasonable
request to make of a recipient, and the risk could be guarded
against by including a requirement in the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out that this is not a full ride
scholarship offer, and suggested that it would be difficult to
require that every student remain in-state.
9:30:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT remembered that in the 1980's Alaska
offered student loans, with a forgiveness clause should the
graduate remain, or return, to work in-state.
9:30:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reported that through lengthy discussions
were held on this topic prior to the recommendation for in-state
use.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE suggested that it could be structured as a
loan with no payments due back for a period of eight years. The
student would have time to attend college, gain an entry level
position, and possibly travel. Providing a mechanism to
indicate resident status, the loan could convert to a grant at
some point, he opined.
9:34:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA observed that this is a critical stage for
the bill and stated her belief that the discussion appears to
represent two different programs, and both are good ideas.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Sectional Analyis of HB 104.pdf |
HEDC 2/9/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 104 |
| Summary of HB 104.pdf |
HEDC 2/9/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 104 |
| HB 5 Leigislation.PDF |
HEDC 2/9/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 5 |
| HB 5 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HEDC 2/9/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 5 |
| Haines Support Letter Re HB 5.pdf |
HEDC 2/9/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 5 |
| AS 14.03.075 Re HB5.pdf |
HEDC 2/9/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 5 |
| 4 AAC 04 Re HB 5.pdf |
HEDC 2/9/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 5 |
| Alaska Ed Standards.pdf |
HEDC 2/9/2011 8:00:00 AM |
|
| Federal Legislation Re HB 5.pdf |
HEDC 2/9/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 5 |
| History of Federal Legislation Re HB5.pdf |
HEDC 2/9/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 5 |