Legislature(2009 - 2010)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/17/2010 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
8:01:00 AM
CO-CHAIR MEYER announced consideration of SB 224. He said the
intent is to work through the five remaining points of
consideration and come up with a clean CS by Friday. He added
that Diane Barrans has brought up a sixth point that also needs
to be considered, in regards to capping the needs-based
component.
8:03:01 AM
JOMO STEWART, aide to Senator to Meyer, said the members should
have an updated handout of the points for consideration that was
provided to the committee at the previous meeting. Included with
the handout are the differences between the senate committee
substitute (CS) to SB 224[26-GS2771\S] and the House version
[26-GH2771\P].
First, in regards to non-traditional students, the senate CS
does not include the six month proviso for scholarship
eligibility, which means that there are no restrictions for when
potential graduates may apply for the program. The House version
does have the six month proviso so that presumptive graduates
may not prematurely apply for the scholarship program. The House
version also sets a definitive window of six years for how long
a scholarship recipient has to use their award, while the senate
CS does not. Finally, the senate CS has a 12 semester maximum
count while the House version has an eight semester maximum.
8:05:39 AM
SENATOR STEVENS said he has come to terms with the fact that the
goals of the bill are not compatible with non-traditional
students.
SENATOR THOMAS said he tends to agree with Senator Stevens; he
would be interested in moving the bill forward without the non-
traditional component.
CO-CHAIR MEYER said he too supports this section of the House
version.
MURRAY RICHMOND, aide to Senator Thomas, said that in the senate
CS there is no differentiation between the academic and the
career track; the House CS does have this differentiation. In
the House CS, career scholars can only use their scholarship to
go to a career school. The tuition for the career track
scholarship is also capped at $3000.00 while the academic
scholarship's tuition is set at the average University of Alaska
(UA) tuition for the year 2010/2011. The senate CS would allow
students to go to either a career or an academic school and the
award would be set to UA's tuition.
CO-CHAIR MEYER said the question now before the committee is
whether to retain the two separate tracks or keep the single
track as laid out by the senate CS.
SENATOR HUGGINS said he would like to see students have the
built in flexibility to cross over to either track and receive
like funding. He would also like to consider Ms. Barran's point
about placing a cap provision on the needs-based part of the
program.
8:11:29 AM
SENATOR OLSON joined the meeting.
SENATOR DAVIS said, regarding the career track, it says that a
student can use ACT, SAT or WorkKeys for eligibility. She thinks
students should have to take either the ACT or SAT but that
WorkKeys is not appropriate to determine preparedness for
college.
LARRY LEDOUX, Commissioner, Department of Education and Early
Development (DEED), said the bill does not specifically identify
the ACT or the SAT and either can be used. The WorkKeys applies
only to the career and technical scholarship, and is a works
well as a test for individuals who are choosing to go in this
direction. In the House version it states that students applying
for the career and technical scholarship are required to take
either a college entrance exam or another standardized test
[page 9, lines 24-26].
SENATOR STEVENS said they haven't talked a lot about the
WorkKeys exam. One thing that he has heard from various
industries is that they want to have students who are as up-to-
date on math and writing skills as those on a college track. He
asked Commissioner LeDoux to explain the WorkKeys test.
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX explained that it measures technical reading
and writing. He thinks the SAT or ACT would work for both; they
would like to see the WorkKeys used by industry across the state
because they think there is a direct reflection between WorkKey
scores and an individual's work or college performance. It
doesn't measure soft skills such as the ability to work as a
team or be on time. He pointed out that the career and technical
scholarship would still require students to take a rigorous
curriculum.
SENATOR THOMAS suggested that just getting to school every day
and on time should ingrain some of these soft skills into
students.
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX answered that research indicates that is not
the case. Individuals learn those skills from part-time jobs and
in activities such as band, choir, and sports.
CO-CHAIR MEYER said that being that there were no other comments
on item two he took that to mean that the committee is in
concurrence with the house version on that particular item.
8:18:06 AM
MR. STEWART continued on to item 3 which involves the intent
language. In the Senate CS, he said, they have extracted the
intent language; the House version has not. He reminded members
of the discussion with Jean Mischel of Legislative Legal at the
last meeting, who cautioned that having the goals included the
bill could make them more actionable in court if these goals
were not met. He suggested having the goals go alongside the
bill as a letter of intent.
CO-CHAIR MEYER agreed that it seems best to retain the goals in
a letter of intent to be submitted next to the bill, instead of
within it. He asked Mr. Stewart to review the additional goals
and changes that the committee had added to the letter of
intent.
MR. STEWART said that the following two items were added to the
letter of intent:
4. providing a rigorous curriculum in all high schools
in the state
10. increasing participation of Alaska high school
graduates in Alaska postsecondary institutions.
The other additional change to the letter of intent was to
divide item number two and three, which had previously been
written as one statement.
SENATOR STEVENS asked if Mr. Stewart was comfortable in
addressing one of the overall goals of getting students in and
out of college early in the letter of intent.
MR. STEWART answered that the letter of intent was reorganized
from the way they had been presented in the original bill so
that the postsecondary language is listed on top before the high
school reform language. He did not include the more direct
language Senator Stevens had inquired about.
MR. RICHMOND said they could add a goal with more pointed
language within the letter of intent of the committee would
like.
CO-CHAIR MEYER said they will give this some more thought at a
later time. He suggested they look next at the name of the bill.
SENATOR DAVIS asked Senator Meyer if he has a sense for how the
House will respond to removing the goals out of the bill.
CO-CHAIR MEYER said that he has not spoken directly to the
chairman of the House Education Committee but because they all
use the same leg legal, he thinks they will be in agreement once
they hear the justification and rational behind it.
8:24:26 AM
MR. STEWART continued with item 4, which was to rename the
scholarship. The scholarship has been known as the Governor's
Performance Scholarship (GPS) and it was suggested to make it a
more politically neutral free title. The Alaska Student
Achievement Program (ASAP) scholarship was suggested.
SENATOR STEVENS said he recognizes and appreciates the fact that
the governor introduced this issue and brought it forward.
However, the legislature has changed the bill significantly and
he is not sure that naming it the governor's scholarship in
perpetuity is not a reflection of what it truly is. It seems
that it is better to have a title that is statewide.
SENATOR HUGGINS said he agrees with Senator Stevens.
CO-CHAIR MEYER also agreed that this is the state's program, not
the governor's or the legislature's.
SENATOR DAVIS said she does not have a problem with the new
suggested title but asked whether they have received the
administration's thoughts on this.
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX answered that the administration supports
the GPS title. It fits what they are trying to do and it gives
kids direction, so the acronym fits very well. They also believe
that it is important that kids see the governor as caring about
them and acknowledging the program as important.
8:29:38 AM
SENATOR STEVENS moved a conceptual amendment that the name be
changed to "Alaska Student Achievement Program (ASAP)."
SENATOR DAVIS said she has no problem with the change of the
title as long as it will not cause any problems with the other
body.
SENATOR OLSON agreed with Senator Davis and he is fine with
either title. One of the advantages of keeping the GPS title is
that the governor might be more willing to support and push the
bill through.
SENATOR STEVENS said the easy part is writing this bill. The
hard part is getting the money to pay for it. He would like to
see $400 million put aside, but he doesn't think that will
happen; he thinks it will come to a year-by-year funding by the
legislature. The ASAP title may keep the scholarship out of any
future disagreements due to acrimonious feelings between the
legislature and the governor. He also thinks that the Senate has
been very cooperative with the House in going with most of their
issues and he does think this will be a contentious issue.
SENATOR OLSON agreed with Senator Steven's point.
CO-CHAIR MEYER said they will go with the more neutral title. He
asked Mr. Stewart to continue on with item five.
MR. STEWART said that the transitional language in both the CS
and the House version might allow students to delay graduation
to become eligible for the scholarship. The CS and the House
version effectively limit application eligibility for students
graduating in 2011. He suggested amending the CS to directly
allow June 2010 graduates to qualify for the scholarship.
MR. RICHMOND added that currently the effective date of the bill
is September 1, 2010.
SENATOR DAVIS said she was seeking to include the graduates of
2010 by allowing them to apply for the scholarship but not to
have the access to the scholarship until the effective date of
the bill in 2011, when funding would be available.
CO-CHAIR MEYER clarified that Senator Davis wants the 2010
graduates to be included in the scholarship program, but they
may not receive the money until after their freshman year in
college. He asked the administration to help them on this issue.
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX responded that there are several concerns
that need to be considered. One is the sense of fairness. If the
scholarship is offered to the class of 2010, some students will
say that they do not qualify for the program because they did
not know the requirements when they were selecting their
classes. The only way they could really do it is to wait for the
class of 2010 to complete their first year of college and
evaluate their performance at that time to see if they qualify.
This would be possible, but very difficult.
SENATOR DAVIS clarified that he is saying that a senior of the
graduating class of 2010 would be eligible to apply for the
scholarship as of their second year of college.
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX reiterated that the only fair way is to
evaluate those students' first year of college, set up criteria
for qualification based on that and then allow them to apply.
That way all students of the 2010 class that attend college
would have the opportunity.
8:40:25 AM
CO-CHAIR MEYER said he can see the commissioner's point, but he
also understands Senator Davis' concern. They have heard from a
number of parents who are following this legislation very
closely and would like their children to have the opportunity.
SENATOR DAVIS said she still thinks they should be able to
capture those in the class of 2010 that are prepared. If he is
saying that those students can come back and qualify after their
first year of college, then they need to add language to the
bill to specifically allow for that.
SENATOR HUGGINS said he agrees with Senator Davis. The class of
2011 is not going to be entirely prepared either. The 2010 class
should not be penalized because these standards were not in
place at the time. He believes that the class of 2010 should be
able to apply retroactively.
SENATOR STEVENS asked, looking at the students in the class of
2010, is there anything else they will be losing out on in
regards to the scholarship by apply retroactively.
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX responded that he believes they would have
to make some adjustments throughout the bill to accommodate
this. It can be done simply or in a more complex manner. In
regards to the eligibility of the class of 2010 the easiest way
would be to require that these students complete their first
year of college in order to qualify. If the committee asks them
to make those changes, they will certainly do that.
SENATOR THOMAS said his only concern is that, any time an
exception is made it opens the door for requests for more
exception. An example of this could be students who graduated
early in December of 2009.
DIANE BARRANS, Executive Director, Alaska Commission of
Postsecondary Education (ACPE), said that if the legislature
decides to include the class of 2010 they will just have to
concede that it will not be a level playing field for that
class. Those whose parents are more savvy and kept track of
legislation may have prepared their children to take advantage
of the opportunity. There are going to be winners and losers
because there has not been equal disclosure.
CO-CHAIR MEYER assumed this would apply to those applying for
the career and technical scholarship as well.
8:47:49 AM
SENATOR OLSON asked how they will be able to fund the students
in 2010 without using the corpus of the endowment that is meant
to fund the program for years to come.
COMMISSIONER LEDOUX replied that for the funding of this program
to work students would not be eligible to receive the funds
until the fall of 2011. The amount of funding needed will depend
on how many students apply. He suggested that one purpose of the
scholarship is to provide opportunities for children who have
not been successful previously and he is concerned that these
are the children that will not have the knowledge to take
advantage of this opportunity at this time.
CO-CHAIR MEYER said he thinks committee's policy statement will
be to try to capture the 2010 students. The Finance Committee
will have to decide how to fund it. He thinks the approach
suggested by Senator Huggins' will work the best. He continued
by asking Ms. Barrans to explain item six with the committee.
8:51:08 AM
MS. BARRANS said, as they discussed previously, there is
language in the bill regarding students who are enrolled less
than full time. They had agreed to cap the merit based
scholarship for students that are less than full time to 50
percent of the award they would otherwise receive. However, they
failed to set a similar cap on the needs-based performance
award. On page 12, lines 8-9, of the senate CS, she suggests new
language be added on a similar cap that students attending half
time would be capped 25 percent of the unmet financial need
(with full time students receiving 50 percent).
SENATOR HUGGINS asked if Ms. Barrans could run a couple of
scenarios for them to look at.
CO-CHAIR MEYER said they will make that change but will look for
Ms. Barrans to bring them that information on Friday.
SENATOR HUGGINS thanked Ms. Barrans for her research and answers
to his questions on the Department of Military and Veterans
Affairs (DMVA). He said rather than holding the bill up in this
committee he will wait until the bill enters the Finance
Committee to introduce an amendment that will give students
incentive to enter into certain needed disciplines in the state.
CO-CHAIR MEYER recapped what they have decided to do with the
six items that were up for consideration and what the changes to
the new CS will look like. He mentioned that he will not be able
to attend the meeting on Friday.
SENATOR STEVENS said he won't be able to make the meeting on
Friday either. The other members said they intend to be here.
CO-CHAIR MEYER said that the committee will try to take up HB
110 on Friday. [SB 224 was held in committee.]
8:57:15 AM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Co-Chair Meyer adjourned the meeting at 8:57 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|