Legislature(2011 - 2012)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/11/2011 08:00 AM Senate EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB43 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 43 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 43-ALASKA PERFORMANCE SCHOLARSHIPS
8:02:00 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS announced the consideration of SB 43. He
explained that conceptual amendment A.11 was turned into
Amendment A.14 and incorporated into a proposed committee
substitute.
He asked for a motion to withdraw amendment A.11.
8:03:05 AM
CO-CHAIR MEYER withdrew conceptual amendment A.11.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS asked for a motion to adopt the proposed
committee substitute (CS) for SB 43 that incorporated the
amendments adopted and discussed at the hearing on 2/9/2011.
8:03:32 AM
CO-CHAIR MEYER moved to adopt CSSB 43( ), labeled 27-GS1893\M,
as the working document. There being no objection, version M was
before the committee.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS recalled the discussion at the previous meeting
regarding how the Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education
(ACPE) would pro-rate the AlaskAdvantage grant and scholarship
award if there were insufficient funds.
8:04:38 AM
MURRAY RICHMOND, Staff to Senator Joe Thomas, explained that at
the previous meeting several amendments were discussed; two of
which had not yet been adopted. All of these amendments were
integrated into the proposed CS. He began with page 5, line 22
of version M, which integrated Amendment A.14 [previously known
as conceptual Amendment A.11]. He reminded the committee that
Amendment A.14 made sure that the AlaskAdvantage program would
receive at least one-third of the funding that the Alaska
Performance Scholarship program was receiving. The first
sentence of the amendment remained the same [as it was
previously discussed as conceptual amendment A.11], it reads:
(c) The amount annually awarded by the commission for
payment of grants awarded under AS 14.43.400-14.43.810
may not be less than one-third of the amount awarded
for scholarships under AS 14.43.810-14.43.849,
He explained that this means if there is $9 million in
performance scholarships then there should be $3 million of
needs-based grants. The question arose as to what happens if the
number of students receiving the AlaskAdvantage grant is less
than one-third. This issue was addressed in line 24 of the
proposed CS, which reads:
except to the extent that the total amount necessary
to pay all eligible grant applicants in a fiscal year
is than less that amount.
He explained that this means if the number of applicants for the
grant program is less than one-third, then the Alaska Commission
on Postsecondary Education (ACPE) is empowered to pay less than
one-third.
SENATOR STEVENS asked if all the money is not used for the
AlaskAdvantage program whether it can then be used for the
merit-based program.
MR. RICHMOND answered that this was not specifically addressed
in version M. He assumed that ACPE could choose how the funds
were awarded in this situation.
He continued with subsection (d) on page 5, which addresses what
happens if there are insufficient funds to pay for scholarships
and grants. It reads:
(d) If insufficient funds are appropriated to pay all
eligible grants and scholarships, the commission shall
allocate one-third of the balance of the fund
established under this section for payment of grant
awards based on the highest to lowest financial need
He explained that the needs-based awards are based on economic
need and the CS empowers the commission to give the needs-based
grants to those who need the help the most.
Page 6 included provisions that address the actions to be taken
if the scholarship fund drops below $80 million. If this is the
case then ACPE is directed to pay grants and scholarships that
have already been awarded. The commission is not, however,
empowered to pay for new scholarships.
He explained that if there is more than $80 million in the fund
but the funds are "winding down" the commission can use the
money left over to provide scholarship awards on a pro rata
basis. He informed the committee that Ms. Barrans requested that
these awards be paid out in four years, rather than six, which
would allow the commission to bring closure to the program.
SENATOR FRENCH asked why lines 5-8 on page 6 were needed since
it has been anticipated that there will generally be more than
$80 million in the fund.
MR. RICHMOND answered that this is in case insufficient funds
are appropriated.
CO-CHAIR MEYER said he supports the needs-based concept,
especially for non-traditional students. However, he said he is
concerned that this is opening the scholarship up to anyone with
economic need and this is setting some of these students up for
failure. He asked if there are any academic requirements for
students to receive the needs-based grant. He said he will save
his question for Ms. Barrans.
8:12:51 AM
MR. RICHMOND continued on page 6, line 10, which incorporated
Amendment A.12 and was not heard at the previous meeting. This
section addresses any money in the fund that is left over if the
program comes to an end, so that the funds do not become
obligated. It reads:
(e) Money appropriated to the fund does not lapse
except after the fourth consecutive fiscal year in
which no appropriations have been made to the fund, or
all awards have been paid to eligible recipients as
provided in this chapter, whichever occurs last.
He explained that after four consecutive years the money in the
fund would lapse and return to the general fund. He reiterated
that this is an amendment that the committee did not look at or
adopt at the previous hearing, but it was included in the
current CS.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS added that this last change is a way of ending
the fund, should that ever occur in the future.
MR. RICHMOND said the original bill changed three things [to SB
236 which passed during the last year of the 26th Legislature].
First, it changed the name of the scholarship and the committee
further changed the name to the Alaska Performance and
AlaskAdvantage fund. Second, it established the fund, but put no
money into it. The committee refined the fund with the
amendments that have been addressed. And, third, it allowed for
tax credits.
He walked the committee through the CS to point out the
inclusion of all the amendments that were adopted.
He explained that everything on the first few pages mainly
addresses the name changes.
Page 4 referred to schools which are eligible to receive
scholarship recipients. [Conceptual] amendment A.10 was added to
include institutions that are nationally accredited.
Amendment A.2 was included on page 4, lines 3-5 of the version
M. This would require participating institutions to establish an
advisory program.
Amendment A.3 was incorporated into paragraph (d) of page 4, and
would require participating institutions to provide courses and
credits that would result in the issuance of a degree or
certificate in a timely manner.
Page 5, line 5 included Amendment A.6, which required the
Department of Education and Early Development (DEED), ACPE, the
University of Alaska, and the Department of Labor and Workforce
Development (DOLWD) to provide an assessment of distance
delivery programs in the state.
Line 22 included what would have been Amendment A.14 and
Amendment A.12.
Page 7 incorporated Amendment A.8, which allows the Alaska Sea
Life Center to qualify for the education tax credit. He noted
that this language is consistent throughout the document.
Page 8, line 6 included Amendment [A.5], which would allow the
income of the Amerada Hess settlement to go into the
AlaskAdvantage education grant and Alaska Performance
Scholarship investment fund.
Page 8, lines 25 and 27, included Amendment A.9, which allows
the fund to consist of assets that have been appropriated from
the income earned off of the fund.
MR. RICHMOND said the next few pages included the expansion of
eligibility for who can qualify for the education tax credit
[Amendment A.1]. The following changes are as follows:
- Page 9, line 26 included a taxpayer.
- Page 10, line 7 and 9 included the Alaska Sea Life Center.
- Page 10, line 14 included a producer of oil and gas.
- Page 11, line 2 included an owner of property taxable under
this chapter.
- Page 11, line 21 included a person engaged in the business of
mining.
- Page 12, line 9 included a person engaged in a fisheries
business.
- Page 12, line 28 included a person engaged in a floating
fisheries business.
He concluded that the rest of the proposed CS is essentially the
same as it was submitted by the governor.
8:19:22 AM
SENATOR FRENCH said he appreciated the form the CS has come to
the committee. He referred to page 4, lines 6-8. It reads:
(D) provides courses and credits that will result in
the issuance of a degree or certificate available at
the institution within a time frame expected for that
degree or certificate;
He asked "expected by whom?"
MR. RICHMOND answered that this language was used because there
are some four year programs offered that essentially take five
years to complete and they did not want to penalize students
that were involved in those programs. He explained that it would
have been impossible to set a date unless every exemption was
covered.
SENATOR STEVENS asked if "expected by" refers to the
institution.
MR. RICHMOND answered that it refers to the expectations
conveyed to the student by the institution.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS explained that the institution must be able to
offer the degree or certificate program within an expected time
frame in order to qualify as an eligible institution for
scholarship recipients. He said that this would be one of the
eligibility factors the commission would be looking at.
SENATOR FRENCH said that this implies that the expectations are
established by the commission, not by the institution. He asked
how the committee should interpret this section.
8:23:07 AM
DIANE BARRANS, Executive Director, Alaska Commission on
Postsecondary Education (ACPE), Department of Education and
Early Development (DEED), said it is her understanding that the
institutions, in applying to participate in the program, would
offer assurances to the commission that the courses necessary to
complete a degree on time would be made available to full time
students.
SENATOR FRENCH offered conceptual amendment [1], as follows:
Page 4, line 8 after "frame":
Delete "expected"
Insert "established by the institution"
He explained that by doing this when the institution submitted
their application to the commission it would include the
timeframe needed to complete a degree.
CO-CHAIR MEYER asked if Ms. Barrans is amenable to conceptual
amendment [1].
MS. BARRANS answered yes; this is language the commission could
use to ensure that an eligible institution would issue a degree
or certificate within the normal or expected time period.
8:26:01 AM
SENATOR STEVENS said that most institutions do not care how long
it takes for a student to get a degree. He asked Ms. Barrans how
the commission will force institutions to offer classes and
grant degrees in a reasonable amount of time.
MS. BARRANS answered that, in regards to the scholarship, there
are a number of levers that will work together to encourage
students to be committed in finishing their degree on time. She
explained that this provision will also raise the level of
conversation at institutions on how these requirements will be
met. With regard to compliance, the commission will be tracking
students' progress in their specified program each year in order
to continue being eligible for the scholarship. For this reason
there are incentives and rewards for both the institution and
the student and the combination of both of these will help have
the outcome the commission is looking for.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS asked if the qualifications are established by
ACPE and not by the institution.
MS. BARRANS answered that it would be very feasible for the
commission to put in a more detailed framework describing the
timely completion of a degree or certificate, while making
provisions for programs that inherently run a little longer. She
explained it would be problematic to enforce this provision on
institutions by July 1, 2011 and requested an effective date of
July 1, 2012.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS said the committee looked at the language which
still exists that allows students to "stretch" their scholarship
out. He said, in this case, the committee is looking at the
qualifications for an eligible institution and he is concerned
about allowing these institutes to set their own time frame for
a student to receive a degree.
8:32:07 AM
SENATOR FRENCH concurred. He said that the time frame should be
established by the commission.
SENATOR FRENCH withdrew conceptual Amendment [1].
He moved to adopt conceptual Amendment [2], as follows:
On page 4, line 8, after "frame":
Delete "expected"
Insert "established by the commission"
SENATOR DAVIS said she would like to hear from the university
before determining what language should be used in this
conceptual amendment. She explained that the university has
spoken to the committee about this issue in the past.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS agreed. He explained that, when discussing the
merit-based aspect of the scholarship bill, the committee
allowed a longer period of time for this discussion.
MS. BARRANS suggested the committee delete "expected" and
substitute it with "customary". She explained that there are
national norms and expectations for the timely completion of a
degree and with that language ACPE could survey what the norm
is.
SENATOR FRENCH said it would settle his concerns.
SENATOR FRENCH withdrew conceptual Amendment [2].
8:34:31 AM
SENATOR FRENCH moved to adopt conceptual Amendment [3], as
follows:
Page 4, line 8, after "frame":
Delete "expected"
Insert "customary"
CO-CHAIR THOMAS asked for confirmation that this would be a one
word change.
SENATOR FRENCH replied yes.
MR. RICHMOND recommended that the committee include the delayed
effective date that Ms. Barrans suggested in the conceptual
amendment.
SENATOR FRENCH said part of conceptual Amendment [3] would be to
give a delayed effective date of one year for subsection (D) on
page 4.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS asked for confirmation that the date would be
July 1, 2012.
CO-CHAIR MEYER concurred.
MS. BARRANS suggested the delayed effective date be changed for
both subsection (C) and (D).
8:36:27 AM
SENATOR FRENCH moved to amend conceptual Amendment [3] to delay
the effective dates for both subsection (C) and (D) on page 4,
lines 3-8. [There were no objections and the amendment to
conceptual Amendment 3 was treated as adopted.]
SENATOR STEVENS said the scholarship program has created a good
framework for students to succeed and subsection (C) and (D)
have added more strength to the program.
8:37:34 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS asked if there were any more questions or
comments on conceptual Amendment [3]. Hearing none, he announced
that conceptual Amendment [3], as amended, is adopted.
CO-CHAIR MEYER said his only concern is that some merit-based
consideration should be included before a needs-based
scholarship is awarded. He added that students are known to do
better in school when they hold a job on campus.
MS. BARRANS answered that there is a component in the existing
AlaskAdvantage education grant that gives prioritization to
students who have taken a preparatory class for college. She
explained that this regulation will be taken to the commission
to consider amending it, in order to allow students who
otherwise qualify for the scholarship program to not take the
preparatory class. This would allow students qualifying for the
scholarship program and who have demonstrated need a grant award
of up to $3,000. She explained that this ensures that the two
programs complement each other.
CO-CHAIR MEYER said that this satisfies his concern, as long as
the SAT/ACT scores required are fairly high. He asked for
confirmation that any in-state student who wants to attend the
University of Alaska (UA) must be accepted regardless of their
SAT/ACT score.
MS. BARRANS replied that UA is an open enrollment university.
However, there is an assessment of ability that occurs before a
student is admitted into a degree program, she explained.
8:43:26 AM
SENATOR STEVENS asked what an exceptional merit student who also
has large financial needs can expect from ACPE and the
university.
MS. BARRANS answered that a student in the top 10 percent of
their high school graduating class would qualify for the UA
scholars, which is $11,000 for four years. If the student is
Pell eligible they would qualify for an additional $5,500 in
aid. And, finally, if the student is a top state scholarship
recipient there would be an additional $4,755. If, after this,
the student still exhibited a high need they could qualify for a
$3,000 AlaskAdvantage education grant.
SENATOR STEVENS said this is good to hear and shows that a large
effort is being made to help students with exceptional abilities
who also have financial needs.
MS. BARRANS turned to page 5 of version M. She explained that
the current language requires the commission to track the levels
of money that are awarded. She said that the wording related to
the one-third ratio is ambiguous and may have implications to
how much the commission is able to award on the scholarship
side. She said that a small language change would address the
issue.
She recommended that, on line 22, "awarded by" be changed to
"available to" and, on line 24, "awarded" be changed to
"available". She explained that in the event that the pool of
funds is sufficient to pay all grants, but is less than one-
third, the commission would not have to withhold some of the
scholarship funds.
8:47:58 AM
SENATOR STEVENS moved to adopt conceptual Amendment [4], as
follows:
Page 5, line 22, after "annually":
Delete "awarded by"
Insert "available to"
Page 5, line 24:
Delete "awarded"
Insert "available"
CO-CHAIR THOMAS asked if there were any questions or objections
to conceptual Amendment [4]. Hearing none, he announced that
conceptual Amendment [4] is adopted.
CO-CHAIR MEYER said he would like to hear from the
administration on whether it is comfortable with the changes
made in the CS.
MS. BARRANS replied that the commission has been clear on what
the governor's ideal structure to the scholarship program is. In
regards to the financial aid structure, she explained that there
is an understanding of the high interest the legislature has in
funding both needs- and merit-based scholarships. She said she
would not raise any specific concerns on the way those two
programs have been structured in the bill.
CO-CHAIR MEYER thanked Mr. Richmond for his time and effort on
the CS.
8:51:11 AM
At ease from 8:51 a.m. to 8:54 a.m.
8:54:38 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS announced that due to one outstanding issue
regarding the qualifying post secondary institutions, he would
hold SB 43 in committee.
CO-CHAIR MEYER requested that a clean CS be prepared for
Monday's meeting.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS concurred.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|