Legislature(2009 - 2010)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/15/2010 08:00 AM Senate EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB224 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| = | SB 224 | ||
SB 224-POSTSECONDARY SCHOLARSHIPS
8:02:21 AM
CO-CHAIR MEYER announced continued consideration of SB 224. He
called on the two committee aids to walk the committee through
the points of consideration and offer some suggestions and
compromises to the concerns that Commissioner LeDoux had.
8:04:36 AM
SENATOR OLSON and SENATOR STEVENS joined the meeting.
8:04:56 AM
JOMO STEWART, aide to Senator Meyer, said he would like to
address the items of major concern which he included in a
handout to the members of the committee.
The first item of concern was the issue of non-traditional
student accommodations. There were three main points under
discussion: the six month proviso, the reinsertion of the six
year scholarship timeline and the reinsertion of the eight
semester scholarship termination. In regards to the six month
proviso the intent was to ensure that students do not apply too
early for the scholarship.
SENATOR STEVENS asked what is the earliest that a student could
apply. He requested that Mr. Stewart give an example.
MR. STEWART answered six months before graduation, which would
be around the month of December. The administration explained to
him that the six month proviso was simply meant to safeguard
against too early an application for certification. With
consideration of the six year termination date, after graduation
a student would have as much time as they like to apply within.
SENATOR STEVENS said he is concerned about the application time-
line. He wondered whether six months would be enough time to
apply.
MR. STEWART referred that question to the DEED.
8:09:07 AM
MR. STEWART continued with the next point of consideration. He
said with the original bill students had six years to use their
scholarship before it was terminated. Under the committee
substitute (CS), version S it is open ended with no termination.
There are other ways to structure this time by lengthening or
shortening the time limit. Finally there is the eight semester
maximum limit included in the original bill. Within this eight
semester maximum, if a student were to take courses half time,
they would still use up one of their allotted semesters even
though had used only half the award. He acknowledged the
interest of the committee on adding some flexibility to
accommodate non-traditional students. Mr. Stewart pointed out
the addendum he included in his handout which gives a synopsis
for how SB 224, version E, and the CS function and practice. He
said he broke the issue down into four negotiable components
regarding non-traditional students: the eligibility for
application window, the scholarship use duration (six years),
the semester count (8 semesters versus 12 semesters), and the
semester count methodology (i.e. how a student uses up a
semester). He said that the co-chairs' proposed solution to
accommodate the administration's desire to have some certainly
for how long students would be in the system, while also giving
flexibility to non-traditional students. The co-chairs' proposed
solution would allow for the following:
to extend the "6 years to termination" from the
Governor's version to 10 years, keep the 8 semester
count and include a "half-time" as "half-burn"
proviso.
Under this scenario a student could attend half-time for 16
semesters (eight years), achieve their degree, and still have
two years of flexibility on either end for any circumstances
that might arise.
MURREY RICHMOND, aide to Senator Thomas, added that a student
would only be able to receive half of their scholarship if they
were attending half-time.
SENATOR HUGGINS asked if Mr. Stewart has thought about using
credit hours.
MR. STEWART answered that the administration's definition under
the university of half time is 6-11 credit hours; anything more
than 11 is full time. Credit hours could certainly be used
instead of a semester count.
SENATOR STEVENS asked if Mr. Stewart is confident that all
institutions in Alaska are on a semester basis and not a term
basis. That could complicate the matter.
MR. STEWART deferred the question the DEED.
CO-CHAIR MEYER clarified that Senator Stevens was taking into
consideration that some institutions may be on a quarter system.
SENATOR STEVENS agreed.
CO-CHAIR MEYER commented that they came up with ten years as a
compromise with the administration. This gives some additional
flexibility for non-traditional students but does impose some
limits. He suggested that they hear from the administration on
the points raised so far before going on.
8:17:02 AM
SENATOR STEVENS restated that he wonders if all Alaska
institutions are on a semester basis.
DIANE BARRANS, Executive Director, Alaska Commission of
Postsecondary Education (ACPE), answered that all of those that
meet the definition of college or university in this bill are on
a semester system.
SENATOR STEVENS asked about the application date of applying six
months before graduation. He also asked how long the application
process takes.
MS. BARRANS said that ideally families would begin planning for
financial aid much earlier than six months before graduation. In
terms of the application process for scholarships and financial
aid students typically begin applying in January and February so
that six month time-frame is reasonable.
LARRY LEDOUX, Commissioner, Department of Education and Early
Development (DEED), added that most students will not have many
of the necessary requirements until the end of the school year.
SENATOR STEVENS asked about the matter of "pass/fail" in college
classes and how they would fit into the grading system to
maintain the scholarship.
MS. BARRANS said she will have to check with the university but
said there is typically a cap to the number of pass/fail classes
allowed to graduate.
CO-CHAIR MEYER asked them about the ten year maximum time frame.
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX said it is certainly closer to what they
believe to be financially sound system but it still means a
higher price tag. He also reminded the committee that research
shows the longer students take to embark on their college
career, the less likely they are to graduate. Part of the
purpose of the scholarship is to teach students about good life
choices.
SENATOR STEVENS said he assumes Commissioner LeDoux has the
similar concerns about the half-time provisions that allow a
student to go for a longer period of time.
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX responded that if the student is required to
have continuous enrollment it shows diligence. He said he would
have the concerns if their attendance were hit and miss. He
would like to see a continuous enrollment requirement added to
that in order to accomplish the goals of the program.
MS. BARRANS added that she fears they compromise the success of
the program if they don't structure it to achieve the desired
results.
SENATOR STEVENS said he understands now that this is not the
place to address non-traditional student. Perhaps the place to
address non-traditional students is in the Alaska Advantage
Program.
8:25:24 AM
CO-CHAIR MEYER asked if he is correct in understanding that
Commissioner LeDoux is willing to accept the ten year limit but
still wants students to finish in eight semesters.
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX replied yes.
SENATOR HUGGINS asked about the Department of Military and
Veterans Affairs (DMVA) tuition assistance program and what the
relationship between the two programs will be.
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX answered that he did not know.
MS. BARRANS said she believes they would be complementary.
However, for an individual who receives DMVA assistance, has
other non-loan financial aid and does not have remaining need
they may not be eligible for the entire award under this. But if
an individual did have that amount of needs they would qualify
for both forms of aid.
SENATOR HUGGINS recommended that the committee get some input
from the DMVA. He asked about addressing the shortage in certain
disciplines in the state, for example math teachers.
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX answered that he found a number of programs
to encourage young people to enter the math and science areas of
instruction. However, he believes that while this program
doesn't specifically target areas of shortage he thinks it will
help because it will increase the number of graduates in the
state who will have the skills to be successful.
SENATOR HUGGINS said it takes away some incentives down the
line. In previous programs there has been incentive for
individuals to earn certain degrees (for example, math teachers)
and teach in the bush. These programs gave a loan forgiveness
incentive to get teachers to stay and work in a remote school.
If an individual has already had their tuition paid, then a loan
forgiveness program is no longer an incentive. He encouraged the
committee to look into certain degrees that will help students
become more productive after college for the state.
SENATOR DAVIS said she agrees with Senator Stevens regarding
non-traditional students. However, she is still concerned about
asking half-time students to finish in eight semesters.
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX reiterated that one of the intents of the
program is to get students to graduate as soon as possible.
There is some research that indicates that the longer a student
takes, the less likely they are to graduate. He reiterated that
if a student was continuously enrolled and was half-time it may
not be as problematic. However, if a student is taking half-time
semesters sporadically then we are not achieving what we hope to
accomplish with this program.
SENATOR DAVIS agreed with Commissioner LeDoux. However, if half-
time students have the scholarship to assist them, they might be
able to go to school half-time continuously.
MS. BARRANS said the concerns she would have is the question of
the trade-off for a student. The trade-off would be a student
having eight semesters over six years to finish, or making sure
that a half-time student be continuously enrolled. This might do
more unintended harm than good for the student because it may
not be possible for them to be continuously enrolled.
SENATOR DAVIS said that she strongly feels that input from
students already enrolled in college is needed.
SENATOR STEVENS asked about the criteria other than grades that
will determine who receives the scholarship in situations where
there are too many applicants.
MS. BARRANS answered that currently there is no method in the
bill for prioritization. Without a method she believes it is
beyond the authority of the commission to create separate
criteria or priority. Currently the bill states that the
distribution of the award to individuals would be pro-rata. This
means that every student would get the same proportion of their
award amount rather than some individuals getting their entire
award and some individuals receiving none.
8:36:45 AM
SENATOR OLSON reiterated Senator Huggins' point about finding
incentives for graduates to go to rural Alaska and fill the
needs that are out there.
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX said that retaining teachers in rural Alaska
is one of the department's major concerns. DEED is actively
looking at federal and state options to do that. There is some
evidence that the mentor program is being effective. One
challenge is to make sure that there are not only teachers in
rural Alaska, but outstanding teachers. They are approaching it
by promoting early learning programs in the state. He agreed
that it is a critical need.
SENATOR DAVIS agreed with Commissioner LeDoux's point that the
best idea is to produce a professional workforce within the
state. Kids from rural areas who go to school in state and
become teachers are more likely to go back home to teach. She
thinks this scholarship will help accomplish this.
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX agreed with Senator Davis.
SENATOR STEVENS said this bill is completely bifurcated. We can
set up a great program here, he said, but once it gets to
Finance, they get to decide how much money it will receive. He
is concerned that if the idea is to get kids through college,
they need to be fully funded. The pro-rata idea could make this
fail program. He asked whether they should establish criteria
that the program will fully fund as many students as possible
and when the money for the program runs out, the program ends.
CO-CHAIR MEYER said he has brought up a good point.
8:42:26 AM
MS. BARRANS shared Senator Steven's concerns. That was one of
prime motivators against proposing the funding structure that
the bill has proposed. If the program were to be outrageously
successful with high rates of graduation and eligibility, the
funding issue would have to be readdressed since assumptions
have been made on the funding needed. She agreed there is a
point of diminishing return if the pro-rata amount that students
receive is too small.
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX said many states control the flow of money
by tightening certain criteria (for instance, by raising the
ACT/SAT scores or requiring continuous enrollment). Our program
is much looser and, if it is successful it will cost the state
more, but we may achieve some of those results Senator Davis
alluded to. The needs based program is a significant cost to the
program. It is important to note, he said, that the way that the
legislature is designed will have to allocate, design and
approve the funds of the scholarship. He is concerned that
tightening the criteria could make it too elitist and not help
the kids he hopes to attract and get engaged with the system. If
the requirements are raised too much, the goals of the program
will not be met. That is why he is being more restrictive on
some of his responses to the questions and ideas the committee
has brought up.
CO-CHAIR MEYER agreed with Commissioner LeDoux. The program and
its funding will, in all likelihood, be tweaked and changed over
the next few years as certain necessary changes arise.
SENATOR DAVIS referred to the problems with pro-rata
disbursements. She said Finance needs to look into the
possibility of financing next year so that the needs-based
component can be addressed and split. Continuing, She asked why
the issue of including 2010 student in the bill was not included
on the list for discussion.
CO-CHAIR MEYER said the list only contains the contentious
issues.
SENATOR DAVIS asked if she can assume that this is not a
contentious item.
CO-CHAIR MEYER asked Commissioner LeDoux to comment.
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX answered that the program was designed to
begin with the graduating class of 2011. They can do it but they
have not done the analysis yet. He noted that it would be very
difficult to develop the regulations between now and the fall of
the 2010/2011 school year.
MS. BARRANS said she thought she had heard Senator Davis
describe say at a prior hearing is that she does not expect the
state to pay for their first year retroactively but to qualify
them for eligibility for the scholarship.
SENATOR DAVIS agreed.
CO-CHAIR MEYER asked to move on to the next item listed in the
handout.
8:51:28 AM
MR. STEWART continued on to item two on the list for discussion.
In the original bill there were two tracks: academic and career
and technical track. Associated with the career and technical
career was a $3,000.00 per year cap on awards. Under the CS,
there is a loss of distinction between the two tracks. The
administration has asked the committee to reinsert the career
track to allow for a differentiated curriculum. The
justification being that a student moving towards career
training may not need the same curriculum as those going on to
an academic program.
CO-CHAIR MEYER asked if the $3,000.00 per year career and
technical school funding would be implemented on a pro-rata
basis assuming the program runs short on money.
MR. STEWART answered that the justification for the $3,000.00
cap was to guard against tuition increase.
CO-CHAIR MEYER asked for confirmation that on the CS there is no
cap on career and technical schools.
MR. RICHMOND answered yes; it is one scholarship that could be
used at a career or academic institution.
CO-CHAIR MEYER acknowledged Commissioner LeDoux's concern that
some of the vocational and technical schools are much less and
they may be tempted to raise their tuition because of this.
MR. STEWART added that it is under the proviso that the state
will never pay more than the actual cost of tuition.
MR. RICHMOND pointed out that since a career track student is
only going to get $3000.00 per year there would be less
incentive to take a more rigorous curriculum in high school.
SENATOR DAVIS asked that if a career class was to cost more than
the allotted $3,000.00, why penalize a career track student.
SENATOR STEVENS asked how the committee can decide what the
needs are going to be in 10-20 years from now. He is concerned
about creating a $3,000.00 per year limit when that may not be
enough money for such a program down the line.
8:57:31 AM
CO-CHAIR MEYER confirmed that these are all good thoughts,
although he does understand the Commissioner's concerns about
the added costs to the program.
SENATOR HUGGINS asked to see the list that the Department of
Labor (DOL) is supposed to maintain of eligible career training
programs.
MR. STEWART answered that he has looked at the three existing
lists: one maintained by the ACPS, one by DOL, and one that is
embedded in statute. Under any of the constructs however, a
master list will be created. One question has been whether it
this master list needs to be reviewed by the legislature.
However, there is no unified master list at this time.
CO-CHAIR MEYER asked Commissioner LeDoux to address these
issues.
8:59:54 AM
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX replied that the list will be developed by
the DOL and continuously reviewed and updated by DEED and ACPE.
Also, the legislation requires that DEED report annually to the
legislature of any issues. This would allow the option to review
the amount of money available for these courses on an annual
basis and adjust accordingly. He agreed that these courses will
be evolving and that review and adjustment may be necessary. If
students work hard and qualify for the academic track they will
have the academic funding available and can choose to use the
additional funds if needed. It is important that the career and
technical path is clear and is not lost in the college path way.
SENATOR DAVIS said she is only concerned that those funds be
sufficient. She wants to see some data on the present costs of
the career and technical courses currently available.
SENATOR STEVENS asked about schools that train pilots, for
instance, and the cost of that.
MS. BARRANS answered that there are courses that are more
expensive. Regarding flight training, those are probably the
most expensive. Specifically for flight training, often the
military is the conduit for an individual who wants to fly
commercially. However, there are collegiate programs that lead
to pilot license and certification, including the University of
Alaska. Any unmet need for a more expensive program would be
covered in the needs-based funding of the program.
SENATOR DAVIS asked where in the bill it says that, if students
qualify for the academic scholarship they can use that award for
career training.
MS. BARRANS replied that it was a revision in the CS House
version.
SENATOR DAVIS said she wants that in senate CS.
CO-CHAIR MEYER asked his staff to make a note.
MR. STEWART continued on to item five regarding intent language.
He said the original bill included a number of goals in the bill
language. The CS proposed to remove those to an accompanying
letter of intent. This is customary, he said, within the
legislature so that such language would not have the force of
law but would still act as a guiding mechanism and be available
to the courts as a reference. However, it seems to staff that
the inclusion of the purpose language would give it the force of
law and make it actionable in court. They have asked legislative
legal to address the issue.
9:08:37 AM
JEAN MISCHEL, Legislative Legal Services, Legislative Affairs
Agency, said the drafting rules adopted by the Legislative
Council discourage inclusion of intent language in bills. The
purpose of this is to encourage legislators to be clear that the
laws that they draft are not open to ambiguity or
interpretation. She is not sure what the benefit of adding the
programmatic goals to the bill are if the goals are not actually
accomplished. In particular, the CS adds grade-point standards
that were previously left to the Department of Education to
interpret. From a judicial standpoint the use of a letter of
intent if this bill were to be adopted would be reviewed if
there were any ambiguities discovered in the bill. Leaving in
policy goals may also provide added incentive to litigate
applicability of certain provisions. She suggests the letter of
intent be read on the floor along with the bill.
CO-CHAIR MEYER asked whether a letter of intent, if it is
approved and passed, is it noted in the statute book.
MS. MISCHEL answered that she does not believe so. However, it
would be clear from the journal on the bill.
CO-CHAIR MEYER asked if Ms. Michel recalled if the house CS
incorporated the goals in the bill.
MS. MISCHEL replied yes.
SENATOR STEVENS asked if Ms. Mischel is discouraging a letter of
intent.
MS. MISCHEL answered that she neither discourages nor encourages
the use of a letter of intent. She discourages placing the goals
in the substance of the bill because the intent should be clear
from the language of the bill.
SENATOR DAVIS asked if Commissioner LeDoux could comment on
that. She asked if the goals could be accomplished through the
regulation.
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX answered that he believes so and that the
committee will have to make a decision based on the best legal
advice that they have. He does not want the integrity of the
program to be lost, that was his position for wanting to include
the goals in the bill. He said that the regulations that they
promulgate through the State Board of Education must be
specifically related to a law. He would have to seek advice with
an attorney to see if these goals could be accomplished through
regulation.
CO-CHAIR MEYER said they need to talk about this further. He
agrees with the goals but has concerns about the legal
ramifications of placing them in statute.
9:18:31 AM
CO-CHAIR MEYER reiterated that the goal here is to develop a CS
they are comfortable with and can pass by Friday and that they
will continue reviewing the issues on Wednesday. [SB 224 was
held in committee.]
9:20:01 AM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
CO-CHAIR MEYER adjourned the meeting at 9:20 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|