Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 120
04/14/2011 04:00 PM House RULES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB1 | |
| HB104 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 104 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 1 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 104-ALASKA PERFORMANCE SCHOLARSHIPS
4:48:48 PM
CHAIR JOHNSON announced that the final 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." [Before the committee is CSHB 104(FIN).]
4:48:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 27-
GH1893\E.1, Mischel, 4/14/11, which read:
Page 3, lines 9 - 23:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 4, lines 9 - 13:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 9, line 10:
Delete "Section 17"
Insert "Section 15"
Page 9, line 11:
Delete "sec. 8"
Insert "sec. 6"
Page 9, line 12:
Delete "sec. 8"
Insert "sec. 6"
Page 9, line 13:
Delete "Section 14"
Insert "Section 12"
Page 9, line 14:
Delete "secs. 19 - 21"
Insert "secs. 17 - 19"
CHAIR JOHNSON objected for discussion purposes.
4:49:27 PM
DIANE BARRANS, Executive Director, Postsecondary Education
Commission (PSEC), Department of Education and Early
Development, explained that Amendment 1 would remove language
added to HB 104 to provide an alternative avenue for eligibility
for the scholarship program. Amendment 1 provides an avenue for
individuals who have received a general equivalency diploma
(GED) and not remained in high school or received a diploma from
an Alaska high school. The avenue requires that EED provide
alternative standardized tests for these individuals and allows
EED to require some or all of the otherwise required curriculum
be completed by these individuals. Amendment 1 also removes
language that would allow, in perpetuity, individuals who
attended a school in Alaska but did not complete the required
core curriculum to apply for a waiver or additional time to
complete that program. In each case, EED believes by leaving
these changes in the bill there is a dilutive effect. She
reminded the committee that the objective of the Alaska
Performance Scholarship was to incent students to follow the
most direct route to postsecondary education and career
readiness, which is taking a core curriculum in high school and
completing high school with a degree as well as scoring well on
preparatory entrance tests for college. The concern is that
having an alternative route, particularly one that is generally
less successful, dilutes the program. Therefore, she requested
that language be removed from CSHB 104(FIN). With regard to the
language about schools not providing the required curriculum,
she said it's unnecessary. Current regulations provide an
opportunity for students who attend a school in Alaska that
don't offer the required curriculum to have the next two years
to complete the curriculum. The concern with a permanent
allowance is that it reduces the sense of urgency by schools.
In fact, EED is committed to ensuring that all schools in
Alaska, within a two-year period, are able to offer the critical
courses necessary for students' success in postsecondary
education and eligibility for the scholarship.
4:52:59 PM
CHAIR JOHNSON asked if there could be a situation in which a
student moves out of state, obtains a GED, returns to Alaska,
and obtains the Alaska Performance Scholarship.
MS. BARRANS replied yes, as the legislation is currently
written. In further response to Chair Johnson, Ms. Barrans
confirmed that CSHB 104(FIN) would open the scholarship up to
out-of-state students as well as students from another country.
4:53:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK surmised then that the GED process has no
residency requirement, and thus there would be no residency
requirement in the legislation if the GED portions [remained].
MS. BARRANS explained that the residency requirement in place is
twofold in that one must have received a diploma from an Alaska
high school and meet the residency requirement in AS 01.10.055,
which requires 30 days residency. Although the aforementioned
is a fairly modest residency requirement, it's the nexus between
having a high school diploma from an Alaska high school as well
as residency. She recalled that last year the discussion
revolved around ensuring that a qualifying student who graduates
and meets all the scholarship qualification, but then travels
for a period doesn't face a delay in accessing the scholarship
once that student returns to the state. Students who qualify
for the scholarship only have six years from the date of
graduation to utilize the scholarship, and therefore it creates
a sense of urgency to move quickly from high school to
postsecondary education in order to heighten the likelihood of
success at the postsecondary level.
4:55:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if an individual who [qualified for
the scholarship] was deployed for four years would have those
four years count toward the six-year limitation.
MS. BARRANS pointed out that there is a provision for those in
military service to extend the time limitation by the period of
military service.
4:56:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN posed a scenario in which Amendment 1
is not adopted and Section 4 remains in the legislation. In
such a scenario, should the language "from an Alaska school" be
inserted on page 3, line 13, following "certificate".
MS. BARRANS answered that if Amendment 1 isn't adopted, a number
of changes would be necessary in order to make it a parallel
condition to those who receive their high school diploma from an
Alaska high school. For example, [CSHB 104(FIN)] doesn't
specify a timeframe within which an individual would have to
obtain a GED and there's no trigger specifying the time period
in which an individual can use the scholarship.
4:57:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK posed a scenario in which an individual
leaves the Alaska school system for a few months, obtains a GED,
but then decides to return to an Alaska school to obtain a
diploma. He asked whether the aforementioned scenario would
currently be allowed.
MS. BARRANS replied yes, adding that under existing statutes so
long as a student has left the system without a diploma, he/she
is entitled until the age of 20 to return to the public
education system and complete the requirements for a diploma and
receive it free of charge. In further response to
Representative Tuck, Ms. Barrans clarified that beyond the
public school system, there are private institutions and home
school programs from which one can obtain a diploma. She noted
that those other avenues are provided for in the Alaska
performance scholarship.
4:59:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that it seems that folks are
addressing the legislation rather than Amendment 1.
CHAIR JOHNSON said that he wasn't sure the two can be separated.
He said that Amendment 1 changes the substantive nature of the
legislation, and therefore he felt it would be appropriate to
address that.
4:59:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG related his belief that Section 4 along
with EED's regulatory authority would provide the authority to
flesh this out.
MS. BARRANS disagreed, and opined that she's not sure there is
enough explicit detail in the legislation. [Section 4] changes
the nature of the program and broadens it beyond the scholarship
program, with the intent to deliver certain results through the
education system. Ms. Barrans said that she couldn't speak to
whether, in the totality of the statutes, there's enough
authority to add the additional requirement in regulation. In
further response to Representative Gruenberg, Ms. Barrans
confirmed that she's not able to state to the contrary either.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG then recalled that Title 14 gives EED
and the PSEC broad regulatory authority. He asked if [EED] has
broad regulatory enabling statutes.
5:01:22 PM
MIKE HANLEY, Commissioner, Department of Education and Early
Development, replied yes.
5:01:29 PM
CHAIR JOHNSON withdrew his objection to Amendment 1.
5:01:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG then objected to Amendment 1.
The committee took a brief at-ease.
5:02:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LES GARA, Alaska State Legislature, opined that
[the adoption of] Amendment 1 would cause a number of problems
with HB 104. For those in a rural district or a district
without the required courses, EED has promised a two-year
waiver. However, if the schools don't have the proper courses
after those two years, students in those schools won't have a
chance to get this scholarship. There is no provision in
current law that allows a student who attends a rural school
without the required courses, graduates, and returns to take the
required courses later. The aforementioned is why Amendment 1
is necessary. Although there is a provision [in current law]
that allows an individual to have until age 20 to graduate from
a public school, one who has graduated from a rural school that
didn't have the required courses can't come back to another
school with the required courses. Therefore, those who are
concerned that the many school districts that don't have the
required courses won't have them within two years should adopt
Amendment 1. Otherwise, [without the adoption of Amendment 1]
the legislation discriminates against students who are high
academic achievers, but attend schools that don't have the
required courses. Representative Gara acknowledged that for
those individuals who obtain a GED or don't have the required
courses available to them, the EED commissioner has been granted
broad authority. The commissioner can provide that minimum test
scores be achieved in order to illustrate that students are of
high academic achievement or require that some or all of the
core curriculum be taken after graduation or obtaining a GED.
Currently, the law doesn't allow such. The EED commissioner
could adopt other criteria the commissioner determines will
demonstrate high academic achievement.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA, regarding whether this would allow students
from other states to come to Alaska and grab the scholarship,
opined that language could be added to refer to an "Alaska GED"
and an "Alaska school". However, the U.S. Supreme Court doesn't
allow a state to discriminate against out-of-state residents for
more than a year. He questioned how big of a problem it would
even be for out-of-state students with a GED to come to Alaska
to take the core courses [prior to getting the scholarship].
Representative Gara opined that the legislation is flawed
because very bright individuals obtain GEDs and very bright
individuals attend rural schools that don't have the required
courses available to them. He told the committee that the
testimony regarding whether these rural schools will be able to
offer the courses under the merit scholarship is conflicting.
Furthermore, it's likely that those rural schools who hire
teachers to teach the core curriculum will have to fire a
teacher that teaches something else. Therefore, he opined that
[CSHB 104(FIN)] works [without Amendment 1]. He concluded by
noting that the changes encompassed in CSHB 104(FIN) had
substantial support in the House Finance Committee.
5:06:06 PM
CHAIR JOHNSON reminded everyone that the House Rules Standing
Committee is an independent committee.
5:06:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON, Alaska State Legislature, reminded
the committee that he was the chair of the House Education
Standing Committee when the Alaska Performance Scholarship was
developed. He recalled that 11-14 hearings were held on the
scholarship, of which at least three went into detail regarding
incorporating GEDs and whether it was consistent with the
program being developed. The scholarship program was primarily
developed to reward students and change the school districts and
the programs they offer. Representative Seaton opined that
providing a waiver for those schools that don't offer the
rigorous core curriculum defeats the purpose of the Merit
Scholarship, which was to change the K-12 education system. The
legislation introduced this year, wasn't establishing the
program but instead tried to reach funding, including through
Alaska Advantage and the Merit Scholarship. The Alaska
Advantage Program is to provide access to the nontraditional
student, a student that obtains a GED. The Merit Scholarship
Program is for those students taking the rigorous core
curriculum as well as scoring high on the ACT test. The
aforementioned, taking a rigorous curriculum in high school,
leads to completion of college. The House Education Standing
Committee worked for many hours trying to incorporate the GED
and found it couldn't without diluting the Merit Scholarship
Program. Therefore, this legislation has two separate
mechanisms: the Alaska Advantage Program for nontraditional
students and the Merit Scholarship Program through the diploma-
only system.
5:09:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANNA FAIRCLOUGH, Alaska State Legislature, began
by associating herself with Representative Seaton's comments.
She then related her belief that the Merit Scholarship was about
keeping kids in school. The proposal was that students would
stay in school and take the more rigorous curriculum, which
would improve graduation rates and success in college. Section
4 is a duplication, which is the allowance for the EED
commissioner to make changes if curriculum isn't offered in some
communities or schools but provides an opportunity for that
curriculum to be developed and provided for students. The
curriculum, she charged, doesn't have to be provided in a
classroom as it's known today, but could be provided in a
distance education classroom. Furthermore, Section 4 alters the
merit portion of the scholarship, which she believes was the
intent of the original legislation. With regard to GEDs,
Representative Fairclough informed the committee that GEDs can
be obtained from entities beyond the high school, such as the
Department of Labor & Workforce Development. Therefore,
Representative Fairclough opined that CSHB 104(FIN) creates
conflict in the current code as well as with the intent of the
original legislation. In conclusion, Representative Fairclough
requested that the committee remove Section 4 from CSHB
104(FIN).
5:12:09 PM
CHAIR JOHNSON, in response to Representative Gatto, provided
clarification regarding Section 4 in CSHB 104(FIN) and Amendment
1.
5:12:52 PM
CHAIR JOHNSON, upon determining no one else wished to testify,
closed public testimony.
5:13:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG maintained his objection to Amendment
1.
5:13:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK pointed out that Amendment 1 requires an
individual to have a diploma to qualify for the scholarship;
simply having a GED doesn't qualify an individual for the
scholarship. He related his understanding that HB 104 has the
twofold purpose of rewarding those who take rigorous classes,
meet the grade, receive a diploma, and obtain the scholarship
while the other purpose is raising the education system to a
standard that has more of a concentration on math, technology,
and science. He reminded the committee of the Moore v. State
case in which the state is having difficulties meeting
educational needs, even without the science and math
requirement. He also reminded the committee that the concern of
the sponsor of the amendment [that inserted Section 4] in the
House Finance Committee was that some schools in rural Alaska
may not even meet the curriculum requirements and standards in
the two years allowed. Therefore, he expressed concern that
there will be another case like the aforementioned.
Representative Tuck, upon further review of Section 4 and the
earlier mentioned leeway EED has in terms of its regulation,
said that he would like for EED to find a way to make it work.
The desire, he opined, is to reward those students who are
following the governor's vision by taking more math and science
courses while also raising school standards.
5:16:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN clarified that he, over the last few
years, has not supported the scholarship program as he felt that
it doesn't address rural areas as well as it should. Amendment
1 removes the language inserted in the House Finance Committee
that actually helps some of the students. He agreed with
Representative Tuck that the language in Section 4 of CSHB
104(FIN) clearly relates that EED has the ability to make
regulations. Furthermore, the legislation is written such that
it lays out some of the standards the department can refer to in
the regulations. Representative Austerman related that he is
going to oppose Amendment 1.
5:18:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked that he respects
Representative Seaton's testimony, which was similar to
Commissioner Hanley's private remarks he related earlier
regarding the twofold purpose of the scholarship: to encourage
students by providing money and to encourage schools to provide
better curriculum. Unfortunately, the twin goals appear to be
conflicted. "This is one way of attempting to resolve the
conflict," he acknowledged. With all the resources available to
the state, the department should be able to find a way within
its broad regulatory authority to encourage school districts to
provide more educational opportunities for their students. The
remedy isn't to make it more difficult for students. Although
it's a laudable goal to encourage school districts to improve
their curriculum, he didn't believe [adoption of Amendment 1] is
the way to do it. There aforementioned is why the language
inserted in the House Finance Committee is so equitable, doesn't
punish the students, and provides the regulatory authority to
EED to find another way to encourage schools to improve their
curriculum. Representative Gruenberg related his strong support
for the funding and whatever is necessary for the department and
the school districts to help improve the situation.
5:20:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT asked if an individual with a GED can
apply for an Alaska Advantage Scholarship.
MS. BARRANS replied yes.
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT expressed concern that there isn't a way
for students with GEDs to help fund their scholarships.
5:21:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT recalled when he was a member of the
House Finance Committee when it discussed the Advantage program
and putting more funds in it. He recalled that more Alaska
Advantage program funds went to individuals age 25-35 than to
students coming out of high school. Representative Chenault
opined that by continuing to cram [all these programs] together,
it muddies the water. Originally, this was set up to be a
scholars program. Although he agreed that rural Alaska has
difficulties with offering the required curriculum, the program
has to strive to get kids educated at a higher level. He
questioned the incentive being given to kids when they are
allowed to apply for a grant when the student didn't do well in
school.
MS. BARRANS said that Representative Chenault isn't
misremembering. The Alaska Advantage Education Grant is needs-
based and a large portion of its recipients are nontraditional,
that is over the age of 22. The average age of an Alaska
Advantage Education Grant recipient has varied between 28 to 31
years of age. She noted that the more funds going to the Alaska
Advantage Education Grant, the deeper into the list of eligible
students it reaches and thus would reach younger students.
5:24:40 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Chenault, Gatto,
Olson, and Johnson voted in favor of adopting Amendment 1.
Representatives Gruenberg, Tuck, and Austerman voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 1 was adopted by a vote of 4-3.
5:25:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK related that the Merit Scholarship allows
two career paths: college or career and vocational education.
He posed a scenario in which a high school student pursues a
career path, say to be an electrician, and takes construction
and electrical classes at a vocational education center.
Unfortunately, those construction and electrical classes won't
apply toward science and math because they have to have been
taught by highly qualified instructors. Therefore, he expressed
hope to find ways to overcome the aforementioned dilemma. He
related his understanding that the legislation before the
committee allows students to apply the scholarships to the
career paths.
5:28:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT moved to report CSHB 104(FIN), as
amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal notes.
5:28:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated a point of order and related
that on the bill report he will recommend amend and note that
CSHB 104(FIN) should be adopted.
5:29:16 PM
There being no objection, CSHB 104(RLS) was reported out of the
House Rules Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|